RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   RC Jets (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/)
-   -   Define a drone (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/11624844-define-drone.html)

jofunk 12-22-2015 04:45 PM

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.

erbroens 12-22-2015 05:07 PM

To me a drone is any unmanned flying vehicle flown beyond the boundaries of a r/c club, or a designated area for r/c flying.

mongo 12-22-2015 06:34 PM

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"

AndyAndrews 12-22-2015 07:11 PM

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.

John Tancock 12-23-2015 02:21 AM

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!

Boomerang1 12-23-2015 02:56 AM

Don't upset the drones, the're starting to fight back!

John.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9T6-KPFRq8

Kevin East 12-23-2015 05:24 AM

I agree with "line of sight". Drones move ( not limited to flight) autonomously, or preprogrammed.

Kevin

John Tancock 12-23-2015 05:27 AM

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!��

jofunk 12-23-2015 07:02 AM

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.

jofunk 12-23-2015 07:08 AM

What business does that guy have skiing down that hill when a drone is flying over it? Rogue out of control skiers. :)

invertmast 12-23-2015 07:26 AM

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.

RCISFUN 12-23-2015 07:30 AM

DRONE = PITA for the traditional "Model Airplane" enthusiasts :p

ravill 12-23-2015 09:36 AM

Dumb
Reason
Or
Noise
Emitter

SushiHunter 12-23-2015 11:27 AM


Originally Posted by ravill (Post 12147825)
Dumb
Reason
Or
Noise
Emitter

Doesn't
Rely
On
Noteworthy
Expertise

RCISFUN 12-23-2015 11:45 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Oh boy I like this game.......:D


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2137264

ravill 12-23-2015 12:26 PM

I love it! LOL!!

bdoxey 12-23-2015 12:33 PM


Originally Posted by jofunk (Post 12147392)
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

JohnVH 12-23-2015 01:33 PM

anything remotely piloted/controlled.. Everything RC is a drone.

jws_aces 12-23-2015 01:52 PM


Originally Posted by JohnVH (Post 12147983)
anything remotely piloted/controlled.. Everything RC is a drone.


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?

JohnVH 12-23-2015 01:58 PM


Originally Posted by jws_aces (Post 12147993)
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?


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..

hairy46 12-23-2015 02:36 PM

Any thing flown out of line of sight, I think its that simple!

JohnVH 12-23-2015 02:45 PM


Originally Posted by hairy46 (Post 12148019)
Any thing flown out of line of sight, I think its that simple!

you can do that with ANYTHING rc

hairy46 12-23-2015 03:36 PM

But anything flown out of sight is a drone! Anything we fly only line of sight is NOT! Ok again find the loophole! Geez

cloudancer03 12-23-2015 04:02 PM

I can't define it but I sure as hell reconcile the bloody thing and would crush it when I have the chance.

Duncman 12-23-2015 04:03 PM


Originally Posted by bdoxey (Post 12147944)
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

Actually that is quite good, well thought out. May need some refinement, maybe not. Good suggestion.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.