Amazon flying warehouses

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 30/12/2016 10:47:26:

Elon Musk is making Tesla work and it's world leading, he's also succeeding with SpaceX. Revolutionary. Henry Ford was barmy but he changed the world.

Mmmm, the problem is Colin, while we don't claim to be "experts", we do collectively know a thing or two about this particular aspect - enough to know that there is nothing original or groundbreaking about Amazon's efforts in the field of drones - its all mainstream well establised stuff. And what is more it completely fails to grasp and solve the very real problems that we know such an idea would encounter upon implementation. But Amazon's publicity machine suggests otherwise. They pass it off to the public as the result of millions of dollars of innovative original research that changes the world. It isn't. It almost certainly won't. Its just hype without real substance. An attempt to hoodwink us into believing its more that it actually is. Sadly, Joe Public is largely taken in.

So, what's to say all the rest of Amazons's "far reaching and innovative ideas" aren't similarly all "fluff and no substance"? In those areas we are not knowledgable - there we join the ranks of "Joe Public" - are we similarly taken in?

The Henry Ford analogy actually answers the point quite well I believe. Ford wasn't barmy where his main buiness was concerned - no one looked at what he wanted to do in the motor industry and said "That's bonkers". What he wanted to do there - and indeed did - was all perfectly logical. People may have doubted the impact of his technical ideas but not the ideas themselves.

No, it was outside of his area of expertise, mainly (but not exclusively) in his political and social views, that Ford displayed what we might call his "eccentricity"! Yes, those ideas were bonkers, but no one took much notice and while his money bought him lots of exposure for his weird concepts at the time, the reality is nothing much actually happened in the medium to long term. The parallel is excellent - except I don't think Amazon are bonkers, just cynically where business and self-promotion are concerned.

As you say Colin, we will just have to wait and see,...

BEB

[Dave Hopkin]

Many companies file for patent even if they have no plans to develop it, it simply ring fences their idea and stops anyone else developing it

In my mind there is a piece of the technology jigsaw still missing in the whole "delivery drone" arena and that is effective collision avoidance, until that technology is proven and trusted then no regulatory authority is going to allow drones descending from 45.000 feet through the air traffic lanes.

Also the patent uses a lighter than air vehicle as the "mothership" - one would assume that using hydrogen has been ruled out for fire risk reasons, that leave Helium which is a finite resource with rising costs (its extracted from Natural Gas) another wasp in the picnic

[Keith Simmons]

I have read that article in the Daily Mail. It said that the drone can come down from 45,000 feet with minimal energy requirements. That sounds like free fall to me. It does not appear to suggest climbing back to the "mother ship" afterwards as the drone is without it's cargo. Does that mean the drones are pre flight programmed with it's cargo from the main ground based warehouse and return to the local ground based depot for collection for the next sortie?

If anything bad happens with the Amazon drones, I fear the fallout will effect all of us.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Keith Simmons on 30/12/2016 16:01:47:

I have read that article in the Daily Mail. It said that the drone can come down from 45,000 feet with minimal energy requirements. That sounds like free fall to me. It does not appear to suggest climbing back to the "mother ship" afterwards as the drone is without it's cargo. Does that mean the drones are pre flight programmed with it's cargo from the main ground based warehouse and return to the local ground based depot for collection for the next sortie?

If anything bad happens with the Amazon drones, I fear the fallout will effect all of us.

That would be an incredibly inefficient delivery system - you would have to have 1 drone per package delivered

Not exactly cost effective even if you had replenishment transports taking the drones back to the mothership

[Colin Leighfield]

Hang onto your hats lads. Whichever way it goes it seems as if it will be a good idea to do exactly that. I really like my Shoei Neotec crash helmet, I think I'll keep it on all of the time!

The times they are a'changing!

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 30/12/2016 17:01:27:

Hang onto your hats lads. Whichever way it goes it seems as if it will be a good idea to do exactly that. I really like my Shoei Neotec crash helmet, I think I'll keep it on all of the time!

