J_R

Mr. Hal DeBolt made the following posts in another thread where they got buried. The EC meeting is approaching and it deserves attention, IMHO.

Post 1
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...840&tostyle=tm

Hi ya'll,
Not a word here refers to finances! or new buildings!
This is more close to home and something ya'll can take action with.
A long standing duty of AMA is to promote model aviation? One manner is NOT TO restrict
progress? This factor has brought all the goodies and goodness we have today? There is
no reason for restrictions?
POINT IS> with recent changes in the safety code a major restriction has been made when
near thw last portion of the R/C section it says " Autonomous flight of model aircraft is not
allowed"
Recognizing one reason for this a modification to that rule has been made and submitted to
the AMA for consideration. The change reads as follows>
" Any model aircraft using autonmous flight shall operate within the line of sight only and will
also have a redundent 72 mhz system operating on board"
HELP IS ASKED>
If you agree with change PLEASE take a moment to advise you DVP and copy to headquarters
if you can.
Many thanks, it will help us all!

Hal deBolt AMA 1520

Post 2
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...294&tostyle=tm

Hi ya/ll,
I don't know how to say it except that RCU sure knows how to screw up! I just spent 45 min.
replying to your expressions,
When asked, RCU did not use that post, the effort disappeared! Frankly I do not have time
to try once more or twice or three times?
Part of the reply can be found elsewhere on this Forum under Autnomous models.
Otherwise in short> AMA would noit approve publishing a report of one modelers autonomous flight with Spread Spectrum R/C
Sure sorry for the screw up!

Hal deBolt

Post 3
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...338&tostyle=tm

Me again,
I shoulkd explain some, in short at least>
My concern was generated by the Model Aviation rejection of a report of a local modelers
accomplishments which envolved autonmous flight and Spread Spectrum R/C.
The AMA president created the rejection envolving autonomous flight in spite of his action
with Maynard's amazing flight.
Spread Spectrum report was rejected by the frequency chairman saying operation experience
was needed when that is what the report describes.
Bottom line seems to be an underlying reason for the rejection not undertood.
Best of all> Wil Byers publishs a fine juornal "Quiet Flyer" The June issue is scheduled to
presnt my report, at least Wil is not intimedated!
Hey, this sounds "AMA negative", not meant so, AMA is our life blood!
Good luck,

Hal deBolt

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Given the definition of autonomouas as: 1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent:

Does a free-flight model count as autonomous ?

Gordon

abel_pranger

Gordon-
Of course it does.
Now look at what Hal DeBolt is proposing: " Any model aircraft using autonmous flight shall operate within the line of sight only and will
also have a redundent 72 mhz system operating on board." Any inclusive enough for you?
When the flim-flam was presented to the EC at the midnight hour for inclusion in the 2004 Safety Code, at least some of the VP's that voted for it thought it applied to R/C models only. After the EC meeting and the vote approving the motion, the wording of it was changed to be inclusive of all model aircraft, unambiguously. The whole thing has been a smoke-and-mirrors act, and the principal paranoid behind it all is in a state of denial.
Der Brown said at the last EC meeting that making the ban on autonomous operation just go away is the best option. This time he got it right.

Abel

J_R

Apparently, Mr. DeBolt has had considerable discussion with those some at AMA. I have sent him a PM in hopes that he can shed fruther light on this issue. I bet he has had discussions about FF being autonomous and better knows the AMA position.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

My vote's is for Hal.....he's a saint in our hobby and they had better listen! OR ELSE!!!!!!

Jerry

FHHuber

You can resolve the "atonomous" ve Free Flight issue by including a definition for the purpose of the rules... EG:

Autonomous flight: A model with an on board control systen which attempts to follow a pre-programmed sequence of maneuvers, using GPS or other navigation systems to be able to fly from ne p[oint to another and return t origin, or to a programmed landing destination.

Free flight:: A model which has at the most a timed dethermalizer device to reconfigure that plane to help prevent its loss. With no means of proprogramming any destinations or of control from the ground after launch.

(some [:'(]lawyer[:'(] can do a better job writing them....)

