autonomous flight
10-01-2003 | 05:59 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Rogers ,
TX,
autonomous flight
doesn't it seem funny to anybody else that the new rules read "No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight." yet they just made a big deal out of somebody doing this very thing? is it ok for them but not for the average person? double standard? ok if you are on the ec or a president (past or present)?
now i understand this is prohibited to keep the homeland people from takin away our privelage to fly our planes. am i just too sensitive? should i just ignore this? just seems to be another case of, we are professionals do not try this at home! you might hurt yourself!
john
now i understand this is prohibited to keep the homeland people from takin away our privelage to fly our planes. am i just too sensitive? should i just ignore this? just seems to be another case of, we are professionals do not try this at home! you might hurt yourself!
john
10-01-2003 | 02:42 PM
#2
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: autonomous flight
John-
Yes you should just ignore this. Dave Brown has gone to some lengths to get this prohibition enacted as covertly as possible, such that it not be derailed or delayed by discussion of inputs from the hoi polloi members that don’t know what is good for them and AMA and the free world. It was in his plans to put AMA in control over terrorists for over a year before being proposed to the assembled EC as an urgent matter, without having been put on the agenda or otherwise giving even the EC representatives an opportunity to consider possible adverse consequences that might arise from it. Surely you can understand how important it must be.
The terrorist threat of model airplanes has been assessed by the intelligence analyst profiled in this article: http://seacoastonline.com/news/03222003/news/19058.htm
While Mr. Lidman demonstrated the danger that model airplanes could be used as weapons by deploying them from his car, the report makes no mention of them having the capability for autonomous flight. Dave Brown drew upon his own extensive expertise in terrorist threat assessment to characterize the danger as more acute with models so equipped.
Neither Lidman nor Brown described the weapons payload that would be delivered by a model airplane cum terrorist cruise missile. I have given this a lot of thought, and the answer finally came to me almost “out of the blue.” Shoes. It’s so obvious I could kick myself for not thinking of it sooner. This isn’t just hypothetical – shoes have actually been employed as the weapons of choice by terrorists, unlike model airplanes whether or not equipped for autonomous flight. If you have flown on a commercial carrier lately, then you know that shoes get special scrutiny by security personnel. A shoe could easily be secreted in the fuselage of a model airplane.
I know that the autonomy prohibition is just a step in Dave’s overall plan. Enforcing that rule over AMA members is only a start. If you have read his columns, you might have seen his proposal that Homeland Security only allow model flying at AMA sites when the threat level is raised. The objective is to get AMA control over ALL model flying via lobbying Homeland Security, FAA et al to require conformance of all model airplane flying to the Official Academy of Model Aeronautics National Safety Code (man that sounds impressive, doesn’t it?). Ruling out autonomy demonstrates to these agencies that AMA is being proactive in the war against terrorism, and should have control over all model airplane operations in the USA. Just think – there are probably millions of model airplane enthusiasts in the country, and all but about 170,000 are outlaws, doubtless including some terrorists. If these terrorists are not deterred by the prospect of having their AMA insurance voided if they break AMA rules, then what’s to stop them?
You have brought to light a concern that might be shared by the officials in the agencies that are being lobbied by AMA. Injecting himself, as the primary representative of the organization, in the limelight of an activity that he is urgently pressing for AMA to prohibit does tend to raise doubts about his sincerity and true motives. Another demonstration of AMA’s commitment to homeland security is clearly needed. I propose that AMA act immediately to ban shoes from AMA flying sites. As there will be some unavoidable delay in implementation of the rule, even by emergency action of the EC as was done for autonomy ban, it should first be enforced at AMA HQ and the National Flying Site. I believe Dave Brown can issue such an edict affecting those facilities without going through the hoops involved in changing the Safety Code. Pictures of AMA officials, staff , and users of the facilities all going barefoot ought to make a suitable impression on all interested parties of AMA’s sincerity in dealing with this matter of national concern.
