Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

These Are the Companies the FAA Has Sent notices To For Using Drones

Comments Filter:
  • At what point does a remote-control helicopter become a 'drone'? Also, Beta doesn't provide sufficient functional improvement to necessitate its continuation, or indeed, its conception
  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Delivery of goods is expected to be a small segment of future drone market. The bigger commercial uses will focus on agriculture, law enforcement and aerial photography."

    Says a petty idiotic beaucracy expressing it's utter lack of creativity.

    -Azi

  • by Nightbrood (6060) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @08:46PM (#46180945)

    Sorry guys... your PR heavy "response" isn't going to cut it. We, the COMMUNITY, are the one's that provide you with content and allow you to earn a living from our debates all in exchange for simple access to a site that we can use and like. Your Beta site has broken the implicit contract you had between your community and the business. In the end you are responsible for all hell breaking loose and people rioting in the comment threads. We are trying to provide you the opportunity to correct this situation but you seem to have received crisis response training from the Apple people who came up with "you're holding it wrong." Only you can fix Slashdot. If the community has to fix it, then the solution will be a new home. The clock is ticking.

    #IamSlashdot

  • by wbr1 (2538558) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @08:47PM (#46180947)
    They are obviously using marketing or management drones to have let the beta get this far.

    altslashdot.org - Join the movement -

    • by PGC (880972)
      Not the first time a marketing department took over a company (and ran it into the ground).
      • It may well be the first time that a marketing department did this by covering a third of the usable space with an empty white column. I wonder if the method has been patented.

        #iamslashdot

  • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @08:55PM (#46181063) Homepage
    You can't take the sky from me.
  • by Telecommando (513768) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @09:03PM (#46181141)

    I hope so, then the FAA can shut it down.

  • the problem with fpv drones in genrel be it for rc use or anything else is we have no real laws on them when the fcc made the regulations for rc aircraft they where short range low atultued visual flight only craft. now we got units that can fly pretty much anywhere it can get a cell single fly much higher and longer.
  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @10:16PM (#46181839)

    But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency.

    It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place. It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

    On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains. Ice Fishing [comingbackalive.com]

    • by Nutria (679911) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @10:30PM (#46181943)

      On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains.

      Too many people expend too much effort saving such few people.

    • by kbolino (920292)

      It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place.

      If the drones are not causing problems, then there is no need to regulate them. Regulation should only exist when it is useful in solving problems that a) people aren't resolving on their own and b) have severe consequences to the lives and freedom of others. A regulatory agency should not act like an ivory tower, passing decrees based upon arbitrary criteria. The rules should come from best practices; how do you determine best practices by forbidding the activity altogether?

      It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

      Alcohol as a payload does not

      • by cusco (717999)

        If the drones are not causing problems, then there is no need to regulate them.

        If the FAA didn't step in now, the first time that UPS's drone cargo 747 smashed into an airport terminal people would say, "Why haven't you been regulating these since the beginning?" Do you really think that FedEx is going to pay a pilot, copilot and engineer $100,000/year each for a day longer than they absolutely have to? The day they decide they can get away with running drone aircraft you'll see layoffs.

        • by kbolino (920292)

          If the FAA didn't step in now, the first time that UPS's drone cargo 747 smashed into an airport terminal people would say, "Why haven't you been regulating these since the beginning?"

          And the FAA can respond by making the case that regulations for their own sake would not have prevented it. Now, having witnessed the accident, they can investigate and determine an appropriate response. Just because some people tend to have irrational responses doesn't mean that everybody else has to give in to them.

          The day they decide they can get away with running drone aircraft you'll see layoffs.

          How is that relevant to aviation safety? New Jersey and Oregon say that self-service gasoline pumping is dangerous, but those of us in the other 48 states aren't blowing up all the time pump

    • by cusco (717999)

      I grew up in northern Michigan. To be absolutely truthful, most of the ice fishing accidents (including my own) are caused by simple stupidity. The guys who fail so hard they die would probably have won a Darwin Award sooner rather than later.

  • I'll just let my Beretta Onyx Pro do the talking when it comes to drones. Pull!

  • Policy != regulation (Score:5, Informative)

    by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @10:28PM (#46181931)

    There have been a few FOIA request lately that show the FAA is full of it. They're simply trying to intimidate people.

    "The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.

    Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory.

    This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:

            "To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 9157 and
            the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91 regulations, it
            2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57
            and the 2007 Notice are not mandatory."

    Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim."

    • by ScentCone (795499)

      This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy")

      Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.

      I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.

      Here's th

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice [faa.gov]:

      The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

      The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.

      I found the document that you quoted [suasnews.com]. I consider wha

  • The NSA, current US administration, DHS, FAA, and Dice are in cahoots to make sure no slashdotters get possession of drones for a preemptive strike on shashdot beta!

    This is probably about to come out in a new Snowden Files episode next week.

  • by CmdrPorno (115048) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @11:37PM (#46182483)

    I've said this before and I'll say it here again, since it's on-topic: Slashdot is dying. It began its death spiral before Malda left. Once he quit, its fate became certain.

    A bunch of shit has happened over the years, from FIRST POST!, Natalie Portman, and hot grits in the early days; to Roland Piquepaille's story spamming in more recent history. Eventually, ZDnet or Gizmodo or some other tech site will buy Slashdot and begin integrating it into their own website. Eventually, Slashdot's URL will be only a redirect to the website of its corporate overlords.

  • It's NOT a drone! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gavron (1300111) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @11:39PM (#46182497)

    The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.

    WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.

    The point of this is.
    1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
    2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
    3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

    Ehud
    helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC :)

    • I thought the hexacopter had 24 pounds of thrust.

      See: http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/115123-affordable-hexacopter-drone-for-aerial-photography
      • by gavron (1300111)

        Hi Rick. The Hexacopter has a lot of thrust (and with different sized rotors more thrust and less stamina)
        but don't confuse "pounds of thrust" with "ability to lift weight other than itself."

        The unladen hexacopter can lift less than a six-pack. Here's a google search with lots of cool info including
        videos: http://tinyurl.com/lweb6bd [tinyurl.com]

        Remember that thrust (if it was perfectly vertical) would equal lift, and that the hexacopter itself has a weight
        that reduces from the thrust. However ... with 6 small props

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Is that the African Hexacopter or the European Hexacopter ?

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          You really should not give people so much ammo to refute your claims. Here is an exerpt from one of thelinks [rcgroups.com] in the search you posted;

          Conclusion:
          Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

          5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.

    • by tsqr (808554)

      2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.

      Correction: The media has determined that "drone" means "any unmanned aircraft of any size, regardless of its manner of operation." The media has also determined that any story about any unmanned aircraft of any size shall be accompanied by a photograph of a Predator, preferably in the act of launching a Hellfire missile.

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.

      Incorrect. The FAA considers RC aircraft as aircraft and therefore has complete jurisdiction. They created a policy for hobby use of rc aircraft, AC 91-57, but there is not a specific one for commercial RC aircraft.

      Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.

      From the FAA website;

      What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
      A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
      The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.

      What you are describing is a autonomous aircraft which is a sub type of unmanned aircraft.

      3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

      Here is an exerpt from one of the links [rcgroups.com] in the search you posted;

      Conclusion:
      Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

      5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six pack

  • It's a crappy beta with nothing good.
  • How is sending a notice to a company to cease breaking the law harassment ?

    Honestly. Bad Vice.

    • by Bucc5062 (856482)

      Because in the case of lakemaid Brewery, they were technically not breaking the law, they we looking to advance the technology of beer delivery to a "new level".

      Seriously, skimming around led me to this article [scientificamerican.com] which indicates that FAA does not have regulations in place, only guidelines. Forgetting the technological issues LMB would have to over come, they were operating in a line of sight manner, with the idea of GPS positioning being overridden by a human pilot *(yes, there is tech for that).

      Since there

  • Surely there's solid medical need for beer while ice fishing and the FAA by blocking said delivery is putting the lives of those who do it in serious danger. I mean obviously anyone who Ice Fishes is nearly insane, and probably near hypothermic death. In addition it's been scientifically proven that you'd be a lot warmer and a lot happier with a bellyfull of mead.
    • by Bucc5062 (856482)

      I think in the original article (and as an aside, I submitted a story about this two days ago...bad timing beta) there was a suggestion that instead of LMB (Lakemiad Brewery) "owning" the BDV, the local ice fishermen purchase the equipment and loan the operation to LMB. Thus, while the purchase of the beer is commercial, the delivery is not. I akin this to having a friend pick up the beer for a night watching TV. The distributor cannot be held accountable for the operation of the BDV. To take it one ste

  • ... to use drones for something dangerous. Drones are for the military, to kill people safely!

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...