ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
The highlighted area is what I will comment on. That is the reason being provided for new rules and regulations. However, that has not really been much of an issue with the exception of a few small UAVs that were flown by a couple of companies and some police departments. The FAA slapped them down relatively quickly.
The real reason was and is to open up airspace for commercial UAV use. The previous regulations prohibited their use in open airspace. There's a alot of "talk" about how UAV's will require outside observers and remain with certain distances of the operators but that is far from the truth or how they will end up being used. You can argue now but the truth will be far different from what is now anticipated by modelers.
So much of what is being stated as reasons for rule development and how stuff will be used is pure smokescreen. Yes, many sUAS will be limited to relkativel small COA's but quite a few will be able to operate pretty much unrestricted and at fairly long distances from the base of ops without being further attended by observing eyes. many of you are believing absolutely everything that is coming from semi official sources. You might want to check within the sUAS industry to learn what is really being sought, and how friendly the FAA is within the more prominent sUAS and HALE operational groups. Everything is about opening up airspace and defining what an sUAS is and the equipment requirements on a world wide scale. Bottom line it's all about money, with lots of $$ signs.
Kid;
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models "we not covered under FAA regulations", which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.