The United States is lagging behind Europe in the commercial exploitation of drones, forcing a growing number of companies to consider relocating their operations across the Atlantic, experts in unmanned aircraft have told the Guardian.  Several commercial operators have begun aggressively adopting the technology in France, Germany, the UK and other European countries where regulations governing the use of drones are less onerous than in the US. Small drones are being used for delivery services, precision agriculture and inspection of infrastructure such as power- and pipelines.  Related: Amazon dismayed by proposed FAA rules on commercial use of drones  In the US, by contrast, proposed new rules from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) for commercial drone use impose stringent safety controls that businesses say will tie their hands at a time when European competitors are tearing ahead. In particular, the insistence by the FAA that commercial drones must remain in the line of sight of pilots on the ground is seen as a serious impediment to development of the technology.  Michael Drobac, executive director of the Small UAV Coalition, which counts among its members some of the most prominent drone-savvy companies in the US, said the line-of-sight limitation made no logical sense.  “If the vehicle is 500ft in the air, can a person on the ground objectively see it? To receive a view from the aircraft through an iPad or other device would improve visibility.”  The Small UAV Coalition has 24 members including Amazon, Google and GoPro. Drobac said “every member is contemplating moving abroad for testing and development – they are all thinking about it. The set-up in the US is not hospitable to testing.”  Amazon has ambitious plans to launch a delivery-by-drone service it is calling Amazon Prime Air. It told the Guardian this week that when the FAA’s new regulations take effect – possibly in two years’ time – “even then those rules wouldn’t allow Prime Air to operate in the United States”.  Another coalition member, Airware, based in San Francisco, produces integrated software and hardware packages that control a drone’s flight systems and allow the streaming and analysis of data collected by its sensors. Airware’s director of business development, Jesse Kallman, said the FAA’s proposals were “expected but disappointing” as they were far more restrictive than rules set by French and other European regulators.  “In France they have begun flying beyond line-of-sight, they only require a small camera on the nose of the aircraft so that the operator can detect aerial conflicts,” Kallman said.  The frustration for companies such as Airware is that technology exists that can ensure high levels of safety in small commercial settings. That includes geo-fencing technology that contains a drone within a specified three-dimensional area, autonomous systems that equip the drone to “think” for itself should it lose GPS signal or contact with its operator, and a range of increasingly sophisticated sensors that can allow the vehicle to detect and avoid obstacles including buildings and people.  “The technology exists: it’s extremely safe and it’s already being used in other countries,” he said. “We’re now seeing Europe – particularly the UK, France and Germany - pulling ahead, as UAV manufacturers are being allowed to make use of this technology,.”  Brendan Schulman, a New York-based lawyer who is one of the leading authorities on the domestic use of drones, said the FAA proposals placed another major drag on the industry by prohibiting commercial flight at night.  “The restriction on night flight will be extremely limiting,” he said, adding that the ban was puzzling as “it’s very easy to operate a [drone] safely at night when it’s lit up. Hobbyists are doing it all the time.”  The night-time restriction will be particularly keenly felt by search and rescue teams in the US that have began to experiment with drones. Gene Robinson of RP Flight Systems said the “drone is just as deaf and dumb at night as it is in the day. It doesn’t care what time it is”.  Robinson predicted that federal regulators would eventually come around to night flying for emergency workers, but in the meantime the FAA proposals amounted in his opinion to a “missed opportunity”. That was particularly the case for search and rescue as thermal imaging sensors that are frequently used to look for people on the ground work best at night.  The sensors detect differences in temperature between bodies and the surrounding environment, and hence are most efficiently at night when the earth cools and the contrast is greatest. “Stopping us flying at night will rob us of that technology,” Robinson said.  In March 2013, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Saskatchewan demonstrated the power of the innovation when they went searching for a man who had wandered in a daze from a car crash. A manned helicopter equipped with high-powered searchlights was unable to find him, so instead officers sent up a drone equipped with an infrared camera. It detected the victim about two kilometres from the crash site.  Until the new FAA regulations are put into effect, the current arrangements remain in place. Presently, Robinson has to apply for a special certificate of authorisation to fly a drone in a search and rescue mission. That is a process that can take 48 to 72 hours to complete.  “That doesn’t work for us,” Robinson said. “By the time we get out there, the wildfire is over. Put it another way: if you are lost in the woods, three days is a long time.”
Federal plans say vehicles must remain in line of sight and not fly at night as US sources fear UK and Europe will pull decisively ahead in the field