Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

angry tapir writes: Amazon.com has asked the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for permission to test drones outdoors for use in its Prime Air package delivery service. In the run up to launching the service, which aims to deliver packages in 30 minutes or less, the online retailer is developing aerial vehicles that travel over 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour, and will carry 5pound (2.3 kilogram) payloads, which account for 86 percent of the products sold on Amazon. They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Comments

Why in America?

[gurps_npc]

Can't they just do the testing in Canada? Or some other country that hasn't created this law?

Seems like they are more interested in getting a foot in the door to revoke the rule, rather than testing.

Re:Why in America?

[kheldan]

Hey now that's not very polite of you, are you sure you're Canadian? Isn't it against some national law or something for you to be publicly rude?

Re:Why in America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like they are more interested in getting a foot in the door to revoke the rule, rather than testing.

That's actually what's going on. What amazon (and google and facebook) truely want is regulations that make it hard for competition in this market segment. They've been playing a chess game for quite a while on this. All of the FUD articles about drones crashing into stuff is actually carefully chosen cases publicized to turn the public against "unregulated" drones, therefore requiring regulations to be written, and guess which three companies have been clamoring to congress that they have the expertise to help craft such regulations? Surely they'll have no problem complying with their own regulations, meanwhile any small business that tries to start up, or complains about the regulations, amazon can then say "they need to follow the regulations, their drones aren't safe, ours are", and use the sheeple to crush any startups.

Re:Why in America?

[timrod]

If I had to guess, it's because Amazon doesn't want to have Canada pass a law or regulation banning commercial drone use the same way the FAA did. If they were to go to Canada, the media there would likely report that they're doing it to skirt US regulations, and that could cause all kinds of bad PR for Amazon. The attention would also likely cause lawmakers in Canada to consider a similar ban, pointing at the FAA ban as precedent.

Re:Why in America?

[Herder Of Code]

Well, our job market is rather good right now, we skipped the whole mortgage thingy in 07-08, so no we're not super excited about hosting things that are illegal in the states.

Re:Why in America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the guy doing the building and designing is in the US? He can't really move, his wife runs a local charity/research center. He's a nice gentleman, and his prototypes have been working very well, he also has a drone reservation already, which has no air traffic through it.

Re:Why in America?

[NatasRevol]

Like prostitution?

Re:Why in America?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is against both international treaty and domestic laws for Canadians to be rude in public to foreigners unless we have been extremely provoked over an extended period of time (it is best to wait years - Canadian Courtesy Judges are quite mean to Canadians when applying the extended period of time section of the law) ....but their is a blanket exception in the case of any American government entity, corporation, collection of more than 25 Americans, individual Americans of note, and any concept or plan originating from America that may signifigantly negatively affect Canada or Canadians.

Re:Why in America?

[Jane Q. Public]

That's actually what's going on.

I doubt that very much. This bears repeating, for about the fifth time recently here on Slashdot:

A Federal NTSB judge has ruled that Congress did not give the FAA authority over small low-altitude drones, commercial or otherwise. The Federal law explicitly gives the FAA authority over "aircraft" in "navigable airways", which are by definition routes used by planes that carry people. These are usually high-altitude except for areas near airports and heliports. Further, "aircraft" (because of the "craft" part) means a vehicle that carries people. So there are at least two different passages in the law that very clearly limit FAA authority to commonly-traveled airways and people-carrying aircraft within them.

The court ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the FAA has tried to regulate everything it could get its hands on before it is (almost surely) smacked down by the appeals court. I say almost surely because the "authority granted by Congress" argument is strong and the judge made his case pretty clearly.

My guess is that these companies are (quite intelligently) betting on the FAA losing in appeals court.

Re:Why in America?

[BradleyUffner]

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think... Sure, if you separate the word Aircraft in to "Air" and "Craft" you might be able to argue that one of the words could mean a manned vehicle. But when taken as a single word "Aircraft" has nothing to do with being manned or not. Every definition I can find is basically "A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift."

Your argument really feels like the kind of games sovereign citizens and other conspiracy theorists play when they find "loopholes" in the law that will make them rich or allow them to not pay taxes.

Re:Why in America?

[WillAffleckUW]

It's illegal due to privacy rights that Canadians have (in their Constitution) to do this in Canada, according to their Supreme Court.

And, actually, Canucks have twice the guns per capita, so the drones would survive even less time.

They just don't shoot people with handguns or automatic weapons.

Re:Why in America?

[Jane Q. Public]

Sure, if you separate the word Aircraft in to "Air" and "Craft" you might be able to argue that one of the words could mean a manned vehicle.

It isn't my idea. It was the judge's reasoning about the intent of Congress when they wrote the law. Which is, in fact, pretty clear.

Even if you discount his reasoning about what Congress meant by "aircraft", the word "navigable" is not ambiguous at all: in this context it means passages that can be navigated by person-carrying vehicles.

Re:Why in America?

[kheldan]

Okay. We'll just turn a blind eye when Russia invades your poutine-eating, hockey-obsessing, lager-swilling asses.

