Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

These Are the Companies the FAA Has Sent notices To For Using Drones

Posted by samzenpus on from the you're-grounded dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Just as soon as the Minnesota-based Lakemaid Beer company excited everyone by delivering beer to ice fisherman with drones, the Federal Aviation Administration ruined their fun by demanding that they cease operations. But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency. Since 2012, the agency has sent official notices to 13 companies for the commercial use of drones."

76 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. IAmSlashdot by h4x0t · · Score: 2

    At what point does a remote-control helicopter become a 'drone'? Also, Beta doesn't provide sufficient functional improvement to necessitate its continuation, or indeed, its conception

    1. Re:IAmSlashdot by pellik · · Score: 1

      So it's kinda like trying to navigate the new slashdot discussion system (leaves line of sight)

    2. Re:IAmSlashdot by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Wow, mod police came back days later to pound every anti-beta post into the ground. I think this was +4 before it was hit, given that the rest of the response was Informative.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  2. Re: Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    the difference it autonomy via setting waypoints and use over the horizon. if it itsnt controlled directly by a human or isnt within visible line of sight then you need FCC license.

  3. from tfa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Delivery of goods is expected to be a small segment of future drone market. The bigger commercial uses will focus on agriculture, law enforcement and aerial photography."

    Says a petty idiotic beaucracy expressing it's utter lack of creativity.

    -Azi

  4. Soon Slashdot can serve ads to drones! by Nightbrood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry guys... your PR heavy "response" isn't going to cut it. We, the COMMUNITY, are the one's that provide you with content and allow you to earn a living from our debates all in exchange for simple access to a site that we can use and like. Your Beta site has broken the implicit contract you had between your community and the business. In the end you are responsible for all hell breaking loose and people rioting in the comment threads. We are trying to provide you the opportunity to correct this situation but you seem to have received crisis response training from the Apple people who came up with "you're holding it wrong." Only you can fix Slashdot. If the community has to fix it, then the solution will be a new home. The clock is ticking.

    #IamSlashdot

  5. Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? by wbr1 · · Score: 2
    They are obviously using marketing or management drones to have let the beta get this far.

    altslashdot.org - Join the movement -

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? by PGC · · Score: 2

      Not the first time a marketing department took over a company (and ran it into the ground).

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    2. Re:Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      It may well be the first time that a marketing department did this by covering a third of the usable space with an empty white column. I wonder if the method has been patented.

      #iamslashdot

  6. I don't care, I'm still free. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't take the sky from me.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:I don't care, I'm still free. by demontechie · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points right now...

  7. Will Beta be delivered by drone? by Telecommando · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope so, then the FAA can shut it down.

    --
    Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
  8. Re:In Soviet America... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    FAA...FCC...whatever.

  9. Re:Mod parent troll by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    The douche bag is mining karma.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  10. current law by luther349 · · Score: 1

    the problem with fpv drones in genrel be it for rc use or anything else is we have no real laws on them when the fcc made the regulations for rc aircraft they where short range low atultued visual flight only craft. now we got units that can fly pretty much anywhere it can get a cell single fly much higher and longer.

  11. Re:In Soviet America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You would be right if planes were made of tinfoil, And before you say what if it hit an "engine" Commercial planes can fly with upto 1/2 their engines disabled and they have automated fire suppression in the wings and fuel shutoffs. They also fly alot higher than drones would over predictable flight paths.

  12. The Slashdot slant. by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency.

    It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place. It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

    On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains. Ice Fishing

    1. Re:The Slashdot slant. by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains.

      Too many people expend too much effort saving such few people.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:The Slashdot slant. by kbolino · · Score: 1

      It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place.

      If the drones are not causing problems, then there is no need to regulate them. Regulation should only exist when it is useful in solving problems that a) people aren't resolving on their own and b) have severe consequences to the lives and freedom of others. A regulatory agency should not act like an ivory tower, passing decrees based upon arbitrary criteria. The rules should come from best practices; how do you determine best practices by forbidding the activity altogether?

      It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

      Alcohol as a payload does not present any hazards relevant to aviation.

