Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

FAA Approves Fully Automated Commercial Drone Flights (go.com) 52

Posted by BeauHD from the first-of-many dept.
A Massachusetts company has been granted approval to operate commercial drone flights without a person directing the machine and keeping it in sight. It's the first time that the Federal Aviation Administration has allowed fully automated commercial drone flights. ABC News reports: American Robotics Inc. touted the advantage of its machines as being able to operate continuously without "expensive human labor." The Marlborough, Massachusetts, company said Friday it has tested fully automated drones for four years. CEO and co-founder Reese Mozer said there could be a $100 billion market in providing drone services to industries such as energy and agriculture, but that FAA safety requirements have restricted their use.

The company said its Scout drones have technology to stay a safe distance from other aircraft. They are housed in base stations that allow for autonomous charging and to process and transmit the data they collect from aerial surveys. According to documents posted Thursday by the FAA, the drones, which fly along planned routes, will be limited to altitudes below 400 feet (122 meters) in rural areas. The FAA will allow them to have a maximum takeoff weight of 20 pounds (nine kilograms).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FAA Approves Fully Automated Commercial Drone Flights More

FAA Approves Fully Automated Commercial Drone Flights

Comments Filter:

  • "expensive human labor” Is NOT a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Raisey-raison ( 850922 ) on Saturday January 16, 2021 @05:52AM (#60951174)

    Im all for progress and technological innovation but when they say that part of the purpose is to eliminate "expensive human labor”, I think they just don’t get it. That expensive labor feeds, clothes, houses, and educates a family. Can we try to get back to a society with higher wages relative to GDP per capita. Wages right now relatives to GDP per capita are much lower than they were in the 1950s and the federal minimum wage is the lowest relative to GDP per capita since it started in 1938.

    Oh and yes I recognize that some time this century most pilots on commercial airlines will be eliminated as all / most commercial aircraft become drones. But please let’s not use that to depress wages further.

    • Re:"expensive human labor” Is NOT a bad thin (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Saturday January 16, 2021 @06:21AM (#60951210)

      Im all for progress and technological innovation but when they say that part of the purpose is to eliminate "expensive human labor”, I think they just don’t get it. That expensive labor feeds, clothes, houses, and educates a family. Can we try to get back to a society with higher wages relative to GDP per capita.

      Nope, the future that our younger generation is championing, is UBI. Somewhat understandable given 21st Century "educations" that were marketed to look valuable but aren't, creating a trillion-dollar education deficit and ultimately a "gig" economy. Unfortunately, they fail to realize UBI will be corruptly whittled down to almost nothing by the rich and powerful to become little more than Welfare 2.0 for the unemployable after "expensive labor" is permanently dismantled by Greed.

      And yet we believe our politicians who run on campaigns promising more jobs and more stability. Yes, a part of American small business, will return post-pandemic. The other part of it, will be replaced by automation, which means fewer jobs and less chance of a good recovery.

      Like you, I welcome technology and innovation, when the impact is considered and well-thought out. Today, Greed doesn't care about creating human jobs, and that is supported by law.

      Oh and yes I recognize that some time this century most pilots on commercial airlines will be eliminated as all / most commercial aircraft become drones. But please let’s not use that to depress wages further.

      In the 21st Century, I'd just be happy if we could manage to put a flying metal tube full of hundreds of GPS-enabled devices in the air, and not lose the damn thing. One thing at a time.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Raisey-raison ( 850922 )

        Nope, the future that our younger generation is championing, is UBI. Somewhat understandable given 21st Century "educations" that were marketed to look valuable but aren't, creating a trillion-dollar education deficit and ultimately a "gig" economy. Unfortunately, they fail to realize UBI will be corruptly whittled down to almost nothing by the rich and powerful to become little more than Welfare 2.0 for the unemployable after "expensive labor" is permanently dismantled by Greed.

        I agree that UBI is a scam. Able bodied people can earn good wages so long as we do not rig the labor market. Had the $0.25 minimum wage of 1938 kept up with productivity, then minimum wage would now be about $24 an hour. There is no reason why the median income of a full time worker cannot be around $80,0000 - $90,000 a year. And before anyone asks, low paid positions have seen huge increases in productivity. Consider how few people are needed to flip burgers per customer relative to the 1970s or how wirel

        • Nope, the future that our younger generation is championing, is UBI. Somewhat understandable given 21st Century "educations" that were marketed to look valuable but aren't, creating a trillion-dollar education deficit and ultimately a "gig" economy. Unfortunately, they fail to realize UBI will be corruptly whittled down to almost nothing by the rich and powerful to become little more than Welfare 2.0 for the unemployable after "expensive labor" is permanently dismantled by Greed.

