It appears that the charges against the radio control multirotor in New York are starting to unravel.

Now those of us with actual POST certified formal LEO training right away laughed at the initial report...we used to call that "creative report writing" which to everyone else means: "lying".

To claim that they had to take evasive action when the model aircraft came at them and it almost crashed into them is the same pablum where cops jump in front of cars deliberately, so they can then claim they were in fear of being run over and killed, or they beat people mercilessly, and when they recoil in pain, they claim that such constitutes resisting, all so more fake charges can be added to potentiate the plea bargain process. Police pilots rarely get an opportunity to pad their barren felony pinch stats as they are, well, not on the ground, so a little bit of creativity is needed to justify their actions. In this case, a lot of creativity was used.

Well, the official false narrative is already starting to unravel as we knew it would.

The helicopter radio transmissions were recorded by some hobbyists. The actual transmission recordings can be heard here (https://soundcloud.com/jason-koebler/nypd-air-traffic-control).

Nowhere is there any mention of near misses, evasive action, or such. The cops even admit they have no idea if they actually have any crime.

From Forbes:

"Remy Castro, 23 and Wilkins Mendoza, 34 were charged in Manhattan Criminal Court with felony reckless endangerment. That law states:

A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.

Reckless endangerment statutes don’t require a particular resulting outcome or injuries, rather what they criminalize is the risks created by the actor’s conduct. In the case of felony reckless endangerment, the New York courts have noted that the statute is intended to criminalize:

"those criminal acts perpetrated not against specific persons but evincing wanton and reckless conduct towards unspecified persons by reason of a depraved indifference to human life in general."

That is a high standard, and each element of that statute will need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Felony reckless endangerment requires a disregard for the value of human life.
Per New York case law, depraved indifference to human life:

"as required to support conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment, is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life, a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply does not care whether harm results or not."

Remy Castro, 23 and Wilkins Mendoza, 34 were charged in Manhattan Criminal Court with felony reckless endangerment. That law states:

A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.

"Reckless endangerment" statutes don’t require a particular resulting outcome or injuries, rather what they criminalize is the risks created by the actor’s conduct. In the case of felony reckless endangerment, the New York courts have noted that the statute is intended to criminalize:

those criminal acts perpetrated not against specific persons but evincing wanton and reckless conduct towards unspecified persons by reason of a depraved indifference to human life in general.

That is a high standard, and each element of that statute will need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Felony reckless endangerment requires a disregard for the value of human life.
Per New York case law, depraved indifference to human life:

"as required to support conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment, is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life, a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply does not care whether harm results or not."

end

Both defendants claim it was the police that endangered themselves via their actions, and they say they have the video evidence to prove it. It would be a cold day in hell before the government could meet all these exceptionally high evidentiary burdens, so it's why the defendants are being overcharged, the usual MO of corrupt government prosecutors to get people to plea bargain to misdemeanors.

Some of my favorite laughable claims made by the police is an altitude change by the DJI Phantom of 0 feet AGL to 2000 feet AGL in 2 seconds. There are 5280 ft. in a mile, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, so:

1000/5280 = 0.18939 miles per second

0.18939 X 3600 = 681.8 mph, just below Mach 1 supersonic at seal level. Wow, that's either some fast model multirotor or some even faster creative police reporting!

These types of overblown interactions by abusive law enforcement with radio control hobbyists are becoming more frequent, so the outcome of this is of interests to the aerial film making community.

Here is a video of the two multirotor hobbyists accusing the police of endangering themelves and others

Far below is the actual transcript of the radio transmission, and I urge readers to review it before commenting.

