Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Partners With UK Government To Test Drone Deliveries (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: [Recent rules from the Federal Aviation Administration mean delivery by drone is years away in the United States, but packages may be winging their way to customers sooner rather than later in the United Kingdom, where Amazon just got permission to begin a new trial of its delivery drones.] The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority gave Amazon permission to test several key drone delivery parameters. They include sending drones beyond the line of sight of their operator in rural and suburban areas, testing sensor performance to make sure the drones can identify and avoid obstacles and allowing a single operator to manage multiple highly-automated drones. U.S. rules are outlined in a 624-page rulebook from the Federal Aviation Administration. They allow commercial drones weighing up to 55 pounds to fly during daylight hours. The aircraft must remain within sight of the operator or an observer who is in communication with the operator. The operators must be pass an aeronautics test every 24 months for a certificate as well as a background check by the Transportation Security Administration. The rules govern commercial flights, such as for aerial photography or utilities inspection. Amazon's goal is to use drones to deliver packages up to 5 pound to customers in 30 minutes or less. Amazon released a statement today detailing its partnership with the UK Government that may one day turn its Prime Air drone delivery service into reality.
Didn't I just read that 7-Eleven is already doing drone deliveries? Yes, I did.
and of course spy into people windows and back yards as it flies through.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Why is this getting so much coverage? Surely the novelty value must have worn out by now? Every bloody day we get another "Store X does drone delivery" news.
BOOOOOOORING. Isn't there any other news?
This will never happen in any significant way. What a gimmick. This is what happens when tech companies have too much cash and no clue about what to do with it next. Just pay a driver $15 hour to drive the stuff.
The UK has determined that there aren't enough CCTV cameras. No word on how they intend to rectify this terrible shortcoming.
One terror drone bombing away from having all of it banned. We really need to fix our societal problems first before magical technologies of future utopia becomes the norm.
I'm curious:
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.
(Similarly with the FCC and radio signals that are too weak to be decoded outside the state of origin or substantially interfere with reasonable interstate services. Sure "radio goes on forever". But so does sound - with the same inverse-square law and similar interference characteristics - and we get along just fine without federal regulation of speech and bullhorns.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
People already like to shoot drones down. This is great - shoot the drone and win a prize. God bless the freemarketocracy.
Requiem for the American Dream
The downtrodden UK taxpayer will be footing the bill
(Given Amazon has paid pretty much nothing into the UK coffers for years...)
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.
From 49USC app 1301 - the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, whose actual title is "An Act to continue the Civil Aeronautics Board as an agency of the United States, to create a Federal Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its development and safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of the airspace by both civil and military aircraft, and for other purposes."
Section 307 a:"The administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace, and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest."
Section 307 c:"The administrator is further authorized and directed to prescribe air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of aircraft, for the navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft, for the protection of persons or property on the ground, and for the efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, including rules as to safe altitudes of flight and rules for the prevention of collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects."
The FAA clearly and absolutely has authority to regulate drones in the USA. There's no vagueness about this, except in the wishes of the drone aficionados.
They are desperate and other countries wouldn't let them. Understand that this isn't a headline of 'triumph' but one of failure because the way amazon wants to implement it is freaking retarded.
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job
From 49USC app 1301 - the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 ...
No, no, no. Not what I meant.
From where in the Constitution, in the face of the 10th Amendment and Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886), does the Federal Government's Congress claim to get the power to delegate to such an executive branch agency?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Bushes, trees, Halloween decorations, spiderwebs, rain, sleet, snow, dogs, cats, raccoons.
Delivery drivers are extremely flexible, they can walk around bushes and other obstacles near your door. They pet or feed dogs that appear near the package. What happens to the drone attacked by the dog (or that slices into the family pet who happens to attack the drone).
If you want a special delivery spot on your roof, then should Amazon be sue'd be everyone who falls off the roof trying to retrieve a package.
If things are mapped out well, and the drone can navigate through the bushes and trees near the door, for Halloween someone puts up a skeleton, or ghosty thing that the drone can get all wrapped up in.
Some snowy day, you are out of Popsicles, but don't want to drive because you can't see the end of the driveway. Make your order and expect the popsicles to show up in 30minutes, well the drone gets lost too, and crashes in the neighbors house. Who collects the bounty? The crashed drone might be wanted by the delivery company, but more likely finders keepers takes over. The neighbor is mad about the chip in the side of his house, so he keeps the popsicles too.
