The Great Debate: UAV vs UAS

As\nfar as unmanned aviation has come in the last decade, it remains the\nrare niche aviation market that can't agree on what to call its\nsignature product.

As an acronym, do we call them a UAV, UA or UAS? As a word, should we describe them as unmanned, uninhabited or unpiloted?

Never\none to join the crowd, the US Air Force has coined its own new term:\nRemotely Operated Aircraft (ROA, anyone? Frankly, we think that's\nalready DOA, or should be).

Now, the US Department of Defense is proposing to settle this nomenclature madness once and for all. Here is DOD's new and long-awaited Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap. Among other things, it decrees the term UAV is passé.

Henceforth,\nthe DOD will recognize two terms: an unmanned aircraft (UA) and an\nunmanned aircraft system (UAS). The UA is to be used when referring to\nthe flying component of a UAS, which refers to a ground station linked\nwith one or more UAs.

\"This\nchange in terminology more clearly emphasizes that the aircraft is only\none component of the system, and is in line with the Federal Aviation\nAdministration's decision to treat 'UAVs' as aircraft for regulatory\npurposes,\" a footnote reads.

There\nmay be some logic to this. It reflects the fact that unmanned flight\nrequires more than just an aircraft to work - and, thus, for\ngovernments to regulate. And it substitutes the smoother word,\n\"aircraft\", for the clunky and possibly anachronistic term,\"air\nvehicle.\" (Who came up with \"unmanned air vehicle\" anyway? Any\ntheories?)

But\nthere is a catch. Even if the aim is to clarify, it doesn't do you any\nfavours if few others in the English-speaking world know the difference\nbetween a UAS and a UA. Or, for that matter, a UAS and a UAV.

It\nis something we're thinking about among our editorial team. Flight\nInternational uses the term UAV, which has its flaws but at least is\ncommonly understood. This may have to be discarded at some point, but\nwe are asking two questions: when? and with what?