3 ms·

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 rul

by exDM69 12y ago

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 12y ago
I think the ban should stay regardless of safety. One big issue here is noise and visual pollution.
- exDM69 12y ago
  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.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    On the other hand, the pizza delivery man stays on the road and does not fly in front of my office back window at random times of the day.
  - mantraxD 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      > 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.
- jsmcgd 12y ago
  This is a valid concern but it needs to be balanced against the existing noise, visual and chemical pollution caused by shopping trips in cars and delivery trucks.
asynchronous13 12y ago
> This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times. Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low. Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.
- exDM69 12y ago
  > Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low. These are all very good suggestions and I have no doubt that something like this will happen in the long run. Of course, government bureaucracy is painfully slow. The FAA also needs to make these decisions (e.g. maximum takeoff weight) based on some facts, not just gut feeling, and I'd guess that they are hard at work (as hard as a government bureaucrat can) to try to figure out the regulations under which drone operations can be permitted. There are people who would want to allow unregulated, autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles and do so now. I think that this is a pretty crazy idea...
  - asynchronous13 12y ago
    Sadly, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Perhaps I'm just jaded because I've been running into this brick wall for so long now. Hopefully your optimism is justified. Take the Yamaha-RMAX helicopter used for agriculture as an example of data. There's 2,500 of them actively flying in Japan (point of comparison, US Air Force has less than 500 UAVs). The RMAX has more than 2,000,000 flight hours with an impeccable safety record. Yamaha offered troves of data and requested permission to use the RMAX for crop-spraying over vineyards in California. FAA said, "No." That's the problem. The FAA simply says, "No". They don't say "You haven't met requirement X", there are no requirements that can be met by anyone. If 2 million flight hours is not enough data, what is?

by exDM69 12y ago

sfk 12y ago

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

exDM69 12y ago
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.
- Argorak 12y ago
  On the other hand, the pizza delivery man stays on the road and does not fly in front of my office back window at random times of the day.
- mantraxD 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    > 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.
jsmcgd 12y ago
This is a valid concern but it needs to be balanced against the existing noise, visual and chemical pollution caused by shopping trips in cars and delivery trucks.

asynchronous13 12y ago

> This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times. Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low. Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.

exDM69 12y ago
> Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low. These are all very good suggestions and I have no doubt that something like this will happen in the long run. Of course, government bureaucracy is painfully slow. The FAA also needs to make these decisions (e.g. maximum takeoff weight) based on some facts, not just gut feeling, and I'd guess that they are hard at work (as hard as a government bureaucrat can) to try to figure out the regulations under which drone operations can be permitted. There are people who would want to allow unregulated, autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles and do so now. I think that this is a pretty crazy idea...
- asynchronous13 12y ago
  Sadly, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Perhaps I'm just jaded because I've been running into this brick wall for so long now. Hopefully your optimism is justified. Take the Yamaha-RMAX helicopter used for agriculture as an example of data. There's 2,500 of them actively flying in Japan (point of comparison, US Air Force has less than 500 UAVs). The RMAX has more than 2,000,000 flight hours with an impeccable safety record. Yamaha offered troves of data and requested permission to use the RMAX for crop-spraying over vineyards in California. FAA said, "No." That's the problem. The FAA simply says, "No". They don't say "You haven't met requirement X", there are no requirements that can be met by anyone. If 2 million flight hours is not enough data, what is?