FAA has never allowed the use of drones to deliver packages. The right headline would be "The FAA does still not allow use of drones to deliver packages."
The FAA has no physical ability, and currently no legal authority, to allow or disallow the use of drones to deliver packages. This document is a set of rules that the FAA would like to carry legal weight, but which currently do not.
The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal?
But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0].
Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.
The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.
However, the FAA's rulemaking abilities are limited by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and they haven't made any yet.
So, even if the FAA's appeal fails, there will be a very short window (probably a year or less) before drones are explicitly regulated on less shaky footing.
> The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.
So claims the FAA. I can't make my way through the text of the law, nor can I find any legal summary or analysis other than the FAA's own claim that it gives them the authority to regulate UAS.
Let me save you the trouble.
As a lawyer, familiar with reading legislative text, it clearly requires them to do rulemaking about UAS, and grants them the authority to do so.
The FAA's goal in life is to ensure safety in the air. Drones are obviously within their field of interest. When commercial drones take off, there will obviously be a lot more drones in the air than the recreational drones and toy aircraft now, since there is a lot of money to be made, while comparatively few people fly things for a hobby.
If that was the intent they would be putting rules in place to prevent people from getting hurt not outright banning them which is what their doing now.
This looks more like a move to kill an industry before it takes off if you pardon my pun.
Not to mention there's nothing to regulate at the moment no people have been hurt by drones and there's very few companies actually looking into them.
So the next logical question is who would loose money if commercial drone delivery services become the norm?
> I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.
Really? How about people hitting baseballs with bats unregulated? That's a heck of a lot more dangerous than most hobbyist drones, perhaps unless you're deliberately trying to do harm (in which case regulations don't matter).
It's risk assessment time. How many people are hitting baseball bats with unregulated bats today versus the number of drones that will be flying around cities delivering things all the time (and bumping into people on the sidewalks)? It takes little imagination to see that once drones are accepted as an efficient method of transportation, then companies will want to use them as much as possible, thus possibly creating a situation where we might want them to be regulated. Perhaps it's hard to see this happening from the few examples we've of hobbyist usage today but that is probably going to change (if they're accepted, etc, etc).
This downvote pattern in HN is really interesting. Instead of discussing ideas people seem to downvote based on how they agree with it or not. The argument's validity usually is dismissed if it goes against someone's view. And, of course, serious replies rarely follow. Talk about bias bubble SV :)
That's interesting. Is it well-accepted that an appeal stays the decisions? If not, then this might just be another case of the FAA claiming its desires. And even if the appeal is stayed, what is the default state?
It's a valid point but does it matter in reality? If it's not the FAA's then some other govt agency (or even a new one) will regulate things that fly around in our cities. The way I see it, the FAA is just getting ahead of future events.
Regardless of the legal enforceability of these rules, I do think Amazon and the FAA need to be certain that a swarm of package-delivering drones don't cause, say, a passenger airplane crash or the failure of an airport's air traffic control system, before we see general deployment of these drones.
I suspect the true difficult technical challenge here will be upgrading the planes and airports to handle hundreds of little drones flying around, with the legal framework to follow.
The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot).
Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.
UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling).
That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone).
EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene.
One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.
Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular.
In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash."
I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing.
I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!"
As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.
Why don't you expect the FAA to "correctly regulate" drones? They've done a great job regulating commercial passenger and freight planes, leading to an excellent safety record for these vehicles.
I believe they'll err too far on the side of caution for small drones, stifling potential innovation by requiring expensive airworthiness certification, ADS-B, and flight planning for all drones which fly beyond line of sight, even those which are small enough not to pose a major threat to commercial aviation or bystanders.
indicates that they plan to implement these requirements for all drones which aren't sUAS with a line-of-sight requirement.
I believe these drones should be authorized for testing and commercial flight over unpopulated areas below 500ft and possibly above in certain airspace classes - basically, that the existing, frequently ignored hobbyist "recommendations" should be enforced as "rules" and applied commercially.
If we put outselves in FAA's shoes, if they're too un-restrictive against drones now they run the risk of letting the situation get out of control in the future. As a thought exercise, how would the recommendations be enforced? Once drones are accepted as common transportation agents, how do you identify the one skipping the recommendations and, more importantly, who is flying it?
at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it
The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act.
