KidEpoxy

Simple y/n regarding an autonomous recreational craft,
what you guys think on the matter?


Yes,
the many disciplines of the aeromodelling hobby do include recreational noncommercial Autonomous modeling. As such craft are just another method of controlling the model, there is no need to declare those model airctaft to somehow not be models. Therefor, the TAM autonomous model belongs in the model aircraft museum run by the AMA.

or

No,
autonomous craft are not to be considered aeromodels nor model aircraft. That particular method of controling a craft, that would be considered a model under non-autonomous control, defines the craft as Non-Model by virtue of control alone. Autonomous recreational noncommercial flight is not in any way part of the aeromodelling hobby, nor are any such craft connected to the aeomodelling hobby or Model Aircraft. Therefor the TAM autonomous craft should be removed from the AMA museum because it is in now way a model or aeromodelling.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

See KE, this semantics thing, just when you think it doesn't matter.....
Now Webster states it, not me:
Autonomous: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole...
Maybe you mean semi-autonomous....

h

If I might add; what is the purpose of the poll? You present a structured question but it does not allow for new ideas or thoughts to be explored. Do you really believe that every poster here possesses a thorough understanding of the subject and can respond appropriately? If you are attempting to capture new ideas or thoughts from the respondent then the poll is rather poor, your question should be non-structured. Statistically the results will be meaningless, it looks simple, yet you are not asking the question in a neutral manner, that is you seem to be leading respondents toward a biased response.

And my discussions are aimed at radio controlled aircraft, not FF, not rubber powered, etc.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Per the AMA Safety Code
Now strictly interpreted, that could imply that there may be no autonomous flight permitted. Now, in reality, where is the line between autonomous and operator controlled drawn? Do the flight stabilization systems provided with the Nexstar, or the FMA Co-pilot systems constitute autonomous flight, since they take over to recover the plane if the pilot provides no input for some predetermined time?

I must also ask if "free flight" constitutes "autonomous" flight.

I therefore default back to the interpretation that just because a model is CAPABLE of autonomous flight, the ability of the operator to override the autonomous flight system at any time constitutes operator control, and is therefore permitted under the AMA safety code.

The second part of the question, using this determination to try to make a case that the TAM-5 should be removed from the AMA museum is simply ludicrous and mean spirited. What Maynard Hill and company accomplished was truly amazing, given the technology of the time. There was FAR more to developement of that model than simply autonomous flight. And since the plane was launched from Canada, landed in Ireland, and flew primarily in International airspace, the AMA safety code didn't apply. And if I remember correctly, the flight was conducted with the full knowledge of the air traffic control authorities, data was provided regarding postion, and the model was set up to surrender control to a ground operator as soon as it detected a signal.

Brad

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Well put Brad.
+1

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Why keep trying to push the edge of the envelope? It it flys on a preprogrammed electronic guidance generated profile it's autonomous.

If it requires hands on the stick and eyes on the plane it's not.

Free flight, without benefit of an electronic guidance system, is in a class of it's own. Ya'll already know what's right and wrong but you continue to try and define a word like "sex'. Webster's still works and saves all that time and effort. Are you guys all lacking so little else to do in life?

ira d

I voted yes however if you over fly areas other than you would using normal radio control IMO it may be right not consider you in the samelight as someone flying
by line of sight only.

KidEpoxy

For the folks hung up on the definition of 'autonomous' ,
since we are talking about the AMA's museum having/not-having autonomous craft,
we should use AMA's definitions:



its really a simple poll as to if AMA's model museum should include the Autonomous TAM:
Why should it?
Because the autonomous TAM is a model and part of the aeromodelling hobby,
or perhaps why it shouldnt is because the autonomous TAM is not a model nor part of the hobby

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

You miss the point of this poll and thread. It is to set up a protest of and to nit-pick the AMA and the AMA museum for an exhibit the OP doesn't think should be there.

KidEpoxy

Hook
interesting,
Biased in which direction? That the autonomous TAM is a recreational model, or that the autonomous TAM is not a recreational model?

