Amazon drone delivery
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazon drone delivery
Already crowded airspace is about to get more crowded.
https://www.amazon.com/b?tag=skim1x1...ode=8037720011
https://www.amazon.com/b?tag=skim1x1...ode=8037720011
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming this isn't just a gimmick and could be a thing one day, I'd be interested to know how airspace aware these drones are and what rules of the air (if any) they follow. Will they route around airfields and private strips? Or carry any collision avoidance equipment? Certainly adds another risk to PFLs and low flying.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'd be interested to know how airspace aware these drones are and what rules of the air (if any) they follow
Not sure they understand UK rules, including the one that you can land a chopper anywhere with the landowners permission.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I hope they got a pick up aircraft like a banner tow set up coz I just bought a sink water heater from amazon and its a piece of **** thats going right back.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
The link in the OP includes links to a couple of Amazon papers on how they see drone operations working in shared airspace. Primarily high speed transit between 200 and 400 feet and localised slow speed movements below 200 feet. Looks like most drones would need sense and avoid technology as well as the ability to communicate with each other and ATC. Looks pretty challenging - but then a few years ago we thought driverless cars could never happen. Looking quite feasible now.
The sense and avoid challenge seems pretty difficult given the range of things they are trying to avoid - they talk about things ranging from balloons to cranes.
As a glider pilot who might, entirely legally, be hill soaring below hill top level on the edge of an urban environment, perhaps on a busy Amazon delivery route, I find the idea of drones sensing and avoiding me quite worrying!
The sense and avoid challenge seems pretty difficult given the range of things they are trying to avoid - they talk about things ranging from balloons to cranes.
As a glider pilot who might, entirely legally, be hill soaring below hill top level on the edge of an urban environment, perhaps on a busy Amazon delivery route, I find the idea of drones sensing and avoiding me quite worrying!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder how they will mitigate the risk of failures (surely one of these could kill someone falling from 400ft??), theft, damage, injuries on landing and all of the costs vs a van driver on the paltry UK minimum wage?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if this ever becomes a reality... which i am not sure it will any time soon... it will quickly stop due to a few aviation and non aviation related issues:
1. the manpower required to setup/prepare the drone for flight being such that it will far outweigh putting a load in a van
2. The number of drones that will go missing due to theft (either by overriding the drone, or shooting it down)
3. The cost of maintenance, and recharging the drones far outweighing the cost of the man in a van
4. The fact that depending on winds, there will be a number of days where they could not operate.
5. Depending on wetness of weather there will again be a number of days when they could not operate.
6. The fact that especially in a city environment, whilst carrying large-ish cargo the wind gust blowing down one street may upset the drone beyond recovery even though the forecast and winds were within limits.
7. The limitations of load being a major issue
8. The cost-benefit analysis outlining why it is a terrible business idea to do it. The cost far outweighs the benefit of the slightly faster delivery time.
9. You have to have someone on the other side who knows how to handle the drone, and how to detach the package, how to sign for it, how to tell it that it went to the wrong place, or that the person they need is not there....
The bottleneck at present really is the preparation of the packages for delivery, the delivery is pretty efficient as it stands! That bottleneck won't disappear with drones doing the delivery it'll just shift the bottleneck to the preparing the drones rather than preparing for dispatch as it will just be that much slower!
The only major enhancement they should do is actually give you say a 30minute slot when they will be delivering your package, and you be able to track the package / tell them you're not in, or other important information such as where to leave it!
A friend worked on the Domino's Pizza drone delivery advert. And although it was "just a stunt for PR" - they also noticed that the pizza was completely cold even if it was straight out of the oven before being attached.
Anyway... that's my 2c!!
1. the manpower required to setup/prepare the drone for flight being such that it will far outweigh putting a load in a van
2. The number of drones that will go missing due to theft (either by overriding the drone, or shooting it down)
3. The cost of maintenance, and recharging the drones far outweighing the cost of the man in a van
4. The fact that depending on winds, there will be a number of days where they could not operate.
5. Depending on wetness of weather there will again be a number of days when they could not operate.
6. The fact that especially in a city environment, whilst carrying large-ish cargo the wind gust blowing down one street may upset the drone beyond recovery even though the forecast and winds were within limits.
7. The limitations of load being a major issue
8. The cost-benefit analysis outlining why it is a terrible business idea to do it. The cost far outweighs the benefit of the slightly faster delivery time.
9. You have to have someone on the other side who knows how to handle the drone, and how to detach the package, how to sign for it, how to tell it that it went to the wrong place, or that the person they need is not there....
