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."
Clicked link, ads shown -> mission accomplished (for TC, at least)
I didn't see any ads
FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
31–40 of 136 posts
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#32I 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? :(
Because there is a lot to consider in densely packed cities. If these interfere with public utilities but hitting power lines, or crashing into homes, or school play grounds, etc... I have no issue with them planing ahead in this scenario, and do not feel it has anything to do with competitiveness.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#33The 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.
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.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#34One 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.
Bleh.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#35I 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? :(
418 U.S. military drones have crashed so far. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/cr... Do you think commercial drones will be better-maintained or have more experienced pilots? I don't.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal? But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0]. [0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-0…
In this case the appeal stays the decision: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.
Even if they lose, won't the laws change to give them these powers ? I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#37The 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.
Hence overhead non-highway surface streets. Drones are typically fairly small, smaller than delivery trucks. And hopefully the drone operators can figure out how to avoid power lines, overhead trains, etc. Wind could blow a non-functioning (or even worse, incorrectly vectored) drone off the street as it falls towards the ground. A market test could start off by declaring streets OK for overhead drone activity.
I bet if the FAA opened it up to cities to decide whether it's OK for a drone to operate commercially above their streets, you'd get dozens or hundreds of cities move to allow it. Starting with Seattle.
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal? But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0]. [0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-0…
In this case the appeal stays the decision: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.
That's interesting. Is it well-accepted that an appeal stays the decisions? If not, then this might just be another case of the FAA claiming its desires. And even if the appeal is stayed, what is the default state?
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#39I 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? :(
418 U.S. military drones have crashed so far. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/cr... Do you think commercial drones will be better-maintained or have more experienced pilots? I don't.
The Air Force vets that I know say that civilian aircraft during peace time are maintained better than AF aircraft were during war time.
Also, it's fair to say that the AF doesn't really care about the potential for ground casualties in the event of a mechanical failure.
Let's look at it this way; how many US drones have been captured by enemy forces? Crashing is one thing; falling into the hands of an opponent who can study the device is a mission aspect that the AF and other agencies do care about. More than a handful?
Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot argue the noise aspect, but I do thing not allowing experiments in drone delivery a bad thing . I strongly suspect that self-driving cars are on the horizon. With that presumption, I suspect self-flying cars would not be far off and that the technology that would drive that would come from parcel delivering drones.
For experimentation the FAA has set up a program called UAS test sites: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=15... and http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ No problem with testing, but it must be done step by step.
This ignores the economics. If you look to the FDA as the template, the strict testing regime and the cost of navigating through the process ensures that only patent-protected drugs ever get approved for human medical use.
I extrapolate, perhaps inappropriately, that the combination of an FAA ban on commercial drones and a testing initiative will mean that only proprietary, patent-protected, and closed-source drones--and their software packages--will ever have access to this potentially interesting and useful market.
And that barrier to entry will make everything more expensive, in the same way that a GPS becomes more expensive when installed in an avionics panel than when it is strapped to the pilot's thigh.
Premature optimization is not optimization at all.