NSRCA 2015 Rules Proposals
12-30-2014, 07:41 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
NSRCA 2015 Rules Proposals
First, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
The January 2015 K-Factor is now available for download on the NSRCA website. In this edition, the Board of Directors has placed the Rules Proposals for the 2016 cycle in the magazine. They are placed here, not as definite approved proposals that the NSRCA will send to the AMA Contest Board, but as proposals that the board feels warrants comment from the community. All input must be received by your NSRCA DVP by February 15, 2015. After this, the NSRCA BoD will vote on these proposals "as-is" to send to the AMA, amend the proposal based on your input, or scrap the proposal.
Please have a voice in these proposals. If you are "for" the proposals, please let us know this. If you are "against" or if you have an idea on how to improve the proposals, please let us know this as well. If discussion in this forum ensues, please keep it as discussion and query.
To: The AMA Pattern Community
From: NSRCA Board of Directors
RE: 2016 Rules Proposals from the NSRCA
The NSRCA Board of Directors has received the following from the NSRCA Rules Proposal Committee. Rules proposals are to be submitted to the AMA by March 15, 2015. We are looking for your input, positive or negative, or any constructive comments to these proposals. Input must be received by your NSRCA District Vice President no later than February 15, 2015. Clarifications, suggestions, and opinion can be submitted by email to each DVP listed on the NSRCA website at http://nsrca.us/index.php/districts. The NSRCA encourages you to also talk to your AMA Contest Board member. Each AMA District has one and can be found at http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx under “Aerobatics”.
The NSRCA Board of Directors feels that each of these changes are important to make our sport better and to also clean up some rules that are certainly out of date. As indicated below, the Rules Proposal Committee has been working closely with a member of the AMA Contest Board, acting as a liaison between the Committee and the Contest Board. They will continue to work with the Contest Board following submission of the proposals throughout the rules change process, including any cross proposals that may be required.
Here is the email your board received from the Rules Proposal Committee:
Good Day,
Through the course of the past month and a half, your Rules Proposal Committee has met many times to gather information and submit to you our findings as well as, finally, the proposals. As addressed in the November BoD meeting, I suggested that the RPC has determined that there are 8 separate items that need to be addressed: Class Advancement, creation of AMA Indoor R/C Aerobatics classes, revision of the Inclement Weather in Rule 13, battery/engine safety, telemetry, failsafe function of the transmitter, updating the current transmitter impound rule, and weight.
I think you'll find that your RPC has done a good job in addressing these issues. I also believe that, as you read each of the proposals, you'll understand the thought process and the proposals will make complete sense. You will find all 9 proposals attached to this email. There are actually 2 proposals regarding inclement weather. The committee felt that two proposals made the most sense. First, we wrote the revision to bring it to modern times. Second, because this is truly only used at the Nationals, it really makes the most sense to allow the Event Director to determine the best way to use a "rain day" when the AMA gives the day to the event. Therefore, the second proposal suggests the removal of the inclement weather clause from the Rule Book. The committee does feel that it's important to address two rules, in particular, and give a little background prior to the BoD meeting.
First, the weight proposal. The committee does not believe that a sweeping proposal makes any sense to try to get through the AMA Contest Board. We did decide, however, to address the never-ending battle of how to "calibrate" scales. There are many ways that this can be accomplished but the biggest problem faced is not the calibration but the difference in inaccuracies of the scales used vs. what the competitor has at home. We feel that by giving a simple 50 grams, not 1% specifically, for possible inaccuracies is fair.
Second, the telemetry proposal. This was probably the hottest topic throughout the entire process. The problem that we foresee is the continuing evolution of our electronics and telemetry. Radios are coming out all the time that have built in telemetry that cannot be easily removed. Some of this telemetry is safety based and our goal was to simply state that telemetry that comes from the model to the transmitter and/or smartphone and then to the pilot and/or caller that may be used to gain a competitive advantage may not be used. It's impossible to predict what will be coming in the future. We tried to write a proposal that blanketed as much as possible and made the most sense.
I would like to thank our committee which consisted of myself, Jon Carter, John Gayer, Jim Hiller, and Tony Frakowiak. A special thanks to Derek Koopowitz, consultant to the NSRCA Rules Proposal Committee and current AMA Contest Board Member, for helping us fashion these proposals in a way that would most likely be acceptable to the AMA Contest Board.
