Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Wins US Regulators' Approval To Test-fly Drone

Posted by samzenpus on from the dropping-your-package dept.

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."

20 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Also by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Also by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Also by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

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

  2. Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by moogied · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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,

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    2. Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by zarthrag · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    3. Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by CaptQuark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      ~~

    4. Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by fred911 · · Score: 2

      " 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.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Over the top? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Over the top? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    2. Re:Over the top? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Over the top? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Meanwhile, a million people ... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Meanwhile, a million people ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Meanwhile, a million people ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      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. :)

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Meanwhile, a million people ... by fred911 · · Score: 2

      ". 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...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. Not really by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  6. I don't want low flying aircraft over my house! by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  7. What could go wrong? 6 possibilities. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    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.