The bottleneck at present really is the preparation of the packages for delivery, the delivery is pretty efficient as it stands! That bottleneck won't disappear with drones doing the delivery it'll just shift the bottleneck to the preparing the drones rather than preparing for dispatch as it will just be that much slower!
The only major enhancement they should do is actually give you say a 30minute slot when they will be delivering your package, and you be able to track the package / tell them you're not in, or other important information such as where to leave it!
A friend worked on the Domino's Pizza drone delivery advert. And although it was "just a stunt for PR" - they also noticed that the pizza was completely cold even if it was straight out of the oven before being attached.
Anyway... that's my 2c!!
Last edited by alex90; 15th Dec 2016 at 20:01. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
the delivery is pretty efficient as it stands!
I can't see a drone being very good at either.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add one more to alex90's list of reasons...
10. As soon as one of these things hits someone on the head or causes any kind of accident they will all be grounded and never spoken of again.
10. As soon as one of these things hits someone on the head or causes any kind of accident they will all be grounded and never spoken of again.
1. the manpower required to setup/prepare the drone for flight being such that it will far outweigh putting a load in a van
2. The number of drones that will go missing due to theft (either by overriding the drone, or shooting it down)
3. The cost of maintenance, and recharging the drones far outweighing the cost of the man in a van
4. The fact that depending on winds, there will be a number of days where they could not operate.
5. Depending on wetness of weather there will again be a number of days when they could not operate.
6. The fact that especially in a city environment, whilst carrying large-ish cargo the wind gust blowing down one street may upset the drone beyond recovery even though the forecast and winds were within limits.
7. The limitations of load being a major issue
8. The cost-benefit analysis outlining why it is a terrible business idea to do it. The cost far outweighs the benefit of the slightly faster delivery time.
9. You have to have someone on the other side who knows how to handle the drone, and how to detach the package, how to sign for it, how to tell it that it went to the wrong place, or that the person they need is not there....
10. As soon as one of these things hits someone on the head or causes any kind of accident they will all be grounded and never spoken of again
In my view the main barrier is ultimately going to be one of legality and collision avoidance. I suspect we may ultimately need to carry Mode-S or some similar transponder so that they can see us and scatter. I think they're going to need to learn to work with powered aircraft and are likely to retain that capability. I don't see them as a threat to our aviation.
My real fear is drone war. Imagine tiny propeller powered cruise missiles with a range of 1000 miles, each weighing 1 kg with a few hundred grams of explosive or an incendiary device. Due to military markup they cost £1000 apiece rather than the £200 it might cost an amateur to make one (two servos: £10. Arduino with GPS: £50. Small IC motor: £50. Expanded polystyrene airframe: £20. 100g napalm: £5). If you were a nation state you could buy 100,000 of these for the cost of a single 5th generation fighter and simultaneously take out the residence of every MP, every police station, every electrical substation and every sewage works in a country. Current defence methods geared towards detecting and destroying small numbers of much larger targets would be utterly obsolete.
Last edited by abgd; 16th Dec 2016 at 06:02.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Hadley's Hope, LV426
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking both as a pilot and as an engineer I have major concerns about the development and seemingly uncontrollable exponential prolifigation of UAVs. Aside from my strongly-held beliefs/bias that humans should always remain in executive control of machines, preferably not remotely, and that people should not be shafted out of jobs by technology, I strongly suspect the Amazon scheme is a gimmick which will quickly die off once the realities and practicalities to make it happen are finally understood, which clearly at the moment aren't.
In my view the current regulation and training (what training?) is wholly inadequate for the present. The purchase of UAVs is not controlled, Johnny Bloggs can buy one from Argos and fly it around his local international airport theirby causing chaos. Yes he may be prosecuted under the ANO for its breach (if he's caught) but what is stopping him in the first place and why are these things freely available without any need for licensing, understanding of principles of flight, air law etc.?
I have held a PPL for 7 years and have been gliding for the past 2. In both cases I had to prove I had a sound understanding of principles of flight, air law, meteorology, navigation etc. before I was entrusted with the command of an aircraft. Why should this be any different for the operator of any UAV? Most RC clubs have training/awareness and are sensible about the operation of their machines, UAV operators should require the same as a minimum. NATS run awareness courses for UAV operators, however attendance is completely voluntary.
Serious questions require to be answered both in respect to the Amazon Drone Delivery and in regard to wider UAV ops, specifically:-
-What safeguards are in place to cover loss of control of the UAV? Have eventualities been covered in any pre-flight plan, e.g. landing sites, recovery procedures, risk of damage to property/life, and what are the mitigations?
-With respect to the above, is there a pre-flight plan made by the operator and sent to any agencies as required (emergency services, ATSUs if required etc.), covering the task, route and any eventualities as described above?
