Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-thought-asking-forgiveness-was-better dept.

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.

30 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Why in America? by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Why in America? by kheldan · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Why in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Why in America? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like prostitution?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Why in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:Why in America? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Why in America? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:Why in America? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    8. Re:Why in America? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Ballsy by Dins · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Shrug. by jaseuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. won't work by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeeehaaaww skeet shooting with prizes!!!!!!

    2. Re:won't work by paysonwelch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:won't work by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  5. Government control of our lives... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Government control of our lives... by RobinH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Government control of our lives... by HBI · · Score: 2

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

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Government control of our lives... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Government control of our lives... by ravenscar · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Government control of our lives... by penix1 · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  6. Promo stunt by djupedal · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  7. Re:Visualing this? by PPH · · Score: 2

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

    Submunitions

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Re:Visualing this? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Ballsy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  10. Re:Visualing this? by SenatorPerry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. It's "pursuit of happiness" by jsrjsr · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. Re:We have to get away from instant gratification by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:We have to get away from instant gratification by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    Nothing from Amazon requires 30 minute delivery.

    Well, almost.

  14. Re:Tell me how this is suppposed to work. by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.