Here's my input thus far. I'll address other issues in another submission to them.
------
First off, let's get back to the basics of government. The FAA is part of the Executive Branch. The last time I checked, it is the Legislative Branch's (Congress) job to make the laws, the Executive Branch's (FAA) job to enforce them, and the Judicial Branch's (court system) job to interpret them. The FAA is clearly operating outside of this basic defined authority when it takes interpretation of laws into its own hands - particularly when it sorely lacks the understanding, perspective, and expertise required to make informed decisions on a subject.
Now let's discuss the particulars of what the FAA proposes. In its interpretation, the FAA implies that all model aircraft flown for any commercial purpose present a clear risk and danger to the public yet offers no evidence to this affect. The FAA's meddling in commerce might be tolerated by some if they could prove a clear and present danger to the public, but since the agency cannot their activity should not be welcome on any level. The FAA is not Henny Penny, and it does not have the responsibility of "protecting" us from theoretical events whose probability of occurrence is unsubstantiated.
While one can agree that some degree of oversight would be prudent in a society where UAVs become as prevalent as automobiles, one must also agree that this is not likely to occur in any society in the foreseeable future. The FAA's actions assume the former scenario while ignoring the reality of the latter.
In the example allowable and prohibited activities cited in the proposed rule, the FAA states that photography for personal use is permitted while prohibiting photography for commercial use. While it is convenient for the agency to make this determination, they do so without providing substantive justification for an apparently arbitrary and capricious delineation. From a public safety perspective, no differentiation can exist based solely upon intended use of photographic material. No additional danger is created when a photographer engages in commercial activity after photographs are taken.
Moreover, photographers engaging in commercial activity are likely to present a lower risk to the public than the average hobbyist aerial photographer. It is a well-known fact that skills are developed through repetition and practice; one can reasonably anticipate that individuals incorporating UAV-based aerial photography would log more flight time than hobbyists, thus having better-developed skill sets. Through its proposed interpretation and enforcement procedure, the FAA would actually create an environment that favors aviators with less experience in the air.
Additionally, there is a considerable financial incentive for those engaging in commercial activity to maintain good track records of responsible flight. Businesses - especially small businesses - thrive on repeat customers. In markets such as real estate, word travels quickly. Operating irresponsibly will cause a quick loss of clients - even if no physical damage to person or property is caused by said behavior. (In the event that damage is caused, means already exist to appropriately address this through the court system, with no FAA involvement needed.) Through its proposed interpretation and enforcement procedure, the FAA appears to indicate that it prefers an environment where UAV operators are not incentivized to behave responsibly.
As we can see, the FAA's ban on activities like commercial photography just doesn't make sense. A safer airspace with better trained and more responsible UAV pilots is not achieved through its proposed interpretation.
Now let's address other areas of the proposed interpretation. While it does make sense to place minimal requirements for operation such as maximum altitude and minimum distance from major airports, it does not make any sense whatsoever to propose that any UAV used for a commercial purpose be regulated identically to manned aircraft. There is a substantial difference between a aircraft designed to transport passengers and cargo and a small quadcopter designed to lift a maximum of a few pounds. While safety must be a concern in either instance, requiring ground school and training or certification of any kind for a small UAV operator is onerous and unnecessary. It does nothing to create a safer environment, and only stifles economic growth in a sector poised to generate thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in income.
In many respects, the current proposal ventures into territory where the FAA is a fish-out-of-water. The agency lacks the appropriate experience, expertise, and authority to provide a fair and adequate interpretation that fairly treats everyone and protects individual rights without stifling business.
It's time for the agency to remove the blind man from the pilot's seat and bring some sanity into allowing commercial use of UAVs before our technology third-world nations begin to surpass us here.