-What are the contingencies in place dealing with uncommanded release of payload, where is the risk assessment and what is the mitigation?
-If flight is made within the boundary of an ATSU and/or inside CAS, bearing in mind all airspace is within the control of the parent ATSU down to 0' AGL, what are the methods of gaining legal and safe access to the airspace, ensuring the legal requirement (where required) of two-way RT contact at all times with the ATSU, and ensuring safe separation with other aircraft in the vicinity/airspace?
-How are these aircraft (as that is what they are) safeguarded from infringing ILS approaches, other navaids and Radar systems? Granted most UAVs' construction will give a very negligible (if any) radar return; which leads to a further question:-
-If the aircraft is to be operated within a Transponder Mandatory Zone/any other zone where Primary, Secondary or both contact is essential, how will the aircraft be tracked in order for the ATSU to be fully aware of its position at all times, and therefore how will the aircraft be able to be legally and safely operated in such airspace?
-If the aircraft is to be operated in IMC/at night, what separation limits apply, and how is a UAV separated in IMC from other aircraft?
-If operated in IMC, what navigation aids will the aircraft use to navigate, what instruments are available to the operator/pilot in order to conduct save IMC flight, and will an IFR flight plan be required in CAS?
I can think of many more questions but my brain is starting to hurt.
There are a few major worries I have; firstly, clattering in to one of these things when I'm in a glider working a ridge; secondly, some idiot terrorist using one to cause all sorts of mayhem using certain payloads; thirdly, Mrs Miggins at 31 Acacia Avenue getting their Bergerac DVD box set delivered by Amazon Drone (because they "need it now"
), the machinery develops a fault, there's an uncommanded payload release or the UAV stops flying as well as it was and then some poor sod or his house/car gets clouted by said box or UAV falling from a couple of hundred feet.
For me, until these questions are all fully answered, UAVs remain a significant flight safety risk and should be treated as such.
There are many sensible UAV operators out there who do understand the ANO, who stay away from airports and who know and follow the rules and have a safe operation, I take my hat off to them. It's worrying that not everybody has such a professional attitude. Only suitable education and robust legislation will ensure that safety is upheld. Otherwise the worrying trend in airproxes will worsen and will end in an accident...
TelsBoy
In my view the current regulation and training (what training?) is wholly inadequate for the present. The purchase of UAVs is not controlled, Johnny Bloggs can buy one from Argos and fly it around his local international airport theirby causing chaos. Yes he may be prosecuted under the ANO for its breach (if he's caught) but what is stopping him in the first place and why are these things freely available without any need for licensing, understanding of principles of flight, air law etc.?
I have held a PPL for 7 years and have been gliding for the past 2. In both cases I had to prove I had a sound understanding of principles of flight, air law, meteorology, navigation etc. before I was entrusted with the command of an aircraft. Why should this be any different for the operator of any UAV? Most RC clubs have training/awareness and are sensible about the operation of their machines, UAV operators should require the same as a minimum. NATS run awareness courses for UAV operators, however attendance is completely voluntary.
Serious questions require to be answered both in respect to the Amazon Drone Delivery and in regard to wider UAV ops, specifically:-
-What safeguards are in place to cover loss of control of the UAV? Have eventualities been covered in any pre-flight plan, e.g. landing sites, recovery procedures, risk of damage to property/life, and what are the mitigations?
-With respect to the above, is there a pre-flight plan made by the operator and sent to any agencies as required (emergency services, ATSUs if required etc.), covering the task, route and any eventualities as described above?
-What are the contingencies in place dealing with uncommanded release of payload, where is the risk assessment and what is the mitigation?
-If flight is made within the boundary of an ATSU and/or inside CAS, bearing in mind all airspace is within the control of the parent ATSU down to 0' AGL, what are the methods of gaining legal and safe access to the airspace, ensuring the legal requirement (where required) of two-way RT contact at all times with the ATSU, and ensuring safe separation with other aircraft in the vicinity/airspace?
-How are these aircraft (as that is what they are) safeguarded from infringing ILS approaches, other navaids and Radar systems? Granted most UAVs' construction will give a very negligible (if any) radar return; which leads to a further question:-
-If the aircraft is to be operated within a Transponder Mandatory Zone/any other zone where Primary, Secondary or both contact is essential, how will the aircraft be tracked in order for the ATSU to be fully aware of its position at all times, and therefore how will the aircraft be able to be legally and safely operated in such airspace?
-If the aircraft is to be operated in IMC/at night, what separation limits apply, and how is a UAV separated in IMC from other aircraft?
-If operated in IMC, what navigation aids will the aircraft use to navigate, what instruments are available to the operator/pilot in order to conduct save IMC flight, and will an IFR flight plan be required in CAS?
