I’M A BIG Jackson Browne fan, and the
lyrics of one of his songs, “Fountain of
Sorrow,” includes an interesting statement:
“And while the future’s there for anyone to
change, still you know it seems, it would be
easier sometimes to change the past.”
I’m not too sure what Jackson had in mind
there, but for me the message is that pushing
the envelope and pioneering is always more
difficult, more daunting, more fraught with
the potential for mistakes, and even disaster,
and more rewarding than simply looking back
and pointing out our past successes and
failures and trying to explain how and why
they happened.
The past is the past. Some of it is good
and contains things that we can all share and
be proud of, and some of it is, well, stuff we’d
like to forget ever happened. The real test is
how we learn from the past while continuing
to grow.
We are, and have been for some time,
living in a time in history when technology in
its many forms is driving, or at least
significantly influencing, the development of
virtually every aspect of life. We are relying
more and more on technical things—the inner
workings of which most of us don’t even
begin to understand—for incorporation into
many, if not most, of our daily routines.
This starts from the moment we wake up
in the morning. It used to be that a simple
alarm clock would ring and we’d get up and
hit the button to shut it off. If we fell back to
sleep, the alarm clock wouldn’t give us a
second call.
Now we have alarm clocks that wake us
gently, giving us several chances to snooze a
few extra minutes, secure in the fact that
every few moments another gentle alarm will
remind us that it’s time to get up and face the
day. Many of us actually program our clocks
to begin this process earlier than we actually
want to rise because the snoozing part is so
enjoyable.
The list of such electronic technologybased
devices is long and includes
programmable coffeemakers, remote starters
for our cars, satellite guidance for our
automotive trips, the ever-expanding
capabilities of our personal computers,
cellular phones, and on and on. This type of
technology has come to the point where it is
viable to incorporate it into the fabric of our
lives at even the seemingly most insignificant
levels. It is no wonder, then, that such
technology is readily applied to our leisure
pastimes as well.
For us that means ever more reliable
Radio Control (RC) systems at ever more
affordable prices and ever more electronic
devices that help us maintain those RC
systems. It also means the availability of
ancillary electronic items that can enhance the
model-flying experience. This is a good thing.
Technology has always been with us, but it is
just in the past few years that it has
accelerated to the point where the average
modeler can easily afford to incorporate the
latest high-tech gadget into his or her
modeling.
I’m just a bit afraid that we might forget
that technology is supposed to be our
servant—not our master. Because most of us
don’t fully understand the inner workings of
most of the technology we are implementing,
I’m also afraid that we are beginning to rely
on things that we could not duplicate safely
on our own if they suddenly ceased to
function as designed to.
No, I’m not paranoid that our machines
will take over and run things, but I am
concerned that our machines may be at or
near the point where we are relying on the
technology in them to be so flawless that we
will never have to step in and correct
something.
And if they do malfunction, I’m afraid that
we will not have the necessary technical
knowledge to make the corrections, and
because of that I fear that some are beginning
to attempt things that may or may not be safe
and advisable.
The ironic part is that some among us do
understand the inner workings of the
technologies they are implementing, and if
something goes awry they know how to fix it
quickly and safely. They also know how to
use it properly and prudently. Not all of us are
at that point. As Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty
Harry” character might have put it: “A man’s
got to know his limitations.”
Some among us can use the upper
limits of the technologies to which we
have access to work with in a safe and
proper manner right now, but others need
to work their way slowly, learning as they
go, to ensure safety along the way.
Continued on page 148
“Okay, where is Bob heading this
time?” I can almost hear it. Several
months back Dave Brown and I wrote
pieces in our respective columns about the
dangers inherent in the operation of our
model airplanes essentially as UAVs
(Unmanned Air Vehicles) and even
condemned the idea of “mission”-type
flights over inhabited areas.
This type of flight is where the model
would, for instance, fly off in one
direction from a field, controlled
autonomously by a GPS (Global
Positioning System) or other guidance
system hooked up to the controls in some
manner, and then, it is hoped, return as
programmed to the same field some hour
or so later.