In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.
This 2007 policy document clarifies the FAA's stance about drone operations, citing various FAA notices and arguing that commercially flown drones are subject to the standard Part 91 aircraft regulations and none are approved - thus, making them illegal.
This 2012 notice clarifies the FAA's stance that model aircraft are not all aircraft under 55lbs, but rather those that are flown by hobbyists non-commercially, again citing various FAA notices (but no actual rules).
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the FAA explicit authority to regulate Unmanned Aerial Systems and requires that they implement rules within a certain timeframe (as yet, no rules are implemented - they work through this process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act ).
The lowest NTSB court ruled that the FAA's current UAS regulations are unenforceable as the FAA's attempt relied on Notices to Airmen and FAA Policy documents, but no actual enforceable FAA Rules. However, the FAA appealed which immediately stays the decision (due to the procedure for NTSB proceedings).
Observers expect the appeal to fail, but by the time the court proceedings are complete there's a good chance that the FAA's actual Rules will be in place.
This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done. The next step is to research reliable methods of navigation and air traffic rules for unmanned and autonomous aerial vehicles, and when that can be made demonstrably safe, this regulation can be revisited.
If FAA would have allowed commercial drone operations without further regulation, and the technology would have had widespread adoption, there would be great risks involved.
Before there are the equivalents of traffic lights, air traffic control and airways and regulations to how much and what you can carry, there are risks involved. ("hello Amazon, I'd like to have 5 kilograms worth of lithium batteries, drone delivery to this busy urban address." what could possibly go wrong?)
Of course, things can be relatively safe if common sense is applied, but you can't expect commercial operators to apply common sense when there are potential profits available.
And common sense is not always correct either, back in the 1930s when the state of the art in aviation was relatively comparable to the state of the art in drones today, most people thought that pilots should fly by the seat of their pants and flight instruments are only supplemental (which is deadly wrong, and today all planes have doubly redundant gyroscopic instruments).
The reality is that the technology to fly unmanned and autonomous drones exists but it's not mature enough to work in large scale commercial operations safely and effectively.
> This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done
Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times.
Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.
> Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
These are all very good suggestions and I have no doubt that something like this will happen in the long run. Of course, government bureaucracy is painfully slow.
The FAA also needs to make these decisions (e.g. maximum takeoff weight) based on some facts, not just gut feeling, and I'd guess that they are hard at work (as hard as a government bureaucrat can) to try to figure out the regulations under which drone operations can be permitted.
There are people who would want to allow unregulated, autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles and do so now. I think that this is a pretty crazy idea...
Sadly, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Perhaps I'm just jaded because I've been running into this brick wall for so long now. Hopefully your optimism is justified.
Take the Yamaha-RMAX helicopter used for agriculture as an example of data. There's 2,500 of them actively flying in Japan (point of comparison, US Air Force has less than 500 UAVs). The RMAX has more than 2,000,000 flight hours with an impeccable safety record. Yamaha offered troves of data and requested permission to use the RMAX for crop-spraying over vineyards in California. FAA said, "No."
That's the problem. The FAA simply says, "No". They don't say "You haven't met requirement X", there are no requirements that can be met by anyone.
If 2 million flight hours is not enough data, what is?
I appreciate your opinion and recognize that there are many people who share your opinion but I can't agree. Compared to road and air traffic, it would take a serious amount of drones to match the noise and visual pollution.
The pizza delivery man with his car or scooter makes more noise and takes more space than a drone would.
And you have to remember that the early jet aircraft were very noisy and inefficient compared to modern jets. NACA, NASA and the FAA did some serious research and development programs in the fifties and sixties to reduce the amount of noise.
Compared to "big" aviation, I think that the current drones are somewhere in between the Wright brothers and the Spirit of St. Louis - I guess there will be significant development in the near future.
If machines are flying over your head, would you feel safe going out without a helmet on your head?
Despite all safety measures, you know it'll happen at some point. One of those will fail, its safety will fail and it'll drop on the head of some kid and put it in the hospital.
I can predict immediately that birds and drones colliding will be one of the biggest problems (and it's not something you can fix with frequent tech checkups, as it's not a technical failure, just a fact of life).
