Amazon Wins US Regulators' Approval To Test-fly Drone

mpicpp sends word that Amazon drones may soon deliver your packages. "Amazon.com Inc has won U.S. federal regulators' approval to test a delivery drone, as the e-commerce giant pursues a vision of speeding packages to customers through the air amid public concern over the safety and privacy implications. The Federal Aviation Administration said on Thursday it had issued an experimental airworthiness certificate to an Amazon unit and its prototype drone design, allowing it to conduct outdoor test flights on private, rural land in Washington state. The experimental certificate applies to a particular drone design and Amazon must obtain a new certification for test flights if it modifies the drone. In return, the company must supply monthly data to the regulators, and conduct flights at 400 feet (120 meters) or below and in 'visual meteorological conditions,' according to the FAA's certificate. The drone operators must also have a private pilots' license and current medical certification."

Comments

Also

[fyngyrz]

The drone operators must touch their toes five times an hour, say 10 hail Marys, make a widdershins circle with the controller every time they change the drone's direction, and apply for a variance for each different package the drone carries. More regulations to follow.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded down not for the content of your post, but for the content of your sig.

Re:Also

[Jane Q. Public]

The drone operators must touch their toes five times an hour, say 10 hail Marys, make a widdershins circle with the controller every time they change the drone's direction, and apply for a variance for each different package the drone carries. More regulations to follow.

And as I've stated here too many times to count now, the FAA does not have lawful authority to regulate drones that do not intrude on "Navigable" airspace, whether they are commercial or not. Navigable airspace are common altitudes and airways used for interstate commerce (including areas around airports).

Neither the Constitution, or the Air Commerce Act, which authorized the creation of the FAA in the first place, give it authority to regulate all the air, everywhere. A Federal judge has already ruled on this matter. His injunction against the FAA is on hold pending appeal, but for reasons already given (which the judge mentioned in his ruling by the way), it is unlikely it will win the appeal.

In the meantime, it's trying to regulate everything in sight in hopes of having a "done deal" by the time it's shot down.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

How very very weird. All of these restrictions and not just "have lots of insurance in case you crash into stuff or accidentally kill people with it".

Its an automated aircraft. I'd just go with lots of insurance instead of silly rules.

Re:Also

[viperidaenz]

Nah, just have it controlled by a third party limited liability company with very few assets.

Re:Also

[Alioth]

Navigable airspace in the US starts at the surface, everywhere. Don't confuse class G airspace with the idea that it's unregulated.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thank you for proving my point. Classic misuse of the mod system. Moron.

This time I modded you down for the content of your post. Classic proper use of the mod system. Maroon.

Re:Also

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it doesn't, except around airports.

"Navigable airways", in this context and the legal sense, are designated altitudes and routes used for interstate travel and commerce. They only approach the ground around airports, where they HAVE TO, of course.

Look up the Air Commerce Act, and the Congressional debates surrounding it. The intent was very clear, and the Federal judge who has already ruled on this issue agrees with me.

Re:Also

[Jane Q. Public]

I'll elaborate a little bit: the term "navigable" comes from the context of interstate trade routes, originally trails, roads, or waterways. In particular, in terms of airways and waterways, it means routes used for interstate travel.

5 feet off the ground -- or even 200 feet off the ground -- is not legally considered to be "navigable" airspace ANYWHERE... except around airports where it is necessary for takeoff and landing. Nobody routinely travels interstate at those altitudes.

The entire authority of the FAA comes from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It has no authority over in-state, non-interstate-commerce routes or airspace.

Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Firethorn]

The certificate and rules sound mostly good. A private pilot's license isn't a commercial license, it's fairly easy to get, but ensures that you know the 'rules of the air' like a person with a driver's license presumably knows the rules of the road.

Medical certification is supposed to ensure that they don't keel over while flying.

While this would be paranoid rules for what's supposed to be an autonomous drone, keep in mind that this is the prototype phase - and when you're testing new aircraft, you don't go for an average pilot, while self-driving cars are allowed on the road for testing, unless they're on a closed track they still need a rated human driver available to take over if something goes wrong, etc...

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[rwa2]

Sounds pretty cool... if Amazon didn't have such a reputation for being a nerd sweatshop in the Seattle area, I'd be finishing up my private pilots' license and applying :P

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[moogied]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The privates pilot license isn't "easy to get" it requires hundreds of hours and over 10 grand. "The rules of the air" don't apply under 400 feet in rural areas anyways. The medical certificate is a joke because these aren't planes, they're drones largely driven by software. This isn't a guy pushing a rod connected by mechanical linkage to some flaps. Its a guy pushing a joystick which is just 2 sets of POTS that gets translated into a number and fired off to the drone. The drone then checks those numbers and attempts to perform the command.

Almost all recreational drones(IE the cheap crap ones) have autoland feature when something goes wrong.

