Define a drone
12-22-2015 | 04:45 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Define a drone
Since we all know what some people are doing with flying platforms is not what we do as model airplane hobbyist, what would be the best definition of a drone to separate them from model airplanes? Mine would be: Any unmanned aircraft that operates to deliver or retrieve a physical object and or record, collect or transmit outside data. Where are the loopholes and snags in this definition? I can see one in a model airplane that drops dummy ordinance for show,or taping your Go Pro camera to your canopy. I say "outside data" to exclude operation signal and telemetry. It seems we are lumped in with the drones to some extent already but it would be interesting to see a drone definition that hits the nail on the head and clearly separates model airplanes from drones.
12-22-2015 | 06:34 PM
#3
My Feedback: (15)
Line of Sight.
Beyond Line of Sight
that is separation marker between sUAV used as model aircraft and sUAV used as "drones", since the FAA seems to want to lump both in the sUAV category.
any commercial use overrides the above and defaults to "drone"
Beyond Line of Sight
that is separation marker between sUAV used as model aircraft and sUAV used as "drones", since the FAA seems to want to lump both in the sUAV category.
any commercial use overrides the above and defaults to "drone"
Last edited by mongo; 12-22-2015 at 06:36 PM.
12-22-2015 | 07:11 PM
#4
Any aircraft that can be flown and controlled remotely without being in visual range of the operator and or can fly on it's own in autonomous trajectory not actively controlled by human inputs.
ps, apparently it really doesn't matter though. The word drone means anything the FAA decides. Welcome to Amerika.
ps, apparently it really doesn't matter though. The word drone means anything the FAA decides. Welcome to Amerika.
Last edited by AndyAndrews; 12-23-2015 at 10:18 AM.
12-23-2015 | 02:21 AM
#5
UAV's run around a GPS for guidance model aircraft do not in simple terms, that's why people are able to operate them with little or no experience. Where as model aircraft when purchased by the common man generally end up in the trash can!
12-23-2015 | 05:27 AM
#8
Lol
That was too close to call, shouldn't have been operated over the course anyway!
The FAA seemed to have gone over kill on this?
By definition a model jet would be deemed as a static representation of the real thing and all turbine aircraft are the real thing! Does this mean that all turbine powered aircraft should have a maximum altitude of 400'?
That would be interesting!��
That was too close to call, shouldn't have been operated over the course anyway!
The FAA seemed to have gone over kill on this?
By definition a model jet would be deemed as a static representation of the real thing and all turbine aircraft are the real thing! Does this mean that all turbine powered aircraft should have a maximum altitude of 400'?
That would be interesting!��
12-23-2015 | 07:02 AM
#9
Thread Starter
I think quite a few of the problem operators have a GPS stabilized platform flown in their line of sight trying to collect or transmit video over people and property. I am trying to come up with a definition to encompass them, and separate them from model airplanes.
12-23-2015 | 07:26 AM
#11
My Feedback: (23)
According to this FAA link:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration...gistration.pdf
quad copters between .55 and 55lbs.
I find it funny they ONLY have photos of quad copters in what constitutes what needs ti be registered. You would think if they Meant all RC stuff, they would of included a picture of an airplane and helicopter to.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration...gistration.pdf
quad copters between .55 and 55lbs.
I find it funny they ONLY have photos of quad copters in what constitutes what needs ti be registered. You would think if they Meant all RC stuff, they would of included a picture of an airplane and helicopter to.
12-23-2015 | 12:33 PM
#17
Since we all know what some people are doing with flying platforms is not what we do as model airplane hobbyist, what would be the best definition of a drone to separate them from model airplanes? Mine would be: Any unmanned aircraft that operates to deliver or retrieve a physical object and or record, collect or transmit outside data. Where are the loopholes and snags in this definition? I can see one in a model airplane that drops dummy ordinance for show,or taping your Go Pro camera to your canopy. I say "outside data" to exclude operation signal and telemetry. It seems we are lumped in with the drones to some extent already but it would be interesting to see a drone definition that hits the nail on the head and clearly separates model airplanes from drones.
In designating an aircraft a "drone", the airframe type does not matter - capability does. This applies across all airframe platforms.
Drone definition:
1) Any aircraft capable of autonomous flight (i.e. with no user input). Examples:
a) Able to maintain a constant position in space, either by hovering or by circling over a fixed point
b) Able to navigate to a specific point or "waypoint"
c) Able to navigate back to the point of origination - "fly home feature"
d) Flight by orientation to the user vs. aircraft orientation - i.e. right, left, fore and aft always related to position of the operator
2) Any aircraft able to be flown using only visual input from cameras carried aboard the aircraft. The simplest test here would be a video downlink. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information.
3) Any aircraft able to be flown using flight data input from equipment carried aboard the aircraft. In essence, flying "IFR" using flight data input from the aircraft. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information or attitude reference information.
These definitions should apply to the capabilities of the airframe, not the use. For instance, "my aircraft can do all this but I only operate LOS" does not "un-define" the drone designation.
These definitions allow an airframe and/or equipment to be immediately recognized and regulated at point of manufacture and point of sale. Equipment would be any navigation/autonomous flight or camera equipment that allows the above performance capabilities. No, this does not include rate or heading hold gyros used for stability augmentation. There is a distinct difference between stability augmentation and autonomous flight capability.
