Modeling Spoken Here
We must constantly police ourselves in respect to anything that could negatively impact our hobby/sport.
THERE IS NEVER a time when progress does not cause some amount of pain, anxiety, confusion, and occasionally even fear. Some are happy to just leave everything as is, and some want to change everything constantly. Obviously, the two extremes will never agree. In the space between these opposed viewpoints is where necessary and logical progress and change occurs for the betterment of all concerned.
If you were to read AMA President Dave Brown's report in this issue then read Bob Aberle's review of the FMA Direct Co-Pilot device, you might think that we at Model Aviation are not reading the stuff we are publishing or are speaking out of both sides of our mouths at the same. Trust me, that's not the case.
The following will be totally confusing if you don't stop here and read the two aforementioned pieces first. I'll wait here and get some building done while you read.
Ah, you're back! See what I mean? There would seem to be a discrepancy between the concerns Dave has for the possible damage to the hobby/sport if we don't police ourselves in respect to certain types of electronic devices and their possible applications for nefarious purposes and Bob's review of the excellent Co-Pilot device from FMA Direct.
It's true that the Co-Pilot product, and others like it, can be used in conjunction with other electronic guidance devices to enable a model airplane to carry payloads significant distances without the need for a ground-based pilot. This is not as easily accomplished as many think, but it can be done.
This isn't a new thought; this possibility has been with us for several years, and those who might want to utilize a model airplane for such duty have had the wherewithal to accomplish the feat at their disposal with but a minimal amount of research and experimentation. What is new is the concern our government is showing for anything out there with the potential of causing a threat.
What has rung the wake-up alarm, of course, are the tragic events of this past September. Our situation is that if we are not prudent in our actions and activity, we may lose our right to fly model airplanes.
I applaud those who push technological envelopes. If we don't progress, we stagnate. Inching the possibilities ever forward in any tech sport is the only way to discover new vistas and new horizons. Sometimes, however, we accidentally create something that we intend to use harmlessly, and don't even see the potential for sinister or dangerous application.
We must constantly be aware of alternate uses for anything we develop. You know and I know that when we envision a new invention for modeling, all we are thinking about is the potential good it can bring to the sport and our own modeling pleasure.
There are many who have already begun to think about combining devices to allow them to create a model airplane that can be flown out of the line of sight and complete a sort of mission profile. Yes, it can be done right now. But think of the possible consequences. If for any reason the model has engine or airframe problems, or if the electronic guidance devices and/or telemetry devices onboard fail (and they do fail from time to time), the potential for a serious accident is monumental.
This is not to imply that our current modeling electronic equipment is unreliable. In fact, today's Radio Control systems are marvels of reliability. However, things can go wrong. Frequency interference, battery failure, and mechanical linkage breakage are but a few of the things that can and do occasionally happen. If one of these happens at a sanctioned flying field—and which is usually situated in a rural area and adequately far from populated areas—the result is usually not too serious.
If, however, any of these malfunctions happen while the model is on a leg of a preprogrammed "mission," and it happens to be over a populated area ... Well, you see the problem.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
