Now I'm really confused, after all the discussion on what seperates a drone from a model airplane most talk about flight stabalisation and how anybody can fly a drone because of it.....makes it boring...... this morning looking around this forum I see that people are using gyro-stabilization on their jets..Huh ????

Yes.... and are flying LOS

The reason I started this thread was to come up with a definition to separate what we consider "drones" from model aircraft. No one function or feature makes it a drone. Otherwise one function or feature would make our model aircraft a "drone". For instance A camera on a helicopter, or gyro stabilization in a fixed wing.

The problem with your request, which by the way a lot of us are asking, is that there is as many individual definitions as there people out there. Personally I would like to see Fixed Wing separated from Rotary or Multi Rotor but the helicopter guys might have something to say about that and what about the serious MR owners that abide by the rules. It is more a behavioral problem than an inanimate definition.

It most certainly a behavior problem. The explosion of bad behavior, as we see it, came about as the capabilities and ease of use became available.

I agree on that point, now just to expand on that a little more...The video posted with the guy flying his quad the first time and flew away( Christmas gift ?), yes he was clueless and believing this I think the video is fake.... If he didn't know how to go into the locked settings and change stuff, that quad would not go very far or very high, It would falesafe and return and land safely in the spot it took off from... just a thought!!!

Flight stabilization is hardly the thing that seperates a fixed wing aircraft from a "drone". Folks really need to look into the difference. My 70.00 Banana Viper EDF jet has a two axis gyro on it, it's to smooth out the edges on these little beasts. Hardly a "drone". Many if not most of the turbine guys have multiple gryo/stab systems and have been flying those for years, nobody ever had an issue with those.

Not every video is a fake. It flew away from him because he didn't know how to fly it correctly...simple as that. Although sooo many people here seem to think that these things are ready to go right out of the box and anyone can fly them, this video (and tons more) are evidence that's not the case. There's a good chance he didn't read the directions, and didn't know what options the unit had, and didn't know about the different settings. One of the first quads ever flown at my club was about the same size, perhaps bigger than this. We told the guy not to fly it, it was too windy. Nope, all set...he had lights on his quad and different colored blades. Up he went, and up and up, and off it went. Nice lights and fancy colored blades too...it got to far, and he lost it way over trees hundreds of yards away. He packed up and left.

I agree on the behavior problem comment; and that is exactly what laws are made for (good or bad). Gun violence is a behavior problem as well; perfect example, and probably all of us know what is going on legislatively on that front (good or bad). Defining a drone is analogous to defining an "assault rifle" in their respective arguments.

To define a drone though a good starting point might be to look at anything that has VTOL capability and then find a way to carve out the traditional helicopter guys. I bet 95% of the behavior issues lie with devices that a VTOL definition captures.

It's not like anyone is going to have a tail mounted camera on a 100cc Yak and hover over their neighbors pool. :) :)

The Real problem that faces the FAA is their definition of AirCraft and the FAA's Lack of different Categories, Class & Type for Models as their is with Full Scale. If they did differentiate between Airplane (fixed wing) , Rotor Craft & Multirotor and Lighter than air. Rules/FAR's could be for a specific Category and Class. That would deal with the real problem of DRONES i.e. Multi Rotors Separately. Why the FAA has grouped all models together (when they don't do it for Full Scale) is the question we and AMA should be asking.


FAA's Definitions for Category, Class and Type.

Category:
(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a broad classification of aircraft. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; and lighter-than-air; and
(2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means a grouping of aircraft based upon intended use or operating limitations. Examples include: transport, normal, utility, acrobatic, limited, restricted, and provisional.
Category of Special Airworthiness Certificates. The term “category” also is used to identify the six specific certification processes and the seven types of special airworthiness certificates issued.


Class:
(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a classification of aircraft within a category having similar operating characteristics. Examples include: single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and free balloon; and
(2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means a broad grouping of aircraft having similar characteristics of propulsion, flight, or landing. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; balloon; landplane; and seaplane.


Type:
(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a specific make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications thereto that do not change its handling or flight characteristics. Examples include: DC–7, 1049, and F–27; and
(2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means those aircraft which are similar in design. Examples include: DC–7 and DC–7C; 1049G and 1049H; and F–27 and F–27F.

As I said in post 204, I'd like to see fixed wing separated, but that will not happen, or at least I seriously doubt it. I'm going to stick my neck out here, but the FAA's definition of a "Drone", as much as I hate to admit it, makes perfect sense if you look at it from a perspective outside the modeling world. Oh, and that 100cc does have the capability to have tail mounted camera and it likely has a very real capability of hovering and you never know, there might be some perverted clown out there that is up to the challenge of hovering it over a pool to get a shot of a couple of gals sunbathing. By virtue of that and many other reasons the FAA will hang onto that definition like a tigers tail.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
the FAA's definition of a "Drone",
The FAA doesn't even recognize the word or anything as a "DRONE". They simply do not Use the Term.
All the FAA's references are UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems as in No where does the FAA use the word "DRONE" when referring to any FAR or AC. I don't think the FAA ever uses the Term "DRONE", UAS is the FAA's term for R/C TOY's
[h=1]Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration[/h]No Reference to Drone here either

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/