So where is the concern? If the FAA wasn't a bunch of ignorant old people the requirement would be straightforward and simple for testing this:

1. GPS must be active. If it goes off or detects it leaves the area permitted it MUST immediately land using an auto land feature.

2. Drink hot coco while flying. For the hell of it,

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Firethorn]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The privates pilot license isn't "easy to get" it requires hundreds of hours and over 10 grand.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say "easy to get" so while your strawman is indeed wrong, I'm still correct(for a given level of correct). The modifier 'fairly' is important here, in that my intent was to imply that the private license is far easier to get than other types of pilot license. Which it is.

The concern here is that the drones aren't going to be the relatively small ones flown non-commercially, they're designed to actually haul packages. So they're going to have to be relatively heavyweight. The FAA can relax it's standards some once it starts getting a better idea of the capabilities of the prototype.

Also, consider this - it's a lot easier this way to relax the 400' rule, the rural rule, and other things that would trigger a need for a pilot(remember prototype), as testing shows that the drone can do it's think.

Again, prototype - how do you know the autoland feature works right, every time? You have to test this, and during the testing you want higher skilled/more certified people at the controls.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[zarthrag]

They are on rural land, clearly not within the airspace of an actual tower, and must stay below 400' and within visual range. ...What's the point of requiring a license and medical?

This is like the NHTSA telling you that (because you're a company) you can't drive your four-wheeler on private land (that has no roads). If you do, be sure that all drivers have a valid driver's license, a recent medical exam, don't 4-wheel at night, and don't you dare go on any actual roads! They would also like detailed logs of each time you drive, and when you get stuck.

I can't begin to understand this over-reach. I suppose the above comment will get R/C cars regulated. I mean they *could* go on regular roads and cause a wreck!

Which brings up another point. "Drone" is meant to be at least semi-autonomous, and certainly BVR (beyond visual range). These restrictions are simply commercial R/C flight, at best.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

40 hours, actually. If you are any good.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[the_bard17]

I must be some kind of genius, then. I picked up my ticket in less than 60 hours and less than $3,000 US, ten years ago.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[ShanghaiBill]

The certificate and rules sound mostly good.

Actually, they are mostly idiotic. Drones should be regulated based on weight, altitude, speed, location, payload, method of control, etc. But, instead, by far the most important consideration the FAA considers, is how much the pilot is being paid.

A private pilot's license isn't a commercial license, it's fairly easy to get, but ensures that you know the 'rules of the air'

No, it ensures nothing. Because it isn't required. Unless the pilot is paid.

Medical certification is supposed to ensure that they don't keel over while flying.

No, it ensures nothing. Medical certification is not required. Unless the pilot is paid.

The FAA should start focusing on public safety, and stop trying to run a protection racket to keep drones from competing with piloted aircraft.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Dunbal]

Yes it's very important to have the operator of an automated craft not die after he presses the "Start" button on the program.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[viperidaenz]

This isn't a guy pushing a rod connected by mechanical linkage to some flaps. Its a guy pushing a joystick which is just 2 sets of POTS that gets translated into a number and fired off to the drone. The drone then checks those numbers and attempts to perform the command.

Congratulation, you just described all modern Airbus commercial aeroplanes after the A320 and the Boeing 777. They're also fly-by-computer

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Firethorn]

Again 'Prototype'. They can relax the restrictions later once more is known about the craft Amazon is developing.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[CaptQuark]

Requiring a drone operator to get a private pilot's license is just another way to discourage commercial use of drones and does nothing to improve the safety of the drone.

It makes about as much sense as requiring a bicyclist to get a motorcycle license or a snorkeler to get a diving certification.

~~

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[fred911]

" it's a lot easier this way to relax the 400' rule, "

  Here' another perfect example of the FAA over stepping their authority. In uncontrolled airspace anything below 1200 AGL is class G airspace where basically anything goes. It's perfectly legal to fly a remote controlled vehicle
without any permissions or license up to that level.

  The FAA suggested 400' there's no rule.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Crash24]

In practice, it's typically 60-80 hours...depending on how much bilking^W practice your instructor thinks you need.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Alioth]

Speak for yourself - I got my FAA PPL in about 50 hours and adjusted to today's dollars it probably cost less than half of that.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Rich0]

The certificate and rules sound mostly good. A private pilot's license isn't a commercial license, it's fairly easy to get, but ensures that you know the 'rules of the air' like a person with a driver's license presumably knows the rules of the road.

The rules of the air are useless 400' above the earth - they're only designed to allow pilots to operate around other aircraft, and these drones won't operate there, at least not for now. Frankly, if they ever do operate autonomously at altitude the rules of the air that exist today will be worthless anyway.

