Amazon drone delivery
who goes to jail
who pays for damage
who compensates families who lost loved ones
who cleans up the mess on the streets / roofs / river / ponds / other
I agree this is not going to happen anywhere soon, but not for your reasons. The blocking factors are
* physical delivery - even to a person living on the -2
* legally binding acceptance of delivery - requires a signature, doesn't it? The signature may be digital, in my country one can legally sign a document by presenting the eID card and typing the pin code. But it still needs the physical presence of the adressee.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 19th Dec 2016 at 10:46. Reason: corrected confusing typo: "nobody goes to jail" was and is the meaning
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you remember the old cross-channel hovercraft. The pilots operating them had to have an ATPL, which is clearly ridiculous. Had they become more widespread I'm sure someone would have eventually waived the requirement. Likewise for drones. If they can be demonstrated 1) not to be habitually sharing airspace with manned aircraft and 2) to be capable of avoiding collisions on the rare occasions that they come into conflict then their utility is compelling enough that the world will adapt itself to them.
I agree liability is an issue, but you could say the same about self-driving cars - which are clearly on the cards and where it's likely to be a far bigger issue: the average drone crash will squash some plants in a field; the average car-crash is much more likely to actually hurt someone. I used to work in a hospital where if you were writing a letter about patient A but then looked up blood results for patient B, it would put patient B's name on the top of the letter, then change it back to patient A when you came to print the thing out. It often seems to me that computer programmers seem to get a free-ride when it comes to liability issues!
Quote:
who goes to jail
no none
Quote:
who pays for damage
insurance, just like in a road accident
Quote:
who compensates families who lost loved ones
insurance, just like in a road accident
Quote:
who cleans up the mess on the streets / roofs / river / ponds / other
those whose job it is to clean up said commodities after whatever accident
who goes to jail
no none
Quote:
who pays for damage
insurance, just like in a road accident
Quote:
who compensates families who lost loved ones
insurance, just like in a road accident
Quote:
who cleans up the mess on the streets / roofs / river / ponds / other
those whose job it is to clean up said commodities after whatever accident
What sane insurance company will pay for drones to fly over a city!? Damages of a 30+Kg machine crashing from say 400ft up without considering the forward momentum, the initial impact force (before bounce) will be just over 355 thousand Newtons, equivalent to just over 36 metric tons. The damage that this will cause with this small a surface area could be substantial. A single accident could cost millions of pounds of repairs, and / or damage. In central London this could be tens of millions of pounds!!! A car would need to be travelling at around 105mph to cause the same impact force. Which is still somehow unlikely to happen on a busy day in central London (where traffic is pretty standstill). However, I could see a drone be overhead! But furthermore this one crash could destroy the road causing mayhem for thousands of people!
Anyway... Dead argument... Its not going to happen anytime soon!
What sane insurance company will pay for drones to fly over a city!?
No, I don't work on them but I wish I did!
You've given a lot of reasons why they might not get a free ride in the UK, but not all countries work to the same standards: doubtless this will be the reason the first 'serious' drone services operate in rural Africa. I don't know how smoothly they're going, but some of the newspaper articles talk about 150 flights a day. If they can be developed to the point where they're safe there, then ultimately they will arrive here. But at least some Western countries are likely to allow them be to be developed on home soil: they'll simply be too big a business to be left to be abandoned to other countries to develop.
You've given a lot of reasons why they might not get a free ride in the UK, but not all countries work to the same standards: doubtless this will be the reason the first 'serious' drone services operate in rural Africa. I don't know how smoothly they're going, but some of the newspaper articles talk about 150 flights a day. If they can be developed to the point where they're safe there, then ultimately they will arrive here. But at least some Western countries are likely to allow them be to be developed on home soil: they'll simply be too big a business to be left to be abandoned to other countries to develop.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Hadley's Hope, LV426
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I'm seeing the issue too literally, but UAVs are aircraft and are sharing the airspace with other aircraft; whether they are manned or not is irrelevant. The same rules apply to everyone in order to protect everyone!
