THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL League
has its bi-week and the December issue of
Model Aviation— the Nats issue—is the
AMA equivalent for the officers who write
monthly columns. The two months since I
wrote my last column while in Ireland seem
like an eternity, yet they seem like yesterday.
My last column was a news flash about
the successful transatlantic model (TAM)
crossing and contained a few inaccurate
numbers which I’ll try to correct. I wrote that
TAM 5 had used roughly 98 fluid ounces of
fuel in making the trip, but it was
approximately 78 fluid ounces.
I stated that the trip was 1,912 miles, and
it was actually 1,888.3 or 1,882.4 miles,
depending on which formula—both
legitimate—you use to figure the distance
between the latitude/longitude points.
Regardless of the details, this was a
spectacular achievement, but it was not
without controversy.
Since the flight, I have spent much time
answering questions from the press and from
aeromodelers. The press has embraced this
accomplishment and has reported it in a
positive way, but some modelers have been
less than enthusiastic about the endeavor.
The questions range from whether AMA
paid my way to Ireland to worries regarding
the message this flight will send to people
concerned with homeland security. There
were questions regarding the safety of the
flight, the status of the flight in terms of the
AMA Safety Code, and even someone
insinuating that the flight might have been
faked and that the “AMA officials” (me)
wanted to be in the record book. Others
questioned if this was really a model
airplane!
Aeromodelers are a skeptical lot and I
don’t blame them for that! I’ll try to answer
these questions and in the process, I hope
members will acquire a better picture of the
difference between AMA and the Fédération
Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), and the
part the National Aeronautic Association
(NAA) played in the process.
AMA did not pay my way to Ireland.
AMA does pay for my travel to FAI
meetings which I attend as a part of my
duties under the AMA Bylaws, but this
trip was not paid for by AMA. Officers of
AMA have a travel budget which they use
at their discretion, but they are limited to
the amount in their budget. I could have
used this allowance, but I didn’t.
The idea that this flight would alert
people concerned with homeland security—
or those inclined to undermine that
security—to the capability of a model
airplane to harm our country is almost
laughable. The Internet “press” has been
full of articles outlining this “threat” and
this flight doesn’t demonstrate anything that
hasn’t been sensationalized in the past.
Fortunately, the people who are in
charge of our security are able to assess the
actual threat imposed and realize that it is
less than many other activities common in
our society. I’m sure that there are those
who would propose restricting the
availability of gasoline after reading of a
Molotov cocktail being used, but
fortunately cooler heads usually prevail.
Safety was a concern from the
beginning and became a larger issue as time
passed. This flight was over the ocean for
all but roughly 500 yards on each end of the
trip, and the altitude chosen for the flight
was “high enough to avoid any ship, and
low enough to avoid aircraft.”
During testing, the model was never
flown out of visual range. Throughout the
record flight, the portion of the journey over
land was within sight range and over vacant
land.
Could a major equipment malfunction
have put the model in a dangerous
situation? Certainly, but not as dangerous a
situation as a typical Radio Control (RC)
model flown at most flying sites would
create under the same conditions.
The AMA Safety Code and its relevance
to this flight bring up a number of
interesting points. The flight did not violate
the 2003 Safety Code but would have
violated the 2004 Safety Code approved by
the Executive Council prior to the flight—
for implementation in 2004.
It’s important to understand the
principal reason for the new rule in order to
understand why it wasn’t a problem with the
TAM 5 flight. The Safety Code contains the
“rules” which apply to all modelers. While
“autonomous flight” certainly has some
safety concerns—particularly over populated
areas—the most important reason for this
rule is to provide a specific way to
differentiate model airplanes from
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or
drones).
Our concern is that model airplanes will
become victims of unintended consequences
of Federal Aviation Association (FAA) rules
intended to regulate those UAVs which are
becoming more common in nonmilitary
applications. Requirements such as
transponders and flight plans would be
reasonable for UAVs, but they would kill RC
aeromodeling as we know it.
AMA’s adoption of this rule—with the
hope that the FAA will follow suit in its
definitions—could save our bacon. If we can
avoid the “navigationally enhanced”
autopilot from becoming an off-the-shelf
item, it will reduce the likelihood of a model
being used to do things that would interest
the homeland-security people.
Now that I have clarified this, I’ll inform
you that none of it has much effect on this
flight! “Why?” you ask. This flight did not
take place in the United States; it was subject
to FAI rules. AMA rules had no bearing on
this flight!
FAI is the international organization that
oversees international sporting aviation,
including world championships and world
records. For most of the rest of the world,
FAI rules are the rules in use. This flight was
subject to international rules governing all
aspects of aviation record setting.
Does the AMA Safety Code apply to the
flight? That is a good question and one for
which I do not have an absolute answer. If
this flight were to take place next year, that
could be an issue, but the 2003 Safety Code
has no provisions which would prohibit this
flight, so the question is moot.
Concerning insurance coverage, the flight
was covered under a foreign General
Liability Policy provided to AMA members
involved in FAI events, and not the normal
AMA Liability Policy.
