AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
06-03-2013, 09:28 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
I don't recall if this has been posted so I'll put it here. Apologies if this is duplicated.
The AMA Contest Board has just passed an urgent rules change proposal and is now in the rule book. The NSRCA felt it was important, with the strides in radio technology, to make sure there was clarification in the rule 4.4 concerning telemetry. We feel that the existing rule could have some potential negative impact on unsuspecting contestants, specifically at the Nationals. We were concerned about someone using a radio that displayed RX battery voltage or temperatures on the transmitter as well as other non-flight / control surface data that simply cannot be turned off. As the rule stood, those competitors could have been protested through no fault of their own. The rule has been modified to correct this and is already in use and will be in use during the AMA Nationals. A very special thanks to the AMA Contest Board for hearing our request and seeing it through as well as to the NSRCA Board of Directors for getting this addressed as quickly as possible.
Here is the re-written rule 4.4
The AMA Contest Board has just passed an urgent rules change proposal and is now in the rule book. The NSRCA felt it was important, with the strides in radio technology, to make sure there was clarification in the rule 4.4 concerning telemetry. We feel that the existing rule could have some potential negative impact on unsuspecting contestants, specifically at the Nationals. We were concerned about someone using a radio that displayed RX battery voltage or temperatures on the transmitter as well as other non-flight / control surface data that simply cannot be turned off. As the rule stood, those competitors could have been protested through no fault of their own. The rule has been modified to correct this and is already in use and will be in use during the AMA Nationals. A very special thanks to the AMA Contest Board for hearing our request and seeing it through as well as to the NSRCA Board of Directors for getting this addressed as quickly as possible.
Here is the re-written rule 4.4
4.4: Equipment Functions.
Anytelemetry or other types of radio feedback to thepilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPScoordinates, motor rpm, etc, are prohibitedduring competition. Telemetry that does not givea competitive advantage to the pilot, such asreceiver battery voltage warnings, radiointerference, radio malfunctions, etc, ispermitted. Telemetry data shall not be used as abasis to request a re-flight. Auto pilot controlutilizing inertia, light, gravity or any other typeof terrestrial reference is prohibited. Automaticcontrol sequencing (preprogramming) orautomatic control timing devices are prohibited.A proven competitive advantage to the pilot willresult in loss of that round.
Examples of control functions permitted:
Anytelemetry or other types of radio feedback to thepilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPScoordinates, motor rpm, etc, are prohibitedduring competition. Telemetry that does not givea competitive advantage to the pilot, such asreceiver battery voltage warnings, radiointerference, radio malfunctions, etc, ispermitted. Telemetry data shall not be used as abasis to request a re-flight. Auto pilot controlutilizing inertia, light, gravity or any other typeof terrestrial reference is prohibited. Automaticcontrol sequencing (preprogramming) orautomatic control timing devices are prohibited.A proven competitive advantage to the pilot willresult in loss of that round.
Examples of control functions permitted:
1) Control rate or control movementlimit devices that are manually switched by thecontestant.
2) Any type of button, dial switch, orlever control that is initiated and terminated bythe contestant.
3) Manually operated switches tocouple control functions.
Examples of control functions not permitted:
Examples of control functions not permitted:
1) Snap buttons with automatic timingmode.
2) Preprogramming devices toautomatically perform a series of commands.
3) Automatic leveling or stabilization inany axis (gyros, etc.).
3) Automatic leveling or stabilization inany axis (gyros, etc.).
4) Propeller pitch change withautomatic timing mode.
5) Any type voice recognition system.
6) Any type of learning functioninvolving maneuver to maneuver or flight toflight analysis.
06-03-2013, 10:35 AM
#2
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston,
TX
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Good rule change. I'm always watching my back due to my Rx volt and motor temp telemetry. I can turn it off but I know there is no competitive advantage. My telemetry is to prevent crashing and it has safety advantages as well. Thanks for posting.
Keven
Keven
06-03-2013, 11:38 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ..............
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of "preprogramming" ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands". These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of "preprogramming" ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands". These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
06-04-2013, 07:19 AM
#6
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: grantb
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ..............
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of "preprogramming" ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands". These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ..............
