mongo

My Feedback: (15)

since it seems that some folks are calling for these things we fly to have some sort of manditory failsafe, reaction from the accident up north, where do you stand on this?

should they be mandated?
if so, what action should the failsafe take?
if so, should there be a size limit for their mandate?
if so, how is it to be enacted on the model?

personally, i think that IF they are mandated, it should be across the board. nothing R/C and powered should be exempt. and that it should be just a mandate that the TX send out a default failsafe signal of throtle kill.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Mongo,
The only radio's that have failsafe built into them are PCM radio's. These radio's are a small percentage of the total radio's out there. I really think it's impractical to mandate that all present radio's are obsolete and require "new" radio's with failsafe built in. IMO, the cost/benefit just isn't there.
BRG,
Jon

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I believe the above is inaccurate. Take a look at the Multiplex products for example - failsafe without PCM.

Failsafe is already mandated for turbine powered models, yet not all turbine pilots use PCM.

Gordon

MustangFan

No !

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Gordon,
I stand corrected, I was thinking about JR and Futaba. I've never seen a Multiplex at the field or at any meets, not sure how many are out there. Oh well.....
I'm not sure which turbine guys you know, but everyone that I know all have PCM radio's, mostly JR10X's, although there are other makes as well. Any waiver holder that is not flying with a radio that doesn't have failsafe is just asking for trouble. By Jan 1, 2005 it's mandatory that the radio/ECU shuts the engine down within 2 seconds of loss of signal or going into failsafe.
Jeeez, we ***** and moan about the AMA's heavy hand regarding turbine's, then when some reasonable regs come out, guys still ignore them. For a lot of turbine pilots, money is no object, so they should be able to buy a radio that can meet the regs, if they don't all ready have one. Heck, I'm using a JR 347, a pretty old radio, on PCM and I've programmed mine to comply. The more I read these various post, the more I think POGO was right: We have met the enemy and he is us.
I'm going flying before I get all cranked up.
BRG,
Jon

diceman

My Feedback: (10)

Actually there is a inexpensive and easy to install failsafe device used by R/C Cars that is for FM use. Please excuse me if I don't have all the details, but I did see a write up on this recently. It's time to get your heads out of the SAND!!!!

I would say that anything over 1.5 CI would be a good cantidate for mandatory throttle failsafe.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

diceman,
I saw the same thing on another forum, I believe Futaba makes it, but they say that it can't be used for model airplanes.
Jon

diceman

My Feedback: (10)

As I indicated, I am only aware of it, and I ahve been told that it will work just fine on an airplane.

Most FM transmitters are PCM capable anyway. All it takes is a PCM receiver. It's a couple of bucks, and I am sure there will be plenty of complaints from the usual suspects in the peanut gallery!!!

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
Here's the info from Tower:

NOTES FROM OUR TECH DEPARTMENT
This is a Fail Safe Unit for Use with CARS and BOATS with Futaba "J" Radio
Systems. NOT FOR USE WITH AIRCRAFT OR HELICOPTER RADIOS!

Here's the link to Tower, it's a Futaba FS-1:
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXH328&P=ML
Jon

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

was really hoping fer a reply from the daveman on this one.

Bump Post

UP

GrnBrt

My Feedback: (5)

Do not keep on bumping posts please as we do frown on it.

Dave Mathewson

Hi Mongo,
I'll give you my initial take on this subject to being convinced otherwise by a logical argument.
I generally try to avoid the use of the word "mandatory". On the other hand I think we should strongly encourage those that have failsafe capable radios to use the failsafe feature and set it properly. Just requiring the use of failsafe will do little good if guys don't have them set.

I can't think of any practical way to mandate the use of failsafe "across the board" for all powered RC models. Knowing that it's possible to fly through a failsafe anomaly would we want to mandate that RC helicopters, for instance, require a failsafe that kills the engine in the event of a hit? I fly some small 13.5 oz. speed 400 pylon. Even though it's electric, it's powered. I don't think there's anything available with failsafe capability that would fit in the model. These are just a couple of the things we'd have to address before anyone could even consider a failsafe mandate.

Right now I think encouraging the use of failsafe is the way to go instead of trying to mandate it's use. As to what action the failsafe should take, I think that could be different for different types of models. The short answer would be whatever action would best reduce or eliminate the danger involved in the impending result of the model going into failsafe.
Dave

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

fer what it is worth, almost all my flying is rotorwing, and every single one has a throtle kill failsafe.
in any event, failsafe type, getting to the ground with a dead motor is less available energy to damage folks with, than getting there with a running motor.

right now, in time, every single radio mfgr that has a failsafe equiped tx, defaults that tx to a throtle hold last good for failsafe.
as you said most folks do not bother to set up failsafes.
now, would requiring that the mfgrs default that throtle failsafe to kill, make us all safer than than we currently are? would it prevent uncontroled aircraft from just flying away happily?

i think so. and folks that do not want their throtle killed, can still go in the radio and set up a diferent failsafe.

but at least the 90% or so that never look at failsafe, will have something that makes it less likely that the aircraft will fly away, or get to the ground running WFO.

EC120

All the helis I know use failsafe if using PCM and set the throttle to idle. I saw one go into failsafe. It went to idle and fell to the ground without engine power. It did stay at idle but the clutch was not engaged. The reason for the failsafe was the crystal came out. Sure the heli hit the ground and was damaged but the important thing is that it didn't go anywhere else. A plane tends to want to keep flying more than a heli but at least you can reduce the energy involved in the impact if the throttle is set back or killed. I do not think failsafe should be mandatory but if your RX has this feature then it should be set up properly. Those that refuse to drop the throttle for fear of crashing the model need to look at the bigger picture. You risk a fly away, property damage, or worse. imho

Dave Mathewson

Hi Mongo,
That idea might have potential. I not an expert but I suspect all it would take is a simple software edit to make that change.