We received many supporting
comments from readers about our cautious
viewpoint and some criticism from those
who are interested in, or already involved
in, this type of flying. I won’t go into the
arguments again here; however, I will
mention that after that exchange of ideas,
AMA’s Executive Council voted to
amend our Safety Code with the
following.
Continued from page 7
Aeromodeling Editor
“A model aircraft is defined as a nonhuman-
carrying device capable of
sustained flight in the atmosphere not
exceeding the limitations established in
this Code, exclusively for recreation, sport,
and/or competition activities. The
operators of radio control model aircraft
shall control the aircraft from the ground
and maintain unenhanced visual contact
with the aircraft throughout the entire
flight operation. No aircraft shall be
equipped with devices that would allow for
autonomous flight.”
In this issue we are presenting the
incredible story of the landmark modelairplane
flight across the Atlantic Ocean by
Maynard Hill and his TAM (Transatlantic
Model) team. To say that this is perhaps
the most significant achievement by a
modeler in the history of the hobby/sport
would not, in my mind, be an
overstatement.
We are most pleased that Maynard
authored the article, giving us the most
intimate and personal perspective possible.
All of us at Model Aviation thank Maynard
for writing this amazing piece and sharing
it with us.
Maynard’s model was flown using
satellite radio signals from just after
takeoff to just before landing. I’m sure the
question that will surely be asked is, “Why
is it okay with AMA for Maynard to do
this while the rest of us are asked not to?”
The answer is simple: this was a
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
(FAI) record attempt and was conducted
under FAI rules. According to those rules,
Maynard’s aircraft qualifies as a model
airplane. The attempt was not made over
land except for the takeoff and landing, at
which point a pilot who was in direct line
of sight of the model controlled it via
normal RC practice.
In this month’s “President’s
Perspective” column, Dave Brown
explains some of the differences between
FAI and AMA and further explains how
the two organizations work together,
especially in matters of competition and
record attempts. It is required reading if
you want to truly understand the issues
involved here.
Technology has indeed brought new
paradigms to modeling. For the most part,
they are good changes and will enhance
the safety and pleasure we all derive from
our hobby/sport. However, as with
anything else, if misunderstood or
misused, technology can get away from us
quickly if we let it.
Maynard and his team fully understand
the technology they implemented and the
huge potential for danger if they used it
improperly. They used it in a most
responsible, prudent, and safe manner and
have achieved a record for the ages of
which we can all be proud.
Do you feel the need to contact me about
the subjects discussed here or about any
other modeling-related subjects? I can be
reached via snail mail at Box 68,
Stockertown PA 18083, via telephone at
(610) 614-1747, or even via that
technical marvel E-mail at bobhunt@
mapisp.com. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/01
Page Numbers: 7,148,149
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/01
Page Numbers: 7,148,149
I’M A BIG Jackson Browne fan, and the
lyrics of one of his songs, “Fountain of
Sorrow,” includes an interesting statement:
“And while the future’s there for anyone to
change, still you know it seems, it would be
easier sometimes to change the past.”
I’m not too sure what Jackson had in mind
there, but for me the message is that pushing
the envelope and pioneering is always more
difficult, more daunting, more fraught with
the potential for mistakes, and even disaster,
and more rewarding than simply looking back
and pointing out our past successes and
failures and trying to explain how and why
they happened.
The past is the past. Some of it is good
and contains things that we can all share and
be proud of, and some of it is, well, stuff we’d
like to forget ever happened. The real test is
how we learn from the past while continuing
to grow.
We are, and have been for some time,
living in a time in history when technology in
its many forms is driving, or at least
significantly influencing, the development of
virtually every aspect of life. We are relying
more and more on technical things—the inner
workings of which most of us don’t even
begin to understand—for incorporation into
many, if not most, of our daily routines.
This starts from the moment we wake up
in the morning. It used to be that a simple
alarm clock would ring and we’d get up and
hit the button to shut it off. If we fell back to
sleep, the alarm clock wouldn’t give us a
second call.
