mongo

Please put the definition in terms the average AMA member will understand. I don't understand it. What, exactly will be allowed and what exactly will be prohibited? Is a plane with a video cam, gps, and an FMA co-pilot autonomous? The defenition must be precise enough for every member to understand.

JR

the problem with precise, is, it makes it so easy to cheat.
the simpler the better.
if it can do a complete flight, start up, to shut down, unasisted, it is autonomus, all else isnt.

But mongo, as Abel pointed out some time ago, your defintion for a Radio Controlled airplane is an oxymoron. It must be one or the other, they are mutually exclusive.

JR

yer missing the obvious.
in the autonomus definition, there is no mention of radio control.
the 2 are different, radio controled aircraft, and autonomus aircraft.

mongo

This has been put into the 2004 Safety Code, available on the AMA web page:

"A model aircraft is defined as a non-human-carrying device capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere not exceeding the limitations established in this Code, exclusively for recreation, sport, and/or competition activities. The operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain unenhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation. No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."

This new rule is the topic of this discussion, or at least I think it is.

JR

their screw up is not a basis for us to try and cover their collective asses with a bs definition.
they need to retract their action, and try to get it right.

what screw up?
and I'm having difficulty determining why you figure this is BS:

"A model aircraft is defined as a non-human-carrying device capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere not exceeding the limitations established in this Code, exclusively for recreation, sport, and/or competition activities. The operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain unenhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation. No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."
Seems pretty straight forward to me. "Established in this code" carries thru the weight limitations and thrust limitations, and establishes the fact that the model is either 1) uncontrolled (free flight), 2)controlled physically (C/L), or 3)under continuous control by a pilot on the ground (no chase aircraft) in visual contact with the model.
That means no autopilot on a free-flight Model (remember, the definition is for MODEL AIRCRAFT, not model RC Aircraft)
It does shoot down any more insured attempts at an altitude record, since binoculars and or telescopes are necessary-and Maynard used them on his altitude record flight way back when...

Autonomous: adj. Self-governing, as AMA members should be.

Nah, just go off shore - sort of like the TAM guys did.

rw, all free flight is autonomus, by definition.
all radio controled flight is not autonomus, again by definition.
therefore, they screwed up by even adding the autonomus statement.
it does not need to be there.

Amen, mongo.....at least by the definition familiar to me. There is always somebody, most frequently a lawyer, that wants to redefine the familiar word(s) to suit his agenda, though.
Maybe it would be easier to consider autonomy in the context of 1:1 scale aircraft, as the situation seems less complicated when the pilot is on-board and the R/C link is out of the picture.
I don't think there is a general public perception that a B767 is an autonomous vehicle, though it is "equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight" to an extent far exceeding what will soon be seen in a model aircraft. Though it is routinely flown under autopilot control and hence 'self-governing' while in that mode, I don't perceive it as autonomous because the flight crew can override the autopilot at will. Only in unusual instances (fortunately), have airliners conformed to my view of 'autonomous operation.' Examples:
- when the entire flight crew of an eastbound passenger flight snoozed as the autopilot kept the plane on heading, overflying the intended destination and continuing on to the middle of the Atlantic ocean before somebody woke up.
- when the fly-by-wire control system of a Lufthansa Airbus repeatedly commanded some bizarre maneuvering during approach (throttles back to idle and pitch up), and refused to relinquish control to the anxious flightdeck crew. Now that's autonomous!

Abel

It would seem that the last sentence of the rule needs to be deleted.

The other issue that has been highlighted is the fact that the rule does not make it clear that only RC aircraft were the subject of that sentence. Another good reason to dismiss it. It was never supposed to impact free flight, for instance.

I am not sure how the change can be made. There is a legal problem in changing the Code during the year, unless every member is notified by mail. I wonder what the consequences of the EC letting it be known that the last sentence of the rule will not be enforced for the year is, much as the rule that requires your AMA number to be on or in the plane is ignored. The word could be put out by email to clubs, and posted on the AMA page. There is probably some problem with that legally.