We hope, moving forward, that the NSRCA Board of Directors will take these proposals, deliberate on them, pass them on to the membership for comments and deliver them to the AMA to be distributed to the Contest Board. In doing so, we also hope the BoD will push the AMA Contest Board to have open communication with the NSRCA in regards to coming to an agreement to pass these proposals. There's nothing more that we would like to see than the AMA Contest Board and the NSRCA working together to better our sport.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve this board. Although trying, it was an honor to chair this fine committee. I look forward to the board's comments and we stand ready to help finish the process.
[h=1]Proposal 1 – Class Advancement[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
The class advancement process should allow the contestant to easily specify and change the class in which they feel they are most capable of competing in safely and competitively without unnecessary interaction and paperwork to the AMA.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”
ORIGINAL WORDING OF RULE 8: CONTESTANT CLASSIFICATION
“8. Contestant classification:
At his/her first Pattern contest a contestant may enter any one Pattern class at his/her own option (this decision should be made with care as no one at any time, except as noted in 8.1.2. and 8.2.5., will be permitted to change to a lower class). Once committed to a certain class a contestant will be allowed to move only to a higher skill class.
8.1: A contestant may promote himself/herself voluntarily to a higher class at any time; however, once the move is made, he/she may not change back to a lower class.
8.1.1: Exception: A contestant may fly in the next higher class at a contest where his/her class is not being flown without committing himself/herself to a permanent move to a higher class. He/she may not fly in a class lower than the one to which he/she is committed.
8.1.2: Exception: Consideration will be given to requests for reclassification to a lower class for various reasons, such as disability or breaks from participation of several years. For a contestant to be reclassified to
a lower class, the contestant must petition via email (or letter if email is not available) to the contestant's AMA District Contest Board (CB) representative explaining the reasons for the reclassification. The CB representative will forward a recommendation for approval/disapproval to the AMA District Vice President (DVP). The AMA DVP will concur/non-concur and forward the decision to the petitioner and AMA District CB representative with an info copy to the AMA Technical Director.
8.2: A contestant should advance through the classes as follows: A contestant should move out of the Sportsman class at the end of the calendar year of his/her second or subsequent year of participation if he/she places first or second and above at least 4 other contestants (having recorded an official flight) in any sanctioned pattern contest. For Intermediate and Advanced contestants, advancement takes place through the accumulation of points. In these classes, contestants receive points according to their finishing place in every contest they compete in. For contestants finishing third or below in a given contest, he/she will receive points equal to the number of official (having recorded an official flight) contestants he/she beats. The second place winner will receive points equal to twice the number of official contestants he/she beats, and the first place winner will receive points equal to three times the number of official contestants he/she beats. The points each contestant receives go into his/her cumulative record.
8.2.1: A contestant accumulating or exceeding 100 points and at least 2 years in Intermediate or Advanced class should automatically be advanced.
8.2.2: A contestant may voluntarily move to the next higher class at any time. He/she may also move to the next higher class upon attaining the goals itemized in 8.2.1 at any time during the year but will not be required to do. Any advancement by the contestant should only be made if the contestant feels that he/she is qualified to do so and he/she will not be a safety concern to his/her fellow contestants and contest management.
8.2.3: The accumulated points for required class advancement will be based on a sliding scale of 4 years time. Advancement points acquired before the fourth (4) year will not count towards advancement. In other words, a contestant’s point accumulation is based on the total accumulation for his/her previous four (4) years of competition.
8.2.4: When a contestant enters a new class, either higher or lower (as permitted by 8.1.2.) he/she begins with zero (0) points. Note: A contestant who flies in a higher class under the Exception Rule (8.1.1.) above still acquires classification points in accordance with 8.2. above.
8.2.5: There is no mandatory advancement into FAI from the Masters class. Contestants may enter their current AMA class or the FAI class at any contest but not both.
Examples:
1. The contestant is one (1) of eight (8) who flies officially in a given class, except Sportsman, and places
first. He/she acquires three (3) times seven (7) (the number he/she beats) or 21 classification points.
2. The contestant is one (1) of 16 and places fifth. He/she receives 11 points.
3. The contestant accumulates 95 points in 2010 and thus remains in his/her declared class into 2011. At the first 2011 contest, he/she picks up 12 points. He/she may fly the rest of 2011 in his/her declared class but will be advanced to the next higher class starting January 1, 2012. (He/she may move up sooner if he/she so desires) if he/she feels that he/she is qualified to fly in the next higher class without creating any safety issues.