Re:Why in America?

[Obfuscant]

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Re:Why in America?

[dreamchaser]

I'll buy that when you agree to take Justin Bieber back. Having him inflicted on the US is tantamount to an act of war.

Re:Why in America?

[Jane Q. Public]

Tell it to the judge. I repeat: this was his decision, not mine. And he very clearly disagreed with you.

Regardless of what the REGULATIONS say, the judge's ruling -- in part for reasons I gave above -- was that it was not Congress' intent to give FAA authority over non-navigable airspace, in the actual law that was passed.

Regulation and Congressional law are different things. And what rules the law is the intent of those who passed it.

Those are the rules. I didn't make them up.

Re:Why in America?

[Jane Q. Public]

I should add:

You might not have realized it, but you are pointing out exactly the issue that is raised here: the difference between current regulations, and the laws that authorized them.

My point was that the judge's decision says Congress did not intend to give FAA the authority to make all of those regulations. Some of them exceed FAA's authority. Obviously they did it anyway, but that was the whole point.

You are showing us the regulations in question, and trying to use them as proof of themselves. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Why in America?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Yeah they do, but they get reelected when they get out.

Re:Why in America?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

And Celine Dion.
But to be fair they did give us Rush.

Re:Why in America?

[Zenin]

And you would be completely correct....except for SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT, which effectively exempts the FAA from almost any authority over anything that could legitimately be called a model aircraft used in a legitimate way. Effectively it puts the AMA in charge of regulating model aircraft, just as the organization has done with astounding success and safety for the better part of a century.

Re:Why in America?

[Obfuscant]

And you would be completely correct....except for SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT, which effectively exempts the FAA from almost any authority over anything that could legitimately be called a model aircraft used in a legitimate way.

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft

Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.

Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.

Effectively it puts the AMA in charge of regulating model aircraft,

As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.

Re: Why in America?

[ewanm89]

If we are telling about the same incident involving a NYPD helicopter as I think we are, I believe the NYPD is being asked some serious questions over their involvement, seems to me both sides were likely breaking the law. I believe all the regulations state that one should not endanger other air traffic, which means both sides should give way, similar rules exist for boats where all craft must do what they can to avoid an incident.

As for the Phantom 2 flying near airfeilds, it carries onboard a database of airfields coordinates and used this to enforce strict limits on altitude around those coordinates (including a no fly zones altogether). This is actually an issue I'm the UK were you can get a commercial licence to operate unmanned aircraft and it's registered to a specific aircraft with proficiency test on operation of that aircraft being done at an airfield.

Re:Why in America?

[Jane Q. Public]

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Re: Why in America?

[Obfuscant]

I believe all the regulations state that one should not endanger other air traffic, which means both sides should give way,

The rule in the US is that the unmanned "model aircraft", if being flown under the exemption, must give way to manned aircraft.

This is actually an issue I'm the UK were you can get a commercial licence to operate unmanned aircraft and it's registered to a specific aircraft with proficiency test on operation of that aircraft being done at an airfield.

Could you imagine the uproar in the US if people were told they needed to take a test to be able to fly their toys?

Ballsy

[Dins]

Well that's pretty ballsy. "Yeah, we know you banned this with us in mind, but....can we do it anyway?"

Re:Ballsy

[Immerman]

You're assuming the reasoning wasn't "We know you banned this with us in mind - so here's the bribes you were counting on us paying so we can do it anyway"

Re:Ballsy

[OhPlz]

Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.

Re:Ballsy

[Obfuscant]

Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

Re:Ballsy

[no_go]

In the development of our current civil aviation environment, it has been found that the following process results in MORE safety.
If a certain technology is new:
- DO NOT allow widespread operation until such time that RISKS are well UNDERSTOOD and MITIGATED.
- Do a comprehensive (which means veeeery lengthy and expensive) test regime
- Account for risks (in terms of safety, security, etc...)
- Find ways to mitigate risk
- Create the relevant regulations
- Allow operation within the regulations

This means: NO commercial operations before this process is complete.

All aircraft manufacturers put their new designs (and in most cases , modifications of designs) through a demanding test regime.
Not doing so has been proven to be very very (very !!!!) bad !
Reading accident reports from the 1950 will show exactly why this is needed.

In this case, it is not only the design, but the mode of operation, which is significantly different from the remainder of aircraft (routes, density , etc..).
Any responsible regulator will be very careful with this.

With regards on commercial delivery operations on territories not under FAA regulations, I believe most advanced countries have the same kind of restrictions.
Most of the Civil Aviation authorities of advanced countries, will have regulation regarding experimental aircraft, and these will exclude commercial operations.

All this said, I believe most major Civil Aviation Authorities are looking into comercial drone operations.

Re:Ballsy

[OhPlz]

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

If you've followed the various stories here regarding drones you'd see that the feds have been dragging their feet for a long time. The federal courts have even contradicted the FAA on occasion, stating that they can't do a blanket ban on all uses of drones based on the simple fact that the FAA regulates US airspace. I remember that one clearly because the courts stated that the FAA would have to regulate paper airplanes, by that definition of their areas of responsibility.