A pilot's license is also not easy to get. For starters, you generally need to not be terrified of flying in a small plane, which by itself is something probably half the US population would fail to satisfy. Mostly it is about stick and rudder skills that are useless in a drone, and which also not everybody has. It is also very expensive - at a minimum you need about 40 hours of flight time, much of it accompanied by an instructor. Planes rent for about $120/hr in most places, if you want something from the 70s.

while self-driving cars are allowed on the road for testing, unless they're on a closed track they still need a rated human driver available to take over if something goes wrong, etc...

These drones aren't being allowed "on the road" - they're being restricted to below 400' and in fairly uninhabited areas. You're legally allowed to operate a fully-autonomous vehicle in your back yard without any human inside as long as it doesn't go out onto the roads. Otherwise you'd need a license to buy a Roomba.

If Amazon wanted to test landing a drone at KSFO then certainly requiring an instrument-rated pilot at the helm would make a lot more sense - they're going to be in controlled airspace talking to ATC and essentially operating under IFR in an environment where a mistake might kill hundreds of people. This isn't that.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[VAXcat]

SO...you think a medical certificate should be required to fly a 20-30 pound drone, but any schlub with a driver's license can pilot a 2 ton UPS truck on public streets to deliver packages? The medical certificate shouldn't be required for general aviation pilots, much less drone pilots - studies show it doesn't make a difference.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Firethorn]

SO...you think a medical certificate should be required to fly a 20-30 pound drone,

Do you know what 'paranoid' means? They're very conservative, overkill rules. But I expect the rules to be stringent for prototype work.

As for the medical certificate for general pilots, try getting rid of it and see how people scream.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

you're nothing but a statist prick apologist.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about time somebody called out these statists for their absolute garbage logic.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[dwillden]

Those schlubs do require a current DOT card and fall under DOT driving regulations and limits and have to maintain a clean driving record. (i.e. 60 hours per week max, no more than 14 hours in a single day etc.) And they are monitored like crazy. Seatbelt buckled when moving, back and interior bulkhead doors closed, backing too much, total distance driven during the route (and compared with the computer estimated route and times). And let's see that drone deliver 60" flat screen TV's.

I drove for UPS this last holiday season, and I really doubt UPS is at all worried. The amount of volume a single schlub driving a package car can deliver and pickup in a single day is quite surprising. The swarms of drones that would be required just for smaller packages would be overwhelming, let alone being able to handle large and odd shaped packages, envelopes and large volume deliveries and pickups.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

The privates pilot license isn't "easy to get" it requires hundreds of hours and over 10 grand.

Calling bullshit on this one. You're clearly thinking of a commercial pilot's license (more likely an air transport pilot's license). Pilot's license only requires a minimum of 35 hours (or did when I got mine) although the average is usually more like 50. It'll cost a few grand (mostly plane rental), but not ten.

As for the autoland feature, that's all well and good if you're flying over a field or other sparsely populated area. It could cause a serious accident if the drone happened to be above a busy multilane highway, or a schoolyard full of kids. (And we're talking fair sized drones here, if they're doing deliveries.)

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[tlhIngan]

They are on rural land, clearly not within the airspace of an actual tower,

Non-sequitor. You can be in controlled airspace over rural property. In fact, the airport where I did my training was like that. There was a suburb to the west of it, but to the east was all farmland, highways and a bog, all in controlled airspae Granted, it was uncontrolled below 1500', but that was because there were two airparks nearby there as well.

What's the point of requiring a license and medical?

Here's where /. ignorance shows. (For a group of people who desire everyone not be ignorant of something (i.e., computers), they are plenty ignorant of other things, it seems)

A pilot's license doesn't actually expire. Once you have it, you have it. Neither does the radio license. They're both yours until you die. There's nothing you can really do to get rid of that.

Ah, but you say, surely the FAA can revoke it, right? Sort of. You see, just having a pilot's license and a radio license doesn't make you legal to fly anywhere. You have to have a medical - the trifecta of pilot's license, radio license and medical makes you legal to fly anywhere in the world. The medical expires, needs to be renewed, and is a required document if you want to fly. So what the FAA and other regulatory bodies do is they simply cancel the medical (which is tied to your license), thereby grounding you. You may wonder about Sport Pilot licenses - those aren't internationally recognized at all and the FAA probably wants the easier option of cancelling a medical.

So the medical serves as a way to enforce legal action should the conditions of the drone's operation be violated. The FAA is basically requiring there be a person of authority on the record for the flight who will conduct it in a safe manner. And presumably, would ensure that the flight has overrides in case things go awry - it is possible to exceed 400' should a wind pick up and the drone gets sudden lift.

