UAVs and autonomous flight have no place in model aircraft flying within CIAM!

[Mick Molloy]

:censored: CIAM are removing UAVs from the definition as a model aircraft. :censored: :censored: :mad:

We the UAV hobby community need to follow this up.

Below is a response from FAI re the removal of Maynard Hills record.


Autonomous flight working group

Working group comprises Jo Halman, Dave Brown, Ian Kaynes. Report by Ian Kaynes

March 2008.

The autonomous flight record category, F8, was approved by the 2006 Plenary meeting to

address the major discrepancy between records that could be created by traditional RC

aircraft and by models incorporating autonomous control systems. While this has restored the

purity of the basic RC records, there is some confusion and overlap between the F8 category

and the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) category which was recognised by the FAI in 2001.

The UAV category is controlled by Sporting Code Section 12 under the auspices of CASI.

The definitions of model aircraft and UAVs in the General Section of the Sporting Code

revolve around the UAVs being qualified as "which is designed for scientific research,

commercial, governmental or military purposes." This phrase is then repeated in Section 12

(UAVs). In Section 4, this phrase also appears but only to emphasise the exclusion of UAVs

from the definition of model aircraft which then has the added qualification of “to be used for

competition, sport or recreational purposes”.

The definitions do not present a clear enough distinction between the categories. The Working

Group considers that it is undesirable to allow any UAVs to participate in model aircraft

competitions or record attempts or come under the auspices of model flying in general. The

problem is how to define this distinction. The only natural distinction identified by this Working

Group is the inclusion of autonomous functions, such as the ability to navigate between any

specified waypoints. In general this is a common feature of many UAVs and is viewed as

undesirable for model flying given that the raison d’etre of model flying is to represent the skill

of the flyer.

Even if the model aircraft definition is modified to exclude autonomous functions, it would not

limit aids such as wing-levellers and yaw gyros stabilisers, which augment the stability of the

model rather than controlling the flight autonomously.

The only class in CIAM which currently allows something which approaches autonomous flight

is the steering of gliders in the free flight class F1E. This does not prevent the use of a

definition based on autonomous functions since either F1E can be covered by allowing those

devices which are legal within the class specification or the class specification can be refined

to exclude autonomous systems. The Free Flight Subcommittee is currently discussing a

change of F1E definition from the current text “The glider can be equipped with a steering

device, which cannot be controlled by the competitor during flight.” to “The glider can be

equipped with a steering device, which may use a direction sensor and measurement of flight

time. The steering device must not use any measurement of geographical location and must

not be controlled by the competitor during flight.”

An essential characteristic of radio-controlled model flying is the need to keep the model

within sight of the flyer throughout the flight, and which is also highly desirable for safety

considerations. This mode of flying models has been likened to operating an aircraft VFR

whereas UAVs operate under IFR. Those UAVs which do not include autonomous flight

control often feature manual control by the operator using video from the aircraft. From

considerations of safety and complexity it is considered undesirable that this should be

allowed as a control mode for model aircraft. Consequently a revised model aircraft definition

could replace the current UAV distinction by a positive statement on autonomous functions

and controlling within visual range of the pilot similar to that already written in records rules

2.2.5 and 2.2.6.

Records

If the new definition for model aircraft is adopted then the F8 Autonomous Flight record

category could not, and should not, be maintained. There are currently two records within the

F8 category, for distance and duration on the transatlantic flight by Maynard Hill et al. It is

proposed that these should be recognized by CIAM as special achievements and that CIAM

should request that CASI adopts the records in the U-1.a category, which is for UAV records

by aircraft with weight less than 5 kg and including remote control at some time during the

flight. There are currently no records recognized for U-1.a..

Conclusions

1. The Working Group recommend that UAVs and autonomous flight have no place in

model aircraft flying within CIAM

2 This recommendation requires a revised definition of model aircraft

3 Action must be taken about the existing records in the F8 Autonomous Flight category:

a) for CIAM to recognise these flights as special achievements

b) to retain the records as historical superceded records

c) to endeavour to have the records transferred to the relevant UAV category

4 Consequential changes to the Sporting Code record section.

Details of Proposed changes

Definition

The Working Group proposes the following change to the definition in Volume ABR:

1.1. GENERAL DEFINITION OF MODEL AIRCRAFT (Provisional wording)

A model aircraft is an aircraft of limited dimensions, with or without a propulsion device,

not able to carry a human being and to be used for competition, sport or recreational

purposes.

For the whole of the flight, a radio-controlled model aircraft shall be in the direct control of

the pilot, via a transmitter, and in the pilot's sight other than for momentary periods.

For control line model aircraft the pilot must physically hold the control-line handle and

control the model aircraft himself.

Free flight model aircraft must be launched by the flyer and must not be controlled during

the flight other than to terminate the flight.

A model aircraft shall not be equipped with any device which allows it to be flown

automatically to a selected location.

Sporting Code changes
If the definition presented above is adopted, there a number of consequential changes to the

Sporting Code volume ABR:

a) Delete Records section 2.10 (Special rules for Autonomous Flight Records.).

b) Delete Autonomous flight records 900 to 934 from Table I “Classification of Records”.

c) In Table III Checklist Record Dossier item 8 delete “other than in the F8 category”.

d) Paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 to be re-numbered.

[patrickegan]

Same here, and could be coming to a country near you. :(

[airmcn_3]

Same here, and could be coming to a country near you. :(


My understanding is this is international.....

