20 ms·

FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

243 points by skanga 6y ago

jmercouris 6y ago
This will revolutionize the delivery industry. I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I have a lot of doubts on the cost/efficiency of this. Keeping things airborne will always cost a lot more energy than rolling things around. Ground-based delivery robots make some sense, air-based ones likely don't.
  - lumost 6y ago
    It's likely that the energy cost of drone delivery is a small fraction of the cost a human delivery driver incurs walking to a stoop, particularly if one considers the not insignificant injury risk. flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery truck or base station could concurrently service multiple blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sure if weight, range, carrying capacity, or speed would work out in a compelling form factor.
    - pc86 6y ago
      You're naive if you think a company is going to take on increases costs via drone-based deliveries to marginally decrease delivery driver injury risk.
      - dannyw 6y ago
        Even if you’re a “independent contractor” for Uber, if you get injured while working, their health insurance will kick in as a last resort.
      - chokeartist 6y ago
        Agreed that will never be the sole motivation. But faster delivery times is something that people will most definitely consider - I know I would. Want that ice cream in 2 hours? $3 delivery via car. Want that ice cream in 15 minutes? $10 delivery via drone.
  - xnx 6y ago
    I had the crazy thought that drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure (like a skyscraper or antenna), take advantage of the height differential to efficiently glide toward their delivery destination, and then make their return with less weight to carry. Probably very few locales where this could make sense compared to automated sidewalk deliveries like Starship. The speed of the delivery could be astoundingly fast though.
    - pc86 6y ago
      There aren't many warehouses at the top of skyscrapers, though.
      - jdironman 6y ago
        And you have to move not only the drones, but also the packages to the top.
    - kreeben 6y ago
      >> drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains? Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded vehicles that elevate themselves? (edited for clarity)
      - hatsunearu 6y ago
        lifting those payloads up the tower would just use the commerical power grid and not batteries that you also have to carry up. cables and motors are much more efficient than propellers.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - selectodude 6y ago
        An elevator?
  - victorthehuman 6y ago
    If we're talking about fixed wing drones in rural environments then it does makes sense. A good example of that is this drone delivery service in Rwanda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c
  - clort 6y ago
    Energy cost per time of use. drones might be a lot quicker to do the delivery job, particularly if the delivery point needs to be more secure than just tossing packages onto the front porch in plain sight as currently seems to be done.
- brk 6y ago
  I tend to doubt that happening soon. There are still a lot of logistical issues to drones flying around trying to deliver packages to the appropriate locations without a lot of live human supervision. IMO, this more opens up a potential market to justify investment in the space to create solutions.
- mikequinlan 6y ago
  This is what I have been thinking but I would personally prefer they use trebuchets and launch the packages onto your porch (instead of using drones). Not because it would be practical but because it would be cool.
- powersnail 6y ago
  I can understand it for some long-distanced batch delivery, by a giant drone. However, swarms of little drones flying in the sky of cities or private properties seems incredibly irritating, however efficiently they improve deliveries.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I think about the truly massive # of packages delivered all over the place and think we'll need some significant routing protocols in place before we can easily get enough drones airborne without crashing into each other. Sort of a tcp/ip for millions of drones.
    - 7952 6y ago
      I don't think communication protocols are a good metaphor because they can be stateless. You can drop packets and it does matter! A better way to think about it is as a shared data structure. It is a 3d vector space with some attributes that help predict the future. Each drone has a different version of this data structure in memory. The data structure has an initial state at take-off and is updated using radio communication and sensor data. If the data structure is perfectly synchronised then planning is easy. There is plenty of sky and simple rules can be applied. But it never will be perfectly synchronised. in that sense it is like a globally distributed database. The data structure may have been edited by another drone and the change not communicated. You may have lost communication and not even realised. Local conditions may have reduced GPS quality giving you false location information. So perhaps an interesting metaphor is concurrency control. Do we lock airspace or can we have transactions? Can we partition or shard the airspace? When is consistent state required?
  - cameronh90 6y ago
    Commercial delivery drones will likely be some form of VTOL fixed wing craft, which can be significantly quieter when cruising. Additionally they can usually fly higher which further reduces the noise pollution.
- burade 6y ago
  Is it really worth it to have your peace disturbed by hundreds of annoying little helicopters just so you can have a panini sandwich delivered in 2 minutes instead of 10?
