Amazon flying warehouses

[iqon]

I think their prices will go and down......

[Peter Android]

Well , I do not pretend to understand the workings of artificial intelligence or clever software .

51 Years of Aeromodelling has taught me something though . but I am not expert at anything in the modern sense of the word.

In my own , very simplistic common - sense world , if a flying " device" or whatever it is tagged at any moment in time , which appears to be the major cause for concern.

That relies on purely artificial means in the first place to enable it to fly , or remain in a stable condition , at some stage , will breach the ANO in ref to persons or property , simply because it cannot respond , remain stable or even fly . on human interaction - when things go wrong .

The human failsafe is not available to preform a controlled - safe landing .

Yes , it may have a clever failsafe holding / landing / circuits etc . but it still cannot avoid that which is illegal to trespass upon. in a dead stick type of situation unless I am being totally naïve ?

Could it be that those who promote the development of such machines have a vested interest.

There are many roles for commercial drones that I totally applaud, usually involving the prevention or saving of lives ,

Could these be removed from the 2 .4 Ghz spectrum ? or whatever they fly on , and be made available by special licence only on another frequency unique to themselves .this being accountable ?

As a long time member / supporter of the BMFA ( in the Main) I have always felt to be registered / accountable .

As a boy, I too recall nipping down to the post office for a " radio Licence " for my Mum.

a ten - bob note used to cover it

My own personal preferences do not come into this, never have .

Neither am I about to fly down into the weeds by posting links to where this has actually happened on countless occasions .

In order to avoid pouring flames on the fire , what I say , or write , is of course open to conjecture , but what I think , remains private.

Common sense ought to prevail , I hope

I am but one man , one vote ( if I was ever asked) and will not be browbeaten by others.

Happy New Year to All . and lets hope we can all keep flying .

Cheers

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Android on 01/01/2017 22:18:24:

Yes , it may have a clever failsafe holding / landing / circuits etc . but it still cannot avoid that which is illegal to trespass upon. in a dead stick type of situation unless I am being totally naïve ?

And neither sometimes can a pilot of a FW aircraft. Lose signal and its going where it going - you have no contol - and that place my well be "somewhere illegal"

The point is the ANO defines our duties in normal planning and flight. It defines our intentions. But in an actual emergency situation the pilot is not held by the ANO in the same way - his duty is to achieve maximum likelihood of a safe outcome - and that may well involve a course of action that would normally be illegal - but it might be the best plan in that particular case.

Simply saying that MRs break the rules of the ANO, when the authors of the ANO fully accept MR operations - which they would not do that if they were intrinsically outwith the regulations - does not make sense to me!

BEB

[Dave Hopkin]

The clauses in CAP 658 all apply to UAV used for SPORTING or RECREATIONAL purposes so the regulations as we apply to flying wont be the same as Amazons (or Greggs) flying things will be for commercial purposes

So would the no flying within 50m of a structure not under the pilots control still apply - if so that rules out landing in the gardens of most urban houses.....

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Only if the UAV has a camera or other surviellance device Dave. Otherwise the 50m rule does not apply. But if it does have a camera - then it does apply as it is in the ANO - and ANO applies to all flights, be they recreational or commercial - no difference.

Also the 50m rule applies where the pilot "does not have control over the structure" - could Amazon claim that a scheduled delivery - along with a warning not to go into your garden at that time - constitutes "control". Possibly?

But we need to remember also that CAP 658 is not regulation - nor is CAP 722 - they are not the law, only guidance. Only the ANO is regulation and the law. True - they are guidance well worth following as they are written by the people who wrote the ANO! But we must keep in mind that, while breaching them may be viewed as poor pratice and not to be recommended, it is not axiomatically illegal.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/01/2017 00:21:03

[Erfolg]

I do not necessarily see any regulations being a problem. I have been told that there are various drones operating in this neck of the woods, which make use of various control systems, which have some form of dispensation, to enter airspace which are controlled.

I see the technical issues such as envelope size, as pictured. Then there is the issue of extreme cold on the materials of the envelope. As many are aware that extreme cold, polymers generally do not do so good. As there operating range for generally quoted properties is very narrow. Yet we do know that the aerospace industries do mange to build aircraft which can operate at these temps, although I guess generally not with many polymers operating as structural components?

