FAA has never allowed the use of drones to deliver packages. The right headline would be "The FAA does still not allow use of drones to deliver packages."
The FAA has no physical ability, and currently no legal authority, to allow or disallow the use of drones to deliver packages. This document is a set of rules that the FAA would like to carry legal weight, but which currently do not.
The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot).
Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.
This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done. The next step is to research reliable methods of navigation and air traffic rules for unmanned and autonomous aerial vehicles, and when that can be made demonstrably safe, this regulation can be revisited.
If FAA would have allowed commercial drone operations without further regulation, and the technology would have had widespread adoption, there would be great risks involved.
Before there are the equivalents of traffic lights, air traffic control and airways and regulations to how much and what you can carry, there are risks involved. ("hello Amazon, I'd like to have 5 kilograms worth of lithium batteries, drone delivery to this busy urban address." what could possibly go wrong?)
Of course, things can be relatively safe if common sense is applied, but you can't expect commercial operators to apply common sense when there are potential profits available.
And common sense is not always correct either, back in the 1930s when the state of the art in aviation was relatively comparable to the state of the art in drones today, most people thought that pilots should fly by the seat of their pants and flight instruments are only supplemental (which is deadly wrong, and today all planes have doubly redundant gyroscopic instruments).
The reality is that the technology to fly unmanned and autonomous drones exists but it's not mature enough to work in large scale commercial operations safely and effectively.
> This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done
Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times.
Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.
Huge win for Amazon, which never actually intended to use drones to deliver packages. The whole thing was a PR stunt designed to gain traffic on cyber Monday. Now they conviently can blame the government when they never actually invest the money to build the drones.
Amazon’s devices will be used for a single purpose they will be optimized in ways we have never seen in the multicopter industry. Their delivery scheme will be completely computer controlled, and will account for weather, airspeed, air density, and flight path, because they will have to.
Octocopters have demonstrated their amazing flight stability and capability in the hands of tinkerers and hobbyist, and there is some question of whether a billion dollar corporation can achieve this? As soon as Amazon mentioned this, FedEx, UPS, and USPS started forming their R&D for the exact same programs.
This is one of the largest, most high-tech, most optimized and automated companies in the world, and some of us are doubtful? Amazon will do this because humans are the problem. With robots, you eliminate the most irrational, chaotic, unreliable and expensive element from the equation.
I misread 'unmanned' in that sentence as the 'emasculated' meaning of the word, and had a mental question as to why you would make a service out of having your pizza delivered by broken, subservient men... :)
Thanks for this link. Am I reading wrong or does the article say the drone costs $15? That sounds unbelievably cheap, does anyone know how much a drone like this in America would cost?
The part I've been thinking about and don't have a good answer to is, where would the drones fly? The best answer I've come up with is directly overhead non-highway surface streets. Or put another way, where is it OK for drones to crash?
I do think the FAA is too risk adverse, and they ought to allow less-limited market trials in large metropolitan areas. The current UAS plan is good but too conservative.
But you should also consider where it is OK for delivery trucks to crash, and whether a drone crash or truck crash is more likely to cause damage or injury.
I've been thinking about it too, in particular, how would a drone company go about getting insurance. A 5-10kg brick falling from 30 meters on a person or a road can do a lot of damage, both directly and by causing traffic accidents.
From reading all these legal nuances I feel like next step would be to rent away for free drones to customers which they will use in turn to pickup their packages at amazon warehouses :)
That was my first thought: a Prime membership could include fractional ownership in a drone, so any delivery would be my personal fraction of a drone delivering my package for recreational purposes!
I don't see what problem delivering packages with drones would be solving, package delivery seems already quite efficient to me. Also I suppose drones would often be able to deliver just one package at a time because of weight restrictions.
I pick up most of my packages at the local post office because I live in an apartment, it's a 5 minute walk away, not really an inconvenience.
It's like saying "why use phone when telegraph is good enough". If you can order things and receive them very fast in any place, there are things that you can start ordering that otherwise you wouldn't do.
It's raining and you need an umbrella, with nomsalesperson near? Order a drone. Forgot to buy mayo back in the store? Order throug drone and get it in an hour.
But there once you're able to order stuff and get it within minutes, not hours or days, there are other effects that start happening. For one, you don't need to stockpile supplies anymore, or you can do things more spontaneusly.
Will 40 or 100'people come to a party. Who cares, if there are not enough forks or plates, you can order them fast.
Or, if you want to play in garage, you don't have to make sure that you've got all the supplies well in advance, or go to the store and back 20'times.