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Would be interested to hear it, since the above proposal does seem to indicate that free flight models will have to have a 72 MHz radio control system on board ! [X(] I guess the suggestion does not say anything about the R/C system being turned on, or connected to anything, so you could still have a free flight model under these rules if you just used the RC system as ballast... the fact that it is not used does make it redundant which meets that part of the definition!

I think some people really need to think about the wording of their proposals before trying to push them through... otherwise the replacement wording is just as bad as the original wording that it is intended to replace.

Gordon

Hal deBolt

Hi ya'll,
It seems I have struck a nerve by asking for help with my recent
exoeriences with AMA people. Your support is greatly appreciated and
would hope a few minutes to let the director know would also help.
You ask and I will give the experience as I have found it. There are
as you guessed several instances.
First editor Bob Hunt simply will not accept anything which I offer, for what reason he has never said.
I felt the report you will find in a coming issue of "Quiet Flyer" belonged
where all AMA members could see what one ambitoius member had
accomplished so successfully, that is in Model Aviation.
I spent about a year trying to revise or what ever so that it would suit
AMA to no avail. Understand this Dave Jones report tells of his success
with autonomous flight using Spread Spectrum R/C.
In spite of the world wide attention to autonomous flight Maynard's spectactular flight created and by participation in that flight by AMA
president I was informed it was not to be broadcast. The fact that
another model airplane is flying autonomously should not be told.
The objection stated was that autonomously a model can fly most
anywhere as Maynard's did. My answer to that was the rule change
proposal saying the craft must remain in sight.
That change has been effectively bypassed so far ( I keep trying!)
Dave Jones has perfected a Spread Spectrum R/C system that has passed all possible tests with flying colors.
Do you know what Spread Spectrum is? Unless privy I doubt if you would. This is as important advancement to R/C as was reed multi and/or
proportional. It seems important that ALL should know what it is before it
is marketed which may be soon. \
The coming rep[ort will tell you what this is but in so doing not one detail
of its operation is given. Only the info for you to understand its operation
is told.
Mr Hunt was told the SS report would have to be approved by the frequency committee for publication. Later I was toild that the AMA
technical representative would write the report, my effort was not good
enough?
The frequency committee's resolution of Spread Spectrum was that there
were details of it's operation (electronics etc.) which needed to be resolved. These are manufacturers concerns, have nothing to do with
how the system operates or the goodness it supplies.
For the above the committee would not approve my description.
I am probably cutting my own throat by putting all this in a report but
if that would be such for one who has spent many, many years serving
the AMA so be it.
Know that of many things, the exsistance of today's styles of pylon
racing and p attern competition are a result of my (and others with me) efforts. I do not regret spending so much time and effort in the past, but
I do now regret the seemingly lack of respect for me and my efforts.
Hows zat? Nuff sed?
I expect some AMA officials will read this, if so I would appreciate their
thoughts, can be private via my Email, OK?

Hal [email protected]

CafeenMan

Hal - Just a tip for you. I've had posts disappear too. If I'm planning on typing a long post, then I type it into notepad and then copy it to RCU. That way if it gets lost for whatever reason, I can just try again.

- Paul

J_R

It seems pretty obvious that the AMA has not, in fact, included FF in the definition as being able to “allow for autonomous flight”. FF contests continue to be sanctioned. Apparently, some definition, other than one from a dictionary has been developed to suit the rule. The rule has been in effect for 4 months now, and still there is no published AMA definition, or clarification that I have seen. At the same time, it is obvious that a radio controlled aircraft is not autonomous.

Somewhere along the way, the wording of the rule was changed, as Able pointed out. What does “allow for autonomous flight” mean? How was the wording of a motion passed by the EC changed, without subsequent approval by the EC, and included in the Safety Code?

The EC has GOT to address the Safety Code, as a whole. It has become a document that even a lawyer can not decipher. Each rule should be able to stand on it's own so that the average AMA member can understand it.

Hossfly

Bold added to above quote.

Glad to see someone picking up this battle. The big problem in AMA is the bureaucracy that accepts mediocrity as the norm.

