mongo-

I hope somebody is taking notes to ensure the EC gets their redefinition of 'autonomous' straight. The definition needs to make clear the distinction between limits (not autonomous) which are not control (autonomous, if active), include correction for wind direction and vertical perturbations (autonomous) but exclude self-correction by aerodynamic means, for minor perturbations in the atmosphere (passive control, ergo not autonomous).
The flying-field neighbor that is distraught over the perception that your models are terrorist weapons needs to be assured they are not because they are not autonomous, and the precise meaning of that term as must be clearly conveyed to him/her. There is apparently some work yet to be done to resolve differences in interpretation as exist between you and Roger over categorizing built in aerodynamic control as truly control in the same sense as an electronic gyro, and as a follow-on issue, whether incorporation of an electronic gyro in the model aircraft itself makes it autonomous. Certainly inputs from several thousands of other AMA members are bound to turn up answers to these questions, and the required re-definition of autonomous will soon be polished up and promulgated to members so they will understand the new provisions in the Official Academy of Model Aeronautics National Safety Code, and ensure they are in compliance with it.

Abel