Abel
Yes you should just ignore this. Dave Brown has gone to some lengths to get this prohibition enacted as covertly as possible, such that it not be derailed or delayed by discussion of inputs from the hoi polloi members that don’t know what is good for them and AMA and the free world. It was in his plans to put AMA in control over terrorists for over a year before being proposed to the assembled EC as an urgent matter, without having been put on the agenda or otherwise giving even the EC representatives an opportunity to consider possible adverse consequences that might arise from it. Surely you can understand how important it must be.
The terrorist threat of model airplanes has been assessed by the intelligence analyst profiled in this article: http://seacoastonline.com/news/03222003/news/19058.htm
While Mr. Lidman demonstrated the danger that model airplanes could be used as weapons by deploying them from his car, the report makes no mention of them having the capability for autonomous flight. Dave Brown drew upon his own extensive expertise in terrorist threat assessment to characterize the danger as more acute with models so equipped.
Neither Lidman nor Brown described the weapons payload that would be delivered by a model airplane cum terrorist cruise missile. I have given this a lot of thought, and the answer finally came to me almost “out of the blue.” Shoes. It’s so obvious I could kick myself for not thinking of it sooner. This isn’t just hypothetical – shoes have actually been employed as the weapons of choice by terrorists, unlike model airplanes whether or not equipped for autonomous flight. If you have flown on a commercial carrier lately, then you know that shoes get special scrutiny by security personnel. A shoe could easily be secreted in the fuselage of a model airplane.
I know that the autonomy prohibition is just a step in Dave’s overall plan. Enforcing that rule over AMA members is only a start. If you have read his columns, you might have seen his proposal that Homeland Security only allow model flying at AMA sites when the threat level is raised. The objective is to get AMA control over ALL model flying via lobbying Homeland Security, FAA et al to require conformance of all model airplane flying to the Official Academy of Model Aeronautics National Safety Code (man that sounds impressive, doesn’t it?). Ruling out autonomy demonstrates to these agencies that AMA is being proactive in the war against terrorism, and should have control over all model airplane operations in the USA. Just think – there are probably millions of model airplane enthusiasts in the country, and all but about 170,000 are outlaws, doubtless including some terrorists. If these terrorists are not deterred by the prospect of having their AMA insurance voided if they break AMA rules, then what’s to stop them?
You have brought to light a concern that might be shared by the officials in the agencies that are being lobbied by AMA. Injecting himself, as the primary representative of the organization, in the limelight of an activity that he is urgently pressing for AMA to prohibit does tend to raise doubts about his sincerity and true motives. Another demonstration of AMA’s commitment to homeland security is clearly needed. I propose that AMA act immediately to ban shoes from AMA flying sites. As there will be some unavoidable delay in implementation of the rule, even by emergency action of the EC as was done for autonomy ban, it should first be enforced at AMA HQ and the National Flying Site. I believe Dave Brown can issue such an edict affecting those facilities without going through the hoops involved in changing the Safety Code. Pictures of AMA officials, staff , and users of the facilities all going barefoot ought to make a suitable impression on all interested parties of AMA’s sincerity in dealing with this matter of national concern.
Abel
10-01-2003 | 02:53 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (8)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: charlotte,
NC
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: blue62
doesn't it seem funny to anybody else that the new rules read "No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight." yet they just made a big deal out of somebody doing this very thing?
john
doesn't it seem funny to anybody else that the new rules read "No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight." yet they just made a big deal out of somebody doing this very thing?
john
Your not the only one blue 62. I asked the same question a while ago and got no answers. The acting president and past president of AMA get to participate in autonomous flight but nobody else in the AMA can. Its apparently not PC to ask why either.
10-01-2003 | 03:29 PM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
The only definition of autonomous so far is a plane that requires no pilot input to take off, fly, and land. The plane used in the Tran-Alantic crossing was not autonomous, by that definition.
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
10-01-2003 | 03:33 PM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
Abel
Having been through the airport a few times recently, it occured to me that whoever said we should be thankful that Richard Reid is know as the "Shoe Bomber" was absolutely correct. Can you imagine the scene at headquarters if Reid was known, instead, as the underware bomber?
JR
Having been through the airport a few times recently, it occured to me that whoever said we should be thankful that Richard Reid is know as the "Shoe Bomber" was absolutely correct. Can you imagine the scene at headquarters if Reid was known, instead, as the underware bomber?
