I would hope manufactures are going to incorporate some simple, cheap safety features that would allow redundancy and protection of the people and property we are flying over. Without more industry innovation and a focus on safety, we are facing thousands of drones over our homes and families that can (and according to posts on this board- do) fall out of the sky at any time. I am not "chicken little". I don't think their is a big threat to life, limb and property from Phantoms, but the potential definitely exists. That subject has been debated to death. There needs to be a pathway for small scale commercial and artistic use of drones, beyond the "amateur" operator guidelines of the AMA and below the FAA guidelines of possibly requiring a pilot certificate with a commercial endorsement. The FAA needs to act to embrace this new tech, leave amateur pilots alone, and provide a way for artists and commercial operators to grow the industry into a viable new business providing jobs and a tax base, while protecting the public from idiots. Providing readily available, proven and inexpensive additional redundancy sends a strong message to the public, the media and the FAA that we are a group of responsible, safety conscious pioneers of a exciting, new technology. What if the FCC had limited modem transmissions on phone lines for fear of compromising the nation's communication system? What would that have done to the internet and its development? I think that analogy holds water in this argument. Draconian rules and restrictions by the FAA could set back innovation by years. Who knows what this technology can bring? Instant deliveries of life saving devices, search and rescue operations, commerce, journalism, jobs, tax revenues, and the impact of artistic freedom on the human soul... the possibilities are endless. Some simple, cheap fixes include: Quad copters using software flight logic to make a controlled landing with the loss of a motor/esc/prop ( http://youtu.be/bsHryqnvyYA ) Power supplied by a two (smaller) batteries is another step toward redundancy. Two smaller batteries powering the quad in parallel circuits brings little weight penalty and increased safety. Software logic, that in the event of GPS signal loss, would result in automated, slow descent and landing while in GPS or ground station (pre-programmed flight path) mode. DJI took a step in the right direction with software providing slow auto-land in the case of critically low battery level and restricted flight zones. All of these features could be implemented cheaply and easily. More expensive fixes are also possible for "heavy" commercial operators. The newer tech would be much more expensive for a "hobby" or "amateur" uav, but it is viable for commercial operators such as film production companies and drone delivery systems (i.e. Amazon). Expensive features include: Hexacopters/Octocopters provide good redundancy in the event of power/esc/prop failure. Twin flight control computers (Naza, A2, etc) using agree/disagree logic is another redundant safety implementation that would go a long way into making "drones" safe for the type of activities while inside FAA defined "congested" airspace. Newer technologies such as position indicating transmitter could eventually be incorporated in order to make commercial drones "visible". Tiny ADS-B transmitter could alert aircraft (and more advanced uas) to their presence. In summary, the FAA needs to be much more friendly to innovation while protecting the public interest, as innovation is part of the public interest as well as safety. Manufactures need to incorporate more safety features to protect the public, their customers, and their industry. Together, operators, the FAA and manufactures can find a way to allow amateurs the freedom to enjoy their hobby, artists and light commercial operators access to the sky, and heavy commercial operators a pathway to drive the economy. The problem is, they needed to do it yesterday.