I'm pushing it a bit saying they have no intent, but they're not exactly going out of their way to make it a priority. One has to wonder if this is even something that should involve the FAA. Drones (at least the smaller ones that are generally discussed) are a far different thing than what the FAA usually regulates.

Re:Ballsy

[OhPlz]

No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so. I could maybe understand the fed's stance against Amazon using drones for delivery, but blocking them from even developing the technology and testing it is quite a stretch. So long as they don't intrude on controlled airspace and they perform the tests over private property with permission, what harm could be done? Amazon would obviously take steps to avoid issues since they'd be liable for any havoc they caused. The government shouldn't intrude just for the sake of asserting authority over a new technology.

Besides which, the feds already operate drones of their own. Under what regulations are those operated by? A government drone is no less capable of causing problems than a commercially or privately operated drone would be. If this was truly a matter of public safety and risk control, the federally operated drones would be grounded as well. If those drones are regulated somehow, an interim solution could be to allow test use of commercial drones with the requirement that they follow the guidelines set for federally operated drones. This would prevent the FAA and politicians from holding back the development of this technology for purposes of corruption, i.e. appointing campaign donors to committees, setting up new regulating agencies and the $$$ contracts that would go with that, etc.

Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace and don't cross state borders, an argument could be made that this is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Re:Ballsy

[Obfuscant]

No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so.

They aren't. I've already cited the UAS information from the FAA.

There is a big difference between testing and development using the existing production system and using limited areas and tight control. The latter is the correct way of testing and development, as any software engineer should be able to tell you.

Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace

That's going to be very hard for a 50 MPH Amazon delivery drone to do, and even the toys can wind up there without much trouble at all. Given that Amazon has a strong presence in Seattle, and downtown Seattle has Boeing field, that means the controlled airspace extends from the surface up. SeaTac has even more restricted airspace, which includes a surface up for a distance of 30 miles.

and don't cross state borders,

You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.

Re:Ballsy

[russotto]

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

Seriously? That's one of the classic bureaucratic ways to block something, to form a program to "study" it.

Re:Ballsy

[OhPlz]

You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.

As if DC isn't the pinnacle of chaos. They won't allow drone use until they've figured out how to line their pockets with it. That's not how it should work.

Shrug.

[jaseuk]

Maybe Amazon should work with Google to build a locker on wheels using the self-driving car chassis. That seems a far more useful and practical long-term solution.

Jason.

Re:Shrug.

[Guspaz]

Cars have to deal with traffic. Amazon already has same-day delivery by road in some cities, but not in 30 minutes.

Re:Shrug.

[craighansen]

Drones had better learn to deal with traffic, too.

Re:Shrug.

[Zenin]

Sure, but it's a much, much easier problem to solve.

For starters, flying is analogous to driving only if every road had 1,000 lanes and there were such 1,000 road lanes leading directly in any direction from any point.

Or in other words, it's not at all analogous to "traffic" as folks typically think of it. A GPS module, a few cheap sonic sensors and/or slightly more expensive transponders, with basic collision avoidance software would easily solve the problem entirely. All of which I must add, are already on board any and all drones for the simple fact you can't navigate autonomously (more or less the definition of a "drone") without it. Anything less and you have a traditional R/C model aircraft, not a drone.

won't work

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

With the amount of gun owners in this country AND the number of paranoid, conspiracy nuts here; how many of those drones will make it to their destinations?

Re:won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeeehaaaww skeet shooting with prizes!!!!!!

Re:won't work

[paysonwelch]

They are most likely asking permission from the FAA to fly the drones at altitudes of around 1,000+ ft (not sure about the actual regulations) but this would be high enough that you would have to be a really good shot AND have a long range rifle. The thing is that most people aren't good shots let alone at that distance and compounding the fact that it's going to be a moving target at 50MPH.

Re:won't work

[Billy the Mountain]

Yeah! An' an' a free three year stay in th' crowbar ho-tel!

Re:won't work

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Good point, and that would work. I assume drone-deliveries would not be door-to-door.

Re:won't work

[jeIIomizer]

Paranoid? Conspiracy nuts? Have you seen what the government and corporations do? They don't care one bit about privacy.

Re:won't work

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

That's what the tazer equiped military style escorts that takes out anything taking a bead on the drone are for.

Re:won't work

[Zenin]

Why would you assume that?

Especially when it's the main highlight of Amazon's Prime Air concept video?

Re:won't work

[mark_reh]

I think Amazon's drones are going to stay close to the ground. Limited battery capacity means flights have to be short, especially carrying 5lb payloads. It seems more likely that a truck will pull into a neighborhood, open the doors and release a bunch of drones to drop packages for that neighborhood. They will then return to the truck and be driven to the next neighborhood where the process will be repeated.

Unless they come up with nuclear power, that's going to be the limit of their use.