JR
10-01-2003 | 04:01 PM
#6
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: J_R
The only definition of autonomous so far is a plane that requires no pilot input to take off, fly, and land. The plane used in the Tran-Alantic crossing was not autonomous, by that definition.
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
The only definition of autonomous so far is a plane that requires no pilot input to take off, fly, and land. The plane used in the Tran-Alantic crossing was not autonomous, by that definition.
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
However, the rule applies to R/C aircraft as stated. The rule prohibits R/C aircraft from being equipped so as to be capable of autonomous flight (unless there is another addendum that I didn't know about and hence did not ask Ms Hager to provide). If that is so, then TAM would fit the definition, as it was so equipped and in fact did operate autonomously for most of its flight. Where is the definition you related here (particularly as it pertains to no pilot input to take off and land) to be found in AMA rules, particularly in association with the rule banning autonomous operation?
I don't expect you to be able to explain it - nobody with a normal, rational mind could, as 'autonomous remote controlled model airplane' is clearly an oxymoron. It is either controllable remotely by a human pilot OR (exclusive or) it is autonomous. It cannot be both. Of course a measly detail like a logical paradox isn't something DB would let stand in his way of saving the world.
Abel
10-01-2003 | 05:41 PM
#7
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
Abel
Let's get the technical facts out of the way first. The 2004 Safety Code does not go into effect until 1/1/04, so this discussion about TAM is moot. It was also an FAI effort which does not fall under the AMA rules, and lets remember that, at least at this point, the AMA makes rules, not laws. There are a LOT of things that the FAI does differently than the AMA. Also remember that the AMA is the USA representive to the FAI. FAI certificates/licenses or whatever you want to call them, are sold by the AMA. Some FAI events can be put on at an AMA chartered club, others may not. There is nothing illegal, immoral or against the rules in participating in FAI events. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged. The AMA sponsers teams to compete in FAI events at the World Championship level. In the past that has made for some problems, such as the fact that much heavier models had been allowed in scale than the AMA allows.
Now, the new rule will also calls for maintaining unenhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation. That certainly would eliminate the TAM effort, in the future, under AMA rules.
The only addendum that I have seen is the one that was posted on RCU. Abel, believe it or not, I do not contact the AMA daily, weekly or even monthly. I do it when I want to know something. Your turn.
JR
Let's get the technical facts out of the way first. The 2004 Safety Code does not go into effect until 1/1/04, so this discussion about TAM is moot. It was also an FAI effort which does not fall under the AMA rules, and lets remember that, at least at this point, the AMA makes rules, not laws. There are a LOT of things that the FAI does differently than the AMA. Also remember that the AMA is the USA representive to the FAI. FAI certificates/licenses or whatever you want to call them, are sold by the AMA. Some FAI events can be put on at an AMA chartered club, others may not. There is nothing illegal, immoral or against the rules in participating in FAI events. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged. The AMA sponsers teams to compete in FAI events at the World Championship level. In the past that has made for some problems, such as the fact that much heavier models had been allowed in scale than the AMA allows.
Now, the new rule will also calls for maintaining unenhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation. That certainly would eliminate the TAM effort, in the future, under AMA rules.
The only addendum that I have seen is the one that was posted on RCU. Abel, believe it or not, I do not contact the AMA daily, weekly or even monthly. I do it when I want to know something. Your turn.
JR
10-01-2003 | 05:44 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (8)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: charlotte,
NC
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: J_R
The only definition of autonomous so far is a plane that requires no pilot input to take off, fly, and land. The plane used in the Tran-Alantic crossing was not autonomous, by that definition.
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
The only definition of autonomous so far is a plane that requires no pilot input to take off, fly, and land. The plane used in the Tran-Alantic crossing was not autonomous, by that definition.
yeah, yeah, I know Abel, the key phrase is "so far".
