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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

~~

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.

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.

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.