Amazon Provides Details on it's Prime Air Service

[EyeWingsuit]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exclusive-amazon-reveals-details-about-1343951725436982.html

What they're proposing to the FAA is interesting, and it does significantly affect our world. Essentially, Amazon is asking 200-400 to be off-limits to aerial photography.


"And how will you keep these drones from interfering with air travel?

Well, we’ve proposed to regulators around the world, including the FAA, a certain kind of an airspace design that would keep the drones separated from the aircraft.

We were thinking: Manned aircraft above 500 feet. Between 400 and 500 feet there’d be a no-fly zone — a safety buffer. Between 200 and 400 feet would be a transit zone, where drones could fly fairly quickly, horizontally. And then below 200 feet, that would be limited to certain operations. For us, it would be takeoff and landing. For others, it might be aerial photography. The realtors, for example, wouldn’t need to fly above 200 feet to get a great shot of a house."

 

[Acroduster]

Oooooh - I'm not liking the sound of that...

 

[Maddog]

Oooooh - I'm not liking the sound of that...

Me either- some communities have "ordinances" requiring drones to be above 300' when flying over private property.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Me either- some communities have "ordinances" requiring drones to be above 300' when flying over private property.

I suspect those will go away relatively "soon."

 

[Maddog]

I suspect those will go away relatively "soon."

I agree- I don't think they have the authority to enforce them.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I agree- I don't think they have the authority to enforce them.

Federal Versus State Drone Laws: Part I - Federal Preemption Awakens | On the Radar

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...L_V26N3_WINTER13_Silversmith.authcheckdam.pdf Note the date: This is not a new conversation, just one in which the FAA is very late in responding.

Airline Industry Alert: Court Finds Federal Law Preempts State Drug-Testing Law as Applied to Flight Attendant - FordHarrison - Labor and Employment Attorneys (unrelated to drones, but a precedent that is being used as part of the commentary by aviation attorneys)

http://www.movoaviation.com/images/Federal_preemption_of_state_and_local_drone_regulation.pdf (A short list of sustained preemptions to State Law/findings)

Aviation Law 1 | Kreindler & Kreindler LLP | National Another listing of case precedent.

A brilliant response to Boggs v Merideth by an aviation attorney. This is likely to set the major precedent for the next couple of years.

The short of it is, the FAA can't toss the bathwater, for fear of losing the baby. IMO, it is imperative that UAV operators large and small, be at the least familiar with the fundamentals of these issues not so as to be contentious, but to be conscientious and able to have rational, cogent, and meaningful discussions with local politicians, neighbors, police, whomever may be opposed to what we do.

 

[RichWest]

IMHO - It seems to be the only agreeable solution for all involved, zoning the air space. But I doubt the aviation industry is going to accept a 100' buffer as safe, being that they own the skies. Personally, I think the human aviation side should bump up to 1000' minimum altitude, making room for this future tech. That should provide plenty of space to navigate commercial sUAS at various altitudes based on their flight direction. Then allow us humble mortals to play around in the 83-200' space...FWIW, don't think for a minute anyone cares about hobby usage or freedoms for personal use. Follow the money to find out more.

Further, I believe they should restrict commercial sUAS's to common land referenced ROW. Basically streets and highways. I don't want my house or property to be the flight path for 1000's of UASs because it's the "logical" shortest route. Speaking as a urban city dweller.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

IMHO - . Personally, I think the human aviation side should bump up to 1000' minimum altitude, making room for this future tech. That should provide plenty of space to navigate commercial sUAS at various altitudes based on their flight direction..

We can't. Glide slopes aside, it would be a nightmare for the FAA to have to deal with 7711 forms every time someone in a Cessna is flying below 1KAGL.

 

[QuadCoyote]

"And how will you keep these drones from interfering with air travel?​

Well, we’ve proposed to regulators around the world, including the FAA, a certain kind of an airspace design that would keep the drones separated from the aircraft.​

We were thinking: Manned aircraft above 500 feet. Between 400 and 500 feet there’d be a no-fly zone — a safety buffer. Between 200 and 400 feet would be a transit zone, where drones could fly fairly quickly, horizontally. And then below 200 feet, that would be limited to certain operations. For us, it would be takeoff and landing. For others, it might be aerial photography. The realtors, for example, wouldn’t need to fly above 200 feet to get a great shot of a house."​

I wonder whether Amazon and others might be thinking of something a little more elaborate than the answer to the interview question suggests. Reserving blocks of altitude for high-speed travel point-to-point isn't workable without some kind of 'air traffic control' for UAS, at least if there are operators other than Amazon (and there will be).

