FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages • Hacker News Board

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#131

Post by lepht » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 4:16 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #125

headShrinker wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are wrong. I will abbreviate the article wrote on this very subject found here: http://fritzw.com/2013/12/03/theres-little-doubt-about-amazo... 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, be…

First off, if package handling is more efficient using quad copters than wheeled robots, why doesn't Amazon use them inside their warehouse? It is a controlled environment (no weather, no wind, can have localizing beacons all over, fixed map, etc etc) and doesn't require FAA approval. Not to mention products in the warehouse are lighter weight and smaller because they haven't been packed for shipping yet. I would arg…

I'm not convinced myself that it wasn't just pure PR, but wanted to point out:

> why doesn't Amazon use them inside their warehouse? It is a controlled environment

The fact that it's a controlled environment is precisely why they're unnecessary in their warehouses -- the flying robot delivery method would theoretically allow them to bypass the uncontrolled variables in the real world: road traffic, pedestrians, etc.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#132

Post by Fuxy » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 4:33 PM UTC

gpvos wrote: post #111

Fuxy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody is arguing if they have the authority or not the more important question is why do they want to? I find the FAA's attempt at banning anything commercial relating to drones a bit curious. Step 1. Ban/regulate all commercial Drones. Step 2. Require a license for commercial use. Step 3. Profit?

The FAA's goal in life is to ensure safety in the air. Drones are obviously within their field of interest. When commercial drones take off, there will obviously be a lot more drones in the air than the recreational drones and toy aircraft now, since there is a lot of money to be made, while comparatively few people fly things for a hobby.

If that was the intent they would be putting rules in place to prevent people from getting hurt not outright banning them which is what their doing now.

This looks more like a move to kill an industry before it takes off if you pardon my pun.

Not to mention there's nothing to regulate at the moment no people have been hurt by drones and there's very few companies actually looking into them.

So the next logical question is who would loose money if commercial drone delivery services become the norm?

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#133

Post by asynchronous13 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

exDM69 wrote: post #128

asynchronous13 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> 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. These are all very good suggestions and I have no doubt that something like this will…

Sadly, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Perhaps I'm just jaded because I've been running into this brick wall for so long now. Hopefully your optimism is justified.

Take the Yamaha-RMAX helicopter used for agriculture as an example of data. There's 2,500 of them actively flying in Japan (point of comparison, US Air Force has less than 500 UAVs). The RMAX has more than 2,000,000 flight hours with an impeccable safety record. Yamaha offered troves of data and requested permission to use the RMAX for crop-spraying over vineyards in California. FAA said, "No."

That's the problem. The FAA simply says, "No". They don't say "You haven't met requirement X", there are no requirements that can be met by anyone.

If 2 million flight hours is not enough data, what is?

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#134

Post by aml183 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 7:40 PM UTC

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.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#135

Post by hexagonc » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

naterator wrote: post #114

drawkbox wrote: post #83

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…

Silicon Valley and the tech sector is full of adult babies. Watching the twitter reaction to this news (and others) is pretty fascinating. You're all so doom-and-gloom the first second the government tries to regulate something. Let's not discuss the histrionics that come out on other topics. Further, you act like there could be no possible logical reason why these things should be regulated. Don't get me wrong, I'm…

I've seen a video where a guy decapitated himself with his gas powered toy helicopter

There are no toy gas powered helicopters. The idea that they are toys are what gets people in trouble in the first place. Even small electric palmtop RC helicopters can cause significant injury if you accidentally fly it toward your face.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#136

Post by bdamm » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:57 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #67

bdamm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relat…

The one and only piston-powered airplane I've taken into a deep pre-buy inspection had a wrecked muffler core.

My sample size is one, so did I "win" the lottery? I have no particular reason to believe this aircraft is especially noteworthy for its airworthiness or level of care.