[Mick Molloy]

Same here, and could be coming to a country near you. :(
FAI Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world's air sports federation, was founded in 1905.It is a non-governmental and non-profit making international organisation with the basic aim of furthering aeronautical and astronautical activities worldwide. Ever growing, FAI is now an organisation of some 100 member countries.

CIAM the International Aeromodelling Commission of FAI. FAI's aeromodelling and spacemodelling activities, in particular World Records and International Competitions, are conducted under the direction of CIAM.

These changes will flow down to nearly all model aircraft associations in Australia already the MAAA don't recognise UAV as a sport and hence don't allow them at MAAA feilds period..

[patrickegan]

I don't think it is allowed in Europe and not with the AMA. When the new hobby regs come out here they will more than likely not have any provisions for amateur UAV's :(

Will this have any effect on the Outback challenge? We tried that here before you guys started and the FAA was "uncomfortable" with any activity like this.

[tekrunner]

I don't understand.You people make it sound as if these people hold lease to the world skys.

[patrickegan]

Not a lease. If the hobby groups et al fold up like cheap taco's there is no amateur (hobby) codes for UAS. No codes make it illegal in the eyes of the regulator.

[tekrunner]

No codes make it illegal in the eyes of the regulator.


Am I to understand that no laws make something against the law?

[airmcn_3]

Am I to understand that no laws make something against the law?


Possibly. Unfortunately it is not up to us, all we can do is submit a petition and fight the purposed regulation.

[KarbonBird]

Sorry to ask a stupid question here ...

Does this mean that no "hobby" UAVs will not be allowed to be used in OZ?

[Mick Molloy]

Not a lease. If the hobby groups et al fold up like cheap taco's there is no amateur (hobby) codes for UAS. No codes make it illegal in the eyes of the regulator.
Patrick you nailed it on the head...

No it wont affect the UAV challenge and it wont affect the guy who goes out and flies his UAV in his paddock but that is not advancing the sport and getting it recognition, without that, ignorance will replace facts with people in a position to affect OUR SPORT.

Without recognition at FAI we have no chance with our resective countries Aeromodelling governing bodies, MAAA, AMA BFMA etc..

There is an alternative but it comes at a price, and at the moment I dont think we have the numbers to support it, it would involve a new associtation in each country then affialiation with that countries FAI member organisation e NAA in USA, The Royal Aero Club in the UK or ASAC in AUS

Then we form a new commision with in the FAI, here are the current commision as an example:
FAI Air Sports Commissions:
FAI Air Sport General Commission
FAI Aerobatic Commission
FAI Aeromodelling Commission
FAI Astronautic Records Commission
FAI Ballooning Commission
FAI General Aviation Commission
FAI Gliding Commission
FAI Hang Gliding & Paragliding Commission
FAI Microlight Commission
FAI Parachuting Commission
FAI Rotorcraft Commission

[mlbco]

Dave Brown strikes again!

It appears that the UAV-hater who traded our hobby for a quick and easy deal with the FAA is now spreading his wisdom world-wide. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the AMA or FAI should have anything to do with commercial UAV regulation, but there should be a place for hobbyists and students performing research to safely fly UAVs within visual range at RC clubs. I see nothing inherently more dangerous in this activity than any other RC or free flight endeavor. Many RC and FF models have flown away uncontrolled in the past and the AMA didn't seem to wave a red flag about these events. A UAV hobbyist should be required to keep his aircraft in visual range at all times (even if followed by a car like the XC-sailplane guys do) and so long as the model meets all other AMA rules it should be allowed to fly at an AMA field. All this concern about safety is really a smokescreen for a lack of courage to stand up to the FAA and explain that operating a UAV can be a safe, regulated educational hobby activity. Instead, they trade our interests for the hope that the FAA will leave the AMA alone and not regulate RC models so long as they aren't "UAVs". Dave Brown should take some time to read the AMA charter, especially the part where it says:

"The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguard of modeling activities. The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education and scientific/technical development to modelers."

What ever happened to: "the promotion of education and scientific/technical development to modelers." The UAV hobbyist is at the leading edge of education and scientific/technical development in our hobby and is an important resource for the UAV and aerospace industry. The AMA/FAI is doing all of us a big disservice by turning its backs on the people who are at the core of one of its most important mission goals.


Steve

[Mick Molloy]

Sorry to ask a stupid question here ...

Does this mean that no "hobby" UAVs will not be allowed to be used in OZ?
At a basic level yes... but does it mean you cant go out to private property and fly your UAV with in rules of CASA no.

Does it mean that you wont be able to go down to your local flying club and fly fpv with a RTL fitted (not used just fitted) and fly with your buddies YES!

Removal as a sport from FAI CIAM ensures we have no chance of UAV being accepted in the aeromodelling community

[Mick Molloy]

Dave Brown strikes again!

It appears that the UAV-hater who traded our hobby for a quick and easy deal with the FAA is now spreading his wisdom world-wide. ... Dave Brown should take some time to read the AMA charter, especially the part where it says:

"The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguard of modeling activities. The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education and scientific/technical development to modelers."

What ever happened to: "the promotion of education and scientific/technical development to modelers." The UAV hobbyist is at the leading edge of education and scientific/technical development in our hobby and is an important resource for the UAV and aerospace industry. The AMA/FAI is doing all of us a big disservice by turning its backs on the people who are at the core of one of its most important mission goals.


