Having cited that same item in post 17 above with due attribution to an AMA source, I don't contest what it says. It doesn't say "no autonomous control" of MA. If the model is within LOS (required and defined elsewhere) and the operator can take control via R/C at will, it ain't autonomous, and that word does not appear in the definition of MA.

Cletus,
which is why I brought up the autonomous TAM as an example for folks to see the application of their Yes/No choice.
There is no question that TAM was way WAY outside LOS,
and there certainly was no pilot around to take over via RC while out to sea
flying autonomously, navigating from point Canada to point UK.

As such, the autonomous TAM is a prime example of exactly what the DronesAintModels folks dont want to see.
And you were correct back on page1,
what MHill accomplished with the TAM does belong in the smithsonian (where it already does has a representative display).

From the Definition section in the ARC Recommendations:

[/quote]

My quote was from the ARC Recommendations as published by the FAA. "Direct Control" means just that, direct control. Autonomous flight is not under direct control.

Perhaps this helps, it is from later in the ARC Recommendations but mentions models:

This seems very clear to me that as far as the FAA is concerned a model is under direct manual control.

who actually cares if its in the museum or not? just fly

It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to me that ARC recommendations intended for other classes of sUAS apply to MA. AMA provided the definition of MA, and AMA does allow 'flight stabilization systems' that translate aircraft attitude 'directly into corresponding control surface positions.' Obviously AMA had some problems defining 'autonomous' and it seems likely that is why the terminology has been dropped from prior versions of the AMA SC. If it takes pages of caveats and exceptions to explain and still falls short of conveying intent, maybe it isn't worth saying except to provide for the welfare of lawyers that charge a substantial hourly rate to interpret what it tries to say. It appears that is what AMA has decided, and not all clear that your interpretation is what FAA heard.

Oh well, I tried. I made no interpretation, I posted direct quoted from the FAA ARC Recommendations. So I'll leave it at that. If posting the direct and completely clear quote from the source is not enough then I am at a loss as to what to provide.

This isn't really the issue.
This is where some folks come to discredit the AMA
at every opportunity with nit-picking non-issues
no matter how absurd.

I'll take your advice and go fly my new 250 heli in my garage.

Tnx for that upcheck, KE.

I think Maynard's accomplishment exemplifies a spirit that prevails amongst the true leaders in our hobby/sport. It deserves the recognition of being displayed in the world's premier museum of flight. I also think the after-the-fact determination by AMA (and FAI, which seems to be under the same management) that it doesn't represent MA in the USA tends to diminish its earned stature. Better to put the central artifact of that accomplishment where it will be seen and admired by the public, sans the pall of controversy over petty decisions made in a small world in the wake of the pioneering event.

i remember back when i was a kid id hear the old timers talk about how theyd pilot a plane while sitting in that back of pickup truck, and land it at another clubs flying site. back then it was considered adventurous and spirited to do, now the risk is just unacceptable

Great idea.
Let's take TAM from the place where nearly 100% of visitors
has a connection to it and can appreciate it,
and move it to somewhere maybe 1/2% of the visitors
will even stop and look, let alone understand what it is.

One interpretation would be that the {red text} is necessary in order to have "failsafe" settings for loss of signal.

Hey, the National Air and Space Museum gets upwards of 10 million visitors per year. Half a percent of something is better than 100 percent of zip.

I never would have believed all the animosity against autonomous flight... throw someone under the bus??? Is that really necessary.. what is the perceived evil of tat part of the hobby. Can it be misused? Just about anything we do could be misused.

I don't participate in that area yet, but one day I might want to. We need to keep a modeling/amateur aspect open for every possibility of flight. It is what prepares the future pilots and operators of such craft. Have you ever noticed that employers want people that are both interested in what they do and have PRIOR EXPERIENCE doing it. Prior experience is hard to get when all the doors are closed to you. A catch 22 if you will.

Is it part of modeling? In every way shape and form it is, without a doubt.

I say support all aspects of the hobby and find reasonable ways to limit the use of any technology. Maynard Hill and his ideas are not to be feared and have wonderful potential.