Now we have alarm clocks that wake us
gently, giving us several chances to snooze a
few extra minutes, secure in the fact that
every few moments another gentle alarm will
remind us that it’s time to get up and face the
day. Many of us actually program our clocks
to begin this process earlier than we actually
want to rise because the snoozing part is so
enjoyable.
The list of such electronic technologybased
devices is long and includes
programmable coffeemakers, remote starters
for our cars, satellite guidance for our
automotive trips, the ever-expanding
capabilities of our personal computers,
cellular phones, and on and on. This type of
technology has come to the point where it is
viable to incorporate it into the fabric of our
lives at even the seemingly most insignificant
levels. It is no wonder, then, that such
technology is readily applied to our leisure
pastimes as well.
For us that means ever more reliable
Radio Control (RC) systems at ever more
affordable prices and ever more electronic
devices that help us maintain those RC
systems. It also means the availability of
ancillary electronic items that can enhance the
model-flying experience. This is a good thing.
Technology has always been with us, but it is
just in the past few years that it has
accelerated to the point where the average
modeler can easily afford to incorporate the
latest high-tech gadget into his or her
modeling.
I’m just a bit afraid that we might forget
that technology is supposed to be our
servant—not our master. Because most of us
don’t fully understand the inner workings of
most of the technology we are implementing,
I’m also afraid that we are beginning to rely
on things that we could not duplicate safely
on our own if they suddenly ceased to
function as designed to.
No, I’m not paranoid that our machines
will take over and run things, but I am
concerned that our machines may be at or
near the point where we are relying on the
technology in them to be so flawless that we
will never have to step in and correct
something.
And if they do malfunction, I’m afraid that
we will not have the necessary technical
knowledge to make the corrections, and
because of that I fear that some are beginning
to attempt things that may or may not be safe
and advisable.
The ironic part is that some among us do
understand the inner workings of the
technologies they are implementing, and if
something goes awry they know how to fix it
quickly and safely. They also know how to
use it properly and prudently. Not all of us are
at that point. As Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty
Harry” character might have put it: “A man’s
got to know his limitations.”
Some among us can use the upper
limits of the technologies to which we
have access to work with in a safe and
proper manner right now, but others need
to work their way slowly, learning as they
go, to ensure safety along the way.
Continued on page 148
“Okay, where is Bob heading this
time?” I can almost hear it. Several
months back Dave Brown and I wrote
pieces in our respective columns about the
dangers inherent in the operation of our
model airplanes essentially as UAVs
(Unmanned Air Vehicles) and even
condemned the idea of “mission”-type
flights over inhabited areas.
This type of flight is where the model
would, for instance, fly off in one
direction from a field, controlled
autonomously by a GPS (Global
Positioning System) or other guidance
system hooked up to the controls in some
manner, and then, it is hoped, return as
programmed to the same field some hour
or so later.
We received many supporting
comments from readers about our cautious
viewpoint and some criticism from those
who are interested in, or already involved
in, this type of flying. I won’t go into the
arguments again here; however, I will
mention that after that exchange of ideas,
AMA’s Executive Council voted to
amend our Safety Code with the
following.
Continued from page 7
Aeromodeling Editor
“A model aircraft is defined as a nonhuman-
carrying device capable of
sustained flight in the atmosphere not
exceeding the limitations established in
this Code, exclusively for recreation, sport,
and/or competition activities. The
operators of radio control model aircraft
shall control the aircraft from the ground
and maintain unenhanced visual contact
with the aircraft throughout the entire
flight operation. No aircraft shall be
equipped with devices that would allow for
autonomous flight.”
In this issue we are presenting the
incredible story of the landmark modelairplane
flight across the Atlantic Ocean by
Maynard Hill and his TAM (Transatlantic
Model) team. To say that this is perhaps
the most significant achievement by a
modeler in the history of the hobby/sport
would not, in my mind, be an
overstatement.
We are most pleased that Maynard
authored the article, giving us the most
intimate and personal perspective possible.
All of us at Model Aviation thank Maynard
for writing this amazing piece and sharing
it with us.
Maynard’s model was flown using
satellite radio signals from just after
takeoff to just before landing. I’m sure the
question that will surely be asked is, “Why
is it okay with AMA for Maynard to do
this while the rest of us are asked not to?”