Think how many businesses were spawned, and how much more efficient are people now that there are mobile phones, not just stationary. But ic an imagine people saying "who needs mobile, I can call when i get back home, and i've got an answering machine if someone calls when i'm away.
So as I read this comment at my favorite coffee place, a UPS truck is blocking 2 parking spaces. It's been parked there about 5 minutes, and several cars stopped, thinking it was leaving soon, messing up traffic on the road before driving away because it was taking too long. That's lost business and serious inconvenience for other people. As I type this the guy has left, but the package he took in was small enough for a drone to deliver.
Now a different truck has pulled up and double parked across the road, with the driver taking a document tube into the office building across the street.
I wish this example was contrived, but I just watched it happen.
Several drivers were inconvenienced (an ongoing situation at the moment, and I've had to listen to the sound of the idling engines, which are definitely louder than the cars passing by. Drones on the other hand would have zipped in and out, without disrupting the traffic or making me listen to idling truck engines for several minutes in a row.
It's not only about just-in-time delivery for ME, it also reduces a bunch of secondary hassles.
Using drones to deliver packages from warehouse to the last mile delivery center would have use, you can simply ignore ground traffic!
however last mile delivery? to the customer? sorry, too many liabilities plus the risk of some agency / group finding them the perfect way to deliver unwanted items to people.
One of the interesting pieces I picked up from the related reading to this article is that any use of FPV equipment on a model aircraft puts it square out of the exemptions as far as the FAA is concerned. If the operator does not have un-aided eyes on object at all times, they lose the protection of the exemptions afforded to model aircraft.
There are similar restrictions for flying visually or by instruments. Even flying visually you wouldn't pass your flight test if you restricted your field of view to anything like a normal camera.
It's amazing how prescriptive the aviation industry is, often with demonstrable reason, so it doesn't surprise me that drones/models are also evaluated in an equally stern light. Though I think there's a good argument for exemptions the lower hazards involved.
I really can't see the need for premature bans. Has there been a significant amount of accidents involving the use of delivery drones? I don't think so, so why potentially limit your competitiveness? :(
> > If an individual offers free shipping in association with a purchase or other offer, FAA would construe the shipping to be in furtherance of a business purpose, and thus, the operation would not fall within the statutory requirement of recreation or hobby purpose.
> Surprising? No, but it is almost fun to see the government be so particular in its language
Well couldn't amazon get around this by using negative shipping, whereas they pay you to ship items to you? Like pay you a penny. To me being "so particular in [..] language" just leads to loop holes.
I'd like the US to be the innovators on drone deliveries but it looks like we'll pass that opportunity up. Maybe we can outlaw any form of driverless car as well. Just as both are getting to be new markets that could increase economic growth.
Drones, if they are more efficient than truck deliveries from a cost and energy use perspective, for most things they will be the solution used. It is just does the US want that to happen here or elsewhere.
Drone energy use and possible accidents will be less than truck/delivery energy use and accidents in the future.
"This is about hobbyists and model aircraft, not Amazon," said Mary Osako, a spokeswoman for the Seattle-based company. The rule, she said, doesn't apply to commercial entities such as Amazon and "has no effect on our plans."
The rule applies only to hobbyists and was meant to clarify what services are considered legal and what are not within that category, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told CNET. For hobbyists, "using a model aircraft to move a box from point to point without any kind of compensation," is OK, according to the guidelines, while accepting a fee for delivery services is not.
Advice to attempt to find a loophole or skirt the law in some way probably won't turn out good for Amazon. A better approach would be to cooperate and participate in discussions with the FAA and for Amazon to perhaps help pioneer new regulation regarding drones for commercial purposes like package delivery.
Also I don't think the negative shipping part would work because isn't it still free shipping since the customer isn't paying for it? It isn't free to Amazon and that's not what the free part is for. So negative shipping is still free shipping.
I think this is a sensible decision until safety concerns have been adequately addressed. Innovation is great, shorter delivery time is awesome, but not at the expense of safety of general public.
So theoretically, I could start using a drone to deliver gifts to my friends. Non-commercial, not "free shipping in association with a purchase or other offer" right?
I'm curious, do the people who think that they should be allowed to fly their unmanned aircraft without restrictions also think that they should be allowed to fly their manned aircraft without restrictions, or should the rules be different because the pilot is on the ground rather than in the vehicle itself?
Last time I checked, commercial manned aircraft were regulated but not banned outright. In this case, FAA is banning commercial unmanned aircraft altogether, so unless you consider banning altogether to be a regulation, I don't think your comparison stands.