          I agree that UBI is a scam. Able bodied people can earn good wages so long as we do not rig the labor market. Had the $0.25 minimum wage of 1938 kept up with productivity, then minimum wage would now be about $24 an hour. There is no reason why the median income of a full time worker cannot be around $80,0000 - $90,000 a year. And before anyone asks, low paid positions have seen huge increases in productivity. Consider how few people are needed to flip burgers per customer relative to the 1970s or how wireless communication technology enable retail workers to be hugely efficient.

          By using UBI you enable employers to pay poverty wages. The only people who need UBI are disabled people, retirees, and those otherwise temporarily unable to work.

          While you raise many good points, I'll just pause right here. The problem moving forward, is also compounded by automation and AI removing human jobs. UBI, much like Welfare may benefit the disabled people, retirees, and those otherwise temporarily unable to work. But what happens when the "temporarily" unemployed, become the permanently unemployable?

          A McDonalds kiosk can permanently replace a brilliant hard working person just as easily as it can a mentally retarded one. And Greed doesn't care either w

        • If productivity per worker rises and the amount of workers stays the same, consumption has to rise as well.

          There are environmental limits to how much consumption can be sustained and we're running into them.

        • By using UBI you enable employers to pay poverty wages.

          That about sums it up. But you pitch that as a negative thing while others believe that it is positive. UBI makes work contracts voluntary, instead of necessary for survival, and enables employers and employees to come to any agreement which they find equitable.

          This has to end. No able bodied person who is not mentally retarded should ever even need welfare when working.

          As automation takes more and more jobs away, and it is beginning to impinge even on creative work and will eventually take that too, there is less and less need for humans to do work at all. Sooner or later there will be no need for most of us to wor

          • By using UBI you enable employers to pay poverty wages.

            That about sums it up. But you pitch that as a negative thing while others believe that it is positive. UBI makes work contracts voluntary, instead of necessary for survival, and enables employers and employees to come to any agreement which they find equitable.

            This has to end. No able bodied person who is not mentally retarded should ever even need welfare when working.

            As automation takes more and more jobs away, and it is beginning to impinge even on creative work and will eventually take that too, there is less and less need for humans to do work at all. Sooner or later there will be no need for most of us to work. Under your system, we would be forced to do wasteful make-work in order to meet our basic needs. This is just the broken window fallacy writ large. Why do you want to break windows?

            We have to get away from the idea that a human exists to be employed by the rat race for at least half a century.

            Unfortunately, Greed will ensure that won't happen for another 100 years and a few billion lives from now. Greed would rather enslave than provide freedom.

        • Had the $0.25 minimum wage of 1938 kept up with productivity, then minimum wage would now be about $24 an hour.

          Interested in how you achieved this calculation? The Inflation Calculator [in2013dollars.com] calculates it to be $4.62.

          There is no reason why the median income of a full time worker cannot be around $80,0000 - $90,000 a year.

          It is essentially the same math used against the UBI. If everyone makes a minimum of $80K, that's the new minimum wage. Living expenses will all adjust upward to account for the increased wages.

          • Had the $0.25 minimum wage of 1938 kept up with productivity, then minimum wage would now be about $24 an hour.

            Interested in how you achieved this calculation? The Inflation Calculator calculates it to be $4.62.

            They said productivity, not inflation. You have to multiply the inflated wage by the improvement in productivity to reach the stated figure.

            There is no reason why the median income of a full time worker cannot be around $80,0000 - $90,000 a year.

            It is essentially the same math used against the UBI. If everyone makes a minimum of $80K, that's the new minimum wage. Living expenses will all adjust upward to account for the increased wages.