10-01-2003 | 06:08 PM
#9
Banned
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Swampsville,
AL,
RE: autonomous flight
JR-
If you recall what you have posted about it previously, after consulting with presumably knowledgeable people in AMA, is that the issue is more about people's perceptions than the realistic prospect of terrorists employing model airplanes to do their dirty deeds. The only inference I made with reference to DB's involvement with TAM had to do with exactly that: perceptions. Reread the rationale for it currently in the minutes posted on the AMA web site for the July 03 EC meeting. Does that, or does it not, express a concern for potential problems for a club based on perceptions of a psychotic neighbor? The facts of the legitimacy of TAM under FAI vs. AMA rules is not likely going to be much of an influence on said neighbor's hysteria. Nor, IMHO, would it matter to perceptions of those agency officials AMA is lobbying.
Edited to add:
While you are perusing the rationalizing of this motion contained in the minutes, think about how the nutcase neighbor would know whether a model airplane is autonomous or under the control of a human operator. Then ask yourself if it would make any difference to him. I really don't know; it just doesn't make any sense to me, as is the case with everything else about this action by the EC. I admit to having little comprehension of the machinations of a hysterical mind. Guess I'll have to defer to DB's experience on that.
H(*
If you recall what you have posted about it previously, after consulting with presumably knowledgeable people in AMA, is that the issue is more about people's perceptions than the realistic prospect of terrorists employing model airplanes to do their dirty deeds. The only inference I made with reference to DB's involvement with TAM had to do with exactly that: perceptions. Reread the rationale for it currently in the minutes posted on the AMA web site for the July 03 EC meeting. Does that, or does it not, express a concern for potential problems for a club based on perceptions of a psychotic neighbor? The facts of the legitimacy of TAM under FAI vs. AMA rules is not likely going to be much of an influence on said neighbor's hysteria. Nor, IMHO, would it matter to perceptions of those agency officials AMA is lobbying.
Edited to add:
While you are perusing the rationalizing of this motion contained in the minutes, think about how the nutcase neighbor would know whether a model airplane is autonomous or under the control of a human operator. Then ask yourself if it would make any difference to him. I really don't know; it just doesn't make any sense to me, as is the case with everything else about this action by the EC. I admit to having little comprehension of the machinations of a hysterical mind. Guess I'll have to defer to DB's experience on that.
H(*
10-01-2003 | 07:46 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Rogers ,
TX,
RE: autonomous flight
ok i am not worried if they let me fly "autonomosly or not, i mean where is the fun in that anyway? whats the point? its almost like setting your computer up to download pix off of the newsgroups while you go drink beer! what i question is the rule saying i can't then him going right out and doing it himself!! i mean ok if it is bad lets not do it!!! any of us! none!! i have no problem with that.
john
john
10-01-2003 | 08:36 PM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
blue62
The technical stuff in the post to Abel was primarily for you. The answer is there are more than one set of rules and you are invited to play by those you choose, or for that matter, any others of your own making, as long as they are legal. When you belong to the AMA you do not swear alligence to it, and are permitted to do other things in your modeling life.
I think that is what Abel is trying to get at. He believes DB wants you, and your sworn oath to uphold the AMA. At this point, I agree with Abel's general arguments. IF things were to get to the point of losing the hobby, then it MIGHT behoove us to all swear alligence. Until that time, we each get to do what we want, within the rules of the places we fly at and the laws. Even Dave Brown, as AMA President, has the same rights the rest of us do.
What Dave wants for the AMA is another matter. I have to build up the energy to face the questions Abel is asking and try to say something half way intelligent.
JR
The technical stuff in the post to Abel was primarily for you. The answer is there are more than one set of rules and you are invited to play by those you choose, or for that matter, any others of your own making, as long as they are legal. When you belong to the AMA you do not swear alligence to it, and are permitted to do other things in your modeling life.
I think that is what Abel is trying to get at. He believes DB wants you, and your sworn oath to uphold the AMA. At this point, I agree with Abel's general arguments. IF things were to get to the point of losing the hobby, then it MIGHT behoove us to all swear alligence. Until that time, we each get to do what we want, within the rules of the places we fly at and the laws. Even Dave Brown, as AMA President, has the same rights the rest of us do.