Just take a look at the Safety Code. It is divided into section of General, Radio Control, Free Flight, etc. That is good.

Now look at the definition of a model aircraft: The entire definition and the restriction on autonomous flight is BURIED in one single paragraph, General (7), in which the topic sentence is referenced to pyrotechnics. What a crock of garbage for a multi-million dollar organization to publish, especially in reference to the unit's main Safety issues.
Absolutely perfect English structure may never be attained, yet in supposedly important documents such as the Safety Code, I challenge any individual person associated with this specific document as being either intimidated by his group, simply uninterested in the group's performance, downright ignorant of basic grammatical functions, or at worst case fully intending that said document be completely ambiguous. In the latter case, success has been accomplished.

J_R

Hi Mr. deBolt

Can you give us any insight into why this rule was necessary? Since both FF and RC seem to be eliminated in whatever definition has been developed, if you have knowledge of it, we would find it interesting. How do they justify allowing FF currently?

I know that some guys near me, in San Diego, had been developing a solar powered glider for attempts on Maynard's altitude and distance records. As I understand, the plane is autonomous. All work on it has ceased since the new rule was put in place.

Is it the intention of the AMA to have a new class of waivers for autonomous flight, or is it the end of them before they got started?

I hope you have some of the answers to the questions many of us have.

Hal deBolt

Hi ya'll.
Seems I have been called back?
Question asked> what is autonomous fl;ight? As understood that would be
a craft in flight controlled by an onboard system to fly in a specific manner.
This could be also controlled by R/C and/or other means.
Autonomous does not specify the type or style of the control.
Thus any sort of control system could be used autonomously.
The system could be electroic, mechaical, radio or any other method
which dictates the path the craft will follow, which includes aerodynamics.
The aerodynamic aspect means EVERY CRAFT in flight is doing so
autonomously. Stability factors of a design in reality are controls?
In spite of the fact that as the rule was written it covers a multitude of
aircraft the objective was obvious. Ban the flight of model aircraft beyond
the sight of the owner-pilot., Problem became the rule bans ALL autonomoos flight which seems most unnecessary and places a undesired
restriction on model aviation development and progress.
Perhaps it was an error to use the word autonomous with it's broad meaning, another description would have been better?
It does seem the rules makers never considered the free flight potential.
They quite normally fly out of sight and are programed to do so. While
their flight path and actual distination is not accurate it is in a precise direction.
AMA has a 55 lb weight limit? 40 lbs of modern explosive can do considerable damage? How about a 55 lb explosive loaded free flight
set lose with much fuel?
Hey, wait a minute! I am giving the bad guys ideas? Poibt is if desired
it is not hard to conjure up all sorts of ways to do bad and there are not
enough rules in the whole world to cover it all!
Perhaps the AMA would so well to forget the rest of the world and just
concentrate on our model aviation?
Hows zat?

Hal deBolt

Hal deBolt

Hi Horace,
Seems you have been with AMA doings about as I have been. so it is
good to see your 2 cents thrown in.
In these discussions it sounds like some are privy to the meeting in which
this autonomous rule was created.
Their description of what happened, if true. makes one wonder about the
officials we now have running things for us.
Of course I read your input here but suspect there could be much more.
If desired I would enjoy any thoughts or knowledge privately as could
be via Email.
Would be pleased to hear from you, OK?

Hal [email protected]

J_R

I can remember attending a QSSA meet over 10 years ago where a guy with a video camera in the nose was flying beyond sight. It sure is not clear that this rises to the level of autonomous flight by the AMA, but, who knows? It might be. On the other hand, it does seem to be limited by the restriction of unaided site. In any case, it's old technology.

Maybe the EC should pass a Safety Rule that simply says that terriorist weapons are not covered by AMA insurance.

Although there is talk of a waiver system, six months after this rule was passed it is still talk. Maybe it should have been thought through before the rule was passed.

Maybe it's time to revoke the rule and think about it, until something the AMA can explain can be put in place that at least makes sense.