The problem is that a 5 lb payload traveling at 50mph can do a lot of damage if it hits something, to say nothing of the damage the whirling blades could do. A 5 lb package dropped from 1000' would certainly kill someone.

These drones won't be used in rural areas because of the distance between delivery locations. They won't be very practical in urban areas because of the density of people and other things that could get damaged. They are best suited to suburban neighborhoods where potential delivery sites are close, but not too close, and power lines, etc., are minimal.

I don't think Amazon is overly concerned about people shooting at delivery drones. I'm sure they'd lose a few to gun "enthusiasts", and those stories will certainly make headline news because the press is stupid and gives gun "enthusiasts" publicity anytime they demand it by doing something stupid with a gun, but there are existing laws that cover shooting guns in populated areas and after a few get arrested, others may be discouraged from engaging in unsafe behavior.

Re:won't work

[DanielRavenNest]

I think it would be the inverse. A rather sizable drone delivers to a local distribution point like a pizza place (who are already set up for local delivery). The last few miles are done by auto the conventional way. The Amazon warehouse near a given city has a fleet of drones, who can bypass local traffic. They could be larger and faster due to aerodynamics, and more able to carry navigation and collision avoidance equipment. One drone could even fly a route, with multiple drop off points.

If you coordinate the deliveries with smartphones, you could even have it delivered while you eat lunch, or at home along with your pizza.

Visualing this?

[sycodon]

I'm having a hard time visualizing how this is going to work..

Will I see these things flying over my neighborhood at 300 feet and then drop down to my front door?
Will the package be left on the lawn?
If they have 20 deliveries to my 600 home neighborhood, will they send 20 drones or send a few drones multiple times?
What is the range of these drones?
Will they send a text or call and essentially say, "come and get it?"
Wind? Rain? Construction (cranes, concrete pumpers, other tall equipment. Trees?
Automated or manned? Will there be Job postings or drone pilots?

Re:Visualing this?

[PPH]

If they have 20 deliveries to my 600 home neighborhood, will they send 20 drones or send a few drones multiple times?

Submunitions

Re:Visualing this?

[beltsbear]

I think that is what needs to be worked out by testing.

While the FAA is probably not going to allow any of this, 300' would be too high as helicopters can be in that zone.

If the FAA were to approve it (which they wont), it would have to be at a low height like 50' or less, limited weight, lots of safety features, human observation, not allowed in winds and probably a ton of things I have not thought of.

One could make a foam covered, enclosed fan drone that could do the job that would do little (but not zero) damage if it failed. The problem is that it would still weigh something and could in a failure fall uncontrolled into anything.

Re:Visualing this?

[Sockatume]

Given the accuracy of GPS, it'll probably wind up on your roof, up a tree, or down the chimney, which means it'll still be an improvement over Yodel.*

*Substitute infamously incompetent carrier for your region here.

I kid, but seriously, a mail order that's installing lockers and authorised delivery points every few hundred yards and seriously talking about flying fucking robots as an improvement in service is a damning indictment of the package delivery business.

Re:Visualing this?

[MindStalker]

He's my vision, though I haven't been able to get Amazon to think about it..

Truck drives down neighborhood road slowly. Drones enter and leave the back of the truck as it drives delivering packages to houses within a 500 feet distance.

Truck can skip every other road or so.

Re:Visualing this?

[SenatorPerry]

You are making this too complicated.

They drive a truck with a wireless mast and a flat bed to your neighborhood. It will simply deliver all the packages one at a time based on GPS to your home. The driver of the truck will monitor and manually adjust as needed. A single person will have a 20-30 second job and then wait for the drone to buzz when the next package is at a home. With a good range on the truck you can cover several miles with one person without the need for utilizing a delivery service. A single person may also be able to handle 4-6 drones at once. They hover until the driver is able to deliver the package to the door.

Once delivered they will do the normal confirmation email. Regarding cranes and other items, it is required to register and have a beacon light on masts of a certain height. It will just need to be entered as a no-fly zone or a minimum elevation zone. Regardless, the drones don't just go from A-B. They can sense nearby objects. If one happens to be taken out, the driver just drives to the location to retrieve it. Maybe has a ladder... Nothing really complicated.

Re:Visualing this?

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

I imagine they would have designated pick-up and drop-off facilities. Otherwise, someone is more likely to shoot them down during assent/descent.

Re:Visualing this?

[SeaFox]

Given the accuracy of GPS, it'll probably wind up on your roof, up a tree, or down the chimney...

Kids! Santa's outsourcing!

Re:Visualing this?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Now that would be an interesting novelty. A sleigh and reindeer shaped drone.
"Hey kids look that's Santa flying over there."

Government control of our lives...

[mi]

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

Today one must get a permission to drive a car, carry a weapon, perform in costume, or, indeed, to fly a drone.

