Hi Abel

I made some calls. First, there was a good laugh about the fact that the initial definition is an oxymoron. Your absolutely right about that.

Homeland Security has contacted the AMA and asked for help with information and for input in putting together a program. Not the other way around. The AMA was up against the publishing deadline for the Safety Code that must be printed and goes out with the membership cards. It was admitted that the definition of a model sounded reasonable while they were sitting around discussing it. They have since realized that your position is correct: they must now define autonomous as it applies to model airplanes. There is concern that the definition needs to get out to modelers ASAP. It will be a topic of discussion at the next EC meeting. The mechanism and the media are uncertain at this point. They have never been in the position of having to define a word in the Safety Code, without the ability to change the code itself. Again, the time constraints come into play.

The FAA has not been the driving force in this matter. TSA and Homeland Security have
contacted the AMA on several occasions about several issues and a relationship as been formed. The FAA contacted the AMA shortly after 9-11 and not since.

In my discussions, the topic of representing all modelers was touched on. The view is that the AMA will try to represent all modelers, but, ultimately, the responsibililty of the AMA is to their membership. An example that was used was the situation were Homeland Security raises the alert to the highest level. The AMA is suggesting that at that level, and at that level only, that flying be allowed only at the fields of AMA chartered clubs. There are major concerns about how to communicate to modelers both in, and outside of the AMA, by Homeland Security, as well as those in the AMA by the AMA. Snail mail is not going to get it handled in the view of the AMA.

There is no intention, at this point, of eliminating FMA like co-pilots.

JR

From a story in todays "Propwash", from Aero News ( http://www.aero-news.net ), the FAA has come up with the following statement. (The pertinent UAV is # 6). The AMA had to come up with a definition to stay out from under the FAA's bureaucratic umbrella.
All we need is for the Feds to step in and claim authority over our models. See [link=http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=941d915a-0ca8-4cc7-aaa5-4d7070246e1b&]this[/link] for the full story....

JR, wouldn't it take passing a national law to achieve this? Is the AMA actively lobbying to have this 'law' enacted? Or since they can't actually lobby, is this the 'advisory position' that they are pushing on this matter with their liaison in the Office of Homeland Security?

Now I'm starting to see how the AMA policy may affect not only their own membership, but all model aviators in the country....kind of a scary thought. No offense, but if I wanted to be under the umbrella of AMA policy, I'd join the AMA.

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Brian

Edit---Nor, on second thought, would it be very good the other way around. The OHS or TSA coming into AMA in a very heavy-handed way, creating all types of new rules/regs. Or...dare I say, forcing ALL modelers to join the AMA in order to aviate model a/c.[:-]

zxcv11

The way I understand the situation, nothing presented is cut in granite at this point. The relationship is developing. The guidelines, rules etc are developing. This is Homeland Security's game. They could reject everything. The example was an example, a hypothetical situation that was used in my discussion. The point being made was that if the AMA can, it will represent all modelers. An example of that was also given, although this is off topic, so I didn't up it up before. The TSA asked the AMA to help with the issue of transporting models. The AMA took several types of planes and trained some of the TSA staff in what to look for and expect when they see a model plane in transit. Something that helps all modelers. But... and this is a big but, if it comes down to a situation where the AMA can not control a situation, they are going take what they can get for their members. I believe this is what the membership would expect of the AMA. The AMA did not go to OHS, OHS came to the AMA. Certainly there MAY be some advantage to modlerers, such as yourself, in joining the AMA.

I am not an expert on any of this, I can not state definitively any more than the discussions I had. I did not ask every possible question, nor inquire about every scenario. In spite of what Horrace would have you believe, I am just an AMA member that will pick up the phone and call and ask a question or two when I want to know something. That does not happen very often. I try to report what I get as accurately as I can, but, even that is subject to my memory, and my impressions, and there is room for error because of that.

As far as laws, it's my impression that Homeland Security can pretty much do as they please. That impression may be in error.

I am waiting for Abel's comments. Although he lets a substantial amount of sarcasm enter his posts, and does not like some of the folks at AMA, he usually gives a good two sided analysis of issues such as these. He often brings questions to the table that no one else has thought of. I don't always agree with him, but, I do value his opinion.

