No, Marijuana Drones Are Not Coming Soon

Flying beer will have to wait, too.

National Journal
Alex Brown
Add to Briefcase
Alex Brown
March 17, 2014, 11:58 a.m.

It was the sort of only-in-Cali­for­nia head­line that was just plaus­ible enough to be true: “Med­ic­al Marijuana De­livered by Fly­ing Drones.”

But fly­ing drones aren’t about to de­liv­er any­thing — let alone marijuana.

“We are not de­liv­er­ing med­ic­al marijuana,” con­firmed QuiQui founder Joshua Zier­ing, who hopes his fleet of drones will one day be able to drop off pre­scrip­tion drugs. “I think [the In­ter­na­tion­al Busi­ness Times] just made it up.”

Sen­sa­tion­al­ist head­lines aside, Zier­ing’s as­pir­a­tions are ser­i­ous — as are the hopes of many en­tre­pren­eurs who see drones as the tech­no­logy be­hind a great new busi­ness mod­el. Beer com­pan­ies, flor­ists, even ma­jor-league base­ball teams — it seems no one can es­cape the ap­peal of fly­ing ro­bots.

But just be­cause drones can bring you a six-pack or shoot some awe­some spring train­ing im­ages doesn’t mean they’re al­lowed to do so.

Earli­er this month, the Fed­er­al Avi­ation Ad­min­is­tra­tion briefly lost its abil­ity to po­lice the un­manned skies when a judge ruled it lacked the au­thor­ity. But a day later, the agency ap­pealed, and com­mer­cial drones are again groun­ded un­til the mat­ter is settled.

That hasn’t stopped com­pan­ies who saw the tem­por­ary re­prieve as an open­ing for their auto­mated de­liv­ery plans — or at least a fun pub­li­city stunt. Lake­maid Beer told Na­tion­al Journ­al it was re­sur­rect­ing plans to work on a beer de­liv­ery sys­tem for ice fish­er­men. A Michigan flor­ist, stung when its Valentine’s Day de­liv­ery plan met the FAA’s dis­ap­prov­al, wasted no time an­noun­cing it would re­sume test­ing.

Even the Wash­ing­ton Na­tion­als took to the skies to get some pre­season pub­li­city shots.

While the FAA tries to clear up mis­per­cep­tions over what the rul­ing and the ap­peal mean, the var­ied re­sponses il­lus­trate the con­fu­sion over just what busi­nesses are al­lowed to do — and what the FAA can and will do to stop them.

“Com­mer­cial op­er­a­tions are only au­thor­ized on a case-by-case basis,” the FAA’s Eliza­beth Cory said in an email last month. “A com­mer­cial flight re­quires a cer­ti­fied air­craft, a li­censed pi­lot, and op­er­at­ing ap­prov­al. To date, only one op­er­a­tion has met these cri­ter­ia.” That’s an op­er­a­tion that uses drones to con­duct en­vir­on­ment­al sur­veys in the Arc­tic pri­or to drilling.

But it’s un­clear just how many busi­nesses have a full grasp of those guidelines. Some have ar­gued their low-fly­ing craft aren’t break­ing any laws — but the FAA’s 400-foot lim­it is in place for hob­by­ists, not com­mer­cial users. Oth­ers are basing plans off the court de­cision, but not the FAA’s ap­peal.

This con­fu­sion makes it harder for the agency to po­lice the sky. While the FAA can shut down busi­nesses whose drone plans make the news, it’s nearly im­possible to reg­u­late com­pan­ies who don’t an­nounce their pres­ence.

“You have this choosy poli­cing, and I think that’s a waste of time,” Zier­ing said. He would prefer to see drone op­er­at­ors come up with uni­form, self-reg­u­lat­ing stand­ards, sim­il­ar to the mod­el air­plane in­dustry.

Cur­rently, it seems the FAA is tak­ing it easy on drone users who don’t un­der­stand the rules. The beer com­pany and the flor­ist both re­ceived only po­lite warn­ings from the agency that their op­er­a­tions wer­en’t al­lowed. In fact, the court case that led to the chal­lenge of the FAA’s au­thor­ity is the only time it has tried to levy pun­ish­ment (a $10,000 fine for reck­less fly­ing dur­ing a com­mer­cial shoot).

For now, Zier­ing says he real­izes the drone re­volu­tion will have to wait on reg­u­la­tion, and that might be slow go­ing. “I re­spect the FAA, and I re­spect the [Na­tion­al Trans­port­a­tion Safety Board],” he said. “Ob­vi­ously, they’re not ready for this to hap­pen yet and we’re go­ing to try to re­spect that as much as pos­sible.” Still, he said, “this is gonna hap­pen one way or an­oth­er,” and QuiQui wants to be ready when the rules be­come clear.

The FAA did not im­me­di­ately re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER GOP MODERATE TO HER SIDE
John Warner to Endorse Clinton
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials."

Source:
AUTHORITY OF EPA IN QUESTION
Appeals Court Hears Clean Power Plant Case
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday "heard several hours of oral arguments" over the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan rules. The 10-judge panel "focused much of their questioning on whether the EPA had overstepped its legal authority by seeking to broadly compel this shift away from coal, a move the EPA calls the Best System of Emission Reduction, or BSER. The states and companies suing the EPA argue the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate anything outside of a power plant itself."

Source:
$28 MILLION THIS WEEK
Here Come the Ad Buys
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Spending by super PACs tied to Donald Trump friends such as Ben Carson and banker Andy Beal will help make this week the general election's most expensive yet. Republicans and Democrats will spend almost $28 million on radio and television this week, according to advertising records, as Trump substantially increases his advertising buy for the final stretch. He's spending $6.4 million in nine states, part of what aides have said will be a $100 million television campaign through Election Day."

Source:
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
×