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of "preprogramming" ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands". These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
I'm certainly not the "official" word on how the AMA makes their decisions but this is how I think most look at the rule.
Keith, as far as motor RPM....I'm going with knowing motor RPM could be considered a competitive advantange if one knew what RPM to be at to produce constant speed. Yes, I realize that no one has time to stare at a screen to utilize it but it could be taken as far as audible tones and such as well.
06-04-2013, 07:46 AM
#7
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: grantb
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ..............
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of ''preprogramming'' ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be ''Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands''. These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ..............
Can someone explain to me why trim mixes do not fall under the concept of ''preprogramming'' ???
It would seem to me that mixing the ailerons and elevators (for example) to move when the rudder is moved could be considered to be ''Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of commands''. These are generally not straight line mixes so it could even be construed that they execute a 'series' of commands.
Have fun
-A typical mix, whether linear, proportional, or conditional, wouldn't be considered automatic because it requires input from the pilot to activate and deactivate. An automated function would initiate some command that was not directly linked to real-time stick/switch inputs.
-Series implies one function followed by another. Even if you have a non-linear mix (say down elevator only with 0 throttle), the two functions are still operating in parallel - elevator happens with throttle input, not after.
A automated series program example could be a mix activated by 0% throttle, and initiates high rate elvator, followed by high rate rudder, followed by low rate elevator, and turns off after these functions complete and independent of throttle position.
06-04-2013, 09:20 AM
#8
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Thanks Joe,
I understand your example.
You can change the model setup with a switch but if the changed setup initiates a further change without input from the pilot (automatically) or the change in setup is cancelled or adjusted without reversing the initial input from the pilot then it is illegal.
So a change that is initiated by a switch or the movement of a stick (linear switch) is acceptable. My example of a non linear change is acceptable because each position of the stick is a different switch position.
Thanks again.
I understand your example.
You can change the model setup with a switch but if the changed setup initiates a further change without input from the pilot (automatically) or the change in setup is cancelled or adjusted without reversing the initial input from the pilot then it is illegal.
So a change that is initiated by a switch or the movement of a stick (linear switch) is acceptable. My example of a non linear change is acceptable because each position of the stick is a different switch position.
Thanks again.
06-04-2013, 09:23 PM
#9
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: kevenoco
Good rule change. I'm always watching my back due to my Rx volt and motor temp telemetry. I can turn it off but I know there is no competitive advantage. My telemetry is to prevent crashing and it has safety advantages as well. Thanks for posting.
Keven
Good rule change. I'm always watching my back due to my Rx volt and motor temp telemetry. I can turn it off but I know there is no competitive advantage. My telemetry is to prevent crashing and it has safety advantages as well. Thanks for posting.
Keven
If for eg. an IC engine temperature climbed, it could indicate a lean mixture which would affect power. If in flight mixture is being used, then the mixture could be richened.
06-06-2013, 09:09 AM
#10
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: drac1
]
Would motor/engine temp telemetry be considered an advantage?
If for eg. an IC engine temperature climbed, it could indicate a lean mixture which would affect power. If in flight mixture is being used, then the mixture could be richened.
]
Would motor/engine temp telemetry be considered an advantage?
If for eg. an IC engine temperature climbed, it could indicate a lean mixture which would affect power. If in flight mixture is being used, then the mixture could be richened.
06-06-2013, 11:21 AM
#11
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: smcharg
. . .[snip]. . .
Keith, as far as motor RPM....I'm going with knowing motor RPM could be considered a competitive advantange if one knew what RPM to be at to produce constant speed. Yes, I realize that no one has time to stare at a screen to utilize it but it could be taken as far as audible tones and such as well.
. . .[snip]. . .
Keith, as far as motor RPM....I'm going with knowing motor RPM could be considered a competitive advantange if one knew what RPM to be at to produce constant speed. Yes, I realize that no one has time to stare at a screen to utilize it but it could be taken as far as audible tones and such as well.
I think that the rule writers are chasing the wrong wild goose. As long as telemetry data is not used WITHIN the feedback loop WITHINthe airplane, it should all be legal.
.