I disagree that legislation needs to change to accommodate UAVs. The vast majority of aircraft are and will remain manned whilst also having the not so trifling matter of carrying lots of people. People's lives being priceless ahead of profit or convenience of UAV operation, legislation must reflect this.
I disagree that legislation needs to change to accommodate UAVs. The vast majority of aircraft are and will remain manned whilst also having the not so trifling matter of carrying lots of people. People's lives being priceless ahead of profit or convenience of UAV operation, legislation must reflect this.
10 years down the line it will be a different story though
The vast majority of aircraft are and will remain manned
The number of flying hours is a different question, but when I was seriously into r/c helicopters my annual r/c flying hours were rather higher than I have averaged with my PPL so I doubt it's trivial.
Drones are already here in large numbers: what's in question is how long it's likely to take for autonomous drones to become widely adopted.
People's lives being priceless ahead of profit or convenience of UAV operation, legislation must reflect this.
The most dangerous roads are fast rural roads, so in remote areas such as the Scottish highlands and islands where the roads are dangerous and people sparse, you could have quite a high drone accident rate and still harm fewer people than if you sent the goods by road.
Andrewgr2
Totally correct. UK policy is that unless the UAV is operating with a certified "sense and avoid" system, which to the best of my knowledge there are none currently in the UK, the drone (assuming it is 20kg or less) can only operate within visual line of sight of the pilot (not above 400 Ft agl and typically 500m) unless operated within segregated airspace (ie a Prohibited/Restricted or Danger Area). How are Amazon going to resolve this?
Totally correct. UK policy is that unless the UAV is operating with a certified "sense and avoid" system, which to the best of my knowledge there are none currently in the UK, the drone (assuming it is 20kg or less) can only operate within visual line of sight of the pilot (not above 400 Ft agl and typically 500m) unless operated within segregated airspace (ie a Prohibited/Restricted or Danger Area). How are Amazon going to resolve this?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Hadley's Hope, LV426
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
abgd,
Interesting points you raise, despite the statistics I'd still say the core of aviation is and will remain manned aircraft. Also regarding White Van Man - the roads are and will remain way more dangerous than the air, whilst I agree again with the statistics the question remains how many people are willing to accept that automation will get rid of lots of jobs.
This is the other big concern of mine, safety aside. We all need to make a living in order to provide for ourselves and our families. When all the jobs have gone to machines, what will all the people do? They won't just disappear, they will all need to eat and have a roof over their heads. The social implications of relentless automation are argubly even more massive than the safety implications.
Interesting points you raise, despite the statistics I'd still say the core of aviation is and will remain manned aircraft. Also regarding White Van Man - the roads are and will remain way more dangerous than the air, whilst I agree again with the statistics the question remains how many people are willing to accept that automation will get rid of lots of jobs.
This is the other big concern of mine, safety aside. We all need to make a living in order to provide for ourselves and our families. When all the jobs have gone to machines, what will all the people do? They won't just disappear, they will all need to eat and have a roof over their heads. The social implications of relentless automation are argubly even more massive than the safety implications.
Telsboy
How right you are ! Industrial automation is potentially the most explosive problem faced by industrialised societies around the world. A possible solution? Devising jobs perhaps of a social nature, that cannot readily be automated.
Drone deliveries capture the headlines but, for a variety of reasons as others have explained, remain largely impractical.
How right you are ! Industrial automation is potentially the most explosive problem faced by industrialised societies around the world. A possible solution? Devising jobs perhaps of a social nature, that cannot readily be automated.
Drone deliveries capture the headlines but, for a variety of reasons as others have explained, remain largely impractical.
IMHO while one can think of lots of difficulties for delivery drones, there are probably solutions today .... there will certainly be solutions in a year or two. In 10 years they will be commodity items.
