Hi Gamal, the technology is there, that is not the issue. Many devices have safety features programmed on their IMUs like no flight zones, limited altitude and radius, self-landing if loosing power and back to home if loosing contact with the transmitter, etc. Others even have an in-built parachute and most have prop guards accessories as well. They are reliable as long as their users follow the directions of the manufacturer. Like taking off only after the position has been fixed by the internal GPS and so on. So, safety features are already being included in prosumer models  by modern technology (e.g. DJI). I do not think there is a limit there. Manufacturers are already addressing it. In my opinion the problem of "security restrictions" is not on how many safety features technology can provide in an UAV but on the "simplistic" way these regulations are being made.

These devices are not "cheap toys" neither (unless thinking in toys like Cheerson CX10 - like) nor the cameras we use on them (gopro or DSLR) and so, UAV pilots are of course people willing to do everything to prevent their devices from having accidents and there are basic rules that common sense can provide to avoid accidents. As an example, I have read on RC forums from the very same pilots to propose rules like only people with enough experience, insurance, using only plastic props (not CF), with limited altitude and for specific purposes should be allowed to fly over populated areas. Newbies should fly only on open areas and dedicated sites until acquiring more experience. General public no flight zones are obvious (populated, military, airports, etc). There are several RC forums where this subject is addressed extensively by way more experienced people than me.

The problem you site is relevant because the actual direction the U.S. FAA or law makers are taking is in my opinion creating not desired negative effects. As you mentioned the restrictions are threatening the use of this technology on several important and useful fields because of few irresponsible customers. Think about a portable defibrillator (those simple to use models with vocal instructions) could be sent by your local hospital to your house in case of an emergency in seconds, saving critical time while the ambulance arrives through the traffic. That technology is feasible and safe, but today FAA's regulations make it very difficult to implement.

In my country I use UAVs for aerial surveys of sea lion colonies, cetaceans and even nesting sites, as well as to produce low altitude geographic seasonal information in remote areas. I do not even need to approach anymore with a boat to these sensitive sites. The effects of the boat were way more significant than the small DJI Phantom. I am writing a paper about the use of this device in ecology since with few simple modifications, I have seen it tolerated by wildlife so well that it can become an important tool for field scientists and protected areas managers. Of course, there too are some common sense rules to be adopted like the altitude, distance to the animals and time of exposure. Using 3-blade props the noise from props is significantly diminished and the LEDs can be disconnected as well adjusting these devices to work with wildlife. Modern cameras have such a great image quality that allow us to stay far and produce good data anyway. FPV technology allows us to confirm the images are right, check in real time the effects of the presence of the UAV and get out without further delay. I also use a modified version to transport devices like a hydrophone and data logger to sites I cannot reach or I do not want to disturb with my presence. In minutes I can collect data that otherwise would take me several hours or even days without ever be as sure as with the UAVs of producing the same quality due to my presence at the field. To do this in the USA, it would be quite complex with the actual FAA restrictions (FPV seems that will not be even allowed)

In my opinion the problem of these "quick" regulations is that they do not accomplish their main goal and instead produce unwanted effects. They do not stop irresponsible people from buying and misuse these devices. Instead they make harder their use by responsible pilots, limiting the many positive uses of this technology because the problem is not on the technology itself but on the user of it. This is a fundamental fact that regulators have not addressed properly. A guy taking not allowed photos of the girl next door, can use a drone, a telescope, a photocamera or even his cellphone. The wrong doing is on the action itself of taking photos of the girl without her permission, rather than the use of some specific device to accomplish his goal. Are we going to ban DSLRs? telephoto lenses will need an expensive license as well?

UAV can have many safety features provided by modern technology, that in fact have already been included in prosumer and professional models, but it has not been properly recognized by regulators. Instead the focus has been against the device itself rather than the irresponsible use of this technology.

As in many other cases of technology produced by and for military purposes, as soon as it is used outside of that field, the initial response is driven by fear and thus the intention to ban its general public use, or to limit it as much as possible regardless of the limitations that these "quick" regulations pose to positive applications of this technology. Then the regulations are modified due to public pressure and becomes something more reasonable after some time. Just think about the GPS technology... Now we have it on our cellphones and we are not more at risk than before. I guess with UAVs it will happen the same but it is going to take some time for lawmakers to learn about this technology and address it properly.

The use of small but highly technological UAVs has provided me of a great tool for wildlife research on remote areas minimizing significantly the impacts and costs of the projects. Since many regulators follow what the USA do, I do not know for how long I will be able to use it in my country and actually I cannot even think about using it in the USA... Your question is about how to handle these regulations... Well, we have just to abide to them until they are replaced by something more reasonable. Experiences overseas with UAVs applied on field research can provide valuable information to regulation makers.

This is highly controversial in some forums perhaps due to the idea of "expensive toys" or "dangerous devices" (due to few irresponsible customers and the associated image to the word "drone") that general public may have about UAVs. But certainly this is a technology that depending on the purpose, it can have many positive positive and needed effects in environmental sciences and management.

Dear Gian, First of all thank you very much for the comprehensive and elaborative answer. I totally agree with what you said. The main motivation of my question is to stimulate proactive thinking that may reshape and push the positive applications of UAV. I'm like you. I'm a strong believer in the unlimited positive uses of UAV.  

I suggest you take a look at http://uvs-international.org/ and contact them, as they have been working for years into UAVs safe integration and may help you on that. cheers

Thank you very much Margarita. I will consult this web site.