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    What about all the paninis you can get if you can make the shot though? Think of it as urban duck hunting.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city. I saw a mockup video of this once. I think it was for UPS, but I might be remembering that part wrong. The upshot was that it's not useful in cities, but could be used to make exurban and rural deliveries much more efficient because the delivery truck doesn't have to trundle down a bunch of long driveways.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Without even drones, trucks could be motherships that dispatch deliverers on electric scooters for the last quarter mile. Scooters could catch up with the truck, dock to recharge and get new packages and then roll out again
- scrose 6y ago
  Cities feel like the last place that would be a good fit for airborne delivery, at least in the US. Take NYC for example: Delivery people on e-bikes are still harassed incessantly by the NYPD and community boards by people being scared of the possibility of being hit by them. Factor in our paranoia about terrorism and a single accidentally dropped package would likely result in counter terrorism and bomb squads being called in. I couldn’t imagine any proposal for giant flying robots with multi-pound payloads hovering overhead be taken seriously by even the most progressive leaders. In hard to reach / rural areas, I could see some benefits from drone technology though. Drone chainsaws, anyone?[0] [0] https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-through-the-treetops/ https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-thr...
  - ghaff 6y ago
    And presumably, even with detached single family homes in more spread out cities, delivery people don't just drop a package on the sidewalk. I live in a fairly rural location and packages are mostly left in my mailbox or wherever against the house. But I assume in busier areas, delivery people actually make a minimal effort to not make packages completely obvious from the sidewalk.
chrisdalke 6y ago
The final rule looks to be a big win for everyone who was protesting the original proposed rule: "The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast." This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much simpler and cost-effective to integrate into existing hobby or consumer drones. It could be built into RC receivers, or as a separate transponder.
- snuxoll 6y ago
  RF can still be expensive depending on how it needs to be implemented. As a casual drone pilot I’m still concerned about how this is going to effect cost, existing equipment in the field and hobby/home-built uSAS’s. I’ll still take it over the internet mandate, however - so it’s a step in the right direction.
  - chrisdalke 6y ago
    No matter what, there will be consequences for DIY/hobby aircraft, just because cost/weight/complexity are critical factors in a small drone. Most of the planes I fly now are wood/cardboard with a few dumb electrical components. Adding any component will make it harder for newcomers to enter the field. The FAA has decided that unregulated drone flight is an issue, and no matter what, they're going to tackle it. So I'm happy to see any solution that allows for the continued existence of the DIY part of the industry. In my mind the "ideal" solution for DIY aircraft is a separate RC receiver-sized transmitter, powered over BEC, that you add to your aircraft when you are flying in conditions that require Remote ID. The transmitter would become another fixed cost in the hobby, but you could use it on whatever aircraft you're flying -- It would be linked to a pilot, instead of a particular aircraft. I have zero knowledge of RF physics and engineering, but I'd be happy if that was possible without a heavy transmitter and significant power consumption.
    - treeman79 6y ago
      I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window. Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
This is odd: night would be the time when I would think people don't want to hear "whirrrrrrr...' of drones flying over their houses.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Yeah, even if all of the logistical and technical issues of drone delivery make it economically viable for Amazon (or whoever) - I think I might boycott Amazon as a company if they started using drones for any deliveries. They are just so obnoxiously loud I would probably welcome people shooting them out of the sky (or if you're awesome you can use an eagle). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816
  - itisit 6y ago
    Plenty of companies hard at work on making anti-drone tech consumer friendly. Rejoice!
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Which will quickly be made illegal if it interferes with major commercial activity
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        I'm not sure what "anti-drone tech" could mean other than RF jamming, which is already very illegal.
        reaperducer 6y ago
        Birdshot?
        jakear 6y ago
coder543 6y ago
What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone photography / videography? I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license? That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.
- vmception 6y ago
  > That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away. Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior. They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't want to bother Congress about it.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  You may feel it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with other FAA certificates: i.e. you need a commercial pilot certificate to be paid to fly.
  - thallium205 6y ago
    What if you keep it demonetized and only youtube is making money off it?
- pc86 6y ago
  Like NW says, the FAA heavily regulates commercial activity. You can get a private license in as little as 40-ish hours. But you need an absolute minimum of 250 total hours to even qualify for a commercial license (and there are a bunch of hour requirements in subcategories such that if you're not explicitly working toward it, you're unlikely to meet minimums), and there's another written and practical exam. And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test. Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-thought.
zython 6y ago