JR

Thank you for this clarification JR.....I had thought that was the case when you said it was 'an example', but when you then continued on to say 'the ama is suggesting at this level.....' I got kinda confused as to what was fact and what was hypothetical musing. I completely agree, I don't see why the ama wouldn't do what was in the best interests of their membership (though I guess even that point is sometimes in doubt by some). That is usually what an org. is all about. And, in the process, if it works out that what they want isn't the best thing for others, then I guess so be it. If there's a problem....then the others should start their own lobby group!! I understand that the ama was approached about these subjects, never questioned that. I was just wondering now that this has occured, if the ama was actively seeking these conditions from said agencies. I also understand that you are not an 'expert', I just have come to value yours and various others input on situations such as these.[8D]

I don't think there is any error here my friend.....sadly. But I wonder what they may do if the ama is whispering certain things in their ear.[:-]

Thanx for the reply.

Brian

JR-
Thanks for the kind words. I do wish I could say something in reply that is what you would like to hear, but try as a I might, I don't think will be the case. Here are the thoughts regarding the replies to your queries to AMA that were provoked in my mind, jaundiced regarding this issue as it may have become (hey, you asked...):

Not sure why this relevant, as to who contacted who first. It says OHS and TSA asked for information. They did not ask for redefinition of 'model airplane.' They did not ask for a ban on autonomous operation of R/C model airplanes. If they had, the ludicrous rationalizing for a ban on autonomous R/C model airplanes stated in the minutes would'nt have been dreamt up. The statement seems intended to infer that AMA was just being responsive to OHS and TSA. Such an inference would be misleading - this didn't come from outside AMA.

This infers that was some imperative to get it into the Safety Code in the first place, and it was so urgent a matter as to compel the EC to bypass all the normal protocols for putting motions on the agenda and allowing for EC representives and the members they represent to consider, discuss and comment before voting on it. There is no such imperative to change the Safety Code except in the minds of certain EC members, and the published facts are that there was nothing urgent about it. Brown and the MA Editor had made it the central topic of their respectative columns over a year (MA, Aug 02) before it became 'urgent.' Both the need and the urgency of it were manufactured by its sponsor's sitting on it until it could be presented in 'crisis mode.'

So they don't know what autonomous means, but while sitting around discussing it, it seemed like a good idea to ban it. Now, realizing that they knee-jerked in response to a crisis manufactured by their leader, they're going going to pull a Bill Clinton and redefine the concept, as Slick Willy redefined sexual relations rather than admit his screw-ups. It's just too obvious that that the right course of action to correct this thing is to acknowledge that it was ill-considered and enacted in haste, and dump it altogether. No, have to flail around with redefining common, unambiguous English words for the sake of having another arbitrary rule that will prompt the usual response to anyone that questions what it means: "go ask Maroney for AMA's interpretation of it."
The bottom line IMHO is that no matter how long you stir and massage a bucket of BS, you still end up with a bucket of crap.

I have no doubt whatsoever that in their contacts with the federal agencies, AMA officials are presenting themselves as the voice of model aviation in the USA, that is, all modelers. It is on this same premise that AMA is granted special tax exemption as a non-profit corporation operating for 'the public good.' Yet somehow it is okay and perfectly understandable that they look out for their own dues-paying members first. Actually, they're not even doing that, since half of their own membership doesn't belong to AMA chartered clubs.

I really do appreciate your making contact with individuals involved in this dubious action to try and find some kind of sense in it. The answers you got fail to do that. I remain very uncomfortable with the thought of having people whose thinking is so flaky and motives so self-interested claiming to represent me and my interests to government agencies they are lobbying. From what I am seeing, they do not.

Abe

Abel

Seems to me, and this is MY opinion, not anyone else's, that the object is to do what can be done to stop flying bombs. I have no idea how to accomplish that. As I said before, the issue of autonomous planes is just not a major issue, as far as I am concerned. We have a couple of guys in our club that play with that stuff, but, they are employeed by companies where their efforts may be work related.

It seems to me that the definition of a flying field was the more important one in it's potential affect on the membership.

The only thing I will say in defense of the AMA is that no one is trying to hide anything. All the warts are out there, along with the good stuff. Most members know about neither.

How do we ever get the average member to even understand that there is more to the AMA then secondary insurance? (rhetorical)

JR

Just for your information I attended a round table discussion and some presentation on Sat. Oct. 04/'03 hosted by AMA's Carl Maroney and Larry Johnson, Insurance Broker, both on the AMA Safety Committee.

There will be reconsideration of the term "Autonomous Flight" and there will be information forthcoming to assure that items such as the FMA autopilot remain useful.

In addition in the not-too-distant future I think there will be more information presented to the membership concerning general information on accidents.

Hold on to your chair, but even SF and I along with another ex-pilot (Navy) were together pushing for that item. Mr. Johnson was also on our side. Carl is going to take it to the powers that be.

There was some really good info DISCUSSED at the meeting. No edicts, just good information exchanged between those in charge and the using agencies.

