FAA backing down a bit?

[MapMaker53]

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/

 

[cdusher]

Looked pretty reckless to me.
Besides being ridiculous.
God forbid someone actually would take it seriously.

 

[SpikeFinch]

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...

 

[MapMaker53]

Sorry, Geert. Didn't realize there was a news section.

 

[p fandango]

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?

 

[Khudson7]

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:

 

[Buk]

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...

 

[derrickduff]

Forest for the trees folks.

 

[N017RW]

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.

 

[MapMaker53]

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.

 

[N017RW]

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.

 

[Miguel]

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.

Yeah, we do believe you
you are all mighty and you know everything :lol:

 

[derrickduff]

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.

 

[N017RW]

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.

 

[derrickduff]

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.

 

[N017RW]

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.

 

[CarlJ]

Yeah, we do believe you
you are all mighty and you know everything :lol:

First, congratulations on your 21st post here on Phantom Pilots.

Second, huh?

 

[derrickduff]

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.

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.

 

[CarlJ]

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."

 

[witold]

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.