The answer is simple: this was a
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
(FAI) record attempt and was conducted
under FAI rules. According to those rules,
Maynard’s aircraft qualifies as a model
airplane. The attempt was not made over
land except for the takeoff and landing, at
which point a pilot who was in direct line
of sight of the model controlled it via
normal RC practice.
In this month’s “President’s
Perspective” column, Dave Brown
explains some of the differences between
FAI and AMA and further explains how
the two organizations work together,
especially in matters of competition and
record attempts. It is required reading if
you want to truly understand the issues
involved here.
Technology has indeed brought new
paradigms to modeling. For the most part,
they are good changes and will enhance
the safety and pleasure we all derive from
our hobby/sport. However, as with
anything else, if misunderstood or
misused, technology can get away from us
quickly if we let it.
Maynard and his team fully understand
the technology they implemented and the
huge potential for danger if they used it
improperly. They used it in a most
responsible, prudent, and safe manner and
have achieved a record for the ages of
which we can all be proud.
Do you feel the need to contact me about
the subjects discussed here or about any
other modeling-related subjects? I can be
reached via snail mail at Box 68,
Stockertown PA 18083, via telephone at
(610) 614-1747, or even via that
technical marvel E-mail at bobhunt@
mapisp.com. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/01
Page Numbers: 7,148,149
I’M A BIG Jackson Browne fan, and the
lyrics of one of his songs, “Fountain of
Sorrow,” includes an interesting statement:
“And while the future’s there for anyone to
change, still you know it seems, it would be
easier sometimes to change the past.”
I’m not too sure what Jackson had in mind
there, but for me the message is that pushing
the envelope and pioneering is always more
difficult, more daunting, more fraught with
the potential for mistakes, and even disaster,
and more rewarding than simply looking back
and pointing out our past successes and
failures and trying to explain how and why
they happened.
The past is the past. Some of it is good
and contains things that we can all share and
be proud of, and some of it is, well, stuff we’d
like to forget ever happened. The real test is
how we learn from the past while continuing
to grow.
We are, and have been for some time,
living in a time in history when technology in
its many forms is driving, or at least
significantly influencing, the development of
virtually every aspect of life. We are relying
more and more on technical things—the inner
workings of which most of us don’t even
begin to understand—for incorporation into
many, if not most, of our daily routines.
This starts from the moment we wake up
in the morning. It used to be that a simple
alarm clock would ring and we’d get up and
hit the button to shut it off. If we fell back to
sleep, the alarm clock wouldn’t give us a
second call.
Now we have alarm clocks that wake us
gently, giving us several chances to snooze a
few extra minutes, secure in the fact that
every few moments another gentle alarm will
remind us that it’s time to get up and face the
day. Many of us actually program our clocks
to begin this process earlier than we actually
want to rise because the snoozing part is so
enjoyable.
The list of such electronic technologybased
devices is long and includes
programmable coffeemakers, remote starters
for our cars, satellite guidance for our
automotive trips, the ever-expanding
capabilities of our personal computers,
cellular phones, and on and on. This type of
technology has come to the point where it is
viable to incorporate it into the fabric of our
lives at even the seemingly most insignificant
levels. It is no wonder, then, that such
technology is readily applied to our leisure
pastimes as well.
For us that means ever more reliable
Radio Control (RC) systems at ever more
affordable prices and ever more electronic
devices that help us maintain those RC
systems. It also means the availability of
ancillary electronic items that can enhance the
model-flying experience. This is a good thing.
Technology has always been with us, but it is
just in the past few years that it has
accelerated to the point where the average
modeler can easily afford to incorporate the
latest high-tech gadget into his or her
modeling.
I’m just a bit afraid that we might forget
that technology is supposed to be our
servant—not our master. Because most of us
don’t fully understand the inner workings of
most of the technology we are implementing,
I’m also afraid that we are beginning to rely
on things that we could not duplicate safely
on our own if they suddenly ceased to
function as designed to.