I was happy about the whole discussion and I certainly learned a couple (more) things.

It would benefit all of us to take the Safety thing a bit more serious at the Club level. Might well be a start for LESS rules!

Car bombs, letter bombs, shoe bombs, Ryder truck bombs,
suitcase bombs, flying bombs (subcategories: balloon bombs, kite bombs,
remote-controlled model airplane bombs, remote-control model airplane capable of
autonomous flight bombs, ad infinitum), all have something in common. What they
don't have in common is that AAA isn't suggesting that cars should be banned, nor
USPS that letters should be banned, etc., etc. What they have in common, and not,
seems to be immediately apparent to everyone but Dave Brown and Jay Mealy.
Another thing they don't have entirely in common is that most have been employed as
terrorist weapons, notable exception being remote-controlled model airplane bombs,
including model airplane bombs capable of autonomous flight. Imagine that Abdul in
his quest for the grace of Allah were to come into possession of a large model
airplane and ancillary gear, equipped with a readily available on the open market
GPS autopilot system. What is he to do with it? Grab the R/C transmitter and
receiver, and possibly a servo to activate a switch, and trash the rest, i.e., airframe,
power plant and sophisticated autopilot, is what. I have very good reason to
anticipate that is what he would do, because that is what the network news reports
virtually daily: "a remote-controlled bomb exploded today in (Jakarta, New
Delhi, Bogota,....pick one)......killing (pick a number) persons and injuring dozens of
others." Will AMA respond to the reality of what is going on in the world, as
opposed to hallucinations, and ban R/C? Will federal agencies like OHS ban R/C along
with remote garage door openers, TV remotes, cell phones (hey, not such a bad
idea), et al? Why not, or is the real question When?
Yeah, I know
what you mean. I don't fly autonomous R/C model airplanes either. Ought just shut
up; don't have a dog in this fight. If they lobby successfully for it, there will be a heck of lot more people than AMA
members affected. Motion made during the EC meeting
with no prior notification though it is clear that its sponsor wanted it more than a
year before, it appeared in the minutes only as a 'minor change in definition..,' and
nobody is trying to hide anything? Sure enough, most know nothing about it. 300 or
so hits on this thread represent the population of people that know about it - a fair bit
short of the 170,000 (minus 300) members of AMA that don't and won't until they
renew their membership, plus the millions of non-AMA member modelers that could
be affected if somebody in OHS is fool enough to buy into it. Demonstrating to them that AMA
represents model aviation, as it chartered to do, rather than the personal views and
self-interests of a very small but dominant minority of AMA officials might be a good
start.
Abel

Great points Abel. The whole thing seems pretty strange when put that way.[:-]

Brian

i think we are all forgetting something here AMA is liability insurance. yeah i know and so much more. BUT it is insurance and thats where their clout ends. so its a question of whether they will cover a given flight or model etc. not whether it is illegal. in short if you want to launch a plane weighing 100 lbs from your local high school to fly by it self to berlin then have a good time, BUT if you break a school window just dont ask the AMA to cover it. i promise they will take your check for next years dues and send a magazine.

Snipped from context of Abel's post

Abel

I will agree, as will most others on this forum, that your contention is correct within the confines of our discussions . HOWEVER… I will submit to you that the average resident of the globe views one single RC plane as the most well known, and that plane, although not entirely autonomous, has something less than a docile reputation. The USAF has advertised it. The press has shown its image countless times. The plane is the Predator. I will also submit that the image of a mini-Predator is what the OHS is concerned about. Size, weight, and technology aside, the Predator is the image of what an autonomous, non line of sight, model represents in the minds of the average citizen. Most people do not view the Predator as a real airplane, but, as a model of some sort. It doesn’t have people in it, so it must be a model, right? As a matter of fact, it is a model under the old definition of a model. AMA Safety Code and 55 pound limit, notwithstanding.

IF you agree with the above, then the question becomes: How do we deal with the perception and the potential reality?

JR

Nor do I see the AMA trying to ban the things either-but SOMEBODY has to come up with a definition that the FAA, TSA, and OHS can and will swallow. Do we really need the folks who think an 80-odd year old Medal of Honor winner is more of a threat to airspace security than anybody else trying to get on that plane deciding what the difference is between a UAV and a legitimate model aircraft? Somebody has to do it-and they need to do it quickly. So, the AMA, the only organization in the US with any credibility in that arena did it-perhaps not perfectly, but at least with something we can live with. They didn't instigate it, but they responded.