NYPD—What kind of contact do you have … at this time.
Tower—What do you mean, what kind of contact?
NYPD—I don’t know. We just had an aircraft do vertical climbs pretty fast.
Tower—I don’t see anything on the radar. About how high would you say it went?
NYPD—I'd say 0 to about 2,000 [feet] in less than two seconds. And he's got green and red now. He's going up Spuyten Duyval [bridge], northbound at this time.
Tower—Really? I don’t see anything on the radar. Im not seeing anything like that.
NYPD—He has to be military. He's moving. He's right over top of us right now, LaGuardia. He did a 180 really quick. Going down the east river at this time. I just want to make sure its not a drone.
Tower—I’ll look out the window.
NYPD—LaGuardia we are 800 feet and he is level with us at this time.
Tower—He's level.
NYPD—Going Spuyten Duyval to the [George Washington Bridge]. He's got to be a drone.
Tower—Roger that.
NYPD—He's got red and green lights. Hes trucking, hes moving fast. LaGuardia, definitely a drone. Hes going up the streets now between buildings.
Tower—Ok, all right. Man, theres really gotta be a better way to maybe disable these guys.
NYPD—We are going to stay here and figure out where he puts it.
Tower—Take your time, you’re the only ones in the air.
NYPD—Will do. Yeah, we got drone activity at the GW Bridge. We are trying to walk an RMP [remote mobile patrol] into it. We got the guys operating it on the ground. Hopefully we can get these guys collared up.
Tower—In the vicinity of the GW? They were at the GW. Now I got three, four, coming up to Fairview and 193, vicinity of.
Tower—All right, you want me to do anything from here.
NYPD—Nope, just letting you know.
NYPD—Ok we got these guys are saying these are just toys but these drones were flying in vicinity of [George Washington Bridge]. They buzz around us as well.
Tower—All right what altitude were you guys at.
NYPD—These things were well over 2,000 feet. They were above us at 1,000.
Tower—You still have a visual.
NYPD—No, we've got custody, we've locked the [radio mobile patrol police cars] into them. You know, we have the guys who were operating them. We really don’t know exactly what we have, maybe a reckless. Not sure what exactly we got.
Tower—All right 10-4.
NYPD—Just so you know there was a class given to lt perez, I don’t know if you want to disturb him or not, but he had all the info on that.
Tower—All right 10-4 thank you.
NYPD—Tiny little, we got them on the ground now. Tiny little drones with four blades on it. But, yeah, It was all the way over the GW. Now we are all the way over at Spuyten Duyval flying two miles away to 2,000 feet.
NYPD—They are with them right now, but we don’t even know what we have.
NYPD—Definitely, we just don’t know what kind of crime we have right now.
NYPD—Seems to me, if they were at 1,000 feet, they'd have to be operating that thing recklessly, regardless of whether or not it was a toy.

Great article Dave.

there's certainly something missing from either of the parties. if the gopro was indeed recording the whole time, that should be it. the nypd transcript is so out of wack, i'd think they either saw a different drone, or are incredible inept

I don't think these two guys are going to get any safety training with their drone.

To think its ok to buzz around a busy city or even just just take off in the street a couple of feet away from live traffic demonstrates that basic rules need to be developed and enforced. Irresponsible flying will affect the wider drone community and harden attitudes towards this technology.

So the charge against them seems pretty fair to me.

So the recorded transcript shows that the pilots were genuinely concerned about the way the drone was flying and changing altitude over the city.

Pretty sure I'd take the word of the qualified pilots over the word of the guys flying the drone.

Time will tell, but it looks like the honeymoon period for drone cowboys is coming to an end....

So the recorded transcript shows that the pilots were genuinely concerned about the way the drone was flying and changing altitude over the city.

Pretty sure I'd take the word of the qualified pilots over the word of the guys flying the drone.

Time will tell, but it looks like the honeymoon period for drone cowboys is coming to an end....

So you would believe the police when they state the radio control model aircraft was traveling at near supersonic speeds?

Clearly, drones are not a problem these days and the police have no reason to be concerned
New York Man Busted For Flying Drone Outside Exam Windows At Medical Office | The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/drone-at-medical-center-687432)

So you would believe the police when they state the radio control model aircraft was traveling at near supersonic speeds?

No. They are human, and make mistakes.

But if a qualified pilot feels the need to be concerned about an object flying in his vicinity, and feel the need to report it to a control tower, then there was probably a risk factor at play.

