President’s Perspective
Dave Brown, AMA President
The National Football League has its bye 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.
Controversy and Questions
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 widely:
- Did AMA pay my way to Ireland?
- Would this flight send a dangerous message to people concerned with homeland security?
- Was the flight safe and consistent with the AMA Safety Code?
- Was the flight faked or staged for records?
- Is this 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, help members better understand the difference between AMA and the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), and the part the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) played in the process.
Funding and Travel
AMA did not pay my way to Ireland. AMA does pay for my travel to FAI meetings, which I attend as part of my duties under the AMA Bylaws, but this trip was not paid for by AMA. Officers of AMA have a travel budget they may use at their discretion, but they are limited to the amount in their budget. I could have used this allowance, but I didn’t.
Homeland Security Concerns
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 in charge of our security are able to assess the actual threat and realize it is less than many other activities common in our society. I’m sure some would propose restricting the availability of gasoline after reading about a Molotov cocktail being used, but fortunately cooler heads usually prevail.
Safety
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.
AMA Safety Code and FAI Rules
The AMA Safety Code and its relevance to this flight raise 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” that apply to all modelers. While “autonomous flight” certainly has 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 Administration (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 homeland-security people.
None of this, however, had much effect on this flight. Why? 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 that would prohibit this flight, so the question is moot.
Insurance and Certification
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 U.S. 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 Aeromodelling 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, NAA, and International Authority
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 aeromodelling 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 aeromodelling, but the NAA actually appoints me to that position.
My Involvement
My involvement in this record was fairly minor. I served two functions; one was planned for, the other "just happened."
- Planned: 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.
- Unplanned: I spent 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 (10 cc), and surface loading (150 gm/cm2) to determine that. Will these classifications 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 human imagination develops the technology to set records, the rules that regulate those records must keep up with that technology.
I'd be surprised if this record doesn't inspire some rules changes, but 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 aeromodelling. MA
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
