An AC is just that, advisory... not regulatory... it is the FAA trying to make life easier for RC pilots, by giving them suggestions on how to operate so as to AVOID regulation in the first place.
There is also a key point in that AC:
"The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use"
Amazon is neither, so the whole thing doesn't even apply to them.
Amazon's drones are going to be regulated, and soon, any other commercial drone is going to be as well. They have to be, their numbers will just keep growing.
General aviation didn't require a whole lot of rules either in the early days, there were so few people doing it. Even today there aren't THAT many planes, but there are enough that rules are required.
The time for regulations for drones has arrived.
As a side note: Yes, we all know that the $50 quad copter that you fly in your yard is not the issue here, even the FAA knows that. No one, anywhere, really cares about those.
It is the ones that go above the tree line, the ones that can fly to 200ft or more, the ones that you can fly beyond visual range, and the ones that you fly over OTHER people, that are the concern.
Those are going to end up regulated, they have to be, thousands of them will end up in the skies and we can either choose to regulate them now, or after they kill people.
You make it sound like you can't throw a paper dart without a licence from the FAA.
A paper dart is not an aircraft, so the FAA wouldn't regulate it.
The FAA has always had the power to regulate most RC aircraft, they just have not done so because the reality is there actually AREN'T that many of them. Not the sort the FAA cares about.
The $50 flying quad copter you bought at the mall that goes up to 50 feet? Yea, no one cares about that, not even the FAA.
The $1,500 quad copter that goes up to 500ft and 5 miles away out of sight? Yep, the FAA cares about that and those will soon be regulated.
The trick is figuring out where the line gets drawn. Believe it or not, some smart people work at the FAA and they are not all idiots, like some would have you believe.
I know multiple people there, I've worked with them before, they can be quite reasonable, if you're being reasonable in return.
Amazon is going to have to show how this does not cause a hazard to air traffic or people on the ground. I'll be interested to see how they do that, because for the life of me, I can't imagine that happening.
A Robinson R22 helicopter would likely not survive the impact from a 55lb drone flying at 50 knots, and they don't have equipment to avoid the drone other than the Mark 1 eyeball (and such a drone would be hard to see until way too late).
Yes, the R22 has Mode C transponder, but it isn't enough for traffic avoidance purposes.
You're confusing ownership of airspace with the right to fly aircraft within that airspace.
You might well, for various legal reasons, own the air up to 200ft above your land. That does NOT give you the right to fly a helicopter 190ft above your land without a pilot certificate.
It does give you the right to erect a 190ft tower on your land however.
This is where people seem to go off the rails. The two things are different. The FAA regulates flying things, stuff that leaves the ground.
Drones are flying things, the FAA can clearly regulate drones.
Amazon said its drones fly under 400 feet and weigh less than 55 pounds."
There are several issues with that, the first being that 55lbs from 400ft is a lot of mass traveling really fast...
But assuming they somehow make them perfectly reliable, you have the issue of other air traffic and obstacles that aren't on charts under 400ft.
Yes, yes, someone will quote the rules about altitude and airplanes. Someone forgot that helicopters exist, and that airplanes do sometimes fly lower as well.
A lot of light helicopters do not have any technology to avoid other traffic other than the Mk1 eyeball, and an Amazon drone may well not see one in time either.
It'll be interesting to see, but given many years of flying experience in helicopters, I shudder to think the first time a 55lb drone hits a helicopter. A big helicopter (think S-76) would probably survive it, a Robinson R22/44 would likely not.
Note they have no legal constitutional ability to enforce this rule but they are doing so anyway and will arrest people regardless if they have FAA approval. Amazon won't be exempted.
New York City?
In any case, of course they have the legal authority to enforce it... They are the FAA and they regulate all airspace in the US from the ground to outer space, out to 3 miles (or 12, depending) from the coasts.
Check out CFR 91.1 and 91.119
The rules are simple, and not... at the end of the day, the FAA is chartered to regulate and control the air space in the USA, from one foot up to space.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the whole 400ft thing...
Way too many people have read one thing, somewhere, and run off into left field with it...
The FAA regulates airspace in this country, from the ground to outer space, period.
If you pickup in a helicopter, to just 5 feet, you're flying, you must have a pilot certificate, and you must be either in an airworthy aircraft, or on a maintenance test flight.
I'm from Chicago but have lived in Los Angeles the last four years. It's great, and I can't imagine going back. Mistaken policies and willingness to change and try new things are FAR preferable to fees and taxes associated with cronyism and the general crookedness of Chicago. [Disclaimer: I absolutely love Chicago, I just happened to relocate based on circumstances.] There's a whole shit ton of sour grapes regarding California.
With all due respect, you moved from one ship hole to another, you don't have any reasonable basis for comparison...
When my kids were born I arranged to work from home 2 days per week, and wrote code while the kid was sleeping. We saved money on daycare, and I treasure the memories of spending time with the babies, but I doubt if my kids are really doing any better because if it.
Of course they are doing better because of it...
Because YOU are a better Dad... YOU have empathy for them, for your wife, and you have memories of your children at that age, you'll always be there for them in ways that Dad's who WEREN'T there won't.