When I was 18 I did a PPL with an aim to becoming a commercial pilot. Once I had the private pilots license I realized it was not for me and gave it up. But there was a lot of training involved, and you learned that when you fly you take on a lot of responsibility ( for people on the ground and in the air).

A lot of drone pilots don't seem to understand this. And a lot of drone pilots don't seem to understand that the amount of damage that can be caused by flying vehicles is disproportionate to their size. So eventually there will have to be some sort of license involved with flying them for the safety of people on the ground and for the safety of people in other aircraft,

Especially as these drones are only going to get bigger, heavier, faster and cheaper over time.

Simon -- just wanted to say that I always enjoy reading your posts. I think you've made some valid points here. Many years ago I had the time and opportunity to pursue a PPL (with the availability of a business partner's AC) but I didn't have the money to pay a CFI. Today my situation is reversed; I can finally afford a PPL but I don't have the time. And I'm no longer as sure about taking on that level of responsibility.

Here's a question for anyone who knows: in the USA, I understand that the FAA mandates the lowest safe altitude in congested areas to be 1,000 ft. above the highest object within a 2,000 radius of the AC. I know this is different in other countries. I understand that the minimum AGA is supposed to be 500 ft. outside of congested areas. And that unmanned drones are to stay below 400 ft. And that helicopters always seem to be an exception to the rules regarding minimums... is that right?

So -- if there's only a 100 ft. barrier of airspace between the minimum AGA for manned aircraft and the maximum AGA for drones, what I'm wondering is, how does the new and inexperienced drone operator know what the actual altitude is that they're flying at any given moment? How does one know where 400 ft. is in order to stay below it. Is it visual guesswork, or do these popular quad-copters such as the DJI Phantom come equipped with an altimeter that talks to the controller? If not, should they? How difficult or expensive would it be to put a barometric pressure sensor or a vertical laser rangefinder on these things? Or are they building them this way already. Thanks in advance from a clueless noob.

Helicopters do have separate rules for some aspects, but pilots I've filmed with tend to be reluctant to get closer than 500 ft (as per fixed wing), unless a special clearance has been arranged for the filming. Being able to do a safe emergency auto rotation landing is a consideration, as is having a helicopter with two engines.

From my CAA PPL for a fixed wing "An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500ft to any persons, vessel, vehicle or structure." Of courser, there are different types of airspace, which have their own rules.

how does the new and inexperienced drone operator know what the actual altitude is that they're flying at any given moment? How does one know where 400 ft. is in order to stay below it. Is it visual guesswork, or do these popular quad-copters such as the DJI Phantom come equipped with an altimeter that talks to the controller?

The basic Phantoms do not come equipped with this as standard. You need to add the iOSDmini plus a transmitter, coupled with a monitor / receiver for the ground station. Once you have this you get lots of information, including height above your take off position (not necessarily height above ground if you're in hills / valleys), along with distance from take off, direction to home base, speed (meters per second), battery remaining etc.

It's not that expensive to add and I would think most people flying with a camera mounted would prefer the FPV capabilities this gives once they have a little experience.

Of course one problem is that someone who does care about the rules gains the FPV capabilities they tend to be watching the screen instead of the Phantom, so if they don't have a spotter with them then they are flying even more dangerously than without it.

Here's a question for anyone who knows: in the USA, I understand that the FAA mandates the lowest safe altitude in congested areas to be 1,000 ft. above the highest object within a 2,000 radius of the AC. I know this is different in other countries. I understand that the minimum AGA is supposed to be 500 ft. outside of congested areas. And that unmanned drones are to stay below 400 ft. And that helicopters always seem to be an exception to the rules regarding minimums... is that right?
Chris, I work ATC in Norway, and the rules you describe are correct, and is the same both in the USA and Norway.
Helicopters are exempted from the 500ft minimum altitude because they are able to fly slow enough to stop and/or avoid any obstacles, but only if their mission requires them to fly low.

Thank you Trond, Dave and Brian.

ATC -- another job the responsibility of which I could never begin to undertake. Much respect!