Anyone want to bet in what capacity this will be used for (police) surveillance ? Especially since Alphabet and Amazon are involved.
- pc86 6y ago
  I could see automated license plate reader and facial recognition use cases for sure. Depending on how high the drone flies FR may or may not be feasible.
  - skanga 6y ago
    Do automated license plate reader work via night vision systems? Could they be made to work?
    - vel0city 6y ago
      Lots of license plates these days have high contrast between the letters and the background. These license plates are often usually covered in retroreflectors such that the high contrast is accentuated with any kind of light. A strong IR light source from an IR camera can probably read most clean license plates driving by without being obvious to the people being viewed. Remember that light follows the inverse square law, so if you're far away you'll probably need a pretty bright IR source to get a good high contrast read from a far away license plate, along with pretty good optics/sensor to reliably read the plate.
      - pc86 6y ago
        Yup - luckily this was for tolling specifically, so traffic was well controlled, cameras were close, there was a flash of bright light as the photo was taken, etc. Most photos you couldn't even tell if it was night or day if you zoomed in close enough to the vehicle. Less reliable photos would definitely have made for a more challenging (but more interesting!) project.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      Ohio at least requires that there be a light that illuminates the liscense plate whenever the headlights are turned on, so no need for special night vision systems
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow. My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows. Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?
- crooked-v 6y ago
  The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored) prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of drone crashes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- coder543 6y ago
  Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on their personal property. This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    Almost all state and local drone laws are invalid in the United States. Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation and there is specific preemption in the federal code. The FAA's stance is that voyeurism is a crime, and the use of a drone is irrelevant.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Whenever I encounter people flying drones - for example at the park - I find it highly obnoxious. The buzzing of their rotors is noise pollution that ruins the peace of a park/natural area, and while I recognize the right to record in public spaces, there’s something especially creepy about a drone flying along a jogging path near you armed with the latest 4K cameras. I think drone enthusiasts don’t understand how that can impact women especially. I also think it would be incredibly annoying to have drones constantly in the sky above you if our current volume of deliveries is moved from ground to air. I hope both are heavily regulated and curbed.
- post_break 6y ago
  Honestly this just sounds like NIMBY. First there are loud drones and quiet drones, noise pollution can be regulated. Next the video from a drone for spying on a woman jogging is nothing compared to someone with a decent DSLR with a telephoto that makes zero noise. And third drone deliveries could have airspace carved out that avoids residential or places that would annoy people. Now that said some people are obnoxious with it, they fly by people, make noise, I agree that should met with criticism, maybe fines, but I also believe drones will have a big impact in quality of life not just from delivery bots but police, medical, and including hobbyists.
  - downut 6y ago
    I had a neighbor hover a large, very noisy drone over my wife who was working in her backyard garden, out of sight from said neighbors, who were piloting from the house across from me. She was terrified. There easily could have been a large escalation. After my intervention it hasn't happened again, but the sort of judgement that leads to the stupidity in the first place, in my experience, cannot resist the lure to offend again, especially if the bad judger has been drinking. I read the blithe attitude in comments like these, and I am sure there will be large escalations in the future. FWIW, in AZ, this behaviour appears to be legal.
    - post_break 6y ago
      Out of line of sight sounds illegal from looking at the FAA. Flying over people is currently illegal too. Flying while drinking is also illegal... Report them to the FAA.
neuronexmachina 6y ago
The actual release from the FAA today regarding the two new drone rules for "Remote ID" and "Operations Over People and at Night". The release includes links to executive summaries and full text of the rules: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=25541 https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...
fjabre 6y ago
This will bring about new technology to deal with the rising threat. People don't take kindly to being constantly spied on. I imagine many will take matters into their own hands.
- p410n3 6y ago
  Except everyone already does all the time?
  - fjabre 6y ago
    Is that so?
    - xwdv 6y ago
      I could easily take pictures of you in public with a phone and there’s nothing you can do about it.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - donatj 6y ago
      I mean there is mass surveillance of basically all communication.
      - fjabre 6y ago
        Little different when a drone is hanging out over your 52nd floor penthouse with an HD cam of your most of your apartment and the ability to get closer and see things in your place that you can't even see with your naked eyes. Then I don't even have the option of throwing my phone or alexa in the fireplace. This makes sense to me. Not sure where people are getting lost. This commenter p410n3 is clearly a cynic. Some people think the world is always listening, always watching them. But what they don't realize is they blend in with the noise because they aren't all that important. No one cares to listen to them. I don't think they like that answer though ;) I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall. Because it's literally flying above me out of reach. If I had tech to destroy it. I would use that tech. I guess a gun would work if you're a good shot. They use hawks in Scotland.
