With that line of thinking, we should just go ahead and ban turbines because there are so few of the membership flying them and because they might be unsafe. Same goes for pylon and combat.

The AMA was set up to advance aeromodeling. Not to stifle it. Look at the by-laws. The purposes are set forth in them.

If, every time some individual viewed something as dangerous or threatening we might all still be flying free flight. There would have been very little advancement.

As to what is expected of a FF model, read the FAI rules. The spotter in some events is required to have binoculars or a telescope to be able to track the craft after it leaves unaided sight. I suspect the AMA requires the same, but have not looked.

Wait , Wait I have an idea.....

Autonomous RC Combat..... Really take the pilot error out of it.....I swear some of mine were anyway......
JOKING!!!!

Actually, although I have been trying to avoid this discussion, I have a couple of points....

1. Turbines, Pylon and R/C Combat: Yes they are more dangerous than other aspects of the hobby, though I can argue this against some of the weekend action I have seen from "sport" flyers. They also stand as proof that with proper research, "exotic" applications and model aircraft can be managed in an accetably safe arena. So, I agree that with more research and properly applied regulation, I can see AUAC "Cross Country" events sanctioned by the AMA. Would I actually participate? Maybe, don't really know if that discipline would hold my interest.

2. AUAC could be possibly used as weapons, so could any of our aircraft, with the right setup. We need to keep an eye (as well as we can through our clubs and LHS's) on the possibility of people doing this. It is our responsibility to society as a whole, and to our hobby. Excessive regulation will not stiffle this. Case in point, Did you think it possible for someone to use an entire Beoing as a bomb against a building on September 10, 2001? You did on the 11th. Is it still likely? I hope not, but am sure that if someone wanted, event with the more stringent regulations in place, they could.

3. Are modelers the first to do this? Don't think so, look at NASA and that huge solor powered wing they have, with estimated flight durations measured in months and years. R/C planes may have led into the lateest UAV craze in the A.F., what will AUAC planes lead to in the future?

I say reasearch, then reasonably regulate, and let's see what happens.

Jay Lawless

That's right, there isn't anything new or ground breaking about any of this, I worked on the MAVERICK missile system in the 70s' and flying via TV is something well within the reach of anyone with a degree in RADIO SHACK ENGINEERING. The only thing that needs developing here is a way to make these systems affordable enough so the average" CHRISTMAS MORNING" modeler can open the box, fire it up, then go explore the neighborhood.

I submit (also using your inferences here) that within the opposite organizations, specifically the Gun Control Lobbys and MAAD, that there are extremists and zelots on both sides of any issue.

Again, this is why with proper research, a common ground set of regulations can be instituted which will be acceptable to most (the middle of the road), and will reasonably control the varying aspects of this new (and I assume growing) aspect of our hobby. (Note, as with any extremist laden situatuation, it will be nearly impossible to satisfy everyone in this situation)

My Opinions only

Jay Lawless

Jay-
You're right on except for what I extracted and cited. Actually your opinions are shared by some others, and it seems not just a few.

Abel

Yes, there are all kinds of risky things that we do that are fun and that are relatively safe if done in the right setting. I have flown AMA fast combat for over 20 years, and consider it a very dangerous sport, mostly for the spectators. CL Combat has cost the AMA a ton of money in claims and has ruined a few lives, but I am a "semi-fanatic" about it and would hate to see it go. As the power continues to increase, we are probably just a couple of horrendous accidents away from getting snuffed out by the AMA. Would I be able to understand the AMAs' position if they pulled the plug on combat? I would . I am wise enough to know when it is time to have faith in their wisdom.

Abel,

I merely was trying to indicate that I was expressing my opinions, not that they were exclusive.

I would naturally assume that others were of the same opinions, as I have seen them expressed here. I thought that a little differrent tack to the same point might help.

J.L.

Can we safely assume that if "they" set a new set of guidelines for autonomous flight, you would embrace the new guidelines?

Of course he would. As he stated something to the effect if the wisdom of the AMA dictates or something like that. Man he sure would get along good with Fred. Wouldn't it be nice if they were together!

BTW Piggy

look up "MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA" in my book that means your full of sh...errr I mean full of bologna

edit left it out

Roger that, Jay. You did notice the smiley, dincha?

AMA is not the only ones pushing this. Ther has been an annual competition sponsored by AIAA, involving college kids, for years. AMA should get involved! A couple of links....
http://www.koreauav.com/eng/3-History.htm
http://www.aiaa.org/author/index.hfm...d=1009&cfp=cfp

Hi Roger

I am not sure if I am misreading your post or not. The AMA is not currently pushing this... as a matter of fact they have banned models capable of autonomous flight. That is exactly the issue. Mr deBolt has a rule change proposal to put more reasonable limitations on autonomous flight. There may be some room for polishing it, but, it's on the right track.

And... you're right, the AMA should be involved, IMHO.

You are correct, if we refer to the AMA as the EC and Hq bunch. The membership, which is the AMA, is pushing this.
In all fairness, my post should have read " AMA is not the only ones who should be pushing this"
My bad.

Roger

I again agree with the thought line of this thread.

If the AMA EC (from the top?) does not have the foresight to see that the possibilities in this are very exciting, especially for model aviation, then they must be blinded by their determination to keep the status quo.

