Those are some nice meat slicers! They need bladeguards for that thing. Think small child, dog, whatever, running in their way...

Also, 4 motors+props? What about redundancy? 5 Seems a much smarter number, easy to keep flying with 4. Keeping flying with 3 seems hard, although it is theoretically possible. One of them would have to be reversible though...

It's actually got 8 motors and eight props - one can just make out the lower set of props in the picture.

When it was announced at CES at the beginning of the year, the company was apparently saying that it was already fully functional, and that it would be commercially available later in the year, but YMMV (especially with a battery life of 23min and a max speed of 60mph :ok:).

https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_...ge=en#t-348220

This should allay concerns about controllability with failures. The control method when down to two props would not be much fun for a pax though....

Drone brings Dubai Airport to a halt for an hour - Khaleej Times
My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere already.
I thought that it would fit this thread well.

Europe’s Emergency Workers Turn to Drones to Save Lives
 

FAA Issues Commercial Drone Rules
 

Unique drone approval in UK
 

Permissions - BB Stratus Aerial Imagery

Drone sales soaring this Christmas, capping a record year for the industry
 

From the Washington Post:

​http://wpo.st/ppOO2

It's interesting to do some ball park numbers on how many delivery drones we could see flying around. Lets take Amazon alone.. Some reports say that Amazon warehouses are processing a few 10's of orders per second. Other reports suggest that 80-90% of these are below 5kg so could potentially be delivered by a drone. That means we could be looking at say 10-20 drone flights per second from their warehouses. That's a potential of about 1,300,000 flights per day per warehouse. That's a staggering number and probably wrong but it is based on todays figures, allows nothing for growth and is just Amazons potential let alone other companies.

Drone delivery
 

This is a much misunderstood business IMHO. Unless there are unpublicised developments in range and duration of current technology the use of drones for deliveries can only be for a tiny minority of all orders. Currently the duration of multi rotors is measured in minutes not hours, and their speed in tens of knots. Admittedly fixed wing planes last much longer and go faster, but they require decent sized fields to take off and land. Not many customers will be willing to have their goods delivered by parachute. Landing and taking of again at the point of delivery poses obvious dangers which would be unacceptable to commerce and regulators alike.

In order for decent sized payloads to be carried the vehicle needs to be correspondingly larger, and much more expensive. Currently such aircraft are limited by law to a ceiling of 400ft agl in most jurisdictions where they are likely to be used. The temptation posed by large fairly slow noisy machines to amateur marksmen with shotguns is obvious. The likely attrition from this and other causes would render insurance against loss costly.

I do not expect any serious exploitation of unmanned aerial delivery systems commercially for a very long time. If ever. As a means of securing cheap publicity for Amazon and others they seem to be a sure fire winner.

Really surprised by the amount falling for Amazon's free publicity tool,
Drone delivery,except in the most constrained circumstances?
LOL

From DHLs press release they did their tests with a VTOL drone with a swivel wing design, straight flight was basically the same as a fixed wing one.

Doesn't look exactly small either. However, i do not think that commercial operators are the main danger as they want to continue using them, it is private users that simply do not know about anything and just want to try to get cool videos or pictures with their new toy. And some of those toys can be quite heavy too.

Hmmm. A bit like a model Bell Osprey. Still only got a range of 12kms. No use for deliveries outside fairly densely populated areas. I get they cost a lot too.

"No use for deliveries outside fairly densely populated areas."
Launched from and recovered to van, to deliver from blacktop road to rural property on poor quality track, might be possible.

Possible certainly, economic, hardly. Send van out, dispatch drone, driver and van hang around til it comes back. Can't see it working.

Drone making regular deliveries in Rwanda. Paid per delivery. Fixed wing, 93 mile range..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37646474

Just appeared on the BBC website

Amazon files patent for flying warehouse

Amazon files patent for flying warehouse - BBC News

excerpts:

Amazon has filed a patent for massive flying warehouses equipped with fleets of drones that deliver goods to key locations.
Carried by an airship, the warehouses would visit places Amazon expects demand for certain goods to boom.
It says one use could be near sporting events or festivals where they would sell food or souvenirs to spectators.
The patent also envisages a series of support vehicles that would be used to restock the flying structures

Also, it said, the drones descending from the AFCs - which would cruise and hover at altitudes up to 45,000ft (14,000m) - would use almost no power as they glided down to make deliveries.

