Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 136 posts

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#61

Post by wavefunction »

bdamm wrote: post #39
sp332 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You're saying the AF doesn't care if a drone has a possibility of crashing into our own troops? That seems to be unlikely.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#62

Post by patrickaljord »

lutorm wrote: post #55

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.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#63

Post by bri3d »

wavefunction wrote: post #59
bri3d wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash." I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years be…

Why don't you expect the FAA to "correctly regulate" drones? They've done a great job regulating commercial passenger and freight planes, leading to an excellent safety record for these vehicles.

I believe they'll err too far on the side of caution for small drones, stifling potential innovation by requiring expensive airworthiness certification, ADS-B, and flight planning for all drones which fly beyond line of sight, even those which are small enough not to pose a major threat to commercial aviation or bystanders.

The FAA's roadmap here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_Roadmap_2...

indicates that they plan to implement these requirements for all drones which aren't sUAS with a line-of-sight requirement.

I believe these drones should be authorized for testing and commercial flight over unpopulated areas below 500ft and possibly above in certain airspace classes - basically, that the existing, frequently ignored hobbyist "recommendations" should be enforced as "rules" and applied commercially.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#65

Post by cpncrunch »

bdamm wrote: post #37
NoPiece wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure why you think it would be okay to fly over non-highway streets, where presumably there will be pedestrians. Already there has been an injury caused by a drone falling on top of someone (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504).

Regarding avoiding power lines: is that actually feasible? Either you have to program a GPS route from the warehouse to the delivery address avoiding all obstructions, or you have to use some kind of radar so that you can detect obstructions even in fog (or maybe just not operate in low visibiliity). It's not a trivial problem, and I'm not sure if the proponents have really thought it out.

PS, if you're going to downvote my comment, at least explain why.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#66

Post by krschultz »

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.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#67

Post by sokoloff »

bdamm wrote: post #58
ars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And motorcycles with defective mufflers should be banned. Airplanes are already heavily restricted in where they can fly.

Motorcycles with defective (or removed) mufflers are banned in most places. Airplanes with defective mufflers should be banned too.

Because of the strict maintenance requirements on certified aircraft, you won't find many (read: basically zero) piston engine airplanes flying with improperly modified or defective mufflers. In single-engine airplanes, those could represent a significant safety hazard to the people in the cabin.

Turboprops and jet engines don't really have mufflers per-se. Some aircraft have aftermarket "hush kits", but that's relatively uncommon as well.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#68

Post by tizzdogg »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11
bramswenson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How quickly do you think they will get quieter?

Quick: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/owl/ That article is from almost two years ago. Use ducted fans, find ways to generate more lift at slower prop speeds.

That article says they are trying to make military drones "about equivalent to a chainsaw when up close".

So that's still louder than a lot of the hobby drones out there today. Having flying chainsaw-level noises everywhere will still be pretty annoying.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#69

Post by vehementi »

cpncrunch wrote: post #65
bdamm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure why you think it would be okay to fly over non-highway streets, where presumably there will be pedestrians. Already there has been an injury caused by a drone falling on top of someone ( http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504 ). Regarding avoiding power lines: is that actually feasible? Either you have to program a GPS route from the warehouse to the delivery address avoiding all obstructions, or yo…

Don't worry, there's a whole lot of posts in this thread that terrified would-be censorers have tried to hide! You're not alone!

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#70

Post by arg01 »

DEinspanjer wrote: post #34

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. Bleh.

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.

Post reply on HN