And no, 400' may be uncontrolled, but it's not anything goes - the FAA has enforced legal action against those operating aircraft (drones) in a clearly unsafe manner despite within rules for RC flight per advisory circular. In this case someone was basically using their drone to buzz people in a park - diving at bystanders, flying erratically through a narrow tunnel filled with pedestrians, etc. (the video the idiot took clearly showed pedestrians scrambling away from the drone) The FAA sought action, was rebuffed initially by the NTSB, appealed, and got a ruling that said the FAA is well within their enforcement powers to pursue those operating aircraft in an unsafe manner. There's plenty of aerial activity below 400' - crop dusting, regular flights and such.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The problem in requiring people to kneel and get permission from government to do things IS the primary problem differentiating economically powerful, free nations from those bogged down with kickbacks required for a dozen different actions per day.

It matters not why the government block occurs (good old corruption or Jesus appearing in the sky claiming how awesome-O the regulation is), economics are hindered.

If a free society wants some regulation, it should be from agencies more responsive than this. It's taken a freaking year for them to "permit" tthis, and that reflects massive popular pressure on elected officials. Remember the mantra of Obama's regulators when they took over: "Wedon't have to care about things like this. They were fucking proud of it.

Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate

[zarthrag]

"Ignorance"? That's...a bit mean of you. Speaking as an RC pilot, none of the above items would apply to me in the same situation. Slap the word "commercial" on, and all of a sudden these rules apply. This isn't an airplane with passengers, it's R/C. Something the FAA has admitted they will not regulate.

With that in mind, take your self-righteous attitude elsewhere.

Over the top?

[Rich0]

Let me get this. The FAA doesn't consider it safe for Amazon to play around with a drone outdoors in a rural area under 400' altitude unless:

1. It is in VFR conditions.
2. The specific design is pre-approved by the FAA.
3. The drone operation holds a private pilot license.
4. The drone operator holds a medical certificate.

Wouldn't want to have the operator die of a heart attack, and then have the drone go out of control and hit a rabbit. Wouldn't want the pilot sitting in a chair and looking at a monitor to have medical conditions that cause issues with balance and vertigo. Better make sure that the pilot staring at the monitor 12" from his face has good vision.

I get that they want to keep these things close to earth and away from airports. I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.

Flying drones and flying planes are completely different skillsets. The FAA really needs to get away from making drone piloting an add-on to a private pilot license.

Re:Over the top?

[Firethorn]

Wouldn't want to have the operator die of a heart attack, and then have the drone go out of control and hit a rabbit. Wouldn't want the pilot sitting in a chair and looking at a monitor to have medical conditions that cause issues with balance and vertigo. Better make sure that the pilot staring at the monitor 12" from his face has good vision.

The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.

I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.

A private pilot's license isn't that high of a bar, and it's pretty much the lowest bar the FAA has. It just ensures that the operator knows the 'rules of the air'. Sure, some of the knowledge is useless, like some of the stuff in my driver's test I'm never going to use. Same with the medical certificate, because if the drone operator croaks, it might crash before they can get another operator there. Remember, prototype. It's easier to relax restrictions than it is to crank them up.

The FAA really needs to get away from making drone piloting an add-on to a private pilot license.

But that requires writing up a new set of requirements for a license, developing training programs, etc... That takes more time than 'adding' it to a private pilot's license.

Re:Over the top?

[ScentCone]

I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.

Oh, it's worse than that. If the exact same engineers from Amazon followed all of the same exact safety protocols, used exactly the same equipment, and performed exactly the same flights in the same place doing everything exactly the same way ... but did it for fun, for recreation, the FAA would be perfectly fine with that. No pilot's licenses needed, no certificate of airworthiness, no please-sir-may-I permission needed.

Re:Over the top?

[ScentCone]

The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.

No, that's not what they care about. Because if they did, then they wouldn't consider the exact same flight in the exact same place operated by the exact same people using the exact same equipment in exactly the same way to just fine without a pilot's license if those same operators are doing it for fun.

Re:Over the top?

[pz]

I get that they want to keep these things close to earth and away from airports. I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.

Because they have certain tools at their disposal. They have the private pilot's license. They have the medical certification. They know how do to handle those things. No additional bureaucracy is necessary -- and that's a mightily good thing. If they had different requirements ("sedentary medical certification" for example), then that would represent a heapload of additional work for them, cost for the taxpayer, and, as this is an EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM, potentially wasted effort.

Far, far, far better to use the tools they have available. Yes, the regulations might not appear a good fit, but they are as close as possible given the requirements surrounding piloting a remote flying vehicle.

Being piggish about the mismatch of regulation versus actual requirement is not seeing the larger picture.

Re:Over the top?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.

equally likely? wtf. you mean to tell me there is as many bunny rabbits that are customers of amazon and living in densely populated cities of millions as there are people? try again.

the first time a delivery drone hits a person.. and it will happen.. they'll be banned. i think the faa is just giving them ridiculous rules to follow that would be more expensive than delivery trucks if ever rolled out in quantity, to get amazon to give up on the idea voluntarily so the faa doesn't have to 'look like a bad guy' when they would eventually ban them anyway (but one fatal incident too late)

Re:Over the top?

