[jccooper]

That may be useful then. I don't think there's any specific rule against a fully-autonomous system, though it would certainly raise some eyebrows. If you do it with enough safeguards and in a safe area, you might get away with it.

[akozak]

If I recall correctly, you still technically need "line of sight" to the drone.

[mbreese]

Somewhere I think I saw something about requiring the ability to take manual control too, which would require line of sight.

Maybe I'm thinking of AMA requirements though... (think model airplanes, not doctors - although, doctors also require line of sight)

[jccooper]

I thought I saw those too, but haven't been able to find them in the FAA notices for model aircraft. There is such a clause in the 2012 for small unmanned aircraft (sUAS) use by a "government public safety agency".

I would presume the FAA will try to apply such a rule to civil use after this ruling.

Edit: Federal Register Notice 14 CFR Part 91 says they "expect line of sight" for model aircraft. It does not seem to be required--and at least one administrative judge thinks that such a notice does not carry much weight.

[mbreese]

Yeah, line-of-sight/manual takeover might just be a requirement for the AMA's insurance coverage.