Might the flight ceiling be lowered to 200 ft?

[jadebox]

True, but that issue already exists today, which is why there's a five-mile no-fly radius around airports. The Amazon drones could stay out of the airspace as well.

Aircraft take off and land at places other than airports.

I assumed ultralights had to follow civil aircraft regulations and stay above 500 ft. Is that not the case?

They operate under FAR Part 91 in the US like other aircraft, but they still have to take off and land. And they don't usually do so at airports. And some aircraft like helicopters and powered parachutes are allowed to operate at lower altitudes.

Amazon is assuming that other aircraft would stay out of those exclusive altitude ranges and that's just not possible.

-- Roger

 

[BlackHawk388]

BBC is reporting that Amazon is suggesting a commercial airspace for delivery drones between 200 and 400 feet. Hobbyists would be required to stay below 200 ft. While this would be a great thing for commercial drones, which I support, it would really take a lot of the fun out of the hobby. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33698812

Here in the U.S., at least, I can see this being wrapped up in Congress for a good, long time.

400' is, to me at least, a very low altitude to restrict our hobby to as is. I can see many enthusiasts riling against this already low restriction. Having said that, Amazon has a LOT of monetary power to go against us.

As more American's get sick and tired of adverse legislation being placed upon us, I can see some legislative power being brought to bear. However, that isn't to say that people in general won't get tired of this nearly continuous assault on our privileges. It will be interesting, at least, to watch this situation unfold.

 

[SteveMann]

Amazon is assuming that other aircraft would stay out of those exclusive altitude ranges and that's just not possible.

I haven't read the Amazon proposal, but I did talk to someone who was at the NASA Ames conference. Amazon is not saying that they would own that airspace, but sUAS operating in that range would need to carry a yet to be defined device that would provide the "sense and avoid" desired by the FAA.

get tired of this nearly continuous assault on our privileges.

Really? Who is assaulting what privileges? There may be a lot of attempts by local amateur legislators because I write at least one "letter to the editor" every week when I discover a local politician who is planning to write drone rules for his town.

 

[jadebox]

I haven't read the Amazon proposal, but I did talk to someone who was at the NASA Ames conference. Amazon is not saying that they would own that airspace, but sUAS operating in that range would need to carry a yet to be defined device that would provide the "sense and avoid" desired by the FAA.

In the summary they provided, they defined altitude-based corridors for exclusive use of UASs. While that is ambiguous, in context it appears they mean exclusively for use by UASs.

I realize that it is just the PowerPoint presentation version of their proposal, but it is all that I have seen so far. And, based on it, I think they may be ignoring recreational use of the airspace; conveniently forgetting about it. Fortunately, I don't think the FAA will make the same mistake.

-- Roger

 

[SteveMann]

In the summary they provided, they defined altitude-based corridors for exclusive use of UASs. While that is ambiguous, in context it appears they mean exclusively for use by UASs. I think they are ignoring recreational use of the airspace; conveniently forgetting about it. Fortunately, I don't think the FAA will make the same mistake.

-- Roger

If the electronics required for flight to 400 ft is inexpensive, light and low power plus it could act as a tracker and flight data recorder, what would be the rational objection to a controlled UAS corridor?

Also, nothing will happen without an NPRM and a long public comment period. Amazon is one of the few US companies with a vision beyond the next quarter. These are plans for beyond 2020.

 

[Youngbill]

BBC is reporting that Amazon is suggesting a commercial airspace for delivery drones between 200 and 400 feet. Hobbyists would be required to stay below 200 ft. While this would be a great thing for commercial drones, which I support, it would really take a lot of the fun out of the hobby. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33698812

It is true and I think its going to happen. Take a look at the replays from the recent NASA UAS Traffic Management conference. Amazon was there along with a lot of other heavy hitters.

http://utm.arc.nasa.gov/utm2015.shtml

 

[jadebox]

If the electronics required for flight to 400 ft is inexpensive, light and low power plus it could act as a tracker and flight data recorder, what would be the rational objection to a controlled UAS corridor?

How would the electronics work in a kid's model rocket? Would hang glider and powered parachute operators have the electronics implanted in their brains?

There are a lot of people using the airspace between 200 and 400 feet. There is no way for it to be allocated for exclusive use by UASs.

-- Roger

 

[SteveMann]

Whoever said anything about exclusive?

 

[jadebox]

Whoever said anything about exclusive?

Amazon. It's what we are discussing in this thread. See:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...-revising-the-airspace-model-for-the-safe.pdf

Amazon is proposing to "segregate the airspace" by altitude and notes that "Segregated airspace is defined as airspace which is restricted to the exclusive use of specific users."

While I understand that we are just looking at the "PowerPoint" version of the proposal, it seems that Amazon is only thinking in one dimension - sort of like Kahn - not realizing that some users of the airspace move up and down, not just horizontally.

-- Roger