I'm totally with you Helihub.
Given the pace at which the law moves it's interesting that SELF regulation from within the drone industry, by virtue of that same technology, often appears to be the answer. By that I mean that Gatwick initiated a lot of head scratching about regulations and anti-drone measures - meanwhile the manufacturer with over 80% of the world market (DJI - Chinese - first time I've seen original technology coming from there, but that's a whole other discussion) has already initiated geo-fencing in their products. BTW that's an immediate retrofit to all their products out there; you can't fly unless you've upgraded.
Ref
Given your film flying experience, what's your estimate for the % of helicopter film flying already lost to drones being used?
If I was being conservative I'd say 50% but it's probably more than that in the last three years. Once again there's a secondary effect happening. Just for one simple example it used to be that a newspaper or TV station would hire a helicopter to capture a major road-crash, flood, or other newsworthy disaster but why do that if a local citizen has already offered photos or video of the scene that's been captured from his drone?
So far I agree with "Carrying the Royal Family" (somewhat tongue-in-cheek!) and I can see the argument for bucketing over fires (except you can buy an awful lot of expendable drones for the cost of the Skycrane currently languishing in a Victorian dam!). But I haven't yet seen any other tasks in this thread that are currently manned and unlikely to be impacted by drones.
Jeffory, ref
Some jobs will disappear if the price point is right, but hardly worth getting worked up about.
I think you just won the ostrich prize of the month!