View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll
Models can be Autonomous y/n
01-14-2011 | 09:47 AM
#101
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
Note that there is nothing in referenced guidance document for model aircraft operation that is in any way related to autonomous control.
from UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01
The guidance information presented in this document applies to approvals for both COA and special airworthiness certificates. Unless otherwise stated, recommended procedures and guidance that appear in this document apply to both.
The applicability and process to be used in a UAS operational approval is dependent on whether the applicant is a civil user or a public user. A public user is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., federal, state, and local agencies). Public applicants should utilize the COA application process. Civil applicants must apply for an airworthiness certificate.
Regardless of authorization method, all UAS applications are ultimately processed through ATO, UAPO, Flight Standards, and Aircraft Certification staff at the headquarters level for final approval and disposition.
Notes:
• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
• Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
• AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
The guidance information presented in this document applies to approvals for both COA and special airworthiness certificates. Unless otherwise stated, recommended procedures and guidance that appear in this document apply to both.
The applicability and process to be used in a UAS operational approval is dependent on whether the applicant is a civil user or a public user. A public user is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., federal, state, and local agencies). Public applicants should utilize the COA application process. Civil applicants must apply for an airworthiness certificate.
Regardless of authorization method, all UAS applications are ultimately processed through ATO, UAPO, Flight Standards, and Aircraft Certification staff at the headquarters level for final approval and disposition.
Notes:
• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
• Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
• AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
01-14-2011 | 10:03 AM
#102
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation.
..
yes, lets get back on the topic of what FAA said at the expo
rather than interpretations and misrepresentations
Silent has reported that FAA said they dont want to regulate MA.
Anyone else here have a hard time believing FAA wont change by regulation how the public does aeromodeling?
01-14-2011 | 11:02 AM
#103
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
The highlighted area is what I will comment on. That is the reason being provided for new rules and regulations. However, that has not really been much of an issue with the exception of a few small UAVs that were flown by a couple of companies and some police departments. The FAA slapped them down relatively quickly.
The real reason was and is to open up airspace for commercial UAV use. The previous regulations prohibited their use in open airspace. There's a alot of "talk" about how UAV's will require outside observers and remain with certain distances of the operators but that is far from the truth or how they will end up being used. You can argue now but the truth will be far different from what is now anticipated by modelers.
So much of what is being stated as reasons for rule development and how stuff will be used is pure smokescreen. Yes, many sUAS will be limited to relkativel small COA's but quite a few will be able to operate pretty much unrestricted and at fairly long distances from the base of ops without being further attended by observing eyes. many of you are believing absolutely everything that is coming from semi official sources. You might want to check within the sUAS industry to learn what is really being sought, and how friendly the FAA is within the more prominent sUAS and HALE operational groups. Everything is about opening up airspace and defining what an sUAS is and the equipment requirements on a world wide scale. Bottom line it's all about money, with lots of $$ signs.
Kid;
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models "we not covered under FAA regulations", which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.
01-14-2011 | 11:26 AM
#104
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers.
for me to go back and point at what I never said?
You are accusing me, you are saying something that didnt happen did.
Support your accusations.
How can I show you the event not happening if you cant tell me where you believe it happened?
How many old threads do I have to show you where I didnt say it, before you admit it wasnt said?
Why do you want old thread after old thread brought back just to show something DIDNT HAPPEN in them?
Or, you could back up your accusation.
If I say it was wrong of you to post that you are going to kill the president a while back,
how exactly would you prove you never said that?
Sure, you didnt say it, but how would you prove you never said it
other than linking to every post you ever made and showing it was never said
just because I feel like you said it and I wont bother to support my claim
This is Tony Stillman all over again. It took a long time to get the accuser to admit what he claimed I said was not actually said. Eventually he did the right thing and admitted he was mistaken accusing me of something I didnt do. Unlike some folks (not you TOM), I dont have history erased/rewritten to protect me: You want to say I said something, you better be able to provide a link.
01-15-2011 | 05:49 PM
#105
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apple River IL
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
Note that there is nothing in referenced guidance document for model aircraft operation that is in any way related to autonomous control.
To try to steer back on-topic (pardon me for doing so) it might be worthwhile to review currently effective guidance from FAA as to what makes a model airplane a model airplane. Germaine, because public and commercial operators of commercial sUAS (ex: Aerosonde), attempting to masquerade as model airplanes are the root cause that prompted FAA to convene the sUAS ARC and all the uglyness that will fall out of it. Strangely, it appears that some people working in the public and commercial UAS industry still don't comprehend the distinction between their aircraft and model aircraft that FAA has very painstakingly and deliberately tried to convey to them.
from UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01
The guidance information presented in this document applies to approvals for both COA and special airworthiness certificates. Unless otherwise stated, recommended procedures and guidance that appear in this document apply to both.
The applicability and process to be used in a UAS operational approval is dependent on whether the applicant is a civil user or a public user. A public user is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., federal, state, and local agencies). Public applicants should utilize the COA application process. Civil applicants must apply for an airworthiness certificate.