What Dave wants for the AMA is another matter. I have to build up the energy to face the questions Abel is asking and try to say something half way intelligent.
JR
10-01-2003 | 08:56 PM
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth,
TX
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: blue62
ok i am not worried if they let me fly "autonomosly or not, i mean where is the fun in that anyway? whats the point? its almost like setting your computer up to download pix off of the newsgroups while you go drink beer! what i question is the rule saying i can't then him going right out and doing it himself!! i mean ok if it is bad lets not do it!!! any of us! none!! i have no problem with that.
john
ok i am not worried if they let me fly "autonomosly or not, i mean where is the fun in that anyway? whats the point? its almost like setting your computer up to download pix off of the newsgroups while you go drink beer! what i question is the rule saying i can't then him going right out and doing it himself!! i mean ok if it is bad lets not do it!!! any of us! none!! i have no problem with that.
john
1) How do US Rules apply to Nova Scotia, the open sea, and Ireland?
2) how does a rule that doesn't exist get violated
3) since when is MAynard Hill = Dave Brown?
4) have you been seeing SF Professionally?
10-01-2003 | 10:28 PM
#13
RE: autonomous flight
(AMA Safety Code for 2004)
"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."
" autonomous" undertaken or carried on without outside control : SELF-CONTAINED
a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid (Maybe that is it![:-])> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole
The FMA autopilot will keep a model on level flight until it runs out of airspeed. That fits all definitions of autonomous flight as so did the V-1 Bombs Hitler sent to England.
The FMA and similar A/Ps are a definite enhancement for very high performance aircraft.
The lawyers will have a field day with that one. Again the EC reacts to a crock from Jay mealy (EC minutes) with little foresight and/or knowledge of what they are doing.
As I say LESS RULES. Even the IRS has now (past 10 years) enough sense to do cases on a one on one basis and not to let a court ruling in one case interfere with another court case.
The liberal mental fiasco of "Make another law" prevails and will cause AMA much pain as they continue to stomp their foot on their own more and more each day.
What a shame.
"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."
" autonomous" undertaken or carried on without outside control : SELF-CONTAINED
a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid (Maybe that is it![:-])> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole
The FMA autopilot will keep a model on level flight until it runs out of airspeed. That fits all definitions of autonomous flight as so did the V-1 Bombs Hitler sent to England.
The FMA and similar A/Ps are a definite enhancement for very high performance aircraft.
The lawyers will have a field day with that one. Again the EC reacts to a crock from Jay mealy (EC minutes) with little foresight and/or knowledge of what they are doing.
As I say LESS RULES. Even the IRS has now (past 10 years) enough sense to do cases on a one on one basis and not to let a court ruling in one case interfere with another court case.
The liberal mental fiasco of "Make another law" prevails and will cause AMA much pain as they continue to stomp their foot on their own more and more each day.
What a shame.
10-02-2003 | 06:10 AM
#14
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Rogers ,
TX,
RE: autonomous flight
ok i get the pic. i can do whatever i want as long as i don't try to collect on the insurance if there is an accident. or as long as its not at an ama endorsed event or in muncie. i noticed they have ruled against nitrous oxide too. that is a good rule to me. seemed kinda wierd when i read it but then i saw a guy on here that was usin nitrous on his rc cars. so they aren't really "rules" per se, more like guidelines unless there is an accident, then u are on your own if you were violating a "rule". just like regular insurance huh
john
ps J_R thanx for the clarification
john
ps J_R thanx for the clarification
10-02-2003 | 10:08 AM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: horsasse
JR-
If you recall what you have posted about it previously, after consulting with presumably knowledgeable people in AMA, is that the issue is more about people's perceptions than the realistic prospect of terrorists employing model airplanes to do their dirty deeds. The only inference I made with reference to DB's involvement with TAM had to do with exactly that: perceptions. Reread the rationale for it currently in the minutes posted on the AMA web site for the July 03 EC meeting. Does that, or does it not, express a concern for potential problems for a club based on perceptions of a psychotic neighbor? The facts of the legitimacy of TAM under FAI vs. AMA rules is not likely going to be much of an influence on said neighbor's hysteria. Nor, IMHO, would it matter to perceptions of those agency officials AMA is lobbying.
