FAA Stops Beer Drone Delivery

Goofy

Goofy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
756
Display Name
Goofy
They just aren't any fun at all..... :nono:

The Lakemaid micro brewery started delivering beer to ice fishers using drones, at least until the FAA coldly shut their operation down. The FAA is currently reviewing their policies.


According to the beer company’s president, Jack Supple, “They think it’s a great idea, though they’re telling me to stop.” :nonod:

Here is a video of the drone delivering the beer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmHwXf8JUOw
 
Uncontrolled airspace isn't it?
 
You mean how they are getting pressured by big money pockets to prevent RC flyers from getting paid to shoot videos from model aircraft. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
Dropping a 6 pack on someone's head is not exactly in the public interest. ;)
Click to expand...

Is the FAA going to regulate any sport where something may go airborne? Softball, baseball, golf, etc.

Sorry, if it's uncontrolled airspace, then it should be, well, uncontrolled. Either that or make everything Class E to the surface.
 
You need a commercial ticket and valid second class medical to operate one of these for compensation.
 
Someone in the bureaucracy is mad because they didn't think of it first!

Or they are worried that Domino's and Pappa Johns will start trying this idea and clutter the airspace.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
Someone in the bureaucracy is mad because they didn't think of it first!

Or there worried that Domino's and Pappa Johns will start trying this idea and clutter the airspace.
Click to expand...

In B/C/D/E surface areas I can see the Feds saying not so fast. But seeing that this was in (I think) Northern Wisconsin, that's uncontrolled, and they should butt out.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think I can see some potential problems with the state liquor laws, too.
Click to expand...

It was Wisconsin, I don't think they have any. :D

Wisconsin is where I had my first legal beer. I was 16 or 17. At the time, and I don't know if they changed it since, the law was basically, if you are with your parents and they say it's OK, you can have a beer in a public establishment.
 
EdFred said:
It was Wisconsin, I don't think they have any. :D

Wisconsin is where I had my first legal beer. I was 16 or 17. At the time, and I don't know if they changed it since, the law was basically, if you are with your parents and they say it's OK, you can have a beer in a public establishment.
Click to expand...
That is true. There is no minimum age limit to be served alcohol if you are with a parent who is at least 21. Many if not most establishments will not serve anybody under the legal drinking age.

Under current law, minors of any age are allowed to consume alcohol in a licensed tavern, restaurant or other licensed premise if they're accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse who has reached the legal drinking age of 21. But the bill considered Wednesday by the Senate's Committee on Children and Families and Workforce Development would require that children who drink with parents and guardians at taverns or restaurants be at least 18. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/53722572.html
 
What if they delivered the beer one can at a time via potato cannon? Would the FAA regulate that too?
 
There are no hot blonds in ice fishing huts.
 
EdFred said:
It was Wisconsin, I don't think they have any. :D

Wisconsin is where I had my first legal beer. I was 16 or 17. At the time, and I don't know if they changed it since, the law was basically, if you are with your parents and they say it's OK, you can have a beer in a public establishment.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I was drinking Wisconsin beer at age 10.

Leinenkugels was a good local beer back then. :yes:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You need a commercial ticket and valid second class medical to operate one of these for compensation.
Click to expand...

Well, since most of these are build as "Experimental", you're not permitted to carry passengers or property for compensation, even with a commercial ticket.

Technically, wouldn't this need a Part 135 certificate for cargo ops?
 
JeffDG said:
Well, since most of these are build as "Experimental", you're not permitted to carry passengers or property for compensation, even with a commercial ticket.

Technically, wouldn't this need a Part 135 certificate for cargo ops?
Click to expand...

I still say if it is uncontrolled airspace then it should be just that...uncontrolled. If they want to exercise control over it, then make it controlled to the surface.
 
Looks like a good idea,for OSH,for all the campers
 
EdFred said:
I still say if it is uncontrolled airspace then it should be just that...uncontrolled. If they want to exercise control over it, then make it controlled to the surface.
Click to expand...

So, I can run a charter op with a Sport Pilot cert as long as I stick to Class G?
 
JeffDG said:
So, I can run a charter op with a Sport Pilot cert as long as I stick to Class G?
Click to expand...

Yeah, some are confusing what 'uncontrolled' means. With regards to airspace it just means ATC doesn't control it. The FAA still does though. Think about it...who determined its 'uncontrolled' in the first place? The fact that they can classify it sorta tells you they 'control' it.
 
EdFred said:
I still say if it is uncontrolled airspace then it should be just that...uncontrolled. If they want to exercise control over it, then make it controlled to the surface.
Click to expand...

I don't think that applies to a 91/135 distinction, or 103 for that matter.
 
EdFred said:
Part 61 requirements have to be met first.
Click to expand...

Why Part 61, but not Part 119?

Trying to divine some logical consistency here. If it's uncontrolled, by your definition, it's uncontrolled.

Not seeing why one set of regulations should apply, but another set not apply.
 
I think it should be allowed because geeze...who's it hurting? If I got clacked on the head by a beer I think I'd settle for free delivery for a month. I suppose some might sue the government for not 'controlling' this.

Aw geeze...I'm turning republican...
 
Captain said:
I think it should be allowed because geeze...who's it hurting? If I got clacked on the head by a beer I think I'd settle for free delivery for a month. I suppose some might sue the government for not 'controlling' this.

Aw geeze...I'm turning republican...
Click to expand...

Nope, Libertarian. Republicans would want to give the delivery service tax breaks. :)

And Jeff, because part 61 comes before part 119. That's why. :D

Start at FAR 1 and work forward. ;)
 
EdFred said:
Nope, Libertarian. Republicans would want to give the delivery service tax breaks. :)

And Jeff, because part 61 comes before part 119. That's why. :D

Start at FAR 1 and work forward. ;)
Click to expand...

So, based on altitude then?

Stay under 91' to remain exempt from Part 91?

:)
 
EdFred said:
Uncontrolled airspace isn't it?
Click to expand...

Non-"navigable airspace" might be a better term from the legal aspects. The statute that authorizes the FAA only mentions it having authority over "navigable airspace", not "controlled airspace".
( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40101 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103)

And the statute says "navigable airspace":
"means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."
( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102 )

That would seem to put anything that isn't an "aircraft" out of reach of the FAA authority so long as it stays under the minimum altitudes in FAA regs.

Those minimum altitudes may not be those is 91.119 - "Minimum Safe Altitudes", but I think those in 14 CFR 77 with specific details in 14 CFR 77.17 and 14 CFR 77.9 among other suspects. As well as those altitude criteria in case law set by past court cases where land owners have filed (and won or lost) lawsuits against aviators who flew very low over their property.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top