And this prohibition does not even come from Congress directly — having usurped so much control over our lives over the last century, they are simply unable to deal with the minutiae and are forced to delegate more and more of the rule-making to the Executive-run agencies — such as the FAA.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[RobinH]

I thought the idea was that you had that right, but only up to the point where it infringes on someone else's right to the same. So, for instance, you being an idiot and driving your car over a pedestrian infringes on their right to the pursuit of happiness. You see, when it comes to behaviors that put others at significant risk, why only punish the ones who were unlucky enough to have the negative outcome actually happen, when the act of performing the risky behavior was what you had control over, and what you should be prevented from doing in the first place? Similarly, Amazon flying drones over residential neighborhoods sounds pretty risky to me, even though I do appreciate the coolness of being able to have something delivered in 30 minutes. Therefore I'm not sure this ban is such a bad thing until we can prove suitable precautions are being taken.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[rhodium_mir]

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

Which days were those?

Re:Government control of our lives...

[HBI]

So we got rid of human slavery but are forced to endure ...human slavery? Is that your argument?

Re:Government control of our lives...

[CanHasDIY]

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

And if my pursuit of happiness involves not having some noisy-ass quadcopter fly 50 feet over my house every time the neighbor orders a new bauble?

You forget, that whole "pursuit of happiness" meme has to be reconciled with the concept of, "unless it infringes other's right to the same."

Re:Government control of our lives...

[Overzeetop]

You still can do pretty much any of those things on your own land, just as you could in the 1800s. You can build your own gun, drive an unregistered car, and perform practically any work for your own personal enjoyment.

What part of liberty allow you to do anything you damned well please on *somebody else's* property? Cause if you think you can fire a gun or perform Shakespeare or ride your 4 wheeler in my back yard then FUCK YOU! Because that's the American way.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[ravenscar]

While I agree with the spirit of your post in many ways, this is different as it involves airspace. If you own property, you have certain rights to the air over it. When flying things were an obvious link to the future it became necessary to think about the world in a new way. It wouldn't be practical for flying things to obtain rights of passage from every property owner. Similarly, the rights of property owners to the sanctity of their airspace had to be considered. Someone had to think about how to govern the air. Congress could, but it would be far too involved and require far too many frequent changes for Congress to do an effective job. As such, provisions were made to delegate this authority to the FAA. This is similar, in spirit, to the FCC which also governs things (radio waves) that enter your property with or without your permission.

I agree with your concern about concentration of power in the Executive Branch, but with the pace of change in this particular space, I just don't see a preferable alternative. Perhaps dividing the organizations - rules created by a committee that is appointed by and reports to Congress with enforcement remaining in the Executive Branch. Still, I imagine this would result in unacceptably slow rule changes and updates by the rule makers.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[penix1]

OK... Let's just burst your anti-government bubble there..

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

To start with, you are confusing your documents. The quote you give is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution which is the document establishing our government. Next, you assume that there is a "Creator". All I got to say is show me. Lastly, your rights end where others rights begin. It would be pure anarchy otherwise as I will demonstrate below.

Today one must get a permission to drive a car, carry a weapon, perform in costume [LINK OMITTED], or, indeed, to fly a drone.

Drive a car: So in your world you would allow everyone, regardless of demonstrated ability to do so, drive a car on public roads? Sounds like a plan to me... A plan for death and mayhem that is. Besides, this is State government not Federal requiring the license. If you had actually read the Constitution, you would know that States have far more power to regulate than the Feds.

Carry a weapon: Again in your world, convicted violent offenders should be allowed weapons even while they are in prison for murder? I also bet you believe that you should also be allowed nuclear weapons too right?

Perform in costume: That is a city ordinance. Again, not fed and not even State. I am sure NYC has a reason for that ordinance, take it up with them.

Fly a drone: There have been many instances where these drones have caused passenger airliners to almost crash. The more they are allowed, the higher the probability will become that one will cause a crash. One can only hope you are on the plane that crashes because of it. Again, your rights end where others begin. That is the job of these agencies. They oversee the public spaces such as airspace.

And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).

Re:Government control of our lives...

[Motard]

Ah, but here you are mistaking the difference between a corporate entity and a person.

Unless you believe Citizens United the rights of a corporation are different than those of a person.

There really is no difference within this context. If I have a lemonade stand and would like to deliver lemonade by drone I would be subject to the same regulations as Amazon. Just as I'd be subject to health department regulations like Applebee's is.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore I'm not sure this ban is such a bad thing until we can prove suitable precautions are being taken.

Define suitable. I deem it suitble that you are restrained and never write anything online ever again because my feelings could be irreparably damaged. No amount of safety features in the car prevents the fool from running you over, and once you're dead you can never get back your freedom. What right have you to restrict others from enjoying their freedom to kill? If you don't want to be killed, don't go outside, and employ suitable protection in the form of a hiered guard or firearm.

The truth is that there are no rights, only restrictions. In the absence of all rules there is nature. In nature you are not limited in your doings, even if they be detrimental to others -- Especially so, elsewise competition and natural selection wouldn't have gotten very far. There is complete freedom to act without any rules. This is where freedom comes from. Freedom is a natural state of being. Free peoples agree to accept some restrictions such that they may employ the hiered guards (police/military) to defend the common interest against obvious harm. However, laws can be made which are frivolous: It's illegal to own too many sex toys in texas, or to fish from the back of a camel.