For example, RPM. Everyone already has the perfect RPM readout gauge - stick position - so having the radio send down a number is just redundant. Yes, I know electric RPMchanges as batts deplete, but their depletion rate is a known quantity. Also, knowing what RPM your prop is turning does NOTguarantee what airspeed your plane is moving. Another example would be altitude data. When you fly, you already use feedback from the model to control altitude - its visual relation to the horizon. Once again, having the radio send down a number quantifying that is just redundant. Some other types of data are more subtle, like using position data to determine if you're on the 150 meter line. I argue that if you have good visual acuity and have taken the time to be trained what your plane looks like at 150 meters, then GPS coordinates are just redundant. Is it a "competitive advantage" that the top fliers can do all of this without using telemetry? If so, then where do I file my protest!!!
.
If you start trying to list every single type of telemetry data that can or cannot be used then this section of the rules will be a never-ending battle. Different types of sensors will be coming out and each one will have to be evaluated for legality and then mentioned in the rulebook. Name any sensor and I can make arguments both for and against its "competitiveness". Also, what one flier considers a "competitive advantage" is truly a subjective issue and will be up for interpretation by individual CD's and flyers alike.
.
So. . . what am I getting at? The simple, important distinction is WHERE the processing of the data takes place. If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOTbe OK.
.
As for the issue of trim and mixing switches, as long as the timing is not dependent of any type of sensor data or processing within the airplane, it should be OK i.e. (Event #1, 1-second delay, Event #2, 1-second delay, Event #3. . .). I could even see this being OK if the PILOT decides that a 1.5 second delay between events is warranted and flips a second switch to adjust the timing from 1 second to 1.5 seconds. Notice the PILOT did the processing and made the decision and flipped the switch.
.
Now, if you have set it up so that the timing of the series of functions is affected by feedback from a sensor (Event #1, check airspeed, Event #2, check airspeed, Event #3) and that timing is changed based on some sort of processing within the airplane, then that should be illegal.
.
The bottom line is that I believe the rule should simply focus on WHERE within the feedback loop the processing of the data is performed, not WHATor how much data is processed. That would lead to a simple, clean, easy to understand, interpret, and enforceable rule.
.
06-06-2013, 11:34 AM
#12
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
In a contest flight with a 25mph quartering wind, who the heck has the time to look at all this stuff anyway?
By all means, use it during practice, but during competition give me a beep or a buzz only if the plane's about to blow up. Otherwise, it's just a distraction I can do without.
During practice for the Canandaigua contest, a guy stood out at the 150-meter pole and indicated whether a model was inside or past the pole, and I can tell you that 150 meters is shockingly closer than I previously assumed.
By all means, use it during practice, but during competition give me a beep or a buzz only if the plane's about to blow up. Otherwise, it's just a distraction I can do without.
During practice for the Canandaigua contest, a guy stood out at the 150-meter pole and indicated whether a model was inside or past the pole, and I can tell you that 150 meters is shockingly closer than I previously assumed.
06-06-2013, 12:25 PM
#13
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
.
I'll do that occasionally; take a chair out 50 paces and use my cell phone to call the caller who then coaches the flier. Works well. You can also see wings level and diagnose many pattern ills from out there.
.
I also agree that all that telemetry will be more of a distraction than competitive advantage, so I say Go For It!!
.
I'll do that occasionally; take a chair out 50 paces and use my cell phone to call the caller who then coaches the flier. Works well. You can also see wings level and diagnose many pattern ills from out there.
.
I also agree that all that telemetry will be more of a distraction than competitive advantage, so I say Go For It!!
.
06-06-2013, 12:40 PM
#14
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: klhoard
.
I think that the rule writers are chasing the wrong wild goose. As long as telemetry data is not used WITHIN the feedback loop WITHIN the airplane, it should all be legal.
.