[ScentCone]

Why mod that down? That's exact the case. The FAA isn't going to ask hobby fliers to have a license or adhere to the COA requirements, etc, that they are asking the roofing contractor with a 3-pound quadcopter and a GoPro to adhere to. Ridiculous.

Re:Over the top?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having flown RC helicopters, I agree that one set of rules seems perfectly fair.

The big difference between delivery and hobbyists is whether you're flying over an open field with little risk to people or property in the event of a failure, vs flying over populated areas, traffic, etc, all of which can be damaged by a failure.

In both cases, those who choose to add additional risk should be insured and let the insurance companies determine what safety requirements are appropriate to minimize their liability.

Re:Over the top?

[Rich0]

equally likely? wtf. you mean to tell me there is as many bunny rabbits that are customers of amazon and living in densely populated cities of millions as there are people? try again.

The FAA didn't give Amazon permission to operate drones in cities. It gave them permission to operate drones in the middle of nowhere, where there probably are more bunnies than people walking around.

Re:Over the top?

[Rich0]

If they had different requirements ("sedentary medical certification" for example), then that would represent a heapload of additional work for them, cost for the taxpayer, and, as this is an EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM, potentially wasted effort.

They could have different requirements like "just keep it under 400 feet and away from populated areas and do whatever you want as long as OSHA doesn't have a problem with it." I don't see how that would cost taxpayers money, or be any less safe.

Re:Over the top?

[Rich0]

The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.

They're testing the drones in a low-density area. They could have just said "avoid flying over people" and left it at that.

A private pilot's license isn't that high of a bar, and it's pretty much the lowest bar the FAA has. It just ensures that the operator knows the 'rules of the air'. Sure, some of the knowledge is useless, like some of the stuff in my driver's test I'm never going to use. Same with the medical certificate, because if the drone operator croaks, it might crash before they can get another operator there. Remember, prototype. It's easier to relax restrictions than it is to crank them up.

Which of those rules of the air are relevant to flying a drone flying under 500'? About the only rule I can think of is the one that tells pilots not to fly below 500', which they're intentionally violating. Knowing which way to turn if you spot a crop-duster heading towards you isn't going to be a big help when you're not displaying navigation lights and the crop-duster has no way to know which way you're headed and won't see you anyway.

The problem is that this kind of thing stifles innovation, which means that all the R&D ends up moving overseas and the US will end up being perpetually behind in what is eventually likely to be a technology that completely replaces all aviation today (civil or military). Is that in the US interest? I'm not saying that Amazon should be flying two-ton drones over major cities without any oversight, but this is about testing concepts in the middle of nowhere.

It probably makes more sense to ensure that the people programming the drones understand the rules of flying, and then only if they're actually going to fly in conflict with other aircraft. In that situation the rules would probably need to be changed anyway, since "see and avoid" isn't going to work when you can't see the drone.

What a bunch of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have just bought a few hundred acres of sage brush in rural Eastern Washington and then they could just go to the middle of it and do whatever the fuck they want and no one, not even god, would ever know. Fucking clueless bureaucrats.

Amazon Suggested Items

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see you don't have a grill in your back yard, may I suggest .....

Oh, your house needs painting, may i suggest ...

Lack of privacy is bad enough with telephones and the internet, not to mention tracking your driving habits with license plate scanners.

Now we will have all sorts of drones flying overhead, collecting data, of course just for 'advertising purposes'.

If Amazon pulls this off, expect regular surveillance from police drones (with cameras, loud speakers, and weaponry) soon after this is generally accepted.

Personally I would only legalize pizza delivery drones. I gotta have what I gotta have.

Re:Amazon Suggested Items

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizza Delivery, nah, just go to Little Caesars and pick up a nice hot and ready pizza pizza. If you insist on delivery go to http://www.forbiddenpizzawebsi...

Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

... are allowed to operate hobby drones without being subject to the same rules. They can fly 50' octocopters right up to that same 400' and have a grand old time without needing a pilot's license, etc. Why? Because the FAA's position on this is nonsense. Ridiculous, even. The urge to apply their regulatory power in such a ridiculously capricious way is preposterous. I can use one of my drones to check my roof gutters right now, and the FAA is completely happy with that. I can then move 50 feet to the left and do exactly the same thing to someone else's house for pizza money, and I'm subject to a $10,000 fine.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[turkeydance]

ok....let SOMEONE else actually KNOW that you are risking that fine...and your PROFIT goes up by 10K

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Anonymous Coward]

FAA = Federal Aviation Profit Administration?

