Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation Technology

Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones 74

Posted by Soulskill from the probably-equipped-with-defense-lasers-and-defense-grenades dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones More

Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones

Comments Filter:
  • 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: (Score:1)

      by Rideak ( 180158 )

      one step at a time. I think the time savings we'll see from being able to just go straight to the destination bypassing traffic will be a huge boost.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, We don't have any capability to safely use 100 MPH+ drones, much less ones that have triple-string flight controls. There's a reason fly by wire airplanes are expensive and take 4-6 years to certify. These things are just as dangerous, more so with the expected proliferation.

      Can a 100 MPH baseball kill someone? Happens all the time. How about a 100 MPH bowling ball. The FAA has abdicated their role in aviation safety.

    • Re:100mph? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @04:37PM (#49449819)

      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.

      • Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary?

        It seems reasonable. There needs to be some kind of weight/height/speed limitations.

        Reasonable? I'd say its required. Consider what happens when a drone traveling at only 100 mph with a total mass of 10 lbs fails from 400 feet. Do you want to be under it when it lands? I am pretty sure that is gong to be a strait up fatality if it hits someone.....

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by adolf ( 21054 )

          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?

      • I think the FAA is used to operating on the time scales and expectations of larger vehicles - manned aircraft specifically, in which individual models (and components) are approved on a case by case basis, because it wouldn't make sense to just approve them on a "per category" basis.

        They're slowly coming to grips with the reality and speed of smaller vehicles. I think the fuss Amazon kicked up about the long delays probably motivated them to move a bit faster this time. There ARE other industries that are

      • Also, I'd like to point out that Amazon is conducting these tests on a secret site, outside of city limits. The FAA is adding these restrictions are merely "because they can". Hobby aero-modelers simply have to obey the 3mi/400' rule. Adding the word "drone" and "Commercial" is simply causing a panic/stink.

        The FAA has taken too long to come up with legislation on the subject, and I don't think they can "ban" commercial drone use outright - or else congress will step in. But dragging their feet with poin

        • just shows that they likely have no clue about what they are doing

          They know exactly what they are doing. They are running a protection racket for pilots, who see drones as a threat. This is a straightforward case of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].

      • 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

    • 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.

      F=mv^2

      Some kind of upper limit on v seems appropriate.

      • I was more asking if the devices being used are even remotely close to being capable of speeds of 100mph. Since it's only approval for Amazon in this one instance and the FAA isn't giving open season to everyone, I was wondering what Amazon's hardware is capable of.

        • It's clear that some drones can achieve the 100mph+ range, so I see no problem with putting the limit in. A basic predator drone has a 135 mph top speed.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

  • Maybe Back to the Future II wasn't that far off.

  • Still a useless exemption (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @04:49PM (#49449873)

    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.

    • 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.

      Not really; they can test in US -- they just can't deploy in US. There's plenty to test while the drone's being supervised by a pilot.

      • Not really; they can test in US

        No, they can test that one piece of equipment in the US, with a licensed pilot, a stand-by pilot, and a spotter all keeping it entirely in line of site. If they crash that particular unique machine, or wish to modify it, they get to start all over again, applying for a new permit.

        There's a reason they just sent a bunch of people and equipment to Canada to do their real testing. Because the administration in the US is entirely hostile to this sort of research in practical terms.

        • There's a reason they just sent a bunch of people and equipment to Canada to do their real testing. Because the administration in the US is entirely hostile to this sort of research in practical terms.

          There's also a reason that the FAA doesn't give out airworthiness certificates with your breakfast cereal. They don't want you to die.

          • There's also a reason that the FAA doesn't give out airworthiness certificates with your breakfast cereal. They don't want you to die.

            Let's look at how it actually is. If you, right now, want to stand in your back yard and fly a 3-pound quadcopter to test out a new flight controller for fun and personal research/interest, you have the FAA's blessings. If an engineer from Amazon stands in exactly the same place, and hovers the exact same piece of $200 hardware exactly the same 10 feet off the ground that you do, and does it on the clock ... and he's not licensed pilot, with two assistants, with that device being certified, and him having

            • Yup, just like in the real world, if you want to fly airplanes for fun, you get a Private Pilot certificate, and you are subject to numerous restrictions. If you want to get paid to do it, then you have to get a commercial pilot certificate, or face suspension of your license.
              The only reason they fine drone operators is because they can't suspend their license because they don't have one.

              • Yup, just like in the real world, if you want to fly airplanes for fun, you get a Private Pilot certificate, and you are subject to numerous restrictions.

                You're confused. If you want to fly RC aircraft for fun, the FAA requires no such thing. No pilot's license, private, commercial or otherwise.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Burz ( 138833 )

              This isn't about safety.

              'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.

              Quadcopters are dangerous [stackexchange.com], and those are just the toys that don't carry packages across town.

              This is a question of public safety being sacrificed to suit Amazon's corporate goals and customers who will pay premiums for faster service.

              • 'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.

                You're missing the point.

                Quadcopters are dangerous

                Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks ... but the FA

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Burz ( 138833 )

                  'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.

                  You're missing the point.

                  Quadcopters are dangerous

                  Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks ... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?

                  Easy. For both the homeowner checking his gutters as well as a airplane pilot flying overhead, self-preservation is a big factor.

                  OTOH, third parties flying vehicles around other people is an inherently callous (and cowardly) act.

  • Is this freaking for real? First flight should be flying one of these drones, carrying a maximum payload, into a crash test dummy. Second test should be the drone 'accidently' dropping a maximum payload package and having it hit a crash test dummy. Third test should be what happens when the operator receives a text while operating a drone. Fourth test, well I really don't care because 400 ft and 100mph is a non starter for me. Sure, the planes flying above them will be safe but what about the rest of us?

    Hey

    • So which part of anything you've read here tells you that Amazon won't be doing as much or more testing than you are talking about? Please be specific.

  • Enough with the drones already (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It isn't going to happen. Not while we have a safety-oriented authority (FAA/EASA/WHY) regulating airspace and a litigious populace. How many airplane crashes have you seen in the news this month? This still represents a vanishingly small proportion of air travellers. We work on the idea that the loss of a hull (i.e. whole aeroplane) should be a one in one billion chance per hour of flight. You can do the math; much more likely to win the lottery etc...

    The problem you create with a drone is that you now hav

  • I approve of this. I'm also looking into what kind of firepower I will need to take down a delivery drone.

    • For long range, a 10ga shotgun with 3.5" (magnum) turkey loads; for short to medium ranges, a 12ga Saiga/Vepr with 20round drum loaded with either birdshot or #4 buck...

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close