I would like for the AMA to draw these distinctions immediately as a way to separate model aviation as it has existed from the "drone threat" that is perceived by the FAA.
I am not calling for a ban on these "drones" and wish them well, but they can and should fight their own battles. It is a battle "traditional modelers", for lack of a better word have no knowledge, no desire, and respectfully no responsibility to fight.
Bryan
12-23-2015 | 01:52 PM
#19
You know what is really funny listening to the AMA and they are saying free flight and control line are exempt. That is there interpretation of the FAA ruling.
So the autonomous quad or aircraft that has a GPS course or any other preprogramed flight path is the most dangerous but yet it would fall into the free flight exemption....
Go figure that one out. No control by person while in flight.
So you can program you quad to fly at 5000ft and turn it on and let it go. What is the difference of that and a free flight electric glider?
12-23-2015 | 01:58 PM
#20
My Feedback: (38)
You know what is really funny listening to the AMA and they are saying free flight and control line are exempt. That is there interpretation of the FAA ruling.
So the autonomous quad or aircraft that has a GPS course or any other preprogramed flight path is the most dangerous but yet it would fall into the free flight exemption....
Go figure that one out. No control by person while in flight.
So you can program you quad to fly at 5000ft and turn it on and let it go. What is the difference of that and a free flight electric glider?
So the autonomous quad or aircraft that has a GPS course or any other preprogramed flight path is the most dangerous but yet it would fall into the free flight exemption....
Go figure that one out. No control by person while in flight.
So you can program you quad to fly at 5000ft and turn it on and let it go. What is the difference of that and a free flight electric glider?
You know, most the problems are not so much with the autonomous or fpv flying, its the morons flying LOS, from what I see on the news anyway, I can fly a plane or quad a VERY long ways away LOS. I was just going off a google / dictionary definition of drone..
12-23-2015 | 04:03 PM
#25
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In designating an aircraft a "drone", the airframe type does not matter - capability does. This applies across all airframe platforms.
Drone definition:
1) Any aircraft capable of autonomous flight (i.e. with no user input). Examples:
a) Able to maintain a constant position in space, either by hovering or by circling over a fixed point
b) Able to navigate to a specific point or "waypoint"
c) Able to navigate back to the point of origination - "fly home feature"
d) Flight by orientation to the user vs. aircraft orientation - i.e. right, left, fore and aft always related to position of the operator
2) Any aircraft able to be flown using only visual input from cameras carried aboard the aircraft. The simplest test here would be a video downlink. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information.
3) Any aircraft able to be flown using flight data input from equipment carried aboard the aircraft. In essence, flying "IFR" using flight data input from the aircraft. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information or attitude reference information.
These definitions should apply to the capabilities of the airframe, not the use. For instance, "my aircraft can do all this but I only operate LOS" does not "un-define" the drone designation.
These definitions allow an airframe and/or equipment to be immediately recognized and regulated at point of manufacture and point of sale. Equipment would be any navigation/autonomous flight or camera equipment that allows the above performance capabilities. No, this does not include rate or heading hold gyros used for stability augmentation. There is a distinct difference between stability augmentation and autonomous flight capability.
I would like for the AMA to draw these distinctions immediately as a way to separate model aviation as it has existed from the "drone threat" that is perceived by the FAA.
I am not calling for a ban on these "drones" and wish them well, but they can and should fight their own battles. It is a battle "traditional modelers", for lack of a better word have no knowledge, no desire, and respectfully no responsibility to fight.
Bryan
Drone definition:
1) Any aircraft capable of autonomous flight (i.e. with no user input). Examples:
a) Able to maintain a constant position in space, either by hovering or by circling over a fixed point
b) Able to navigate to a specific point or "waypoint"
c) Able to navigate back to the point of origination - "fly home feature"
d) Flight by orientation to the user vs. aircraft orientation - i.e. right, left, fore and aft always related to position of the operator
2) Any aircraft able to be flown using only visual input from cameras carried aboard the aircraft. The simplest test here would be a video downlink. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information.
3) Any aircraft able to be flown using flight data input from equipment carried aboard the aircraft. In essence, flying "IFR" using flight data input from the aircraft. Data downlink alone should be allowed for aircraft performance parameters but not for any navigation information or attitude reference information.
These definitions should apply to the capabilities of the airframe, not the use. For instance, "my aircraft can do all this but I only operate LOS" does not "un-define" the drone designation.
These definitions allow an airframe and/or equipment to be immediately recognized and regulated at point of manufacture and point of sale. Equipment would be any navigation/autonomous flight or camera equipment that allows the above performance capabilities. No, this does not include rate or heading hold gyros used for stability augmentation. There is a distinct difference between stability augmentation and autonomous flight capability.
I would like for the AMA to draw these distinctions immediately as a way to separate model aviation as it has existed from the "drone threat" that is perceived by the FAA.
I am not calling for a ban on these "drones" and wish them well, but they can and should fight their own battles. It is a battle "traditional modelers", for lack of a better word have no knowledge, no desire, and respectfully no responsibility to fight.
Bryan