Edited to add:
While you are perusing the rationalizing of this motion contained in the minutes, think about how the nutcase neighbor would know whether a model airplane is autonomous or under the control of a human operator. Then ask yourself if it would make any difference to him. I really don't know; it just doesn't make any sense to me, as is the case with everything else about this action by the EC. I admit to having little comprehension of the machinations of a hysterical mind. Guess I'll have to defer to DB's experience on that.
H(*
JR-
If you recall what you have posted about it previously, after consulting with presumably knowledgeable people in AMA, is that the issue is more about people's perceptions than the realistic prospect of terrorists employing model airplanes to do their dirty deeds. The only inference I made with reference to DB's involvement with TAM had to do with exactly that: perceptions. Reread the rationale for it currently in the minutes posted on the AMA web site for the July 03 EC meeting. Does that, or does it not, express a concern for potential problems for a club based on perceptions of a psychotic neighbor? The facts of the legitimacy of TAM under FAI vs. AMA rules is not likely going to be much of an influence on said neighbor's hysteria. Nor, IMHO, would it matter to perceptions of those agency officials AMA is lobbying.
Edited to add:
While you are perusing the rationalizing of this motion contained in the minutes, think about how the nutcase neighbor would know whether a model airplane is autonomous or under the control of a human operator. Then ask yourself if it would make any difference to him. I really don't know; it just doesn't make any sense to me, as is the case with everything else about this action by the EC. I admit to having little comprehension of the machinations of a hysterical mind. Guess I'll have to defer to DB's experience on that.
H(*
I tried to look at this issue as a scared citizen might. I have considerable difficulty in doing that. I can see where someone might view models as a threat and want to abolish them. I have to ask should we abolish cars that have trunks? bicycles? fertilizer? The list is almost infinite. On the one side, some concern must be shown, but, at the same time, we can not live with a bunker mentality. To be honest, I have pretty much decided that this is an issue I will let others fight. Given my druthers, I would like to see most rules eliminated in most areas of life. I don't want a bubble to hide in. I gonna stop because I can feel a rant coming on.
JR
10-02-2003 | 10:16 AM
#17
Banned
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: right \'round here someplace
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: J_R
I would like to see most rules eliminated in most areas of life. I don't want a bubble to hide in. I gonna stop because I can feel a rant coming on.
JR
I would like to see most rules eliminated in most areas of life. I don't want a bubble to hide in. I gonna stop because I can feel a rant coming on.
JR
Please go ahead and rant. I could not agree more! Maybe I have been wrong about you.
10-02-2003 | 11:24 AM
#18
RE: autonomous flight
>>>>>>>>
JR the all-knowing see-all with a good telephone, says:
"Given my druthers, I would like to see most rules eliminated in most areas of life. I don't want a bubble to hide in. I gonna stop because I can feel a rant coming on."
<<<<<<<<<<
Hey now JR, you accuse me of being unethical and immoral when I simply follow the EC's own rules.
Now you want rules done away with, because someone asks a question that you can't grab a 'phone and get the programmed answer.
How do you know about NOT living in a bubble? When have you ever been out of the EC's bubble?
JR the all-knowing see-all with a good telephone, says:
"Given my druthers, I would like to see most rules eliminated in most areas of life. I don't want a bubble to hide in. I gonna stop because I can feel a rant coming on."
<<<<<<<<<<
Hey now JR, you accuse me of being unethical and immoral when I simply follow the EC's own rules.
Now you want rules done away with, because someone asks a question that you can't grab a 'phone and get the programmed answer.
How do you know about NOT living in a bubble? When have you ever been out of the EC's bubble?
10-02-2003 | 11:55 AM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: autonomous flight
Horrace
I accuse you of nothing. Violations of moral and ethical standards is a personal judgement. It is fact that You and Sandy Frank violiated my standards, and apparently those of many others. If you did not violate yours, fine.
Can I get along with EC members? In some cases I can. You simply chose not to. Again, a personal decision.
Just maybe it is time for you to re-evaluate your own standards and decisions. That is for you alone to decide.