8.3: Each Pattern contestant is responsible for maintaining an accurate record of his/her own classification points. “
CHANGE TO FOLLOWING REVISED WORDING OF RULE 8: CONTESTANT CLASSIFICATION
“8. Contestant classification: The contestant’s first contest of the year will establish the contestant’s competition class for that calendar year. This class may be one class lower than his or her class from the previous year or may be any higher class relative to their class from the previous year. The contestant that has not previously flown in a competition may select any class as their class. Contestants may enter their current AMA class or the FAI F3A class at any contest but not both. The class advancement sequence is Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, Masters. A contestant may voluntarily move to any higher class at any time but must remain in that higher class at least until the contestant’s first contest of the following year. If the contestant’s declared class is not offered at a contest or that contestant is the only entrant in a class, that contestant has an option to fly in any higher class for that contest and then resume the declared class thereafter.”
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
Currently, the competitor has the right to petition the AMA for a waiver based on certain criteria but those conditions do not include the inability to be competitive or to safely fly the more advanced maneuvers required in the higher class. A participant in a competition is there to be competitive and match his or her skills against pilots with similar abilities. This rewritten rule will allow a competitor to declare a class each year but still does not allow for drastic jumps between classes and does insure that, once the class is declared, the contestant sticks with his or her decision for the entire year. This will eliminate the need for AMA record keeping, CD tracking of classes, or any other extra work that would be involved in more detailed classification and also still allows for the “peer pressure” effect. Additionally, the current rule is based on points accumulation that no one in the AMA or other organizations is currently tracking. The proposed change simplifies the advancement process.
[h=1]Proposal 2 – Indoor R/C Aerobatics Class Creation[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
Indoor RC Aerobatics is growing in popularity in the United States. The NSRCA has been designated by the AMA as the SIG for Indoor RC Aerobatics. The FAI, similar to F3A, specifies the top-level sequences for F3P competition. (Currently F3P-AP-15 and F3P-AF-15) Currently we do not have any entry level Indoor RC Aerobatics classes defined. This rules proposal is to define two entry-level Indoor RC Aerobatics classes similar to our current progression in RC Aerobatics.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
RCA-5, Section 7. Pattern Event Classes. second paragraph currently reads as follows, “The indoor Pattern event will only have one class, 407 (F3P). This class is not run at a standard outdoor Pattern event and will only be used at a standalone indoor event and will follow all the rules and guidelines of the current F3P Radio Controlled Aerobatics rules that are published by the FAI and CIAM. The builder-of-the-model rule, if any, shall not be enforced. The AMA Competition Regulations will be applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on, or does not provide guidance concerning the conduct or rules of the FAI - F3P events.”
Proposed text for RCA-5, Section 7. Pattern Event Classes, second paragraph. “The Indoor R/C Aerobatics event shall be divided into three (3) classes. The first two (2) classes shall (in order of increasing difficulty) be referred to as Intermediate and Advanced. The maneuver schedules and definitions for the two classes will be developed and published by the NSRCA in a similar manner to the standard outdoor pattern schedules. The third class shall be referred to as F3P (407). The indoor r/c aerobatics classes will follow all the rules and guidelines of the current F3P Radio Controlled Aerobatics rules that are published by the FAI and CIAM. The AMA Competition Regulations will be applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on, or does not provide guidance concerning the conduct or rules of the FAI - F3P events.
Change RCA-10 Section 15 as follows. Existing sentence “The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402 and 403 at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required.”
Change this sentence to “The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402, 403, “Indoor R/C Aerobatics Intermediate” and “Indoor R/C Aerobatics Advanced” at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required.”
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
As stated in the summary, this change is to provide two entry level classes in indoor r/c aerobatics pattern to facilitate people learning the discipline and allow for an entry to indoor pattern. The NSRCA will define these two sequences and change them at appropriate intervals. There is no provision for these classes in the current AMA rules. It is understood that the “Indoor R/C Aerobatics” classes will eventually be given a numerical identification and the numbers can then be inserted into the wording of this proposal.
New event test data/information (new events only), please provide what testing of this new event has taken place to include number of participants and number of contests.
These two additional indoor r/c aerobatics classes are currently being run in Canada and have been used in several test events around the United States. There is good acceptance of this concept both here and internationally.