The patent was filed more than two years ago, so I think we'd have heard by now if it was going to lead to anything.

But energy was needed to get the goods up to the 'warehouse'.

Yes, this is great for that purpose, delivery of fairly robust urgently needed medical supplies in open country with few metalled roads. Not so great for delivery of delicate heavy consumer goods in densely populated areas, which is where most Amazon customers live.

Have just been looking at the videos of deliveries by drone in Cambridgeshire. Clearly the system works for delivery of small robust items in this flat and largely treeless part of the world. Doubt it'd work so well in London and the Home Counties.

Yes, they haven't been able to reinvent the laws of physics. :O

But the point was that the drones would be in flight idle for most of their mission, with a corresponding increase in range. The goods (and the drones themselves) would be transported up to the AFC on board smaller shuttle airships.

An Evening Standard article reports a total of 13 high-risk airprox incidents involving planes inbound or outbound at London airports last year: 10 at LHR, two at LCY and one at STN. These were "category-A" incidents, with a “serious risk of collision.”

There were an additional nine incidents with Heathrow flights where safety “may have been compromised” among a total of 36 incidents involving passenger planes over London in 2016.

Overall, the number of drone incidents involving Heathrow planes nearly quadrupled from seven in 2015 to 26 last year, according to reports by the UK Airprox Board.

Complete article here

The Standard, as usual, has jumped the gun - thr UKAB data only covers the period up to early September.

So, for example, the quoted total of 10 Category A events that involved Heathrow traffic will almost certainly have risen by the end of the year.

Not only commercial aircraft, but the military are also concerned.

RAF Shawbury warning over drone gifts « Shropshire Star

Another Drone near miss, this time at LPL
 

Being reported another drone near miss.
This time an easyJet A319 on finals at LPL John Lennon Airport.
Pilot reported as same height as aircraft.
Plane preparing to land in Liverpool has close encounter with a drone - Liverpool Echo

The authorities in Germany are very worried about these drones. And now the RC modelflying pilot scene is hurt by a couple of idiots flying their drones near airports and airplanes.

A hight restriction of only 30 meters. That is low for RC model flying.

It is like a couple of football hooligans spoiling it all for the real supporters.

But the authorities don't see the difference. So there is a lobby from the RC modelflying world to express their worries.

These hobbyists should be left alone. The drone idiot should be charged with "attempted murder" and prosecuted in that way. We don't need more restrictions in the hobby scene. These people are not the problem.

A couple of observations from the video:
Who 'released' the RT and did the pilots and controller give their permission?

Seems a bit late in the approach to be asking for precise details, would the flight deck prefer to give this info after landing?

Just a small personal observation, a little distracting to start requesting more details as the aircraft is on short final I would have thought? Couldn't it have waited until they were down?

DP & HT, agreed. Thank you for that. I had a ground tour in ATC in the RAF.
Recollect, many years ago, mentioning intrusive ATC to Vancouver.
They were not pleased (They even had a whinge to Seattle); my captain was not pleased but, after decades of reflection, I have no doubt that I was right to make the point.
As is said in the mil:
'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'
I dislike confrontation but sometimes you just have to do it.

Low level flying
 

La vidéo de l'avion de chasse frôlant un drone dans l'Allier - Moulins (03000) - La Montagne

The story is that a land owner was filming his property located in central France, discovering later his drone was underflown by 2 Rafale.

I will post this when the accident occurs but why is the industry so reactive and not proactive?

I imagine a drone will bring down an airliner and all of the people will say in disbelief "how did this happen?
Well how about we regulate drones heavily now and perhaps save some lives?

Regulating drones now? The people who fly drones responsibly already take note of the Drone Code etc. The people who will cause a 'possible' incident are those who won't follow the Drone Code, or any rules for that matter. Irresponsible flying creates panic in the media. Still, I note not a single aircraft anywhere at this time (that I can find) has been hit by a drone.