For example, RPM. Everyone already has the perfect RPM readout gauge - stick position - so having the radio send down a number is just redundant. Yes, I know electric RPM changes as batts deplete, but their depletion rate is a known quantity. Also, knowing what RPM your prop is turning does NOT guarantee what airspeed your plane is moving. Another example would be altitude data. When you fly, you already use feedback from the model to control altitude - its visual relation to the horizon. Once again, having the radio send down a number quantifying that is just redundant. Some other types of data are more subtle, like using position data to determine if you're on the 150 meter line. I argue that if you have good visual acuity and have taken the time to be trained what your plane looks like at 150 meters, then GPS coordinates are just redundant. Is it a ''competitive advantage'' that the top fliers can do all of this without using telemetry? If so, then where do I file my protest!!!
.
If you start trying to list every single type of telemetry data that can or cannot be used then this section of the rules will be a never-ending battle. Different types of sensors will be coming out and each one will have to be evaluated for legality and then mentioned in the rulebook. Name any sensor and I can make arguments both for and against its ''competitiveness''. Also, what one flier considers a ''competitive advantage'' is truly a subjective issue and will be up for interpretation by individual CD's and flyers alike.
.
So. . . what am I getting at? The simple, important distinction is WHERE the processing of the data takes place. If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOT be OK.
.
As for the issue of trim and mixing switches, as long as the timing is not dependent of any type of sensor data or processing within the airplane, it should be OK i.e. (Event #1, 1-second delay, Event #2, 1-second delay, Event #3. . .). I could even see this being OK if the PILOT decides that a 1.5 second delay between events is warranted and flips a second switch to adjust the timing from 1 second to 1.5 seconds. Notice the PILOT did the processing and made the decision and flipped the switch.
.
Now, if you have set it up so that the timing of the series of functions is affected by feedback from a sensor (Event #1, check airspeed, Event #2, check airspeed, Event #3) and that timing is changed based on some sort of processing within the airplane, then that should be illegal.
.
The bottom line is that I believe the rule should simply focus on WHERE within the feedback loop the processing of the data is performed, not WHAT or how much data is processed. That would lead to a simple, clean, easy to understand, interpret, and enforceable rule.
.
ORIGINAL: smcharg
. . .[snip]. . .
Keith, as far as motor RPM....I'm going with knowing motor RPM could be considered a competitive advantange if one knew what RPM to be at to produce constant speed. Yes, I realize that no one has time to stare at a screen to utilize it but it could be taken as far as audible tones and such as well.
. . .[snip]. . .
Keith, as far as motor RPM....I'm going with knowing motor RPM could be considered a competitive advantange if one knew what RPM to be at to produce constant speed. Yes, I realize that no one has time to stare at a screen to utilize it but it could be taken as far as audible tones and such as well.
I think that the rule writers are chasing the wrong wild goose. As long as telemetry data is not used WITHIN the feedback loop WITHIN the airplane, it should all be legal.
.
For example, RPM. Everyone already has the perfect RPM readout gauge - stick position - so having the radio send down a number is just redundant. Yes, I know electric RPM changes as batts deplete, but their depletion rate is a known quantity. Also, knowing what RPM your prop is turning does NOT guarantee what airspeed your plane is moving. Another example would be altitude data. When you fly, you already use feedback from the model to control altitude - its visual relation to the horizon. Once again, having the radio send down a number quantifying that is just redundant. Some other types of data are more subtle, like using position data to determine if you're on the 150 meter line. I argue that if you have good visual acuity and have taken the time to be trained what your plane looks like at 150 meters, then GPS coordinates are just redundant. Is it a ''competitive advantage'' that the top fliers can do all of this without using telemetry? If so, then where do I file my protest!!!
.
If you start trying to list every single type of telemetry data that can or cannot be used then this section of the rules will be a never-ending battle. Different types of sensors will be coming out and each one will have to be evaluated for legality and then mentioned in the rulebook. Name any sensor and I can make arguments both for and against its ''competitiveness''. Also, what one flier considers a ''competitive advantage'' is truly a subjective issue and will be up for interpretation by individual CD's and flyers alike.
.
So. . . what am I getting at? The simple, important distinction is WHERE the processing of the data takes place. If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOT be OK.
.
As for the issue of trim and mixing switches, as long as the timing is not dependent of any type of sensor data or processing within the airplane, it should be OK i.e. (Event #1, 1-second delay, Event #2, 1-second delay, Event #3. . .). I could even see this being OK if the PILOT decides that a 1.5 second delay between events is warranted and flips a second switch to adjust the timing from 1 second to 1.5 seconds. Notice the PILOT did the processing and made the decision and flipped the switch.