[h=1]Proposal 3 – Inclement Weather[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To update Rule 13 Inclement Weather to reflect the current situation for the Nationals and better clarify how to handle inclement weather
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ORIGINAL WORDING
Inclement Weather: In the event that inclement weather prevents one of the preliminary rounds from being flown, those rounds will be completed on the morning of Day 4 (Finals Day) and only the top 4 contestants will fly in the Finals that afternoon. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly on Site 3 on the day of the missing rounds will fly those rounds on Site 3. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly the missing rounds on Site 1 will fly their rounds on Site 4. The number of rounds flown in a rain shortened Final will be at the discretion of the ED as detailed in 13.2. In the event that the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] (Finals) day is rained out, the National Champion will be determined by using the
ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two
contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
Change INCLEMENT WEATHER TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Inclement Weather at the Nationals: If a “Rain Day” has been given in case of inclement weather, the following shall be followed. The Rain Day is a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day added to the schedule where no specific activity is planned. The Rain Day may be used if inclement weather prevents any of the rounds from being flown in its entirety and that round or rounds cannot be made up on its scheduled day. Should a round not be able to finish and the Rain Day is implemented, the Finals day may be pushed back one day to accommodate. The missed round(s) should be flown at the Site they were originally scheduled for and, if possible, in front of the judges that were assigned to that round. If a round was partially flown and the same judges are not available, that round must be flown again in its entirety or that round must be discarded completely. In the event that two or more days are rained out and the finals cannot be flown, the National Champion will be determined by using the ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
Example: Monday through Wednesday are set as preliminary and Semi-Finals days. The Finals are scheduled to be flown Thursday. The Rain Day is scheduled for Friday. In the event that it rains on any day of the preliminaries and/or Semi-Finals and the day is a total loss, the Rain Day will be implemented and the finals pushed to Friday utilizing Thursday as the Rain Day. All missed preliminary and/or semi-final rounds will be flown on Thursday. In the event that it rains on Thursday for the Finals and the day is a total loss or the Finals cannot be completed on that day, the Rain Day will be implemented and the Finals or the completion of the Finals will be held Friday.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This updated the section “Inclement Weather” to present day times. The AMA has seen fit to give us a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day for potential flights to be made at the National Championship and our rule does not take this into account. The current rule also loses some sensibility in where the participants will fly the missed rounds as well as how many contestants will fly in the Finals based on inclement weather. It also does not address the needs of the classes that are currently on Site 4 and may have also missed flights due to inclement weather. This needed to be addressed and an example given to utilize the Rain Day granted to us.
[h=1]Proposal 4 – Inclement Weather Removal[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change:
Remove section on inclement weather
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ORIGINAL WORDING
Inclement Weather: In the event that inclement weather prevents one of the preliminary rounds from being flown, those rounds will be completed on the morning of Day 4 (Finals Day) and only the top 4 contestants will fly in the Finals that afternoon. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly on Site 3 on the day of the missing rounds will fly those rounds on Site 3. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly the missing rounds on Site 1 will fly their rounds on Site 4. The number of rounds flown in a rain shortened Final will be at the discretion of the ED as detailed in 13.2. In the event that the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] (Finals) day is rained out, the National Champion will be determined by using the
ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two
contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
CHANGE TO:
Remove the inclement weather paragraph above
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
The inclement weather section of the rules is very specific about how to deal with delays due to rain at the NATS. Removal of this section will allow more flexibility to the Nats ED in dealing with rain delays and how to use the rain day.
[h=1]Proposal 5 – Aircraft Safety[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To add additional safety features to the aircraft in order to provide a safer environment to the pilot, spectators, fellow competitors and crew. This proposal also falls in line with the current FAI Sporting Code Sec. 5.1.11 Paragraph L for electrics and adds similar criteria for gas/glow powered aircraft
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ADD SECTION 6.xTO THE SECTION 6 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
6.x – For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun or the aircraft is preparing to be taken out to the runway for the flight and must be physically disconnected immediately after removal of the aircraft from the landing area. For gas/glow powered models, the engine must be shut off in the same area as electric models. At no time will a model be left unrestrained or unattended while running or in an “armed” state (for electrics) unless the model is on the runway. If maintenance or testing need to be done on the model and the model must be running or in an armed state, this must be done in areas designated by the CD.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and certainly spectators during a contest as the current description of Rule 6 clearly states as its intention. The model having a physical break in the connection between the batteries and the ESC/motor makes the disarmed state clear and insures that the motor cannot restart. In addition, gas/glow engines must be shut down. The penalty for this addition is defined in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
[h=1]Proposal 6 – Telemetry[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
As telemetry functions become more prevalent, it is imperative for verbiage in the rule to be updated to allow the existence of this technology but prevent it from being used as a competitive advantage.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
CHANGE SECTION 4.4 EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONS AS FOLLOWS:
4.4: Equipment Functions. There are no limitations to the type of control equipment or to the number of control functions. Limitations of other functions are as outlined. As used below, telemetry is defined as any communication sent by systems in the model and transmitted to receivers on the ground.