Each voter gets to express his or her standards.
JR
I accuse you of nothing. Violations of moral and ethical standards is a personal judgement. It is fact that You and Sandy Frank violiated my standards, and apparently those of many others. If you did not violate yours, fine.
Can I get along with EC members? In some cases I can. You simply chose not to. Again, a personal decision.
Just maybe it is time for you to re-evaluate your own standards and decisions. That is for you alone to decide.
Each voter gets to express his or her standards.
JR
10-02-2003 | 12:16 PM
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Canton,
MI
RE: autonomous flight
When they outlaw Remote Controlled Autonomous Planes
Only Outlaws will have Remote Controlled Autonomous Planes[X(]
If you want to hurt someone ... there are many ways.[>:]
Even our government couldn't stop them. Neither will DB.
But ya got to give DB credit for playing the trump card ! ... very clever!
Lets Lighten Up a bit ... what-da-ya-say
[8D]
Only Outlaws will have Remote Controlled Autonomous Planes[X(]
If you want to hurt someone ... there are many ways.[>:]
Even our government couldn't stop them. Neither will DB.
But ya got to give DB credit for playing the trump card !
... very clever!Lets Lighten Up a bit ... what-da-ya-say
[8D]
10-02-2003 | 01:03 PM
#21
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: autonomous flight
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
(AMA Safety Code for 2004)
<snip>
The lawyers will have a field day with that one. Again the EC reacts to a crock from Jay mealy (EC minutes) with little foresight and/or knowledge of what they are doing.
As I say LESS RULES. Even the IRS has now (past 10 years) enough sense to do cases on a one on one basis and not to let a court ruling in one case interfere with another court case.
The liberal mental fiasco of "Make another law" prevails and will cause AMA much pain as they continue to stomp their foot on their own more and more each day.
What a shame.
(AMA Safety Code for 2004)
<snip>
The lawyers will have a field day with that one. Again the EC reacts to a crock from Jay mealy (EC minutes) with little foresight and/or knowledge of what they are doing.
As I say LESS RULES. Even the IRS has now (past 10 years) enough sense to do cases on a one on one basis and not to let a court ruling in one case interfere with another court case.
The liberal mental fiasco of "Make another law" prevails and will cause AMA much pain as they continue to stomp their foot on their own more and more each day.
What a shame.
For the second time today I agree with you (other is thread re UMA in rmra ng).
Scary, Man.
Now then, I say less rules (voter registration as Libertarian), you say less rules. So why are you raggin' on JR when he says less rules?
Just too much agreeing goin' on for a contrary old onager is my guess.
Abel
10-02-2003 | 01:36 PM
#22
RE: autonomous flight
This isn’t just hypothetical – shoes have actually been employed as the weapons of choice by terrorists, unlike model airplanes whether or not equipped for autonomous flight.
Now they call me stinky feet.
10-02-2003 | 07:29 PM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Locust Grove,
GA
RE: autonomous flight
Isn't this basically what a co-pilot does?
ORIGINAL: blue62
doesn't it seem funny to anybody else that the new rules read "No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."
doesn't it seem funny to anybody else that the new rules read "No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."
10-02-2003 | 09:30 PM
#24
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redwood City, CA
RE: autonomous flight
The FMA Copilot does not maintain airspeed, altitude or heading. It only maintains pitch and roll attitude.
A Copilot equipped model would behave similarly to a well-trimmed trainer if ground control is lost.
We do need a definition for autonomous. At the very least it would have to include airspeed and altitude control. Positional awareness may or may not be required.
[Edited the functional description]
A Copilot equipped model would behave similarly to a well-trimmed trainer if ground control is lost.
We do need a definition for autonomous. At the very least it would have to include airspeed and altitude control. Positional awareness may or may not be required.
[Edited the functional description]
10-02-2003 | 09:38 PM
#25
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Hawthorne, CA
RE: autonomous flight
From a PR standpoint it makes sense to add the autonomous clause to the safety code. It doesn't mean you can't do it just as the rest of the safety code isn't a list of things you can't do, it's just a list of things that might make the secondary insurance void.