This is all about economics, and FAA should be outside the realm of flying devices, these are not aircarft carrying people, and are restricted from interfering with regular manned aviation.
I cannot see this falls under FAA domains. Safety, yes. Sub 400' flying light weight unmanned devices, yes.
The control systems for these are a sore point because it wont be long before these packages will end up in the hands of people with GPS jammers.
Payload capability? (Figure out what it would take to fly 20 lbs. for 2 miles.) Li-Ion batteries? Battery usage life and replacement cost? Adverse weather and wind? Travel distance? Ran out of "gas" and needs to be retrieved? Tree branches? Noise emissions? Cost? Props grinding up people? People throwing nets over these?

These flying devices are not cheap, simple or low maintenance. To think steel, rubber, diesel fuel and low tech labor will be obsoleted by these hi-tech complicated flying devices is silly. I don't think UPS and FEDEX has anything to worry about.

But Amazon will get a lot of free advertising from clueless news people.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[westlake]

are allowed to operate hobby drones without being subject to the same rules. They can fly 50' octocopters right up to that same 400' and have a grand old time without needing a pilot's license, etc. Why?

This isn't a hobbyist project.

It's about laying the legal and technical foundation for an aerial delivery service on a commercial scale.

We aren't talking about learning how to fly a single drone, but how to manage a fleet of fifty to one hundred drones being flown out of a centralized warehouse.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[AO]

I can use one of my drones to check my roof gutters right now, and the FAA is completely happy with that. I can then move 50 feet to the left and do exactly the same thing to someone else's house for pizza money, and I'm subject to a $10,000 fine.

Actually, no. The FAA position is that if you fly a drone for a 'purpose', then it is no longer a hobby. Want to check out your own gutters to see their condition? Sorry, that is not a hobby flight and is subject to a fine. Now, if you happen to check out your gutters and that of your neighbor while flying, more power to you! The difference is intent...if you plan to do something, they are going to hammer you. If they can't prove that you planned it and was just having fun, then they don't want to risk you running off to your congressman to complain.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

This isn't a hobbyist project.

Doesn't matter. The point is that the same operators could fly exactly the same gear in exactly the same way, at the same time and place, 365 days a year, and require no COA or pilot's license - if they were doing it as a hobby. Not a single aspect of the flight risk or expense would change, just whether the engineers are on the clock, or having fun. The difference is a $10,000 fine - but the unfined flights would be no safer.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

I've seen no such indication. Hobby landscape photographers (who happen to be hanging their camera from a hexacopter) are not on the FAA shitlist. Just landscape photographers who fly the exact same machine in exactly the same way in the same place, time, and safety regime ... but who take the exact same picture, and use it to sell a post card. $10,000 fine!

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Dutch Gun]

When you start engaging in commerce, everything is different. Drone operators are not special in this regard.

It's not just the FAA, incidentally. If you're engaged in business of any sort and you don't have a business license, you're going to be in trouble. Most people don't run their own business so they don't have a clue how much businesses are currently regulated, licensed, taxed, and inspected by the government.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

When you start engaging in commerce, everything is different.

Yes, there are all sorts of things that come up (taxes, etc). But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity. They are saying that their total ban on drone use (except for millions of recreational users, and a dozen or so waivered entities) is all about safety. Which is why it's ridiculous that the exact same people, gear, location, and practices are considered dangerous enough to warrant a $10,000 fine when Google engineers on the clock perform them, but are considered perfectly safe, with no need to worry, when the very same people do the same exact things for fun.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[thegarbz]

Actually, no. The FAA position is that if you fly a drone for a 'purpose', then it is no longer a hobby. Want to check out your own gutters to see their condition? Sorry, that is not a hobby flight and is subject to a fine.

Actually their position has nothing to do with purpose, and everything to do with commercial operations. See the drones are unregulated as always for hobby and recreational use. And checking one's own gutters most definitely falls under recreational use. As does checking my neighbour's gutters. Just make sure you don't receive compensation for doing it and you're perfectly fine.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Dutch Gun]

But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity.

Of course it is. Just look at that list and tell me they're not involved in business licensing. You still seem to have a problem understanding that the exact same activity is considered very differently depending on whether it's used for commercial or non-commercial purposes. It's no different than how anyone can cook for their family, but it's illegal to serve that same food to strangers and charge for it without a proper license.

You should also note that these are experimental certificates. The summary should really have pointed to the actual proposed rules for commercial drones. Here's an especially relevant paragraph:

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating)

In other words, a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future. It's just that these rules and regulations are all still being developed, so in the meantime, a pilot's license is the next best thing to nothing, since at least pilots are guaranteed to know the basic rules of air safety. The FAA is just erring on the conservative side, which shouldn't be all that much of a shock.

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here. That undoubtedly have more of an effect than arguing about it here on Slashdot. :)

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature of many relationships change if you are doing it for money as part of a commercial relationship.

If you give your significant other a massage and dislocate your shoulder by accident then that's one thing. If you go to a masseuse and they do the same then you would expect them to have professional insurance at the very least, and probably appropriate qualifications.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Anonymous Coward]

their shoulder, that is, not your own.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[fred911]

". Hobby landscape photographers (who happen to be hanging their camera from a hexacopter) are not on the FAA shitlist."