4.4.1 Use of telemetry communicated to the pilot or their caller will only be permitted in competition for the purpose of model safety. Any telemetry communicated to the pilot or their caller used for competitive advantage is not allowed during competition. Telemetry data shall not be used as a basis to request a re-flight.
Examples of Uses of Telemetry allowed:
1. Receiver power supply voltage.
2. Remaining fuel or Motor battery voltage.
3. Radio link status or fail-safe activation.
Examples of uses of telemetry not allowed:
1. Airspeed, altitude or attitude data.
2. Position data such as GPS.
3. Power plant data such as RPM limits, throttle setting, Current Draw, etc.
4.4.2 Use of autopilot control or aircraft axis stabilization using any reference during competition is prohibited. Automatic control sequencing or timing devices either in the transmitter or the model are prohibited. Any equipment containing such abilities must have them disabled during competition and are subject to spot-checking by the CD.
Examples of control functions allowed:
1. Control surface throws or power plant limits that are changed by the pilot.
2. Any control that is initiated and terminated by the pilot using any sort of transmitter control. These controls are not limited to external controls on the transmitter but can also be internal.
3. Programmable mixes either in the transmitter or the aircraft systems. Any form of manual input by the pilot can adjust these mixes.
4. Powerplant management such as mixture control or systems that normalize the power delivered to a motor over time.
Examples of control functions not allowed:
1. Snap buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Preprogramming that will automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Automatic leveling or electronic stabilization in any axis.
4. Power plant management systems that adjust power with regards to model performance, position or attitude.
5. Positioning systems utilizing any sensors such as air data, GPS, distance, etc.
6. Learning functions involving maneuver-to-maneuver or flight-to-flight analysis.
7. Feedback from the model of any kind except as outlined above.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
Technology in the equipment available to a participant continues to evolve. Many systems that can improve the safety of a model but not add a competitive advantage are either currently available or under development. Many of these safety systems will involve the use of air data, model attitude and position. Manufacturers are developing model control equipment that will contain the sensors or equipment to enable these features. Systems are now available that can assist a pilot during training. These systems in many cases will be integral to the equipment in the model and will either be difficult or impossible to physically remove them.
Also, the features in both the controls on a transmitter and the communication between the transmitter and the model’s receiver continue to progress. Voice from the transmitter is now somewhat common. Switching such as the use of dual rates or flight modes is or will soon be available by the shake of a transmitter or by verbal communication.
It is felt that using these systems during training and for improving safety should be allowed. It is also the current belief that the use of some of these systems in competition should be disallowed. The enforcement of these rules may be difficult, but it is no more difficult than our current rule regarding gyros. Today gyros are so small that a visual inspection would be nearly impossible to detect them installed in a model.
This purpose of this proposal is to adjust the rules in the RC Aerobatics event regarding equipment and their function to reflect the current or near future level of development.
[h=1]Proposal 7 – Transmitter Failsafe[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To promote safety and recognize the importance of properly implementing the “Fail Safe” function on transmitters
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ADD SECTION 6.x TO THE SECTION 6 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
6.x – All models that have the capability of Fail Safe in the radio shall have the throttle set to Fail Safe in a way that the motor/engine comes to a complete stop or a minimum idle if it were to lose signal from the transmitter. The CD may spot check the Fail Safe function at any given time during the contest.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and spectators during a contest. Revision 6.x insures that the importance of proper set up is not overlooked when it comes to safety. The penalty for this rule is clearly stated in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
[h=1]Proposal 8 – Transmitter Impound[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
Field Procedure regarding impound of transmitters
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
CHANGE SECTION 17.2 AS FOLLOWS:
WAS:
17.2: There will be no testing of transmitters or receivers during the flying period.
Transmitters may be impounded at the discretion of the CD. Any person causing interference will
suffer immediate disqualification. The CD should provide a monitor receiver, if available, to
check for interference.
TO:
17.2: Frequency control, if needed, will follow the established procedure at the host club flying site. Any entrant causing interference will be subject to disqualification.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This rule has been obsoleted by the changeover to Spread Spectrum radios. The testing of transmitters occurs throughout the contest day without regard to any frequency control in disregard of the existing rule. For the few remaining radios that are on 72 Mhz, the existing frequency board and pin system used by the host club will suffice. This is the system currently in use at most contests to provide frequency control of 72 Mhz radios and works very well.