phkahler 6y ago
Does the broadcast ID include location like ADS-B? Also, is it in the clear? If so, I see both fun and trouble ahead.
- clamprecht 6y ago
  I wish drones could, at least optionally, transmit on ADS-B, with some "drone" flag. That could help pilots with ADS-B IN a lot, as long as it was clearly indicated as a drone.
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    but then Garmin couldn't charge you $5000 for another radio.
  - snuxoll 6y ago
    With the proliferation of drones the entire ADS-B system would get overwhelmed, which is why the rules explicitly state that uSAS' are NOT allowed to transmit on ADS-B. Not to mention ADS-B OUT is expensive as all hell, power hungry and heavy - not a good match for lightweight unmanned craft.
    - clamprecht 6y ago
      I hear ya... maybe ADS-B isn't the solution here, but I wish pilots could somehow see drones on the traffic screen.
      - phkahler 6y ago
        It should be enough to maintain minimums while the drones obey their maximums and stay away from airports. But that doesnt cover everything and it would be nice optionally show them.
rkagerer 6y ago
Even though I don't fly over people, I retrofitted a parachute onto my DJI drone just in case. It automatically deploys if the drone loses power or control. It doesn't impact flight characteristics or battery life by much. I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly internet requirement).
- GordonS 6y ago
  I've never flown a drone, but this sounds like a pretty cool idea! Are you aware of anything like this being a requirement anywhere, or having being proposed by regulators anywhere?
  - snuxoll 6y ago
    They kind of fall in with the rules published by the FAA here, and previously were more or less a requirement to get a waiver before said rules. The whole worry about flight over people is two-fold: 1. Props still spinning waiting to cut people up in event of flyaways or loss of power from one or more props 2. In the event of total loss of power, what is the total kinetic energy that would be imparted on an individual should the falling drone strike them Parachute systems effectively deal with both. A proper setup will power off the drone, making sure the props aren't spinning, and lower the rate of descent so minimal kinetic energy will be transferred in the event of a collision with a human being. The new rules firmly codify what requirements must be met to operate over people safely, and parachutes along with prop guards should easily meet them.
- taf2 6y ago
  oh if you can that would be really cool to see how you did that... I'd love to retrofit something like this to my drone... I did buy my kids a drone and the issue there was they flew it into a very tall tree... needless say it's still in the very tall tree
  - spydum 6y ago
lgats 6y ago
Remote ID Executive Summary: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executive_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executiv... Remote ID Final Ruling: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Ru...
rdxm 6y ago
who would even remotely trust the FAA at this point? It's a broken agency that is very much bought and paid for by commercial interests at the expense of the people it is ther to protect.
natas 6y ago
goodbye blue sky
mrtweetyhack 6y ago
wow. drug delivery will be so much better now.
swayvil 6y ago
Consider the HERF gun https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your-dinner/ https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your...
graderjs 6y ago
Say goodbye to apartment building rooftop privacy.....
oliv__ 6y ago
The digital license plate for drones sounds a lot like the first step to implementing the same thing for cars.
joshdogden 6y ago
Here are two videos of our parachute recovery system in action. They are both for two popular commercial drones called the DJI M200 Series and DJI M300 RTK. Video 1 - Third Party Testing - https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A Video 2 - Promotional Video - https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8 https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8 Feel free to ask questions about how they work, what testing is required, or about the new rule. Here is another article that we wrote today: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-Vh65 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-...
ww520 6y ago
I wish they allow drone flying in state or federal parks.
poof131 6y ago
While I applaud this move, I still feel the FAA is woefully failing at integrating UAS into the airspace. The Beyond Visual Line of Site issue still seems like a blocker to real adoption and with no real path forward yet. It baffles me that the airspace up to 200’ above private property can’t be BVLOS for the owner. This would enable advances in agriculture, construction, security, ranching, utility inspections, and certainly many more areas. Additionally, the idea that the FEDs can manage all this is insane. Drones are not airlines, where a city 30k’ below a flight path shouldn’t have a say in the flight. If drone flights take off, land, or transits a cities boundaries, that city should be more involved than the FEDs, who should just manage overall safety and compliance. The future of drones and beyond visual line of sight over other people's property will be more akin to cars, the DMV, and public roads, than to aircraft, airlines, and the ATC. It will require a ton of local involvement, which, unfortunately, the major corporate players focused on delivery don’t want.
eternalreturn 6y ago
I hope this never happens to anyone again (or worse): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFdh1w_n6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFdh1w_n6M

