Two Amazon Delivery Drones Crash Into Crane in Commercial Area of Tolleson, Az
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
abc15.comTechstoryHigh profile
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Drone DeliverySafety ConcernsAmazon
Key topics
Drone Delivery
Safety Concerns
Amazon
Two Amazon delivery drones crashed into a crane in Arizona, raising concerns about the safety of drone delivery technology and Amazon's testing procedures.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
13m
Peak period
132
0-6h
Avg / period
22.9
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 2, 2025 at 10:52 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 2, 2025 at 11:05 AM EDT
13m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
132 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 6, 2025 at 2:17 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45450449Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:28:07 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I bet it has to be a confluence of factors. I hope Amazon reports openly what went wrong. FAA should demand it. Will be a very interesting report if we ever get to read it.
(my degree is in digital imaging technology so, fun thinking problems for me :)
Edit: Nevermind. I'm not awake yet. this logic does not compute. please ignore
"Something went wrong with the drone. Send another!"
https://www.zipline.com/
And it looks much safer than Amazon's approach of directly landing the heavy drone in your garden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
That being said, drone delivery will not really become a thing unless the endurance issue is resolved, like a new breakthrough battery technology that gives you at least 4 hours flight time (hybrid drones are noisy), as for any drone to have a proper impact, it should have three items checked: endurance, payload, and range. The last two are pretty much resolved by having modular payloads and flying over the internet, the first one is still pending.
Edit: The Internet tells me that delivery drones fly at 40-60mp/h which is much faster than I assumed and makes the 3-4 hour window even more surprising to me.
403 ERROR The request could not be satisfied. Request blocked. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner. If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.
Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront) Request ID: 4nJBA53JFbgAlMjIy7AGSr8vdQd0NdIQCoCFvK67Mr-9yFUHlDpFJQ==
Edit: per below was actually a crane
https://cf.cdn.uplynk.com/ause1/slices/14f/5c3d34b8b29a45469...
Boom lifts, available in various models such as mini scissor lifts for sale, spider lifts, and tracked scissor lifts, offer excellent mobility, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness for many tasks. Cranes, on the other hand, are essential for heavy lifting and large-scale projects.
I also learned that "spider lifts" look like something a bad guy drives in a sci-fi movie.
It's so convenient to ignore too!
EDIT: NM, it was a crane after all.
> Our approval includes the ability to fly Beyond Visual Line of Sight, using our sophisticated on-board detect and avoid system. This is an historic, first-of-its-kind approval for a new drone system and a new operating location following a rigorous FAA evaluation of the safety of our systems and processes.
It's true the FAA would have had to have signed off on these so that will be interesting.
Was working for a construction guy I overall respected, and he had us going up on a 3-story barn roof without any kind of roped-in protection. Although I was a fairly experienced rock climber (or perhaps because of it), I quit at lunch.
I was very lucky to have had the opportunity to have the backup finances to be able to afford to quit.
Certainly harnesses and other safety gear are much more common in many situations.
Even with all the gear, an unpredictable 80 lb object hurtling towards you is a major problem. Not to mention becoming a problem for any standing below.
It does seem best when using lag bolts to secure such an anchor to the roof but even when not screwed to the roof should provide some level of fall safety.
“I will not be hit by an 80 pound flying missile” is a reasonable expectation for construction workers
When I was a roofer, I think we might have used safety lines and harnesses twice, when the pitch was too steep.
Whether or not it's true, if significant numbers of crews believe this they won't be wearing harnesses on low roofs.
At a leisurely 3 mi/h, wolfram alpha gives this amusing comparison: about 0.36 times the momentum of an American football player moving at a speed of 1 m/s.
With the appropriate amount of sarcasm: the Mayflower included several variations of "stock" and countless untold mistakes in the wake! We surely beat those Soviets and Socialism, gosh darn it. Just don't pay attention to the social fabric or what the CIA has done. Nevermind the particularly Aryan scientists, where we found them, or what might happen when they get fat/bored/lazy and procreate. We need The Bomb.
Long way to say the absurdity is the joke/point.
The fact that two different drones crashed into the same object raises even more serious questions on the quality of Amazon’s tech and their ability to safely monitor it.
God: "Hold my staff"
I don't know that amazon engineers should be expected to see e.g. a moving small steel cable under tension.
That and customers are required to select safe delivery drop zones.
I would like to see better "oh shit we're crashing let's try not to kill anyone" protection, e.g. research on improving controlled landings on damaged drones. Maybe refusal to deliver if there are any detected humans in the drop zone (which may well already exist).
Sounds like the anamoly here was a very unsafe landing zone (which is outside the customer agreement as it happens).
small steel cables take out human pilots too..
Would be really curious how they might guard against adversarial drone deliveries. Kinda weird to have end users basically piloting your $100K (I'm guessing) vehicles.
Wires are somewhere between hard and not possible to see, visually. The "fix" for this might be "that kinda looks like it might be construction over there, go around".
I work with 3d scanning lidar every day and I know this as a fact.
They have no excuse there.
Are there any commercial drones that do it "right", with LIDAR?
'It's unclear if' is a phrase that paints a brilliant picture of an organ's journalistic standing.
It means there's no information either way, what follows is pure speculation, probably false, but the author can put whatever idea they want in our heads, since they've prefaced that it 'may or may not be the case'.
