
FAA bans the use of drones to deliver packages - aritraghosh007
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/24/faa-bans-the-use-of-drones-to-deliver-packages/?utm_campaign=fb&ncid=fb
======
jkaljundi
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."

~~~
baddox
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.

~~~
bri3d
I'm assuming you're referring to FAA v. Pirker.

Isn't the case still undecided?

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-
files-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-appeal-
brief-in-closely-watched-drone-pilot-case/)

~~~
baddox
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/2014-06-23/faa-
claims...](http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims-
authority-over-unsafe-model-aircraft-flights)

~~~
bri3d
In this case the appeal stays the decision:

[http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...](http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15894&cid=TW209)

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.

~~~
hershel
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.

~~~
bri3d
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.

~~~
baddox
> 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.

~~~
Fuxy
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?

~~~
gpvos
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.

~~~
Fuxy
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?

------
exDM69
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.

~~~
sfk
I think the ban should stay regardless of safety. One big issue here is noise
and visual pollution.

~~~
exDM69
I appreciate your opinion and recognize that there are many people who share
your opinion but I can't agree. Compared to road and air traffic, it would
take a serious amount of drones to match the noise and visual pollution.

The pizza delivery man with his car or scooter makes more noise and takes more
space than a drone would.

And you have to remember that the early jet aircraft were very noisy and
inefficient compared to modern jets. NACA, NASA and the FAA did some serious
research and development programs in the fifties and sixties to reduce the
amount of noise.

Compared to "big" aviation, I think that the current drones are somewhere in
between the Wright brothers and the Spirit of St. Louis - I guess there will
be significant development in the near future.

~~~
mantraxD
If machines are flying over your head, would you feel safe going out without a
helmet on your head?

Despite all safety measures, you know it'll happen at some point. One of those
will fail, its safety will fail and it'll drop on the head of some kid and put
it in the hospital.

I can predict immediately that birds and drones colliding will be one of the
biggest problems (and it's not something you can fix with frequent tech
checkups, as it's not a technical failure, just a fact of life).

Having casualties is the case with cars too, of course, but it's a whole new
kind of terror to expect not just cars hitting you coming from the street, but
also machines dropping from the sky (where you usually aren't even looking).

I'd take one of those risks, but not both at the same time. I can't look for
both at the same time. And I'm not saying "ban them" is the only solution, but
this has to be solved somehow.

~~~
exDM69
> If machines are flying over your head, would you feel safe going out without
> a helmet on your head?

No, not with the current state of technology. That's why I think that this ban
is in the right thing to do for the time being.

> I can predict immediately that birds and drones colliding will be one of the
> biggest problems

You're definitely right, bird strikes are a hazard for drones, model aircraft
and big aviation alike.

Unlike big aircraft (which can dodge big flocks at best), a drone is more
maneuverable and could be able to dodge birds to some degree using some kind
of camera technology. Of course, a bird may also intentionally attack a drone
(they certainly attack my kites occasionally), which is a harder problem to
solve.

These are challenges that have to be overcome with navigation, camera and
drone-to-drone communication techniques as well as redundancy.

Before we can put a number estimating the statistical risks of drone traffic,
it is premature to think about large scale commercial operations. I think that
it's inevitable that we'll have such a number (ie. number of incidents per
hours of drone flight), and we can utilize technologies that will bring that
number down to acceptable levels (ie. near or below existing road and air
traffic risks). When that happens, re-thinking this restriction (not
necessarily lifting it) is due.

------
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.

~~~
headShrinker
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...](http://fritzw.com/2013/12/03/theres-little-doubt-about-amazon-prime-
air-heres-why/)

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.

~~~
sschueller
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DeT-Hj2DXk)

~~~
rtpg
warehouses are different. It's very costly to send a guy to people's houses.
They're simply limited by the walking/running rate of the human body, and
traffic.

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

~~~
vacri
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... :)

~~~
regulusblack
In Soviet Russia, pizza delivers YOU!

------
bdamm
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.

~~~
NoPiece
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.

~~~
bdamm
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.

~~~
cpncrunch
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](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.

~~~
vehementi
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!

------
hippich
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 :)

~~~
byoung2
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!

------
hereonbusiness
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.

~~~
kolinko
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.

~~~
hereonbusiness
I'm sorry but that sounds just silly to me, planning ahead is a basic life
skill if you ask me, but I get that people would pay for it, ignorance is
bliss.

I know I'm sounding condescending, but that's not why I'm replying to this
topic, this is just one of those things that right now to me seem like the
wrong direction to look at when solving peoples problems, a dead end so to
speak.

The whole smartphone/tablet thing is a sore point for me as well, I love the
hardware but I don't like the mobile OS movement at all, I hate that there is
no real push to go in the direction of something like Ubuntu for Android[1] as
the devices are getting more capable.

[1][http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-
android](http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android)

------
DEinspanjer
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.

~~~
arg01
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.

------
purringmeow
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? :(

~~~
sp332
418 U.S. military drones have crashed so far.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/cr...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/crashes-
mount-as-military-flies-more-drones-in-u-s/) Do you think commercial drones
will be better-maintained or have more experienced pilots? I don't.

~~~
Houshalter
These are very very different types of aircraft. Sort of like saying a few
submarines have sunk therefore we are outlawing all boats.