Having casualties is the case with cars too, of course, but it's a whole new kind of terror to expect not just cars hitting you coming from the street, but also machines dropping from the sky (where you usually aren't even looking).
I'd take one of those risks, but not both at the same time. I can't look for both at the same time. And I'm not saying "ban them" is the only solution, but this has to be solved somehow.
> If machines are flying over your head, would you feel safe going out without a helmet on your head?
No, not with the current state of technology. That's why I think that this ban is in the right thing to do for the time being.
> I can predict immediately that birds and drones colliding will be one of the biggest problems
You're definitely right, bird strikes are a hazard for drones, model aircraft and big aviation alike.
Unlike big aircraft (which can dodge big flocks at best), a drone is more maneuverable and could be able to dodge birds to some degree using some kind of camera technology. Of course, a bird may also intentionally attack a drone (they certainly attack my kites occasionally), which is a harder problem to solve.
These are challenges that have to be overcome with navigation, camera and drone-to-drone communication techniques as well as redundancy.
Before we can put a number estimating the statistical risks of drone traffic, it is premature to think about large scale commercial operations. I think that it's inevitable that we'll have such a number (ie. number of incidents per hours of drone flight), and we can utilize technologies that will bring that number down to acceptable levels (ie. near or below existing road and air traffic risks). When that happens, re-thinking this restriction (not necessarily lifting it) is due.
This is a valid concern but it needs to be balanced against the existing noise, visual and chemical pollution caused by shopping trips in cars and delivery trucks.
Huge win for Amazon, which never actually intended to use drones to deliver packages. The whole thing was a PR stunt designed to gain traffic on cyber Monday. Now they conviently can blame the government when they never actually invest the money to build the drones.
Amazon’s devices will be used for a single purpose they will be optimized in ways we have never seen in the multicopter industry. Their delivery scheme will be completely computer controlled, and will account for weather, airspeed, air density, and flight path, because they will have to.
Octocopters have demonstrated their amazing flight stability and capability in the hands of tinkerers and hobbyist, and there is some question of whether a billion dollar corporation can achieve this? As soon as Amazon mentioned this, FedEx, UPS, and USPS started forming their R&D for the exact same programs.
This is one of the largest, most high-tech, most optimized and automated companies in the world, and some of us are doubtful? Amazon will do this because humans are the problem. With robots, you eliminate the most irrational, chaotic, unreliable and expensive element from the equation.
Hasn't amazon been the one to only slowly adopt warehouse automation because it is cheaper to hire humans at $10 an hour?
They did buy this company that makes little robots to move shelves around but it is nothing compared to a real system like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DeT-Hj2DXk
warehouses are different. It's very costly to send a guy to people's houses. They're simply limited by the walking/running rate of the human body, and traffic.
First off, if package handling is more efficient using quad copters than wheeled robots, why doesn't Amazon use them inside their warehouse? It is a controlled environment (no weather, no wind, can have localizing beacons all over, fixed map, etc etc) and doesn't require FAA approval. Not to mention products in the warehouse are lighter weight and smaller because they haven't been packed for shipping yet.
I would argue that is at least a first step on this road if they ever intend to actually deliver packages by drones. The fact that they haven't done even that simple step before announcing it publicly makes me believe it was pure PR.
I'm not convinced myself that it wasn't just pure PR, but wanted to point out:
> why doesn't Amazon use them inside their warehouse? It is a controlled environment
The fact that it's a controlled environment is precisely why they're unnecessary in their warehouses -- the flying robot delivery method would theoretically allow them to bypass the uncontrolled variables in the real world: road traffic, pedestrians, etc.
I misread 'unmanned' in that sentence as the 'emasculated' meaning of the word, and had a mental question as to why you would make a service out of having your pizza delivered by broken, subservient men... :)
Thanks for this link. Am I reading wrong or does the article say the drone costs $15? That sounds unbelievably cheap, does anyone know how much a drone like this in America would cost?
The part I've been thinking about and don't have a good answer to is, where would the drones fly? The best answer I've come up with is directly overhead non-highway surface streets. Or put another way, where is it OK for drones to crash?
