In five years we'll be reading headlines about birds getting the beetus...
Posted on 08/21/2025 10:59:20 AM PDT by nickcarraway
This method is intrinsically cheaper than delivery by automobiles. I expect it to catch on.
I doubt this method will work when winds are gusty and high.
And what about rain? I can just imagine some Reddit forum in a few years devoted to complaints about drone delivery, filled with pictures of sopping wet food orders and deliveries that went SPLAT on the sidewalk (or on someone’s head) because of problems with the “gentle” deliveries.
Can people shoot the drones down if they fly over private property without permission? or are the drones going to stay above the 1000 ft hard deck?
Also subject to problems not faced by delivery drivers. Birds of prey notoriously don't like drones and attack them. Now the birds can get food by attacking drones. The weather, of course, is also an issue. At least the 300ft altitude will make thievery more difficult.
Be interesting to see how technophilic theory compares to reality.
Drones need to stay below 400 ft ... below the airspace occupied by manned aircraft. At 300 ft, shooting them will be difficult.
Do birds like E. coli?
Love the idea. It would be a dream come true to sit on the front porch to wait for a McDonald’s drone. I assume it doesn’t want a tip.
>>Drones need to stay below 400 ft .
Property owners own the airspace over their property up to 500 ft in unincorporated areas and 1000 ft otherwise.
Chipotle risks trespass charges if they don’t route their drones properly.
Buzzards love it ...
Follow the roads ... just like human pilots did in the 19-teens and 19-twenties.
They were doing it here years ago as an experiment.
Can you shoot an air ambulance over your property?
I never saw rice (filler) in a burrito until the Chipotle clowns came up with that scam. I used to love ye olde Taco Bell and its bargain basement prices. I like this combo better>>>> Mix sashimi grade tuna chunks with soy sauce, peeled ginger that is finely chopped, garlic finely chopped. Serve with hot pinto or black beans, with some Dijon mustard on the side for the raw tuna. Corn tortillas. Mexico meets Japan.
Chipotle risks trespass charges if they don’t route their drones properly.
Not exactly. The 500 and 1,000 foot minimum altitudes you mention come from FAR Part 91, and are just minimum altitudes for pilots of fixed wing aircraft to observe. Part 91 has nothing to do with determining ownership of airspace, though I have been involved in some inverse condemnation lawsuits over aircraft noise where the judge, in the absence of any other guidance, has used the Part 91 minimums as guidance. In those cases the claim, because it involved a governmental entity (an airport), was that there had been a taking.
In every one of those cases the homeowner (plaintiff) lost because the judges ruled that they only have a right to the airspace above their property, as it pertains to the “use and enjoyment” of their property, up to the point where it abuts navigable airspace. And there are many more parameters defining “navigable airspace” than just those 500 and 1,000 foot minimum operating altitudes in Part 91. For example, Part 91 also says that there is NO minimum altitude for aircraft in the process of taking off or landing (for obvious reasons).
And there are NO minimum altitudes for helicopters. Because of their unique operating modes and needs, it merely states that helicopters may operate below the normal minimum altitudes “…if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.” So a helicopter could theoretically hover 2 feet above your roof if the operator was able to convince the FAA and a court (if challenged) that they were operating “…without hazard to persons or property on the surface.” Of course, the example I give is an extreme to make the point. Once manned AAM (Advanced Air Mobility) VTOL aircraft begin to operate, I expect they will be treated similarly to helicopters as far as operating rules.
As for unmanned drones, they so far have only MAXIMUM operating altitudes, generally restricted to remaining BELOW 400’. As far as I’m aware, they do not, so far, have minimum altitudes specified above certain land uses.
The average homeowner believes that they own and control the airspace above their property, and that is just not correct other than within certain parameters. Navigable airspace is federal domain as it is part of the National Airspace System. I certainly understand concerns about annoyance from conventional aircraft overflights and increasingly from new technologies like drones, but if every local jurisdiction and individual landowner could arbitrarily restrict aircraft operations over their property it would be impossible to operate a national air transportation network. When conflicts over these issues inevitably occur, it is best to work through elected officials, airports and/or aircraft operators, and the FAA (though they are highly bureaucratic) to reach voluntary solutions, because the odds of legal success are very low.
And as for those here who seem to think they can shoot at ANY aircraft: Enjoy your stay in federal prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.