Amazon proposes drones-only airspace to facilitate high-speed delivery
What do you guys think of this? Drone only airspace from 200ft to 400ft. Doesn't this eat into our 400ft slice of the sky? Your gear must also be up to spec to participate in this airspace
Aircraft must have:
- Sophisticated GPS tracking that allows them to pinpoint their location in real-time and in relation to all other drones around them.
- A reliable internet connection onboard that allows them to maintain real-time GPS data and awareness of other drones and obstacles.
- Online flight planning that allows them to predict and communicate their flight path.
- Communications equipment that allow them to “talk” and collaborate with other drones in the zone to ensure they avoid each other.
- Sensor-based sense-and-avoid equipment that allows the drones to bypass all other drones and obstacles such as birds, buildings or electric cables.
Comments
The real reason that Amazon will never get this to work is not just the risk of injury from falling devices but the financial risk that anyone of us who needs a new Quad, Motor , Controller , Battery etc will simply order a small book from amazon to be delivery at a false address and hijack the nice delivery drone for parts when it arrives.
No I am not going to do this as I am a law abiding citizen...... but I know several people who would regard this as a gift from above.!!
Amazon (and Co) for us, future customers, whether we like it or not, or whether we'll bite. I am talking about small UAV integration in the NAS.
@john dennings I can remember when there was no Amazon and we were still working on UAVs. Whose paving the way for whom?
Earthpatrol, just wanted to point out that there are technologies out there that can significantly mitigate risk, the biggest one being the one you pointed to, a high energy crash on someone. In that respect a parachute can significantly help.
Yet it could also fail , since zero risk does not exist, but somewhere there's got to be some acceptance of that, accidents will happen no matter what. We do this everyday as we accept the significant risks of cars, planes, etc ... So in short do as much as possible to mitigate risk, yet don't write off technology if zero risk is not achievable. (btw, I didn't mean to imply you'd necessarily disagree with this).
"Science/engineering/education focus", "Thoughtful and respectful exploration of UAVs", I am definitely with you on that.
As far as the blanket statements by Amazon and Co, self-serving? Sure. Irresponsible, why? They are paving the way, and they fully understand that they are years away from achieving their goals, safety certainly being one important factor in that.
@john denning, not sure I follow the logic? Is the logic, since there are car, truck and airplane accidents, we should allow drones to add to the pile of accidents? I would lobby for a more science/engineering/education focus for these technologies as opposed to the premature business exploits that reek of propping up unsustainable business practices. I'm interested in the thoughtful and respectful exploration of UAVs. These kinds of blanket statements by the likes of Amazon are irresponsible and self serving. All of us in this community hope for great things to rise out of our efforts but that is down the road aways.
@earthpatrol Re: Physics, physics, physics. Parachute deployed past a downward acceleration point!
Yeah these could fail too, but then again how many car, truck, or plane accidents every year?
My guess is that the FAA is not taking Amazons proposal seriously and I don't think anyone else should either.
I think it is more of a get the ball rolling effort.
And the fact is while home delivery is about as practical as communication by carrier pigeon there are going to be a ton of worthwhile commercial and civil UAV uses that are going to need to be properly and tightly regulated with plenty of guarantees for safety as well.
There are clearly going to be at least 2 classes of UAV, hobbygrade/light commercial with short range line of sight and RC control capability and everybody else.
And that everybody else is going to be a whole different ball game, autonomous, semi autonomous, full FPV and enough safety measures to take it completely out of the little league.
(Namely: really serious and really expensive and with very carefully delineated IFR type flight plan filing requirements).
The fact is 200 to 400 feet is awfully low to be guaranteed a full deployment of a parachute recovery system, so it is far from ideal for "real" UAVs anyway.
Best Regards,
Gary
A lot of people in the US really do not like drones. I saw another news article about one getting shot down today, because it was over someones property. The rednecks would be taking target practice at every delivery drone they see. It's a fact and should be common knowledge you don't own the airspace above your property, but that doesn't matter to them and the judges are often on the side of the shooter. (The shooter should go to federal prison, while the pilot gets a trespassing fine, if anyting)
My point is, I think it will be awhile before we see this happen nation wide.
They will need some robust auto avoidance system for sure. At less then 400ft it is pretty much guaranteed they will have 'unsanctioned' company at regular intervals.
Forgetting the silliness of drone delivery for a moment, it does bring up how archaic the FAA's airspace system is. Carving things up with the precision of an axe was OK for the 20th century, but a scalpel is needed for sUAS. A whole unmanned aviation industry could exist in what is mostly unused and mostly unusable airspace for manned craft. A whole industry WILL eventually exist there, but the idea scares the hell out of many who can't imagine aviation being anything other than manned fixed-wing flights from airport to airport. The FAA shares this fear so of course they haven't done anything. Living in the 20th century is the only place they are comfortable, but eventually something kind of like this proposal needs to happen.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next