Yep, you've got your white female and black male lead, shocking...
That being said, I'm interested to see Rey kick some butt... Daisy Ridley apparently worked out for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 3 months, to get into shape to be able to do most of her own stunts.
If they are going to make all that money, I like it when they can handle it, and it is much more fun to watch her do it than some stunt double.
Yes, I remember the launch of NES, I had one of those robots they sold the first year (and only ever had 2 games, blah!).
No, games didn't "update", they had to work well enough at launch.
But today, game companies expect to be able to update their games, many games are not finished at launch and need months of patches to get finished.
I'm not saying it is good, I'm saying it is what is. If you never connect your XBox One or PS4, you're missing out on various game updates of various levels of importance.
Day one patches are a thing, even on consoles. Should they be? No. But they are.
I'm going to call a solid bullshit on that one. You can't attend an accredited College in the US without at least obtaining a GED. Which would be a rather simple matter for someone smart enough to skip high school entirely.
This is actually true... A GED can be done in an afternoon, you simply go take the test, and if you're not completely stupid, you'll pass.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.
Nothing, it actually just means that MORE oil will be burned moving the Canadian oil, rather than less.
Stopping the pipeline actually HARMS the environment.
The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...
We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.
All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.
The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.
We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.
You're confusing the right to build a building on your land with your right to fly an aircraft over your land.
You are correct about the fact that the FAA can't just tell you what you can and cannot build on your land.
But they can tell you where you can fly an aircraft.
Drones are not buildings, they are aircraft.
A few things...
An AC is just that, advisory... not regulatory... it is the FAA trying to make life easier for RC pilots, by giving them suggestions on how to operate so as to AVOID regulation in the first place.
There is also a key point in that AC:
"The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use"
Amazon is neither, so the whole thing doesn't even apply to them.
Amazon's drones are going to be regulated, and soon, any other commercial drone is going to be as well. They have to be, their numbers will just keep growing.
General aviation didn't require a whole lot of rules either in the early days, there were so few people doing it. Even today there aren't THAT many planes, but there are enough that rules are required.
The time for regulations for drones has arrived.
As a side note: Yes, we all know that the $50 quad copter that you fly in your yard is not the issue here, even the FAA knows that. No one, anywhere, really cares about those.
It is the ones that go above the tree line, the ones that can fly to 200ft or more, the ones that you can fly beyond visual range, and the ones that you fly over OTHER people, that are the concern.
This:
http://www.amazon.com/UDI-U818...
Is not a concern
This:
https://youtu.be/Q4RRYiLItww?t...
Is... Watch how high it goes and how far it goes...
Those are going to end up regulated, they have to be, thousands of them will end up in the skies and we can either choose to regulate them now, or after they kill people.
The smart answer is now.
You make it sound like you can't throw a paper dart without a licence from the FAA.
A paper dart is not an aircraft, so the FAA wouldn't regulate it.
The FAA has always had the power to regulate most RC aircraft, they just have not done so because the reality is there actually AREN'T that many of them. Not the sort the FAA cares about.
The $50 flying quad copter you bought at the mall that goes up to 50 feet? Yea, no one cares about that, not even the FAA.
The $1,500 quad copter that goes up to 500ft and 5 miles away out of sight? Yep, the FAA cares about that and those will soon be regulated.
The trick is figuring out where the line gets drawn. Believe it or not, some smart people work at the FAA and they are not all idiots, like some would have you believe.
I know multiple people there, I've worked with them before, they can be quite reasonable, if you're being reasonable in return.
Amazon is going to have to show how this does not cause a hazard to air traffic or people on the ground. I'll be interested to see how they do that, because for the life of me, I can't imagine that happening.
A Robinson R22 helicopter would likely not survive the impact from a 55lb drone flying at 50 knots, and they don't have equipment to avoid the drone other than the Mark 1 eyeball (and such a drone would be hard to see until way too late).
Yes, the R22 has Mode C transponder, but it isn't enough for traffic avoidance purposes.
You can jump all you like, because you're not an aircraft.
The FAA regulates aircraft, not human bodies, towers (to a point, they do have rules over lighting for towers over 200ft), or other surface objects.
You're confusing ownership of airspace with the right to fly aircraft within that airspace.
You might well, for various legal reasons, own the air up to 200ft above your land. That does NOT give you the right to fly a helicopter 190ft above your land without a pilot certificate.
It does give you the right to erect a 190ft tower on your land however.
This is where people seem to go off the rails. The two things are different. The FAA regulates flying things, stuff that leaves the ground.
Drones are flying things, the FAA can clearly regulate drones.
Amazon said its drones fly under 400 feet and weigh less than 55 pounds."
There are several issues with that, the first being that 55lbs from 400ft is a lot of mass traveling really fast...
But assuming they somehow make them perfectly reliable, you have the issue of other air traffic and obstacles that aren't on charts under 400ft.
Yes, yes, someone will quote the rules about altitude and airplanes. Someone forgot that helicopters exist, and that airplanes do sometimes fly lower as well.
