MS Composit makes and distributes an autopilot for RC Helicopters!

See the Winchester General Liability Policy, Exclusion G, page 10 of

1. " The definition of model airplane does not include a 'model aircraft during periods of autonomous flight unless the operator has been granted a waiver from the Academy of Model Aeronautics ..........."

Why would anyone equip a model airplane with an autopilot except to enable autonomous flight?

Where were you when Dave Brown jammed this clause into the definition of 'model airplane' and exclusion from AMA liability coverage?

Abel

Training aid?

BTW, you know where he was. mk

"Abel Pranger" wrote

Different meaning of the term autopilot.

An autopilot in a real aircraft, or APV can program, or be programmed, to take the vehicle from one place to another.

The autopilot in this sense, is designed to make the helicopter stable, and stationary, until the pilot uses the controller to move the vehicle to another location, but with the autopilot helping it to move in a stable manner.

I like your interpretation just fine. What does it mean to a feeding frenzy of insurance company sharks when you have an $X00,000 lawsuit filed against you? What did Dave Brown's mouthpiece mean when he lied to a congressional subcommittee about the AMA Safety Code containing these words: " No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight ."

Abel

| What did Dave Brown's mouthpiece mean when he lied to a congressional | subcommittee about the AMA Safety Code containing these words: | " No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for | autonomous flight ."

He's probably trying to make sure that the line between UAVs and model planes stays as big and bright as possible. Not that he controls the hobby as a whole or anything like that, but he does have some influence.

Of course, this was all *after* he landed Maynard's `Spirit of Butts' Farm' TAM-5 in Ireland back in August 2003, after a nice long autonomous flight. And of course the AMA rules permit them to give waivers for this rule if desired.

"Of course, this was all *after* he landed Maynard's `Spirit of Butts' Farm' TAM-5 in Ireland back in August 2003, after a nice long autonomous flight. And of course the AMA rules permit them to give waivers for this rule if desired."

I keep reading and hearing people say this. However, they seem to forget that the take off was from Newfoundland and it landed in Ireland. Neither of these places are in the USA and it is questionable if the AMA is/was envolved at all. Secondarily, you can fly a model with out AMA. If you want the AMA insurance to cover you then you must obey the safety code. The AMA is not a legislative body.

I know if I had attempted this feat, AMA insurance would be the last of my considerations because the flight was over a vast ocean.

| "Of course, this was all *after* he landed Maynard's `Spirit of | Butts' | Farm' TAM-5 in Ireland back in August 2003, after a nice long | autonomous flight. And of course the AMA rules permit them to give | waivers for this rule if desired." | | I keep reading and hearing people say this.

Odd. I've never seen anybody mention it in this context but me -- but then again, I can't read eveything everybody says everywhere.

| However, they seem to forget that the take off was from Newfoundland | and it landed in Ireland.

I haven't forgotten that. However, it still seems hypocritical for Brown to participate in this activity, then to shortly after amend the AMA rules to explicitly prohibit this sort of flight.

| Neither of these places are in the USA and it is questionable if the | AMA is/was envolved at all.

Early flight testing was done at Butts Farm in Maryland. It seems like a good guess that the autopilot was engaged at least once over the US. (Of course, the AMA rules didn't prohibit that back then, and even if they did, I'm sure Maynard could have easily gotten a waiver.) I've no idea what the FAA (and Canada/Ireland equivilents) rules (which generally DO have the force of law behind them, unlike AMA rules) have to say about all of that, but I imagine that Maynard took care of all of that too.

Considering that TAM-5 is currently in the AMA museum, and it was landed by the president of the AMA, I think it's a pretty good bet that the AMA was involved somehow. Even if the entire world record breaking flight happened outside of the AMA's ... area of influence, for lack of a better word. (Juristiction certainly isn't the right word.)

| Secondarily, you can fly a model with out AMA. If you want the AMA | insurance to cover you then you must obey the safety code. The AMA | is not a legislative body.

I'm fully aware of that as well. Did I say anything to make you think I believed otherwise?

However, if you're the sort of person to attempt to aeromodelling beat world records in the US, you're almost certain to be an AMA member. You can't even enter most competitions without being an AMA member, and I'm not sure the FAI would even talk to you if you weren't an AMA member (or it's equivilent if you're in another country.) And once you're an AMA member, you've agreed to follow their rules, whether you care about their insurance or not.

| I know if I had attempted this feat, AMA insurance would be the last | of my considerations because the flight was over a vast ocean.

AMA insurance is almost never one of my primary considerations. I have homeowners insurance that covers me, and the AMA insurance is secondary -- so it would have to be a really serious accident for the AMA to pay anything anyways. And I generally fly small electrics and gliders anyways, so the likelyhood of a serious accident is pretty small.

But I agreed to follow the AMA rules when I joined, insurance or not, and they're generally reasonable, so I follow them. It really has nothing to do with any fear of invalidating the insurance.

The good news is that FAA has defined the line between UAVs with the release of their UA policy paper in 2005, and it is totally devoid of any hint of DB/AMA influence. Model airplanes flown recreationally are still expected to operate in accord with AC 91-57,as has been FAA policy for more than 25 years. Only difference is the consequences of not voluntarily complying with that Advisory. If you operate outside the bounds set by the AC (400' altitude limit is the only one quantified, IIRC), then your UA is no longer considered a model airplane and so is subject to the same regulation as commercial and public service UA. Abel

SNIP

SNIP

Serious accident involving a model? Surely you jest? The vast majority of payouts has been for trip and fall type of accidents that did not even involve models. The issue most of us ignore is that we are somewhat responsible for public safety around our activities. That means that since we attract spectators we must provide for their safety in a reasonable manner. That is one reason I am so unpopular some days, because I insist that we follow the AMA rules all the time. That is also why I have just returned several receivers that do not work as advertised. As a group we don't need to be looking for ways to endanger folks we would like supporting our sport.

YMMV

Jim Branaum AMA 1428

On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:33:50 GMT, "Six_O'Clock_High" our sport.

Well Jim, different clubs have different circumstances. Those I belong to are pretty well isolated from public view. Property well removed from public thoroughfares, fenced and gated. The only visitors are guests of members, and infrequent at that. Family member coverage is not provided by AMA insurance, and member-to-member coverage may be provided for nuisance level claims, but for any major liability incident, expect the favorite insurer defense du jour, 'assumption of risk' to be vigorously pursued. My HO covers me to an extent, then a PUP takes over in the extreme but finitely potential

3-sigma case. AMA insurance never figures into my planning for fiscal security.

Abel

In article , Six_O'Clock_High

Touché`...that was not my intent at all Doug! Rather I was trying to gently chide those who prefer to take higher levels of risk with spectators than you or I. I am sure you have seen some of the same videos I have and know the 'group' I was talking about.

Abel, while I agree in principle with what you said, my argument stands as it refers to the average club and AMA claims. Now, unless they change the policy, my HO has the same coverage's as yours and probably for the same reasons.

Jim