JR

everybody gets their new card mailed to em. the folks that renewed for 2 last year even get a notice that they are valid for this year.
any change can be communicated to the membership at the same time.
don't see a problem.

mongo

That is exactly the problem. The decision was made when it was so that the cards could be printed and sent with the new membership cards. The membership cards are already being sent.

i think, that if we were discussing an addition to the code, then it would matter a lot getting the info out. since we are discussing a deletion, then it is not as important to get it out fast, and in reality we have 2.5 months to do it before the new takes effect.
probably possible to get a notice in the mag in that time frame. or even a mid december post card mailing to the membership.

hmmm... maybe if you call and tell Joyce to stop, that a few guys on RCU changed the rule, there will be enough time.

well, according to one of yer own posts, the guys already know that they screwed the pooch so to speak, so they should already be working on it.
and since one or 2 read this forum, plus what is sent to em by their lackeys, well just maby they are gona do the right thing, for once.

JR-
I recall the '04 version of the Safety Code was up on the AMA site on 8 Sept. It read in part:

"The operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation. The aircraft shall not be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."

As you said, it sure looks like in last sentence, "The Aircraft" refers to an aircraft of the same genre as that in the previous paragraph, that is, a radio control model aircraft. The '04 Code was only up for a day or two before disappearing from the site. A week or two later it reappeared with a 'minor change to the wording' of the last sentence:

"No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."

When a scammer is putting the ol' razzle dazzle on you, it can be pretty difficult for the eye to keep up with the hands.

Abel

thanks, I needed a load of fertilizer, Mongo! The pertinent definition, from Merriams, is 3b above..A free-flight aircraft is at the whim of the elements-it does nothing on its own except obey certain laws over which it has no control.
An autonomous vehicle, on the other hand, is self correcting, and goes where it is sent, making corrections as needed without outside assistance

Roger-
Did you overlook 2b?
It's been a long time, but in my recollection, a traditional contest FF model is controlled by an onboard timer/sequencer that controls the engine run, adjustment of control surfaces to transition from climb to glide trim, and usually some form of mechanism to drastically alter the CG or otherwise bring about its rapid descent after a pre-programmed lapse of time. That's old stuff, and I expect that contemporary FF models are a bit more sophisticated, but it sure sounds to me like the model has autonomous control over its flight.

Abe

having flown free flight since 58, i can say with some authority, that they do self correct in flight, that is the challenge.

They self-correct, by aerodynamic means, for minor perturbations in the atmosphere. They do NOT correct for wind direction and vertical perturbations.
If a thermal bump raises a wing, the aircraft turns away from the high wing, re-entering the thermal what is basically a 270 degree turn. An autonomous vehicle would correct for the high wing through a control deflection. (yes, it has been tried with pendulums-a rudimentary autopilot). That is not autonomous control--that is the key word, "control". The DT system and engine cut-off are not true controls- they are limits. Even the Bunt system is limited in scope, and does nothing to control the flight after initiation.
from the engineering point of view, autonomous means active control. The flight of a Free flight Model is NOT an actively controlled flight.

the word "active" is yer addition, not websters.
built in aerodynamic control, is control, just the same as an electronic gyro.

mongo-

I hope somebody is taking notes to ensure the EC gets their redefinition of 'autonomous' straight. The definition needs to make clear the distinction between limits (not autonomous) which are not control (autonomous, if active), include correction for wind direction and vertical perturbations (autonomous) but exclude self-correction by aerodynamic means, for minor perturbations in the atmosphere (passive control, ergo not autonomous).
The flying-field neighbor that is distraught over the perception that your models are terrorist weapons needs to be assured they are not because they are not autonomous, and the precise meaning of that term as must be clearly conveyed to him/her. There is apparently some work yet to be done to resolve differences in interpretation as exist between you and Roger over categorizing built in aerodynamic control as truly control in the same sense as an electronic gyro, and as a follow-on issue, whether incorporation of an electronic gyro in the model aircraft itself makes it autonomous. Certainly inputs from several thousands of other AMA members are bound to turn up answers to these questions, and the required re-definition of autonomous will soon be polished up and promulgated to members so they will understand the new provisions in the Official Academy of Model Aeronautics National Safety Code, and ensure they are in compliance with it.

Abel

by your definition, then, a helium balloon is an autonomous vehicle...
And yes, the Japaneese tried using helium balloons in WW-II