FWIW, I spent the day at the NEAT Fair in NY. FMA was there and they're advertising a new receiver capable of a "true failsafe" in a non PCM receiver. I wanted to get some more info on it but it rained non stop from about 9AM until dark and instead of flying all the pilots were spending money at the vendor booths. You couldn't get near some of the booths. I'll try again tomorrow to see what I can find out about it.
Dave

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

at this point, i am just glad that the bug landed in a receptive ear.

i think we can all count on you, at least, looking at the upcomming failsafe ideas with an open and somewhat educated mind now.

edited to add:

yer most probably right. all it should take is few lines of programming change and re burning the eprom in the radio.

think back to 63-64 and car sales.
in 63 seatbelts were an option, in 64 they were manditory. no one required that you retrofit yer 63 with them, but ya could ifn ya wanted, however, evvery new car sold from 64 on, has had to have em.

a similar tack is what i sugest fer us.

Dave Mathewson

I wanted to ask Fred Marks about this and his new FS8 receiver when I went back to NEAT on Saturday. Unfortunately, we never got there. I had planned to meet Bob Brown there early Saturday but got a call from him when I was on the way. He said the main road into that area was closed and the NYSP turned him around. So since we had nothing else to do my wife and I mapped out another route and tried to get there from another direction. Made it within 10 miles but that was as far as we got. Roads were flooded, bridges were underwater. I hear they finally evacuated the site around mid-afternoon.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure our District 2 Frequency Coordinator has one of the complete units, including the post flight data reading software. I'll see if I can get some info from him. He also might be able to give me a pretty good idea of exactly what would need to be done to modify most TX's to change the default FS mode.
Dave

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

Jon, what I think Gordon is trying to say is that turbine pilots, although not flying exclusively PCM, are complying with the failsafe regulation.

dave jones

Dave.
Dave Jones here I have tested Fred's 5 channel FM receiver with fail-safe and I have to say that it works very well and is very easy to set up the fail safes if one pays attention to the instructions.
One more thing about the receiver is that the same receiver will work with a Futaba FM transmitter or a JR transmitter with out having to make any changes to the receiver, this is good if you want to sell a model to some that has a JR and you have a Futaba or vice versa.
I use fail-safe on all of my aircraft.
I am a Futaba fan and most of my receivers are PCM, I still have a few FM receiver so I use a missing pulse detector on the throttle to shut down the motor in the event of radio failure.
On the Digital Spread Spectrum RC system that I developed we have incorporated fail safes on all of the channels plus we can set the time that it takes for the fail safe to take affect and set how long it takes for it to come out of fail safe.
Dave Jones
AUAV.net

Dave Mathewson

Hi Dave,
Our District Frequency Coordinator has tested one of the FMA receivers, I thought he said it was an FS-8, and he also said it worked well. I've also heard, third or forth hand, that JR either has or is about to release a unit for air use similar to the Futaba FS device that Jon provided a link for. And it's supposed to be pretty inexpensive.
Dave

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Dave:

I fly down here in SO.New Jersey, and am quite new to the hobby/sport. That does not stop me from having a question regarding this failsafe issue.

Is there a possibility that if the AMA does not take a stance one way or the other, ie. mandatory or strongly encourage, as you put it, the Federal Government may stick it's ugly nose in this and make some sort of rule that we clearly cannot live with? I know that the FAA is interested, these things do fly.

Thanks.

Dave Mathewson

Hi Dick,
You know, I seem to remember reading your name a month or so ago in the ACS newsletter. Am I close?

I think there are some areas where we may need to police ourselves to offset the possibility of the FAA stepping in to regulate what we do. I've given this some thought and I can't imagine a situation where this may be one of them. Maybe somebody else can paint a scenario where this might be the case.
Dave

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Even if failsafes were to be mandated across the board, many at the local club levels would fail to comply for whatever reasons they could dream up, defeating the purpose of a failsafe at their local fields.

Personal opinion at the moment is that failsafes should be used at any event that would be expected to generate a large number of spectators or competitors. Our aircraft have gotten larger, faster, heavier, and more complicated. All of which contribute to the potential for something to go wrong. We have more people with limited experience flying large aircraft with no experience in building and/or radio installations. Failsafes could help some.

Combining failsafes with the FAA airshow rule of limiting maneuvers directed at the spectator area could help reduce the threat of an injurious accident. A lot of what's going on right now is to slow the rapid rise in insurance premiums, and reducing the expenditures of claims paid outside of the insurance carriers. Anything simple that works, or provides the perception of increased safety will help.

smokingcrater

they wouldn't have much choice if it was mandated into the safety code, either failsafe or no insurance and lost club charter with AMA...

anyway, mandatory fail safes... why? first of all it would take a government action, NOT the AMA to push that one through, since lots of us don't really care what the AMA says or does. second, how exactly is my micro heli or indoor mini-ifo going to benifit from a failsafe? across the board failsafes don't work, but some type of catagory system might. (heavier then x pounds &/or faster then x mph) and even then, only throttle failsafes. control surface failsafes aren't really much safer, they just change the location of the crash, and not neccessarily to a better spot either.