243 points by skanga 6y ago

This will revolutionize the delivery industry. I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I have a lot of doubts on the cost/efficiency of this. Keeping things airborne will always cost a lot more energy than rolling things around. Ground-based delivery robots make some sense, air-based ones likely don't.
- lumost 6y ago
  It's likely that the energy cost of drone delivery is a small fraction of the cost a human delivery driver incurs walking to a stoop, particularly if one considers the not insignificant injury risk. flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery truck or base station could concurrently service multiple blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sure if weight, range, carrying capacity, or speed would work out in a compelling form factor.
  - pc86 6y ago
    You're naive if you think a company is going to take on increases costs via drone-based deliveries to marginally decrease delivery driver injury risk.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      Even if you’re a “independent contractor” for Uber, if you get injured while working, their health insurance will kick in as a last resort.
    - chokeartist 6y ago
      Agreed that will never be the sole motivation. But faster delivery times is something that people will most definitely consider - I know I would. Want that ice cream in 2 hours? $3 delivery via car. Want that ice cream in 15 minutes? $10 delivery via drone.
- xnx 6y ago
  I had the crazy thought that drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure (like a skyscraper or antenna), take advantage of the height differential to efficiently glide toward their delivery destination, and then make their return with less weight to carry. Probably very few locales where this could make sense compared to automated sidewalk deliveries like Starship. The speed of the delivery could be astoundingly fast though.
  - pc86 6y ago
    There aren't many warehouses at the top of skyscrapers, though.
    - jdironman 6y ago
      And you have to move not only the drones, but also the packages to the top.
  - kreeben 6y ago
    >> drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains? Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded vehicles that elevate themselves? (edited for clarity)
    - hatsunearu 6y ago
      lifting those payloads up the tower would just use the commerical power grid and not batteries that you also have to carry up. cables and motors are much more efficient than propellers.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - selectodude 6y ago
      An elevator?
- victorthehuman 6y ago
  If we're talking about fixed wing drones in rural environments then it does makes sense. A good example of that is this drone delivery service in Rwanda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c
- clort 6y ago
  Energy cost per time of use. drones might be a lot quicker to do the delivery job, particularly if the delivery point needs to be more secure than just tossing packages onto the front porch in plain sight as currently seems to be done.
brk 6y ago
I tend to doubt that happening soon. There are still a lot of logistical issues to drones flying around trying to deliver packages to the appropriate locations without a lot of live human supervision. IMO, this more opens up a potential market to justify investment in the space to create solutions.
mikequinlan 6y ago
This is what I have been thinking but I would personally prefer they use trebuchets and launch the packages onto your porch (instead of using drones). Not because it would be practical but because it would be cool.
powersnail 6y ago
I can understand it for some long-distanced batch delivery, by a giant drone. However, swarms of little drones flying in the sky of cities or private properties seems incredibly irritating, however efficiently they improve deliveries.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I think about the truly massive # of packages delivered all over the place and think we'll need some significant routing protocols in place before we can easily get enough drones airborne without crashing into each other. Sort of a tcp/ip for millions of drones.
  - 7952 6y ago
    I don't think communication protocols are a good metaphor because they can be stateless. You can drop packets and it does matter! A better way to think about it is as a shared data structure. It is a 3d vector space with some attributes that help predict the future. Each drone has a different version of this data structure in memory. The data structure has an initial state at take-off and is updated using radio communication and sensor data. If the data structure is perfectly synchronised then planning is easy. There is plenty of sky and simple rules can be applied. But it never will be perfectly synchronised. in that sense it is like a globally distributed database. The data structure may have been edited by another drone and the change not communicated. You may have lost communication and not even realised. Local conditions may have reduced GPS quality giving you false location information. So perhaps an interesting metaphor is concurrency control. Do we lock airspace or can we have transactions? Can we partition or shard the airspace? When is consistent state required?
- cameronh90 6y ago
  Commercial delivery drones will likely be some form of VTOL fixed wing craft, which can be significantly quieter when cruising. Additionally they can usually fly higher which further reduces the noise pollution.
burade 6y ago
Is it really worth it to have your peace disturbed by hundreds of annoying little helicopters just so you can have a panini sandwich delivered in 2 minutes instead of 10?
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  What about all the paninis you can get if you can make the shot though? Think of it as urban duck hunting.
reaperducer 6y ago
I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city. I saw a mockup video of this once. I think it was for UPS, but I might be remembering that part wrong. The upshot was that it's not useful in cities, but could be used to make exurban and rural deliveries much more efficient because the delivery truck doesn't have to trundle down a bunch of long driveways.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Without even drones, trucks could be motherships that dispatch deliverers on electric scooters for the last quarter mile. Scooters could catch up with the truck, dock to recharge and get new packages and then roll out again
scrose 6y ago
Cities feel like the last place that would be a good fit for airborne delivery, at least in the US. Take NYC for example: Delivery people on e-bikes are still harassed incessantly by the NYPD and community boards by people being scared of the possibility of being hit by them. Factor in our paranoia about terrorism and a single accidentally dropped package would likely result in counter terrorism and bomb squads being called in. I couldn’t imagine any proposal for giant flying robots with multi-pound payloads hovering overhead be taken seriously by even the most progressive leaders. In hard to reach / rural areas, I could see some benefits from drone technology though. Drone chainsaws, anyone?[0] [0] https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-through-the-treetops/ https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-thr...
- ghaff 6y ago
  And presumably, even with detached single family homes in more spread out cities, delivery people don't just drop a package on the sidewalk. I live in a fairly rural location and packages are mostly left in my mailbox or wherever against the house. But I assume in busier areas, delivery people actually make a minimal effort to not make packages completely obvious from the sidewalk.