If it were up to me, I'd require all these UAV's to give altitude talk-back to the controller in meters or feet. Otherwise, how would you know for sure that you're under the legal maximum AGA?

One way to estimate the altitude, is to time the climb.
Ex. My DJI Phantom (v1) climbes with max rate of about 6 m/s. So if I use full power and a 10 second climb, it would be at about 60 meters altitude. Not a perfect solution, but it more or less worked for me until I got an FPV system and the iOSDmini unit.

Thank you Trond, Dave and Brian.

ATC -- another job the responsibility of which I could never begin to undertake. Much respect!

If it were up to me, I'd require all these UAV's to give altitude talk-back to the controller in meters or feet. Otherwise, how would you know for sure that you're under the legal maximum AGA?

It wouldn't make a difference what altitude one is flying at, as there is no federal LAW on radio control model aircraft altitudes, and the FAA admits it here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf).

Unfortunately, if a large enough number of users don't keep to sensible voluntary guidelines, legislation can follow so that they become a legal requirement.

there is no federal LAW on radio control model aircraft altitudes, and the FAA admits it here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf).

Maybe not just yet, but I think there's every indication that the FAA is going to follow through with its 2012 commitment to re-write their rules (or lack of them) regarding UAV's per the Reauthorization Act (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/07/congress-welcomes-the-drones/), which are supposed to be in place by Sep. of next year. I'm willing to bet there will be sweeping changes and re-definitions compared to their old RCMS guidelines and that the 400 ft. altitude limit will be a big part of it.

Meanwhile, it appears that the agency is ramping up the granting of commercial UAV permits:

Speedier Commercial Drone-Flight Permits Possible by FAA - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/speedier-commercial-drone-flight-permits-possible-by-faa.html)

Also, I'm really not a very big fan of the journalism style at Huffington Post, but this is worth checking out (and gets us back on topic here as well, I guess):

Why Drone Enthusiasts All Over The Country Are Getting Arrested (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/drones-arrests_n_5575371.html)

Don't forget the current NPR Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=25;dct=PS;D=FAA-2014-0396) - this will formalize use of Part 91 regulations which includes a very broad FAR governing reckless operation.

And the comment deadline is fast approaching! Due by e.o.d. on July 25th. That's coming up pretty quick. And they do read those things.

Some of the old-timers around here that were with this site from before the beginning (back in the old XL1 Watchdog days) might be aware of my advocacy for the LPFM (low-power FM radio) movement and their efforts to get the FCC to re-define the rules governing FM radio under 100 watts. What's happening here with the FAA and the process with this comment phase is identical to all the the outreach we directed to the FCC back in those days -- and it works. So I can tell you from experience that yes, they do read all of those comments and they definitely take them into consideration.

Clearly, drones are not a problem these days and the police have no reason to be concerned
New York Man Busted For Flying Drone Outside Exam Windows At Medical Office | The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/drone-at-medical-center-687432)

I predict charges against him will be dropped unless he caves to a plea. You don't ban or over regulate something just because some yahoo abuses it.

It wouldn't make a difference what altitude one is flying at, as there is no federal LAW on radio control model aircraft altitudes, and the FAA admits it here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf).
The trouble is that too many people are relying on the fact that there is no actual LAW. Which may be true - but (as your link makes clear) there are a lot of "best practice" "rules" in existence that sensible operation shouldn't be too difficult to follow. And your link is a good starting point - stay away from people and traffic, don't go too high, stay away from areas where aircraft are likely to be operating etc.

Those guidelines seem to have been largely adhered to by model aircraft enthusiasts for a long time without issue - why is it that drones seem to be causing such a problem?

Just saying "there's no actual law against it" doesn't excuse a lot of the stories we're now hearing. Both because of the actual risk, and the likelihood that the more some drone operators show they can't be sensible with voluntary rules, the more draconian eventual legislation will end up.

