Originally Posted by
blackbox
Or the "Amazonoctocopter" fails mid flight over an interstate and drops the package over an interstate. The package falls at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2 and comes crashing down on a car traveling at 65 mph. The impact to the windshield kills the driver which then causes a sixteen car pileup….good luck getting these approved. Not to mention delivering the package to the house located on short final which causes multiple go-arounds.
Terminal velocity is what this is called, it is determined by the combination of acceleration from gravity versus the drag created by the flying object, and there is a lot of drag around square shapes such as a cardboard box. If this is a concern, and I suppose faulty boxes or grippers could allow it to happen, the weight limit on the box or even the shape of the box itself could be adjusted to limit terminal velocity to something no worse than a bird falling out of the sky or what have you. The latter may still be unacceptable, especially if the machines want to operate over high density population. There could also be a tether added to the box.
Actually, safety acceptance is not usually based so much on how bad things go if the machine crashes, witness the results of various airplane crashes we have in the world every so often. Rather it is based on probability of the event happening at all. So if Amazon can show these machines have (make up a number) one in thirty million chance of failing, they will be able to establish reasonable safety. These octocopters have a high redundency factor built in anyway, and I bet it is easy to show the chances of catastrophic failure are quite low as it stands.
I think they are a great idea and should be expedited (pardon the pun) by the FAA. They will save a lot of gas, car travel and road congestion, make returns easier, on and on. There is not much of a downside the way see it. Altitudes and routes can be managed to insure safety around airports and other aircraft operating zones.