Steve

It's funny Dave Brown was the pilot that landed TAM-5 in Ireland and had his name on the only 2 records in F8 UAV's

The following is from the minutes of the CIAM Mar 2008 meeting

The Working Group Chairman Ian Kaynes presented a report. The following discussion then
focused on the 4 points of the conclusion of the report and voting was as follows:
1. The Working Group recommend that UAVs and autonomous flight have no place in
model aircraft flying within CIAM: Unanimously approved
2. This recommendation requires a revised definition of model aircraft: Unanimously
approved
3a. 9 in favour and 3 against, to recognise Maynard Hill's records as a special
achievement (onto website).
3b & c 5 in favour and 7 against to remove item c and leave item b .
1st Vice President thinks we should go for the UAV record and it may influence the
UAV people.

I will give you one guess who the 1st Vice President is...

[mecevans]

first the FAA now this! i have already been kicked out of a club for FPV and had the police called on me at parks. im sick of being stomped on and shut out by people that know nothing of what we are doing. UAV's are safer than any other type of modeling due to the technology, research, and design put into them. it would only make sense to say that all model aircraft should have return to home capability's. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING,NOW!

[gkamysz]

Wow, this is unfortunate. I heard Maynard Hill was working on a new record attempt. I put my requests for information about setting an F8 class record in at the AMA and never heard anything.

Greg

[tekrunner]

Anyone else here not an AMA member?

[mecevans]

Im not anymore

[CenTexFlyer]

WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING,NOW!

We're WAAaaay ahead of you bud..... but there's LOTS more to be done!

[ios]

So for us in Australia, the only regulations applicable are those in CASR Part 101. In summary, if you fly a UAV under 150kg, below 400ft AGL and within line of sight, as a hobby, its fine to fly anywhere without an Operators Certificate (only applicable to commercial operations) - with the exception of near populated areas, near other people not involved in the operation of the UAV, near airports, and r/c club fields affiliated to the MAAA !!!.

Its unfortunate the MAAA don't accept hobby UAVs at their fields, given that CASA regulations do exist - which puts some of us in a difficult position in that we want to fly in a safe controlled environment - but are banished and resort to flying in remote areas and not sharing our experiences with other hobbyists. Surely this dosn't serve the intention of our hobby, and indeed isolates those of us involved in this hobby and potentially fosters suspicion amongst members of the public as to why we seem to fly in isolation and privately. I think there is a level of paranoia authorities have of this technology being used for no good - which is unfortunate - but on the other hand big corporations are the ones which actually weaponise this technology - and people don't seem to understand how autopilots can be used in the hobby context (for the purpose of learning electronics, programming, taking pictures of nature, or for the enjoyment of flight in general)

So Mick, do you have any suggestions? We seem to have had some success in introducing rules for FPV into MAAA,... do you think we should start talking to them about RC UAVs? By the way - on Friday, I participated in a presentation to Holdfast r/c club in S.A. to introduce members to FPV & RC UAV, and everyone was very interested and enthusiastic about what we presented. Also, I have had some three years experience in flying RC UAVs safely without a single incident and have many hours of log files to back it up. Perhaps we could use this body of data for instance to demonstrate the safety of RC UAVs.

[airmcn_3]

We're WAAaaay ahead of you bud..... but there's LOTS more to be done!

Gene,

I am not trying to be an ass but we need more explination and direction on what you are referring to. If you are WAAaaay ahead of us why dont you share your wealth of knowledge, after all this is a forum.......


Cheers,

Chris

[ios]

Gene,

I am not trying to be an ass but we need more explination and direction on what you are referring to. If you are WAAaaay ahead of us why dont you share your wealth of knowledge, after all this is a forum.......


Cheers,

Chris

I agree,... lets be constructive

[Mick Molloy]

So for us in Australia, the only regulations applicable are those in CASR Part 101. In summary, if you fly a UAV under 150kg, below 400ft AGL and within line of sight, as a hobby, its fine to fly anywhere without an Operators Certificate (only applicable to commercial operations) - with the exception of near populated areas, near other people not involved in the operation of the UAV, near airports, and r/c club fields affiliated to the MAAA !!!.

Its unfortunate the MAAA don't accept hobby UAVs at their fields, given that CASA regulations do exist - which puts some of us in a difficult position in that we want to fly in a safe controlled environment - but are banished and resort to flying in remote areas and not sharing our experiences with other hobbyists. Surely this dosn't serve the intention of our hobby, and indeed isolates those of us involved in this hobby and potentially fosters suspicion amongst members of the public as to why we seem to fly in isolation and privately. I think there is a level of paranoia authorities have of this technology being used for no good - which is unfortunate - but on the other hand big corporations are the ones which actually weaponise this technology - and people don't seem to understand how autopilots can be used in the hobby context (for the purpose of learning electronics, programming, taking pictures of nature, or for the enjoyment of flight in general)

So Mick, do you have any suggestions? We seem to have had some success in introducing rules for FPV into MAAA,... do you think we should start talking to them about RC UAVs? By the way - on Friday, I participated in a presentation to Holdfast r/c club in S.A. to introduce members to FPV & RC UAV, and everyone was very interested and enthusiastic about what we presented. Also, I have had some three years experience in flying RC UAVs safely without a single incident and have many hours of log files to back it up. Perhaps we could use this body of data for instance to demonstrate the safety of RC UAVs.