I do think the FAA is too risk adverse, and they ought to allow less-limited market trials in large metropolitan areas. The current UAS plan is good but too conservative.
But you should also consider where it is OK for delivery trucks to crash, and whether a drone crash or truck crash is more likely to cause damage or injury.
Hence overhead non-highway surface streets. Drones are typically fairly small, smaller than delivery trucks. And hopefully the drone operators can figure out how to avoid power lines, overhead trains, etc. Wind could blow a non-functioning (or even worse, incorrectly vectored) drone off the street as it falls towards the ground. A market test could start off by declaring streets OK for overhead drone activity.
I bet if the FAA opened it up to cities to decide whether it's OK for a drone to operate commercially above their streets, you'd get dozens or hundreds of cities move to allow it. Starting with Seattle.
I'm not sure why you think it would be okay to fly over non-highway streets, where presumably there will be pedestrians. Already there has been an injury caused by a drone falling on top of someone (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504).
Regarding avoiding power lines: is that actually feasible? Either you have to program a GPS route from the warehouse to the delivery address avoiding all obstructions, or you have to use some kind of radar so that you can detect obstructions even in fog (or maybe just not operate in low visibiliity). It's not a trivial problem, and I'm not sure if the proponents have really thought it out.
PS, if you're going to downvote my comment, at least explain why.
I've been thinking about it too, in particular, how would a drone company go about getting insurance. A 5-10kg brick falling from 30 meters on a person or a road can do a lot of damage, both directly and by causing traffic accidents.
From reading all these legal nuances I feel like next step would be to rent away for free drones to customers which they will use in turn to pickup their packages at amazon warehouses :)
That was my first thought: a Prime membership could include fractional ownership in a drone, so any delivery would be my personal fraction of a drone delivering my package for recreational purposes!
I don't see what problem delivering packages with drones would be solving, package delivery seems already quite efficient to me. Also I suppose drones would often be able to deliver just one package at a time because of weight restrictions.
I pick up most of my packages at the local post office because I live in an apartment, it's a 5 minute walk away, not really an inconvenience.
It's like saying "why use phone when telegraph is good enough". If you can order things and receive them very fast in any place, there are things that you can start ordering that otherwise you wouldn't do.
It's raining and you need an umbrella, with nomsalesperson near? Order a drone. Forgot to buy mayo back in the store? Order throug drone and get it in an hour.
But there once you're able to order stuff and get it within minutes, not hours or days, there are other effects that start happening. For one, you don't need to stockpile supplies anymore, or you can do things more spontaneusly.
Will 40 or 100'people come to a party. Who cares, if there are not enough forks or plates, you can order them fast.
Or, if you want to play in garage, you don't have to make sure that you've got all the supplies well in advance, or go to the store and back 20'times.
Think how many businesses were spawned, and how much more efficient are people now that there are mobile phones, not just stationary. But ic an imagine people saying "who needs mobile, I can call when i get back home, and i've got an answering machine if someone calls when i'm away.
I'm sorry but that sounds just silly to me, planning ahead is a basic life skill if you ask me, but I get that people would pay for it, ignorance is bliss.
I know I'm sounding condescending, but that's not why I'm replying to this topic, this is just one of those things that right now to me seem like the wrong direction to look at when solving peoples problems, a dead end so to speak.
The whole smartphone/tablet thing is a sore point for me as well, I love the hardware but I don't like the mobile OS movement at all, I hate that there is no real push to go in the direction of something like Ubuntu for Android[1] as the devices are getting more capable.
So as I read this comment at my favorite coffee place, a UPS truck is blocking 2 parking spaces. It's been parked there about 5 minutes, and several cars stopped, thinking it was leaving soon, messing up traffic on the road before driving away because it was taking too long. That's lost business and serious inconvenience for other people. As I type this the guy has left, but the package he took in was small enough for a drone to deliver.
Now a different truck has pulled up and double parked across the road, with the driver taking a document tube into the office building across the street.
I wish this example was contrived, but I just watched it happen.
Several drivers were inconvenienced (an ongoing situation at the moment, and I've had to listen to the sound of the idling engines, which are definitely louder than the cars passing by. Drones on the other hand would have zipped in and out, without disrupting the traffic or making me listen to idling truck engines for several minutes in a row.