I can think of many more questions but my brain is starting to hurt.
There are a few major worries I have; firstly, clattering in to one of these things when I'm in a glider working a ridge; secondly, some idiot terrorist using one to cause all sorts of mayhem using certain payloads; thirdly, Mrs Miggins at 31 Acacia Avenue getting their Bergerac DVD box set delivered by Amazon Drone (because they "need it now"
), the machinery develops a fault, there's an uncommanded payload release or the UAV stops flying as well as it was and then some poor sod or his house/car gets clouted by said box or UAV falling from a couple of hundred feet.For me, until these questions are all fully answered, UAVs remain a significant flight safety risk and should be treated as such.
There are many sensible UAV operators out there who do understand the ANO, who stay away from airports and who know and follow the rules and have a safe operation, I take my hat off to them. It's worrying that not everybody has such a professional attitude. Only suitable education and robust legislation will ensure that safety is upheld. Otherwise the worrying trend in airproxes will worsen and will end in an accident...
TelsBoy
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
abgd - I think I'll have to disagree with you on many of the responses....
I order a large quantity of items from Amazon both for personal and business usage. Although yes, there are SOME smaller items, I would say that the majority of items I purchase are medium sized boxes which rarely weigh less than 2kilos. A box of A4 paper packs is a very common order of mine, as is printer ink toners (which again are quite large) from them. The size of the drone required to lift this, and fly safely with a canopy to keep the paper dry would need to be the size of a baby pram! I seriously doubt that they're going to be developing anything that size.
The loading of the drones, even if eventually done by robots, in addition to the time taken to return the drone to base between every drop due to limited capacity.
2. https://vimeo.com/152279231 There?s a new way to take down drones, and it doesn?t involve shotguns | Ars Technica UK
65-year-old woman shoots down drone: ?It hovered for a second and I blasted it to smithereens.? | Ars Technica UK
New rifle shoots drones out of the sky without firing a single bullet ? BGR
Amongst probably many other ways to down a drone. Kids will not only love the challenge, but also love ANY goodies they get and resell them on eBay or something like that...
Your idea of Police copters with cameras did make me laugh - I'll be honest it reminded me of an episode of South Park Season 18 - Episode 5 to be precise. Have a watch of that - do you really think we'll end up with that?
Also be aware of the issues re: privacy, drones with camera flying over a city? Hmmm... Something tells me that's not going to be liked by many people!
3. Have you considered the cost of replacing those highly flammable, explosively dangerous Li-Ion batteries that can only do a certain number of charge cycles reliably?
4. 5. 6. 7. OK - This does depend on too many factors, which may well be able to be sorted out in time (not my lifetime I dont think). I assumed the packages would be hanging under the drones and clamped on to enable the drones to carry larger - irregular shape items, which is essentially all I seem to be ordering from them. As for them operating in IMC? Are you sure that's a good idea?
8. Just an approved mode S transponder costs more than a £1000 alone.... So that's unlikely to be the case. Even if they do design their own, I doubt the CAA will just let them use if without being fully approved by them, and that R&D will take upwards of 5 years, cost a huge amount of time etc... That cost will need to be offset at some level in their production line.
9. What happens if you live in the basement, or share a room in a flat? Or conditions make it difficult to reach one side more than another? GPS coordinates being accurate? How do they obtain the GPS coordinates? Google Maps has put my house over 50m of where it actually is!! A basket, will also get wet, will the basket be big enough to handle the packages, will everyone wanting to use the service have to purchase specific baskets to be able to receive their packages? I am sorry - I just don't see this happening...
10. Perhaps one taxation rule for them, and another for us (who actually pay taxes). But I doubt that if one of the drones crashes killing someone will go lightly! I am pretty sure that laws apply in this circumstances, and drones will need to be insured, hence have airworthy certificates, and thus also require someone (whoever that might be) to be responsible for the death of / injury of / damage of, person, animal property etc...
I'll add 11. Which is how does the pollution of noise, and level of traffic at low level affect the birds living in the city? What is the environmental impact of having thousands of drones flying all over the city? What is the noise impact for people living there? What is the level of camera activity that will be allowed, how does that sit with privacy laws...etc... There are so many issues that can and in my humble opinion WILL squash any possibility of this.
I'd have to confess to being one of these pilots that really really REALLY dislike drones (in the sense quadcopters, not as in UAV). Possibly stemming from encountering a few at altitude (3,000' to 4,000') and only very nearly avoiding them. It has happened to be twice in the south east, and once in Denmark as well as once in Holland. I am talking less than 20 metres away from the plane, and having to take evasive action for my safety, the safety of my passengers, and the safety of the people below, in addition to both cosmetic and structural damage it would cause my plane. About that - in such instance - who pays for the repairs providing that I manage to survive the ordeal? I somewhat doubt that the absolute idiot who flew it would have insurance covering him for that. If there was loss of life, would this idiot get life imprisonment for murder? Or would he get off with just manslaughter?