    3. Re:The Slashdot slant. by cusco · · Score: 1

      I grew up in northern Michigan. To be absolutely truthful, most of the ice fishing accidents (including my own) are caused by simple stupidity. The guys who fail so hard they die would probably have won a Darwin Award sooner rather than later.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:The Slashdot slant. by cusco · · Score: 1

      If the drones are not causing problems, then there is no need to regulate them.

      If the FAA didn't step in now, the first time that UPS's drone cargo 747 smashed into an airport terminal people would say, "Why haven't you been regulating these since the beginning?" Do you really think that FedEx is going to pay a pilot, copilot and engineer $100,000/year each for a day longer than they absolutely have to? The day they decide they can get away with running drone aircraft you'll see layoffs.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:The Slashdot slant. by kbolino · · Score: 1

      If the FAA didn't step in now, the first time that UPS's drone cargo 747 smashed into an airport terminal people would say, "Why haven't you been regulating these since the beginning?"

      And the FAA can respond by making the case that regulations for their own sake would not have prevented it. Now, having witnessed the accident, they can investigate and determine an appropriate response. Just because some people tend to have irrational responses doesn't mean that everybody else has to give in to them.

      The day they decide they can get away with running drone aircraft you'll see layoffs.

      How is that relevant to aviation safety? New Jersey and Oregon say that self-service gasoline pumping is dangerous, but those of us in the other 48 states aren't blowing up all the time pumping our own gas. If the absence of a pilot proves to be an important factor in the likelihood of aviation accidents, then a case can be made for requiring one, but not until.

  13. Pull! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    I'll just let my Beretta Onyx Pro do the talking when it comes to drones. Pull!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  14. Policy != regulation by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There have been a few FOIA request lately that show the FAA is full of it. They're simply trying to intimidate people.

    "The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.

    Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory.

    This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:

            "To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 9157 and
            the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91 regulations, it
            2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57
            and the 2007 Notice are not mandatory."

    Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim."

    1. Re:Policy != regulation by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy")

      Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.

      I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.

      Here's the real issue: most insurance underwriters have clauses requiring their insured parties to operate in keeping with the GUIDELINES of that agency. Law or regulation doesn't matter. If the FAA guidelines are that recreational RC pilots staying under 400 ft, in line of sight, away from people and airports and the like are OK, but people conducting business using RC are, for now, NOT OK... then operating commercially anyway will put most insurance policy holders in violation of the fine print, and they'll be on the hook in the event of a mishap, injury, or damage. It's very hard for most photographers, videographers, event promoters and such to secure liability insurance to cover doing something that a federal agency says is not allowed. That expectation of compliance with those guidelines is something that the insured and insurer mutually agree to, and that really makes things difficult for someone who wants to fly a camera drone over very expensive commercial property or a crowd of people for money.

      Yes, the matter of the FAA's plenary authority in this area, and the way they apply it (or don't) has to be clarified. But in the meantime, there are real, practical reasons why their position is an impediment to commercial RC use. Lawyers for very big commercial entities have been telling their clients to stay away from the tremendous possibilities in this area. Which sucks. But large, expensive legal teams, on retainer for companies that want to use RC commercially, have concluded that the FAA's position is - in practical terms - as good as law for now.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Policy != regulation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice:

      The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

      The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.

      I found the document that you quoted. I consider what you did as selective quoting in taking one sattement out of context. Here is the next sentence which you didn't quote:

      However, insofar as those policies reflect regulatory requirements, those requirements are manadatory.

      This is referring to the regulatoryrequirements governing civil aircraft ie certification.

      The Raphael Pirker is not a test case as to whether or not commercial UAS's are allowed because he was not charged with that. He was charged with 14C.F.R.91.13(a)states that"[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

  15. Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

    .

    .

    Whitespace burning

    .

    In the night

    .

    Holy shit

    .

    What a sight

    .

    Beta Shave.

    .

    .

  16. Re:Mod parent troll by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    I think it's a great list of the fucking retards we have here on slashdot.

    But I'm a lover not a hater, so I don't put people on my foes list.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  17. Re:Checking out the beta.. by Jon_S · · Score: 1

    The comment box isn't a wysiwyg editor. Can't I just highlight text and hit control-B and make it bold? C'mon, this is 2014, we had this functionality 20 years ago.