.
Now, if you have set it up so that the timing of the series of functions is affected by feedback from a sensor (Event #1, check airspeed, Event #2, check airspeed, Event #3) and that timing is changed based on some sort of processing within the airplane, then that should be illegal.
.
The bottom line is that I believe the rule should simply focus on WHERE within the feedback loop the processing of the data is performed, not WHAT or how much data is processed. That would lead to a simple, clean, easy to understand, interpret, and enforceable rule.
.
Peter+
06-07-2013, 06:39 AM
#15
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Continuing my thoughts on where naming individual sensors as legal / illegal could lead . . .
.
I could also make the argument that monitoring receiver battery voltage gives a flier an unfair competitive advantage.
.
Say if someone in my class forgets to charge their receiver battery prior to round #2. Half way thru the flight, the competitor receives a low receiver battery warning through telemetry and lands their plane. The competitor then continues to fly in rounds #3 through #6 and beats me with that same airplane.
.
At the conclusion of round #6, I file a protest with the CD demanding that all of his scores from the middle of round #2 through the end of round #6 be zeroed because without the telemetry advantage he would have lost his plane and not been able to complete the contest rounds #3-#6.
.
I could also say the same thing about monitoring cylinder head temperature to detect a lean engine mixture condition. We don't know where his engine would have seized, so I demand his flights be zeroed.
.
Or perhaps demand that he go to his backup airplane . .
.
I'm not saying that I want guys to lose their airplanes, but how many times have you won or lost a contest because of equipment failures? Do the other competitors give you a mulligan? No, they say "That's part of the game", see ya next year. So does using telemetry to avoid equipment failures give a flier a "competitive advantage"? Fuzzy area . . .
.
The point I'm trying to make is that pattern is all about fitting as much "competitive advantage" as you can into a 2m x 2m x 5kg box. Why are contra drives considered legal when telemetry feedback to the pilot is illegal? Because contra drives are mechanical and telemetry is electronic? A person could argue that a contra drive uses mechanical processing inside the gearbox to cancel out P-Factor and Spiraling Slipstream effects, thus giving the flier a distinct competitive advantage. Then I would continue the argument (with myself) that the gearbox doesn't receive any inputs from outside sensors, so its OK.
.
Overall, I think the rules change is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm just trying to throw out a few ideas to where I think the rules could be simplified.
.
.
I could also make the argument that monitoring receiver battery voltage gives a flier an unfair competitive advantage.
.
Say if someone in my class forgets to charge their receiver battery prior to round #2. Half way thru the flight, the competitor receives a low receiver battery warning through telemetry and lands their plane. The competitor then continues to fly in rounds #3 through #6 and beats me with that same airplane.
.
At the conclusion of round #6, I file a protest with the CD demanding that all of his scores from the middle of round #2 through the end of round #6 be zeroed because without the telemetry advantage he would have lost his plane and not been able to complete the contest rounds #3-#6.
.
I could also say the same thing about monitoring cylinder head temperature to detect a lean engine mixture condition. We don't know where his engine would have seized, so I demand his flights be zeroed.
.
Or perhaps demand that he go to his backup airplane . .
.
I'm not saying that I want guys to lose their airplanes, but how many times have you won or lost a contest because of equipment failures? Do the other competitors give you a mulligan? No, they say "That's part of the game", see ya next year. So does using telemetry to avoid equipment failures give a flier a "competitive advantage"? Fuzzy area . . .
.
The point I'm trying to make is that pattern is all about fitting as much "competitive advantage" as you can into a 2m x 2m x 5kg box. Why are contra drives considered legal when telemetry feedback to the pilot is illegal? Because contra drives are mechanical and telemetry is electronic? A person could argue that a contra drive uses mechanical processing inside the gearbox to cancel out P-Factor and Spiraling Slipstream effects, thus giving the flier a distinct competitive advantage. Then I would continue the argument (with myself) that the gearbox doesn't receive any inputs from outside sensors, so its OK.
.
