FAA allows Amazon to fly drones experimentally

[Bosonic]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration approved Amazon Logistics Inc. on Thursday to fly drones experimentally.

The approval will allow the company to conduct research, development and crew training for deliveries called Amazon Prime Air.

The approval allows the company to fly remote-controlled aircraft lower than 400 feet during daylight hours within view of the pilot, and the pilot must have a private pilot's certificate. Amazon (AMZN) shares were flat in after-hours trading.

The approval was granted under an airworthiness certificate that requires Amazon to report monthly to the FAA. The reports must include the number of flights, a pilot duty time per flight, any malfunctions, deviation and instructions from air-traffic controllers and unintended loss of links between the aircraft and remote pilot.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/19/faa-amazon-drones/25037111/

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

1. It would be pretty cool if they could pull it off.

I think they will find it much harder to get FAA approval than they think.

[Major Nikon]

3. I think FAA regulations are going to continue to bend on this

The only question is which way and how much. Personally I don't like the idea of sharing airspace with an unmanned vehicle that doesn't have the same ability to see and avoid.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

4. I just think there will be too many mistakes and accidents.

[snooper2]

25. It can be scary

[Xithras]

8. What we're likely to end up with...

...is airspace and altitude levels that are reserved for UAV use, or at least where the various remote and autonomously controlled aircraft are given an implicit right of way. They could, for example, give the airspace between 300 and 400 feet AGL to commercial UAV's like this one, while keeping GA above that level. Or they could give them the 400-500 foot space and keep the area under 400 feet reserved, as it is now. The first option would have no impact on civil aviation, and the second would just require that planes move up a hundred feet or so. Some areas would need to be closed to UAV's for safety reasons (approaches to airports, for example), but for the most part this could be pulled off without really inconveniencing anyone.

There's so much money behind the autonomous aircraft movement at this point, that we're likely to see the FAA flex quite a bit. Civil aviation is going to change quite a bit over the next few decades, as everyone from TV news stations, to delivery companies, to the police will be retiring helicopters and delivery trucks to embrace this technology. I don't see the FAA standing in the way of that.

There's a company in San Francisco right now that is working on a quad based package delivery system. Their goal is that you'll tap an app on your phone or a website, a quad will fly to your current location with an open package box, and will then fly away and deliver it to your destination. Their goal is to give bike messengers a serious run for their money in urban areas. There are thousands of entrepreneurs across the country who are working on ways to put people to work with these things.

[Major Nikon]

10. I don't see how you could give them much airspace without significantly impacting GA

Helicopters routinely operate below 500' and certain fixed wing operations like crop dusters also routinely operate at low altitudes.

[Xithras]

12. GA will have to adapt.

There are ways to mitigate the risk though. For example, the U.S. government has access to radar data across the country. Much of that data is currently available with a 5 minute delay. That's how services like FlightAware get the data they need to run their websites.

It's been suggested that the government eliminate the delay and make the data immediately queryable. If they did that, it would be trivial to update the software in these quads to calculate intersecting flight paths and vector around them. The software would simply need to declare a certain region in front of the aircraft to be a "no fly zone", and the UAV would be blocked from entering that area. That could mean anything from the drone coming to a halt until the aircraft passes, to the drone simply charting a new course that won't cross the aircrafts flight path. This puts the onus on the UAV's to avoid the aircraft, while minimizing any disruption to GA.

Currently, we can't do that because the government won't let anyone see that data in real time. I can understand why they don't want to make it available to the general public (terrorism, blah blah blah), but there should be a licensing schema in place that would permit people with some sort of UAV certification to get at it. That one move would resolve around 90% of the safety concerns surrounding these things.

[Major Nikon]

13. I don't see that mitigating much of anything

The only traffic that's currently released are those flights with either an IFR flight plan or those flights using VFR flight following service. There's a shit-ton of more flights that never show up on Flightaware because the FAA isn't tracking them. Those are the flights most likely to be operating at those altitudes. Not only that, FAA radar coverage below 500' AGL is extremely limited. You also have the fact that Mode-C altitude can vary by 200' or more with actual altitude and still be within specifications, and that's provided the aircraft even has a transponder. Many don't.

[arcane1]

2. "during daylight hours within view of the pilot" makes this seem like a novelty

Rather than as a convenience.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. NO

[Xithras]

6. Pilots required?

That'll keep it from taking off right there. Requiring a licensed pilot to babysit each package destroys the economic viability of the delivery system.

Just last weekend, my oldest son (17) sent his quad on a filming run through a local river canyon. It was a fully automated two mile long flight with no human control whatsoever. He programmed the course, launched it, and patiently waited for it to come back. We had a low res video and GPS data link to see where it was and what it was doing, but it was flying itself.

I find it a bit funny that Amazon has to use fully licensed pilots and keep eyeballs on their UAV's, while hobbyists get to do just about whatever they want, as long as they stay under the federal altitude and power restrictions.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

20. They'll just come up with a "commercial drone license" which will not involve flying airplanes.

[Xithras]

29. It's not the license, but the requirement for a human that will kill it.

If it takes a delivery quad 30 minutes to fly to your house, and Amazon pays their drone pilots $20 an hour, the delivery will cost them $20 in labor alone if they have to pay an actual person to guide and monitor it for its entire flight. The delivery costs would be prohibitively expensive.

