Amazon Tests Delivery by Drone

[12watt]

You are my HERO of the day!!!

 

[TLI-Inferno]

Terrorist A: "My plane crashed, and I couldn't get the bomb to the tower in time!"

Terrorist B: "You should have used Amazon! Their drones can get your product to its destination in 30 minutes!"

Both terrorists would need to be grey atheist asexuals in order to avoid stereotypes, although I'm not sure what motivation such people could find for pursuing their careers if that were really the case.

Too soon? Sorry, I guess I'm not the right guy to make their commercials.

 

[X–Ray]

Amazon testing delivery by drone, CEO Bezos says

Geez - this article drones on and on...

 

[Bluesky]

That's the last time I order a Les Paul from Amazon.com...............

Can I keep the drone once it lands?

 

[cybermgk]

As to your first concern: The drones would almost certainly fly at a much lower altitude than manned aircraft. Probably just a few hundred feet.

Your second concern: The amount of drones needed would probably be tempered by a very high cost of requesting delivery in this manner.

Your third concern: The range that this service would be offered will most likely be limited to within a certain radius of the fulfillment center, so it's unlikely that the drones would be going further than 20-30 miles round trip.

There is a reason that manned aircraft must fly at certain altitudes in populated areas. One of many is so that there is a greater chance for less than a crash landing if issues occur. So flying at low altitudes is actually a major issue in my mind.

As to the other two. Read the article. It does not state the scope, but the impression is much greater than you seem to think it is.

 

[TLI-Inferno]

There is a reason that manned aircraft must fly at certain altitudes in populated areas. One of many is so that there is a greater chance for less than a crash landing if issues occur. So flying at low altitudes is actually a major issue in my mind.

As to the other two. Read the article. It does not state the scope, but the impression is much greater than you seem to think it is.

The drones are much smaller and lighter than manned jets. We've got four options:

1: Everyone flies at the same height and crashes into each other all the time.

2: Passenger airliners fly below drones, giving unmanned drones a chance to avoid crashing while everyone else just slams into the ground causing colossal damage.

3: Ban flight, knock everybody out of the sky, because there's always the risk somebody might crash. Ban driving as well, because cars crash sometimes, too. Ban walking, because people bump into each other, which, in some places, can lead to injury or death.

4: Unmanned drones fly below everyone else, and the occasional drone failure leads to the little thing crashing on the road and, maybe, just maybe, killing or injuring someone.

Accidents happen, and it's sad when they do, but banning everything that could possibly go wrong would result in everything on the entire planet being illegal. The best we can do is organize things to minimize risk to help as many people as possible while still allowing people freedom.

 

[cybermgk]

The drones are much smaller and lighter than manned jets. We've got four options:

Um, small fixed wing aircraft also have altitude restrictions. Not just airliners, dude.

1: Everyone flies at the same height and crashes into each other all the time.

Sorry but this is a rediculis response. No thought at all behind it. Aircraft currently fly in the same altitudes now. They do not crash into each other willy nilly. But that is because they follow safety rules, and are piloted by licensed, trained pilots with more than 360 degree view and/or on board radar and are also managed by Air Traffic Control as well.

Helicopters, of ehich these particular drones might be classified as, can go lower than the min safe altitude, under certain circumstances.

The point is, that these unmanned drones are challenged in the above regard.

2: Passenger airliners fly below drones, giving unmanned drones a chance to avoid crashing while everyone else just slams into the ground causing colossal damage.

So inane, won't get a comment.

3: Ban flight, knock everybody out of the sky, because there's always the risk somebody might crash. Ban driving as well, because cars crash sometimes, too. Ban walking, because people bump into each other, which, in some places, can lead to injury or death.

See above, as this is even more inane.

4: Unmanned drones fly below everyone else, and the occasional drone failure leads to the little thing crashing on the road and, maybe, just maybe, killing or injuring someone.

Or, option 5, these Drones observe the existing flight rules/laws, and these companies prove that they can adhere to the safety and regulations in said laws.

Accidents happen, and it's sad when they do, but banning everything that could possibly go wrong would result in everything on the entire planet being illegal. The best we can do is organize things to minimize risk to help as many people as possible while still allowing people freedom.

You said 'banning'. I never did. YOU jumped to a conclusion. I simply state my concerns and questions, that imho need to be addressed or answered. I was talking about the NEED to "organize things to minimize risk " and the extreme challenges that this tech, in this role has in those regards. You went off the deep end, that I never stated.in
Your response borders on the absurd. Sorry, it does.

Problem is, the damage to a home is not negligible if a drone crashed into your house. If it hits a driving car, or worse a car on a busy street. Even worse, hitting a person, means likely death. A baseball is TRULY a little thing, and it is lethal at speed. These are not 'little' and have some mass.

BTW, not sure if your aware, but even Ultralights can not be flown over congested, aka populated areas.

 

[Leendrix]

Here's another thing to consider. The drone flight is only making money on its way to the customer. On the way back it's a dead flight. IE not profitable. Eventually the private company will look for ways to make money while flying back to its base.

Installing cameras and selling the telemetry to the GVT is about the only thing of value they would have available. Hmmmm

Slide of hands...

They got you focused on the deliveries, but don't think of telling you about the surveillance aspect.

/tinfoil hat

 

[TLI-Inferno]

Um, small fixed wing aircraft also have altitude restrictions. Not just airliners, dude.


Sorry but this is a rediculis response. No thought at all behind it. Aircraft currently fly in the same altitudes now. They do not crash into each other willy nilly. But that is because they follow safety rules, and are piloted by licensed, trained pilots with more than 360 degree view and/or on board radar and are also managed by Air Traffic Control as well.

