Some want drones to buzz off. Would stricter rules sway them?

A parliamentary report on a trial in Australia homed in on noise and privacy oversight

SYDNEY—A parliamentary report into one of the world’s most advanced drone-delivery trials, by a Google affiliate in Australia, raised concerns about privacy, noise and wildlife, underscoring challenges tech giants face as they prepare to bring such services to the U.S.

The report, released Thursday by state-level officials in the Australian capital, Canberra, said existing laws may not prevent a drone from collecting high-resolution images during deliveries, and recommended officials investigate what more regulation might be needed. It also said there was initially a lack of oversight of noise from the drones’ propellers and rotors, and that more study was needed to determine whether frequent drone flights impact local wildlife.

The trial by Wing—which, like Google, is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.—delivered coffees, burritos and drugstore items in a Canberra suburb. Some residents were thrilled by the convenience and used the service multiple times a day. Others found the drones noisy and intrusive and eventually complained to lawmakers, who directed a committee in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly— similar to a state legislature—to investigate the matter.

The state-level government is required to respond to the committee’s report, but the report’s recommendations are nonbinding. A Wing spokesperson said the company welcomed the final report and will work with the government, regulators and the broader community.

Wing and others are betting that drone deliveries could revolutionize e-commerce by cutting delivery times, reducing energy use and lowering costs. Wing is planning a drone-delivery trial in Virginia later this year, Amazon.com Inc. recently unveiled a new delivery-drone design and United Parcel Service Inc. is seeking U.S. regulatory approval to operate a new drone-delivery subsidiary.

Although other studies have addressed broader challenges for drone delivery, the Australian report is more detailed because it analyzed the results of an actual pilot program, said Reggie Govan, a former chief counsel at the Federal Aviation Administration.

The report’s conclusions are “equally applicable to the United States, which has yet to develop an appropriate regulatory framework to resolve those issues,” Mr. Govan said.

During the trial, which ended around February in the Canberra suburb of Bonython, the company averaged 22 deliveries a day, though their busiest and final day had 85 deliveries. The average duration, from a tester placing an order to receipt of goods, was 7 minutes and 36 seconds, comprising about three minutes of actual flight time, according to the report. Orders were prepped in modified shipping containers in a field near the neighborhood.

The drones flew autonomously using GPS, but were equipped with a low-resolution backup camera in case of a GPS inaccuracy or failure, according to Wing’s submission to the committee. Any images collected by the drone were transmitted to Wing’s servers in the U.S. and could only be accessed by a small group of software engineers bound by confidentiality obligations.

The committee’s report said the images provided a less-clear view of a backyard than what’s freely available in online satellite imagery, and that people weren’t identifiable in the pictures. It concluded that the drones operated by Wing didn’t breach privacy rules. But the committee worried current laws aren’t strong enough to prevent drones from capturing more-invasive images in future, and relying on company goodwill isn’t sufficient to address the privacy concerns of nonusers.

The report determined that noise is the biggest obstacle to community acceptance of drone-delivery services. Wing developed a quieter drone, which the report said was significantly less intrusive and annoying but still likely wouldn’t be accepted by everyone.

Jeremy Hanson, the lawmaker who chaired the committee, said he believed drone delivery could ultimately be feasible if the right regulations are in place.

“It can’t just be a free for all,” he said. “It does need to be regulated in terms of the noise output of the drones, in terms of where they can fly, in terms of when they can fly.”