I started the AAUFPA last year because of this very problem, it just took FAI that long to get back to use.. What can we do... 1st we need to Lobby our state reps in the MAAA affilated organisations, if they put in these rules and hear nothing back from us they will think it's fine...

Start at your local club meeting raise the issue have it in your club minutes.. then lobby State, then lobby MAAA it's self.

I was hoping the AAUFPA would get a bit more suppport but of late I think I have been talking to my self, I am getting plenty of reads but no responces :(

The first issue is getting renammed as a sport under CIAM and not lumped with Larger commercial and military UAVS..

[ios]

Do you think its worth writing an article for one of the local r/c magazines and/or the MAAA publication to increase awareness ?

[mecevans]

Do you think its worth writing an article for one of the local r/c magazines and/or the MAAA publication to increase awareness ?

Do it. Cant hurt to try.

[Mick Molloy]

Do you think its worth writing an article for one of the local r/c magazines and/or the MAAA publication to increase awareness ?
Thats a great idea the MAAQ have a news letter, Airborne or other...

I am also trying to put together a newsletter for the AAUFPA, I think I f can get that up and running with active involvement it would really help our cause.

[mlbco]

For those in the U.S., I think we should try to get the AMA administration to consider our arguments and be on our side. We could provide the AMA with a rationale for approaching the FAA to redefine UAV's operated for sport, recreation, and education as model aircraft if they are flown within the exisiting AMA guidelines for RC models. This would not affect commercial operators and would allow amateur enthusiasts and students to legally and safely engage in UAV development, testing, and operation.

Contacting Dave Mathewson directly with a thoughtful letter would be a good start. Perhaps a few letters to the editors of the major magazines would also be helpful, assuming they have the correct tone and argue for reasonable actions. We may need some show of "strength in numbers" to sway opinions at the AMA administrative level and this may require e-mails and letters to Model Aviation magazine.

I believe the AMA has the authority to appoint the FAI representative for the U.S. and we should get the right person in that position. Once we get the support of the AMA we can ask them to appoint a representative that voices the membership's views and not their own personal feelings.


Steve

[Mick Molloy]

For those in the U.S., I think we should try to get the AMA administration to consider our arguments and be on our side. We could provide the AMA with a rationale for approaching the FAA to redefine UAV's operated for sport, recreation, and education as model aircraft if they are flown within the exisiting AMA guidelines for RC models. This would not affect commercial operators and would allow amateur enthusiasts and students to legally and safely engage in UAV development, testing, and operation.

Contacting Dave Mathewson directly with a thoughtful letter would be a good start. Perhaps a few letters to the editors of the major magazines would also be helpful, assuming they have the correct tone and argue for reasonable actions. We may need some show of "strength in numbers" to sway opinions at the AMA administrative level and this may require e-mails and letters to Model Aviation magazine.

I believe the AMA has the authority to appoint the FAI representative for the U.S. and we should get the right person in that position. Once we get the support of the AMA we can ask them to appoint a representative that voices the membership's views and not their own personal feelings.


Steve
Delegates and Alternate Delegates to the FAI Aeromodelling Commission for 2008-2009
USA
Delegate Mr. David G. BROWN
Alternate Delegate Mr. Bob BROWN

Australia
Delegate Mr. Kevin DODD
Alternate Delegate Mr. Mike CLOSE

http://www.fai.org/directory/delegates.asp?id=7

[Mick Molloy]

Present at the Mar 2008 meeting the where The Working Group recommend that UAVs and autonomous flight have no place in
model aircraft flying within CIAM and it was unanimously approved.

In the chair: Mr Sandy Pimenoff (Finland) President of CIAM
Mr Dave Brown (USA) 1st Vice-President
Mr Bob Skinner (South Africa) 2nd Vice-President
Mr Gerhard Wöbbeking (Germany) 3rd Vice-President
Mr Massimo Semoli (Italy) Secretary
Mrs Jo Halman (Great Britain) Technical Secretary
Mr Hartmut Siegmann (Germany) Assistant Secretary
Mr. Andras Ree (Hungary) Treasurer
Mr Ian Kaynes (Great Britain) F1 Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Laird Jackson (USA) F2 Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Tomas Bartovsky (Czech Republic) F3B/J Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Horace Hagen (USA) F3C Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Bob Brown (USA) F3D Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Narve Jensen (Norway) F4 Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Emil Giezendanner (Switzerland) F5 Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Srdjan Pelagic (Serbia) SM Sub-Committee Chairman
Mr Guy Revel (France) Media Consultant – WAG selection WG
Mr Henrik Sommer (Denmark) Observer
Mr Regnar Petersen (Denmark) Observer
Mr Bill Lee (USA) Observer
Mr Bill Stine (USA) Observer
Mr John Langford (USA) Observer
Mr Marian Jorik (Slovakia) Observer
Mr Janko Pelagic (Serbia) Observer
Mr Max Bishop FAI Secretary General

[Gary Evans]

For those in the U.S., I think we should try to get the AMA administration to consider our arguments and be on our side. We could provide the AMA with a rationale for approaching the FAA to redefine UAV's operated for sport, recreation, and education as model aircraft if they are flown within the exisiting AMA guidelines for RC models. This would not affect commercial operators and would allow amateur enthusiasts and students to legally and safely engage in UAV development, testing, and operation.

Contacting Dave Mathewson directly with a thoughtful letter would be a good start. Perhaps a few letters to the editors of the major magazines would also be helpful, assuming they have the correct tone and argue for reasonable actions. We may need some show of "strength in numbers" to sway opinions at the AMA administrative level and this may require e-mails and letters to Model Aviation magazine.

