Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Jason Cole, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Mar 05, 2014, 04:52 PM
RCG Admin
Jason Cole's Avatar
Thread OP

Possible Forum Name Change

Hey Everyone,
We were thinking about possibly renaming this forum to add the word "Drone" in the title. The purpose would be to help Non-RCG users more easily find this forum when using web searches.

Proposed Title: UAV Drones - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 05, 2014, 06:30 PM
Closed Account

My vote NO for "drone"...


The entire commercial sUAS industry is desperately distancing itself from a word we feel is too closely associated with negative connotations and mental images of exparte killing. Please join with AMA, AUVSI and others and avoid "drone" to describe something we cherish; unmanned aviation.

I like the word "robot" much better.

Jeff W. Parisse
Director of Robotic Farming
California Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Last edited by workshop; Mar 06, 2014 at 12:01 PM.
Mar 06, 2014, 09:17 AM
400' + is where fun starts.
Martin Y's Avatar
Model Unmanned Aviation, Controlled Robot Aviation, Telepresence Model Aviation, anything but drone. These " Non-RGC users" (government researchers) don't need an easy search word. Unmanned is really not what we do either. There is always somebody in control

So I say NO also to using "drone"
Mar 06, 2014, 11:29 AM
Closed Account
Agreed. No Drone in the title.
Mar 06, 2014, 11:43 AM
UAV Flight Operations Manager
The media loves the word drone. Therefore we absolutely should AVOID the word.

Because the media is nothing but a great conglomeration of driveling idiots with zero technical understanding and even less motivation to understand what they are reporting.
Mar 06, 2014, 12:59 PM
Inherent Tinkerer
Yep, no drone. It has bad connotations associated with it. Don't know if you could simply make it a meta tag or not but dislike it being used in the title for the forum.
Mar 06, 2014, 05:43 PM
UAV Flight Operations Manager
Besides, none of the users of RCG want "non-users of RCG" finding this site/section. I know it is in the $ interest of RCG to get non users finding this site, but it will only cause chaos and friction when random passerbys drop in and do what they do...
Mar 06, 2014, 06:44 PM
d_wheel's Avatar
Mar 07, 2014, 02:23 AM
Registered User
I say do it.

The world has spoken and they have named us. If we want to communicate with the public we need to speak their language. The goal for the future is to change the public's attitude about drones, not the name they have given us. Playing name-games and pretending it will solve our public perception problems is hogwash. Based on the news feeds I read, I wouldn't be surprised if most people are starting to think of a drone as some type of multicopter (and not a Predator) since pictures of them are in the news almost daily. I'm not afraid of the name drone and I don't pretend that by speaking acronym babble (UAV, UAS, RPV, etc.) to the public that somehow they will change their minds about what I fly.

I can imagine a day when a specific brand of drone becomes recognized for it's public service and that brand name replaces "drone" just like Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid, etc.. became default names for entire product types, but until that day we are stuck with "drone."

Mar 07, 2014, 03:22 PM
UAV Flight Operations Manager
So if a reporter sees you flying your RADIO CONTROLLED vehicle around, either with or without a wireless camera on it, and calls it a "drone", you're fine with that?

Even though it is NOT a ROBOTICALLY/AUTONOMOUSLY CONTROLLED vehicle in any way, shape, or form?
Mar 07, 2014, 04:30 PM
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Drone would hook folks, at sUAS News I tried not to use the term drone but it was too hard. Resistance as they say is futile.

If you are going to use it, it should be UA Drones or RPAS not UAV the term UAV is not used anywhere grown up any more.

What annoys me most about the drone term is folks have forgotten it is from an RAF adaption of the Tiger Moth in the 1930's called the Queen Bee which was RC large scale. The airmen because of the bee bit called it a drone. Its nothing to do with modern stuff.

You can see an early Spektrum being used here.

More than 300 built they stopped mucking about with them when the second world war started.
Last edited by Gary Mortimer; Mar 07, 2014 at 04:38 PM.
Mar 07, 2014, 04:55 PM
Registered User
Originally Posted by philthyy
So if a reporter sees you flying your RADIO CONTROLLED vehicle around, either with or without a wireless camera on it, and calls it a "drone", you're fine with that?

Even though it is NOT a ROBOTICALLY/AUTONOMOUSLY CONTROLLED vehicle in any way, shape, or form?
Reporters usually get things wrong so I hold little expectations for reporting accuracy on the occasions when I've been interviewed by them.

I have no problem with either of these names, they are more similar than different to me. I started in this business several decades ago when all my "drones" were model airplanes, even though they had autopilots on-board. I specifically designed my aircraft and a business model to take advantage of the loophole that the FAA had left wide open for the operation of model aircraft below 400'. Then 9-11 happened. This war of words is a post 9-11 problem that reflects the attitudes and fears of the American public. Those attitudes and fears are what need to be reshaped and then the meaning of the name "drone" will change. Simply changing the name fom "drone" will not have a similar effect. At this point in history the dubious military and government uses of drones dominate the American psyche (i.e. spying and vaporizing people at a distance). If we get to fly our smaller systems for commercial uses and the public good, the public's attitude will eventually change.

Coincidentally, if any of you have ever seen the movie "Fahrenheit 9-11" by Michael Moore, they had a very short segment of a flying wing RC model being flown in a park. That was me flying a "drone" in 1999 with a simple autopilot and camera system. In the movie they called it a "model airplane". The footage came from NBC which filmed me for a story that never aired, so the footage was borrowed for Michael Moore's movie. It didn't bother me one bit when they called my drone a model airplane, I honestly don't know where to draw the line these days.
Mar 07, 2014, 05:06 PM
Gary Mortimer's Avatar

Its the thing that can be controlled in three axis and sustain flight that is an ICAO definition that makes a thing an unmanned aircraft. Size does not matter but I have had girlfriends that tell me otherwise.

So you are either operating under model aircraft rules, or research or commercial UA rules Everything is a UA these days and that's international.

If like me you have a website you almost have to include the word drone because Google loves it.

Keep channeling the Tiger Moth Queen Bee it makes it easier.
Mar 07, 2014, 05:10 PM
Registered User
brakar's Avatar
Most objects talked about at RCGroups (as far as I know) - are both "vehicles" and "unmanned", and by the count of posts, also "aerial". Hence, "UAV..." is in fact not a very accurate term to describe what is talked about at this particular sub-forum.

Autonomous unmanned vehicles, (AUV) would in my view be better. But basically I don't care much what you call the dog. (It will still be the dog).
Mar 07, 2014, 09:17 PM
Registered User
I'm neutral about including "drone" in the title.

I do think this forum should be moved into the FPV category and the Full Category be renamed FPV/UAV.

There is not a clear separation between the two other than the real_time collection of viewable video. Both areas use a lot of the same functionality, such as stabilization, GPS, Video. FPV can include autopilot, and both can include GoPro type cameras with the video captured on SD-cards to be played back later.

There is no reason that this forum should be separated out of the FPV Group of Forums.

Quick Reply

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible to change your forum-name? Igwe Aneke Site Chat 3 Nov 16, 2004 11:39 AM