I had a chance to talk to Dave Brown today about autonomous models. He does not much like the necessity of the new rule. He stated that this was an effort to define what a model is and what it is not. He said that it had become necessary because of the proliferation of UAVs commercially. The FCC is going to regulate all UAVs. It was his ascertain that the FAA will require transponders and flight plans on ALL UAV’s soon. Many of these commercial UAVs are smaller, the typical size of our models. This is not a safety issue. The terrorism issue is minor, in his opinion. He felt that no separate definition of autonomous is necessary. The definition that he used was that of a plane that takes off and goes to a point, or returns and lands, without input is autonomous. When asked about the FMA type co-pilots, he said that they are not included in the definition, by definition, and if it had been the object to ban them, it would have been simple enough to write a rule with that intent. When asked about line-of-sight, he reiterated that the necessity of a transponder and flight plan over rode consideration of using that as the limiting factor. His overall assessment was that 99.9% of existing UAVs are not models and 99.9% of models are not UAVs and the impact should be negligible on the AMA membership. In the larger scheme of things, the FAA is concerned about sharing airspace with UAVs and the potential for accidents as more commercial UAV flights take place. I got the distinct impression that “staff” had come to the EC with this, as opposed to DB causing it to be brought before the EC.

As an aside , when asked about eyeglasses being an issue in the rule requiring unenhanced visual contact, he said glasses were corrected vision, not enhanced vision.

JR

that difinition diference between corrected and enhanced vision, is fodder for any good money grubbing lawyer.
and still, i believe that the only thing that seperates a UAV from a model, is purpose. if it is used for comerce, it is a uav.

Not here to argue your conversation and relaying DB's day-dreams, opinions, etc.

Just a personal question.

Does your Avatar (a : an incarnation in human form b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person ) associate you with the extraterrestrial form "Ancients" purported to be malevolent to humans?

Just wondering if you are making a statement? [X(]

ROFLMAO

No, nothing that deep. I picked it because a lot of my opinions seem to be "out of this world" and not within the realm of acceptance by more normal people. Horrace, I know you don't think I have a sense of humor, but, I learned to laugh at myself a long time ago. The Avatar is just a reminder to me to not take myself too seriously.

JR

So, would the aircraft that recently got into the record books for crossing the atlantic still be classified a model...or will that record be removed from the "model aircraft records" list?

P-51B

IF the recent Atlantic flight gets into the record book, it would probably stay there. If accepted, it would be an AMA record as well as an FAI record. A waiver is being worked on to allow attempts to break such records. As it stands right now, even the altitude record could not be attempted after the first of the year since it requires unenhanced vision, although it would not necessarily be autonomous. Another thing that I found amazing is that the FAI judges whether a model is a model by the "intent". Man, would that make for a debate.

JR

[Inadvertent duplicate post removed - see next.
Abel

Well, I am in agreement with him. I don't much like it either.
[quote]
He said that it had become necessary because of the proliferation of UAVs commercially. The FCC is going to regulate all UAVs. It was his ascertain that the FAA will require transponders and flight plans on ALL UAV’s soon. Many of these commercial UAVs are smaller, the typical size of our models. This is not a safety issue.[quote]

Agreed it is certainly not a safety issue, so it follows that it has no place in the Safety Code. The FAA has made it clear that they need to regulate UAV's, and they see no need to regulate model airplanes. They have not admitted to not knowing the difference between a model airplane and a UAV. Arbitrarily limiting model airplanes so FAA can distinguish between them and UAV's distains their intelligence, in a way that I liken to the opinion of hunters held by the farmers that paint 'COW' on the side of their livestock during hunting season.

It was, however, the reason stated in the EC minutes for the rule change, and the prospect of terrorists using model airplanes was the topic of his Aug '02 column, no doubt the spark that got 'staff' motivated to bring it to the EC and please the boss.

Though not needed, his definition does help clarify what the EC meant. The TAM is clearly NOT autonomous by DB's definition, because it did not take off. An undercarriage is thus established as a necessary part of equipment allowing for autonomous operation.

[quote] When asked about the FMA type co-pilots, he said that they are not included in the definition, by definition, and if it had been the object to ban them, it would have been simple enough to write a rule with that intent.
[quote]

This definition, not included in the non-definition because definion is not required, is nonetheless particularly clarifying. Like the FMA-type co-pilots (whatever a FMA type copilot is, and whether there are any of that type available from other sources), the BTA autopilot that has been available from hobby suppliers for many years is not included in the definition (or non-definition), nor are controls based on position/attitude sensing by inertial platforms, GPS or any other means. As DB said, if it had been the object to ban them it would have been simple enough to write a rule with that intent.
I can see now that my disagreement with DB was to a substantial degree based on my misunderstanding of what they were actually banning, and not.
It would interesting to hear his reasoning as to how a ban on autonomous controls obviates the necessity of a transponder and flight plan, while operation within LOS does not. I would not have thought FAA would require a transponder and flight plan for operation of a model thats operating space is restricted to within the view of the operator, and outside of the operating area of regulated aircraft.
I had guessed about 3% of modelers would be affected, but my projection was unscientifically based on 3 of about 100 members of a club I belong to being engaged with autonomous models. One is a mentor to some engineering students involved in intercollegiate challenges and I included him, but the students aren't AMA members AFIAK, so they don't count. I've read in this forum that AMA does enough for education to justify their tax exemption by publishing a magazine. Anyway, by DB's estimate only about 170 AMA members would be affected. I guess from his lofty view of the larger scheme of things, these members are of little significance. Okay by me, I'm not one of them so it's no skin off my nose.
And here I thought we were okay because we have always avoided sharing airspace with FAA regulated aircraft, regardless of how our models were equipped. Something else in the larger scheme of things DB is aware of and I was not. Live and learn.