I actually suspect that the FAA is warm to the idea of a reserved range of altitudes for UAS operating with ADS-B or some position and altitude reporting technology as well as some sort of 'see and avoid' technology or integration with an automated traffic control facility, much as altitudes above 18,000 ft today are reserved for air traffic under positive air traffic control that have filed IFR flight plans.

​

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised to see the ceiling coming down. The squeeze is on.

By the way, if you're looking for chilling quotes, this one later in the interview fits the bill:

In deference to the FAA, or in sympathy with the FAA, it turns out that they have a limited ability to regulate amateur drones, but they have full powers to regulate commercial drones. To my way of thinking, at least, that imbalance doesn’t make sense.

At the very least, they ought to be treated the same, to give the FAA the same authority to regulate both amateur and commercial drones. Arguably, you would want to regulate the amateurs even more, because they have less training, their drones are less sophisticated, and so forth. So certainly that part of law needs to be clarified, at a minimum.​

Absolutely reminds me of the view that commercial airlines take of general aviation, and that has been an ongoing struggle for decades...

 

[PdxSteve]

If Amazon wants that airspace reserved for their use, maybe they should also pay for it. A few billion a year should do it.

I'd rather they are required to build a drone that is capable of avoiding objects in real time if they want to be doing this stuff with thousands of drones flying all over. They should also have a transponder and be able to be tracked via radar. It should be up to them. Just like the auto industry is having to go through for self-driving cars. Don't just give it to Amazon.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I'd rather they are required to build a drone that is capable of avoiding objects in real time if they want to be doing this stuff with thousands of drones flying all over. They should also have a transponder and be able to be tracked via radar. It should be up to them. Just like the auto industry is having to go through for self-driving cars. Don't just give it to Amazon.

All your points have been addressed by Amazon and Google. Real-time avoidance, GPS and transponder tracking (radar is outdated), and automated flight system control/ATC-D.
Google, NASA work together to design drone air-traffic-control system

it may be that hobby UAV will lose altitude in the end. However, given the structure, 333 (which will likely go away soon enough) will always have the option to file 7711. There isn't a prayer in that going away in any forseeable future.

 

[SteveReno]

Commercial Uavs Own everything below 400' from 8AM to 6PM
We the people, can only fly from 6PM PM to 8AM.

If this happens, I'm giving up! Sell everything!

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Commercial Uavs Own everything below 400' from 8AM to 6PM
We the people, can only fly from 6PM PM to 8AM.

If this happens, I'm giving up! Sell everything!

In what timezone, and what happens if you live on a timezone border? Are you entitled to the extra hour except in states that don't do DST?
The sky isn't falling, and if you're TRULY concerned, write your congressman and state senator. Express your concerns.

 

[Maddog]

Federal Versus State Drone Laws: Part I - Federal Preemption Awakens | On the Radar

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...L_V26N3_WINTER13_Silversmith.authcheckdam.pdf Note the date: This is not a new conversation, just one in which the FAA is very late in responding.

Airline Industry Alert: Court Finds Federal Law Preempts State Drug-Testing Law as Applied to Flight Attendant - FordHarrison - Labor and Employment Attorneys (unrelated to drones, but a precedent that is being used as part of the commentary by aviation attorneys)

http://www.movoaviation.com/images/Federal_preemption_of_state_and_local_drone_regulation.pdf (A short list of sustained preemptions to State Law/findings)

Aviation Law 1 | Kreindler & Kreindler LLP | National Another listing of case precedent.

A brilliant response to Boggs v Merideth by an aviation attorney. This is likely to set the major precedent for the next couple of years.

The short of it is, the FAA can't toss the bathwater, for fear of losing the baby. IMO, it is imperative that UAV operators large and small, be at the least familiar with the fundamentals of these issues not so as to be contentious, but to be conscientious and able to have rational, cogent, and meaningful discussions with local politicians, neighbors, police, whomever may be opposed to what we do.

Great research- thanks!