Silent-AV8R

As our technology has matured from the time of the TAM the AMA has refined its definition of what comprises a model aircraft operation. This was necessary especially in light of the growth in the UAS field. So AMA now says that autonomous control is not part of what they consider model airplane operations. That is defined as the ability to navigate from point to point without input from the pilot.

Autopilot that provide stability or recovery from unusual attitudes are fine. It is the ability to independently navigate from point to point that separates a model from non-models. This is part of the problem for the FAA with the new rules. Since many commercial sUAS are based on models and are often indistinguishable from a model how do you separate them? Defining autonomous flight as a non-model is one way to do so.

We are at a point now that the differences between models and UAS are not so much in their physical appearance but more in their operational capabilities and intended use.

804

My Feedback: (1)

Oh, I don't know.
An autonomous model of an autonomous aircraft is... a model.

KidEpoxy

not by AMA's standard it aint


Some folks want to say advancements in aeromodeling are no longer modeling,
and some folks want to say advancements in aeromodeling are just advancements in aeromodeling,
and this thread is simply getting a quick ratio of one to the other
... and it is not a landslide supporting the TAM, now its 16:25 against

804

My Feedback: (1)

yeah, I know about the AMA's standard.
This poll is slanted, IMO of course, to suit your agenda.
If the poll asked if the TAM belonged in the museum, different result I think.
That is, if everyone responding knew the history of it, and of Maynard Hill.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I don't think the AMA should want any part of our sport / hobby linked to autonomous flight in any way. Personally, I don't want my activities to be associated with or linked to autonomous flight in any way.
It's a little bit too late to think this way....or is it?

The best way to draw a distinction between the 2 activities is to completely divorce one from the other.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Bingo!
+1

KidEpoxy

agenda?
Just what is my agenda?
a) To get the TAM kicked outta out museum just because I hate everything AMA or modeling
or
b) To get folks to admit autonomous models are still models, and dont need to be thrown under the bus outta fearing the FAA



I'm just olde fashioned, I believe folks shouldnt have a double standard, so:
If folks say Autonomous is not modeling, then they are saying the autonomous TAM is not modeling.
If they say the autonomous TAM is indeed modeling, then Autonomous is modeling.

I havent presented a bias toward one or the other before this post.... although some folks have already guessed wrong as to the way I voted in this poll. I chose YES, to keep the TAM and treat our fellow modelers as fellow modelers, even our fellow modelers that play with the recreational autonomous stuff AMA is throwing under the bus.

..

hey Combat Pig,
it seems you chose No in this poll, do you feel post#1 was biased against your choice because I favor Yes,
or did I present the No option in a fair enough light?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

KE, I just needed to explain my "NO" opinion.
To me, it's not a question whether or not autonomous craft can be considered to be models...it's about whether or not we should accept them as part of our more "innocent" sport flying community.
In view of the FAA rumblings, I've got no use or desire for autonomous craft to be considered part of what I love to do.

So, yes, to hell with them, throw them under the bus if it means that I can preserve the right to fly my stuff as unfettered as I already do.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

That seems to be an overwhelming sentiment to justify most everyones position today.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

And so will the next guy take that position on what it is you do...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

And then we will wonder how we got to where we are.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

If being lumped in with a fringe group [way less than 1% of RC flyers] has brought on over 99% of the recent attention [and potential grief] that we're getting from Uncle Sam.....then what do your instincts tell you to do?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

What I do is equip my planes with up/down/left/right/engine kill control and hope for the best.

Where I get singled out is with noise and so I fly in a remote spot. I seperate what I do from the 99% who choose to fly more quietly 5 miles to the south at a club field. This way, what I choose to do doesn't bring them any grief from the public or local authorities.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Fire uncle Sam... let's get back to real personal responsibilities and reward everyone appropriately. If some goof causes some catastrophe make him pay dearly on the steps of the courthouse to serve as deterrent for the next goof to consider... simple when you get right down to it. As it stands now, a new law is invoked at the perpetrator and he is quietly dealt with behind the scenes... and the next goof steps right up... law or not. The law or rule has little effect on keeping goofs in check but to see the goofs head cut-off right after the guilty verdict with his judging peers present will send the message loud and clear.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

In the meantime, let the autonomous flight / video link guys have their fun whether it be for pleasure or money...but let them do it completely on their own out in the middle of nowhere with their own insurance.
Problem is that as the years go by, there are fewer and fewer "middle of nowheres" to go around.

KidEpoxy

well, thats what the UAV part of the sUAS regulations are for
so folks can still do non-modeling stuff (as long as they follow the rules for non-models)

Your opinion is that autonomous modeling is not modeling.
My opinion is that it is.
And thats ok, folks have different views and favor different paths for AMA to take.