Because the rules are all restrictions to some freedom they must be constantly tested, and overturned. This has been taken from you. The citizens had one check and ballance against the legal system: Jurry Nullification. Now judges ask jurors before accepting the jury if they will rule according to the law at hand, and they will dismiss the jury that would nullify the law.

Furthermore your ability to weigh in on what laws restrict you has been taken from you. This Prinston study shows that the common free man has no sway over their government, who was entrusted to employ the armed guards which enforce the laws you are subject to. You are no longer free to influence this system of restrictions then the contract is broken. You have no legitimate government. Your follow restrictions while the elites grant each other exceptions: A law is that which is applied universally.

Thus, you now live in a lawless world, without freedom. Even the absolute highest freedom, To take ones own life, has been taken from you by those that farm you. The farmers don't think it wise for the chattle to kill themselves since they can still be milked by medical companies. The livestock shant be granted the techonology or armarmant that the farmers employ, lest they rise up. A watchful eye is needed to shackle intelligent beasts.

A clever ruse that it is "rights" and not "restrictions" that come from on high, can sometimes ease the bitter medicine of reality. I feel sorry for you, but you don't have my pitty.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[PvtVoid]

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

Mod parent up. We all know that God specifically wanted airspace full of unlicensed pilots operating entirely without rules. Yeee Haw!

Re:Government control of our lives...

[retchdog]

snarky, but yes, basically. slavery has gotten a lot nicer over the years, and it isn't just insidious mind control (there's a bit of that too). life has actually gotten better.

anyway, the actual point you have missed was that the idea of returning to some pristine state of freedom is platonist nonsense. there never was such a thing.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[PvtVoid]

So we got rid of human slavery but are forced to endure ...human slavery? Is that your argument?

Very true. Having to be licensed to fly a commercial drone over residential areas is slavery, plain and simple.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[mi]

you being an idiot and driving your car over a pedestrian infringes on their right to the pursuit of happiness

Sure. And any such idiots ought to be punished — and have their right to drive a car suspended. But this has nothing to do with the preventive prohibition — which is what the license requirement amounts to.

You see, when it comes to behaviors that put others at significant risk

Risky driving — or drone-flying — can be prohibited. People engaging in it may lose their right to drive (or fly drones) at all — or be punished otherwise — that's fine and normal. What I do not approve of, however, is the preemptive requirement to have a government's permission to do anything.

why only punish the ones who were unlucky enough to have the negative outcome actually happen

Because determining, what's really risky and what is not, is only a little bit easier, than detecting a murderer before he kills...

Similarly, Amazon flying drones over residential neighborhoods sounds pretty risky to me

It does, huh? You don't mind the thousands-pounds piloted aircraft flying above your all day, you don't mind the trucks driving around all day (delivering the same stuff), it is the light drones, that keep you awake at night?

not sure this ban is such a bad thing until we can prove suitable precautions are being taken

That, right there, is the key to our disagreement. You want everybody, who wish to fly a drone, to prove, they've "taken precautions". I don't believe, you ought to have the power to impose such a requirement. The burden of proof ought to be on you.

Now, that was philosophical. Now comes the more practical. Amazon being the 800-pound gorilla, can afford to argue with the government — they can not be ignored. They even managed to get the USPS to offer Sunday delivery — though now it seems available to all.

But the FAA simply killed other attempts to use drones — such as for the delivery of flowers. The barrier to entry — to start competing with the incumbent behemoths — was upped, and we the consumers are losing. No wonder, Amazon aren't suing to overturn the FAA's decision — any favorable overcome would apply to all. They are merely asking for exception — for themselves. Crony capitalism much?

Re:Government control of our lives...

[mi]

1850, say, when personal happiness was a Natural Right?

Happiness was never a right. Pursuit of it was.

As long as you were legally a person and didn't need to ask your owner's or husband's permission?

Yes, as long as you were legally a person.

That a personhood was unjustly denied to some was a travesty, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[TC Wilcox]

And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).

Somalia once had a strong (and oppressive) central government. It collapsed. Somalia is an example of what happens when strong, oppressive central governments collapse. Telling people who want less government to go to a Somalia may seem pithy, but it really just shows ignorance of history.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[RobinH]

That, right there, is the key to our disagreement. You want everybody, who wish to fly a drone, to prove, they've "taken precautions".

I don't think this is as black and white as you seem to indicate. Nobody's stopping me from building a drone in my garage and even flying it out in a field, as long as I follow some reasonable restrictions that were setup based on experience with model airplanes. The restrictions are on commercial use, and the FAA is basically saying: these things are dangerous when you fly them over a population, and we need rules in place with proper safety procedures before it's allowed. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Yes, I wish they would hurry up. However, what are the chances that these drones are designed such that in the event of a failure, the likelihood of hurting someone on the ground is mitigated? Does every system have 1 or 2 backup systems? Doubtful. Has anyone done an analysis of how dangerous the impact will be? What's the likelihood of surviving a direct hit? What's the likelihood of it happening? Is there a safe reference design? Are there regulated auditors who can certify these designs against a published specification to certify them for flying over a population? Certainly when I build an industrial machine there are published standards regarding machine safety that I have to adhere to, and I must have the design stamped by a P.Eng. before the machine can be used in a production environment.

