RCU Forums - View Single Post - Autonomous Flight, by Hal DeBolt
View Single Post
Old 04-16-2004, 10:07 AM
  #11  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Autonomous Flight, by Hal DeBolt

ORIGINAL: J_R

It seems pretty obvious that the AMA has not, in fact, included FF in the definition as being able to “allow for autonomous flight”. FF contests continue to be sanctioned. Apparently, some definition, other than one from a dictionary has been developed to suit the rule. The rule has been in effect for 4 months now, and still there is no published AMA definition, or clarification that I have seen. At the same time, it is obvious that a radio controlled aircraft is not autonomous.

Somewhere along the way, the wording of the rule was changed, as Able pointed out. What does “allow for autonomous flight” mean? How was the wording of a motion passed by the EC changed, without subsequent approval by the EC, and included in the Safety Code?

The EC has GOT to address the Safety Code, as a whole. It has become a document that even a lawyer can not decipher. Each rule should be able to stand on it's own so that the average AMA member can understand it.
Bold added to above quote.

Glad to see someone picking up this battle. The big problem in AMA is the bureaucracy that accepts mediocrity as the norm.

Just take a look at the Safety Code. It is divided into section of General, Radio Control, Free Flight, etc. That is good.

Now look at the definition of a model aircraft: The entire definition and the restriction on autonomous flight is BURIED in one single paragraph, General (7), in which the topic sentence is referenced to pyrotechnics. What a crock of garbage for a multi-million dollar organization to publish, especially in reference to the unit's main Safety issues.
Absolutely perfect English structure may never be attained, yet in supposedly important documents such as the Safety Code, I challenge any individual person associated with this specific document as being either intimidated by his group, simply uninterested in the group's performance, downright ignorant of basic grammatical functions, or at worst case fully intending that said document be completely ambiguous. In the latter case, success has been accomplished.