Not for lightweight craft, but then again I think that driving a car should require a licence but a bicycle shouldn't. The difference is that while it's possible to kill someone by crashing into them with a bicycle or a 20 pound drone, a car or regular airplane it's much, much easier.
There's a big difference between a 20-50 pound quadcopter travelling at 10-20mph and a 1500 pound Cessna flying at 150mph.
Regulations for airplanes are strict primarily because the consequences of failure is loss of human life. Secondly to prevent damage to property due to crashes. Given that drones are unmanned, it would mean to me that the regulation on them should be less than what a manned aircraft requires. I would imagine it would be more similar to rocketry rather than airplanes.
Another example of the government becoming overly involved in private enterprise. There are times when the government should become involved, but it must be done in a responsible manner. Government needs to catch up with technological innovation rather than continuing to stifle it.
I envision drones as being personally owned and then sent out to do tasks like pick up things from stores anyway. Businesses just need to create places for them to land. It seems that would be fully within the scope of the rules.
Even if commercial delivery drones could be engineered to not crash into people or houses, not tangle with power lines, not cause accidents on highways, and not collide with each other once they are common, there's one thing that will instantly get them banned.
That will be the time someone uses a UAV to deliver 10 Oz of Semtex and a proximity sensor to someone they don't like.
Exactly how are you going to stop that becoming common, if there are lots of UAVs in the air everywhere?
Actually this factor is probably why they will definitely be banned before there is any commercial take-up. Because there are some powerful people who very many people don't much like. And this application will be very unpopular with the powerful.
You can use a car packed with explosives triggered by mobile phone to target someone you don't like.
It's much easier and more reliable than the short-distance drone.
Should we ban cars and mobile phones?
Let's say that I'm one of these people. It's already illegal for me to send a UAV to your house with Semtex and a proximity sensor, since trying to kill you is already illegal. What makes you think that a ban on UAVs will stop me? How will a ban on UAVs help you protect yourself from my illegal murder attempt?
[+] [-] jkaljundi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmelton|11 years ago|reply
Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.
[+] [-] esbonsa|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sheetjs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exDM69|11 years ago|reply
If FAA would have allowed commercial drone operations without further regulation, and the technology would have had widespread adoption, there would be great risks involved.
Before there are the equivalents of traffic lights, air traffic control and airways and regulations to how much and what you can carry, there are risks involved. ("hello Amazon, I'd like to have 5 kilograms worth of lithium batteries, drone delivery to this busy urban address." what could possibly go wrong?)
Of course, things can be relatively safe if common sense is applied, but you can't expect commercial operators to apply common sense when there are potential profits available.
And common sense is not always correct either, back in the 1930s when the state of the art in aviation was relatively comparable to the state of the art in drones today, most people thought that pilots should fly by the seat of their pants and flight instruments are only supplemental (which is deadly wrong, and today all planes have doubly redundant gyroscopic instruments).
The reality is that the technology to fly unmanned and autonomous drones exists but it's not mature enough to work in large scale commercial operations safely and effectively.
[+] [-] asynchronous13|11 years ago|reply
Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times.
Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.
[+] [-] sfk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krschultz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] headShrinker|11 years ago|reply
Amazon’s devices will be used for a single purpose they will be optimized in ways we have never seen in the multicopter industry. Their delivery scheme will be completely computer controlled, and will account for weather, airspeed, air density, and flight path, because they will have to.
Octocopters have demonstrated their amazing flight stability and capability in the hands of tinkerers and hobbyist, and there is some question of whether a billion dollar corporation can achieve this? As soon as Amazon mentioned this, FedEx, UPS, and USPS started forming their R&D for the exact same programs.
This is one of the largest, most high-tech, most optimized and automated companies in the world, and some of us are doubtful? Amazon will do this because humans are the problem. With robots, you eliminate the most irrational, chaotic, unreliable and expensive element from the equation.
[+] [-] szierk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danboarder|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BillyMaize|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdamm|11 years ago|reply
I do think the FAA is too risk adverse, and they ought to allow less-limited market trials in large metropolitan areas. The current UAS plan is good but too conservative.
[+] [-] NoPiece|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hippich|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byoung2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hereonbusiness|11 years ago|reply
I pick up most of my packages at the local post office because I live in an apartment, it's a 5 minute walk away, not really an inconvenience.
[+] [-] kolinko|11 years ago|reply
It's raining and you need an umbrella, with nomsalesperson near? Order a drone. Forgot to buy mayo back in the store? Order throug drone and get it in an hour.
