Amazon Wins US Regulators' Approval To Test-fly Drone 90
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."
Also (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Also (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Navigable airspace in the US starts at the surface, everywhere. Don't confuse class G airspace with the idea that it's unregulated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Navigable airways", in this context and the legal sense, are designated altitudes and routes used for interstate travel and commerce. They only approach the ground around airports, where they HAVE TO, of course.
Look up the Air Commerce Act, and the Congressional debates surrounding it. The intent was very clear, and the Federal judge who has already ruled on this issue agrees with me.
Re: (Score:2)
5 feet off the ground -- or even 200 feet off the ground -- is not legally considered to be "navigable" airspace ANYWHERE... except around airports where it is necessary for takeoff and landing. Nobody routinely travels interstate at those altitudes.
The entire authority o
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, just have it controlled by a third party limited liability company with very few assets.
Paranoid, but mostly appropriate (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds pretty cool... if Amazon didn't have such a reputation for being a nerd sweatshop in the Seattle area, I'd be finishing up my private pilots' license and applying :P
Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes about as much sense as requiring a bicyclist to get a motorcycle license or a snorkeler to get a diving certification.
~~
Re:Paranoid, but mostly appropriate (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't say "easy to get" so while your strawman is indeed wrong, I'm still correct(for a given level of correct). The modifier 'fairly' is important here, in that my intent was to imply that the private license is far easier to get than other types of pilot license. Which it is.
The concern here is that the drones aren't going to be the relatively small ones flown non-commercially, they're designed to actually haul packages. So they're going to have to be relatively heavyweight.
Re: (Score:3)
" 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.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem in requiring people to kneel and get permission from government to do things IS the primary problem differentiating economically powerful, free nations from those bogged down with kickbacks required for a dozen different actions per day.
It matters not why the government block occurs (good old corruption or Jesus appearing in the sky claiming how awesome-O the regulation is), economics are hindered.
If a free society wants some regulation, it should be from agencies more responsive than this. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I must be some kind of genius, then. I picked up my ticket in less than 60 hours and less than $3,000 US, ten years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Congratulation, you just described all modern Airbus commercial aeroplanes after the A320 and the Boeing 777. They're also fly-by-computer
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself - I got my FAA PPL in about 50 hours and adjusted to today's dollars it probably cost less than half of that.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sequitor. You can be in controlled airspace over rural property. In fact, the airport where I did my training was like that. There was a suburb to the west of it, but to the east was all farmland, highways and a bog, all in controlled airspae Granted, it was uncontrolled below 1500', but that was because there were two airparks nearby there as well.
Here's where /. ignorance sho
Re: (Score:2)
"Ignorance"? That's...a bit mean of you. Speaking as an RC pilot, none of the above items would apply to me in the same situation. Slap the word "commercial" on, and all of a sudden these rules apply. This isn't an airplane with passengers, it's R/C. Something the FAA has admitted they will not regulate.
With that in mind, take your self-righteous attitude elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The certificate and rules sound mostly good.
Actually, they are mostly idiotic. Drones should be regulated based on weight, altitude, speed, location, payload, method of control, etc. But, instead, by far the most important consideration the FAA considers, is how much the pilot is being paid.
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'
No, it ensures nothing. Because it isn't required. Unless the pilot is paid.
Medical certification is supposed to ensure that they don't keel over while flying.
No, it ensures nothing. Medical certification is not required. Unless the pilot is paid.
The FAA should start focusing on public safety, and stop trying to run a protection racket to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again 'Prototype'. They can relax the restrictions later once more is known about the craft Amazon is developing.
Re: (Score:3)
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 sat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SO...you think a medical certificate should be required to fly a 20-30 pound drone,
Do you know what 'paranoid' means? They're very conservative, overkill rules. But I expect the rules to be stringent for prototype work.
As for the medical certificate for general pilots, try getting rid of it and see how people scream.
Re: (Score:2)
I drove for UPS thi
Over the top? (Score:5, 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.