chrisdalke 6y ago

The final rule looks to be a big win for everyone who was protesting the original proposed rule: "The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast." This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much simpler and cost-effective to integrate into existing hobby or consumer drones. It could be built into RC receivers, or as a separate transponder.

snuxoll 6y ago
RF can still be expensive depending on how it needs to be implemented. As a casual drone pilot I’m still concerned about how this is going to effect cost, existing equipment in the field and hobby/home-built uSAS’s. I’ll still take it over the internet mandate, however - so it’s a step in the right direction.
- chrisdalke 6y ago
  No matter what, there will be consequences for DIY/hobby aircraft, just because cost/weight/complexity are critical factors in a small drone. Most of the planes I fly now are wood/cardboard with a few dumb electrical components. Adding any component will make it harder for newcomers to enter the field. The FAA has decided that unregulated drone flight is an issue, and no matter what, they're going to tackle it. So I'm happy to see any solution that allows for the continued existence of the DIY part of the industry. In my mind the "ideal" solution for DIY aircraft is a separate RC receiver-sized transmitter, powered over BEC, that you add to your aircraft when you are flying in conditions that require Remote ID. The transmitter would become another fixed cost in the hobby, but you could use it on whatever aircraft you're flying -- It would be linked to a pilot, instead of a particular aircraft. I have zero knowledge of RF physics and engineering, but I'd be happy if that was possible without a heavy transmitter and significant power consumption.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window. Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

This is odd: night would be the time when I would think people don't want to hear "whirrrrrrr...' of drones flying over their houses.

Judgmentality 6y ago
Yeah, even if all of the logistical and technical issues of drone delivery make it economically viable for Amazon (or whoever) - I think I might boycott Amazon as a company if they started using drones for any deliveries. They are just so obnoxiously loud I would probably welcome people shooting them out of the sky (or if you're awesome you can use an eagle). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816
- itisit 6y ago
  Plenty of companies hard at work on making anti-drone tech consumer friendly. Rejoice!
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Which will quickly be made illegal if it interferes with major commercial activity
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I'm not sure what "anti-drone tech" could mean other than RF jamming, which is already very illegal.
      - reaperducer 6y ago
        Birdshot?
        jakear 6y ago

coder543 6y ago

What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone photography / videography? I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license? That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.

vmception 6y ago
> That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away. Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior. They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't want to bother Congress about it.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
You may feel it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with other FAA certificates: i.e. you need a commercial pilot certificate to be paid to fly.
- thallium205 6y ago
  What if you keep it demonetized and only youtube is making money off it?
pc86 6y ago
Like NW says, the FAA heavily regulates commercial activity. You can get a private license in as little as 40-ish hours. But you need an absolute minimum of 250 total hours to even qualify for a commercial license (and there are a bunch of hour requirements in subcategories such that if you're not explicitly working toward it, you're unlikely to meet minimums), and there's another written and practical exam. And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test. Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-thought.

zython 6y ago

Anyone want to bet in what capacity this will be used for (police) surveillance ? Especially since Alphabet and Amazon are involved.