I believe the AMA has the authority to appoint the FAI representative for the U.S. and we should get the right person in that position. Once we get the support of the AMA we can ask them to appoint a representative that voices the membership's views and not their own personal feelings.


Steve


In case your not aware of our work to gain AMA acceptance of FPV piloting here is a link.

http://tinyurl.com/daapgv

This is AMA's current position on FPV.

http://tinyurl.com/cu6zx7

Our hope is that at some point the buddy box requirement will be dropped which may or may not ever happen. Basically we gained their acceptance by fitting within their existing rules. It is IMO unlikely that will happen with autonomous flight.

[patrickegan]

A combined effort would suggest that this group is somewhat cohesive and that is just not the case. I feel that I can say that as I just came off of the sUAS ARC and am a member of the International Coordination Council. Too much going on to put it in one post but, I can say that some of us have been working this problem for years. The AMA faces an uphill battle here in the U.S. and those who aren’t members will more than likely be unhappy with the crumbs thrown their way. The AMA has accepted FPV on a limited scale, but it is freer than what they have in the UK. While not what everyone wants it remains legal and vendors can continue to sell hardware. As for the legal hobby use of UAS, those days are in my estimation coming to a close. The AMA is no position to come out swinging on the UAS thing as they have chubbier fish to fry in keeping what they have going. The not being capable of flying beyond VLOS thing is a large divider between hobby and something else. This isn’t only imposed by the FAA but other federal three letter groups. You’ll have to have the numbers to match the AOPA et al if you think you’re going to get these people to change their minds.

[c_matt92]

deleted

[tekrunner]

You guys make it sound as if there's some world government that can pass a decision in Berlin and have it effective in America. Go fly your planes.

[mecevans]

You guys make it sound as if there's some world government that can pass a decision in Berlin and have it effective in America. Go fly your planes.


were just preventing the rest of the row of domino's from getting knocked over.

[dmgoedde]

Anyone else here not an AMA member?I've never been a member of AMA. I have flown R/C since the late 70's as a grade school kid... way back when it was really primitive. I never felt a need to join AMA, and still don't.

[Gary Mortimer]

I think the AMA and others, LMAC as well as BMFA in UK (need to get some more letters in) internationally FIA disowning MAV's and UAV's opens the doors for FAA CASA and CAA to pass strict regulation on auto flight.

It finally puts to bed the grey area that peeps have been flying in.

Aeromodelling saying, nothing to do with us.

Funnily enough I have never been a member of the BMFA and have flown RC, control line and free flight since Pontious was a Pilot. But now I am joining the BMFA to get the official bits of paper and be able to lobby at my representatives on that side of the fence.

Cloudworker being the phrase of the moment, many agencies are conspiring against it!

[mlbco]

Here is a letter I'm thinking of sending to the AMA magazine and officials. Any comments?

Steve
-----------------------------------------
Dear Editor,

Imagine a situation where our nation’s best and brightest students were actively discouraged by the AMA from using model aircraft in their university research. Sound ridiculous? It turns out that we are on the verge of this exact situation.

Since 2002 the AMA has been working with the FAA to distinguish the difference between unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and model aircraft. UAV activity has grown dramatically at the government, commercial, and hobbyist level in the past 10 years and the FAA is in the process of deciding how to regulate UAVs flying in the National Airspace System (NAS). There are valid concerns that a midair collision between a manned and unmanned plane could result in loss of life and airspace rules are needed for all types of aircraft to operate safely. A crucial distinction in these rulings will be the precise definition of what constitutes a model aircraft and the current AMA guidelines have been referenced in many FAA statements when discussing this matter. Since 2002, the AMA has issued statements specifically excluding aircraft with “autopilots” from its definition of model aircraft, citing safety of operation as the primary concern. One of these changes is section 10 of the safety code for radio control aircraft which specifically states:

“No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.”

At a recent meeting of the FAI/CIAM committee on autonomous flight, the distinction was carried further:

“The Working Group considers that it is undesirable to allow any UAVs to participate in model aircraft competitions or record attempts or come under the auspices of model flying in general. The problem is how to define this distinction. The only natural distinction identified by this Working Group is the inclusion of autonomous functions, such as the ability to navigate between any specified waypoints. In general this is a common feature of many UAVs and is viewed as undesirable for model flying given that the raison d’etre of model flying is to represent the skill of the flyer.”

“1. The Working Group recommend that UAVs and autonomous flight have no place in
model aircraft flying within CIAM
2 This recommendation requires a revised definition of model aircraft”

At first glance it seems reasonable for the AMA and FAI to differentiate between autonomous and radio control aircraft because of the possibility that an autonomous model may be operated beyond visual line of sight, but this approach to the problem is having unintended consequences. Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the AMA or FAI/CIAM attempt to regulate commercial or military use of UAVs, what I’m suggesting is the operation of UAVs by hobbyists and students (i.e. sport, recreational, or educational use of UAVs) be allowed at AMA flying fields under appropriate regulations. When the AMA or CIAM take a stand to declare an autonomous aircraft to be a non-model aircraft regardless of size, speed, duration, range, etc., it means that students and hobbyists who wish to experiment with UAVs must now deal directly with the FAA and are not welcome at model airplane clubs. I believe that with minimal additional rules for operation, model airplane sized UAVs can safely operate at model airplane clubs and this would once again open the door for some of our best and brightest minds to experiment, innovate, and fully live up to the AMA’s mission statement: “… provides …education and scientific/technical development to modelers."