I think what BEB indicated is more intriguing. As portrayed, the patent application probably deliberately misleads as to the true nature of elements which are seeking protection. Also as again suggested, or at least hinted, the PR department will not have put out the "news item" without a purpose, and most probably an instruction from on high.

Not everything is always as it seems , this LINK. describes a news story that masks the true intent of what was going to be done. There are links apparently with respect to the CIA and the Gossamer Albatross, for the moment i cannot find the link as why the funding etc. Their are similar news stories with respect to many countries, as to what is described is meant to mislead as to the true nature of some activities. This could be one or then again not.

I do admit i have incredible admiration for Amazon and a number of other USA businesses, which appear to be started by young men. With apparently very little if any business experience, and have taken a small business to multi-national enterties, and make money, without it all coming apart at the seams.

In this case, having read the patent link again, it appears so vague as to what is novel and is seeking protection I am puzzled as to why bother.

[Peter Android]

If CAP 658 is simply guidance ?

Would someone kindly point out exactly what is the actual Law then ?

I have lost count the number of times I have heard 658 quoted as " Law"

The only total radio failure I ever personally experienced is when I got accidently shot down on the same 35 Mhz Channel . my fault , I had changed crystals when fettling the model at home , and forgotten !

2.4 Has been a godsend in that respect.

Countless deadsticks over countless years have resulted in either a glide , or a ditching , landings were / are a blessing

Banter , Applause or Good natured abuse are part and parcel , and is what makes us Human .

Point is , I had / have the option to do so. assuming of course at least some servo's are still operational . not software.

Blind Faith in technology , worries me. a lot.

[ChrisB]

The page below describes the law..and not just for drones.

**LINK**

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

OK it is describtion of the law - but its not "the law" which Peter asks for. The BMFA do not make the law! That is only their summary. Useful maybe - but not "the law".

The only law is the Air Navigation Order - and you can find the latest version of that here.

Everything else is either:

1. Guidance,

2. Advice,

3. Summary etc.

But it is not the law. The only thing you can be prosecuted under (in terms of strictly aviation law) in the UK is the ANO. Nothing else.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 03/01/2017 20:58:43

[ChrisB]

Thats correct BEB, the BMFA have no powers to make any laws of any kind. They quote the ANO Chapter 4, article 94 from the link you provide.

CB

[ChrisB]

Posted by Peter Android on 03/01/2017 19:31:37:

If CAP 658 is simply guidance ?

Would someone kindly point out exactly what is the actual Law then ?

I have lost count the number of times I have heard 658 quoted as " Law"

The only total radio failure I ever personally experienced is when I got accidently shot down on the same 35 Mhz Channel . my fault , I had changed crystals when fettling the model at home , and forgotten !

2.4 Has been a godsend in that respect.

Countless deadsticks over countless years have resulted in either a glide , or a ditching , landings were / are a blessing

Banter , Applause or Good natured abuse are part and parcel , and is what makes us Human .

Point is , I had / have the option to do so. assuming of course at least some servo's are still operational . not software.

Blind Faith in technology , worries me. a lot.

 

 

 

 658 is a compendium of advice, guidance and law all rolled into one.

Edited By ChrisB on 03/01/2017 21:11:40

[PatMc]

If Amazon do develop their patent into a working process then put it into action they might never need to adhere to the terms of the Air Navigation Order.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Let's try to make it very clear:

1. The primary legislation in the UK is the Civil Aviation Act - which is an act of parliament. The problem is Aviation is a very complex and very technical subject, parliament cannot possible do it justice in a single act. So what the Civil Aviation Act does, amoung other things, is set up the CAA and define its powers.

Now those powers are very extraodinary! Among them is the power to write the rules by which aviation will run in the UK! They do this via the Air Navigation Order - which technically is a "Statutory Instrument" not an act of parliament. But it is the law - you can be prosecuted under its terms - in fact break its provisions and that is indeed what can happen to you!

One of the most unusual features of the ANO is that not only do the CAA write it - they have the power to grant anyone an excemption from many (but not all) of its provisions. So its a "very flexible, dynamic and changable law"!

One reason it is done this way is that aviation is a fast moviong technical flield - look at the emergence of "drones" as an example - the fact that the CAA can write, edit, reissue, change and excempt from the ANO means it can respond quickly to changing circumstances.