Overall, I think the rules change is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm just trying to throw out a few ideas to where I think the rules could be simplified.
.
06-07-2013, 07:20 AM
#16
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: smcharg
Telemetry concerning temperatures should not be considered illegal. Temperatures should be considered flight safety and does not automate anything whatsoever.
ORIGINAL: drac1
]
Would motor/engine temp telemetry be considered an advantage?
If for eg. an IC engine temperature climbed, it could indicate a lean mixture which would affect power. If in flight mixture is being used, then the mixture could be richened.
]
Would motor/engine temp telemetry be considered an advantage?
If for eg. an IC engine temperature climbed, it could indicate a lean mixture which would affect power. If in flight mixture is being used, then the mixture could be richened.
06-07-2013, 12:30 PM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Agawam,
MA
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: klhoard
If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOT be OK.
If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOT be OK.
If processing is taking place inside the airplane...is it still "telemetry"? Event, sensor, respond (onboard)....that's a servo, speed controller and fuel regulator!
My thought was if a telemetry function can be turned off, it must be turned off. If it can't be disabled, then it's okay.
06-07-2013, 01:05 PM
#18
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: Scott Smith
So you're saying an audible tone when wings are level would be okay?
If processing is taking place inside the airplane...is it still "telemetry"? Event, sensor, respond (onboard)....that's a servo, speed controller and fuel regulator!
My thought was if a telemetry function can be turned off, it must be turned off. If it can't be disabled, then it's okay.
ORIGINAL: klhoard
If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOTbe OK.
If telemetry data is fed back to the pilot, then the PILOT has to process the data and make corrections - that should be OK. However, if the data processing is taking place inside the airplane and the airplane is electronically making corrections then that should NOTbe OK.
If processing is taking place inside the airplane...is it still "telemetry"? Event, sensor, respond (onboard)....that's a servo, speed controller and fuel regulator!
My thought was if a telemetry function can be turned off, it must be turned off. If it can't be disabled, then it's okay.
I was giving my opinion of where I think these rules should be moving towards, NOTinterpreting how they are written now. . .
.
(Keith's Opinion >) As long as the attitude sensor data in the airplane is fed down to the pilot, and then the PILOThas to interpret that data and make the flight control corrections, it shouldn't matter what form that data is presented. Audio, video, number, whatever. Now if that sensor is being used to make flight control corrections WITHOUT processing thru the pilot, then that should NOTbe allowed.
.
While servos, speed controllers, and fuel regulators AREclosed loop feedback devices, their commanded input from the outside world is from the pilot and the pilot alone. For example, take an aileron servo. You move the stick on your transmitter commanding a 15 degree down condition. The servo receives the signal from your transmitter, then compares its present position to that signal. If the two don't agree, then it sends power to the motor until its position matches the command from the pilot. It then remains locked in that feedback loop until the PILOT commands another position - regardless of any other sensor input, only making corrections to return to the pilot commanded position. The same can be said for ESC's and fuel regulators.
.
My point was that as more and more sensors arrive and guys come up with more creative ways to use them this section of the rules will continue to expand and interpretations will be impossible. In fact, I believe guys will find that having multiple sensors in their airplane and trying to pay attention to them while flying a pattern flight will get very old very fast.
.
So in one sentence, my opinion of where this rules section should go: Download all the sensor data you want; present it to the pilot in any form you want, just don't use it to automatically fly the airplane.
.
06-07-2013, 01:19 PM
#19
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Download all the sensor data you want; present it to the pilot in any form you want, just don't use it to automatically fly the airplane.
Even if it offers a competitive advantage, per Scott Smith's wings-level scenario, for example??
Even if it offers a competitive advantage, per Scott Smith's wings-level scenario, for example??
06-07-2013, 10:11 PM
#20
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Download all the sensor data you want; present it to the pilot in any form you want, just don't use it to automatically fly the airplane.
Even if it offers a competitive advantage, per Scott Smith's wings-level scenario, for example??
Download all the sensor data you want; present it to the pilot in any form you want, just don't use it to automatically fly the airplane.
Even if it offers a competitive advantage, per Scott Smith's wings-level scenario, for example??