    Absolutely not! This is news for nerds (until the beta takes over. Fuck the Beta!). You have to prove your nerd cred by typing HTML tags. Anyone can hit ctrl-B.

  18. Re:Checking out the beta.. by JustOK · · Score: 1

    I just used a emacs macro to release a butterfly that caused this comment.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  19. Re:Mod parent troll by Zynder · · Score: 1

    Beta sucks moose cock so hard that a park ranger needs to pull leaves out of the moose's ass

    Canadian insults are EPIC!

  20. Re:In Soviet America... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 2

    Hey, I came here looking for witty comments about how the beta sux. Please stay on topic or I will have to mod you irrelevant.

  21. I've got it figured out.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    The NSA, current US administration, DHS, FAA, and Dice are in cahoots to make sure no slashdotters get possession of drones for a preemptive strike on shashdot beta!

    This is probably about to come out in a new Snowden Files episode next week.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  22. Look at the top, it's already there. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    The post button is already right at the top, right below the summary and the BS, right where you adjust your viewing threshold.

    1. Re:Look at the top, it's already there. by pellik · · Score: 1

      Where you adjust the viewing threshold for shortened comments or for full comments?

    2. Re:Look at the top, it's already there. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes, where you adjust the threshold.

    3. Re:Look at the top, it's already there. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are right, it's there now. But a year or so ago it was only at the bottom. (And it was at the bottom.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. Re: In Soviet America... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

    How to stay relevant when faced with obsolescence:
    1. Make rules that keep you relevant
    2. If 1 fails or is too hard, stop progress

    The idea that if the FAA didn't halt the beer/drone delivery service because it didn't have the blessing of the FAA would cause commercial airline crashes is laughable at best. FAA should have paved the way for commercial drone delivery a decade or more ago, and this never should have been an issue.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  24. Re:Checking out the beta.. by Zynder · · Score: 1

    Well there's yer problem right there! Should have used vi :D

  25. Slashdot is dying by CmdrPorno · · Score: 2

    I've said this before and I'll say it here again, since it's on-topic: Slashdot is dying. It began its death spiral before Malda left. Once he quit, its fate became certain.

    A bunch of shit has happened over the years, from FIRST POST!, Natalie Portman, and hot grits in the early days; to Roland Piquepaille's story spamming in more recent history. Eventually, ZDnet or Gizmodo or some other tech site will buy Slashdot and begin integrating it into their own website. Eventually, Slashdot's URL will be only a redirect to the website of its corporate overlords.

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
  26. It's NOT a drone! by gavron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.

    WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.

    The point of this is.
    1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
    2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
    3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

    Ehud
    helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC :)

    1. Re:It's NOT a drone! by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 1

      I thought the hexacopter had 24 pounds of thrust.

      See: http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/115123-affordable-hexacopter-drone-for-aerial-photography

    2. Re:It's NOT a drone! by gavron · · Score: 2

      Hi Rick. The Hexacopter has a lot of thrust (and with different sized rotors more thrust and less stamina)
      but don't confuse "pounds of thrust" with "ability to lift weight other than itself."

      The unladen hexacopter can lift less than a six-pack. Here's a google search with lots of cool info including
      videos: http://tinyurl.com/lweb6bd

      Remember that thrust (if it was perfectly vertical) would equal lift, and that the hexacopter itself has a weight
      that reduces from the thrust. However ... with 6 small props it's not all lift, and the end result is that it can't
      do the job.

      cheers,

      E

    3. Re:It's NOT a drone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that the African Hexacopter or the European Hexacopter ?

    4. Re:It's NOT a drone! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.

      Correction: The media has determined that "drone" means "any unmanned aircraft of any size, regardless of its manner of operation." The media has also determined that any story about any unmanned aircraft of any size shall be accompanied by a photograph of a Predator, preferably in the act of launching a Hellfire missile.

    5. Re:It's NOT a drone! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You really should not give people so much ammo to refute your claims. Here is an exerpt from one of thelinks in the search you posted;

      Conclusion:
      Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

      5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.