pc86 6y ago
I could see automated license plate reader and facial recognition use cases for sure. Depending on how high the drone flies FR may or may not be feasible.
- skanga 6y ago
  Do automated license plate reader work via night vision systems? Could they be made to work?
  - vel0city 6y ago
    Lots of license plates these days have high contrast between the letters and the background. These license plates are often usually covered in retroreflectors such that the high contrast is accentuated with any kind of light. A strong IR light source from an IR camera can probably read most clean license plates driving by without being obvious to the people being viewed. Remember that light follows the inverse square law, so if you're far away you'll probably need a pretty bright IR source to get a good high contrast read from a far away license plate, along with pretty good optics/sensor to reliably read the plate.
    - pc86 6y ago
      Yup - luckily this was for tolling specifically, so traffic was well controlled, cameras were close, there was a flash of bright light as the photo was taken, etc. Most photos you couldn't even tell if it was night or day if you zoomed in close enough to the vehicle. Less reliable photos would definitely have made for a more challenging (but more interesting!) project.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Ohio at least requires that there be a light that illuminates the liscense plate whenever the headlights are turned on, so no need for special night vision systems

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow. My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows. Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?

crooked-v 6y ago
The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored) prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of drone crashes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coder543 6y ago
Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on their personal property. This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Almost all state and local drone laws are invalid in the United States. Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation and there is specific preemption in the federal code. The FAA's stance is that voyeurism is a crime, and the use of a drone is irrelevant.
bosswipe 6y ago
Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Whenever I encounter people flying drones - for example at the park - I find it highly obnoxious. The buzzing of their rotors is noise pollution that ruins the peace of a park/natural area, and while I recognize the right to record in public spaces, there’s something especially creepy about a drone flying along a jogging path near you armed with the latest 4K cameras. I think drone enthusiasts don’t understand how that can impact women especially. I also think it would be incredibly annoying to have drones constantly in the sky above you if our current volume of deliveries is moved from ground to air. I hope both are heavily regulated and curbed.

post_break 6y ago
Honestly this just sounds like NIMBY. First there are loud drones and quiet drones, noise pollution can be regulated. Next the video from a drone for spying on a woman jogging is nothing compared to someone with a decent DSLR with a telephoto that makes zero noise. And third drone deliveries could have airspace carved out that avoids residential or places that would annoy people. Now that said some people are obnoxious with it, they fly by people, make noise, I agree that should met with criticism, maybe fines, but I also believe drones will have a big impact in quality of life not just from delivery bots but police, medical, and including hobbyists.
- downut 6y ago
  I had a neighbor hover a large, very noisy drone over my wife who was working in her backyard garden, out of sight from said neighbors, who were piloting from the house across from me. She was terrified. There easily could have been a large escalation. After my intervention it hasn't happened again, but the sort of judgement that leads to the stupidity in the first place, in my experience, cannot resist the lure to offend again, especially if the bad judger has been drinking. I read the blithe attitude in comments like these, and I am sure there will be large escalations in the future. FWIW, in AZ, this behaviour appears to be legal.
  - post_break 6y ago
    Out of line of sight sounds illegal from looking at the FAA. Flying over people is currently illegal too. Flying while drinking is also illegal... Report them to the FAA.

neuronexmachina 6y ago

The actual release from the FAA today regarding the two new drone rules for "Remote ID" and "Operations Over People and at Night". The release includes links to executive summaries and full text of the rules: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=25541 https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...

fjabre 6y ago

This will bring about new technology to deal with the rising threat. People don't take kindly to being constantly spied on. I imagine many will take matters into their own hands.

p410n3 6y ago
Except everyone already does all the time?
- fjabre 6y ago
  Is that so?
  - xwdv 6y ago
    I could easily take pictures of you in public with a phone and there’s nothing you can do about it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - donatj 6y ago
    I mean there is mass surveillance of basically all communication.
    - fjabre 6y ago
      Little different when a drone is hanging out over your 52nd floor penthouse with an HD cam of your most of your apartment and the ability to get closer and see things in your place that you can't even see with your naked eyes. Then I don't even have the option of throwing my phone or alexa in the fireplace. This makes sense to me. Not sure where people are getting lost. This commenter p410n3 is clearly a cynic. Some people think the world is always listening, always watching them. But what they don't realize is they blend in with the noise because they aren't all that important. No one cares to listen to them. I don't think they like that answer though ;) I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall. Because it's literally flying above me out of reach. If I had tech to destroy it. I would use that tech. I guess a gun would work if you're a good shot. They use hawks in Scotland.

