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. He stated that this was an effort to define what a model is and what it is not. 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. The terrorism issue is minor, in his opinion. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I got the distinct impression that “staff” had come to the EC with this, as opposed to DB causing it to be brought before the EC.
As an aside , when asked about eyeglasses being an issue in the rule requiring unenhanced visual contact, he said glasses were corrected vision, not enhanced vision.
JR
I haven't posted in this section of the forum before; I've tried following the different threads in order to try and understand where our hobby is going, but it gets too political for me most of the time. I don't doubt the necessity of rules, regulation, and their interpretation, I think there has to be a certain amount of order and consistency. I don't really know where I am going with these thoughts, so I'll address some thoughts from the above, and from these other posts.
I don't know what the "new rule" states, regarding autonomous models, but it sounds like before long, all models will have to have some sort of tracking mechanism on board. Would a model aircraft, using the traditional meaning, that has an on-board video system that enabled the operator of said model to fly it beyond his "normal" visual limits, or out of his direct line of sight, then be classified as an UAV? How about the limited range of our transmitter/receiver system as a determinant of what is a model and what is an UAV? What about flight altitude? I can't see models as much of a threat to FAA controlled aviation when we rarely fly more than a couple of hundred feet high and within a fairly restricted boundary, this in itself seems a good separation of what is a model vs. an UAV. At most that could be handled in the same manner as model rockets have been for years, with FAA waivers into controlled airspace and areas specified on aeronautical maps.
I'd probably think of other scenarios given time. I just worry that regulation of this sort will hurt the hobby by driving some people away, and discouraging others from starting. Most of us just want to buzz around the patch on sunny weekends "in" our stick and cloth contraptions. Mavbe those who want more should consider another level of the hobby, with more regulation and a minimum requirement of expertise, also similar to what has happened to high power rocketry over the last ten years with certification levels as one desires to fly bigger and higher. I hope I haven't completely missed the point.