Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones

An anonymous reader writes: Amazon has been vocal in its complaints about how slow the FAA is in approving drones for test flights. In March they were finally given permission to test a drone they had developed six months prior, and they said the drone was already obsolete. Their complaints appear to have worked — yesterday, the FAA gave permission to test a new, updated delivery drone. According to the FAA's letter (PDF), the drone must stay at an altitude of less than 400 feet and at speeds of less than 100 mph.

Comments

100mph?

[HairyNevus]

Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary? And if so, how soon until those speeds are safe enough for the limit to be removed? I mean, if we have the capability to safely use >100mph drones for deliveries of any sort, we should be doing so immediately.

Re:100mph?

[ShanghaiBill]

Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary?

It seems reasonable. There needs to be some kind of weight/height/speed limitations. What is NOT reasonable is for the FAA to be giving these one-off "permissions" to test particular drones. Instead, they should issue general requirements, based on what is safe, that apply to anyone, commercial or non-commercial. Instead, they are being as restrictive as politically possible, and then making exceptions for politically connected corporations that raise a fuss, like Amazon did. That is not the way a fair and transparent government agency should be behaving. I am glad that Amazon will be able to test their drones. But other companies and individuals should have the same opportunities.

Re:100mph?

[occasional_dabbler]

I'm posting AC because I have mod points tonight, but my handle is "occasional_dabbler" with ID 1735162. I wanted to alert you to this Bill because I mostly agree with your posts. The FAA are under intolerable pressure, Their prime function is to ensure that aerospace activities are safe for EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING; MY HAMSTER is protected by the FAA. They are not being as "obstructive as politically possible", they are desperately fighting a rearguard action against the FUCKING IDIOTS who want to fill our skies with random death machines.

I strongly suspect they have had their balls crushed to make this one-off allowance and they have their entire field team watching with prejudice ready to down the machine as soon as it twitches,

Commercial autonomous drones are not going to happen. At least not until we trust AIs. We can just achieve an acceptable mission success rate in military environments with military drones (which have ALWAYS more human pilots than any physical aeroplane, just not co-located.)

The only time in your entire life when you have been 'safe' to the FAA's satisfaction was when you were strapped into an airplane seat.

Re:1st

[MrTester]

From the urban commuters point of view while looking at a delivery truck:
Why do we need trucks that waste time and fuel idling in congested traffic compared to faster and more efficient drones?

Different locations have different challenges that need different solutions.

Re:1st

[silas_moeckel]

Because ground transportation in gridlocked cities takes forever.

Still a useless exemption

[Guspaz]

Amazon wants automated deliveries with minimal human intervention. The FAA's exemptions still require that the drones be operated by a human, with a pilots license, and only within visual line of site of the pilot.

Looks like Amazon is going to have to keep testing their drones in Canada, where they can test what they actually want to do.

Re:1st

[TechyImmigrant]

I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a camera drone buzzing overhead. It was quite irritating and I was reminded of my former prowess at clay pigeon shooting. The drone wasn't moving nearly as fast.

I don't know that people will be accepting of things buzzing over their heads all the time. Expect local ordinances.

THINK

[bussdriver]

Why are flying cars stupid? Because energy is not free. All other issues are minor; physics and resources costs come first.

F= ma. So that is ( 100mph horizontal + approximately 100mph vertical fall ) x mass

Packaging is only designed to handle about a 5 ft drop so we are looking at a safety risk.

For safety reasons drones have to SEE that means it will be difficult to prevent alternative uses for the cameras!

Nobody is thinking about the obvious: ROBOT TRUCKS with flying delivery for the last 5-30m from the truck. A flying bees nest of drones begins to make it practical. Robots navigating to doors is incredibly difficult and risky but flying that last 30m makes it a far easier problem. Plus the truck can monitor the whole process (and recharge the drones which will always have limited range since they waste most their energy LIFTING.)

Re:p=mv, do the math...

[adolf]

Because a drone could never deploy a simple parachute, and/or have redundant propulsion (which can be done in software, today), and/or simply disassemble itself with a bang before falling out of the sky in small, low-mass chunks with terrible coefficient of drag and low terminal velocity.

Also: Delivery trucks are always perfectly safe.

Did I miss anything?

Re:1st

[ScentCone]

I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a camera drone buzzing overhead ... I don't know that people will be accepting

I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a couple of screaming kids on one side, and some idiot playing some loud music from his parked car, and someone else with three terriers on leashes, barking non-stop.

I don't think people will be accepting of these loud, distracting things.