Here's an example of something: You own 50 acres of land and have some livestock. The weather is bad, you use a drone to go and quickly check to make sure all livestock is alive and well. You are at no more than 400'. You're out at 500m. It's your land. You have actually put a notam out to inform the aviation community about the operation for up to 1 hour. So, a local ppl holder has a small microlight in a nearby village strip, decides to get airborne, flies over your land at 400' and flies into the drone (UAV), and ends up having to make a forced landing in your field. So, who is to blame, or more importantly which way do you think the media would sway? I know what would happen. :ugh:

Stop with the media sensationalism. Yes be pro-active but please, let's keep it sensible. The drone industry is likely to be a multi-billion$$$ industry in 2017. It's a fact of life they aren't going away anytime soon.

Yes, use geofencing systems. (we already have this)
Yes, register anything bigger than say 500g at Point of Purchase (this would make people think twice that their details are recorded already)
Don't add more bureaucracy to the already overloaded CAA (uk anyway) its taking months for them to turn around renewal of PfCO's.

I don't care if it's going to be a billion dollar industry. Idiots across the country and globe are flying these things near airports like crazy people. It will not be fair or justifiable that an airliner full of innocent people is taken down by some moron flying a drone on the approach path at LHR is it? Look at the Malaysian 777? What idiot in route-planning thought it was a good idea to allow a route over an active warzone? Regulation is in order I believe.

Only if it will achieve anything. Is is being continually pointed out - those people whom regulation would influence are ALREADY doing the right things and posing no danger to any other equally responsible aviator (I'm excluding the nutters you find in all fields of endevour who do things like buzz livestock at 100' in a microlight etc).

The people who might be a risk, eg those doing the long-distance BVR flights, won't give a dingo's kidney what some "regulation" says - they know the chances of them getting caught is pretty close to zero. They're also not necessarily the people who are buying these things as a commercial package. There is a huge hobby industry selling the components and full kits for home assembly, using flight control modules which can have whatever "restrictions" the builder doesn't like switched out. These suppliers are located in places that won't care about any regulation making it illegal to ship the stuff to the UK. There are websites full of open-source code for these things and lots of enthusiasts to assist in using/modifying it. So regulation is unlikely to achieve anything other than annoy legitimate (and non-risk) hobby RC flyers.

Airliners are demonstrably at far greater risk from wild birds than from drones, so if you want to do something USEFUL (rather than just bleating) perhaps you could start a campaign to have all woild birds fitted with kevlar tethers and 200lb concrete hold-downs. After all, it's the risk that's the issue and we can objectively show that this is a far, far greater risk.

Are drones now being put in the same risk box a lasers? Too much trouble and you can't catch the guys anyway.

No, because there genuinely IS a potential hazard from drones...

There have been a few, most recently a couple of impacts with model gliders. See the table on page 7 of the final report of EASA's Drone Collision Task Force.

from the BBC today

Dubai announces passenger drone plans - BBC News

Dubai announces passenger drone plans

A drone that can carry people will begin "regular operations" in Dubai from July, the head of the city's Roads and Transportation Agency has announced at the World Government Summit.
The Chinese model eHang 184 has already had test flights, said Matt al-Tayer.
The drone can carry one passenger weighing up to 100 kg (220 pounds) and has a 30 minute flight time.
The passenger uses a touch screen to select a destination. There are no other controls inside the craft.
It is "auto-piloted" by a command centre, according to a video released by the government agency.
It has reported speeds of up to 100 miles per hour (160 kilometres per hour) and can fly 31 miles (50km) on a single battery charge.

Dr Steve Wright, senior lecturer in avionics and aircraft systems at the University of the West of England, told the BBC that safety would have to be paramount. Dr Wright added that he would not be volunteering for an early flight. "I'd have to be taken on board kicking and screaming."


more in the linked article

Not exactly a new idea - but perhaps first in commercial use

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...irdhelicopter/

Diamond DA42 Centaur Optionally Piloted Aircraft (OPA) - Airforce Technology

There are likely to be many more of these in the future.