No, I’m not paranoid that our machines
will take over and run things, but I am
concerned that our machines may be at or
near the point where we are relying on the
technology in them to be so flawless that we
will never have to step in and correct
something.
And if they do malfunction, I’m afraid that
we will not have the necessary technical
knowledge to make the corrections, and
because of that I fear that some are beginning
to attempt things that may or may not be safe
and advisable.
The ironic part is that some among us do
understand the inner workings of the
technologies they are implementing, and if
something goes awry they know how to fix it
quickly and safely. They also know how to
use it properly and prudently. Not all of us are
at that point. As Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty
Harry” character might have put it: “A man’s
got to know his limitations.”
Some among us can use the upper
limits of the technologies to which we
have access to work with in a safe and
proper manner right now, but others need
to work their way slowly, learning as they
go, to ensure safety along the way.
Continued on page 148
“Okay, where is Bob heading this
time?” I can almost hear it. Several
months back Dave Brown and I wrote
pieces in our respective columns about the
dangers inherent in the operation of our
model airplanes essentially as UAVs
(Unmanned Air Vehicles) and even
condemned the idea of “mission”-type
flights over inhabited areas.
This type of flight is where the model
would, for instance, fly off in one
direction from a field, controlled
autonomously by a GPS (Global
Positioning System) or other guidance
system hooked up to the controls in some
manner, and then, it is hoped, return as
programmed to the same field some hour
or so later.
We received many supporting
comments from readers about our cautious
viewpoint and some criticism from those
who are interested in, or already involved
in, this type of flying. I won’t go into the
arguments again here; however, I will
mention that after that exchange of ideas,
AMA’s Executive Council voted to
amend our Safety Code with the
following.
Continued from page 7
Aeromodeling Editor
“A model aircraft is defined as a nonhuman-
carrying device capable of
sustained flight in the atmosphere not
exceeding the limitations established in
this Code, exclusively for recreation, sport,
and/or competition activities. The
operators of radio control model aircraft
shall control the aircraft from the ground
and maintain unenhanced visual contact
with the aircraft throughout the entire
flight operation. No aircraft shall be
equipped with devices that would allow for
autonomous flight.”
In this issue we are presenting the
incredible story of the landmark modelairplane
flight across the Atlantic Ocean by
Maynard Hill and his TAM (Transatlantic
Model) team. To say that this is perhaps
the most significant achievement by a
modeler in the history of the hobby/sport
would not, in my mind, be an
overstatement.
We are most pleased that Maynard
authored the article, giving us the most
intimate and personal perspective possible.
All of us at Model Aviation thank Maynard
for writing this amazing piece and sharing
it with us.
Maynard’s model was flown using
satellite radio signals from just after
takeoff to just before landing. I’m sure the
question that will surely be asked is, “Why
is it okay with AMA for Maynard to do
this while the rest of us are asked not to?”
The answer is simple: this was a
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
(FAI) record attempt and was conducted
under FAI rules. According to those rules,
Maynard’s aircraft qualifies as a model
airplane. The attempt was not made over
land except for the takeoff and landing, at
which point a pilot who was in direct line
of sight of the model controlled it via
normal RC practice.
In this month’s “President’s
Perspective” column, Dave Brown
explains some of the differences between
FAI and AMA and further explains how
the two organizations work together,
especially in matters of competition and
record attempts. It is required reading if
you want to truly understand the issues
involved here.
Technology has indeed brought new
paradigms to modeling. For the most part,
they are good changes and will enhance
the safety and pleasure we all derive from
our hobby/sport. However, as with
anything else, if misunderstood or
misused, technology can get away from us
quickly if we let it.
Maynard and his team fully understand
the technology they implemented and the
huge potential for danger if they used it
improperly. They used it in a most
responsible, prudent, and safe manner and
have achieved a record for the ages of
which we can all be proud.
Do you feel the need to contact me about
the subjects discussed here or about any
other modeling-related subjects? I can be
reached via snail mail at Box 68,
Stockertown PA 18083, via telephone at
(610) 614-1747, or even via that
technical marvel E-mail at bobhunt@
mapisp.com. MA