One example of the necessary rules for safe autonomous aircraft operation is:
1) Obey all rules in the AMA safety code.
2) Remain within visual line of site of the operator at all times.
3) Must be able to take control using direct radio control of the aircraft at any time.
4) Must have the ability to return to the operator’s location autonomously if the primary radio control link is lost or have failsafe mode that will kill the motor in the event of lost link.

Aircraft operated in this manner would pose no greater threat than RC models already flown at AMA clubs. RC models have flown-away uncontrolled from model airplane fields and will continue to do so. This possibility is already part of the risk that any AMA club already assumes. An autonomous UAV operated using the above rules poses no greater threat than any similar performance RC model and is arguably safer given its ability to return to home automatically. The safety of all radio control model activity is based on the idea that the operator is in control of the aircraft and there is no required failsafe system for RC models flown at AMA fields. Any model aircraft could fly away if a serious malfunction occurs. A UAV with manual control override is no different in the overall level of safety than an RC model if it is operated within visual range.

Some may think that this is too much trouble to go through for a small number of enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby, but I argue that this is an important activity that the AMA should encourage rather than discourage. UAVs are already an important part of our nation’s defense capability and many other countries are actively training engineers and pilots to advance their UAV capabilities. Some countries have programs where youngsters first learn with model airplanes and ultimately advance to UAV operations or engineering programs in defense and aerospace. This should sound familiar to U.S. modelers that were active from 1930-1970 when our government was very “model airplane friendly” because there was a recognition that this activity was a positive influence on society and helped our country advance technologically. It is astonishing for me to now see the AMA and the CIAM actively taking the opposite role and discouraging enthusiasts from participating in this important activity.

When I speak with students in high school or college about my work in the UAV industry a common theme is a very high level of interest in this advanced from of modeling. It allows them to apply their computer skills to vehicles that fly and can gather useful information. The level of interest in robotic aircraft is far greater amongst these young academics than for radio controlled aircraft, which are often perceived as toys rather than a research tools. Many professional organizations host student competitions for autonomous vehicles (such as the AUVSI Aerial Robotics Competition) but the irony is that the AMA seems to be against having any involvement in this important educational activity. On many occasions I’ve been told stories of university students that wanted to experiment with UAV technology but had to stop their activities when they were told they weren’t allowed to fly at the local model airplane club because of AMA rules. Ten years ago it wasn’t unusual to see a group of students show up at a club with a UAV project and benefit from the skill and help of club members as well as the access to a flying field, but those days are now gone.

I would like to encourage the AMA leadership to re-think its position on UAVs as model aircraft. If the AMA would be willing to stand up for hobbyist and student activities within the safety rules already in place for radio control aircraft, our organization could be a significant contributor to maintaining our country’s leadership in this important technology field.

Sincerely,

Steve Morris

[patrickegan]

Steve,

Sounds good, but again it's not really the AMA's fault. Maybe we can talk offline, are you coming up for the air show? P

[KatanaGuy]

Steve,

I am one of those university students you speak of. I am on the stability and controls team for my university's solar powered aircraft project, and am the master of implementing the autopilot system for the aircraft. Today, I reached a small milestone: I got our UAV autopilot into simulation mode as the components laid on my workbench. (A Procerus Kestrel v2.23)

In addition to being a Electrical Engineering Major and future Aerospace Masters student, I am a private pilot. This puts me in a strange position, watching from both sides of the fence in the Full-Scale Aviation/FAA vs. UAV drama taking place. Personally, as a private pilot, I see no reason why a UAV is such a threat. Of course, stating the reasons is preaching to the choir.

What can I do to help out? I think if we can fly our UAV and get noticed for the educational and technological heights reached, that might make a small difference. Being a busy college student, it probably is all I can do. Yea/Nay?

Did R/C get bad representation back 40 years ago as UAVs seem to be getting today? It seems strange to me that if this is the case, the organizations that spawned from R/C now fight against the technology that will be apart of amateur aero-modeling 40 years from now.


-Steve Carlson

[Gary Mortimer]

Lots of cool things have been invented by people in sheds at the bottom of the garden.

Ham radio is an excellent example, lots of tinkering by its proponents have bought technical advances.

This is how it will be with this tech.

Its all new for the regulators.

Up to us to educate them.

[Kilrah]

Interesting. But as a first thing to say - The FAI has no regulatory power whatsoever. What they decide only effects their job of keeping track and homologating records in the aviation field. But, in some way, it's the smallest of our worries. In practice, who gives a damn if we can't have a world record in something with an autonomous aircraft? What we need is to be able to fly, and for this we have to talk to the regulatory authorities - civil aviation ones, and to some extent model flying associations. I say "to some extent" because these don't have regulatory power outside of their members either, so what they decide only applies to those they insure through membership (clubs and individuals). Whatever they do, nothing but CAAs can prevent people from flying somewhere else with 3rd-party insurance coverage. And if a good, safe compromise can be found with a country's CAA, there will be no reason for the model flying association to ignore it and impose more restrictive rules just for the sake of it, so they will have a bit of pressure. So, hit as high as possible.

I can speak for the situation here in Switzerland as I attended the first national UAS meeting that took place a couple of weeks ago, with the participation of UVS International, which is the organisation taking care of coordinating UAS regulations at an international level.