Most business models in the UAV space only make sense if you eliminate, or at least minimize, human involvement. Requiring an actual pilot destroys the economic viability of the delivery model.

But I'm sure that Amazon will grease enough palms to keep that from happening.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

30. Sounds stupid alright, I'd love to be privy to their thinking

[Helen Borg]

7. Falcons are gonna attack the drones!

Guaranteed.

[Skittles]

34. good thing we have no 'roos

[SoapBox]

9. What a stupid fucking idea.

Just say NO.

[Matterate]

11. Good decision by the FAA.

I'm glad Luddites aren't in positions of power.

[Geronimoe]

14. Amazon used to be a good company to buy from not anymore

Amazon used to be a good company to buy from not anymore. They used to have great pricing and things were shipped right away, shipped quickly, and was what they claimed it was.

For the past several years, they became a nightmare to buy from. Never know when they will ship, or how long it will take to receive. Items sold as brand new, arriving obviously used and/or defective. When adding tax, they are typically more expensive.

I even experienced an instance where I couldn't cancel an order because it was being processed, yet it took 6 weeks to arrive. You never know who is actually selling the item. Some of these sellers are con artists and won't respond when item is used or defective.

The logistics that they should be investing in, is a complete do-over of their business.

[mimi85]

16. I think Amazon is great! But boo on the drones.

I'm def not into the drone thing, but I'd be lost without Amazon. I'm ill and pretty much homebound and even though my husband is a giant help when it comes to shopping, I'm not sure what I'd do at times. Packages have always arrived on a timely basis in my experience and their customer service is some of the best. I also like using my points from credit cards for shopping. We use the Amazon player, or whatever it's called and they can be a life-saver for a quick gift.

As far as tax goes, you can bet that items purchased online will be taxed from every site eventually. Legally, you're supposed to report the "use tax" anyway, not that many of use do. it sounds as though you may have had some bad experiences with 3rd party sellers. They CAN be a problem - even then Amazon will step in if necessary.

Sorry you've had bad luck.

[whatthehey]

21. You ALWAYS know who's selling the item

It's right there on the product and the order pages, along with delivery estimates, and it's a mere click or two to get vendor reviews.

People whine about Amazon putting "mom and pops" out of business and now they complain when they give those same mom and pops a chance to sell direct using Amazon's vast reach.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

15. I wonder about a negative impact on union delivery jobs.

I could be the start.

[former9thward]

22. Those jobs are gone.

They just don't know it yet. It won't be the drones. It will be driverless trucks and cars.

[WestSeattle2]

27. Nailed it. Driverless vehicles are already being road tested

on San Francisco streets. The trucking industry will adopt the technology as quickly as possible. Jobs/careers at all skill levels are being eliminated - it's definitely not limited to blue collar or low skill jobs.

The flip side of course, is that someone needs to design, engineer and build drones; someone needs to write the software to make them fly; and someone will need to repair them. All new jobs and careers, which presumably will pay much better than driving delivery trucks.

[Alameda]

17. I boycot Amazon

they are a huge polluter in as much as their servers use coal powered energy, they refuse to switch to clean energy like other large enterprises like Facebook hnd Apple.
I never order from them, but still I constantly get deliveries for others from Amazon scattered on the walkway in front of my door, leaving them vulnerable to theft from who ever may see them.

[Skittles]

33. outside of a gift card I used, I don't use them either

I find better bargains elsewhere

[Vinca]

18. I'm wondering how long it will be before the first commercial jet is brought down by a drone.

The FAA is humoring itself if they think they can control the operation of them completely. As for Amazon, if you can't wait a couple of days for your item to be delivered, you might consider leaving the recliner and visiting a store.

[Major Nikon]

24. More likely it will be a helicopter or some other small plane

The only danger to commercial jets will be in the take off and landing phases of flight to relatively large airports. The airspace around those airports will undoubtedly remain off limits to commercial drones.

[Vinca]

28. I wasn't necessarily thinking of commercial drones.

I'm thinking of the hobbyist bozo who lives near the airport.

[Major Nikon]

31. Those are less regulated than commercial drones

[Pooka Fey]

19. What about the results of the Environmental Impact Study and Liability for Accidents?

I read the article.

I didn't see any mention of the Environmental Impact study : on noise pollution, impact on wildlife and bird populations, and emissions, visual pollution, and areas where drones will be restricted - over city parks and monuments for example.

I didn't see any mention of safety measures and liability of Amazon when a drone (or the package it is carrying) falls out of the sky and injures someone or causes an automobile accident.

I didn't see any mention of the impact of workers - loss of delivery jobs, impact on the US postal service.

Normally, Amazon delivers in 2 days, what is payoff for the customer for drone delivery compared to all these potential problems?

[Major Nikon]

23. The FAA has been against approving drones for commercial operations from the beginning

What we are seeing is political pressure being exerted from commercial interests to influence public policy.

[WestSeattle2]

26. Awesome. It won't be too long before ordering and receiving

goods from Amazon will take less time than driving to a brick and mortar store, in densely populated regions.

[Fumesucker]

32. A quadrotor big enough to deliver a significant package is a deadly weapon..

It's like a flying vegomatic and if you get in its way it will fuck you up.

I considered getting into quadrotors and then I found a thread showing wounds from them... Not pretty at all.

[jmowreader]

35. What's the point?

If you have to follow the drone around in a little car so you can keep it in sight at all times, why not just put the package in the trunk and DRIVE the fucking thing to the customer?