Certification of the record, as with all FAI
world records, is a complex process. Initially
the flight must be accepted as a US record,
which is coordinated by NAA. AMA is
central to this process and the paperwork
involved. AMA ensures that the requirements
for officials from each country involved in
the record as specified by FAI rules are met.
Could an aeromodeling world record
be granted without AMA involvement? I
suppose it could, but NAA and AMA work
closely in such matters and it is unlikely.
After a National Record has been granted
and the paperwork is in order, the record
attempt is sent to the FAI where it undergoes
more scrutiny, including review by the
International Aeromodeling Commission of
the FAI (CIAM) Technical Secretary. This
step has the paperwork returning to the United
States, as Bob Underwood holds this elected
position.
The record paperwork is reviewed by
several people, most of whom are not part of
AMA. If all is satisfactory, a world record is
granted.
AMA cannot join the FAI directly. Each
country has a National Aero Club (NAC)
which coordinates all air sports within its
country. In the United States, our NAC is the
NAA. International aeromodeling is handled
by AMA working through NAA, and
everything is subject to its approval. As the
president of AMA, I am “in charge” of this
aspect of aeromodeling, but the NAA actually
appoints me to that position.
My involvement in this record was fairly
minor. I served two functions; one was
planned for, the other “just happened.” First, I
landed the model. That involved flipping some
switches to take over control and
approximately four minutes of spiraling it
down to a landing. Once it was on the ground,
the Irish officials took control of the
certification process.
The part that “just happened” was
spending the next four or five days dealing
with the press. I hadn’t planned that this much
attention would be paid to this flight, but I’m
glad we got as much positive exposure as we
did. Perhaps this will help us improve our
image in the eyes of the public.
Is it a model airplane? The FAI rules use the
term “limited dimensions” placing limits on
takeoff weight (5 kg), engine size (10cc), and
surface loading (150 gm/cm) to determine
that. Will those specifications change as a
result of this record? Probably, just as all
aviation records were changed when Yuri
Gagarin went into orbit, creating a new class
of aviation called Spacecraft.
Record setting is subject to rules which are
driven by the records set under them. As
man’s imagination develops the technology to
set records, the rules which regulate those
records must keep up with that technology.
I’d be surprised if this record doesn’t
inspire some rules changes, then someone in
the future will render those rules inadequate,
and the process will continue. That’s what
setting records is all about. It’s called pushing
the envelope.
This issue of Model Aviation has a feature
article describing the record-setting process
written by Maynard Hill. I can’t wait to read it.
It should be fascinating reading for those of us
with an interest in the technology of
aeromodeling. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/01
Page Numbers: 5,191
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/01
Page Numbers: 5,191
THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL League
has its bi-week and the December issue of
Model Aviation— the Nats issue—is the
AMA equivalent for the officers who write
monthly columns. The two months since I
wrote my last column while in Ireland seem
like an eternity, yet they seem like yesterday.
My last column was a news flash about
the successful transatlantic model (TAM)
crossing and contained a few inaccurate
numbers which I’ll try to correct. I wrote that
TAM 5 had used roughly 98 fluid ounces of
fuel in making the trip, but it was
approximately 78 fluid ounces.
I stated that the trip was 1,912 miles, and
it was actually 1,888.3 or 1,882.4 miles,
depending on which formula—both
legitimate—you use to figure the distance
between the latitude/longitude points.
Regardless of the details, this was a
spectacular achievement, but it was not
without controversy.
Since the flight, I have spent much time
answering questions from the press and from
aeromodelers. The press has embraced this
accomplishment and has reported it in a
positive way, but some modelers have been
less than enthusiastic about the endeavor.
The questions range from whether AMA
paid my way to Ireland to worries regarding
the message this flight will send to people
concerned with homeland security. There
were questions regarding the safety of the
flight, the status of the flight in terms of the
AMA Safety Code, and even someone
insinuating that the flight might have been
faked and that the “AMA officials” (me)
wanted to be in the record book. Others
questioned if this was really a model
airplane!
Aeromodelers are a skeptical lot and I
don’t blame them for that! I’ll try to answer
these questions and in the process, I hope
members will acquire a better picture of the
difference between AMA and the Fédération
Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), and the
part the National Aeronautic Association
(NAA) played in the process.
AMA did not pay my way to Ireland.
AMA does pay for my travel to FAI
meetings which I attend as a part of my
duties under the AMA Bylaws, but this
trip was not paid for by AMA. Officers of
AMA have a travel budget which they use
at their discretion, but they are limited to
the amount in their budget. I could have
used this allowance, but I didn’t.
The idea that this flight would alert
people concerned with homeland security—
or those inclined to undermine that
security—to the capability of a model
airplane to harm our country is almost
laughable. The Internet “press” has been
full of articles outlining this “threat” and
this flight doesn’t demonstrate anything that
hasn’t been sensationalized in the past.
Fortunately, the people who are in
charge of our security are able to assess the
actual threat imposed and realize that it is
less than many other activities common in
our society. I’m sure that there are those
who would propose restricting the
availability of gasoline after reading of a
Molotov cocktail being used, but
fortunately cooler heads usually prevail.