And too often we're hearing the excuse "it's only a toy!" We've just had a report published in the UK about a helicopter crash where 4 US servicemen were killed when their helicopter (a Pave Hawk, with two pilots) crashed after being hit by three geese - BBC News - Geese caused fatal USAF helicopter crash in Cley, report says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28224917) .

The report goes on to say that "the type of geese involved in the crash typically weigh between 6 to 12 lbs ", and that hitting them at about 110 knots caused enough damage to render both the flight crew unconscious. Bear that in mind, bear in mind that a drone is more solid than a goose, and even if the drone doesn't quite weigh 6-12lbs, would you like to hit one at 110 knots?

No, not likely in any one flight, but it only needs to happen once over a city ...........

Here's a question for anyone who knows: in the USA, I understand that the FAA mandates the lowest safe altitude in congested areas to be 1,000 ft. above the highest object within a 2,000 radius of the AC. I know this is different in other countries. I understand that the minimum AGA is supposed to be 500 ft. outside of congested areas. And that unmanned drones are to stay below 400 ft. And that helicopters always seem to be an exception to the rules regarding minimums... is that right?

No where in the FARs will you find a definition of "congested airspace". If you examine the case law, it means whatever the judge wants it to mean for that individual case.
In Uncontrolled Airspace, there is no minimum altitude, only lateral limits (500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure).

I predict charges against him will be dropped unless he caves to a plea. You don't ban or over regulate something just because some yahoo abuses it.

Right. That guy was a fluke, a rare thing and the police had no right to be wary that it was a public safety, privacy threat or whatever.

No where in the FARs will you find a definition of "congested airspace". If you examine the case law, it means whatever the judge wants it to mean for that individual case.
In Uncontrolled Airspace, there is no minimum altitude, only lateral limits (500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure).

I understand that the wording used is "closer than" (at least in the UK), which can be an altitude of 500ft. because you're dealing with 3 dimensions and means you do need to be aware of these objects.

In this particular case I suspect there may be laws other than aviation law that the person could be breaking.

I suspect the problems are arising because the users of these new small UAVs are larger in number than the traditional model aircraft fliers, don't have the same level of involvement in the construction and are new to this type of flying and its culture. Their vehicles seem commonly to be used in a different manner and are impinging more on other people than modelers who, more or less, kept to flying in suitable areas. .

David Heath, I agree.

The media loves to engage in fear mongering for fun and profit. They just haven't met a disaster they don't love to exploit, and when there are few, they exaggerate and dramatize, and when there are none, they create them. From fake hoax epidemic myths like alar, cell phones/brain cancer, pit bulls, heterosexual AIDS, black church burnings, 20 round clips, electrical power line towers, and my favorite news item: "Vitamin C, the hidden dangers! Tune in tonight to find out how to protect your family!", there are no depths the media will stoop to to sensationalize, and right now, radio control model multirotors are "it" because they get to lump them together with real drones like the Global Hawk that can weigh up to 32,000 lbs when fully armed.

With r/c model planes, we all fly them at known fields, and try to fly away from the stands. They seem to be far more reliable than multirotors. With failures, we can usually just glide to a safe landing away from people. With r/c model multirotors, these are being flown over people. Tiny ones like the Phantom are not that much different than hawkers flying and selling r/c electric toy helicopters from their kiosk stands in shopping malls.

The problem is passing laws won't make people act responsibly, they are typically just enacted to line the coffers of the government by coating their corrupt shakedowns with a veneer of law.

If someone needs a law to not fly r/c model aircraft on the final leg of a commercial passenger jet final approach, well, they must be brain dead already and probably won't comprehend a Federal prohibition.

Then there is the issue of rescue parachutes for multirotors. This might be viable for a m/r that weights 10lbs.

I understand that the wording used is "closer than" (at least in the UK), which can be an altitude of 500ft. because you're dealing with 3 dimensions and means you do need to be aware of these objects.

In this particular case I suspect there may be laws other than aviation law that the person could be breaking.