..

also,
I asked here because I want to know what the folks here think.
If I wanted to know the AMA party line on it I would use the ASKAMA webbie or drive across town to ask my DVP in person what AMA says. I already know what the AMA has said about autonomous, and I already know what the AMA is doing with the TAM,
what I am asking here is which folks here prefer

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I'm against having a model plane fly a preprogrammed route that leaves the pilot's field of view, or a route that flies outside the boundaries of the model airfield.
If a guy wants to fly his autonomous plane within the boundaries of the field, then that's OK.
Free flight planes......has anyone ever seen a A class [or larger] plane flown in proximity to a populated area? This category seems to be pretty well self regulated already with responsible flyers.
Maynard Hill slipped his autonomous effort in "under the radar". It was a neat accomplishment, thankfully none of his planes did any harm and it's a done deal. Let's just leave it at that.
Those planes probably were less likely to do harm than if I fired off a few .22 rounds into the sky [which is not to say that I think it's OK to fire my rifle aimed at Jupiter]..

cj_rumley

Yup, that's everything that needs to be said about the issue.

804

My Feedback: (1)

What issue?

KidEpoxy

+1


A person either feels the autonomous TAM is aeromodelling, or feels the autonomous TAM aint aeromodelling.
All we are doing here is getting a quick tally of those that respond one way or the other.

Current Tally:
7 Yes it is
11 no it aint

cj_rumley

"Autonomous radio controlled model airplane" is an oxymoron. Take the R/C receiver out of TAM and then it would be autonomous, as would be any other R/C airplane with any sort of "flight stabilization system" when the control link is broken, intentionally or otherwise. TAM was radio controlled when the operator chose to provide control inputs. My model airplanes are radio controlled when I choose to provide control inputs. I don't intentionally fly BLOS, though - that makes me a better AMA member than Maynard Hill. Good thing Maynard's accomplishment is recognized with a TAM in the Smithsonian. It isn't appropriate for the National MA Museum in Muncie.

KidEpoxy

Again,
the definition of 'Autonomous' came from AMA/ Ilona.
Despite my efforts at getting a more precise definition, what I posted is what we have to work with.
If you wish to take up the the autonomous definition questions of mine on the AMA board that are still unanswered
then I wish you luck.

This thread is not about trying to redefine Autonomous as something other than what AMA has defined it as.

bogbeagle

quote:

The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by
corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. First-Person View (FPV) flying may only be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in
AMA Document #550.


I interpret this as meaning that semi-autonomous flight IS allowed.

If I provide my aircraft with appropriate technology, such that it can fly independently of direct control inputs, I surely have ensured that it is "controlled by me during its entire flight". Of course, it would still have to stay within visual range.

cj_rumley

OK, I'll stick with AMA's definitions, and won't need to consider "autonomous" whether per AMA's peculiar lexicography or what it means in the rest of the world.

The latest definition of model aircraft that I can attribute to AMA was provided to the sUAS ARC by AMAGov.

Clearly TAM is not a model aircraft according to AMA, and so not appropriate in AMA's museum of MA.

The TAM that actually flew across the Atlantic should be in the Smithsonian in place of the backup model now in their possession.

Erich_F

Here's what I don't understand: Why does the control system of a particular model dictate if it's a hobby or not? Hobbies come in all shapes and forms, electronics, sizes, etc. All I see here is a bunch of folks that either don't understand or maybe fear what they don't know - autonomous flight control systems.

Didn't you old guys go through this same process when RC came about? All the CL and FF veterans poo-pooed RC and said it wasn't true aeromodelling either?

You all are stuck on defining autonomous for some stupid reason, when it looks to me like you need to define what a model is, and what a hobby is.

If I want to spend my own money on building a UAV, and enjoy operating it for recreational purposes only, then that is a obviously hobby of mine - nevermind what you think or not. Considering that it is an aircraft, it classifies as an "aero hobby". Whether it's a model or not can be debated. I'm somewhat under the impression that a model is a reproduction in scale of some larger version of a particular thing. However, following that strict definition, most of the planes and helicopters we fly in RC are not really models, either. So, those of you building ugly stick and sport "models" aren't true "aeromodellers" either, since those planes aren't models of anything in full scale. Of course, that would be as absurd as saying that someone building and flying UAVs for recreational purposes is not a hobby. There are plenty of folks on here that are self-righteous enough to declare whether someone's activities are hobbies or not.