Helicopters, of ehich these particular drones might be classified as, can go lower than the min safe altitude, under certain circumstances.

The point is, that these unmanned drones are challenged in the above regard.

So inane, won't get a comment.


See above, as this is even more inane.


Or, option 5, these Drones observe the existing flight rules/laws, and these companies prove that they can adhere to the safety and regulations in said laws.



You said 'banning'. I never did. YOU jumped to a conclusion. I simply state my concerns and questions, that imho need to be addressed or answered. I was talking about the NEED to "organize things to minimize risk " and the extreme challenges that this tech, in this role has in those regards. You went off the deep end, that I never stated.in
Your response borders on the absurd. Sorry, it does.

Problem is, the damage to a home is not negligible if a drone crashed into your house. If it hits a driving car, or worse a car on a busy street. Even worse, hitting a person, means likely death. A baseball is TRULY a little thing, and it is lethal at speed. These are not 'little' and have some mass.

BTW, not sure if your aware, but even Ultralights can not be flown over congested, aka populated areas.

Nobody said anything about flying drones 5 feet above the ground. They would still be far above people's houses.

If these drones were used, they might become a very common thing. If that did happen, we wouldn't want tens of thousands of drones flying at the same height as jets.

Nobody said anything about leaving it unregulated and just having chaos. They would be regulated, and flying at a different height is part of that regulation in order to avoid possible collisions.

If I had to decide between who flew below who, I'd want the manned jets flying as high as possible to give them the best chance of recovering from whatever issues they might encounter, which would put drones below them. I'm not saying drones should skim the surface of the ground; they should still be required to fly at a specific altitude, and that is already what is being proposed.

Meanwhile, you seem to be intent on attacking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you just because they have a different viewpoint. Great job, that kind of thinking really helps people progress to the right conclusions.

 

[geochem1st]

The drones are much smaller and lighter than manned jets.
....

Which makes them notoriously unstable in bad weather. Downdrafts and wind shear from Popcorn thunderstorms that hit here in the summer would kill them, and anyone else they crash into.

 

[SteveGangi]

I wonder if this idea will take off?

It's all up in the air right now.

 

[VictorB]

It's all up in the air right now.

They're just floating the idea.

 

[7gtop]

BALLOONS ....

 

[cybermgk]

Nobody said anything about flying drones 5 feet above the ground. They would still be far above people's houses.

If these drones were used, they might become a very common thing. If that did happen, we wouldn't want tens of thousands of drones flying at the same height as jets.

Nobody said anything about leaving it unregulated and just having chaos. They would be regulated, and flying at a different height is part of that regulation in order to avoid possible collisions.

If I had to decide between who flew below who, I'd want the manned jets flying as high as possible to give them the best chance of recovering from whatever issues they might encounter, which would put drones below them. I'm not saying drones should skim the surface of the ground; they should still be required to fly at a specific altitude, and that is already what is being proposed.

Meanwhile, you seem to be intent on attacking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you just because they have a different viewpoint. Great job, that kind of thinking really helps people progress to the right conclusions.

Didn't attack. YOU seem to think anyone that points out issues in your posts (like inane or silly rsponses) is attacking you.

You still keep ignoring that there is more than just airliners in the skies.

THe problem is, is there ARE no laws/regulations in place, currently for commercial use of drone aircraft, because as of now it isn't allowed.

 

[MooCheng]

It's all fun and games until someone's cut price dildo gets sucked into a jet engine.

or......
it could fall from the sky an land in some old woman sunbathing
like a heat seeking missile

 

[ZoomZilla]

This is a boneheaded idea on multiple fronts.

First off, all the Walmart haters, just think what he is trying to do with Amazon. He is trying to eliminate every brick and mortar store that carries the same product as amazon.

Secondly, how impatient are we. Being hungry and wanting a pizza is one thing, but you are so lazy that you cannot get off your butt and go to the store for something you want now? You need your 5 lb or less item in 30 minutes?

Third, this will never work in the south, rednecks will shoot the drones down

fourth, way too easy to hack the drone or find some other way to bring it down and steal the contents.


Amazon has been trying to create their own delivery force to bypass UPS and Fedex and they are trying same day service, but 30 minutes or less via Drone? It makes Bezos seem like a moron and not some visionary genius.

 

[cybermgk]

Which makes them notoriously unstable in bad weather. Downdrafts and wind shear from Popcorn thunderstorms that hit here in the summer would kill them, and anyone else they crash into.

Good point.

Additionally, for other aircraft, they are required to fly under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) aka via Instruments in inclement weather. Because visual flying is useless. And, that doesn't even factor in the training needed by the operator.

Or, like other aircraft without the ability to fly via instruments, they are simply grounded in inclement weather. Which, would make this a fairly crappy delivery system.

 

[twst1up]

so what happens if i'm waiting on my porch as the drone arrives and A big gust of wind (or, in my case 2 ceiling fans on my porch) blows the thing with the spinning propellers into me?

NOt to mention how many of these things are gonna get vandalized

 

[Howard2k]

so what happens if i'm waiting on my porch as the drone arrives and A big gust of wind (or, in my case 2 ceiling fans on my porch) blows the thing with the spinning propellers into me?

NOt to mention how many of these things are gonna get vandalized

Or shot down.

 

[twst1up]

Or shot down.

well, i'd file that under "vandalized" as well.

Here's another question: What happens when someones dog/cat/any pet decides to kill it?