Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

FAA backing down a bit?

Discussion in 'News' started by MapMaker53, Nov 7, 2014.

  1. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I just watched a local tv news story (New York City) regarding a pizza place that has delivered the first pizza to a customer via a drone -- which IMO has to be a faked publicity stunt. They used a Phantom to "deliver" a very small pizza. I'm guessing someone just launched it off the apartment building's rooftop and landed it in the courtyard below for reporters to film. Oh yeah.. and it apparently hit a tree branch as it came down and crashed. LOL. There is no way this was sent autonomously to deliver a pizza, and then expected to take off again and return to the restaurant??? The crash probably cost the pizza place owner $900 in repairs to "deliver" a $5 pizza.

    But the interesting part is they (of course) didn't have Federal approval for the commercial use. When questioned about that, an FAA rep said "they would only penalize companies if they find out that the drones are being operated carelessly or recklessly". Are they silently green-lighting commercial use?

    See story and video here: http://7online.com/technology/brooklyn-pizza-shop-tests-delivery-via-drone/385645/
     
  2. cdusher

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Crossville, Tennessee, USA
    Looked pretty reckless to me.
    Besides being ridiculous.
    God forbid someone actually would take it seriously.
     
  3. SpikeFinch

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I call bull on this one.

    Any one know how to say " Payload limit"

    So you order 7 days ahead of time.... Sounds like a fast system to me...

    News will jump on anything these days...
     
    #3 SpikeFinch, Nov 7, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2015
  4. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Sorry, Geert. Didn't realize there was a news section.
     
  5. p fandango

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    i'd of thought their'd have to use GroundStation for automated flight, which means it would have to be in GPS mode. What mode is 4 red lights?
     
  6. Khudson7

    Khudson7 Guest

    Hey, wonder if they deliver to Canada? I am really surprised ABC NY would be a part of this irresponsible story. Some might actually believe this. And yes, why is the FAA not jumping all over this? And lastly, a phantom used for carrying a pizza? Give me a break! :shock:
     
  7. Buk

    Buk

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Iowa, United States
    Just a couple of quick comments:

    That FAA guy no longer works for the FAA. He misspoke and did not represent the stance of FAA. He does however work for a pizza parlor now.

    There was no money that changed hands. This was not a commercial effort. The lady got her pizza late, hitting a tree delayed delivery beyond the guaranteed arrival time. And the pepperoni was stuck on the lid.

    My comments, like this publicity stunt, are just a bit lame and laden with falsehoods...
     
  8. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forest for the trees folks.
     
  9. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    How is it backing down?

    Many argue the FAA currently has no regulatory authority yet is in the process of defining and doing just that.

    Seems quite the opposite to me.
     
  10. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    My observation that the FAA may be backing down was in reference to their stance against commercial drone use -- possibly indicating that the FAA is coming to the realization that they actually have no authority when it comes to banning commercial use. It did not fine the pizza shop owner for a very public in-your-face attempt at commercial drone usage. Quite a turn around from recent attempts at prosecuting wedding photographers and drone filming at a university despite the school's permission to do so.
     
  11. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    I don't believe they are against commercial drones use.

    In fact they are trying to use Section 333 of the FMRA, "Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems", to establish interim policies and grant exemptions as a stop-gap until the sUAS rules are finalized.

    To date 6 or 7 exemptions have been issued to commercial entities in the motion picture industry.
     
  12. Miguel

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, we do believe you
    you are all mighty and you know everything :lol:
     
  13. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you read the terms on the exemptions N017RW ? They are still quite ridiculous and only professional production companies could afford to comply with them. There's still no practical way to get the FAAs official approval to operate your phantom or similar UAV for commercial use.

    This does indeed sound as though the FAA has changed it's stance.
     
  14. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    I don't disagree with some of your points.

    But all commercial enterprises have regulation.

    Re. the Phantom as you referenced- I enjoy flying the Phantom and other r/c aircraft as well, as I have for years, but the Phantom is in no way ready for 'prime time' as a viable commercial aircraft. It's a toy.

    A toy capable of great harm or damage to unsuspecting objects or people.
     
  15. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is certainly a opinion shared by very few phantom owners. It's a "Toy" hundreds, if not thousands of companies are using across the US for commercial use. A "toy" that can be insured for the very small chance when it does cause personal or property damage.

    It's not the commercial operators you should be worried about. I doubt one would consider it a toy and most fly in a responsible manner. It's the irresponsible children and immature adults doing asinine things with the phantom, no amount of regulation will fix stupid.
     
  16. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    I agree to disagree.

    Don't get me wrong, I love my Phantom 2.

    But I haven't lost sight of the fact that it is constructed of the lowest tier components the manufacturer makes. Their top end MC (A2) retails for at, if not more, than the P2V+ complete.
     
  17. CarlJ

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Peru, Indiana
    First, congratulations on your 21st post here on Phantom Pilots.

    Second, huh?
     
  18. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0

    If you're implying lowest tier components equals unsafe and unreliable why aren't we seeing weekly or daily occurrences of phantoms causing "great harm" to people and property? The phantom is the most popular UAV in the world. The sheer numbers alone would imply any unsafe an unreliable craft would be causing frequent accidents. But the only stories I'm aware of lately are phantoms flying over football and baseball games. I haven't seen one story of a phantom actually causing a major injury or major property damage. The accidents out there is almost always operator error and /or stupidity and only involve damage to the phantom.

    This crippling fear of a phantom falling on a persons head is silly. 3000 people will die tomorrow in car accidents. I'm sure you'll still drive to work despite this.
     
  19. CarlJ

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Peru, Indiana
    Phantoms have indeed fallen from the sky and bonked a few people on the head. Phantoms have no redundancies built in so this can/has/will happen.

    "Raija Ogden was taking part in a triathlon in western Australia when she was injured in an incident involving a drone."

    [​IMG]
     
  20. witold

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    102
    The story above is lies as well. That woman got spooked by the quad and fell without the quad even touching her. I guess it's a drone-related injury, but only tangentially so.

    FAA is a federal agency and they're not looking to prosecute every Joe and Harry. Their goal is to look for a very specific test case that is well documented that will work as precedent and as a warning. They've been working with Congress to get clarifications and new rules on drones so they might be waiting on that before pursuing any cases at all. That is my guess, anyway. If congress doesn't clarify, they will have to pursue a few very specific cases.