I am not attempting to disrepute the well-informed, law abiding individuals who operate them safely in open spaces, below 400ft, outside of controlled airspace. Similar to remote control aeroplanes - I don't mind them AT ALL.
I order a large quantity of items from Amazon both for personal and business usage. Although yes, there are SOME smaller items, I would say that the majority of items I purchase are medium sized boxes which rarely weigh less than 2kilos. A box of A4 paper packs is a very common order of mine, as is printer ink toners (which again are quite large) from them. The size of the drone required to lift this, and fly safely with a canopy to keep the paper dry would need to be the size of a baby pram! I seriously doubt that they're going to be developing anything that size.
The loading of the drones, even if eventually done by robots, in addition to the time taken to return the drone to base between every drop due to limited capacity.
2. https://vimeo.com/152279231 There?s a new way to take down drones, and it doesn?t involve shotguns | Ars Technica UK
65-year-old woman shoots down drone: ?It hovered for a second and I blasted it to smithereens.? | Ars Technica UK
New rifle shoots drones out of the sky without firing a single bullet ? BGR
Amongst probably many other ways to down a drone. Kids will not only love the challenge, but also love ANY goodies they get and resell them on eBay or something like that...
Your idea of Police copters with cameras did make me laugh - I'll be honest it reminded me of an episode of South Park Season 18 - Episode 5 to be precise. Have a watch of that - do you really think we'll end up with that?
Also be aware of the issues re: privacy, drones with camera flying over a city? Hmmm... Something tells me that's not going to be liked by many people!
3. Have you considered the cost of replacing those highly flammable, explosively dangerous Li-Ion batteries that can only do a certain number of charge cycles reliably?
4. 5. 6. 7. OK - This does depend on too many factors, which may well be able to be sorted out in time (not my lifetime I dont think). I assumed the packages would be hanging under the drones and clamped on to enable the drones to carry larger - irregular shape items, which is essentially all I seem to be ordering from them. As for them operating in IMC? Are you sure that's a good idea?
8. Just an approved mode S transponder costs more than a £1000 alone.... So that's unlikely to be the case. Even if they do design their own, I doubt the CAA will just let them use if without being fully approved by them, and that R&D will take upwards of 5 years, cost a huge amount of time etc... That cost will need to be offset at some level in their production line.
9. What happens if you live in the basement, or share a room in a flat? Or conditions make it difficult to reach one side more than another? GPS coordinates being accurate? How do they obtain the GPS coordinates? Google Maps has put my house over 50m of where it actually is!! A basket, will also get wet, will the basket be big enough to handle the packages, will everyone wanting to use the service have to purchase specific baskets to be able to receive their packages? I am sorry - I just don't see this happening...
10. Perhaps one taxation rule for them, and another for us (who actually pay taxes). But I doubt that if one of the drones crashes killing someone will go lightly! I am pretty sure that laws apply in this circumstances, and drones will need to be insured, hence have airworthy certificates, and thus also require someone (whoever that might be) to be responsible for the death of / injury of / damage of, person, animal property etc...
I'll add 11. Which is how does the pollution of noise, and level of traffic at low level affect the birds living in the city? What is the environmental impact of having thousands of drones flying all over the city? What is the noise impact for people living there? What is the level of camera activity that will be allowed, how does that sit with privacy laws...etc... There are so many issues that can and in my humble opinion WILL squash any possibility of this.
I'd have to confess to being one of these pilots that really really REALLY dislike drones (in the sense quadcopters, not as in UAV). Possibly stemming from encountering a few at altitude (3,000' to 4,000') and only very nearly avoiding them. It has happened to be twice in the south east, and once in Denmark as well as once in Holland. I am talking less than 20 metres away from the plane, and having to take evasive action for my safety, the safety of my passengers, and the safety of the people below, in addition to both cosmetic and structural damage it would cause my plane. About that - in such instance - who pays for the repairs providing that I manage to survive the ordeal? I somewhat doubt that the absolute idiot who flew it would have insurance covering him for that. If there was loss of life, would this idiot get life imprisonment for murder? Or would he get off with just manslaughter?
I am not attempting to disrepute the well-informed, law abiding individuals who operate them safely in open spaces, below 400ft, outside of controlled airspace. Similar to remote control aeroplanes - I don't mind them AT ALL.
