Some civil UAS applications seem highly competitive with alternatives.

Initial policy ought to be tailored to the most commercially viable applications.

Cost models show that: (i) costs are most sensitive to hours of utilization; and (ii) safety equipment has modest cost effect, except for small systems using sense and avoid.

Foreign UAS firms may develop an advantage if they gain airspace first.
 

For some applications in specific classes of airspace, UA result in fewer fatalities than manned aircraft used for the same task.

Sense and avoid is important only in airspace with a significant traffic density.

Low risk areas could be used for experimentation and testing without posing a high risk to those on the ground or in another aircraft.

A mandatory incident reporting system has the potential to greatly improve both airworthiness and human factors reliability.
 

All UAS applications on our survey were considered to be more risky and less beneficial than the manned alternative.

Traffic monitoring was perceived as the most risky application (likely due to flight over a dense population).

About half of the participants had heard of UA.

Those more familiar with UAS technology perceive less risk.
 

The UA integration problem is more complex than many people realize.

An incremental approach allows for policy experimentation at low risk (e.g., sparsely populated areas/airspace).

Standards need to be established to provide a benchmark and incentive for manufacturing.

Attention to public perception and involvement can greatly influence how the UAS issue will unfold.