So, there is a new direction for this debate. Stop arguing the definition of autonomous (since it's pretty obvious to more reasonable folks) and agree on a definition of what a hobby is and a model is.

cj_rumley

Some very good points, Erich.

The folks involved in making safety rules and regulations could be a lot more effective if they would give due to credit to us for on average having some measure of good sense and responsibility. Specifically, where limits are necessary state them and don't micromanage how they are to be met. Examples of what I'm talking of abound in the sUAS ARC recommendations, and AMA SC as well. Take the example of staying within the boundaries of the flying site. Most of us would agree that is a reasonable constraint on our operations in the interest of safety, and have and will continue to find ways to abide by it. We don't need the rule makers giving us speed limits, restrictions on power plant types, disallowing use of 'autonomous' controls they cannot define, or licensing of operators to meet the safety objective being addressed. I belong to two clubs that have been around for more than 25 years. I'm aware of 1 incident at each club flying site where a model has gone down out of bounds. Also, I notice "See and Avoid" has been incorporated in the AMA SC (with supporting reference doc) with some fanfare, doubtless because it is a buzz word with FAA and the 1:1 scale crowd. I don't know of a vertebrate species that doesn't intuitively understand the concept and apply it in practice, and suspect this pretty much universal amongst lower species as well. Anybody that doesn't understand it surely wouldn't be capable of reading and comprehending the rule anyway. And I for one would find it hard to to respect rules made up by folks working for FAA and AMA that have struggled unsuccessfully for the last couple of years trying to figure what a model airplane is.

ira d

I dont accept that neither the AMA or the FAA can figure out what a model is, Theyknow very well what a model is and all this talk about trying to define what a model is IMO
is just blowing smoke.

Erich_F

All this talk about defining "autonomous" is even more so.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball.

KidEpoxy

but that is why this thread is a simple yes/no,
not a committee on redefining autonomous as other than what the AMA has laid down a couple months ago.

By just using AMA's definition (its AMA's museum)
as applied to the TAM craft that navigated itself across the atlantic from point Canada to point UK,
either
Yes we do recognize the TAM as an autonomous recreational hobby aeromodel and belonging in the AMA model museum,
or
No we dont recognized the autonomous craft TAM as a recreational hobby model because the hobby dont include autonomous craftses


..

current tally
15:19
not a landslide in either direction, seems folks have mixed feelings on this

804

My Feedback: (1)

I really don't think whether the TAM was a "recreational hobby model' or not should determine its inclusion in the museum.
Museums are full of relics and curiosities that may or may not have relevance to today's norms.
Even a WWII target drone would be a worthwhile addition, due to its heritage, even tho obviously not a hobby model.
The TAM belongs because of its creator.

Silent-AV8R

I do not think that autonomous aircraft as we know them today are models, and it seems the AMA and FAA hold that opinion as well.

Having said that, TAM is perfectly fine to have in the AMA museum and the Smithsonian since it was a landmark achievement using a model aircraft. It showed the value of modelers to the aviation community and was a pioneering achievement. I see no good reason to try to diminish that achievement by trying to say it does not belong in the AMA museum.

So to clarify my vote -
NO - autonomous aircraft are not models
YES - TAM deserves to be in the AMA Museum

Erich_F

AV8R,

I respect your opinion, but could you please explain how the control system used on a given aircraft makes it a model or not? I can take any model you have on your shelves and put an autopilot in it tomorrow. Does doing that suddenly make your aircraft an "unmodel"? I could go to the extreme side and say that unless there's a full scale subject to the RC aircraft, it cannot be called a model. That eliminates about 80% of the RC "models" on the market. Does the intent of use dictate whether it's a model or not? Recreational or commercial? Private or public? Most amateur-built autonomous aircraft are built with private recreational use intended. That means a model UAV, to me.

Erich