But shouldnt the folks that say autonomous models are not part of the modeling hobby
treat the autonomous TAM the same as they treat all other autonomous modeling?
Shouldnt we (ama) treat the autonomous TAM the same as we treat the rest of autonomous aeromodeling?

Not you CP,
you and some others have made no attempt to promote a double standard:
You gave your opinion and the rationale behind it, you made no double standard exception to protect an autonomous model while condemning autonomous modeling. Unfortunately, others are trying to foster just that idea, to condemn autonomous modeling while commending autonomous models

Silent-AV8R

I'm wondering if the TAM had a metal prop?!!

To be honest I did not read the OP before voting. The poll is is little sly about how it is worded. The question really being asked is should the AMA shun Maynard Hill's accomplishment because he used an autonomous controlled airplane Most would answer that no. But that was not how the question was asked. As with most polls you can get the answer you want by asking the question in a particular manner.

cj_rumley

I don't see anything in sUAS ARC recommendations to indicate that nixing of autonomous control of MA is on Uncle's agenda. This is an AMA position, not FAA's (unless it came about after the ARC). At that it is stretch to attribute it to AMA - it was done by King Brown via having the insurance carrier put language in the liability policy excluding coverage for models with autonomous controls, not by action of the EC. It's Brown's gallant contribution to the war on terrorism, and had nothing to do with safety of navigation in the NAS.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

CJ, you don't think the idea of autonomous and video link controlled craft is frightening to the government agencies ?

Good old fashioned RC looks scary enough...threatening might be a better word. I think we should put as much distance as we can between our good old fashioned thumb & eyeball guided planes and all that other stuff capable of being flown OOS electronically.
Not because I'm a grumpy old man [GOM], but because it's so much easier to define what we can and can't do...and also what we are and aren't capable of doing with our planes.

It's a shame that it is coming down to this, but I think this is the time for the AMA draw a clean line that seperates "Us from Them" entirely. In the eyes of the government, it will show that we are a single focused group with a tight enough control on what we aren't allowed to do to allow the AMA continued autonomous control instead of bowing to more and more government intervention as the years go by.

cj_rumley

Possibly, but the way to deal with problems is to break them out from a 'mess' and deal with them separately. Right now the pressure is coming from FAA rather than a consortium of gummit agencies acting in concert, and their charter is protecting existing air traffic and persons/property on the surface. Stating standards for operating envelope (ala the AC, perhaps with some teeth) is sufficient to meet that objective - they don't need to tell us how. That's where I see proposed rules going too far, akin to requiring governors on autos to ensure they don't exceed speed limits. They don't require that and responsible people regulate their driving speed. Irresponsible people don't, and more regulation won't change that.
Chuck, it would make as much sense to me if regulations dictated that all MA must be painted neon pink to distinguish them from the other sUAS stuff as to hobble them with restrictions on technology application.
I certainly respect your view, but don't think that kind of separation is any more meaningful than the unresolved issue of what is a sporting gun that has been argued ad nauseum by NRA and the anti-gun lobby. It doesn't matter to the murder victim that his assailant used a legitimate gun. Regulation only affects responsible people, and it isn't with them where the perceived problem lies.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

cp, i kinda sorta want to agree with ya...
but, what the AMA does or does not do in regards to auto flight really will not matter to the majority of folks flying models, cause, they aint members anyway

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

True, but at least the AMA can "wash their hands of it" entirely. I think it would help define who we are in the eyes of govm't to completely divorce ourselves from any form of RC flying beyond "basic hand / eye RC".
It's too bad, but I think it's come down to cleaning up our image before TS ever HTF.

Silent-AV8R

From the Definition section in the ARC Recommendations:

cj_rumley

Having cited that same item in post 17 above with due attribution to an AMA source, I don't contest what it says. It doesn't say "no autonomous control" of MA. If the model is within LOS (required and defined elsewhere) and the operator can take control via R/C at will, it ain't autonomous, and that word does not appear in the definition of MA.

804

My Feedback: (1)

In case you wonder, I voted the same as you.
But what the heck does the inclusion of a relic of the past (TAM ) being in the museum full of other relics have to do with AMA's position
on this?

If I go to a Nascar museum, I'm likely to find an all steel, big-block V8 powered relic that is illegal for today's Nascar.
If I go the AMA (motorcycle) museum, I know I see several factory built, AMA approved (then) bikes illegal for use in racing today.
Indy Motor Speedway museum is chock full of racers they wouldn't let on the track today.

If nothing else, AMA can point to TAM as something we don't do.