It's not only about just-in-time delivery for ME, it also reduces a bunch of secondary hassles.
Using drones to deliver packages from warehouse to the last mile delivery center would have use, you can simply ignore ground traffic!
however last mile delivery? to the customer? sorry, too many liabilities plus the risk of some agency / group finding them the perfect way to deliver unwanted items to people.
Yes, that is my opinion, it's not inconvenient to ME, that's all I said, I would love for other people to chip in with their opinions so I can get a better picture of this topic, at the moment I don't see what the fuss is all about.
One of the interesting pieces I picked up from the related reading to this article is that any use of FPV equipment on a model aircraft puts it square out of the exemptions as far as the FAA is concerned. If the operator does not have un-aided eyes on object at all times, they lose the protection of the exemptions afforded to model aircraft.
There are similar restrictions for flying visually or by instruments. Even flying visually you wouldn't pass your flight test if you restricted your field of view to anything like a normal camera.
It's amazing how prescriptive the aviation industry is, often with demonstrable reason, so it doesn't surprise me that drones/models are also evaluated in an equally stern light. Though I think there's a good argument for exemptions the lower hazards involved.
I really can't see the need for premature bans. Has there been a significant amount of accidents involving the use of delivery drones? I don't think so, so why potentially limit your competitiveness? :(
Beyond carrying weapons or higher-that-prosumer-quality video equipment, they are not all that different. UAS go from the sized aircraft one would typically think of as "military drone" to the small hand-launched aircraft used by people on the ground [0]. Using a submarine<->boat analog I'd argue with as the overall physics and operating principles of the two are hugely different.
Hey, thanks for actually supplying a number and a source for the number.
I find many of the other comments nearby are carping about details but not really addressing the point, which is that these things can and will crash, which is why they will be regulated somehow.
The Air Force vets that I know say that civilian aircraft during peace time are maintained better than AF aircraft were during war time.
Also, it's fair to say that the AF doesn't really care about the potential for ground casualties in the event of a mechanical failure.
Let's look at it this way; how many US drones have been captured by enemy forces? Crashing is one thing; falling into the hands of an opponent who can study the device is a mission aspect that the AF and other agencies do care about. More than a handful?
I think the implication is that a military drone is flying over the enemy. But taking a more realistic approach, a drone failure/crash in any current military theater is unlikely to hit anybody. We're not doing much flying over heavily populated/urbanized areas as far as I'm aware.
Because there is a lot to consider in densely packed cities. If these interfere with public utilities but hitting power lines, or crashing into homes, or school play grounds, etc... I have no issue with them planing ahead in this scenario, and do not feel it has anything to do with competitiveness.
> > If an individual offers free shipping in association with a purchase or other offer, FAA would construe the shipping to be in furtherance of a business purpose, and thus, the operation would not fall within the statutory requirement of recreation or hobby purpose.
> Surprising? No, but it is almost fun to see the government be so particular in its language
Well couldn't amazon get around this by using negative shipping, whereas they pay you to ship items to you? Like pay you a penny. To me being "so particular in [..] language" just leads to loop holes.
I'd like the US to be the innovators on drone deliveries but it looks like we'll pass that opportunity up. Maybe we can outlaw any form of driverless car as well. Just as both are getting to be new markets that could increase economic growth.
Drones, if they are more efficient than truck deliveries from a cost and energy use perspective, for most things they will be the solution used. It is just does the US want that to happen here or elsewhere.
Drone energy use and possible accidents will be less than truck/delivery energy use and accidents in the future.
Silicon Valley and the tech sector is full of adult babies. Watching the twitter reaction to this news (and others) is pretty fascinating. You're all so doom-and-gloom the first second the government tries to regulate something. Let's not discuss the histrionics that come out on other topics. Further, you act like there could be no possible logical reason why these things should be regulated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of onerous regulation or regulatory capture, but you guys are just a bunch of babies.
I think there should be rules about drones, because I can easily think of several really fucking bad things that could happen if everyone who wants to tinker can just fly their drones around because they've got the money and know how. What happens if Amazon tries to deliver a package, but the software fucks up and the drone flies over the airport (assuming the engineers even thought of that problem in advance)? What happens when multiple business start flying drones around and they start crashing into one another, falling on people, highways, or whatever? I've seen a video where a guy decapitated himself with his gas powered toy helicopter. Are these drones going to be safe if they crash into me, or should I walk around with a shotgun?