    6. Re:It's NOT a drone! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.

      Incorrect. The FAA considers RC aircraft as aircraft and therefore has complete jurisdiction. They created a policy for hobby use of rc aircraft, AC 91-57, but there is not a specific one for commercial RC aircraft.

      Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.

      From the FAA website;

      What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
      A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
      The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.

      What you are describing is a autonomous aircraft which is a sub type of unmanned aircraft.

      3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

      Here is an exerpt from one of the links in the search you posted;

      Conclusion:
      Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

      5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.

    7. Re:It's NOT a drone! by gavron · · Score: 1

      Thanks, bud!

      I'm a pilot. I passed the exam by knowing how things work, not making up shit.

      Best regards :)

      E

  27. Re: In Soviet America... by russotto · · Score: 2

    When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.

  28. Re:Mod parent troll by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    ...says the AC.

    Look, I have opinions about the Beta too. But is every fscking story this week going to be non-stop comments about it?

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  29. Re:Checking out the beta.. by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean, but I think it would actually have the reverse effect than what you think. Not having some basic formatting tools just reduces the quality of posts - because it's harder to do decent formatting. It won't keep people away, if anything it would reduce the quality of comments, as people who don't know HTML will just post lower quality posts. I wonder if there's some good stats on this.

    The best way to improve comment quality is to vote up the good comments. Not to make it more difficult to enter good comments. Look at stackoverflow. Great commenting system with a realtime preview, fantastic.

  30. rem in CSS3 by syockit · · Score: 1

    “Some of the comments use font size 0.85rem (never heard of REM before for a font size), and some of them use 1.5em. Can't work out why some are different. Don't care either. ”

    This page explains why you should avoid em, unless you know what you're doing. Most of the time, you want to define the size of a font in terms of the default size, not in relative to parent element.

    --
    Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
  31. I'ts NOT a drone! by db10 · · Score: 1

    It's a crappy beta with nothing good.

  32. Re:Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    not much.

    but.. commercial use ;) that's the key, be it rc or non.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  33. Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. by dimko · · Score: 1

    Call me ignorant, but can SOMEONE explain in two sentences, why should I bother?

  34. Re: Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? by thestuckmud · · Score: 2

    According to this, the difference in the US is that recreational model aircraft are covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, while Unmanned Aerial Systems require either a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC). Operation in restricted airspace is another matter. In all cases, a pilot in command must maintain control of the aircraft (which I take to mean line of sight is required).

    The other agency US unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have to contend with is the FCC. There are frequencies available for recreational RC use, and amateur radio bands, but last time I checked there was nothing for controlling a commercial UAS.

  35. Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Today I have no mod points, so I'll have to vote with words.

    Like an animal.

    ALFA!!!......

  36. Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Where would you go to ask someone to explain something to you in two sentences after the beta has been unleashed?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  37. Re: In Soviet America... by N1AK · · Score: 1

    When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.

    Maybe I'm just some 'commie' European but I think like many things it isn't that black and white. I have no issue with 'net neutrality' style regulation existing before it becomes common for companies to degrade competing services. I have no issue with blocking healthcare providers from discriminating based on genetic information until we decide if we are comfortable with that as a society.

  38. Re:In Soviet America... by stiggle · · Score: 1

    As you're spirally down to the ground - you'll have free beer :-)

  39. Re:Mod parent troll by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    (...) the week of 2/10 - 2/17(...)

    There are only 12 months in the year, please review your date-writing skills.

    (Sorry but with all this Olives and Feta, I'm missing a good troll, please feed it!!!)

  40. Re:In Soviet America... by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    [citation needed], or FUD.

  41. Re:Mod parent troll by flyneye · · Score: 1

    I was actually going to comment on the absurdities of bureucrazy and the evolution of beer in relation to mankinds progress. Later I was going to insinuate those peopleing positions in bureucrazies were a bunch of inbred morons and we CERTAINLY dont want anymore help, protection or opinions from them.
    BUT, since this is just another BETA discussion, fuck it, I dont like the beta because it doesnt display properly on my not-so-smart-phone, that I use because I find it more secure than the inaptly named smart phones. I leave you with a joke to make an analogy of;

    Joe stood by the side of the road on a warm day with a quart jar of rabbit shit.
    Jeff comes along, picking his nose and asks what Joe is holding.
    Joe tells him it is a jar full of smart pills and offers him one.
    Boy, oh boy, would I ever like a smart pill! says Jeff.
    Chewing one thoughtfully, he says THESE PILLS TASTE LIKE SHIT!!
    Joe says, See, youre getting smarter already!