The times they are a'changing!

I wonder if this will be worth mass producing?

[Neil67]

Agree with everything BEB has said, and Ken is spot on with Lord Lucan and his trusty steed. Maybe April Fools day has also moved!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Keith Simmons on 30/12/2016 16:01:47:

I have read that article in the Daily Mail. It said that the drone can come down from 45,000 feet with minimal energy requirements. That sounds like free fall to me.

Helicopter sytle auto-rotate powerless landing - now that would pose an interesting sensor and flight controller programming challenge. Not to mention injecting the occasional navigational power bursts during the "descent" to ensure we came down on the right flat's window box

Seriously there is potentially a nice engineering UAV research problem there and one that might ultimately even have implications for the full-size - ie developing the capability to automatically precision land without power in a rotary wing aircraft and without pilot intervention. You can test such ideas somewhat less controversially with an unmanned aircraft! I haven't checked but its more likely to be an innovative R&D contribution worth shouting about than flying a drone 700m under GPS/waypoint control.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 30/12/2016 17:41:53

[Erfolg]

I wonder where the patent comes in.

There are already aerial warehouses, i know them as Hercules. Which deploy packages in controlled release, to those waiting on the ground. I do not think the Amazon concept is either  a new idea, nor  is  novel. The implied precision is at present not achievable, although many presently can hit a small garden,

The auto rotating aerial vehicle is not new, as the RAF had something similar probably in the 30s or 40s.

The height that the deployment takes place at seems pretty extreme , 40, 000 feet, seems to higher than most commercial flights presently operate at. I guess the warehouse will be pretty cold, then there is the oxygen issue, with the doors open.

Like most i do see the virtue in some of the present remote deliveries systems. Again, how can a safety case be made in a dense urban environment, for wide spread autonomous operation.. As there will be system failures.

I am less than convinced as presented it is a serious proposition. Although it could be a camouflaged serious proposition for some component within the idea. Although i do not see a novel system as a concept. Is the patent for some specific aspect/component. Although we are in an era where you can register as a trade mark red soles to shoes. Now there is a trick that Dunlop missed with its green soled pumps/tennis shoes, way back when?

Edited By Erfolg on 30/12/2016 21:38:33

Edited By Erfolg on 30/12/2016 21:44:10

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 30/12/2016 21:38:09:

The auto rotating aerial vehicle is not new, as the RAF had something similar probably in the 30s or 40s.

Not talking about an auto-gyro Erf, that has separate forward propelling engine and was indeed tested by the RAF - but of Italian design if I remember correctly.

I'm talking about auto-rotation as a glide technique for 100% rotary wing aircraft such as a helicopter or MR, and entirely managed via an automated algorithm, without pilot intervention. Now while manually performed auto-rotation landings with helicopters are an advanced feature of pilot training, automated ones are something different. They might have been achieved before - but I'm not aware of it. But if it has, it most definitely and certainly was not by the RAF and in 30's or 40's!

On the other hand I do agree with you further point, I too am a bit surprised at patenting the aerial warehouse. I can't see the essentially technical innovation that is actually protectable - its a concept, not a focussed material idea surely? As far as I know broad concepts are not usually considered patentable because they are just that - too broad to protect successfully in court. Now Amazon can afford very expensive, top quality, patent attorneys I am sure - and so presumably would have received advice to that effect? But of course that wouldn't matter so much if your intention in patenting the thing was not really to protect it at all - ie you had other plans for the patent.

BEB

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 30/12/2016 17:28:58:

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 30/12/2016 17:01:27:

Hang onto your hats lads. Whichever way it goes it seems as if it will be a good idea to do exactly that. I really like my Shoei Neotec crash helmet, I think I'll keep it on all of the time!

The times they are a'changing!

I wonder if this will be worth mass producing?

Is that a drawing of the pilot paragliding behind the drone as he controls it from his iPad?

Something like this will be needed to avoid the drone becoming BVLOS as it falls from the mothership towards the proposed 400ft altitude limit.