Thanks for posting this JR. Apparently I'm not as much in disagreement with DB as I thought I was. Good ol' Dave, always does what's best for us, not what we in our ignorance think we want.

Abe

Hi Abel

I see, with the posting of the agenda for the EC Meeting in Feb., that you have a new White Knight to champion the cause of Autonomous Flight

JR

Evening J_R

Why would this be an AMA record?

I thought this was a FAI affair/event.

The model was flown from a North American country, north of the 49th parallel, to a European country, over International waters.

I am certainly missing something here with the logic/discussion that is being spewed in the forum on this subject.

thanks

cheers
Don Dow
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, North America, Plant Earth, (3rd rock from the Sun)

Hi Donovan

The thread is about autonomous models in general and the new AMA rule regarding them, not about the Maynard Hill flight. Sorry.

At least it started out that way.

JR

Donavan, in rereading the thread, I see your point.

In order for a record to be an FAI record, it must first be a record in the country submitting it.

That's just great, JR. Don Quixote hisself! I'll sleep much better tonight.
Most of the guys I know that are involved in this aspect of modeling are doing it under the aegis of educational institutions that can provide the liability coverage, so they are philosophical about AMA selling them out. They won't be able to use AMA sanctioned club fields, except those on public property and where they can convince the owning agency that they deserve to share access with the club. Not a BFD for them, and aside from losing some dues-paying members the only downside for AMA EC is that they are looking stupid again, which doesn't seem to be a BFD for them. Seems to be a non-issue for most involved, so it's off my agenda.

Abel

Geez, don't know what the big to do is about autonomous flight

The Preditor and Preditor B's and GNAT have been doing it for the past few years all over the world. even under IFR flight plans.
course our dinky models won't get to flt. lvl 20 anyhow.

May want to look up an old record. (well it was denied due to an engine modification...) I think it was about 1975, there was a Model Aviation article abot a model EXCEEEDING 37000 ft. He met the under 11 lb rule... but he made a turbocharger for the engine to be able to operate at that altitude.

****

BTW... you can now BUY a turbocharger for yout glow engines... ( not cheap... but available )

Guys
The AMA election is coming down to the wire and we need to keep the momentum going if you would like to continue your work with UAVs and video enhanced flight then you need to get your vote in for Mr. Dave Mathewson if you have not cast your vote for the office of AMA president then please do it now.
Please pass this on to all of your modeling friends and your club members regardless if they are involved in autonomous or video enhanced flight or not, they make up the vast majority of our membership please ask them to visit Mr.Mathewson web site at www.mathewson4pres.com. and if they do not have a a computer then please ask them to vote for him in this very important election. Ask them to past this on to all of there modeling friends. It's very important that we reach as many members who have not yet exercised their right to vote. It's very important to point out in your email that the ballots need to be postmarked by no later then next Friday, November 12, 2004 and will only count if they're mailed to the address on the front of the ballot no postage required. You do not have to renew your AMA member to vote in this 2004 election. Please get those ballets in the Mail now. One last thing if we have to 4 more years of Dave Brown you could very well see your work with autonomous and video enhanced flight come to a screeching halt, even if you are not flying at an AMA site so please get those ballets in and vote for Dave Mathewson.
Dave Jones

Got my Ballot in. Hopes this one makes a two-fer

Erich

I haven't posted in this section of the forum before; I've tried following the different threads in order to try and understand where our hobby is going, but it gets too political for me most of the time. I don't doubt the necessity of rules, regulation, and their interpretation, I think there has to be a certain amount of order and consistency. I don't really know where I am going with these thoughts, so I'll address some thoughts from the above, and from these other posts.

I don't know what the "new rule" states, regarding autonomous models, but it sounds like before long, all models will have to have some sort of tracking mechanism on board. Would a model aircraft, using the traditional meaning, that has an on-board video system that enabled the operator of said model to fly it beyond his "normal" visual limits, or out of his direct line of sight, then be classified as an UAV? How about the limited range of our transmitter/receiver system as a determinant of what is a model and what is an UAV? What about flight altitude? I can't see models as much of a threat to FAA controlled aviation when we rarely fly more than a couple of hundred feet high and within a fairly restricted boundary, this in itself seems a good separation of what is a model vs. an UAV. At most that could be handled in the same manner as model rockets have been for years, with FAA waivers into controlled airspace and areas specified on aeronautical maps.

