Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
I don't read AC A human right
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,
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
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.