It's unclear if the drones had malicious intent. It's unclear if the author was sober while writing and free of criminal record.
Honestly, that's redundant, because it's obvious in context.
But seriously, the article text doesn't follow up with any speculation and highlights it is a developing story. According to the latest news on TV, someone actually was insured and is now at the hospital. The details are still unclear however. This is very based reporting for the world we currently live in and I would like to see more news stations follow this style instead of jumping to conclusions.
Ranting about deeper meaning of the words in such a minimal bulletin is nonsensical.
Seriously, why is this downvoted?
Perhaps I should change the way I read HN.
PS: I just searched, and indeed there is a lot of talk about incidents around drones. But what I mean is talk about the technology used in these drones. For example, how do you send a video feed through a kilometers long fiber optic cable that is cheap to produce and lightweight? These are the kind of questions I'm interested in.
With tens of thousands of guyed towers in the United States, that's a bad omission.
* No one was injured directly, but someone was treated for smoke inhalation
* The drones "were flying back to back"
* They hit the cable of a crane (including a link to a video showing the crane). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ZpY6qHcTk
https://youtu.be/E_ZpY6qHcTk?t=134
I'm mildly amused by this. It's an open air environment, did someone go stand over one of the crashed drones as it burst into flames and just, breathed deep? Glad they got treatment, plastic smoke is gross.
Also wow, the drones are massive, and apparently flying so low they will hit cranes putting things on single story buildings? That's so stupid.
Dear tech world: Please do not fly 80 pound projectiles just a few feet above my head at speed. Jeeze.
Don't hold your breath waiting on the US government to give a shit about death and destruction of its people. Let the industry discover the tech and capitalist forces dictate safety, around 2060 we can start having serious conversations about drone safety.
To any of the aspiring Ralph Nader's of the drone industry out there, thank you for your service in advance.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2025-1908-0023
You can select a few comments at random and quickly find a pattern: people are concerned that the drones everywhere except in the densest of areas do not have to see where they are going. If they hit a manned aircraft it's the manned aircraft's fault and the drone operator has no legal liability. Does that sound like something FAA employees wrote themselves? How much motivation will be there to "iteratively refine" when they have no legal liability and even admitting that a possible improvement exists would create legal liability?
It's true in this one. Companies will design drones that comply with the very detailed regulations and go no further the same way car companies don't put seatbelts, airbags, or auto-brake devices into cars unless forced. The drone regulations are nearly done. Any further changes may take an act of congress.
So it's not as bad as "they don't see cranes". But it absolutely raises the question of whether they can see cables, whether hanging from cranes or spanning telephone poles.
And honestly, cables are really hard to see in the air. That's literally why high-voltage power lines hang those big red-orange marker balls on them for pilots to see.
Genuinely curious what the solution here is. Hard-code some logic to identify cranes and always assume there's a cable dangling from the end? Never fly underneath anything? Implement some kind of specialized detection for thin cables if that's possible?
For the sake of clarity: I am not arguing against your point, nor am I defending Amazon or the tech in any way shape or form.
Both of these allow healthy margins of error, whether that error is from a human pilot or ATC, or from computer systems - either in the vehicle or the ground.
I'd argue these would be a great place to start for drone aviation.
If such limits make drone burrito or toilet paper delivery expensive, that seems fine.
The world record holder for a quadcopter drone is 224 mph. Not many drones can beat 100 mph.
According to one article I found Amazons drones can manage 50mph.
It would make sense for a quadcopter to follow helicopter rules. Obviously it does not follow the "without hazard" requirement if you crash into cables, though.
I’d agree the helicopter rules seem most appropriate, though I guess I’d still feel like that would still rule out operating anywhere near a building under construction.
That said, a regular helicopter that suffers a loss of power or other fault, still has options like autorotation to at least attempt a landing without killing anyone on the ground. Do drones have any equivalent ? I.e. if battery is below x% it returns to safe landing spot?
I don't know how drones are programmed, but landing immediately if the battery gets low certainly sounds like a sensible precaution. Electric motors might be reliable enough that you don't have to worry about gracefully handling failure of those. I hope so, because I don't think a quadcopter has much hope if any motor fails.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91#p-91.119(a)
The catch all under both regulations is anything that's "careless and wreckless"
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.23
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13
Was this particular operation careless and wreckless? Could be.
Someone else in the thread said the weather conditions included mist. I'm skeptical misty conditions also permits a minimum 3 miles of visibility, but what do I know I'm just a pilot.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.51(c)
But also, it's possible the waiver I assume Amazon is operating under could include visibility. I assume this because Part 107 requires visual line of sight operation, but Amazon's operation sounds like beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). I don't know anything about that. I'd like to think the waiver and the operating requirements are public information, but I don't know that either.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-107.31
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.205(c)
For drones, there's a different set of FAA (and possibly state) rules.
Do you know what are the rules for helicopters in a city? That seems like a closer analogue.
For concrete numbers, I would say stay 50 yards away from construction equipment, and always laterally or above, not below. Honestly these drones are enormous so I think "don't go under" can just be a blanket rule. They can't be going under trees or bridges or overpasses either, they're too big.
Edit: Also, the drones themselves should be far enough apart that if one crashes the other has time to react and stop or change course. I don't have a concrete number there, it depends on their speed and acceleration, but they shouldn't be flying so close that if one crashes they all will.
108 more comments available on Hacker News