I order a large quantity of items from Amazon both for personal and business usage. Although yes, there are SOME smaller items, I would say that the majority of items I purchase are medium sized boxes which rarely weigh less than 2kilos. A box of A4 paper packs is a very common order of mine, as is printer ink toners (which again are quite large) from them. The size of the drone required to lift this, and fly safely with a canopy to keep the paper dry would need to be the size of a baby pram! I seriously doubt that they're going to be developing anything that size.
My r/c helicopter could carry up to 50% of its weight as payload, so even being very conservative, a 25kg drone should be able to carry your wad of printer paper without difficulty.
At 50mph working within a 10 mile radius, a drone should be able to deliver at least two packages an hour and probably rather more as most trips won't be 20 miles return.
3. Have you considered the cost of replacing those highly flammable, explosively dangerous Li-Ion batteries that can only do a certain number of charge cycles reliably?
9. What happens if you live in the basement, or share a room in a flat? Or conditions make it difficult to reach one side more than another? GPS coordinates being accurate? How do they obtain the GPS coordinates? Google Maps has put my house over 50m of where it actually is!! A basket, will also get wet, will the basket be big enough to handle the packages, will everyone wanting to use the service have to purchase specific baskets to be able to receive their packages? I am sorry - I just don't see this happening...
There are also still areas without mobile phone service or the internet. Just because a service doesn't reach everybody doesn't mean that it won't take off.
8. Just an approved mode S transponder costs more than a £1000 alone.... So that's unlikely to be the case. Even if they do design their own, I doubt the CAA will just let them use if without being fully approved by them, and that R&D will take upwards of 5 years, cost a huge amount of time etc... That cost will need to be offset at some level in their production line.
I'll add 11. Which is how does the pollution of noise, and level of traffic at low level affect the birds living in the city? What is the environmental impact of having thousands of drones flying all over the city? What is the noise impact for people living there? What is the level of camera activity that will be allowed, how does that sit with privacy laws...etc... There are so many issues that can and in my humble opinion WILL squash any possibility of this.
The impact on birds is an interesting one. I used to fly my helicopter round the park and the birds generally didn't seem to care. A seagull once tried to attack it, and it pulled off some serious aerobatics as it realised its mistake at the last moment. My bet would be that most birds will learn to ignore them pretty quickly but that they might make some of the smaller birds a bit nervous. A good question, but 'what will they do to the birds' has never had much of an impact on the uptake of streetlights.
As an aside, I once lived in a village with no roads - a kibbutz. There were access roads where you could take a hand-cart and a ring-road for vehicular traffic. For wildlife, it was a real haven. Lovely gardens. Woodpeckers, kingfishers all around. Glorious. A future with fewer roads - which drones could help enable - would very probably be rather good for wildlife even if certain species might get a bit anxious about them.
We've reached a watershed where quite difficult problems are becoming technically easy to solve and those who are bold enough and rich enough to throw money at the problems can progress rapidly. All the technological objections you raise could be worked around, often fairly trivially. There are no show-stoppers. The harder issues to solve are going to be sociological such as loss of jobs in the driving and courier industries.
TelsBoy:
I think your arguments in the main are more pertinent to hobbyist drone operators than those that would be operated by Amazon and similar large companies. You raise many good objections, but some of them are legal and can therefore be 'sorted' given sufficient clout, and in most senses drone deliveries would be less threatening to aviation than your average hobbyist.
If I had a drone, I'd want to take pictures from interesting places. I'd want to see how high it could go. I'd want to take pictures of big events like carnivals. That's what's cool. Whether I did any of these things would depend on my interest in the law and willingness to follow it.
The actual reason I don't have a drone is that I'm too law abiding to do these things, and instead I have a helicopter which is far more interesting to fly. Hardly anyone can fly r/c helicopters. In contrast drones are fly-by-wire. The aerodynamics is all abstracted out and you couldn't control one directly if you tried. Amazon needs a team of PhDs sitting in a room developing software to route the drones automatically, crash them gracefully and harmlessly should they fail, and once they've made them safe to lobby with governments for changes to legislation so that they can fly legally. If there is a person directly in the loop, they're likely to be limited to loading packages into them for the minimum wage. There's no reason for the end user to understand aerodynamics any more than my Mum understands an internal combustion engine. There'll be a team of PhDs in a building somewhere who are taking care of that side of things.
As for all the issue about IFR flight plans... Simply a non-issue for operations such as this. Provided you are low then there'd be no reason to follow all the rules set up for manned aircraft. Even in the middle of a cloud you can normally see 20 feet. An aircraft with GPS guidance that knows where it is, has a reaction time in milliseconds and can pull 5Gs is going to be able to operate in a very different way from a human pilot trying to read the map and fly by reference to an NDB.
