ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
ORIGINAL: 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.
From the Definition section in the ARC Recommendations:
Model Aircraft: A sUAS used by hobbyists and flown within visual line-of-sight under
direct control from the pilot, which can navigate the airspace, and which is manufactured or
assembled, and operated for the purposes of sport, recreation and/or competition.
My quote was from the ARC Recommendations as published by the FAA. ''Direct Control'' means just that, direct control. Autonomous flight is not under direct control.
Perhaps this helps, it is from later in the ARC Recommendations but mentions models:
9.3 Group I Additional Operational Capabilities
In addition to the operational capabilities outlined in Section 7 of this regulation the following capabilities are required:
(1) Manual Flight Control: Group I SUAS must be capable of only manual flight control, ensuring that PIC control inputs made in the Control Station are translated
directly into corresponding control surface positions.
RATIONALE: The idea for Group I aircraft were that they are operated like a Model Aircraft for compensation and hire. Model Aircraft are not
generally operated in any other manner than manual flight control. Such a system is likely to be less complex and thus easier for a non-license PIC
to operate.
For operations requiring other than manual flight control (i.e., auto flight management) would thus have to be operated as Group II.
This seems very clear to me that as far as the FAA is concerned a model is under direct manual control.
It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to me that ARC recommendations intended for other classes of sUAS apply to MA. AMA provided the definition of MA, and AMA does allow 'flight stabilization systems' that translate aircraft attitude 'directly into corresponding control surface positions.' Obviously AMA had some problems defining 'autonomous' and it seems likely that is why the terminology has been dropped from prior versions of the AMA SC. If it takes pages of caveats and exceptions to explain and still falls short of conveying intent, maybe it isn't worth saying except to provide for the welfare of lawyers that charge a substantial hourly rate to interpret what it tries to say. It appears that is what AMA has decided, and not all clear that your interpretation is what FAA heard.
One interpretation would be that the {red text} is necessary in order to have "failsafe" settings for loss of signal.