I'm all for this technology, but I know human nature when it comes to people willing to put other people in harm's way to make money. The FAA is right to ban these, for the moment. Amazon should be working with the FAA and other stakeholders to draft a proper set of rules to allow flying these things over a residential neighborhood. This is hardly unreasonable. The "anything goes" mentality is just BS.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[GPS Pilot]

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

Everyone understands that this is a fundamental tenet of the founding documents of the United States, but that doesn't prevent it from being quietly ignored by those who, say, disparage the Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties."

Re:Government control of our lives...

[retchdog]

Yeah, as opposed to all those functional anarchies in the world.

Go work on seasteading or the NH Free State Project; make it work and give us positive examples if you don't like Somalia.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[rhodium_mir]

If you want to deliver dimethylmercury by drone there are even more regulations... This is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM SLAVERY!

Re:Government control of our lives...

[Deadstick]

It does, huh? You don't mind the thousands-pounds piloted aircraft flying above your all day, you don't mind the trucks driving around all day (delivering the same stuff), it is the light drones, that keep you awake at night?

The airplanes flying overhead don't land in my neighborhood.

The UPS trucks park in my neighborhood according to well-tested and well-enforced procedures, just as I do.

A drone big enough to deliver, say, a laptop on my driveway is big enough to kill my dog or the neighbor's kid. Until I know that little detail has been taken care of, you're damn right I have the right to impose such a requirement. Whine about the freedom of the open range all you like; we've come too far to go back to writing our rules in blood.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[Deadstick]

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

Yes, very long gone. They died when we gave up on hunter-gathering, settled into fixed dwellings, and the first genius figured out that the soup would taste better if the privy were downstream.

Re:Government control of our lives...

[TC Wilcox]

Your statement baffles me. Somalia does not have laws against any of the things OP complained about. You can shoot people via drone while wearing a costume from your car while talking on a cell phone! That this anarcho-capitalist paradise sprung from the ashes of an oppressive regime (worst than NYC, even) seems beside the point.

I'm not sure why my statement would baffle you. I never claimed that things were great in Somalia; I only claimed that Somalia is the result government failure. I'm not an anarchist, but I am familiar the standard anarchist response to your statement. It goes something like this.... No one ever claimed that the mere absence of a government is sufficient for bliss. The claim is that adding an institution of organized theft and violence will make anywhere worse. Also, in regards to Somalia in particular, in the time since the government of Somalia has collapsed: (1) life expectancy has gone up, (2) death rates have gone down, (3) GDP has nearly tripled, (4) infant mortality is lower, (5) a larger percentage of the population has access to water, and (6) more adults are literate. It seems like by many measures Somalia has done better without a government than they did with a government.

Promo stunt

[djupedal]

Amazon is just looking to get in on yet another news cycle. Maybe charlie rose is ready to fawn all over them again...

Kiki vs Ramona

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take cute girls on Roller Skates or Cute Witches on Brooms....

Press quotes

[Sockatume]

Jeff Bezos was quoted as saying "C'moooooooooooooooooon!", and promising lawmakers that he would "totally let them have a go driving it" after he did some "sweet loops".

Ballsy

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 'Yeah, we knew you were going to try this, and we're gonna block it until we get our bribe"

It's "pursuit of happiness"

[jsrjsr]

The founders of the US didn't say that anyone had the right to "personal happiness" -- just the right to pursue it. And no one can prevent you from pursuing happiness. The best they can do is make sure you never achieve it.

Re:We have to get away from instant gratification

[OhPlz]

What are you doing on Slashdot? Subscribe to a magazine that covers stories like this, write your letter to the editor and wait a month for a possible response. You're so impatient posting on a site where you can get near-immediate feedback. This nonsense needs to be shut down now.

Robber Barrons 2.0

[mariox19]

This has been the favored business model of big players in this country since before the railroads. From what I can gather, it began with the canals. Monied interests get in bed with politicians and use the law to squeeze out everyone else. I think you're absolutely right. And none of us should be surprised when Amazon, whose web services host a number of government departments, and whose CEO owns one of the two major newspapers in the country, is granted an "exception."

This is how the crooked game is played.

Tell me how this is suppposed to work.

[westlake]

In the run up to launching the service, which aims to deliver packages in 30 minutes or less, the online retailer is developing aerial vehicles that travel over 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour, and will carry 5pound (2.3 kilogram) payloads...

30 minutes at 50 mph = 25 miles out from the warehouse and a one hour round-trip.

It's difficult to see the market for this service as anything other than single family residence, upper class suburban.