            This is why UBI must be tied to inflation. But everyone won't make a minimum of $80k, because there isn't enough work for that. If there's only enough work to keep 40% (invented number) of the population busy, then the remaining 60% will be split between people who collect money and do nothing, people who collect money and work a little bit, and people who collect money

        • Small correction- minimum wage should go up to 74% of GDP per capita (not 38%) which would put it inline with what it was in 1938. And if you think about it, thatâ(TM)s still stingy. Of course we need to raise it gradually over 30 years. But we need to end the idea of any full time worker living in poverty.

    • The problem is that a country does not operate in a vacuum. There is global competition for the same resources, so you can't really afford to have your society run less efficiently than necessary.

      • The problem is that a country does not operate in a vacuum. There is global competition for the same resources, so you can't really afford to have your society run less efficiently than necessary.

        That’s not true. Our GDP per capita has more than doubled since 1973. Of course we can afford to pay higher wages. This is a clever excuse given to pay horribly low wages. I discussed this at great depth while taking an advanced economics class on international trade. There is nothing efficacious overpaying a CEO.

    • Im all for progress and technological innovation

      You should be. Our prosperity depends on it.

      That expensive labor feeds, clothes, houses, and educates a family.

      Why is labor expensive in some countries, but cheap in other countries?

      Try this:
      1. Make a list of countries where incomes are high
      2. Make a list of countries with lots of progress and technological innovation.

      See if you notice any correlation between the two lists.

      If you still think that technology lowers income, you may want to have your IQ checked.

      • I donâ(TM)t think technology per service lowers national income . Although it can increase inequality which means 90-99% of people do not benefit from the economic prosperity of technology.

        The important point is: will the labor market be rigged to further lower wages. Between 1973 and 2013 real median household income went up by about 12%. Yet productivity roughly doubled.

        So new technology needs to be thoughtful implemented. For example airlines will have lower costs without pilots. But if the rest of

      • What technology "does" (enables) economically is reduce the worker's share of the profits, and make the shareholders richer. It also improves the standard of life, but with the other hand it reduces it due to the detritus of improved technology (pollution.) If not checked, as they currently are not, these externalities reduce quality of life and eventually The People have to pay to clean them up. It's a mixed bag. None of that is a reason to avoid progress, only to recognize that it is a sword which cuts bo

    • Am I correct that your "all for progress but..." thing ends somewhat before it touches YOUR job? Or didn't you know that "computer" used to be job, not a machine?

      Or traffic lights? Yeah, they pretty much replaced the guys who used to direct traffic at intersections.

      Washing machine? Yep, you guessed it, they replaced "expensive human labor" as well.

      Hell, the cotton gin did that back in the 1800's. And the steam engine. And don't get me started on how much "expensive human labor" was replaced by elect

    • That expensive labor feeds, clothes, houses, and educates a family.

      I can't believe I have to say this, but actually food feeds your family and clothes clothe them. These can easily be made by a machine, leaving you free to do something more fulfilling, such as raising them.

  • They never say what the minimum AGL is. I hope it is at least 300 feet over private property

  • Perfect for patrolling remote border areas (Score:3)

    by cmarkn ( 31706 ) on Saturday January 16, 2021 @06:36AM (#60951236)
    These will be perfect for patrolling in remote areas along the border. They can operate from unmanned bases and send surveillance video of people lost in the desert so rescuers can find them instead of following the buzzards to their bones.
    • would be a vastly better way to approach that problem then expensive aircraft. You notice we don't get a lot of Canadians crossing the boarder illegally to cut meat and put up dry wall? There's a reason for that, and it's not because of their "Western Civilization".

      TL;DR; it's cheaper to drop food than bombs.
  • For everyone who doesn't want these things buzzing over their place.

    • For everyone who doesn't want these things buzzing over their place.

      They will be buzzing over farmland, not homes.

    • In the case of farmers the long flight paths to and from conventional airstrips could be replaced by local UAS flights on their property. That means considerably less noise over homeowners and less leaded avgas burned.

  • that approved the DAL-A MCAS system without any redundancy in the Boeing 737 MAX? Gee, that's really reassuring.

    • Almost. It's the FAA that permitted boing to self-certify, which is even worse. The FAA didn't even look at that system until it killed people.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The drones can't install sound damping windows or file class action noise complaints, so we'll still have those jobs.

  • For big business only. Peasants are not allowed to touch. So much for free enterprise.

  • Sounds like the future isn't that far off. As long as the socialists don't destroy it.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close