Not illegal to buy them but illegal to use them - microcopters

Interesting article:

Why the FAA's drone rules should never get off the ground
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2850967/why-the-faas-drone-rules-should-never-get-off-the-ground.html

Quadcopter owners keep ruining things for us:

"France studies how to intercept mystery drones over nuclear plants" "Around 20 unidentified drones have been spotted over nuclear plants since October 19 throughout France."
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/France_studies_how_to_intercept_mystery_drones_over_nuclear_plants_999.html

Yup just wait. It'll be Green Peace, Sierra Club and such organizations that will start buzzing places they don't like thereby gaining news and attention for their many time misguided causes.

Well, well. I say "follow the money!" There is a certain party that claims "less government". Yet all we see is constant government intervention on stupid things of this nature. I would like to know what idiot came up with the concept that flying a "drone" non-commercially is just fine and dandy, yet if you fly "commercially" you fall under the FAA regs. What the hell is the difference when it comes to the operation of these "drones"? My guess as I said is simply "follow the money" or better yet, "how do we regulate this to capitalize on collecting tax dollars"?

It may end up like CB Radios years ago. People started to use them so the FCC started to require a paid license. After a few years the fee was found to be illegal so they refunded the fees. They still require a license that very few have. Same now for the handheld radios that are sold everywhere. 40 channels but most are "illegal" to use without a license. Nobody follows that because it is not enforceable. The governments around the world are reactive and not pro-active so by the time there are regulations there will be millions of UAV flying and it will again be unenforceable. The best they can hope for is restrictions in and around airports, nuclear power plants, military bases and other sensitive areas.

The biggest thing that will control their use is when you crash them into a home, car, person you better have a few million dollars worth of insurance. Personal law suits will be the only "enforceable" regulation.

Here is an app for your iPhone http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-app-to-help-idiots-stop-flying-drones-into-planes?utm_content=bufferd896a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer. Unfortunately I didn't see a droid version of this app. But it sounds like a pretty darn good start.

"how do we regulate this to capitalize on collecting tax dollars"

The government need money to bail the banks.. ;)

DJI already has all the airports in the country programed into their flight information and will not allow flight within the no-no zones. At least the smart phone control on the newer Visions have it. Of course everything can be over ridden. At least this way it's a decision that you have to make to fly in a restricted area and DJI can then say "I told you so".

Is this really the Fly Away solution - set the home point?

http://www.photographybay.com/2014/07/15/how-to-prevent-flyaways-with-dji-phantom-quadcopters/

No, it is not a solution but helps. DJI acknowledged to me that they have fly aways for no known reason. On my fly-a-way all of the calibrations, setting a home point etc etc was completed like I do on every flight. The statement in the article about poor service at DJI is absolutely correct. They make promises then you hear nothing back from them. It's kinda like they think you will forget about their promises and the problem will go away. Anyone who does not follow the procedures of calibration and GPS position setting should expect someday to have problems; it helps.