[Peter Android]

Erfolg has pointed to the real issue of " safety" and rightly so.

When undertaking a BMFA - A test for example , a looooooong time ago. 1st attempt .

At one particular point , I was required to make a dead - stick landing , wether I liked it or nor not !

the ( glow) engine had gone from a low - tickover , to nothing , in the most inappropriate place you could wish for , given the limitations of the flying site .

After achieving what I considered to be a proper recovery , ending with the model into wind and safely touching down. on the runway .

cutting to the chase , Noooooooooooo , Sorry . would you like to take it again ? uttered said Examiner , whom I was conviced had relatives that resided in Walmington on Sea ?

After a cup of tea , and friendly advice , A further , successful , A -Test ensued .

In my Eyes , Captain Mainwaring had just promoted Himself to Captain Sensible and was my soul mate for life.

He was , of course , absolutely correct . On my 1st attempt , my efforts to " save " my model aeroplane , which I did . I had completely overlooked the fact that I had overflown , on a dead - stick , both persons and property at low level , and in close proximity .

His concern , quite rightly , was that I did neither of these things , complying with the A.N.O , and the model should have been ditched in a safe place. and should not have overflown aforementioned persons or property .

Sooooooo , then , as Fixed wing ( dead stick ) and Heli Modellers ( autorotation) also comply with aforementioned A.N.O

How ? can a " Drone or Multicopter etc , when it goes belly - up , , avoid persons or property , or indeed the Airliner / Full size that has just come into close proximity ?

when it is relying purely on (software to enable flight , and has no Human intervention possible , at least in part . when things do and will go wrong . ?

This is bad enough with line of sight , but adding a camera only compounds the issues , massively

It / They may ? have return to base function , which can also go faulty , but it cannot respond like the best computer on earth , the mark 1 eyeball an d the HUMAN Brain .

I fear that safety will , and is , been overlooked for sheer profit .

[ted hughes]

Dpd are approaching the challenges a little differently:**LINK**

Edited By ted hughes on 30/12/2016 22:47:17

[Peter Android]

My observations apply to the current Drone situation , commercial or not .

They do not comply with the ANO , and cannot do so.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well I see your point Peter A - but as someone with a reasonable amout of MR flying experience, including writting an operations manual for them for CAA approval, I can't agree that MR's do not comply with the ANO.

There is nothing in the ANO which requires a pilot to achieve what the aircraft cannot achieve! He is required by the ANO to be "reasonably satisfied the flight can be safely completed" That can be done with both a fixed wing aircraft and an MR. There is no specific requirement in the ANO that an aircraft should be able to glide without propulsive power. Also bear in mind that with a auto-rotating helicopter the pilot may be able to save himself, and even the aircraft, but he will have very little control as to what he over-flys or even lands on in many circumstances!

You cite the example of how an MR is at a safety disadvantage when it loses motor power compared to a FW aircraft. That is true. But its also true to say that in the case of another failure type - equally probable - ie loss of received signal - a typical MR is at a considerable safety advantage. A conventional FW aircraft under these circumstances will go into failsafe and simply crash land straight ahead - whatever is in its path. An MR will safely fly back to base and land itself

My point is both types have their 'safety plus points' and their 'safety minus points'. Neither is 100% on the "good" side. I cannot accept that one of them is in some sense "compliant" with the ANO while the other is not. That's not the CAA's view either!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 30/12/2016 23:29:23

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Android on 30/12/2016 22:54:56:

My observations apply to the current Drone situation , commercial or not .

They do not comply with the ANO , and cannot do so.

Please quote what specific article or articles of the ANO you believe they cannot comply with! Because I'm not aware of them. And as I, along many others, have had operations manuals approved by the CAA that include waypoint autonomous flight it would appear that they are not aware of this either!

I have even had, as Amazon have had, extended LOS approved by the CAA - admittedly via an excemption. So I really don't understand why you so fevrently believe MRs and drones (they are not synonyms by the way, FW aircraft can be drones) breach the ANO?