I suspect the problems are arising because the users of these new small UAVs are larger in number than the traditional model aircraft fliers, don't have the same level of involvement in the construction and are new to this type of flying and its culture. Their vehicles seem commonly to be used in a different manner and are impinging more on other people than modelers who, more or less, kept to flying in suitable areas. .

eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4277f5eecce95c7185e949f91e125575&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10&rgn=div8)

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

[Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]

Yes, you'd keep 500ft above a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. During training we used to practice emergency landings down to 250ft over fields or disused airstrips.

Helicopters may get in closer, although doing so can depend on the airspace and safety considerations.

The media loves to engage in fear mongering for fun and profit. They just haven't met a disaster they don't love to exploit, and when there are few, they exaggerate and dramatize, and when there are none, they create them.
There may be truth in what you say, but worse is when the media represent a POTENTIAL danger as "a disaster that is going to happen!" So scientists or whoever may say "if we go on as we are, xyz will happen". The story gets reported as "XYZ IS going to happen!!" - end of story.

And if you want an excellent example of that, then go back to the Millenium Bug. I first heard of it way back in the early 90's from an IT friend, who did a lot of work on computer systems for big organisations. The mainstream media didn't really pick up on the story until much later - and yes, they loved the fear mongering element. I asked my friend around this point what he thought was going to happen come 2000, and he told me "not a lot". That's not because the threat had never been real, but all the work during the 90's he expected to mean it no longer was.

And he was right. But come 2000, and no actual disaster, the media then labelled it all a myth. Which was disgraceful. The POTENTIAL had been there, that it didn't turn into an ACTUAL disaster was down to a great deal of time, effort and money having been spent on computer upgrade work.

And I think the same may be true of many other scare stories, including some that you mention. They need to be looked at as warnings to act, not an inevitability that disaster will happen.
Tiny ones like the Phantom are not that much different than hawkers flying and selling r/c electric toy helicopters from their kiosk stands in shopping malls.
Maybe, but you don't get full size helicopters flying through shopping malls.... :-) The risk is putting any solid object high in the air where it may get struck by an aircraft.

When I heard about Amazon deliveries by drone a few months ago, the general reaction was to think probably a publicity gimmick - but now it seems to be getting serious..... Amazon asks FAA for permission to test its delivery drones | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/12/amazon-asks-faa-for-permission-to-use-drones-to-deliver-packages/) If they (and presumably other companies) really start to roll out such programmes, there simply has to be a lot of legislation to control usage.
The problem is passing laws won't make people act responsibly, they are typically just enacted to line the coffers of the government by coating their corrupt shakedowns with a veneer of law.

If someone needs a law to not fly r/c model aircraft on the final leg of a commercial passenger jet final approach, well, they must be brain dead already and probably won't comprehend a Federal prohibition.
I feel we've been here before, and simply don't agree with your first sentence. If it was true, you're effectively saying that all laws are useless.

And yes, it may be true that people still steal, murder, defraud etc in spite of laws against such behaviour, but I'd like to think the laws LIMIT such behaviour. It's much less thanks to the law than it would be otherwise - and I've already given the drink drive laws as an example.

And if the brain dead person still flies close to a passenger jet on finals, you've got something to prosecute him with even if (this time) he doesn't cause a crash. Which will hopefully stop him doing it again, and set an example to others.

The Amazon delivery multirotor thing continues to be a massive publicity hoax.

Amazon has a distribution center within 2 hours by road of 95% of the US population. They also have the USPS delivering their small packages door to door.

Why would they need drones when they have the USPS?

The drone delivery idea has some fundamental issues. Consider the lift capability it would need to carry a package to a destination, risk of injury to curious people (children) who run up to it when it lands to drop something off, the cost when some kid throws a rock at it and crashes, etc. They won't be saving any money compared to the buck they're paying the poor schmoe subbing the delivery work.

The Amazon delivery multirotor thing continues to be a massive publicity hoax.
That was my first reaction, but after the latest news (Amazon asking for FAA permission to test) I'm beginning to wonder. Especially since that news story says "The news sent shares of the nation's largest e-commerce company up nearly 6 percent on Friday". I don't know what Amazon is valued at, but 6% of whatever is a lot of money......