We need rules. We don't need onerous rules, but we need rules.
You're absolutely right that there should be regulations. The reaction you are seeing is because the FAA is so behind the times that it hurts. This topic is just now coming into mainstream news, but it's been going on for a long long time.
In 2012, Congress told the FAA to hurry up. Do you know how far behind the FAA had to be for Congress to notice that the FAA wasn't doing their job? Yeah, it's that bad.
I've seen a video where a guy decapitated himself with his gas powered toy helicopter
There are no toy gas powered helicopters. The idea that they are toys are what gets people in trouble in the first place. Even small electric palmtop RC helicopters can cause significant injury if you accidentally fly it toward your face.
Driverless cars/vehicles are a whole different animal if you ask me. Personal and cargo transportation could be a lot more efficient (especially considering energy/resource efficiency) if you took the human element out of it.
Using flying drones for delivery is much more limited in scope when I think about it, you can't really haul loads with drones, each delivery has to be done more or less individually, I can't imagine that being more energy efficient than for example a driverless truck dropping off packages at designated pickup points in local communities.
"This is about hobbyists and model aircraft, not Amazon," said Mary Osako, a spokeswoman for the Seattle-based company. The rule, she said, doesn't apply to commercial entities such as Amazon and "has no effect on our plans."
The rule applies only to hobbyists and was meant to clarify what services are considered legal and what are not within that category, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told CNET. For hobbyists, "using a model aircraft to move a box from point to point without any kind of compensation," is OK, according to the guidelines, while accepting a fee for delivery services is not.
Not sure if Mary Osako is clueless or trying some PR angle that I don't get.
Yes, the FAA statement was to clarify what is okay for hobbyists. The FAA clearly states that accepting payment takes you out of the hobbyist category and puts you into the commercial category. And there is a blanket ban if you fall into the commercial category.
Advice to attempt to find a loophole or skirt the law in some way probably won't turn out good for Amazon. A better approach would be to cooperate and participate in discussions with the FAA and for Amazon to perhaps help pioneer new regulation regarding drones for commercial purposes like package delivery.
Also I don't think the negative shipping part would work because isn't it still free shipping since the customer isn't paying for it? It isn't free to Amazon and that's not what the free part is for. So negative shipping is still free shipping.
I think this is a sensible decision until safety concerns have been adequately addressed. Innovation is great, shorter delivery time is awesome, but not at the expense of safety of general public.
So theoretically, I could start using a drone to deliver gifts to my friends. Non-commercial, not "free shipping in association with a purchase or other offer" right?
I'm curious, do the people who think that they should be allowed to fly their unmanned aircraft without restrictions also think that they should be allowed to fly their manned aircraft without restrictions, or should the rules be different because the pilot is on the ground rather than in the vehicle itself?
Last time I checked, commercial manned aircraft were regulated but not banned outright. In this case, FAA is banning commercial unmanned aircraft altogether, so unless you consider banning altogether to be a regulation, I don't think your comparison stands.
Not for lightweight craft, but then again I think that driving a car should require a licence but a bicycle shouldn't. The difference is that while it's possible to kill someone by crashing into them with a bicycle or a 20 pound drone, a car or regular airplane it's much, much easier.
There's a big difference between a 20-50 pound quadcopter travelling at 10-20mph and a 1500 pound Cessna flying at 150mph.
Regulations for airplanes are strict primarily because the consequences of failure is loss of human life. Secondly to prevent damage to property due to crashes. Given that drones are unmanned, it would mean to me that the regulation on them should be less than what a manned aircraft requires. I would imagine it would be more similar to rocketry rather than airplanes.
Another example of the government becoming overly involved in private enterprise. There are times when the government should become involved, but it must be done in a responsible manner. Government needs to catch up with technological innovation rather than continuing to stifle it.
I envision drones as being personally owned and then sent out to do tasks like pick up things from stores anyway. Businesses just need to create places for them to land. It seems that would be fully within the scope of the rules.