I'd probably think of other scenarios given time. I just worry that regulation of this sort will hurt the hobby by driving some people away, and discouraging others from starting. Most of us just want to buzz around the patch on sunny weekends "in" our stick and cloth contraptions. Mavbe those who want more should consider another level of the hobby, with more regulation and a minimum requirement of expertise, also similar to what has happened to high power rocketry over the last ten years with certification levels as one desires to fly bigger and higher. I hope I haven't completely missed the point.

khodges-
You haven't missed the point at all; in fact you seem to have a much better than average grasp of it. The safety code was recently overhauled by a few of AMA's most able and respected, and they did a fine job. Not perfect, as there were limits and constraints placed on their charter, but in my view they stretched those conditions to the limit of what could optimistically be expected to gain approval to make it less restrictive and less ambiguous. WRT autonomous operation of models in particular, the new rule goes beyond my expectation toward reason than I thought possible in the current administration. I thought what resulted was entirely consistent with what major proponents of autonomous model flight have publicly stated they were seeking. A few, including one that that has long been an icon of modeldom and inspiration for me, are not yet satisfied with it though, and I'm looking for them to post specifics regarding what more needs to be done to give them the freedoms they seek.

Abel

Thanks for your reply; since I posted that, I've gone back and scanned the threads regarding the subject of the new rule, and better understand the thoughts and motives behind it.Someone commented regarding terrorists using model aircraft and Maynard Hill demonstrating how possible it would be and "showing the terrorists, too"(sic). Well I guarantee that the terrorists have had a better handle on how to use one of these as a weapon than any of us could imagine, but they think a lot bigger than we do, as we saw on 9/11. There are so MANY ways they could deliver a weapon other than by use of a model airplane that it is almost ridiculous to consider that that means is any greater a threat that it should warrant special legislation to decrease its likelihood. I think Mr. Brown has his act together, that he feels such a rule is unnecessary. There was a comparison made to using shoes as a WMD. Has Hush Puppy and Florsheim been approached yet regarding requiring a definition of 'non terroristic footwear"? And if such a mundane object can present such a danger to the ambulatory and commercial flying public, could any legislation of our little buzzbombs be effective? Doubtful.

I can't see any reason to make legislation or definition between UAV or model airplane. With subverted motives, most anything can be misused or made dangerous, and these rules will just lead to more restriction later (or sooner). And Autonomous Flight: it's a natural progression for the modeling world to attempt what technology has done on the grander scale, after all, that's how model airplanes came about in the first place, for the everyman to be able to copy the pioneers of aviation on a smaller scale. But, as I said in my earlier post, maybe these advanced ideas should be more closely governed, but in a way that promotes safety and education rather than a way that stifles it.

It's late where I am, I'm tired, somebody tell me to shut the **** up before I hurt myself. Later.

I would, but you are more right than wrong.

Hi ya'll,

This subject sure dragged on? and we went to the AMA with suggestions

NOW, please check my report in this forum, post "Autonomous Flight"

Read the oficial 2005 safety code and lets hear what your opinion is, OK?

SUL

Hal [email protected]

Hal-
Got it, read it, and my opinion is that it's a great job that has needed tending to for many years. The guys we owe a show of gratitude to for this job well done are Dave Mathewson, Bob Underwood, and Ron Morgan. I'm sure you must know each of these gentlemen better most of us do, that they considered your suggestions very thoughtfully, and that you would not be surprised that they did a good job for us.

Abel

I don't think the FAA is that concerned about the terrorist threat. In fact I don't think many federal, state, or local governments are that concerned any more. In fact I recently noticed a very large building with those decorative bollards designed to stop a large semi. Problem is, is that they were spaced about 12 or more feet apart. One pair was on each side of a very large store front window about 15 feet square. This opening was into a very large lobby that could hold hundreds of people, the room was connected to a hall way with an opening about the same size as the window where the truck could park right next to a very large room typically used for conference displays, car shows, etc. A very large truck could easily drive right between the bollards and into the lobby, down the hall way and blow up killing thousands of people. So I don't think people are very worried about terrorist attacks anymore.

However the FAA is concerned about UAVs opererating in the same airspace as commercial aircraft. The AMA is simply throwing up its hands and outlawing autonomous models from it perview! Supposedly because there are so few who fly them. I guess the control line and free flight modelers will be thrown out next. The AMA should be fighting for them and setting up waiver procedures with the FAA as the model rocket modelers have done. Right now you cannot set an altitude record and meet FAA's rules, and their is no waiver procedure to do so. And that is not necessarily autonomous, but I bet they would be safer than peering through a large telescope!

What do you want, freedom? Not the AMA way where mommy knows all and modelers are unknowing and uncaring kids. Besides, I am not sure the FAI permits that type of control system to be used in record attempts. Guess we will have to ask Maynard to get the straight skinny. . . .


Bad attitude #5