Currently, any model aircraft up to 20kg can legally be flown totally freely, including fully autonomously, with as only restriction no flying at less than 5km from an active full scale airfield, no more than 150m altitude (only in CTRs), and must have valid insurance coverage. There is NO distinction between recreational and commercial. The model flying association and its insurance have no further restriction, as long as you abide by the law described above you're good.
As there is a pretty obvious security risk, the CAA will instate a temporary limitation on autonomous aircraft <150kg, limiting flight to visual line of sight, with possible exceptions to be discussed with them. No change for non autonomous models, like FPV.
Looking further, the CAA will for the major part adopt the regulations that will be determined by the European authorities, hopefully based on the drafts submitted by the working groups coordinated by UVSI. ATM we're looking at 500m distance from ground station/150m AGL limits for uncertified autonomous UAVs. Those willing to go beyond that would require certification up to the same standards as manned aircraft (need to communicate with ATC and comply to instructions, have transponder, TCAS, software and hardware redundancy... say lots of $$$$$). But it's actually totally legitimate considering the damage a 150kg machine that flies over populated places and shares open airspace can do.

I've talked to the representative of the Swiss CAA after the meeting regarding our "borderline" category as it doesn't really fit in the main subject of the day - and from what is showing they are very open to discussion, willing to cooperate with people with experience in the field, and themselves proposed a much less restrictive "very light" category for autonomous aircraft (weight TBD, probably a couple kgs) where just a basic simplified "certification" of the operator, not of the machine, would be required, a bit like what we currently have for heavy models >30kg. That would mean they would just check what the machine is capable of, if it's not a pile of junk that's only asking to fail, what "risky" scenarios you've been considering, what safety measures you take to avoid and solve them, and your knowledge of the systems. In some way just to ensure you will use your aircraft responsibly, not like the jackass who just throws a plane 10km away without thinking about what can happen.

IMO this is pretty much the ideal situation for our activity, and it looks like it has many chances of ending like this seeing how understanding and sensible the authorities are, and we'll make sure to insist to take part in it to ensure this gets maintained.

Regarding systems for use by everybody and the distinction between models and "very light UAVs", for sure it's the autonomous capability that is going to set the boundary. But, we'll make sure that a "semi-autonomous" return-to-home device will be allowed in the model category, as long as the only target that can be set is the starting point. And as it's undoubtedly an added safety measure (solves all problems of lost R/C link, lost video link, loss of situational awareness of the pilot), it shouldn't be a problem. The CAA reprensentative I've been talking to is the one who is responsible with defining safety measures and procedures - so just the right person, and he was agreeing with it. He was even interested in FPV himself :)

If things end that way - I think it's the best that could ever be made to make everyone happy, and I guess this could serve as a good example for other places. Our authorities were late in the whole UAV thing, but they're working hard on it and catching up fast, having done a lot of research to have a clear vision of what is being done, and they're seeing it with a lot of common sense as well. We had 3 CAA representatives that day, and according to the President of UVSI he has never ever seen such involvement from the authorities in any of the countries he's attended similar meetings in, most of the time not even one deems necessary to attend it.
Now let's just make sure everything goes that way in practice, that will take another couple of years.

[mlbco]

Steve,

I am one of those university students you speak of. I am on the stability and controls team for my university's solar powered aircraft project, and am the master of implementing the autopilot system for the aircraft. Today, I reached a small milestone: I got our UAV autopilot into simulation mode as the components laid on my workbench. (A Procerus Kestrel v2.23)

In addition to being a Electrical Engineering Major and future Aerospace Masters student, I am a private pilot. This puts me in a strange position, watching from both sides of the fence in the Full-Scale Aviation/FAA vs. UAV drama taking place. Personally, as a private pilot, I see no reason why a UAV is such a threat. Of course, stating the reasons is preaching to the choir.

What can I do to help out? I think if we can fly our UAV and get noticed for the educational and technological heights reached, that might make a small difference. Being a busy college student, it probably is all I can do. Yea/Nay?

Did R/C get bad representation back 40 years ago as UAVs seem to be getting today? It seems strange to me that if this is the case, the organizations that spawned from R/C now fight against the technology that will be apart of amateur aero-modeling 40 years from now.


-Steve Carlson

Steve,

I collect old model magazines and am always amazed at the number of articles showing local, state, and federal officials bragging about how much they support modeling activities. In the 60's and 70's there was an informal competition for RC records where Maynard Hill and others were trading records with competitors in Russia to see who could build the fastest, highest, and farthest flying planes. It wasn't uncommon to see articles in magazines bragging about how an RC pilot flew his plane so many miles from the back of a convertible speeding down a major interstate, often requiring landings on the nearby road. Ken Willard flew an RC model from the back of a boat out to Catalina island. When the FAA and AMA first agreed on the 400 ft altitude limit for RC models, Don McGovern wrote an article for a clever mechanical pressure altimeter that controlled engine throttle for height regulation. There were also articles on using photo detectors to measure the sun angle relative to an RC plane for attitude control and in the 70's World Engines and Kraft both offered versions of Maynard Hill's electrostatic wing leveling system. During the space race model rocket building was highly encouraged in schools after the introduction of safe motors. These are just a few examples I can remember off the top of my head.

