RunRyder - Revised AMA 2005 Safety code

rrTV-PHOTO

New HD TV

HOME rrTV-PHOTO GALLERIES MY GALLERY HELP-FAQ

myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 264 ONLINE 20 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER START HERE

1 page

848 views

POST REPLY

Thunder Power RC	.	Mikado Modellhubschrauber	.	GrandRC
	.		.

UAV Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles > Revised AMA 2005 Safety code

Dave Jones
Heliman
Location:

Guys you all need to go to the AMA web site and look at the new 2005 Safety Code you can see it at
http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/105.pdf go to the section on radio control paragraph #9.
Wile it may not be perfect it is a dam good start. It looks like we have finally won this battle.
We all have to give a great deal of thanks to mine and your very good friend Hal. DeBolt for his dedication to this cause without his efforts I truly believe that this change in the safety coed would not have come about.
For those of you that may not know Mr. Debolt he has been working very hard to get the safety changed he stuck with it long after most others would have quit.
I would like to be the first to say thank you Hal for all of your hard work and dedication we all owe you a great deal of thanks.
Dave Jones
AUAV.net

11-06-2004 Over year old.

Chris Bergen
Key Veteran
Location: location

Maybe a little explanation of the "battle" would shed some light on the rationale behind this change.

Chris Bergen

11-08-2004 Over year old.

Dave Jones
Heliman
Location:

Revised AMA 2005 Safety code

Chris

Basically in the 2004 AMA safety Code the AMA banned any form of autonomous flight.
In the 2005 AMA safety Code they have removed the wording regarding autonomous flight.
It is not phrased as I would like to see it but I do see it as an improvement.

Please go to the AMA's web site and check out the 2004 AMA safety Code at http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/memanual04.pdf on the 2004 look under the General section read paragraph 7
it is the part about not allowing autonomous flight that we did not like.

Then check out the new 2005 AMA safety Code http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/105.pdf
Look under the radio control section and read paragraph 9.
The the way that I interpret it is that I can fly autonomous all I want as long as I have control of the aircraft and I and it is within my visual range.

11-08-2004 Over year old.

Chris Bergen
Key Veteran
Location: location

Ok. now I understand a little better. I was not aware of the No autonomous clause in this years rules.(showing my ignorance).

Not having been in the discussion on this matter, I can't comment on the reasonings behind it, But here's my 2 cents anyway

First of all, all of the autonomous packages that I'm aware of have some sort of pilot takeover feature in case of failure of the autonomous package. Obviously, if it's out of sight, it wouldn't do any good.
Along that same thought, I have seen model aircraft under pilot control fly away when the signal was lost. Then there's the "free flight" aircraft. How many of those are lost in flyaways, and they start out with no pilot in control.

I guess my point is: What is the difference between these 3 different scenarios? All 3 aircraft are lost with no idea where they may end up.

Your interpretation may very well be correct.

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

I read this as the aircraft shall NOT be so equipped, even if you do stay within visual range, the capability is there.

I agree it isn't exactly what we want and it may be a move in the right direction, but it looks to me as a way to say the same thing with different wording.

Good topic, by the way, and thanks for posting the info.

Chris Bergen

11-10-2004 Over year old.

Dave Jones
Heliman
Location:

Chris
You interpreted that paragraph the same as I did.
"I read this as the aircraft shall NOT be so equipped, even if you do stay within visual range, the capability is there."

The existing paragraph reads:
"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."

I would like to see it changed to read:
" No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices that are programed to allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot."
I believe that this would solve the problem.
Dave Jones
AUAV.net

11-10-2004 Over year old.

Chris Bergen
Key Veteran
Location: location

Yes, That would be better.

I understand that AMA needs to be covering their collective backsides, and that most RPV/UAV operators will be doing so under different circumstances than "hobby" flying.

But, at the same time, I think most of the "hobby" pilots would be interested in at least seeing some of this as demonstrations, for instance, the IRCHA jamboree.

This is a whole new field, and I see it as a direct descendent of the hobby that all of us love and enjoy, and can also help make our hobby that much more enjoyable with enhancements to our machines and radios as a result of the testing and improvements made to them from RPV/UAV machines.

Chris Bergen

11-10-2004 Over year old.

1 page

848 views

POST REPLY

CanoMod	.	Futaba-RC	.	A Main Hobbies
	.		.

UAV Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles > Revised AMA 2005 Safety code

PRINT TOPIC

Advertisers

Subscribe to This Topic