The story came from Jeff Bezos himself at Christmas, and given how the market is now treating it, then if it should indeed turn out to be just a "massive publicity hoax" it could backfire very badly against Amazon.

In answer to Jim's question (why?) then I can only suppose the answer is cost - they see it as cheaper and providing a quicker delivery service than current methods. And more immediate may mean they can charge more for the delivery, and more likely sales if you know you'll get in within a couple of hours?

If it is serious, then it's not likely to be viable in city centres, but in the suburbs...... well, we'll see.

The drone delivery idea has some fundamental issues. Consider the lift capability it would need to carry a package to a destination, risk of injury to ...........
I know.... that was why I myself was highly sceptical about the idea when I first heard it. (And still am, to an extent.)

But doing a bit of googling after the last post I found this - Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says Prime Air drones are nearly here | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602419/Delivered-drone-doorstep-Amazon-CEO-Jeff-Bezos-says-courier-future-nearly-here.html) - and in that it says:
Amazon is serious about using drones to deliver items to its customers, and is close to developing the technology to make it a reality, the company's CEO has claimed.

In his annual letter to shareholders, which was made public yesterday, Jeff Bezos gave an update on the Seattle-based company's achievements in 2013 - including a reference to drone development..............


Bezos said testing of '5th and 6th generation aerial vehicles' was currently underway, adding that more drones - perhaps the models that will be put into active service - were in the design phase.

He then added: 'And there is more invention to come. The Prime Air team is already flight testing our 5th and 6th generation aerial vehicles, and we are in the design phase on generations 7 and 8.'
I cannot see Jeff Bezos making "hoax" claims about business matters in a Letter to Shareholders? Surely there are strict rules about that - and this isn't going to be one that you will get away with?

Yes there are issues, but I wonder if they are just a matter of how much money can be thrown at it? And if they perceive big rewards - maybe even licensing the delivery technology to others - I can only assume they think it's worth it.

Maybe we're on the cusp of a wave similar to manned flight in the early days - which itself is only a hundred years or so ago. Would anyone in 1910 really have imagined the numbers of people flying all over the world now? And the speeds, size of aircraft, size of airports, etc? And you could probably say the same about car travel, motorways, etc. Point is that a big market makes huge expenditure worthwhile. I'm old enough to remember being sceptical that mobile phones (and for voice calls only, at that!) would ever become mass market.

Myt 2 cents on the Amazon thing having spent a good bit of time with corporate CEO types.

The reason they're thinking about this is that it's one of the few "possible" things that could have a short term and VERY dramatic effect on sales.

We're a culture conditioned to convenience and immediate gratification.

Let me pose this question. How many reading this have sat preparing for a shoot - and realized that there a was a small product that you could use to pull it off better? An extra battery, a different cable, a couple more CF cards for the shoot - and THEN realized that you had little chance of sourcing it locally and even less chance to get it via mail order on time?

I know I've done that at least a hundred times in my career.

IF there was a way to click on an amazon link and know that a drone would land with it at my door inside 2 hours - I would have clicked time and again.

For amazon, this is an unmade sale. Maybe I'd order the thing from B&H or my local shop and wait for traditional delivery - and maybe I'd forget the whole thing and move on to other issues.

Amazon knows that there is a LOT of this type of "impulse buy" revenue being lost every hour of every day. Probably a truly mind-boggling amount since this is how human nature operates.

Impulse is powerful.

If Amazon could pull it off, they'd see their cut of global sales skyrocket - literally.

I too don't really think the drone delivery thing will happen so much, but I can sure see the business rational driving the idea. There's a gigantic mountain of money in rush delivery untapped. And so a idea is born.

Amazon is serious about using drones to deliver items to its customers, and is close to developing the technology to make it a reality, the company's CEO has claimed

Allow me to decipher corporate public relations propaganda:

1. "is serious about" Decoded; "If we say so, it will be perceived as true!" Any time a corporation's PR wing proclaims "we take seriously" you can bet it's in response to being caught, well, not taking something seriously.