Now - all ythe other documents frequently quoted are not the law - CAP 653, CAP 722 etc. These are there to aid us in understanding how the CAA will interpret the actual law - i.e. the ANO. For example, the ANO says "you must be reasonaly sure the flught can be safety completed" - but what exactkly does that mean? How in the event of an accident would you prove you had good reason to believe the flight could indeed be completed safely? Well CAP 653 and CAP 722 help you to answer questions like that and suggest proceedures that will help you. But they are not the law, they are just advice. Now its very true to say that in the event of a mishap the fact that you were following CAA's "advice" would be a very good defence against a charge brought under the ANO - and correspondingly departure from those guidelines would require a good explaination on your behalf - but that's all, its the ANO you prosecuted under - not CAP 653 or any other document.

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 03/01/2017 21:43:48:

If Amazon do develop their patent into a working process then put it into action they might never need to adhere to the terms of the Air Navigation Order.

How come Pat? If they are in UK airspace I cannot see how they would be outside of its provisions?

BEB

[Peter Android]

Thank you for the Clarification BEB , I think .

Since it has now been pointed out that the bmfa are not Agents of the Law .

I wonder whom would best provide legal advice , should anyone become entangled or estranged within the ambiguity of " Compendium " 658 ?

Could be a very dangerous game to play .

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

A Lawyer

[PatMc]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 03/01/2017 21:50:11:

Posted by PatMc on 03/01/2017 21:43:48:

If Amazon do develop their patent into a working process then put it into action they might never need to adhere to the terms of the Air Navigation Order.

 

How come Pat? If they are in UK airspace I cannot see how they would be outside of its provisions?

BEB

Amazon operate worldwide but they don't specify geographicaly where they envisage operating the warehouse.

The BBC report mentions the warehouse being used to "deliver goods to key locations" and "Carried by an airship, the warehouses would visit places Amazon expects demand for certain goods to boom.
It says one use could be near sporting events or festivals where they would sell food or souvenirs to spectators."

I infer from this that delivery directly to individual retail customers from a flying warehouse might not be envisaged.

Also a flow chart option shown in the patent is that other means of delivery to a customer could be more appropriate depending on circumstances.

Edited By PatMc on 03/01/2017 22:20:54

[Peter Android]

We can only hope that the CAA roots for UK Aeromodelling then .

Money should never override safety , in a perfect world ............

BTW I have never subscribed to trial by media , and there must be a lot of classified information not for public display , for security purposes . rightly so.

But it's nice to get some " allowable " info from those who are more closely involved once in a while , or at least in the same horse trough .

Interesting comments on  applied Patents , could this simply to stop others copying their technology ?

A Tactic widely employed by Automotive manufacturers . strange how each " new " generation of Car's end up looking loosely the same though.

 

 

Edited By Peter Android on 03/01/2017 22:49:16

[Peter Android]

Posted by ChrisB on 03/01/2017 20:36:05:

The page below describes the law..and not just for drones.

**LINK**

Thank You Chris. ,

Yes, I have read this .

[Keith Simmons]

Let's go a bit off topic, If Amazon does manage to get permission to have a high flying warehouse in the sky, our security services (inc Police) will be itching to use the warehouse as a platform for eyes in the sky and indeed make a requirement for it to happen for getting the permission. One country may start with this & others will quickly follow suit. 😡

[Erfolg]

Keith

You could be very much on the money, could be cheaper than a satellite, beyond the capabilities of missiles available to many, it does not have to go anywhere.

Now as to the packages, who knows, could they be a nano tech swarm, of some potential.

Yet the only reason to have a patent, would seem, to be able to build the device in full view, whilst at the same time being efficiently camouflaged as to what its purpose could be.

Although it could be something else altogether.

[PatMc]

Posted by Keith Simmons on 03/01/2017 23:07:51:

Let's go a bit off topic, If Amazon does manage to get permission to have a high flying warehouse in the sky, our security services (inc Police) will be itching to use the warehouse as a platform for eyes in the sky and indeed make a requirement for it to happen for getting the permission. One country may start with this & others will quickly follow suit. 😡

The already existing ANPR network will be much more effective also it works on cloudy days & after nightfall.

[Geoff S]

Presumably CAP 658 is analogous to the Highway Code which also isn't law but breaching it can lead to prosecution for (say) careless driving. eg driving on the left is mandated but it isn't illegal to drive on the right (to overtake) but if you have an accident as a result then you're at fault (usually).

I suppose the basic rule is don't do stupid things that could hurt anyone and that's what most club flying rules are about, too.

Geoff