The question I pose is, How will this affect a many of the products FMA currently sells, and better yet, prjects they are working on for the future. The co-pilot does not alone fly the plane autonomously alone, but when used with the FS5, a plane can be programmed to fly a hold pattern in the event of a signal loss. Will control the throttle as well as maneuver the plane. Now this still may not be classified as autonmous, but FMA seems to be getting a hell-of-alot closer to it.

https://www.fmadirect.com/site/Detai...723&section=29

The_Matrix
As Horrace Cain and I have reported, from separate sources, the desire is not to eliminate existing FMA-like co-pilots. The EC will have to determine a useful definition of autonomous before they, or anyone else, can state what effects will be on future projects.

Anything more is pure conjecture.

JR

I don't think the average citizen of the planet has much difficulty in differentiating between a model airplane and a UAV like Predator. For the sake of discussion, however, let's stipulate that is fact. Somebody needs to do something to dispel that false perception, and that somebody should be AMA. I'm pretty sure that is an accurate summarization of your position - correct me if not.
Now then, does AMA's action to ban some degree of autonomy, not yet defined, from R/C model aircraft tend to dispel the false public perception, or does it tend to confirm, validate, and perpetuate it? As in "well yes, a model airplane and a Predator UAV are essentially the same thing, if the model airplane is equipped to fly autonomously." If the the average resident of the globe has a current view that model airplanes are Predator UAV equals, are they more likely to be impressed by the spokesman for model aviation confirming that perception, or comforted in the knowledge that model airplanes will be safe henceforth because they will not be allowed to fly under autonomous control? Is autonomous operation presumed in Joe Public's perception of a model airplane as a combat UAV, and if so does it make any difference to him? I submit that he doesn't have clue as to what autonomous flight means or whether or not a typical model aircraft is capable of it; he would likely be even more challenged to define it than is the AMA EC. As you say, Predator is not entirely autonomous, just as R/C model aircraft equipped for semi-autonomous flight (TAM for example at one end of the continuum, a model operating under fail-safe control, or with a heading hold gyro of horizon sensing loop like the FMA CoPilot at the other) are not entirely autonomous.
AMA has already decided and acted to change Joe Public's perception of of model aircraft as Predator-like threats by banning its members from equipping their R/C models for some as yet undefined degree of autonomous operation. Now it's just a simple matter of defining those constraints on the degree of autonomy necessary to stay below the fear threshold of Mr. Public. What's taking them so long?

Something you said...............
"....the Predator is the image of what an autonomous, non line of sight, model represents in the minds of the average citizen."
Possibly a very important point here that I overlooked before. Is capability for beyond-LOS operation considered integral to the general perception of model aircraft as Predator-like craft? If it is, then addressing the public mis-perception of model aircraft would seem much easier, and more black-and-white recognizable and comprehensible to all concerned if AMA left their prohibition to beyond-LOS operation. Predator UAVs operate BLOS, model aircraft do not.
Is that too simple?

Abel

Abel


Let's limit the discussion to US residents. My use of residents of the world was to make a point, and you understand that point; the point of what is perceived. Let me also state the reason for my belief that the perception that US residents is one that ties the Predator to RC. About a year ago, the USAF began running a recruiting commercial that featured a boy playing with a glider, then, advancing, showed him flying CL, then an RC model, and finally, controlling a Predator. IIRC the tag line was “We are looking for you�. I am assuming the commercial ran nationwide. I saw it quite often. I think that single recruiting effort created the perception that the Predator is the logical extension of a RC model airplane. FWIW, I also thought it was good exposure for modeling.

The other perception of the average resident is that of the RC planes hanging in a typical hobby shop, or toy store. Most are no bigger than 60 size planes, due to space limitations of the stores. I have never seen a 25% plane, or larger, hanging in a hobby shop. I am sure there are some, but, none that I have seen.

The difficult part of changing any widely held perception is financial. The AMA can not afford to spend what the USAF did in creating the perception. They seem incapable of changing the perception that the AMA is nothing more than an insurance company to their own members, so, how can they change a much more widely held view? I am absolutely positive that if we can come up with a way to counter the perception that models can be used as Predators, the powers that be will listen. I am not sure that changing the perception of US residents is necessary. I am of the opinion that changing the perception of, or dispelling the fears of, the residents that are part of the OHS is important.

The line of sight portion of the definition is what caught my attention in the beginning. The word autonomous had no practical meaning to me until we started discussing the subject. Our equipment, generally, allows us to fly beyond line of sight, in the truest sense of the term. The average plane can be controlled further than the pilot can see it, unaided.

Autonomous has some sinister meaning in my perception, relative to models. But… I can’t tell you why.. I don’t know why. I suspect that the EC has a similar perception. From what I can see, unless someone can give me a good reason to alter my view, I do not see the need for the inclusion of the word in the definition. Maybe it is that simple.