All aircraft have limitations in wind. Too windy and they don't fly. Same with small multicopters. Probably 20-30mph will be a limit. No deliveries on windy days.
I could see distribution center to distribution center the drones could work. Will the payload capacity make it financially viable? Probably not for toothpaste, but maybe high end watches and other smaller high value items
Article 1, section 8.
Norton vs. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886) states that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.”
There was no unconstitutional act in creating the FAA. It clearly falls under the commerce clause, Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, and was properly passed by congress and signed by the president. Having a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restrictions to follow while in the air would absolutely affect interstate commerce. There's really no good rational argument against that.
US and UK now huh. Who else.
Having a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restrictions to follow while in the air would absolutely affect interstate commerce. There's really no good rational argument against that.
Yet we have just such a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restriction to follow while on the roads: Speed limits and rules for setting them, turn restrictions, stop and yield sign placement, various rules of the road and its amenities (turn-on-red, where - if at all - U-turns are legal, lane-change frequency restrictions, lane restrictions on trucks (and no-truck routes), passing on the right, maximum durations at rest stops and activity there (such as sleeping or cooking over a fire), and a host of other rules - not to mention their enforcement) all vary from state to state.
It's dependent on each state's government(s) to pass the individual regulations. Yes, there's a lot of standardization, and following federal rules. But the federal rules are followed voluntarily when it's in a state's interest, enforced as a condition of federal funding for construction and maintenance of roads bearing US or Interstate route designations, or encouraged by federal blackmail composed of the withholding of the state's share of funds gathered by the federal gasoline taxes.
Any argument that flying at all is interstate commerce goes double for driving - where long-haul trucks, passenger cars, and even bicycles and pedestrians share common roads. So why does the Federal government have to blackmail the states into legislating their way for regional and local roads, yet can claim it has the right to totally control flight, not just of interstate traffic and/or at interstate altitudes or in the glidepaths around federally-funded airports, but of battery-powered gadgets, with range far to limited to reach a state border from most parts of a state, lighter than the average dog, and all the way down to the grass in your back yard?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Article 1, section 8.
That's an exhaustive list.
To which of its 18 clauses are you referring?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There is a huge difference between roads and the air - you can't have signs in the air notifying pilots where the state border is and what the rules are. There wasn't a way when the authorization was made, and there still isn't a good way, to notify those flying that the rules have changed when you pass a state border. Roads are fundamentally different than airspace.
Older planes are allowed to fly with older equipment. If your plane didn't originally have an electrical system (there are way more of those than you think), you don't even need to have a radio. There's no easy way to communicate with those planes.
No, it doesn't, they are not that analogous. And you haven't made a single argument why the patchwork system for driving is better than one set of rules.
The US airways system allows the most freedom for pilots of any country in the world. Pilots can do more, fly when they want nearly anywhere they want, design and build their own planes, fly without a license (part 103 ultralights), fly coast to coast without notifying or talking to anyone, and has one of the best commercial safety records of any form of transportation. Our system is the envy of pilots everywhere else. There is no way that having 50 different sets of rules would improve on that.
Having multiple rules would be a nightmare - One state could allow anything to fly anything, anywhere, any altitude. Another could ban any model of plane that's ever crashed from flying overhead. One has their own type of airspace that restricts single engine piston planes to over 10,000 feet and the state next door requires single engine piston planes to stay under 5,000 feet. Night flying is allowed without a license in some, banned to all but commercial pilots in others. IFR flights required over 30,000 feet here, over 5,000 feet there, VFR banned there, flight plans required in 7 of the 12 states you pass over, not available in 3, and subject to conflicting restrictions in the other 2. There are thousands of problems that would crop up, and it would be impossible to fly across the country without violating some or by using incredibly circuitous routing. Most of these examples have been proposed by state and local politicians that, thankfully, do not have the authority to actually enact them.
The FAA has its roots in the Air Commerce Act of 1926. The Aeronautics Branch was part of the Department of Commerce before becoming the Bureau of Air Commerce. It literally started with commerce in its name, it absolutely falls under the interstate commerce provision of Article 1, Section 8.