No. Wrong. We [AMA] do not NEED any part of autonomous flight or do we [AMA] NEED to be associated with any part of it from now on. If you want to do it on your own, that's up to you. I might even give it a whirl if they ever come out with a RTF system that could be found at Walmart for a hundred bucks....but there's absolutely no reason why the AMA should want to open themselves up to the possible terrible future issues that advocating auto-flight might bring.

By that rationale, we should just shut down the Muncie museum and move it all to the Smithsonian.

deleted

edit: got off-topic

Why isn't the TAM model in a Canadian museum ? It never flew near the US, or did it ?

wow
cause I foolishly was thinking the red text was there due to all the FF models, you know, that aint under manual control at all

look at the guy that landed the craft after it crossed the atlantic by itself

AMA says autonomous craft are not models, but apparently have an exception when a Muncie guy does it

Combat Pig
well, there is that slogan we used to bandy around... something about 'all aspects of aeromodeling' or some such

Now's not the time to be clinging on to old "catch phrases" that were created before what we're talking about here became the issue that it has.
The more distance that the government sees between them and us, the better off we'll be in the long run.
Same idea as deciding which side of the street you want to walk on before you reach a blind curve up ahead.

wouldnt it be easier to distance ourselves from it
if we didnt celebrate one of our leaders doing it and hanging the evidence in our own museum?

AMA's words condemn it while AMAs actions commend it,
are we just supposed to believe the FAA doesnt know about the autonomous flight MH/DB did under then banner of 'aeromodeling'

Either we should admit that it is part of the hobby (TAM ok)
or admit it aint modeling (TAM no-go)

I prefer option 1, but that is my opinion
and while I would like others to not prefer option 2, thats their opinion
... I just think its silly to say its not part of the hobby unless our cronies/good-ole-boys do it then it is modeling:
Do as we say, not as we do?

Perfectly reasonable to show the TAM in the AMA musuem as a significant historical achievement made by a well known R/C pilot with a firm basis in model aircraft technology. Showing it does not in any way endorse the current practice of autonomous model aircraft that has been banned by the AMA. It simply documents a historical achievement.

What KE does not understand is that situations, climates, rules and regulations change over time. "Then" is not the same as "now". Even though some folks love to make political hay out of an exhibit in a musuem to suit their own ends, an exhibit is never an automatic endorsement of things that happen after the items on exhibit created their bit of history. It is simply a snapshot of what was.

Personally, I think the world will not come to an end if the AMA allows autonomous flight within the confines of a typical R/C flying site, with suitable failsafes to prevent a flyaway, and a safety observer. Ilona mentioned in an email to me recently on this subject that the AMA is studying the issue, as this technological genie is pretty hard to stuff back into it's bottle. The current AMA insurance policy prohibits autonomous flight from being covered, as written.

Yes, the current FAA situation may indeed cause any type of autonomously controlled model aircraft to be officially banned in some or many ways, or to be subject to stricter sUAS rules. Yes, it might end up being a sacrifical lamb offered up in some sort of give and take to keep more freedoms and fewer rules for us. I for one hope that some form of it can be preserved for modelers to experiment with, subject to reasonable safety regulations.

I can see this technology becoming a sort of super failsafe for R/C models. If the normal control signal is lost, the model would decend and auto land at a specific GPS point away from the flyers, near the middle of the model field. That could be MUCH safer than allowing models to crash anywhere or possibly fly far away and crash, if control is lost. The current technology of the failsafe radio allows a model to crash anywhere at any attitude or speed at low throttle. This could be and needs to be improved on.

I think this would be a great reason to allow autonomous flight, but only as a safety measure. Problem is that there is always a group willing to use technology for something it was not designed for. Atomic power comes to mind....But I still think it is worth pursuing as a safety feature.

KE, having TAM in the AMA museum has no bearing on what the current policy should be with regards to auto-flight. TAM is a "curio" from a time when auto-flight wasn't as sensitive a subject as [I think] it is now.

If the AMA had a hard fast rule against auto-flight before TAM, then having TAM on display would be hypocritical.