Not really (Score:4, 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.
Re:Over the top? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.
No, that's not what they care about. Because if they did, then they wouldn't consider the exact same flight in the exact same place operated by the exact same people using the exact same equipment in exactly the same way to just fine without a pilot's license if those same operators are doing it for fun.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
equally likely? wtf. you mean to tell me there is as many bunny rabbits that are customers of amazon and living in densely populated cities of millions as there are people? try again.
The FAA didn't give Amazon permission to operate drones in cities. It gave them permission to operate drones in the middle of nowhere, where there probably are more bunnies than people walking around.
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Because they have certain tools at their disposal. They have the private pilot's license. They have the medical certification. They know how do to handle those things. No additional bureaucracy is necessary -- and that's a mightily good thing. If they had different requirements ("sedentary medical certification" for example), then that would represent a heapload of additional work for them, cost for the taxpayer, and, as this is an EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM, potentially wasted effort.
Far, far, far better to
Re: (Score:2)
If they had different requirements ("sedentary medical certification" for example), then that would represent a heapload of additional work for them, cost for the taxpayer, and, as this is an EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM, potentially wasted effort.
They could have different requirements like "just keep it under 400 feet and away from populated areas and do whatever you want as long as OSHA doesn't have a problem with it." I don't see how that would cost taxpayers money, or be any less safe.
What a bunch of BS (Score:1)
They should have just bought a few hundred acres of sage brush in rural Eastern Washington and then they could just go to the middle of it and do whatever the fuck they want and no one, not even god, would ever know. Fucking clueless bureaucrats.
Meanwhile, a million people ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
FAA = Federal Aviation Profit Administration?
This is all about economics, and FAA should be outside the realm of flying devices, these are not aircarft carrying people, and are restricted from interfering with regular manned aviation.
I cannot see this falls under FAA domains. Safety, yes. Sub 400' flying light weight unmanned devices, yes.
The control systems for these are a sore point because it wont be long before these packages will end up in the hands of people with GPS jammers.
Payload capability? (Figur
How often do you check your gutters? (Score:2)
See, everything changes when you do something for a living. You do it a lot more, you do it a lot quicker, and you start thinking about cutting corners, tak
Re: (Score:2)
How careful would you be doing something dangerous when you only do it once or twice a year?
Most likely not nearly as careful. Because the situational awareness and familiarity with uncommon but real risks is far better with someone who does something regularly. The person who is, essentially, a noobie every (rare) time he does something is much more dangerous than the person who has completely internalized the risks, the habits of keeping their head on a swivel and an emergency route in mind. The pro is far more likely to have checked for GPS-endangering high KP levels before he flies. Far more
Re: (Score:2)
See, everything changes when you do something for a living. You do it a lot more, you do it a lot quicker, and you start thinking about cutting corners, taking risks, and hoping for the best. Even if you don't, you're employees do. Especially when you start pressuring them to do more when profits dip...
Yeah things change. You start applying more sense to how you work. You start working with harnesses etc.
Much like the drone industry. Yeah I don't take my drone out as much as the person running a professional aerial videography service. By he's also incredibly unlikely to be doing it with a home made drone, full of DIY wiring, a healthy dose of experimental firmware, and a history of stupid arse mistakes like not using locknuts to hold down a prop.
Saying someone does something commercially means they do it
Re: (Score:2)
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?
This isn't a hobbyist project.
It's about laying the legal and technical foundation for an aerial delivery service on a commercial scale.
We aren't talking about learning how to fly a single drone, but how to manage a fleet of fifty to one hundred drones being flown out of a centralized warehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a hobbyist project.