  The guy that received the cease-and-desist from the FAA for posting his drone videos on youtube would probably disagree. Sure he receives income from views but it's not the primary motivation for flying.

http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Rich0]

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here.

Meh, they're keeping "see and avoid."

Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a requirement on all aircraft operations that, during flight, “vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” This see-and-avoid requirement is at the heart of the FAA's regulatory structure mitigating the risk of aircraft colliding in midair. As such, in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA sought a standard under which the small UAS operator would have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft similar to that of a manned-aircraft pilot.

This really strikes me as the wrong way to go about this. Sure, changing this principle would require completely rewriting the rules for ALL forms of air travel. However, I think that see and avoid already works poorly in practice and will become even more untenable once drone technology really takes off. There are far better ways for aircraft to avoid each other, and sooner or later we'll need to come to grips with the fact that you can build a device capable of broadcasting its position to nearby aircraft for the cost of a smartphone (you need a GPS and a radio, which virtually every phone in the US has had for over a decade due to 911 compliance rules - they had them long before they had touchscreens). There is no reason that clearances shouldn't be communicated via modems talking to computers and followed by computers to ensure that airways remain free of conflicts. Humans just mess things up. If you want to have them so that when they get disoriented they can override the computer and crash the plane to give the investigators more work, just find someplace else to fly. :)

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

You're confusing business licensing with safety licensing.

a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future

But he will be required to pay for a permit for each aircraft, even though the hobbiest standing right next to him flying exact the same piece of equipment in the same airspace under exactly the same conditions will not. And he will be required to pass a permitting exam, and pay regularly to re-take it. But the person standing next to him flying exactly the same equipment under the exact same circumstances will not be required to show the same knowledge. The retired guy who has the time to fly a 150mph RC jet or a 40-pound octocopter with lethal CF rotors for several hours every day will be free of FAA burdens while the guy who uses a 3-pound plastic quad copter to inspect roof gutters twice a week for three minutes will be subject to federal scrutiny and fees.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[John.Banister]

How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article suggests that people are working in that direction.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[ScentCone]

How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.

Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.

Re:Meanwhile, a million people ...

[Rich0]

How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.

Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.

There is no reason that ADS-B has to cost more than $30. Just have the government bless a reference platform instead of having everybody invent their own.

ADS-B is a GPS and a modem. Guess what you'll find on every SoC in every cellphone sold today?

Not really

[Overzeetop]

The presumption would be that someone holding a pilot's license would both understand the regulations and SOP which apply to aircraft, as well as have (their license) should they violate the agreement. Since, iirc, you need a medical to have a license, the summary (and likely the article) are playing up a non-issue.

The FAA wants to be in the loop, doesn't want anything unexpected to happen, and wants asses to kick (and a way to kick them) if it does.

All in all, this is a win for Amazon.

Sex Toys Delivered by Drone !

[Irate Engineer]

Cool, so flying dildos available for credit. Got it. Sweet! Party on fornicators! I'm just waiting for some hillbilly with a shotgun to intercept a package with a gasoline-fueled vibrator, a gas generator with a Sybian, and Twitter their neighbor's presidential aspirations away.

Drones running Systemd

[Anonymous Coward]

Eyes of the Pottering

Rules do not go far enough

[UneducatedSixpack]

Drone pilots should have ATP license, first class medical and at least 1500 hours of flight time. Also, every flying drone must have a bird flying at least 100 feet in front of a drone. Bird should carry small red flag with dimensions of at least 2 x 2 inches with insurance policy number written on it.

How often do you check your gutters?

[rsilvergun]

Maybe once, twice a year? Now, if you were doing it for a living how often would you do it? How careful would you be doing something dangerous when you only do it once or twice a year? How careful would you be if you did it for a living? How about when you're running behind on your third job of they day and you're worried about making rent this month?

See, everything changes when you do something for a living. You do it a lot more, you do it a lot quicker, and you start thinking about cutting corners, taking risks, and hoping for the best. Even if you don't, you're employees do. Especially when you start pressuring them to do more when profits dip...

Re:How often do you check your gutters?

[ScentCone]

How careful would you be doing something dangerous when you only do it once or twice a year?

Most likely not nearly as careful. Because the situational awareness and familiarity with uncommon but real risks is far better with someone who does something regularly. The person who is, essentially, a noobie every (rare) time he does something is much more dangerous than the person who has completely internalized the risks, the habits of keeping their head on a swivel and an emergency route in mind. The pro is far more likely to have checked for GPS-endangering high KP levels before he flies. Far more likely to remember to think about compass calibration at a new site, or to know where there's likely to be re-bar under cement and thus produce false magnetic readings.

