By Tekla Perry28 Jul 2015 22:55 GMTDrone Control: Here’s How Amazon Thinks Drones Should Fit Into U.S. Airspace

Photo: Tekla Perry

Create a drone zone—a dedicated piece of airspace for drones—and separate them within that space by speed and capabilities. That’s how Amazon thinks drones can best be integrated into our busy airspace, says Gur Kimchi, vice president and cofounder of Amazon Prime Air. Kimchi laid out this proposal today at UTM 2015, a three-day convention focused on Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management, being held at the NASA Ames Research Center this week.

Specifically, Amazon’s vision starts by blocking out airports and other areas that demand complete exclusion of drones, either permanently or temporarily. Everywhere else, Amazon is considering the airspace below 400 feet drone territory. Amazon sees 400 to 500 feet as a buffer zone, no drones or manned aircraft. The company would then like to see the FAA designate the airspace from 200 to 400 feet as a fast lane, reserved for the higher speed, longer distance drone travel, with below 200 feet for slower, more local traffic.

Amazon also thinks it makes sense to divide aircraft up according to their capabilities into four classes. At the bottom is the most basic hobbyist drone with no automatic capabilities, though the operator can receive via smart phone and act on general alerts about traffic and other hazards in the area. Operators of these drones will likely have to follow line of sight rules. Next come drones with “good” command and control capabilities—they communicate with a ground station and can act on information received from that ground station to self-separate from nearby objects. Even “better” are drones that communicate directly with the Internet and other vehicles in the sky and can automatically take evasive action. And the “best” drones can also dodge non-communicating flying objects.

“We’d like to equip every seagull in the San Francisco Bay Area (with vehicle to vehicle communications), but that isn’t going to work,” Kimchi said.

In Amazon’s vision of airspace (photo), the less well-equipped drones stay out of high risk and high speed situations; the greater the complexity of the environment, the better equipped a drone needs to be to fly there.

Making it all work, Kimchi says, will require more automation of general air traffic control, standards that make sure all drones can communicate with each other and the Internet, classes of equipment that clearly define what drones can fly where, and drones designed to be safe and secure. As all this is developed, he urged for the adoption of performance-based standards, not technology-based standards, in order to allow the technology to continue to develop unimpeded.

Will this proposal get off the ground? It just might, based on the reaction of a panel of experts including representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board, the insurance industry, and law enforcement, along with two lawyers specializing in aviation law. When asked an hour or so after Kimchi’s presentation if any members of the panel had a strong objection to the plan—none did.

翻譯僅供參考

無人機管理：亞馬遜認為無人機應進入美國空域 drone控制：這里是亞馬遜認為無人機應該融入美國airspace

創建一個無人區&mdash；專用件為無人機&mdash空域；并將其內的速度和能力，空間。這就是亞馬遜無人機；認為最能融入我們繁忙的空域，說古爾泡菜，副總裁和亞馬遜的Prime Air的創始人。泡菜放這個建議今天在UTM 2015，為期三天的會議集中在無人機系統的交通管理，被關押在美國宇航局艾姆斯研究中心本周。

具體而言，亞馬遜&rsquo；的視野開始由封閉機場和其他地區的需求無人機完全排除，臨時的或永久性的。在其他地方，亞馬遜正在考慮在400英尺以下的無人機領域內的領空。亞馬遜認為400到500英尺的緩沖區，無人機或載人飛機。公司就喜歡看FAA指定空域從200到400英尺的快車道，保留在更高的速度、長距離的飛機旅行，在200英尺以下的慢，更多的本地交通。

亞馬遜也認為它是有意義的將飛機上根據自己的能力分為四類。底部是沒有自動能力最基本的愛好者使用的無人機，雖然可以接收通過智能手機和行動對該地區交通和其他危害一般警報。這些無人駕駛飛機的運營商很可能必須遵循一系列的規則。接下來是與“無人機；好&rdquo；指揮與控制能力&mdash；他們與一個地面站，可從地面站自獨立于附近的物體接收到的信息。是無人機直接溝通與互聯網和其他車輛在空中，可以自動采取行動。無人機可以躲避不連通的飛行物體。

我們想讓每一個海鷗；在三藩灣地區（與車輛間的通訊），但這并不是；不去工作。

亞馬遜&rsquo；空域的視覺（圖片），不齊全的無人機遠離高風險、高速度的情況；環境的復雜性更大，更好的裝備無人機需要飛往那里。

使所有的工作將需要更多的自動化通用航空交通控制、標準，確保所有無人機可以相互通信和互聯網，類設備，明確什么DRones可以飛到哪里，和無人駕駛飛機的設計是安全的。由于所有這一切，他呼吁采用基于性能的標準，而不是以技術為基礎的標準，以使該技術繼續開發暢通。這可能是基于一個專家小組的反應，包括來自全國運輸安全委員會、保險業和執法部門的代表，以及與航空法有關的兩家律師。當被問到一個小時左右的泡菜'后的表現；如果任何小組成員都強烈反對該計劃&mdash；沒有。