2. "is close to developing" Decoded: We have not developed, but see item #1"

The press and Amazon has watched too many issues of Terminator and thinks it can be Skynet.

Useful in contract negotiations too - if you don't go with our price reduction to 75 cents a unit you won't be cost competitive with our drones.

IF there was a way to click on an amazon link and know that a drone would land with it at my door inside 2 hours - I would have clicked time and again.

For amazon, this is an unmade sale. Maybe I'd order the thing from B&H or my local shop and wait for traditional delivery - and maybe I'd forget the whole thing and move on to other issues.

Amazon knows that there is a LOT of this type of "impulse buy" revenue being lost every hour of every day. Probably a truly mind-boggling amount since this is how human nature operates.
Exactly. If it's an item that you know exactly what you want, the main reason nowadays for buying in a store rather than online is speed, that and not having to be at home waiting for a next day delivery. If they bring this off, it would indeed mean that an online order *could* be with you more quickly than purchasing in a store - and taking into account travel costs saved, possibly more cheaply as well. Let alone getting to the store and finding them out of stock.

As Bill says, if they could pull it off - it would be huge. Make the order online at 9.34, get a confirmation of "go into your garden at 10.56", and at 10.55 you see this object coming up the street!

But the other half of me finds it hard to credit drones criss-crossing the skies with parcels. But maybe that's exactly what someone 100 years ago would have felt if you'd tried to paint them a picture of modern aviation? If the rewards are there, someone will put in the investment and make it happen.
Allow me to decipher corporate public relations propaganda:

1. "is serious about" Decoded; "If we say so, it will be perceived as true!" Any time a corporation's PR wing ....
Apart from we're not just talking about some anonymous hype from a corporate PR department, nor even from just any old CEO. It's straight from the lips of Jeff Bezos, and I don't see him going on record in such terms if they weren't serious, and at least thought they had a good chance of success. Also from the article I linked to:
Bezos remained realistic about the chances of Prime Air testing turning into an fully-fledged delivery service, however.

'Failure comes part and parcel with invention. It’s not optional', he said.

Bezos went on to explain that Amazon would continuing working on drones 'until we get it right' and it becomes 'something that is really working for customers.'

'[At that point] we double-down on it with hopes to turn it into an even bigger success', Bezos added.

Failure comes part and parcel with invention. It’s not optional', he said.

Ah, the old "failure is not an option" torturous linguistics. Man, if that isn't ever complete confirmation of Bezo's bozo PR stunt.

"Amazon drones" returned 12,600,000 Google hits."Amazon Prime Air" received 60,300,000 hits. PR genius selling vaporware made of unobtainium.

Let's see the issues:

1. What prevents someone from stealing the landed model plane.
2. How would the model plane land itself without hitting telephone wires and ground obstacles.
3. How would you make the box secure.
4. Flight times are currently limited to about 15 minutes.
5. What keeps the model aircraft form harming pets.
6. What keeps the models batteries from failing in flight.
7. Weight/complexity/effectiveness of collision avoidance
8. Add your own here.



This is a total pie in the sky joke:

Amazon Prime Air - YouTube

Utter hoax, no matter what they say.

The business model does not work at today's ... tomorrow's ... or next century's technology. You are using a $40,000 drone to deliver a $10 package. At 4 or 5 deliveries a day, it will never be more than a publicity stunt. The whole drone thing will disappear as fast as tamagotchis in about 5 years.

Also, a drone would have rather limited delivery radius around Amazon warehouses (or fulfillment centres as they term them). Good PR, but hiring a taxi could make more sense.

8. Add your own here.

8. What if it's raining. Or just windy.

8. What if it's raining. Or just windy.
I'll admit that had occurred to me - but if they just accept it's not always available, not under every weather condition, it could still see huge usage.

If the idea is to order something online and receive it very quickly, there could be a button next to the order with the "Prime Air" option - if the weather conditions aren't suitable, the button is greyed out.

Time will tell, but I'm keeping an open mind.