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  42. Re:In Soviet America... by cusco · · Score: 1

    Unlike Anonymous Cowards, the FAA is looking to the future when FedEx is flying drone 767 aircraft between major hubs. If the tell Lakemaid Beer that it's OK to run a drone without testing and permits FedEx is going to claim the same right.

    By the way, the next time you're in the Seattle area take a tour through the Boeing factory. You might be surprised to find that airliners really ARE made of stuff closely resembling tinfoil.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  43. JustAnotherDroningReply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    True, but commercial helicopters don't fly that high. And if a drone struck a rotor, the helicopter would be lucky to make it to the ground. Commercial helicopters can fly with 1/2 their engines, but not 1/2 of their rotors. Nobody should have to die because somebody's beer didn't get there on time.

  44. Just how is this harassment? by azav · · Score: 1

    How is sending a notice to a company to cease breaking the law harassment ?

    Honestly. Bad Vice.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Just how is this harassment? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Because in the case of lakemaid Brewery, they were technically not breaking the law, they we looking to advance the technology of beer delivery to a "new level".

      Seriously, skimming around led me to this article which indicates that FAA does not have regulations in place, only guidelines. Forgetting the technological issues LMB would have to over come, they were operating in a line of sight manner, with the idea of GPS positioning being overridden by a human pilot *(yes, there is tech for that).

      Since there would not be multiple companies operating in that environment, the FAA could have used LMB asa tast bed to see how such a business would work. The clientele was perfect, the location fantastic...stupid on the FAA to try and shut them down and shame on LMB for giving in so quick.

      oh and... BETA!!!!

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  45. Re:In Soviet America... by tsqr · · Score: 1

    Commercial planes can fly with upto 1/2 their engines disabled

    And you can live with up to 1/2 of your kidneys removed. When would you like to schedule the surgery?

  46. What's important is the lack of beer by SeanBlader · · Score: 1

    Surely there's solid medical need for beer while ice fishing and the FAA by blocking said delivery is putting the lives of those who do it in serious danger. I mean obviously anyone who Ice Fishes is nearly insane, and probably near hypothermic death. In addition it's been scientifically proven that you'd be a lot warmer and a lot happier with a bellyfull of mead.

    1. Re:What's important is the lack of beer by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      I think in the original article (and as an aside, I submitted a story about this two days ago...bad timing beta) there was a suggestion that instead of LMB (Lakemiad Brewery) "owning" the BDV, the local ice fishermen purchase the equipment and loan the operation to LMB. Thus, while the purchase of the beer is commercial, the delivery is not. I akin this to having a friend pick up the beer for a night watching TV. The distributor cannot be held accountable for the operation of the BDV. To take it one step more, LMB could make a donation to the local community fund for maintaining the health and happiness of the community for each and every delivery is made. Really, the FAA went way over the top on this one.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  47. Re:Format conflict by pellik · · Score: 1

    When is FRIO?

  48. Re: In Soviet America... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that, in 2004, the FAA could come up with good regulations for uses of 2014 drones? What, pray tell, will be the capabilities of drones in 2024, and what sort of dangers will they pose? (Anything capable of flying a six-pack around is capable of causing damage, injury, and squirts of beer when the can is opened.)

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  49. Re: In Soviet America... by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

    These drones are delivering beer across a frozen lake. There are no obstacles.

  50. It's been there for years by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    You've just missed it, it's been there for years.

  51. God forbid any schmuck would be allowed... by steve.cri · · Score: 1

    ... to use drones for something dangerous. Drones are for the military, to kill people safely!

  52. Re: In Soviet America... by russotto · · Score: 2

    You aren't disputing my statement, you are simply agreeing with the results -- the industries are blocked.