Jim Thomerson

I'm being somewhat jovial here. There are free flight models which start spinning their propellers after they are launched, turn off their own engine, change their wing and tail incidence, sometimes several times, drop wing flaps or unfold wings, etc. etc. However, in free flight competition the flight is over and timing stops when the airplane goes out of sight. so what it does out of sight is unofficial . No problem!

Jim

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

" Any model aircraft using autonmous flight shall operate within the line of sight only and will
also have a redundent 72 mhz system operating on board"

I hate to nit pick, but this would mean I couldn't use the ham frequencies in this case?
Also, does redundent in this case mean two radios systems? If not, a 72 MHz system is not redundant to an autonomous system.

FYI, Maynards plane used a 6 meter radio for take off and landing as 6 meters is a legal frequency on both sides of the pond!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

It is exactly this sort of hair splitting that will destroy the AMA and it's clubs. The 'concept' needs to be "fixed" and then communicated, which has not and probably will not ever happen.

the troll

Actually a case can be argued that the so called “hair splitting” is exactly what perpetuates the AMA and therefore its clubs.

The letter of rules and laws can be followed but yet the spirit denied...unfortunately the English language provides no relief.

The answer is to hold free people accountable for the results of their actions...not to dictate intelligence... Doesn't provide relief from those incapable or indifferent to learning/understanding what actions is correct and just. In other words…a fellow that desires to build/use an autonomous airplane that has the potential to harm someone or damage someone’s property is the same guy that will ignore the rule anyway. The only thing a rule is good for is to prescribe punishment…The punishment in this case would be no coverage for those injured…HMMMM….why do we choose to limit ourselves?

Hal deBolt

Hi ya'll,
Update>
I believe there is a council meeting this week, hopefully my action is
in time, OK?
I finally found that Don Lowe is chairman of the safety code committee
I was able to explain our thinking to him. His reply was a repition of
the president;s political hogwash (my opinion, no reflection on him)
In the end I was able to submit a rule change to the committee as follows>

From the safety code general section item #7
Remove any and all reference to autonomous flight.

In the safety code R/C section insert the following rule>

Any and all aircraft flying with autonomous control must remain within
line of sight, at no further distance.
Such aircraft will have a redundent R/C system seperate from the primary system.

The above was submitted and a reply from the chairman simply said>
A model airplane is flown within sight which defines its relation to a
AUV which may be flown beyond sight.

Would believe we have done our part, it is now up to AMA for action.
Hopefully the coming meeting will create news,
If possible quickly, if you desire, give your particular AMA vice president
your opinion on this matter, his duty is to speak for you?
Hows zat?

Hal deBolt

J_R

Hi Mr. deBolt

An observation/question. It appears from your comment that Don Lowe is saying that a model is defined as something that is not flown beyond sight, and fruther, the definition of an autonomous aircraft will be defined as an aircraft that can be flown beyond sight.

If that is the case, is there any reason that the requirement of a redundant RC system has any place in the rules? What affect, if any, does this have on FF? Is the AMA position that FF somehow is not autonomous, and that flying an aircraft out of sight is acceptable for a FF model(although timing would stop)?

Will some type of waiver system be put in place so that the existing records that might require an autonomous aircraft to fly beyond unaided sight being addressed?

The EC needs to get it right this time, even if it means discussion should continue past this weekends meeting, IMHO.

JR

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

That is right and it is an approach that seems to be missing in 'our' mad rush to codify everything in modeling.

Sport_Pilot

I thought this was all based on some regulations the FCC is writing? That the FCC will be regulating RPV's that are not flown past your line of sight. Saying that the model is autonomous really doesn't have anything to do with it as models that are flown by an onboard video camera will also be regulated. I think maybe we should petition the FCC so that smaller models may still be used to break records, fly autonomous, not be regulated by the FAA, and still covered by the AMA, if only by a waiver.

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

Good points. However, I don't believe the FCC cares about this but the FAA might. RPV's would fall under the FAA.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Odd, I thought I saw that the HSA triggered this mess by asking a simple question of the FAA who forwarded it to the AMA. We all know the AMA can not do ANYTHING with simplicity!