Safety was a concern from the
beginning and became a larger issue as time
passed. This flight was over the ocean for
all but roughly 500 yards on each end of the
trip, and the altitude chosen for the flight
was “high enough to avoid any ship, and
low enough to avoid aircraft.”
During testing, the model was never
flown out of visual range. Throughout the
record flight, the portion of the journey over
land was within sight range and over vacant
land.
Could a major equipment malfunction
have put the model in a dangerous
situation? Certainly, but not as dangerous a
situation as a typical Radio Control (RC)
model flown at most flying sites would
create under the same conditions.
The AMA Safety Code and its relevance
to this flight bring up a number of
interesting points. The flight did not violate
the 2003 Safety Code but would have
violated the 2004 Safety Code approved by
the Executive Council prior to the flight—
for implementation in 2004.
It’s important to understand the
principal reason for the new rule in order to
understand why it wasn’t a problem with the
TAM 5 flight. The Safety Code contains the
“rules” which apply to all modelers. While
“autonomous flight” certainly has some
safety concerns—particularly over populated
areas—the most important reason for this
rule is to provide a specific way to
differentiate model airplanes from
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or
drones).
Our concern is that model airplanes will
become victims of unintended consequences
of Federal Aviation Association (FAA) rules
intended to regulate those UAVs which are
becoming more common in nonmilitary
applications. Requirements such as
transponders and flight plans would be
reasonable for UAVs, but they would kill RC
aeromodeling as we know it.
AMA’s adoption of this rule—with the
hope that the FAA will follow suit in its
definitions—could save our bacon. If we can
avoid the “navigationally enhanced”
autopilot from becoming an off-the-shelf
item, it will reduce the likelihood of a model
being used to do things that would interest
the homeland-security people.
Now that I have clarified this, I’ll inform
you that none of it has much effect on this
flight! “Why?” you ask. This flight did not
take place in the United States; it was subject
to FAI rules. AMA rules had no bearing on
this flight!
FAI is the international organization that
oversees international sporting aviation,
including world championships and world
records. For most of the rest of the world,
FAI rules are the rules in use. This flight was
subject to international rules governing all
aspects of aviation record setting.
Does the AMA Safety Code apply to the
flight? That is a good question and one for
which I do not have an absolute answer. If
this flight were to take place next year, that
could be an issue, but the 2003 Safety Code
has no provisions which would prohibit this
flight, so the question is moot.
Concerning insurance coverage, the flight
was covered under a foreign General
Liability Policy provided to AMA members
involved in FAI events, and not the normal
AMA Liability Policy.
Certification of the record, as with all FAI
world records, is a complex process. Initially
the flight must be accepted as a US record,
which is coordinated by NAA. AMA is
central to this process and the paperwork
involved. AMA ensures that the requirements
for officials from each country involved in
the record as specified by FAI rules are met.
Could an aeromodeling world record
be granted without AMA involvement? I
suppose it could, but NAA and AMA work
closely in such matters and it is unlikely.
After a National Record has been granted
and the paperwork is in order, the record
attempt is sent to the FAI where it undergoes
more scrutiny, including review by the
International Aeromodeling Commission of
the FAI (CIAM) Technical Secretary. This
step has the paperwork returning to the United
States, as Bob Underwood holds this elected
position.
The record paperwork is reviewed by
several people, most of whom are not part of
AMA. If all is satisfactory, a world record is
granted.
AMA cannot join the FAI directly. Each
country has a National Aero Club (NAC)
which coordinates all air sports within its
country. In the United States, our NAC is the
NAA. International aeromodeling is handled
by AMA working through NAA, and
everything is subject to its approval. As the
president of AMA, I am “in charge” of this
aspect of aeromodeling, but the NAA actually
appoints me to that position.
My involvement in this record was fairly
minor. I served two functions; one was
planned for, the other “just happened.” First, I
landed the model. That involved flipping some
switches to take over control and
approximately four minutes of spiraling it
down to a landing. Once it was on the ground,
the Irish officials took control of the
certification process.
The part that “just happened” was
spending the next four or five days dealing
with the press. I hadn’t planned that this much
attention would be paid to this flight, but I’m
glad we got as much positive exposure as we
did. Perhaps this will help us improve our
image in the eyes of the public.
Is it a model airplane? The FAI rules use the
term “limited dimensions” placing limits on
takeoff weight (5 kg), engine size (10cc), and
surface loading (150 gm/cm) to determine
that. Will those specifications change as a
result of this record? Probably, just as all
aviation records were changed when Yuri
Gagarin went into orbit, creating a new class
of aviation called Spacecraft.
Record setting is subject to rules which are
driven by the records set under them. As
man’s imagination develops the technology to
set records, the rules which regulate those
records must keep up with that technology.
I’d be surprised if this record doesn’t
inspire some rules changes, then someone in
the future will render those rules inadequate,
and the process will continue. That’s what
setting records is all about. It’s called pushing
the envelope.
This issue of Model Aviation has a feature
article describing the record-setting process
written by Maynard Hill. I can’t wait to read it.
It should be fascinating reading for those of us
with an interest in the technology of
aeromodeling. MA