The reason I think it's important to write to the AMA is that they have the power of a large membership and the FAA will listen to the representatives of groups that have constituents. This has already been demonstrated when the FAA defers to the AMA definition of model aircraft rather than coming up with one solely on their own. The AMA doesn't have the power to change any federal regulations directly, but it's lobbying power is significant in this matter and that is why we need AMA support before expecting the FAA to make any changes. Angry individuals won't make a difference in the eyes of the FAA, but the over 100 thousand members of the AMA will.

My recommendation for immediate action is to write a letter to the editor of the AMA magazine that voices your own perspective and feelings on this matter and then see if we can sway the AMA membership and leadership to represent us. If the AMA is on our side then the FAA might be nudged into a more friendly stance on hobby and educational uses of UAVs.

Steve

[Tom Harper]

Steve,

The AMA's hot button is safety. I believe that UAS is far safer than sport RC. I'd like to see you modify your text in that direction.

UAS will be a major part of the next generation of model airplanes. It makes sense for the AMA to provide rules, regulations and opportunities for competition. It's going to happen, they might as well work with it now.

I have talked to the editor of AMA Magazine. At the time he would have nothing to do with UAS - no articles, editorials or ads. Is suggest we write to the technology guy (Greg Hahn?).

Tom

[mlbco]

Steve,

The AMA's hot button is safety. I believe that UAS is far safer than sport RC. I'd like to see you modify your text in that direction.

UAS will be a major part of the next generation of model airplanes. It makes sense for the AMA to provide rules, regulations and opportunities for competition. It's going to happen, they might as well work with it now.

I have talked to the editor of AMA Magazine. At the time he would have nothing to do with UAS - no articles, editorials or ads. Is suggest we write to the technology guy (Greg Hahn?).

Tom

Tom,

I already submitted my letter to the editor of Model Aviation and haven't heard anything back yet. It would be very discouraging if the editor was censoring this topic in the magazine. I had a similar experience with Dave Brown and the Model Aviation editor in 2002 when they refused to publish my letter on this same subject.

If my letter gets rejected from Model Aviation I will submit it to the other magazines to see if they'll publish it. In the meantime I still encourage others to write letters voicing their point of view and submit them to Model Aviation because there is always strength in numbers. If they all get rejected we can still submit them elsewhere.

Steve

[patrickegan]

I don't think you'll get anywhere with Greg either, you should speak with Dave Mathewson. He was supportive of the FPV thing and is into new technologies. You would have to convince the council...

[mlbco]

I don't think you'll get anywhere with Greg either, you should speak with Dave Mathewson. He was supportive of the FPV thing and is into new technologies. You would have to convince the council...

Patrick,

I forwarded my letter to Dave also, just to cover the bases. We'll see what happens..

Thanks,

Steve

[zlite]

I don't think you'll get anywhere with Greg either, you should speak with Dave Mathewson. He was supportive of the FPV thing and is into new technologies. You would have to convince the council...

I spoke to Dave Mathewson today. He was interested in the subject and keen to learn more. In particular, he seemed interested in the concept of RTL autonomy as a safety measure, to prevent fly-aways.

No commitments of course, but I found him and Rich Hanson, the regulatory lead, open minded and very willing to enter into a dialog on how one might integrate some forms of autonomy into the AMA.

My point to them is that autonomy is entering the mainstream RC world at an increasing pace, like it or not. Between the RTL in new OSD and FPV gear, the new FMA CoPilot with RTL and the RTL in telemetry gear (Eagle Tree), there will soon be thousands of people with some autonomous capability. It would be a shame to not have a place for them in the AMA and on AMA fields.

BTW, I would not be surprised if the next generation of high-end RC gear has RTL as a "signal loss failsafe" option.

[bmw330i]

Well that's finally some positive news. I couldn't agree more that people need to wake up and realize we are in the 21st century now. I have to wonder if way back in the day when the first computers were considered military only items Govts didn't try to limit their use by the masses...I mean the idea you will stop autonomy in RC is retarded at best. It just makes too much sense to take control and fly it back rather than have it fly off and go who knows where.

[patrickegan]

RTL is one thing, appliances that allow you to fly beyond fly beyond visual line of sight is another. Fred Marks (FMA and a good guy) was also on the ARC and we repeatedly brought up the safety enhancement of RTL. The overwhelming majority of those involved are vehemently opposed to uncertified autopilots (everyone in the room but, Fred, me and maybe Rich). This seed was planted a few years ago in the RTCA SC-203, and again the only guy who opposed it was me. Not hard to figure out if you look at the membership of the ARC and the various interests they have. So, yes future systems more than likely will have RTL and maybe as some have suggested altitude limiters too.

[zlite]

RTL is one thing, appliances that allow you to fly beyond fly beyond visual line of sight is another.

Of course, from a technical hardware perspective RTL is an appliance that allows you to fly beyond visual line of sight. (It just happens to be set not do to so). It's impossible to tell by looking at it whether it's in RTL mode or not.

I'm totally okay with the AMA limiting UAVs to line of sight on its own fields. It's what the FAA guidelines require and it's what we've been preaching (and doing), too. Indeed, if the AMA requires a spotter, I'm okay with that, too.

[patrickegan]

I'm totally okay with the AMA limiting UAVs to line of sight on its own fields. It's what the FAA guidelines require and it's what we've been preaching (and doing), too. Indeed, if the AMA requires a spotter, I'm okay with that, too.

You, me and the contractors would be okay with that, too. It's all preaching to the choir in here, the AMA would be the easy part. :)