ORIGINAL: J_R
I had a chance to talk to Dave Brown today about autonomous models. He does not much like the necessity of the new rule.
Well, I am in agreement with him. I don't much like it either.
[quote]
He said that it had become necessary because of the proliferation of UAVs commercially. The FCC is going to regulate all UAVs. It was his ascertain that the FAA will require transponders and flight plans on ALL UAV’s soon. Many of these commercial UAVs are smaller, the typical size of our models. This is not a safety issue.[quote]
Agreed it is certainly not a safety issue, so it follows that it has no place in the Safety Code. The FAA has made it clear that they need to regulate UAV's, and they see no need to regulate model airplanes. They have not admitted to not knowing the difference between a model airplane and a UAV. Arbitrarily limiting model airplanes so FAA can distinguish between them and UAV's distains their intelligence, in a way that I liken to the opinion of hunters held by the farmers that paint 'COW' on the side of their livestock during hunting season.
The terrorism issue is minor, in his opinion.
It was, however, the reason stated in the EC minutes for the rule change, and the prospect of terrorists using model airplanes was the topic of his Aug '02 column, no doubt the spark that got 'staff' motivated to bring it to the EC and please the boss.
He felt that no separate definition of autonomous is necessary. The definition that he used was that of a plane that takes off and goes to a point, or returns and lands, without input is autonomous.
Though not needed, his definition does help clarify what the EC meant. The TAM is clearly NOT autonomous by DB's definition, because it did not take off. An undercarriage is thus established as a necessary part of equipment allowing for autonomous operation.
[quote] When asked about the FMA type co-pilots, he said that they are not included in the definition, by definition, and if it had been the object to ban them, it would have been simple enough to write a rule with that intent.
[quote]
This definition, not included in the non-definition because definion is not required, is nonetheless particularly clarifying. Like the FMA-type co-pilots (whatever a FMA type copilot is, and whether there are any of that type available from other sources), the BTA autopilot that has been available from hobby suppliers for many years is not included in the definition (or non-definition), nor are controls based on position/attitude sensing by inertial platforms, GPS or any other means. As DB said, if it had been the object to ban them it would have been simple enough to write a rule with that intent.
I can see now that my disagreement with DB was to a substantial degree based on my misunderstanding of what they were actually banning, and not.
When asked about line-of-sight, he reiterated that the necessity of a transponder and flight plan over rode consideration of using that as the limiting factor.
It would interesting to hear his reasoning as to how a ban on autonomous controls obviates the necessity of a transponder and flight plan, while operation within LOS does not. I would not have thought FAA would require a transponder and flight plan for operation of a model thats operating space is restricted to within the view of the operator, and outside of the operating area of regulated aircraft.
His overall assessment was that 99.9% of existing UAVs are not models and 99.9% of models are not UAVs and the impact should be negligible on the AMA membership.
I had guessed about 3% of modelers would be affected, but my projection was unscientifically based on 3 of about 100 members of a club I belong to being engaged with autonomous models. One is a mentor to some engineering students involved in intercollegiate challenges and I included him, but the students aren't AMA members AFIAK, so they don't count. I've read in this forum that AMA does enough for education to justify their tax exemption by publishing a magazine. Anyway, by DB's estimate only about 170 AMA members would be affected. I guess from his lofty view of the larger scheme of things, these members are of little significance. Okay by me, I'm not one of them so it's no skin off my nose.
In the larger scheme of things, the FAA is concerned about sharing airspace with UAVs and the potential for accidents as more commercial UAV flights take place.
And here I thought we were okay because we have always avoided sharing airspace with FAA regulated aircraft, regardless of how our models were equipped. Something else in the larger scheme of things DB is aware of and I was not. Live and learn.
Thanks for posting this JR. Apparently I'm not as much in disagreement with DB as I thought I was. Good ol' Dave, always does what's best for us, not what we in our ignorance think we want.
Abe