RE: autonomous flight
 

definition arguements aside, the real focus is on getting the ec to retract their "in way too much haste" changes, and rethink what they actually want to say.
and yes, a balloon is an example of a truely autonomus vehicle.

RE: autonomous flight
 

Roger-
You're right, the Japanese used balloons with incendiary bombs (to start forest fires) against us, and we used bat bombs against them ( to start structure fires when the bats roosted). The EC needs to rule whether or not a balloon is autonomous. I submit they could circumvent the issue by deference to the FAA definition of aircraft that are subject to regulation, which excludes small balloons. Regarding bats, however, IMHO they are clearly autonomous and should be prohibited by the Safety Code, unless the interpretation of the EC turns out be that the ban on autonomous operation only applys to R/C devices, and bats are defined as FF, I think.

Abel

RE: autonomous flight
 

Abel,
By bats....do you mean real live bats??

Brian

Edity---I guess so...since you're talking about them roosting. Never knew that about WWII....um...if bats are included....what about 'de birds?? Has anyone thought of the poor da*n birds??!!:D:D

bat bombs
 

Brian-
See http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Trained_20bat_20bombs for one of many pages on the web that discusses them.
On that same page, this entry caught my eye:
"Probably we'd end up with the same problem as the Russians who tried to train dogs to run under tanks in world war 2, with the intention of strapping explosives to them and setting them out against German tanks. Problem was, the dogs had been trained under diesel Russian tanks which smelt very different to petrol/gasoline-powered German tanks, and therefore they ran under the wrong tanks.

I also found in the same webpage (see link) a biblical reference to Samson setting fire to foxes' tails and letting them run into his enemies' fields."

Kinda puts the issue of what might be used by terrorists to deliver a destructive payload in perspective: anything that moves has the potential
What the heck is special about a model airplane?

Abel

RE: autonomous flight
 

i like yer perspective, able

RE: autonomous flight
 

Completely agree. I think that one can regulate anything one wants too, without one whit of difference in the outcome. It really doesn't matter what the delivery device is--
Bottom line, if someone wants to blow something up, they will. Period.
What's to stop someone from manually flying an RC a/c into a building?? Nothing.
What good will these new reg. do? None.
What difference will they make in terrorism? None.
Will a few people who have bad dreams feel a bit better? Sure.
Who will lose in the end? You and me.
Oh well, you might as well reg. bats and birds too. It would make the same amount of sense in the end, and probably save a lot of heated arguments and grief..;)

Brian

PS-Cool link abe....thnx [8D]

Edit----LMFAO---from site mentioned above: uh-oh guys....Call the OHS...look out for them roaches too...what is YOUR exterminator doing to make sure your roaches aren't armed??!!!!!!!! And are they considered 'Autonomus??

Quote:
Does anyone here feel offended by the thought of squishing a roach? I'll take that as a no... So, why not "create" a roach that will 1)injest explosive "stuff", 2)seek enemy guns (just the equiptment), and 3) detonate?
Some scientists have already been able to Remote-control roaches, and a whole swarm of them would be an efficient was of getting into "Well guarded" compounds...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jong-scx, Mar 27 2003

RE: autonomous flight
 

Naw- Bats are autonomous, unless a timer injecting an anesthetic has been properly mounted and calibrated to prevent flight past the target...

RE: autonomous flight
 

LOL!
Sumthin' you said before about us prolly getting along OK - you're right.

Abel

RE: autonomous flight
 

Guys
I believe that the AMA is using the OHS and 911 as a leverage tool to take total control over all modeling activities in the US.
And that there long term plan is to make it so that you must be a member of the AMA to own, build, and fly any type of model airplane there by making there monopoly bigger and stronger. It is my feeling the first part of this plan to plant the seeds of fear in the mines of the AMA members that Autonomous flight is BAD and that by allowing us to have models with the capability of Autonomous flight that it will be the end of modeling for ever by clamming that the FAA, OHS, FBI all have major concerns that a model equipped with autonomous capabilities could be used by a terrorist group. I believe that this is just the leverage that they have need to accomplish this.

Back in May of this year I receive a visit from the U.S Department of Justice the agent told me that he was a U.S. Marshal assigned to the FBI and working under the OHS.
He and I had a very extensive discussion about (1.5 hours) on my building, flying and selling autonomous aircraft, during the discussion I point blank ask him who I could and could not sell my aircraft to, his reply was that there was no restrictions as long as it was not to a country that was on a do not sell to list.
He told me that he was not aware of any plains to restrict the building and flying of autonomous and or RC model aircraft by any of the agencies that he was involved with.
This is what leeds me to believe that if FAA, OHS, FBI and any other agencies was overly concerned with the building and flying of autonomous aircraft then don't you think that I would have been told to stop or face the possibility going to JAIL by now after all I have been working on building and flying autonomous aircraft for along time. I have never had any government agencie indicat that I should stop nor have any of the guys that I correspond with.