25 miles out from the Amazon regional "distribution center" seems just about right --- and at ten runs a day per drone, you are shipping a bare 50 pounds of cargo a day per drone.

Weather permitting.

How do you make this pay?

Re:Tell me how this is suppposed to work.

[Khashishi]

It's a marketing ploy, not a logistical development.

Re:Tell me how this is suppposed to work.

[Aqualung812]

How do you make this pay?

The customer pays. You can have it free in two days, tomorrow for $5, or in 2 hours for $30.

That's $300 per drone per day, plus the reduction in paying FexEx to do it.

I think there are enough people that would pay $30 for something NOW.

Re:Tell me how this is suppposed to work.

[ScentCone]

It's difficult to see the market for this service as anything other than single family residence, upper class suburban.

Or to the rooftop mail room chute in a large office building that might contain hundreds of Amazon business customers. If you're picturing suburban doorstep delivery to un-prepared recipients, you're imagining the wrong scenario.

Re:Tell me how this is suppposed to work.

[Neil Boekend]

That depends, do they offer Belgian beers chilled to the right temperature?

Re:We have to get away from instant gratification

[PvtVoid]

Nothing from Amazon requires 30 minute delivery.

Well, almost.

Highway funds

[tepples]

Besides, this is State government not Federal requiring the license.

Congress forces the states to incorporate certain uniform provisions in traffic laws, such as a drinking age of 21. It does this by bribing the states with "highway funds" taken from citizens of other states under authority granted through the postal and commerce clauses.

Perform in costume: That is a city ordinance. Again, not fed and not even State. I am sure NYC has a reason for that ordinance, take it up with them.

In the case of dressing up as an identifiable character from a non-free work of fiction, it could be a Lanham Act violation or copyright violation, which is federal. But otherwise, such an ordinance amounts to a dress code for appearing on public sidewalks. How would I go about searching for what other cities have an analogous ordinance?

I see another set of patents coming out of this

[Geste]

Amazon.com patents "A method to petition Federal agencies for permission to test drones outdoors for use in a campaign to further hype the company and erect barriers to competitive drone-delivery buzz."

More skeet targets for me

[WillAffleckUW]

Dang but I'm going to have fun!

It's my airspace - when you decided to fly over it with a privacy-disabled drone, you made your drone MY property.

Re:More skeet targets for me

[WillAffleckUW]

The supreme court does NOT agree with you - this is a QUICK path to jail FYI.

Which supreme court?

Washington State has stronger privacy RIGHTS than the rest of America, and even SCOTUS has upheld rulings about privacy by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Pull!

Re:More skeet targets for me

[WillAffleckUW]

And what if they only fly over the roadways until they arrive at the address to deliver to?

Lots of stuff flies over roadways. Invisible wires, for example.

Re:More skeet targets for me

[Enigma2175]

So are you going to take potshots at police and medical helicopers as well? Because they are "invading your privacy" just as much as a drone (police probably more, they tend to have powerful optics).

Re:Open Season! I'm gonna pop some drones

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm gonna pop some drones

only got 20 rounds in my pockets

gonna get some CDs and some jerky

this is (FCC DELETED) awesome!
 

I wear your granddad's clothes,

They look incredible.

I got them from a drone

That Amazon flew above the road
 

ITT Tech

[zlives]

Meet Chuck, a drone mechanic and a DARN good one.

The ONLY people

[Stan92057]

The ONLY people who will benefit from this are Lawyers.

Anyone here order pizza?

[westlake]

10 runs a day? Where did you pull that out of? Your butt? If the delivery is 30 min or less they can do 24 runs in a day - MINIMUM.

You want that 5 pound canary yellow or blaze orange parcel drop on your front lawn while you're sleeping or away from home?

Re:Anyone here order pizza?

[s0nicfreak]

If you don't, then you don't set it to be delivered at that time.
Personally, at my house, there are very few periods of time when no one is home or awake - I have a family, and we don't all leave/sleep at the same time.
I also live in a neighborhood where I'm comfortable leaving a package on my lawn for a few hours... and my dog is going to bark if anyone gets near it, anyway (which will wake me up).

Great Idea

[LifesABeach]

I was going to do the same thing.

Re:Here in Seattle...

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

This is yet another example of the hatred Bezos has for the common person. He doesn't care if we get killed while waiting at a bus stop by one of his drones. We just don't fucking matter to CONservatives like him.

Another moron talking cluelessly about politics. Bezos is a Democrat.

Re:We have to get away from instant gratification

[s0nicfreak]

I do not see 30 minute delivery as a beneficial in any way.

I'm in the middle of a sewing or knitting project, and I run out of thread or yarn. If I can order it with 30 minute delivery, I do not have to wait hours for my husband to get home with the car so I can finish the project. If it is something I'm making for sale and there is a time limit (say, it's suppose to ship out tomorrow or the next day) this can be vital.

The power is out, and the batteries in my radio die. .

I'm sitting on the toilet and run out of toilet paper. .

Heck I can think of a million reasons.