Regardless of authorization method, all UAS applications are ultimately processed through ATO, UAPO, Flight Standards, and Aircraft Certification staff at the headquarters level for final approval and disposition.
Notes:
• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
• Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
• AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
The guidance information presented in this document applies to approvals for both COA and special airworthiness certificates. Unless otherwise stated, recommended procedures and guidance that appear in this document apply to both.
The applicability and process to be used in a UAS operational approval is dependent on whether the applicant is a civil user or a public user. A public user is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., federal, state, and local agencies). Public applicants should utilize the COA application process. Civil applicants must apply for an airworthiness certificate.
Regardless of authorization method, all UAS applications are ultimately processed through ATO, UAPO, Flight Standards, and Aircraft Certification staff at the headquarters level for final approval and disposition.
Notes:
• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
• Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
• AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
hk
01-15-2011 | 08:46 PM
#107
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Once all the dust settles, Uncle Sam will be able to tax the Holy Beejesus out of all these ''models'' that are getting used for profit.
Once all the dust settles, Uncle Sam will be able to tax the Holy Beejesus out of all these ''models'' that are getting used for profit.
01-15-2011 | 10:14 PM
#108
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Once all the dust settles, Uncle Sam will be able to tax the Holy Beejesus out of all these ''models'' that are getting used for profit.
Once all the dust settles, Uncle Sam will be able to tax the Holy Beejesus out of all these ''models'' that are getting used for profit.
So far there is not a shred of evidence to support that idea so I am not sure why you feel that way. Unless of course it is simply some sort of generalized angst over what you perceive as government intrusion into your life.
Right now the federal government does not charge any fees for registration, etc. Many states have registration fees.
01-16-2011 | 08:09 AM
#110
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
Kid;
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models ''we not covered under FAA regulations'', which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.
Kid;
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models ''we not covered under FAA regulations'', which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.
TOM
I have been on theses forums quite awhile and I don't remember the Kid taking positions on matters as you have just presented... The kid is right.......... but if you find the need to attack him, instead of just presenting your subjective views about certain matters, at least substantiate your assertions against him.
01-16-2011 | 09:57 PM
#111
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Models can be Autonomous y/n
Kid;
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models ''we not covered under FAA regulations'', which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.
You know I'm not going to go back through years of posts to quote you but you also know you denied any possibility of our models being classified as uav's because our models ''we not covered under FAA regulations'', which of itself was not true at the time. Go back and look for yourself in threads where we debated the functional uses of models as a form of weaponry to find the answers. In some of those you made statements that our models were too small to be effectively weaponized, and that it would require something lareger such as UAV's to generate any appreciable level of destruction. Again incorrect but understandable coming form a modeler with perhaps limited military or chemical background.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_85...tm.htm#8573853 3/13/2009
In the short form-
Our flying models are UVs.
To operate a UV you need a FAA Airworthy Cert (and FAR entanglements) because UV are 91.1.1 Aircraft.
We may choose to operate a UV within AC91-57 to be considered a Model Aricraft, and exempted from the other requirements of AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 and its FAR entanglements
Its only a toy if it is being flown within the FAA AC for toys,
else its a UV and AFS-400 works it over with an ugly stick
Our flying models are UVs.
To operate a UV you need a FAA Airworthy Cert (and FAR entanglements) because UV are 91.1.1 Aircraft.
We may choose to operate a UV within AC91-57 to be considered a Model Aricraft, and exempted from the other requirements of AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 and its FAR entanglements
Its only a toy if it is being flown within the FAA AC for toys,
else its a UV and AFS-400 works it over with an ugly stick
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_80..._1/key_/tm.htm Oct-2008
This terrorism junk is all smoke & hype anyway.
It really dont matter how many lbs of explosives a model plane cn carry,
the question should be
How many people can one of these kill?
And one of the many circumstancial answers is
"2 in Hungary carrying 0lb explosives or weapons"
An unarmed .40Sport plane flown by a terrorist can maime & potentially kill someone when simply flown into a crowd of people. That makes it a swell terrorism weapon, because terrorism isnt about accomplishing tactical damage, it is about making folks afraid there will be tactical damage. All they need to do is have 10 terrorists in 10 states fly a 40sport each into a group of people and claim responsibility, and the media will do the terrorists work for them.
It really dont matter how many lbs of explosives a model plane cn carry,
the question should be
How many people can one of these kill?
And one of the many circumstancial answers is
"2 in Hungary carrying 0lb explosives or weapons"
An unarmed .40Sport plane flown by a terrorist can maime & potentially kill someone when simply flown into a crowd of people. That makes it a swell terrorism weapon, because terrorism isnt about accomplishing tactical damage, it is about making folks afraid there will be tactical damage. All they need to do is have 10 terrorists in 10 states fly a 40sport each into a group of people and claim responsibility, and the media will do the terrorists work for them.
no mater what the weight self regulation does work
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6244592 R/C a terrorist weapon - 8/16/2007
No, the bad part is that folks consider their own 10 year old kids as a cheaper & more accurate explosives delivery vehicle.
