Newbee, again

| It is unlawful in the US to fly autonomously controlled aircraft unless you | represent a US government agency or a commercial organization doing research | and have obtained the proper paperwork and clearances.

Can you provide a reference to back up this assertion? A link to the relevant section of the law, a link to a NOTAM from the FAA, etc.?

The FAA certainly does care about UAVs, but they're traditionally much larger than a model.

Better yet, before responding, why don't you go find something that negates my assertion?

Ed Cregger

| Better yet, before responding, why don't you go find something that negates | my assertion?

You made the assertion, not me. I was hoping you could back it up. In short, I'm `calling bullsh*t' on you.

It's going to be difficult to find something that negates your assertion, because it would involve reading the entire body of US law and FAA regulations, NOTAMs, etc. The law usually doesn't give rights/priviledges -- instead, it takes them away. And if something isn't explicitly made illegal, it's usually legal. [No, I'm not a lawyer.] On the other hand, it should be very easy to prove your assertion -- just provide a link to the law or NOTAM that states this.

I was hoping that since you authoritatively declared that `It is unlawful in the US to fly autonomously controlled aircraft unless ...' that you knew what you were talking about.

Even your standard free flight model is `autonomously controlled'. There is usually no electronic devices for keeping it on course, but the dihedral in the wing keeps it level, and mechanical devices have been experimented with exist to do things like change control surfaces after the motor (rubber band or engine) run out. As far as I know, free flight models aren't illegal ...

| > | It is unlawful in the US to fly autonomously controlled aircraft | > | unless you represent a US government agency or a commercial | > | organization doing research and have obtained the proper | > | paperwork and clearances. | >

| > Can you provide a reference to back up this assertion? A link to the | > relevant section of the law, a link to a NOTAM from the FAA, etc.? | >

| > The FAA certainly does care about UAVs, but they're traditionally much | > larger than a model.

I dunno, Ed ~

10 minutes on Google gave me lotsa how-to's, lotsa FAA (USA....) specs and limitations (FARs), but nothing saying I have to be named Mr. Ratheon to design and build. Sorry, I ain't throwin' away my Wal-Mart gliders ~ I'd like to see the FAR that says I'm busted....please. It's only fair ~ we didn't respond first. DC3

Some time back I came across this article on a small UAV that autonomously crossed the Atlantic. (They actually launched three but only one of them made it.) Nevetheless I thought this was quite an accomplishment. Anyway here is the link to the model airplane

I would go for a on-board camera, positioned at a 45 degree angle. If you can afford the weight a gps would have. A VERY GOOD on board camera could transmit 7-8 miles. You would need 2 receivers. 1 for you and 1 for your buddy. Receivers, transmitters, and GPS and camera receivers would all have to be matched. The plane must be pre-trimmed for both transmitters.

A cell phone and a buddy with a transmitter matched to yours would provide a 'hand off' to the second person so that control of the plane is passed to him. You would need transmitter boosters on both your transmitters to go 7 miles.

A SIG 60 with a gas engine and several gas tanks would make the distance cruising very slow. But that's just off the 'top of my head'. I'd look into

1/3 or 1/4th scale for carry the weight you have to carry.

Lot's of luck, and post back here on your progress. You can also email me, as I would like to more of your project in detail.

Thanks.

Actually , I remember seeing a one page artcle in MAN maybe 2 or 3yrs ago on the last page about a guy who outfitted his Kadet (90 4str I think) with a GPS somehow connected to an onboard PC then to the Rx that went to two other local RC fields and finally back to finish the roundtrip. I remember that when the plane was expected at each field it was many minutes late in arriving. Afterwards they found that there was a small bit of rudder producing small turns and it kept correcting its heading every so often which made for the delay. As I remember it it went much further than 10 miles , maybe 35 to 40 ? The amazing thing is, if I remember correctly, the guy did it for $2500 ! The 3000 ft altitude idea may need to be reworked though. Why do you want to fly it so high ? If anyone knows which issue of MAN this was in please let me know ! Certainly dont let these naysayers stop you ! It didnt stop that guy and it shouldnt stop you ! Its all these damn laws and regulations that are ruining this country. Many times they are designed not to protect us but to protect some monster corporations revenue stream. Its like the Patriot Act. Pure garbage.

If you wish to consult with someone who has built and successfully flown aircraft such as you wish to build, get on the r/c jets email list and contact the listmaster. Go to snipped-for-privacy@lists.kidsource.com

>

What you SHOULD be looking for, as a newbee, is a club that will teach you how to fly and participate in this hobby. Trying to run before you can walk or even crawl is a guarantee for disaster.

And if your plan is indeed legit, why can't you divuldge more details here to demonstrate said legitamacy?

Great link, that's exactely what I'm looking for. It's very well possible to create a small aircraft that flies on autopilot, steered by a GPS system. The French guy with the surveycopter did it himself, with relatively limited means. Please continue the debate! It's very interesting.

And, to make things even clearer: I'm not in the USA, I'm in a region where there are, as far as I know, no laws on this kind of operations.

And, you'll laugh if I later tell you why I used the aircraft.

Meanwhile, keep it up with the great advise! Thanks so much.

mn wrote:

For avionics, you might look at:

Your goal is quite possible with an airplane, I am not convinced you can do that with current model helicopter technology.

| First of all, please understand that this is my "opinion". I am not stating | it as fact, in spite of the way it may have appeared.