A lot of light helicopters do not have any technology to avoid other traffic other than the Mk1 eyeball, and an Amazon drone may well not see one in time either.
It'll be interesting to see, but given many years of flying experience in helicopters, I shudder to think the first time a 55lb drone hits a helicopter. A big helicopter (think S-76) would probably survive it, a Robinson R22/44 would likely not.
Note they have no legal constitutional ability to enforce this rule but they are doing so anyway and will arrest people regardless if they have FAA approval. Amazon won't be exempted.
New York City?
In any case, of course they have the legal authority to enforce it... They are the FAA and they regulate all airspace in the US from the ground to outer space, out to 3 miles (or 12, depending) from the coasts.
Check out CFR 91.1 and 91.119
The rules are simple, and not... at the end of the day, the FAA is chartered to regulate and control the air space in the USA, from one foot up to space.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the whole 400ft thing...
Way too many people have read one thing, somewhere, and run off into left field with it...
The FAA regulates airspace in this country, from the ground to outer space, period.
If you pickup in a helicopter, to just 5 feet, you're flying, you must have a pilot certificate, and you must be either in an airworthy aircraft, or on a maintenance test flight.
The airspace starts from the first foot.
I'm from Chicago but have lived in Los Angeles the last four years. It's great, and I can't imagine going back. Mistaken policies and willingness to change and try new things are FAR preferable to fees and taxes associated with cronyism and the general crookedness of Chicago. [Disclaimer: I absolutely love Chicago, I just happened to relocate based on circumstances.] There's a whole shit ton of sour grapes regarding California.
With all due respect, you moved from one ship hole to another, you don't have any reasonable basis for comparison...
Come down to Texas, see something new...
I've lived in California... I hate to tell you, but you've been lied too... That state is so messed up in so many ways, I NEVER want to go back...
That is a dealership to avoid and never go to...
It has been a long time, many years, since I purchased a car in person, the last few were via e-mail...
The most recent one was at my dining room table...
They want to sell a car, they'll make it easy for me, not the other way around...
When my kids were born I arranged to work from home 2 days per week, and wrote code while the kid was sleeping. We saved money on daycare, and I treasure the memories of spending time with the babies, but I doubt if my kids are really doing any better because if it.
Of course they are doing better because of it...
Because YOU are a better Dad... YOU have empathy for them, for your wife, and you have memories of your children at that age, you'll always be there for them in ways that Dad's who WEREN'T there won't.
$4 billion is nothing, that was so cheap I'm shocked that is all it sold for...
King Digital, the company that makes Candy Crush, sold for $5.9 billion to Activision...
Star Wars has far more chance of being around in 30 years than Candy Crush does, IMHO...
It is a long term play, a brilliant purchase, Disney will be just fine...
Yep, you've got your white female and black male lead, shocking...
That being said, I'm interested to see Rey kick some butt... Daisy Ridley apparently worked out for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 3 months, to get into shape to be able to do most of her own stunts.
If they are going to make all that money, I like it when they can handle it, and it is much more fun to watch her do it than some stunt double.
To today's generation, no, it isn't a joke...
Yes, I remember the launch of NES, I had one of those robots they sold the first year (and only ever had 2 games, blah!).
No, games didn't "update", they had to work well enough at launch.
But today, game companies expect to be able to update their games, many games are not finished at launch and need months of patches to get finished.
I'm not saying it is good, I'm saying it is what is. If you never connect your XBox One or PS4, you're missing out on various game updates of various levels of importance.
Day one patches are a thing, even on consoles. Should they be? No. But they are.
The Wii U probably qualifies, but it'll be the last one.
The PS4 works well enough offline, but it really wants to go online at least once.
It won't play Blu-Ray movies until it goes online once, but that is a one time thing.
That may well be true, but do you honestly think the FBI is going to require 25 year old proof of a high school diploma?
If I have a Masters Degree in CS, does my HS diploma matter?
I'm going to call a solid bullshit on that one. You can't attend an accredited College in the US without at least obtaining a GED. Which would be a rather simple matter for someone smart enough to skip high school entirely.
This is actually true... A GED can be done in an afternoon, you simply go take the test, and if you're not completely stupid, you'll pass.
How old are you?
I'm in my 40s, if someone asked me to prove I graduated high school, I'm not even sure how I'd do that at this point.
In any case, if that was a requirement, for something from 25 years ago, then I'm not interested in working there, that is just silly.
Frankly, in 2015, it is a shame the pilots even have to do this...
You can have the airplane weigh itself, using sensors on the landing gear. Then it can take readings from the air (temp, pressure, etc.)
Then it can figure all this out with far less error than the humans can.
Wave your arms in the air, scream and shout and run in circles?
That doesn't matter...
$225,000 is still $225,000, regardless of how small a percentage it might be...
There is no reason to leave that money on the table, if you don't have to.
Don't be silly, no version of Windows has looked like the prior version, expecting Windows 10 to look like 7 is not living in reality.
People said the same thing about Windows 7 in relation to Windows XP, that the changes were confusing and cost money.
Now you're saying it about 7 and 10. In 5 years, you'll be saying it about 12 and 10.