JR

Would you agree that any way to counter the perception that might stand a chance of being successful would as a minimum have to be visible to those whose mis-perception you wish to alter? That what differentiates model aircraft from Predators would have to be fully describable in 20 words or less?
Even if the intended audience whose perception is to be changed is limited to individuals within OHS, I very much doubt that an invisible change to a model aircraft and its operation will make any positive impression. The capability of a model aircraft to operate with any degree of autonomy, or not, is not visible to anyone but its operator.

When a typical model aircraft is BLOS, it is not being 'flown,' regardless of what frantic operator inputs are being relayed by the R/C system. It is under control of natural forces that cannot be compensated for (such compensation is a large part of what 'controlled' means in this context) by the operator, and is crashing.

Abel

Abel

I think it depends on the media. IMHO e-mail would be totally ineffective. A face to face presentation would be rated highest, with other media falling somewhere between. The length of the "presentation" has to be dependent on the media employeed. Of course, in a face to face meeting, or a telephone meeting, you have the opportunity to make it a dynamic presentation as opposed to a static one. Most other media are not going to offer that opportunity.

In reference to the control issue: is a video camera acceptable to aid in control? Just what does "line of sight" mean. If an FMA co-pilot is used, and the plane can not be seen, is it still under control? Does it all then become dependent on the radio system used? What do we do with hams, who can get fruther range?

It seems to me that if you limit line of sight to unaided vision, the entire problem starts to melt away.

Abel, I am rapidly becoming grateful that I was not part of the process in trying to decide what the definition of a model is. Questions and issues keep poping up. Just my opinion, but, IF the time restraints and pressure from OHS to act were real, the EC never had a chance to get it right the first time.

JR

able and co.
way back in the early 80, or late 70s, there was an assignation attempt made on f marcos, philippines. used was a tariner type r/c aircraft filled to max with explosive material. the attempt missed, most likely due to operator depth perception error, but did result in several fatalities/injurys in the assembled crowd.

now can that be considered terrorist use or is it some other use? yp for debate, but , the model as a means of weapons delivery is a fact, not imagination.

Abel

I think it has to stand on its own, independent of how it is delivered. Administrations change (outside of AMA), there may be interested parties (e.g., AMA members) not in attendance of a glitzy presentation, and it should be understood easily by someone reading it years from now.

I see no reason to exclude control by a video link, autopilot (including autonomous operation for every flight evolution from take-off to landing and taxiing back to the pits), untrained pilot or the infamous hamster. The key requirement would be that whatever is providing control is continuously subject to override by a human pilot in unaided visual contact with the aircraft.
Anticipating the next question re "what if the R/C link is lost?," a possible answer is that a fail-safe must be provided that will keep a model capable of autonomous operation in a pattern around the point where the R/C signal was lost, or a designated lat/long if the autopilot uses GPS for positioning reference. Fail-safe could be initiated after a short delay following loss of the R/C carrier (ala PCM fail-safe mode currently in wide use). There may be a more elegant answer than this one that comes off the top of my head, and so how it is to be provided should not be specified in such detail as to preclude other potential solutions. In any case, provision for override control should be required, and that must include the human operator's eyes in the control loop. The RF link is not the limiting factor on range. The operator's unobstructed LOS to the model and visual acuity are.

Ain't that interesting? The old KISS principle does have its place, on occasion.

There was no time constraint or pressure from from OHS to justify this action. If there were, is there any reason on god's green earth why the strange scenerio rationalizing it that appears in the EC minutes would have been fabricated, as opposed to telling the truth? I'm not going to accuse the writer of that report of lying, and I don't think you would. Somebody had his ego tied to this brilliant idea, and wanted it acted upon sans any exposure to critique that might alter it or jeopardize its enactment.

Abel

That's one shady way to get things done fellas.[:'(]

Brian

mongo-
I tried to get some corroboration of this via a Google search on 'assassination attempts against Fernando Marcos' and similar search strings. No go. Do you have a cite or pointer to any reference that might help one assess whether this is real or urban legend?

Abel

Able

If the discussion turns to the definition the AMA will use for autonomous, what SHOULD such a defintion be?

JR

PS some of our newbies are guilty of terrorizing the pits with models

able:
secrecy agrements prohibit me saying much in detail. and i do not know that it ever made news, broadcast or print, over here. as an investigating officer, i do know that it changed the training sylibus for a lot of folks.

as to JR's definition of autonomus:
simple:
capable of unasisted flight in all expected regiems.