Amazon wants to transport stuff from A to B and doesn't care about how it gets there. They would be quite happy if trained moles pulled packages through tunnels, so long as they did so reasonably fast for a reasonable fee. There's no reason to transport stuff at any significant altitude - you could have the drones follow roads at an altitude of 6" higher than the tallest double-decker bus and they would get the packages where they need to go. They would be less intrusive if they were ten or twenty metres higher than that, but I see no reason for them to fly high enough to pose a risk for aircraft provided they stayed outside the airfield boundary.
The only aircraft you could possibly need to worry about then, would be helicopters, and soon see-and-avoid technology will be mature enough that even they aren't an issue. I'd wager they will be agile and adept enough that you will be able to fly a manned aircraft through a cloud of drones and they will scatter around you like pigeons avoiding a peregrine. In fact, I'd wager someone will demonstrate this as a stunt within the next two decades and possibly much sooner.
I think your arguments in the main are more pertinent to hobbyist drone operators than those that would be operated by Amazon and similar large companies. You raise many good objections, but some of them are legal and can therefore be 'sorted' given sufficient clout, and in most senses drone deliveries would be less threatening to aviation than your average hobbyist.
If I had a drone, I'd want to take pictures from interesting places. I'd want to see how high it could go. I'd want to take pictures of big events like carnivals. That's what's cool. Whether I did any of these things would depend on my interest in the law and willingness to follow it.
The actual reason I don't have a drone is that I'm too law abiding to do these things, and instead I have a helicopter which is far more interesting to fly. Hardly anyone can fly r/c helicopters. In contrast drones are fly-by-wire. The aerodynamics is all abstracted out and you couldn't control one directly if you tried. Amazon needs a team of PhDs sitting in a room developing software to route the drones automatically, crash them gracefully and harmlessly should they fail, and once they've made them safe to lobby with governments for changes to legislation so that they can fly legally. If there is a person directly in the loop, they're likely to be limited to loading packages into them for the minimum wage. There's no reason for the end user to understand aerodynamics any more than my Mum understands an internal combustion engine. There'll be a team of PhDs in a building somewhere who are taking care of that side of things.
As for all the issue about IFR flight plans... Simply a non-issue for operations such as this. Provided you are low then there'd be no reason to follow all the rules set up for manned aircraft. Even in the middle of a cloud you can normally see 20 feet. An aircraft with GPS guidance that knows where it is, has a reaction time in milliseconds and can pull 5Gs is going to be able to operate in a very different way from a human pilot trying to read the map and fly by reference to an NDB.
Amazon wants to transport stuff from A to B and doesn't care about how it gets there. They would be quite happy if trained moles pulled packages through tunnels, so long as they did so reasonably fast for a reasonable fee. There's no reason to transport stuff at any significant altitude - you could have the drones follow roads at an altitude of 6" higher than the tallest double-decker bus and they would get the packages where they need to go. They would be less intrusive if they were ten or twenty metres higher than that, but I see no reason for them to fly high enough to pose a risk for aircraft provided they stayed outside the airfield boundary.
The only aircraft you could possibly need to worry about then, would be helicopters, and soon see-and-avoid technology will be mature enough that even they aren't an issue. I'd wager they will be agile and adept enough that you will be able to fly a manned aircraft through a cloud of drones and they will scatter around you like pigeons avoiding a peregrine. In fact, I'd wager someone will demonstrate this as a stunt within the next two decades and possibly much sooner.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Hadley's Hope, LV426
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
abgd,
I'm not sure the solution to the issues is as simple as a bit of lobbying on the legals and the boffins writing some software to stop anything serious happening.
An aircraft is an aircraft and is subject to operation under the ANO, whether it's flying at double decker bus height or at 80000 feet. Whether is Amazon operating the aircraft or Johnny Bloggs down the road at number 23 is immaterial. The ANO still applies.
Any operator of an aircraft needs to have a basic understanding of how the machine operates, to operate it safely and to know what to do when things don't go to plan. It's not like jumping into Aunty Nelly's Ford Mondeo and popping down the shops for the bread and milk.
My primary concern is how these machines will fit in with other aircraft and as part of the wider ATM system. So far no one has been able to satisfactorily demonstrate this which gives me much cause for concern.
With any aircraft, the pilot in command has the legal responsibility and the buck stops with him or her. Who carries this responsibility in the operation of these drones, especially if they are automated?
As I say, far too many questions, a deafening silence of answers.
I'm not sure the solution to the issues is as simple as a bit of lobbying on the legals and the boffins writing some software to stop anything serious happening.