You certainly did state it as fact --

It is unlawful in the US to fly autonomously controlled aircraft unless you represent a US government agency or a commercial organization doing research and have obtained the proper paperwork and clearances.

and then you became hostile (or at least grumpy and condescending) --

Better yet, before responding, why don't you go find something that negates my assertion?

when asked to provide some proof. In the future, you might want to say `I think' or `In my opinion' when there's a good chance that people will misunderstand you and think that you're stating fact.

| Having a bad case of CRS, nothing I say should be taken as fact. Use | your own brain and time to decide what is true and what is not.

Then you shouldn't be condescending when somebody doubts the credibility of your statements.

| I feel confident that anyone launching an autonomously controlled, | internal combustion engine powered, payload carrying aircraft of any | appreciable size (a UAV) into the atmosphere that crashes and kills | or injures someone or their property, will certainly wish that they | had never had the idea.

Absolutely. Of course, this statement remains exactly as true when you replace `launching an autonomously controlled ... atmosphere that crashes and' with more innocuous statements like `takes off their

1/3rd scale Cub' or `launches a kite' or `drives to the corner store' or `kicks a soccer ball'. ANY of these activities could kill somebody, and any normal person would wish they'd never had the idea if they killed somebody doing it.

| And if Attorney General Ashcroft's attention is brought to the matter | because of the incident's particular circumstances, well...

Yes, that would be bad for the hobby if any incident related to model airplanes came to his attention like this.

| Oh, by the way, UAV's are NOT model airplanes. Big difference.

Um, UAV means `Unmanned aerial vehicle'. You'll have to explain exactly how a model airplane (one that actually flies) is not a UAV. It's unmanned, it's aerial, it's a vehicle ... sounds like a UAV to me.

The FAA usually doesn't concern itself with planes that are the sizes that we fly (and a bit larger -- ultralights are ok up to 254 lbs.) as long as they don't interfere with larger planes and don't violate restricted airspace, but one bad accident or incident could certainly change that.

Thanks very much sir, great link.

I h> For avionics, you might look at:

Hey, Doug. STICK IT IN YOUR EAR!

Ed Cregger

Hate to toot me horn but what about the guys post concerning the fella who did most and more of what this thread starter asked , made flights to several AMA sanctioned fields and back again ? He made a very functional UAV all by himself, period. The best thing Dave and Ed have done is to argue in this thread. Both of which should start reading some Dale Carnegie immmediately. Their lack of tact is less than less. Arguments do nothing but build resentment , period. Kudos to this guy EZ for spending his time wisely. I hope he succeeds...it can be done. But, as its been alluded to , you had better learn basic RC skills first. Small steps.

-Jon

Every once in a while, the newsgroup gets a new individual that feels that it is their mission from God to straighten out the newsgroup. Apparently, this week it is Doug's turn.

Such individuals pick on this or that, trying to put the old timers in their place. Most are frustrated club politicians that can't bully their club, so they come here. There's nothing new under the sun.

Technically, a model airplane is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), but in the popular vernacular, the term UAV is meant to signify a special unmanned aircraft that is meant for military, commercial or research work. True? So, in popular speak, there is a distinction between model aircraft and a UAV, even if technically, a model airplane can be considered a UAV.

This is the kind of nitpicking that one newsgroup particpant uses on another when they wish to run them off. They try to wear them down over time. Sometimes it works. It hasn't worked on me once during the last seven years and I doubt that it will now.

If you, or anyone else, does not like to read what I have to say, or how I say it, there is always the block sender list. Feel free to use it. I do.

Ed Cregger

succeeds...it

Sorry for the delay. I have flown planes for the last 6 years. I can do _anything_ with a plane. Fast, inverted and 6 inches off the deck. Knife edge all day at 5-6 feet. But now for the past year I have been trying to leard how to fly a heli. They are _extremely_ hard to even hover

20 feet in front of you. Keep you eyes on a plane, IMO.

Other than that a Google search will give you places to buy all that you need. I hope you have a 'fat' wallet :) C'ya

ez wrote: Yes, great suggestion. I have been thinking of working with a buddy taking over for the landing or the drop. It's still a feasible option if my first plan won't work.

A *** MESSAGE TRUNCATED ***

| Every once in a while, the newsgroup gets a new individual

... I'm not actually that new.

| that feels that it is their mission from God

... and my mission is not from God.

I was actually quite curious when I asked you if you could provide us with the laws or FARs that prohibited model airplanes with autopilots

-- after all, I'd been telling people that they weren't illegal, and I wouldn't want to be giving out incorrect information. I guess you saw my query as an attack or a challenge or something.

| to straighten out the newsgroup. Apparently, this week it is Doug's | turn.

Actually, I was just straightening you out, not the entire newsgroup. Please, try to keep things in perspective.

If you're going to authoritatively declare that `X is illegal', at least try to know what you're talking about. If not, at least qualify what you're saying with something like `I believe that' or `I think'. And don't get all uppity when somebody asks for your sources.

| Technically, a model airplane is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), but in the | popular vernacular, the term UAV is meant to signify a special unmanned | aircraft that is meant for military, commercial or research work. True? So, | in popular speak, there is a distinction between model aircraft and a UAV, | even if technically, a model airplane can be considered a UAV. | | This is the kind of nitpicking that one newsgroup particpant uses on another | when they wish to run them off.

I agree -- that is indeed a *fine* example of nitpicking. Who are you trying to run off? Me? You'll have to try harder than that.

| If you, or anyone else, does not like to read what I have to say, or how I | say it, there is always the block sender list. Feel free to use it. I do.

Thank you for your permission to use a KILL file. Apparantly you're not using it on me yet. This would be a good time.

Ob RC related :

I got around to putting most of the R/C related pictures I've got onto a web site. It's nothing fancy, and there's certainly MUCH larger collections out there, and I'm not much of a photographer, but if somebody's interested --

No, I'm not trying to run you off. Never happen.

Ed Cregger