phkahler 6y ago

Does the broadcast ID include location like ADS-B? Also, is it in the clear? If so, I see both fun and trouble ahead.

clamprecht 6y ago
I wish drones could, at least optionally, transmit on ADS-B, with some "drone" flag. That could help pilots with ADS-B IN a lot, as long as it was clearly indicated as a drone.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  but then Garmin couldn't charge you $5000 for another radio.
- snuxoll 6y ago
  With the proliferation of drones the entire ADS-B system would get overwhelmed, which is why the rules explicitly state that uSAS' are NOT allowed to transmit on ADS-B. Not to mention ADS-B OUT is expensive as all hell, power hungry and heavy - not a good match for lightweight unmanned craft.
  - clamprecht 6y ago
    I hear ya... maybe ADS-B isn't the solution here, but I wish pilots could somehow see drones on the traffic screen.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      It should be enough to maintain minimums while the drones obey their maximums and stay away from airports. But that doesnt cover everything and it would be nice optionally show them.

rkagerer 6y ago

Even though I don't fly over people, I retrofitted a parachute onto my DJI drone just in case. It automatically deploys if the drone loses power or control. It doesn't impact flight characteristics or battery life by much. I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly internet requirement).

GordonS 6y ago
I've never flown a drone, but this sounds like a pretty cool idea! Are you aware of anything like this being a requirement anywhere, or having being proposed by regulators anywhere?
- snuxoll 6y ago
  They kind of fall in with the rules published by the FAA here, and previously were more or less a requirement to get a waiver before said rules. The whole worry about flight over people is two-fold: 1. Props still spinning waiting to cut people up in event of flyaways or loss of power from one or more props 2. In the event of total loss of power, what is the total kinetic energy that would be imparted on an individual should the falling drone strike them Parachute systems effectively deal with both. A proper setup will power off the drone, making sure the props aren't spinning, and lower the rate of descent so minimal kinetic energy will be transferred in the event of a collision with a human being. The new rules firmly codify what requirements must be met to operate over people safely, and parachutes along with prop guards should easily meet them.
taf2 6y ago
oh if you can that would be really cool to see how you did that... I'd love to retrofit something like this to my drone... I did buy my kids a drone and the issue there was they flew it into a very tall tree... needless say it's still in the very tall tree
- spydum 6y ago

lgats 6y ago

Remote ID Executive Summary: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executive_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executiv... Remote ID Final Ruling: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Ru...

rdxm 6y ago

who would even remotely trust the FAA at this point? It's a broken agency that is very much bought and paid for by commercial interests at the expense of the people it is ther to protect.

natas 6y ago

goodbye blue sky

mrtweetyhack 6y ago

wow. drug delivery will be so much better now.

swayvil 6y ago

Consider the HERF gun https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your-dinner/ https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your...

graderjs 6y ago

Say goodbye to apartment building rooftop privacy.....

oliv__ 6y ago

The digital license plate for drones sounds a lot like the first step to implementing the same thing for cars.

joshdogden 6y ago

Here are two videos of our parachute recovery system in action. They are both for two popular commercial drones called the DJI M200 Series and DJI M300 RTK. Video 1 - Third Party Testing - https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A Video 2 - Promotional Video - https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8 https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8 Feel free to ask questions about how they work, what testing is required, or about the new rule. Here is another article that we wrote today: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-Vh65 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-...

ww520 6y ago

I wish they allow drone flying in state or federal parks.

poof131 6y ago

While I applaud this move, I still feel the FAA is woefully failing at integrating UAS into the airspace. The Beyond Visual Line of Site issue still seems like a blocker to real adoption and with no real path forward yet. It baffles me that the airspace up to 200’ above private property can’t be BVLOS for the owner. This would enable advances in agriculture, construction, security, ranching, utility inspections, and certainly many more areas. Additionally, the idea that the FEDs can manage all this is insane. Drones are not airlines, where a city 30k’ below a flight path shouldn’t have a say in the flight. If drone flights take off, land, or transits a cities boundaries, that city should be more involved than the FEDs, who should just manage overall safety and compliance. The future of drones and beyond visual line of sight over other people's property will be more akin to cars, the DMV, and public roads, than to aircraft, airlines, and the ATC. It will require a ton of local involvement, which, unfortunately, the major corporate players focused on delivery don’t want.

eternalreturn 6y ago

I hope this never happens to anyone again (or worse): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFdh1w_n6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFdh1w_n6M