4 ms·

Flying in uncontrolled airspace in VMC is a “see and avoid” environment, meaning this looks like a pretty bad screw up by Amazon. The fact that two different d

by JCM9 1y ago

Flying in uncontrolled airspace in VMC is a “see and avoid” environment, meaning this looks like a pretty bad screw up by Amazon. The fact that two different drones crashed into the same object raises even more serious questions on the quality of Amazon’s tech and their ability to safely monitor it.

arbll 1y ago
well at least it's consistent
- qafy 1y ago
  this is actually hilarious because now they can't call it a fluke or an act of god
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Crashing it a second time is, in my books, an act of God. I guess God isn't really that fond of Amazon.
    - brewdad 1y ago
      News Media: "Bezos has more money than God" God: "Hold my staff"
- fusslo 1y ago
  second time was because dev rejected bug report without QA replicating it
djtriptych 1y ago
Two drones doesn't really mean anything if they were following a similar flight plan to make a delivery at the same location right?
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  It means it wasn't a fluke or a bug specific to one drone, but something wrong in the overall software approach.
  - oofbey 1y ago
    The repetition strongly indicates it’s a bug. No reason to think it points to a fundamental flaw in the approach.
  - djtriptych 1y ago
    i mean they both flew into invisible drone traps. I don't know that amazon engineers should be expected to see e.g. a moving small steel cable under tension. That and customers are required to select safe delivery drop zones. I would like to see better "oh shit we're crashing let's try not to kill anyone" protection, e.g. research on improving controlled landings on damaged drones. Maybe refusal to deliver if there are any detected humans in the drop zone (which may well already exist).
- JCM9 1y ago
  It means Amazon’s approach to its “see and avoid” responsibility is fundamentally flawed in some way vs this being a one-off fluke with a broken sensor or other anomaly.
  - djtriptych 1y ago
    ok but also two drones crashing isn't "more" of a problem than one drone crashing really. Sounds like the anamoly here was a very unsafe landing zone (which is outside the customer agreement as it happens). small steel cables take out human pilots too.. Would be really curious how they might guard against adversarial drone deliveries. Kinda weird to have end users basically piloting your $100K (I'm guessing) vehicles.
- Atheros 1y ago
  If a drone crashes, obviously no other drones should fly there until a human determines what went wrong and presses the 'resume' button. The fact that that system did not exist is a systemic problem.
nomel 1y ago
> see and avoid Wires are somewhere between hard and not possible to see, visually. The "fix" for this might be "that kinda looks like it might be construction over there, go around".
- nakedrobot2 1y ago
  Even very small and cheap lidar can see cables just fine. I work with 3d scanning lidar every day and I know this as a fact. They have no excuse there.
  - nomel 1y ago
    In the sun, at 50mph? 50mph sets the minimum range of the scan (related to the "full stop" distance and fully loaded maneuverability), which sets the acquisition rate and angular resolution requirement to see a thin cable at that distance. I suppose maneuverability would also set the FOV requirement. Are there any commercial drones that do it "right", with LIDAR?

by JCM9 1y ago

arbll 1y ago

well at least it's consistent

qafy 1y ago
this is actually hilarious because now they can't call it a fluke or an act of god
- fakedang 1y ago
  Crashing it a second time is, in my books, an act of God. I guess God isn't really that fond of Amazon.
  - brewdad 1y ago
    News Media: "Bezos has more money than God" God: "Hold my staff"
fusslo 1y ago
second time was because dev rejected bug report without QA replicating it

djtriptych 1y ago

Two drones doesn't really mean anything if they were following a similar flight plan to make a delivery at the same location right?

BobaFloutist 1y ago
It means it wasn't a fluke or a bug specific to one drone, but something wrong in the overall software approach.
- oofbey 1y ago
  The repetition strongly indicates it’s a bug. No reason to think it points to a fundamental flaw in the approach.
- djtriptych 1y ago
  i mean they both flew into invisible drone traps. I don't know that amazon engineers should be expected to see e.g. a moving small steel cable under tension. That and customers are required to select safe delivery drop zones. I would like to see better "oh shit we're crashing let's try not to kill anyone" protection, e.g. research on improving controlled landings on damaged drones. Maybe refusal to deliver if there are any detected humans in the drop zone (which may well already exist).
JCM9 1y ago
It means Amazon’s approach to its “see and avoid” responsibility is fundamentally flawed in some way vs this being a one-off fluke with a broken sensor or other anomaly.
- djtriptych 1y ago
  ok but also two drones crashing isn't "more" of a problem than one drone crashing really. Sounds like the anamoly here was a very unsafe landing zone (which is outside the customer agreement as it happens). small steel cables take out human pilots too.. Would be really curious how they might guard against adversarial drone deliveries. Kinda weird to have end users basically piloting your $100K (I'm guessing) vehicles.
Atheros 1y ago
If a drone crashes, obviously no other drones should fly there until a human determines what went wrong and presses the 'resume' button. The fact that that system did not exist is a systemic problem.

nomel 1y ago

> see and avoid Wires are somewhere between hard and not possible to see, visually. The "fix" for this might be "that kinda looks like it might be construction over there, go around".

nakedrobot2 1y ago
Even very small and cheap lidar can see cables just fine. I work with 3d scanning lidar every day and I know this as a fact. They have no excuse there.
- nomel 1y ago
  In the sun, at 50mph? 50mph sets the minimum range of the scan (related to the "full stop" distance and fully loaded maneuverability), which sets the acquisition rate and angular resolution requirement to see a thin cable at that distance. I suppose maneuverability would also set the FOV requirement. Are there any commercial drones that do it "right", with LIDAR?