Sure. . . how is having an electronic sensor tell you that your wings are level any different than using your eyes to tell you that the wings are level? Or your caller? What if you get one of the top pattern fliers to call for you and he uses his superior sight, training, and experience to tell you if your wings are level? Is that a competitive advantage? Think of telemetry as an electronic caller. Its not flying the plane for you, its just telling you you're screwing up.
.
06-08-2013, 06:59 AM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Wings level telemetry feedback would be a great training aid e.g. The tx beeps at you if your wings are out my more than a user set number of degrees. An intelligent system would quit moaning at you when the roll rate exceeds a certain value I.e. it would only moan if the plane is holding a certain wing position and that position is not level, and would not moan when you are doing rolls.
You may be amazed how many line, heading and other problems orgiginate from the wings not being level, and I have seen many good F3A pilots flying with a wing low and having to cross correct with rudder.
Lots of pilots think they know where 150m is and are amazed when somebody stands on the centre flag and tells them how far away thay are actually flying. Same goes for wings level.
Is anyone aware of a sensor that could be used to feedback wings level with an 18mz? Sorry, don't want to hijack the post, but would appreciate any feedback.
Regards
Clint
You may be amazed how many line, heading and other problems orgiginate from the wings not being level, and I have seen many good F3A pilots flying with a wing low and having to cross correct with rudder.
Lots of pilots think they know where 150m is and are amazed when somebody stands on the centre flag and tells them how far away thay are actually flying. Same goes for wings level.
Is anyone aware of a sensor that could be used to feedback wings level with an 18mz? Sorry, don't want to hijack the post, but would appreciate any feedback.
Regards
Clint
06-08-2013, 07:42 AM
#22
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
ORIGINAL: cartercg
. . [snip].. .
Is anyone aware of a sensor that could be used to feedback wings level with an 18mz? Sorry, don't want to hijack the post, but would appreciate any feedback.
Regards
Clint
. . [snip].. .
Is anyone aware of a sensor that could be used to feedback wings level with an 18mz? Sorry, don't want to hijack the post, but would appreciate any feedback.
Regards
Clint
From the little bit I've read, the nut that needs cracking is that the S.Bus2 protocol is closed source. All of the microcontrollers that use S.Bus and SBus2 are reverse engineered so you will never know if you've got it completely right. I imagine you'd also have to find a way to reprogram the Tx to show what parameters you want and again, I'm sure Futaba is going to keep that closed source as well. Who knows, if enough people complain they may publish the protocols.
.
I'm sure if you searched in the UAV forums you would find attitude sensors with downlinks available . . .
.
06-08-2013, 09:19 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
Thanks Keith, that is useful feedback. Perhaps futaba will pleasantly surprise us in due course. I'll certainly do some digging in the UAV forums.
Regards
Clint
Regards
Clint
06-08-2013, 06:15 PM
#24
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville,
TN
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
.
Well, its definitely a sticky issue all around, and with the technology moving so fast I don't envy our leaderships task with writing the rules . . .
.
Well, its definitely a sticky issue all around, and with the technology moving so fast I don't envy our leaderships task with writing the rules . . .
.
06-10-2013, 04:36 PM
#25
RE: AMA Accepts Rules Change Proposal in Time for the NATS
I like where this thread is heading. I think the whole telemetry rule should simply be removed with the stipulation that no closed-loop control mechanisms of any kind are permitted (regardless of whether they are entirely onboard or utilize a telemetry downlink). I have a radio that can speak telemetry values to me, and I use it instead of a timer (though I have a timer backup) to tell me when I've consumed 70% of my main system battery so I know I need to set up to land let's me practice longer than my timer was originally set for. In competition I land long before it alerts. I like the comparison to an expert caller coaching you through a flight vs. telemetry notifying you of specific conditions.
My sense is that the original telemetry rule was written in an era where the only way a closed-loop control system could be imagined required a downlink of the data for processing instead of something like the AR635 or the Eagletree guardian.
Peter+
My sense is that the original telemetry rule was written in an era where the only way a closed-loop control system could be imagined required a downlink of the data for processing instead of something like the AR635 or the Eagletree guardian.
Peter+