~~~
skyebook
Beyond carrying weapons or higher-that-prosumer-quality video equipment, they
are not all that different. UAS go from the sized aircraft one would typically
think of as "military drone" to the small hand-launched aircraft used by
people on the ground [0]. Using a submarine<->boat analog I'd argue with as
the overall physics and operating principles of the two are hugely different.

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/us-military-
min...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/us-military-mini-drones-
battlefield)

------
donatj
> > 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.

~~~
judk
Why would amazon pay you? In furtherance of a business purpose.

It turns out that judges aren't stupid.

------
drawkbox
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.

~~~
naterator
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 not a fan of onerous regulation or
regulatory capture, but you guys are just a bunch of babies.

I think there should be rules about drones, because I can easily think of
several _really fucking bad_ things that could happen if everyone who wants to
tinker can just fly their drones around because they've got the money and know
how. What happens if Amazon tries to deliver a package, but the software fucks
up and the drone flies over the airport (assuming the engineers even thought
of that problem in advance)? What happens when multiple business start flying
drones around and they start crashing into one another, falling on people,
highways, or whatever? I've seen a video where a guy decapitated himself with
his gas powered toy helicopter. Are these drones going to be safe if they
crash into me, or should I walk around with a shotgun?

We need rules. We don't need onerous rules, but we need rules.

~~~
asynchronous13
You're absolutely right that there should be regulations. The reaction you are
seeing is because the FAA is so behind the times that it hurts. This topic is
just now coming into mainstream news, but it's been going on for a long long
time.

In 2012, _Congress_ told the FAA to hurry up. Do you know how far behind the
FAA had to be for _Congress_ to notice that the FAA wasn't doing their job?
Yeah, it's that bad.

------
jedanbik
First comment, couldn't have put it better myself:

N Lawrence Pfeifer "FAA Bans The Use Of Drones To Deliver Packages" "As such,
the FAA wants to ban it."

TechCrunch, please.

------
kjhughes
UPDATE:

 _" 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...](http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-dont-worry-our-drones-are-still-
preparing-for-takeoff/)

~~~
asynchronous13
Not sure if Mary Osako is clueless or trying some PR angle that I don't get.

Yes, the FAA statement was to clarify what is okay for hobbyists. The FAA
clearly states that accepting payment takes you out of the hobbyist category
and puts you into the commercial category. And there is a blanket ban if you
fall into the commercial category.

------
Evolved
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.

------
thkim
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.

------
derwiki
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?

------
lutorm
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?

~~~
patrickaljord
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.

------
aml183
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.

------
downandout
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.

------
TerraHertz
There's a fatal flaw.

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
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?

------
tomrod
It would be interesting to see Amazon revamp their warehouses to use these
drones.

------
fiatjaf
They shouldn't have asked.

------
Elena81
Clach of clans

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

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

~~~
joering2
related (With cool banners from 1933):
[http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-
machines/](http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/)

------
orasis
Drones are really annoyingly loud. This isn't a bad thing at all.

~~~
bramswenson
How quickly do you think they will get quieter?

~~~
radiorental
Depends, how fast can you run from our future robot overlords. Point being,
noise should be the the least of concerns [http://rt.com/news/167168-riot-
control-pepper-spray-drone/](http://rt.com/news/167168-riot-control-pepper-
spray-drone/)

~~~
bramswenson
Well, if they are quieter, we won't hear them coming to riot control us.

------
logfromblammo
Establishment resists potentially disruptive technology. News at 11.

While agencies of government have never hesitated to step in and order people
about, I am somewhat concerned that they are saying "Stop that at once!" far
less often, in favor of "Don't even think about it."

Rather than allowing people to test the limits of their ingenuity, and
intervene only when there is a demonstrable externality to be addressed, they
are now issuing orders based upon an unrealized potential for harm. I think
the latter demands a higher standard. You would have to be worrying about
buildings burning down and people dying before I would want anyone to ban
_something that hasn 't even been done yet_. Let's ban people from building
nuclear reactors in their toolsheds, yes. Maybe don't allow people to set off
high-powered fireworks in the middle of a bunch of flammable homes. And let's
not drive cars at high speed through suburban avenues where children, joggers,
and pets may be present.

How, exactly, would software-piloted package-delivery aircraft present such a
severe threat to life and property that we have to conclude that they cannot
possibly be operated safely?

The public wants to use its airspace in a manner that benefits them. That
includes noncommercial hobbyists, people such as journalists and surveyors
profiting incidental to their usual work, and people earning money directly.
The FAA does not get to pick the winners and losers here. That job,
unfortunately, belongs to the legislature, not the executive (unfortunate in
the sense that they have opted not to do their jobs, of course).

FAA is either exceeding its authority, or its authority is ambiguous at a
result of legal refactoring proceeding more slowly than societal development.
Either way, it stops Amazon from even trying, while black marketeers will
blithely use drones to make drops of contraband, and cops and soldiers will
use them for illegal surveillance and ethically dubious methods of crowd
control.

As with so many other things, the real barrier here is how much it costs for
Average Joe to buy and operate his own software-piloted drone. If you can get
one cheaply enough, drones will eventually be resupplying beers from the
camper to the bass boat, and the FAA will be stuck trying to enforce an
extremely unpopular decision that is routinely ignored by people who have
never even heard of it.

