Originally Posted by
jofunk
Since we all know what some people are doing with flying platforms is not what we do as model airplane hobbyist, what would be the best definition of a drone to separate them from model airplanes? Mine would be: Any unmanned aircraft that operates to deliver or retrieve a physical object and or record, collect or transmit outside data. Where are the loopholes and snags in this definition? I can see one in a model airplane that drops dummy ordinance for show,or taping your Go Pro camera to your canopy. I say "outside data" to exclude operation signal and telemetry. It seems we are lumped in with the drones to some extent already but it would be interesting to see a drone definition that hits the nail on the head and clearly separates model airplanes from drones.
In designating an aircraft a "drone", the airframe type does not matter - capability does. This applies across all airframe platforms.
Drone definition:
1) Any aircraft capable of autonomous flight (i.e. with no user input). Examples:
a) Able to maintain a constant position in space, either by hovering or by circling over a fixed point
b) Able to navigate to a specific point or "waypoint"
c) Able to navigate back to the point of origination - "fly home feature"
d) Flight by orientation to the user vs. aircraft orientation - i.e. right, left, fore and aft always related to position of the operator
2) Any aircraft able to be flown using only visual input from cameras carried aboard the aircraft. The simplest test here would be a video downlink. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information.
3) Any aircraft able to be flown using flight data input from equipment carried aboard the aircraft. In essence, flying "IFR" using flight data input from the aircraft. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information or attitude reference information.
These definitions should apply to the capabilities of the airframe, not the use. For instance, "my aircraft can do all this but I only operate LOS" does not "un-define" the drone designation.
These definitions allow an airframe and/or equipment to be immediately recognized and regulated at point of manufacture and point of sale. Equipment would be any navigation/autonomous flight or camera equipment that allows the above performance capabilities. No, this does not include rate or heading hold gyros used for stability augmentation. There is a distinct difference between stability augmentation and autonomous flight capability.
I would like for the AMA to draw these distinctions immediately as a way to separate model aviation as it has existed from the "drone threat" that is perceived by the FAA.
I am not calling for a ban on these "drones" and wish them well, but they can and should fight their own battles. It is a battle "traditional modelers", for lack of a better word have no knowledge, no desire, and respectfully no responsibility to fight.
Bryan