BEB

[Colin Leighfield]

Interesting how we are prepared to walk nonchalantly down busy streets with all kinds of vehicles driven by people we don't know whizzing past, anyone of which could come off the road and cause mayhem, sadly it happens doesn't it? Yet we worry about the risk of advanced lightweight flying machines with collision avoidance and lord knows what other safety systems falling on our heads. Sounds a bit unbalanced, doesn't it?

We instinctively don't like the thought of these things whizzing over our heads, including me. However, that is how people reacted to motor vehicles originally, but they got used to the idea and now nearly all depend on them. We mostly fiercely defend our rights to drive our cars and ride our motorbikes, as well as fly our model aircraft. We always make our judgements in the light of our personal experiences and knowledge, but we're not good at dealing with the future unknowns. Anyone that says none of this is going to happen is probably going to be proved wrong, so as I said before, I will hang onto my hat.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Percy Verance on 30/12/2016 23:08:29:

From 45000ft they shouldn't need drones. They could just drop stuff straight into gardens like they do now...........

Of course some stuff would end up at the wrong address, so not too far removed from current practice........

Edited By Percy Verance on 30/12/2016 23:09:55

Much like the RAF

You friendly local brown job..........

[Keith Simmons]

I can only see Amazon doing this in remote rural areas and not over towns and cities.

I live under Heathrow control zone where aircraft stack while waiting their turn in landing in peak times and within several flight corridors from the south and west to Heathrow.

At lower level, helicopters, both civil & RAF go over around say 5,000 feet or under the cloud base at say min 2,000 ft plus a few light aircraft.

There are also air corridors for aircraft around 30 to 35,000 feet going overhead and I just don't see a flying warehouse offloading it's drones to it's customers, the skies are just too busy.

I think the flying warehouse will be fully automated and for my area, I doubt the van drivers will lose their jobs.

[ted hughes]

Amazon, dpd, and other carriers are investing in this technology because it has to happen.

The scarcity of fossil fuels will ensure we need alternatives to trade.

[ChrisB]

I reckon Postman Pat and his black and white cat would have been a very different kids TV programme if there had been motherships and delivery drones....flying cats!!

They could have waited until April the 1st

[Fatscoleymo]

Just read yesterday that La Poste in France has been given permission to use Drones to deliver within a 15km corridor in a rural part of the Vars district....after 2 years of trials..

It's started in France....

Fats

[Erfolg]

BEB, the rotating wing thing, I think a flying machine that was towed, behind another aircraft, for release. It was a long time ago that I read about it, plus it did not work satisfactorily.

possibly near the mark are some of the explosive weapons systems which have been deployed, not having any specific knowledge, i would expect that some have some guidance systems to position them to their required location, to sit there patientantly until activated, by some event or instruction.

In truth I do not see any thing obvious that has not been tried before in some form. I also accept that any patent, is buried inside the general concept, as a device to distract from the true potential. As you suggest. Although the piece seems more in keeping with a "Brain Storm" session, where a number of ideas have been bandied about.

The issue that Colin brings up with respect to safety, is a frequently arising issue. Yes we live happily with buses, trucks and cars, operating in near proximity. We will get up in arms over a train crash, although the frequency of occurrences is very low.

Yet we will often object to say a factory, power station or incinerator, where the risks to all are very low. The real differences are these are risks we perceive provide us with no additional benefit, which could be avoided or presented elsewhere.

I personally could envisage a mode of operation where the risks from delivery drones is unacceptably high from my perspective. Although the risks can be managed to what acceptable level as far as all are concerned? There does seem a place for drones, but is it for home deliveries in the urban environment?

[Don Fry]

Posted by ted hughes on 31/12/2016 09:04:22:

Amazon, dpd, and other carriers are investing in this technology because it has to happen.

The scarcity of fossil fuels will ensure we need alternatives to trade.

Why does this represent energy efficiency. Does not compute to my perhaps naive mind why moving everything six miles up saves energy