Experience trumps lack of experience every time.

Complacency, which seems to be your biggest boogeyman, is just as likely in a long-time, regular hobby flier as it is in a long time operator who knows he has to protect his business license, his company assets, his insurance eligibility, and his reputation. You've got it exactly backwards, probably because you personally know some people with bad work ethics, and for some reason pay no attention to thousands of YouTube videos of recreational operators (of drones, sailboats, dirt bikes, chainsaws, and everything else) who exhibit breathtakingly bad judgement and lack of practical skill, sometimes lethally so. But they're OK with the FAA - no worries there!

Re:How often do you check your gutters?

[thegarbz]

See, everything changes when you do something for a living. You do it a lot more, you do it a lot quicker, and you start thinking about cutting corners, taking risks, and hoping for the best. Even if you don't, you're employees do. Especially when you start pressuring them to do more when profits dip...

Yeah things change. You start applying more sense to how you work. You start working with harnesses etc.
Much like the drone industry. Yeah I don't take my drone out as much as the person running a professional aerial videography service. By he's also incredibly unlikely to be doing it with a home made drone, full of DIY wiring, a healthy dose of experimental firmware, and a history of stupid arse mistakes like not using locknuts to hold down a prop.

Saying someone does something commercially means they do it more often means that they are automatically in a higher danger category is very ignorant.

More Republican protection of the medical cartel

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all this is. It's all about funneling more money to the doctors.

Re: More Republican protection of the medical cart

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the Republicans that run the FAA? Oh, right. Both the FAA chief and his boss at DOT are personal political appointees of Obama.

Which you know, troll.

YOU need to comment on FAA proposed drone rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA has proposed drone rules. See http://www.faa.gov/news/press_... and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F... (Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 35, Feb 23, 2015) for details. Read them and send in comments.

Note to people complaining about the restrictions on Amazon and other drone operators: Now's your chance to make a difference. If you don't read the NPRM and send in comments you only have yourself to blame when the final rules aren't agreeable to you.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Money does buy love.

I don't want low flying aircraft over my house!

[EzInKy]

I believe a 1000 foot rule is in effect for other aircraft, and the same needs to be enforced for drones once they become allowed for general commercial use. For those of you who think such a regulation is ridiculous try living in an airport's flight path for a while. Do you really want these things buzzing over your head at all hours interupting your peace and quiet?

Blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for sharing this information. your blog is good and I got so much knowledge.
matrixlabs

anything to fluff that stock

[Anonymous Coward]

When they are done with this latest pump and dump, they should partner with Pets.com and announce aerial delivery of 50lbs bags of dog food for a "short and distort"!!!!!!

What could go wrong? 6 possibilities.

[Futurepower(R)]

1) Dog runs from bushes and attacks drone, destroys it. Who pays?

2) Child runs to drone, is hurt. Whose fault?

3) Drone fails in flight, crashes, kills people, destroys property. Amazon pays more than all profits from drone delivery.

4) Teenager is in a field trying a BB gun, shoots at drone. Drone crashes. What then?

5) Someone is testing a Tesla coil in his garage. The huge sparks emit electromagnetic interference, making communication with the drone impossible. Drone cannot be controlled, destroys property. Who pays?

6) Drone is stolen.

Re:What could go wrong? 6 possibilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

The kids in my neigborhood shoot the insulators on the high tension lines with their air rifles. What do you think will happend when the fully loaded amazon drone flies by?

Re:What could go wrong? 6 possibilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is ANY of that the FAA's problem? Those are issues to be decided between Amazon's insurance company and the victims insurance company. If you also want to arrest the teenager and the negligent parents, their fault, that's local low enforcements problem. There's a built in incentive to improve safety without the FAA. Make them safer, lower insurance premiums. It's that simple. Why would the drones be on the ground where kids and dogs could reach them? They can fly, and lower the package down on a rope. They never need to fly lower than 20 feet. Remember when you buy something from Amazon, they have to eat the cost of 2 day shipping, assuming Prime. When they use a drone, they not only save the cost of shipping, they earn an additional, presumably something like $8, drone delivery surcharge. Non prime members would pay something like a $20 drone surcharge. All that money could pay for as much insurance as is needed.

Re:What could go wrong? 6 possibilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. It's called laws. You just make it a serious crime to shoot these things and enforce that. Where are the adults? What kind of an adult would let children play unsupervised with guns?

Rope? The problems are still the same.

[Futurepower(R)]

lower the package down on a rope

Dogs will definitely attack a dangling rope!

What's the point?

[morgauxo]

With rules like that what's the point?

They have to keep the things in sight? So.. they can deliver books to their neighbors that live on the same block? Maybe they can have a guy follow the drone in a truck. You know, the truck that would have just delivered the package previously?

Is it time? Can we replace the FAA fossils with an organization of people that were at least still alive in the same millenia we are now living in?