Even if commercial delivery drones could be engineered to not crash into people or houses, not tangle with power lines, not cause accidents on highways, and not collide with each other once they are common, there's one thing that will instantly get them banned.
That will be the time someone uses a UAV to deliver 10 Oz of Semtex and a proximity sensor to someone they don't like.
Exactly how are you going to stop that becoming common, if there are lots of UAVs in the air everywhere?
Actually this factor is probably why they will definitely be banned before there is any commercial take-up. Because there are some powerful people who very many people don't much like. And this application will be very unpopular with the powerful.
You can use a car packed with explosives triggered by mobile phone to target someone you don't like.
It's much easier and more reliable than the short-distance drone.
Should we ban cars and mobile phones?
Let's say that I'm one of these people. It's already illegal for me to send a UAV to your house with Semtex and a proximity sensor, since trying to kill you is already illegal. What makes you think that a ban on UAVs will stop me? How will a ban on UAVs help you protect yourself from my illegal murder attempt?
Because of the strict maintenance requirements on certified aircraft, you won't find many (read: basically zero) piston engine airplanes flying with improperly modified or defective mufflers. In single-engine airplanes, those could represent a significant safety hazard to the people in the cabin.
Turboprops and jet engines don't really have mufflers per-se. Some aircraft have aftermarket "hush kits", but that's relatively uncommon as well.
The one and only piston-powered airplane I've taken into a deep pre-buy inspection had a wrecked muffler core.
My sample size is one, so did I "win" the lottery? I have no particular reason to believe this aircraft is especially noteworthy for its airworthiness or level of care.
I cannot argue the noise aspect, but I do thing not allowing experiments in drone delivery a bad thing. I strongly suspect that self-driving cars are on the horizon. With that presumption, I suspect self-flying cars would not be far off and that the technology that would drive that would come from parcel delivering drones.
This ignores the economics. If you look to the FDA as the template, the strict testing regime and the cost of navigating through the process ensures that only patent-protected drugs ever get approved for human medical use.
I extrapolate, perhaps inappropriately, that the combination of an FAA ban on commercial drones and a testing initiative will mean that only proprietary, patent-protected, and closed-source drones--and their software packages--will ever have access to this potentially interesting and useful market.
And that barrier to entry will make everything more expensive, in the same way that a GPS becomes more expensive when installed in an avionics panel than when it is strapped to the pilot's thigh.
Premature optimization is not optimization at all.
Establishment resists potentially disruptive technology. News at 11.
While agencies of government have never hesitated to step in and order people about, I am somewhat concerned that they are saying "Stop that at once!" far less often, in favor of "Don't even think about it."
Rather than allowing people to test the limits of their ingenuity, and intervene only when there is a demonstrable externality to be addressed, they are now issuing orders based upon an unrealized potential for harm. I think the latter demands a higher standard. You would have to be worrying about buildings burning down and people dying before I would want anyone to ban something that hasn't even been done yet. Let's ban people from building nuclear reactors in their toolsheds, yes. Maybe don't allow people to set off high-powered fireworks in the middle of a bunch of flammable homes. And let's not drive cars at high speed through suburban avenues where children, joggers, and pets may be present.
How, exactly, would software-piloted package-delivery aircraft present such a severe threat to life and property that we have to conclude that they cannot possibly be operated safely?
The public wants to use its airspace in a manner that benefits them. That includes noncommercial hobbyists, people such as journalists and surveyors profiting incidental to their usual work, and people earning money directly. The FAA does not get to pick the winners and losers here. That job, unfortunately, belongs to the legislature, not the executive (unfortunate in the sense that they have opted not to do their jobs, of course).
FAA is either exceeding its authority, or its authority is ambiguous at a result of legal refactoring proceeding more slowly than societal development. Either way, it stops Amazon from even trying, while black marketeers will blithely use drones to make drops of contraband, and cops and soldiers will use them for illegal surveillance and ethically dubious methods of crowd control.
As with so many other things, the real barrier here is how much it costs for Average Joe to buy and operate his own software-piloted drone. If you can get one cheaply enough, drones will eventually be resupplying beers from the camper to the bass boat, and the FAA will be stuck trying to enforce an extremely unpopular decision that is routinely ignored by people who have never even heard of it.
