CFIMEI

Hi,

As a user of the HiTec Optic 6 Transmitter I would like to know if AMA insurance is in any way affected by its continued use. I ask this because this Tx clearly has the demonstrated proclivity to stop transmitting altogether when certain operator induced conditions occur. (& I don't mean turning it off by the power switch, removing the antenna or RF module.) This characteristic is easily demonstrable & is attributed to a firmware defect that is believed to be embedded in every unit equipped with the current program version. Should an accident occur, related to this phenomen, would AMA coverage be diminished or invalidated in any way?

CFIMEI

abel_pranger

Not likely to affect insurance coverage, at least not until some defect is disclosed and AMA puts out a warning against its use, with a disclaimer re the insurance coverage. Like every other insurance policy, what is not specifically excluded is covered.
Why the mystery? Any R/C transmitter will stop transmitting due to "certain operator induced conditions," e.g., activating the trainer switch.

Abel

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Have you reported this situation to your District Safety Coordinator? Or if there is none listed for your District X, to your District VP Richard Hanson [email protected] ?

Red Scholefield
AMA Safety Coordinator - District V

NATO 556

Kinda sounds like more of a manufacturer problem than an AMA problem.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

True, and what better way if this is real, to get their attention if it shows up on the AMA web page as a safety alert.

But lets go easy here. We have nothing to assure us that this is a real situation other than one persons claim that "certain operator induced conditions" can bring it about. I for one would like to know what those "certain operator induced conditions" entail before we come down hard on the manufacturer. Maybe if they are defined others with this equipment can verify the problem and we will have some substance to go on.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

hmmm... the search function "tool" yields some interesting reading on the Optic 6…but…oh well.

NATO 556

How about putting the 90-10 to work here.... Crank you do 90% of the search work and post it here for us 10% to read

ira d

why say any thing unless you are going to be specific about the problem and
have proof all optics have the problem.

abel_pranger

Seems he has had his knickers in a knot over this for something short of a month, and is unhappy that Hitec hasn't fixed it yet. See http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_26...tm.htm#2628958

Abel

CFIMEI

[/quote]

Any R/C transmitter will stop transmitting due to "certain operator induced conditions," e.g., activating the trainer switch.

Abel
[/quote]

Yes, but it will start re-transmitting as soon as you release that switch. In the case of the Optic, once it's gone you have to turn the Tx off, then back on. After repowering the Tx must initilaize & then the Rx, if it has signal processing. This takes a while.

CFIMEI

CFIMEI

HiTec acknowledges it. Both my original Optic & the replacement they sent me behaved th same way. Several other forum contributors were readily able to replicate this defect.

CFIMEI

rw Guinn

so why not follow HiTec's advice and not do that which will cause the problem?

CFIMEI

[/quote] I for one would like to know what those "certain operator induced conditions" entail before we come down hard on the manufacturer. Maybe if they are defined others with this equipment can verify the problem and we will have some substance to go on.
[/quote]

Here it is! To use this Tx with a 5 channel Rx (FMA M5, Extreme 5, HiTec 555, etc.) using dual aileron (ch1 & ch5) you must activate Aileron Differential (ADIF). When you do this the throttle sub-trim no longer is operable throughout its full negative range (-100%). Simply running it down to around -60% will result in the immediate cessation of modulation of the RF module (i.e. no meaningful contact with the model) plus total lockup of programming navigation. Only shutdown/repowerup restores operation. That's not catastrophic when on the ground, just frustrating if you happen to have an electric motor/BEC which won't brake with less negative sub-trim. This -60% value also seems to be the negative sum of both primary negative trim & subtrim. When they both add up to this minus value the Tx stops dead. Also in the equation is the position of the throttle stick. If it is slightly advanced form its minimum travel limit then a different & greater negative amount of sub-trim is tolerated before lockup.

So, if you sub-trim to some value that stops your motor but doesn't quite cause lockup & you fly & later down trim throttle in flight your day is made. Also, if you have an almost fatal sub-trim + primary trim value & have the throttle slightly advanced (1 notch will do it) & fly, if you throttle all the way back in flight a collision with the ground or other object is likely. Another user says that using the eng/cut button can also put you over the limit with the same results.

When you use CROW the 2nd aileron is also assigned to ch 5. But when you use this without ADIF also being on you get no aileron trim response from the left aileron (ch 5). To get balanced trim action it is necessary to invoke the very feature that subjects you to possible lockup.

The first Optic, which had been returned after "recalibration" required - 15% total throttle to fully brake an AXI motor with CC-10 BEC.
The second, sent as a replacement for the first, requires -30% to do the same. On one occasion I had to go to -50% to get full stoppage. Not a comfortable margin, especially when no one is absolutely sure of where the lockup will occur in any given Optic at any given time!

CFIMEI

Crashem

Simple solution stay away from Hitec products. remember the issues with the Digital servos??

Hossfly

The best receivers on the market are Hitec. I use mostly JR transmitters, but also have Airtronics, Futaba and Hitec.
Coupled with these transmitters are Hitec receivers, I don't even know how many I have. Just picked up 4 more a few weeks ago. I use all sorts of Hitec servos. A dozen airplanes on the line, and a box of about 20 new servos of varying types on the shelf, plus at least that many of used usable ones on the shelf.

