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

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#81

Post by dkokelley » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:52 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #61

bdamm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the implication is that a military drone is flying over the enemy. But taking a more realistic approach, a drone failure/crash in any current military theater is unlikely to hit anybody. We're not doing much flying over heavily populated/urbanized areas as far as I'm aware.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#82

Post by sschueller » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 4:48 AM UTC

headShrinker wrote: post #78

krschultz wrote: post #66

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.

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…

Hasn't amazon been the one to only slowly adopt warehouse automation because it is cheaper to hire humans at $10 an hour?

They did buy this company that makes little robots to move shelves around but it is nothing compared to a real system like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DeT-Hj2DXk

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#83

Post by drawkbox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 4:52 AM UTC

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.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#84

Post by thkim » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:12 AM UTC

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.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#85

Post by beedogs » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:44 AM UTC

Good. What a terrible, terrible idea. Imagine these things falling from the sky a few times a day in major metro areas.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#86

Post by witty_username » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:46 AM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #85

Good. What a terrible, terrible idea. Imagine these things falling from the sky a few times a day in major metro areas.

1900s: Imagine these bulky cars hitting people. ;)

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#87

Post by clarkm » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:47 AM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #85

Good. What a terrible, terrible idea. Imagine these things falling from the sky a few times a day in major metro areas.

Imagine them delivering supplies to rural farmers.

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#88

Post by regulusblack » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:54 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #71

danboarder wrote: post #44

Meanwhile, in Russia a pizzeria recently launched unmanned delivery: http://rt.com/news/167936-russia-drones-pizza-delivery/

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... :)

In Soviet Russia, pizza delivers YOU!

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#89

Post by joering2 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:15 AM UTC

witty_username wrote: post #86

beedogs wrote: post #85

Good. What a terrible, terrible idea. Imagine these things falling from the sky a few times a day in major metro areas.

1900s: Imagine these bulky cars hitting people. ;)

related (With cool banners from 1933): http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/

Re: FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages

#90

Post by DannyBee » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:20 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #73

bri3d wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS. However, the FAA's rulemaking abilities are limited by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and they haven't made any yet. So, even if the FAA's appeal fails, there will be a very short window (probably a year or less) before drones are explicitly regulated on less shaky footing.

> The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS. So claims the FAA. I can't make my way through the text of the law, nor can I find any legal summary or analysis other than the FAA's own claim that it gives them the authority to regulate UAS.

Let me save you the trouble. As a lawyer, familiar with reading legislative text, it clearly requires them to do rulemaking about UAS, and grants them the authority to do so.