I have posted this on a few other forums but I think that it just goes to show how poorly the AMA safety code was compiled.
Please pass it along to your friends.
Dave Jones
www.auav.net

The AMA has finely done done it to us this time. Take a look at the new AMA rules that will take affect on 01-01-2004 on page 163 of MA.

Look under the general part in paragraph 7 in the bold type.

What I like is the part where it states that. 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.

I know that this was put in to prevent guys from flying from a video screen. But if you take the unenhanced visual contact part literally and if you require eye glasses then you will not be aloud to fly models under the new rules.

Then there is the part about. No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight.

Now read rule #4 it states The maximum takeoff weight of a model with fuel is 55 pounds, except models flown under Experimental Aircraft rules, Document Number 549*.

Now read the rules for free flights (there are only 3 rules for free flight)
FREE FLIGHT
1) I will not launch my model aircraft unless at least 100 feet downwind of spectators and automobile parking.
2) I will not fly my model unless the launch area is clear of all persons except my mechanic and officials.
3) I will employ the use of an adequate device in flight to extinguish any fuses on the model after it has completed its function.

Now read read rule #5
5) I will not fly my model unless it is identified with my name and address or AMA number, on or in the model. Note: This does not apply to models while being flown indoors.

So if I comply with rules # 4 and 5 then I can build a 55 lb Free flight model and if I put my name and address or AMA number, on or in the model I can then fly it under the new AMA rules and I will be covered by there insurance.
Now this 55 lb model can go where ever the wind takes it and that is ok, and if it hits someone or something it is still covered by my AMA insurance.
But if I install a GPS in a 3 lb model and program it to orbit the model field then I will not be covered by the AMA insurance.
Can you please tell me where the HELL the logic is in that?

And how about this part
8) I will not consume alcoholic beverages prior to, nor during, participation in any model operations.

It says prior to, but it does not how long prior to, so it if you go by there rules it could be that if at any time in your life you have ever consume an alcoholic beverage prior to the operation of a model then you are in violation of the rule #8.
If you have ever consume an alcoholic even if it was 20 years ago then you can not operate a model under the described AMA rules.

Dave Jones
www.auav.net

RE: autonomous flight
 

the Black Helicopters are coming to YOUR house soon....

RE: autonomous flight
 

The black helicopters and any other agencies of the U.S. federal, state and local governments are more than welcome come over to my house and see what I am work on I have nothing to hide from any one. Plus any and all of the AMA,s EC are
welcome to stop by as well, though I dough that any of them would ever lower there selves down from there thrones and come out and mix with the great unwashed, but the invitation is there none the less.
I extend this invitation to any AMA member or non AMA member that would like to stop by.
Consider this an open invitation to any one that would like to stop by.
Please call first to make sure that I am here and not out test flying the new 55 lb free flight that I am building.

Dave Jones
AUAV
dave@auav,net
1802 8 Th. St..
Palmetto Fl. 34221
Phone: 1-941-723-9058
Fax: 1-941-723-382

RE: autonomous flight
 

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

RE: autonomous flight
 

Hi ya'll,
All this malarky and we presented the AMA with what made sense?
NOW KNOW (11/4) J-R says " we have nicely and quitely won"
Details? see>modelaircraft.org click "Member services" then 2005 Saferty
code.
OK? Nuff sed?
Still time> GET OUT THE VOTE!!!

Hal AMA 1520

RE: autonomous flight
 

Hi ya'll,
Just spent time reviewing this lengthly malarky about the safety code 2004.
From such and similiar we formed modifications which were presented to
the AMA and DB vehemently, in great detail, said nothing was wrong with
the 2004 rule and mods were interesting but not needed. He maintained
this attitude through out lengthly efforts.

NOW. please do read the OFFICIAL 2005 SAFETY CODE and note the
entire R/C section #9 has been changed. Note there is no mention of
autonomous control etc.
Believe J-R said it nicely " we have won and did it quitely"
OK?Nuff sed?


Hal [email protected]

RE: autonomous flight
 

Hi y'll,
Ok please see the 2005 safety code./
It appears to be properly written, no restrictions etc.
OK?

Hal [email protected]

RE: autonomous flight
 

What am I missing here?!?! It says out of visual range. That means if I can't see it I'm breaking the rules, am I wrong?

RE: autonomous flight
 

Who said any different?

RE: autonomous flight
 

Just wanted to make sure I was reading the right thing. I though there was some rule written that we could fly out of visual range.