Doesn't matter. The point is that the same operators could fly exactly the same gear in exactly the same way, at the same time and place, 365 days a year, and require no COA or pilot's license - if they were doing it as a hobby. Not a single aspect of the flight risk or expense would change, just whether the engineers are on the clock, or having fun. The difference is a $10,000 fine - but the unfined flights would be no safer.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually, no. The FAA position is that if you fly a drone for a 'purpose', then it is no longer a hobby. Want to check out your own gutters to see their condition? Sorry, that is not a hobby flight and is subject to a fine. Now, if you happen to check out your gutters and that of your neighbor while flying, more power to you! The difference is intent...if you plan to do something, they are going to hammer you. If they can't prove that you planned it and was just having fun, then they don't want to ris
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
". 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... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. The FAA position is that if you fly a drone for a 'purpose', then it is no longer a hobby. Want to check out your own gutters to see their condition? Sorry, that is not a hobby flight and is subject to a fine.
Actually their position has nothing to do with purpose, and everything to do with commercial operations. See the drones are unregulated as always for hobby and recreational use. And checking one's own gutters most definitely falls under recreational use. As does checking my neighbour's gutters. Just make sure you don't receive compensation for doing it and you're perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
When you start engaging in commerce, everything is different.
Yes, there are all sorts of things that come up (taxes, etc). But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity. They are saying that their total ban on drone use (except for millions of recreational users, and a dozen or so waivered entities) is all about safety. Which is why it's ridiculous that the exact same people, gear, location, and practices are considered dangerous enough to warrant a $10,000 fine when Google engineers on the clock perform them, but are considered perfectly safe, with no need to worry
Re: (Score:3)
But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity.
Of course it is [faa.gov]. 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 summa
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here [regulations.gov].
Meh, they're keeping "see and avoid."
Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a requirement on all aircraft operations that, during flight, “vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” This see-and-avoid requirement is at the heart of the FAA's regulatory structure mitigating the risk of aircraft colliding in midair. As such, in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA sought a standard under which the small UAS operator would have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft similar to that of a manned-aircraft pilot.
This really strikes me as the wrong way to go about this. Sure, changing this principle would require completely rewriting the rules for ALL forms of air travel. However, I think that see and avoid already works poorly in practice and will become even more untenable once drone technology really takes off. There are far better ways for aircraft to avoid each other, and sooner or later we'll need to come to grips with the fact that you can build a device capable of broa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.
Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.
Re: (Score:2)
How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.
Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.
There is no reason that ADS-B has to cost more than $30. Just have the government bless a reference platform instead of having everybody invent their own.
ADS-B is a GPS and a modem. Guess what you'll find on every SoC in every cellphone sold today?
Re: (Score:2)
a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future
But he will be required to pay for a permit for each aircraft, even though the hobbiest standing right next to him flying exact the same piece of equipment in the same airspace under exactly the same conditions will not. And he will be required to pass a permitting exam, and pay regularly to re-take it. But the person standing next to him flying exactly the same equipment under the exact same circumstances will not be required to show the same knowl
Sex Toys Delivered by Drone ! (Score:2)
Rules do not go far enough (Score:1)
YOU need to comment on FAA proposed drone rules (Score:1)
The FAA has proposed drone rules. See http://www.faa.gov/news/press_... [faa.gov] and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F... [gpo.gov] (Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 35, Feb 23, 2015) for details. Read them and send in comments.
Note to people complaining about the restrictions on Amazon and other drone operators: Now's your chance to make a difference. If you don't read the NPRM and send in comments you only have yourself to blame when the final rules aren't agreeable to you.
Indeed (Score:1)
Money does buy love.
I don't want low flying aircraft over my house! (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?
What could go wrong? 6 possibilities. (Score:3)
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 [google.com] 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.
Rope? The problems are still the same. (Score:2)
Dogs will definitely attack a dangling rope!
What's the point? (Score:2)
With rules like that what's the point?
They have to keep the things in sight? So.. they can deliver books to their neighbors that live on the same block? Maybe they can have a guy follow the drone in a truck. You know, the truck that would have just delivered the package previously?
Is it time? Can we replace the FAA fossils with an organization of people that were at least still alive in the same millenia we are now living in?