I have never had an inflight failure of a Hitec product. The same I can say for JR. I cannot say the same for Futaba and Airtronics although At. has only been one servo. My first experiences with FMA products were devastating so I never go there anymore.
OTOH I can set up a radio/control system so that I never have to use sub-trim. If I do get lazy and use any at all, it will never be more than 15%. I learned mechanical set-ups back in the old days when one could not even reverse a servo. I might find some problems if I had to push the limits.
In addition, I have no needs for being "cool" and have to use "status" digital servos, but then I don't fly anything larger than a 101" bipe. I have not witnessed any digital servo problems other than a couple guys that tried to use the same battery to fly the same time as with the regular servos.

Stay away from Hitec?? I think not. Any more brilliant solutions?

PS to CFIMEI: Remove the / from your first ( quote ).

edited to remove a stray Y in the 'to' above.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Amen on the HiTec (RCD) receivers. I've quite a few of various types from the 555 and up. I had a 535 go squirrelly at -5 F. It was several years and many flight hours old. Sent it back to HiTec with description as to what happened. They replaced it at no cost.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Red,
One of the things 'we' (AMA) have to worry about a little is the slippery slope of increased liability. As soon as AMA posts ANYTHING about ANY product ANYWHERE, we will have leaped over the cliff of product liability. That is not where we need to go as an organization unless you are willing to see dues quadruple. I have a clue because I have been pricing product liability insurance recently and it is astounding!

rw Guinn

Youexpect us to believe that, Red?

Just when did you get -5F in Florida? I have limits to my belief, you know!

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

We do get time off here for good behavior. Then we do something really stupid like going north to see what snow is all about. Them long shadows were at about 12 noon.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

In Model Aviation - No product reviews, no plans, no adds - Jim, get real !

CDignition

My Feedback: (9)

I wonder if this is the same slippery slope we went down with the guy with a known heart problem, but has since been fixed...AMA will pay out a claim to a known problem in a radio (Assuming crash and injury), but leaves the liability for a heart problem(assuming same kind of crash and injury) with the club and individual... seems like a double standard...

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Red,
Lets deal with this in parts to avoid the confusion because I am real about my concerns.

First is the simple fact that product reviews and advertising are the realm of the authors rather than the magazine's owner. Here is a fast example.

Years ago when Midwest had just released the Super Stinker kit, there was a review of it in one of our favorite magazines that I read. It said nice things about the kit and did not have a lot of bad things to say. Well, I happen to like biplanes, so I got the kit. It took me almost a year to figure out how to build the bird and avoid the LARGE PRINT WARNINGS ABOUT FLUTTER that our favorite author did not mention. By the way, those issues WERE mentioned in competitors review in another magazine.

I traded several e-mails with the magazines owner/editor about the deficiency in the report. The author writes more reports today than he did then. Guess what the magazines owner thinks about liability?

Second is the difference between reviews, adds, and strictly negative evaluation comments improperly collected. For an example, lets look at your own research. How many times have you heard people say they were shot down only to see that the battery pack or switch harness failed? Who is going to review and evaluate the likelihood of accuracy in these reports? Who is going to accept the liability of saying XYZ makes a defective product without ironclad proof of that as a fact?

abel_pranger

How about DB? He's taken on all the distributors of LiPo batteries based on very little semblance of fact. Same for the entire garage shop industry producing R/C combat models. Then there are all the turbine engine makers that don't provide a speed governor. Need I go on?

Abel

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Wow, first I have heard of this Hitec Optic problem!

J_R

Hi CD

As this thread has progressed, more information has come to light. It’s entirely possible that there is an exclusion in the AMA policy that prevents the use of known defective equipment. Since most of us do not know what the exclusions to the AMA policy are, it might be a good idea to assume that such as exclusion exists, or contact Carl Maroney to find out.

The AMA policy is what it is. Until someone knows what it is, everything else is a guess.

When an accident happens, and a suit is filed, the tort system attempts to determine where fault lies. If, say (purely speculative), CFIMEI, were to intentionally cause this transmitter to malfunction, knowing what he knows, and someone was hurt, coverage from the AMA insurance might not be in place. At the same time, I feel relatively certain that Hitec has product liability insurance. Would that assumed coverage of Hitec handle the liability? The tort system always makes these types of suits a crapshoot. Would a jury find that CFIMEI was liable because he did this knowingly? Would they find Hitec was liable? Would the AMA policy provide coverage for the liability incurred by CFIMEI, if any?

As to the gentleman with the heart condition, it appears Koranda has stated the AMA’s position. I read that as AMA liability insurance is in place for kennyo, but, I could be wrong. On the other hand, whether the local club BOD is going to let him fly without a spotter is their call. Of course, their staying that course may lead to other problems not related to the AMA coverage.

This is all just my opinion. I would suggest to you that nothing of a specific nature posted from “amateurs” be taken as fact, especially my opinions.