But there once you're able to order stuff and get it within minutes, not hours or days, there are other effects that start happening. For one, you don't need to stockpile supplies anymore, or you can do things more spontaneusly. Will 40 or 100'people come to a party. Who cares, if there are not enough forks or plates, you can order them fast. Or, if you want to play in garage, you don't have to make sure that you've got all the supplies well in advance, or go to the store and back 20'times.
Think how many businesses were spawned, and how much more efficient are people now that there are mobile phones, not just stationary. But ic an imagine people saying "who needs mobile, I can call when i get back home, and i've got an answering machine if someone calls when i'm away.
[+] [-] sophacles|11 years ago|reply
Now a different truck has pulled up and double parked across the road, with the driver taking a document tube into the office building across the street.
I wish this example was contrived, but I just watched it happen.
Several drivers were inconvenienced (an ongoing situation at the moment, and I've had to listen to the sound of the idling engines, which are definitely louder than the cars passing by. Drones on the other hand would have zipped in and out, without disrupting the traffic or making me listen to idling truck engines for several minutes in a row.
It's not only about just-in-time delivery for ME, it also reduces a bunch of secondary hassles.
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
however last mile delivery? to the customer? sorry, too many liabilities plus the risk of some agency / group finding them the perfect way to deliver unwanted items to people.
[+] [-] slowmotiony|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DEinspanjer|11 years ago|reply
Bleh.
[+] [-] arg01|11 years ago|reply
It's amazing how prescriptive the aviation industry is, often with demonstrable reason, so it doesn't surprise me that drones/models are also evaluated in an equally stern light. Though I think there's a good argument for exemptions the lower hazards involved.
[+] [-] purringmeow|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donatj|11 years ago|reply
> Surprising? No, but it is almost fun to see the government be so particular in its language
Well couldn't amazon get around this by using negative shipping, whereas they pay you to ship items to you? Like pay you a penny. To me being "so particular in [..] language" just leads to loop holes.
[+] [-] judk|11 years ago|reply
It turns out that judges aren't stupid.
[+] [-] drawkbox|11 years ago|reply
Drones, if they are more efficient than truck deliveries from a cost and energy use perspective, for most things they will be the solution used. It is just does the US want that to happen here or elsewhere.
Drone energy use and possible accidents will be less than truck/delivery energy use and accidents in the future.
[+] [-] jedanbik|11 years ago|reply
N Lawrence Pfeifer "FAA Bans The Use Of Drones To Deliver Packages" "As such, the FAA wants to ban it."
TechCrunch, please.
[+] [-] kjhughes|11 years ago|reply
"This is about hobbyists and model aircraft, not Amazon," said Mary Osako, a spokeswoman for the Seattle-based company. The rule, she said, doesn't apply to commercial entities such as Amazon and "has no effect on our plans."
The rule applies only to hobbyists and was meant to clarify what services are considered legal and what are not within that category, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told CNET. For hobbyists, "using a model aircraft to move a box from point to point without any kind of compensation," is OK, according to the guidelines, while accepting a fee for delivery services is not.
Source: http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-dont-worry-our-drones-are-st...
[+] [-] Evolved|11 years ago|reply
Also I don't think the negative shipping part would work because isn't it still free shipping since the customer isn't paying for it? It isn't free to Amazon and that's not what the free part is for. So negative shipping is still free shipping.
[+] [-] thkim|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derwiki|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lutorm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickaljord|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symmetry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fryguy|11 years ago|reply
Regulations for airplanes are strict primarily because the consequences of failure is loss of human life. Secondly to prevent damage to property due to crashes. Given that drones are unmanned, it would mean to me that the regulation on them should be less than what a manned aircraft requires. I would imagine it would be more similar to rocketry rather than airplanes.
[+] [-] aml183|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TerraHertz|11 years ago|reply
Even if commercial delivery drones could be engineered to not crash into people or houses, not tangle with power lines, not cause accidents on highways, and not collide with each other once they are common, there's one thing that will instantly get them banned.
That will be the time someone uses a UAV to deliver 10 Oz of Semtex and a proximity sensor to someone they don't like. Exactly how are you going to stop that becoming common, if there are lots of UAVs in the air everywhere?
Actually this factor is probably why they will definitely be banned before there is any commercial take-up. Because there are some powerful people who very many people don't much like. And this application will be very unpopular with the powerful.
[+] [-] gluczywo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rlpb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul_f|11 years ago|reply