An aircraft is an aircraft and is subject to operation under the ANO, whether it's flying at double decker bus height or at 80000 feet. Whether is Amazon operating the aircraft or Johnny Bloggs down the road at number 23 is immaterial. The ANO still applies.
Any operator of an aircraft needs to have a basic understanding of how the machine operates, to operate it safely and to know what to do when things don't go to plan. It's not like jumping into Aunty Nelly's Ford Mondeo and popping down the shops for the bread and milk.
My primary concern is how these machines will fit in with other aircraft and as part of the wider ATM system. So far no one has been able to satisfactorily demonstrate this which gives me much cause for concern.
With any aircraft, the pilot in command has the legal responsibility and the buck stops with him or her. Who carries this responsibility in the operation of these drones, especially if they are automated?
As I say, far too many questions, a deafening silence of answers.
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.
Current legislation is geared towards the management of manned aircraft; this will have to change in the same way that legislation regarding newspapers has had to adapt to the internet over the past few years. However, there are many different jurisdictions when it comes to airspace and, ICAO notwithstanding if one country doesn't eventually adapt to enable drones, then another will. As they are clearly going to be big business, governments will want to cautiously enable research and development to happen on their soil so that they get a slice of the action, so there's a lot of impetus to enable change.
What does it mean to operate a drone? Ultimately it's going to boil down to the end user specifying two sets of co-ordinates: a pick-up point and a drop-off point, and putting something in it. The rest will be arranged by software which will be written by people who really understand what they're doing. In a sense the 'operators' will need little direct oversight. Maintenance people will really have to understand what they're doing too: but drones can be mechanically simple with a lot of redundancy.
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!
Amazon seems to be taking reasonable, baby steps operating first of all in the countryside where the consequences of an accident are likely to be minimal. There are also companies delivering medicines and blood products in Africa. Ultimately, the objection to your objections is that drones are already flying around doing useful stuff in several countries. With Bill Gates' caveat that people overestimate the short-term impact of technologies and underestimate the long term impact, drones are inevitable.
Current legislation is geared towards the management of manned aircraft; this will have to change in the same way that legislation regarding newspapers has had to adapt to the internet over the past few years. However, there are many different jurisdictions when it comes to airspace and, ICAO notwithstanding if one country doesn't eventually adapt to enable drones, then another will. As they are clearly going to be big business, governments will want to cautiously enable research and development to happen on their soil so that they get a slice of the action, so there's a lot of impetus to enable change.
What does it mean to operate a drone? Ultimately it's going to boil down to the end user specifying two sets of co-ordinates: a pick-up point and a drop-off point, and putting something in it. The rest will be arranged by software which will be written by people who really understand what they're doing. In a sense the 'operators' will need little direct oversight. Maintenance people will really have to understand what they're doing too: but drones can be mechanically simple with a lot of redundancy.
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!
Amazon seems to be taking reasonable, baby steps operating first of all in the countryside where the consequences of an accident are likely to be minimal. There are also companies delivering medicines and blood products in Africa. Ultimately, the objection to your objections is that drones are already flying around doing useful stuff in several countries. With Bill Gates' caveat that people overestimate the short-term impact of technologies and underestimate the long term impact, drones are inevitable.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
abgd, it sounds like you're involved in the R&D / development of the project. It is a cool project to work on, and I would suggest keeping at it whilst Amazon keeps paying you money - but I simply don't see it (EVER) becoming a reality.
Not trying to crush anyone's dreams... But there are too many legal issues that will arise, too many "what if scenarios". If the school cafeteria cook gets laid off or helping a kid who climbed a tree and couldn't get down, by bringing a ladder... How on earth will Elf n Safety allow 30+Kgs flying over very busy roads, with thousands of people, vehicles, houses, offices, properties, emergency helicopters flying low, police helicopters flying low....etc...
The question is not "IF" they crash, it is "WHEN" they crash. THEN what - who goes to jail, who pays for damages, who compensates families who lost loved ones, who cleans up the mess on the streets / roofs / river / ponds / other....
That is why it won't happen!
Not trying to crush anyone's dreams... But there are too many legal issues that will arise, too many "what if scenarios". If the school cafeteria cook gets laid off or helping a kid who climbed a tree and couldn't get down, by bringing a ladder... How on earth will Elf n Safety allow 30+Kgs flying over very busy roads, with thousands of people, vehicles, houses, offices, properties, emergency helicopters flying low, police helicopters flying low....etc...
The question is not "IF" they crash, it is "WHEN" they crash. THEN what - who goes to jail, who pays for damages, who compensates families who lost loved ones, who cleans up the mess on the streets / roofs / river / ponds / other....
That is why it won't happen!