This is opening a completely new avenue to aeromodelers, and needs to be studied for the following:

1. Viability (already proven?)
2. Safety
3. Possible Level of membership participation
4. Rules sets to assist in governing new aspect of hobby. (IMPORTANT: Make these rules with the help and input from members active in the AUAC field. This ensures that the rules makers will have a clue (stretch))

Trust me in this, I am a competitior in the "darkside" of R/C (R/C Combat). Without the forming of our S.I.G. (RCCA) we would have less of a voice within the AMA, and would not have proven combat to be as safe as it is.

Maybe I am just trying to apply logic and reason to a situation and people where none exist......

J.L.

More dry tinder for this fire.......


Copied from the R/C Combat Forum RCU...

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008201

Check it out

Quite topic specific don't you think.

J.L.

JR, to answer your question, if the AMA was to set up guidelines for autonomous flight, I would have to think that they were pretty well thought out. I don't think it is the AMAs' call right now. The FEDS don't want to see it, and you can make all the rule proposals and sets of guidelines you want, but ultimately this topic is a dead issue because UNCLE SAM thinks that it is a bad idea.

People that think the Big Brothers will always do what is best for you are the ones that create all the problems or at least allow those problems to continue in force.
Petitions, negotiations presenting cases, etc., etc. are what gets changes made, be those changes good or bad, at least if enough people make enough noise things happen. Look at all the socialist takeovers in this country today. The liberals yell and yell while real working people do their own thing and nothing to stop the liberals. That is a bad thing but then just who is to blame? Those that do nothing.
Your type of propaganda is just what Big Brother loves to hear.
Question: Why do you use the "combat" in your user ID? I certainly would not have depended on you as a wingman or if having to have been on your wing. You need not explain the remainder.

While it may be that the FAA is comtemplating some other action, the best OFFICIAL statement I have seen is contained in this document. Note the date and the automatic cancelation date.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/N%208700-25.htm

In part, it reads:

d. The phrase “Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV)� is a universally recognized term that encompasses a vast spectrum of aircraft that are autonomous, semiautonomous, or remotely operated. Many other terms are used interchangeably, some intended to be synonymous with UAV, while others apply a separate meaning. For example, the term, Remote Operated Aircraft, has been used synonymously with UAV. It also has been used to identify several high-altitude, long range UAV-type aircraft. AFS-820’s intent is to document all use of, and develop policy for, all UAV-type aircraft, regardless of the marketing or design phraseology used. Therefore, all inquiries using UAV-type phraseology are to be forwarded to AFS-820. Examples include: Unoccupied Aerospace Vehicle, Remote Controlled Vehicle, Remote Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Radio Controlled aircraft, etc.

NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.

**********

Advisory Circular AC 91-57 has been posted here before and is located at

http://av-info.faa.gov/exit_warning....FAA/008920.pdf

Perhaps you have a link to something more current that is "official" and not an opinion, whether it be Dave Brown's or something attributed to a government agency. Let's see something in writting that supports your assertion.

Tsk, tsk, Hoss-

Can't you find something you like about Mr Pigg and be nice to him? How 'bout that likeness of Dave Brown in his avitar?

I think you're worried about the wrong big brother here, at least the lesser of two evils. I would be much less concerned about the big brother menace if AMA would take a hiatus from representing 'us' to FAA until we can get a new spokesman (president) installed.

Abel

HOSS, ABEL, judging from the content of your last boyish trys at making an issue about my ID, I doubt that either of you could lift my jock strap.

JR, it's my opinion that the FEDS don't want auto-flight. There might be documentation that exists, but I'm not going to waste my time .

Really...? So you are just wasting ours then.



Combat Piggy your an enigma...Why not just post the rules on your flight box then live them and love them...why even argue a point here at all? Just live by the wisdom of those that mandate your life and be happy.

BTW I didn't know Fred a Dave Brown looked alike.

Mr. Combatpigg

In response to your statement

( it's my opinion that the FEDS don't want auto-flight.)

I have been working on and developing autonomous aircraft for over 5 years now.
I was designing, building and flying them before 911, I am designing, building, and flying them after 911.
If you or any one would like to see what I have been working on you can go to my site at http://www.auav.net/
I the 5 + years I have been contacted one time by as you put it the FEDS it was the FBI and it was post 911.
I invited the agent to come to my shop so that he could see for himself what I was working on and why.
I was open and I told him that he could go any place in the shop that he wished and that he could checkout all of my computers, look into any cabinets, boxes or containers, ever thing in the shop was open to him.
We talked for over an hour and he flat out told me that the U.S. Government could not care less about model airplane size UAVs (3-10 ft wing spans) and that the only reason that he was in my shop talking to me was because someone that I had talked to on the phone that worked in a boat store and sold handheld GPS units and mapping software for GPS units had called the FBI to tell them about.
"This guy that was looking for a GPS to use in one of them there Remote Controlled model airplanes and he called it a UAV, so I know that he must be a terrorist and that is why I am calling you."

Mr. Combatpigg you don't by chance work in a boat store do you?

Dave Jones.
AUAV.net

LOL ROFLMAO[sm=lol.gif]

Sorry, got way off-topic.

Abel