[h=1]Proposal 9 – Weight Calibration[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change. Remove the calibration requirement from the weight rule
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
_
From Section 4.3
If no calibration system is available for the scales, a tolerance of 50 grams will be allowed
for possible inaccuracies in the measurement instrument.
Change to:
A tolerance of 50 grams will be allowed for possible inaccuracies in the measurement instrument.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This rule applies specifically to the Nats as local contests do not enforce the weight rule. However, at the Nats, there is typically not a “calibrated” scale available. When this is the case, a 50 gram tolerance is applied. Since the contestants do not know ahead of time whether the scales will be calibrated as opposed to just an effort to insure accuracy, there is vagueness in the maximum weight contestants must meet. Removing the distinction of meeting calibration standards insures both the contestant and the contest management know exactly what is required before traveling to an event.
The January 2015 K-Factor is now available for download on the NSRCA website. In this edition, the Board of Directors has placed the Rules Proposals for the 2016 cycle in the magazine. They are placed here, not as definite approved proposals that the NSRCA will send to the AMA Contest Board, but as proposals that the board feels warrants comment from the community. All input must be received by your NSRCA DVP by February 15, 2015. After this, the NSRCA BoD will vote on these proposals "as-is" to send to the AMA, amend the proposal based on your input, or scrap the proposal.
Please have a voice in these proposals. If you are "for" the proposals, please let us know this. If you are "against" or if you have an idea on how to improve the proposals, please let us know this as well. If discussion in this forum ensues, please keep it as discussion and query.
To: The AMA Pattern Community
From: NSRCA Board of Directors
RE: 2016 Rules Proposals from the NSRCA
The NSRCA Board of Directors has received the following from the NSRCA Rules Proposal Committee. Rules proposals are to be submitted to the AMA by March 15, 2015. We are looking for your input, positive or negative, or any constructive comments to these proposals. Input must be received by your NSRCA District Vice President no later than February 15, 2015. Clarifications, suggestions, and opinion can be submitted by email to each DVP listed on the NSRCA website at http://nsrca.us/index.php/districts. The NSRCA encourages you to also talk to your AMA Contest Board member. Each AMA District has one and can be found at http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx under “Aerobatics”.
The NSRCA Board of Directors feels that each of these changes are important to make our sport better and to also clean up some rules that are certainly out of date. As indicated below, the Rules Proposal Committee has been working closely with a member of the AMA Contest Board, acting as a liaison between the Committee and the Contest Board. They will continue to work with the Contest Board following submission of the proposals throughout the rules change process, including any cross proposals that may be required.
Here is the email your board received from the Rules Proposal Committee:
Good Day,
Through the course of the past month and a half, your Rules Proposal Committee has met many times to gather information and submit to you our findings as well as, finally, the proposals. As addressed in the November BoD meeting, I suggested that the RPC has determined that there are 8 separate items that need to be addressed: Class Advancement, creation of AMA Indoor R/C Aerobatics classes, revision of the Inclement Weather in Rule 13, battery/engine safety, telemetry, failsafe function of the transmitter, updating the current transmitter impound rule, and weight.
I think you'll find that your RPC has done a good job in addressing these issues. I also believe that, as you read each of the proposals, you'll understand the thought process and the proposals will make complete sense. You will find all 9 proposals attached to this email. There are actually 2 proposals regarding inclement weather. The committee felt that two proposals made the most sense. First, we wrote the revision to bring it to modern times. Second, because this is truly only used at the Nationals, it really makes the most sense to allow the Event Director to determine the best way to use a "rain day" when the AMA gives the day to the event. Therefore, the second proposal suggests the removal of the inclement weather clause from the Rule Book. The committee does feel that it's important to address two rules, in particular, and give a little background prior to the BoD meeting.
First, the weight proposal. The committee does not believe that a sweeping proposal makes any sense to try to get through the AMA Contest Board. We did decide, however, to address the never-ending battle of how to "calibrate" scales. There are many ways that this can be accomplished but the biggest problem faced is not the calibration but the difference in inaccuracies of the scales used vs. what the competitor has at home. We feel that by giving a simple 50 grams, not 1% specifically, for possible inaccuracies is fair.
Second, the telemetry proposal. This was probably the hottest topic throughout the entire process. The problem that we foresee is the continuing evolution of our electronics and telemetry. Radios are coming out all the time that have built in telemetry that cannot be easily removed. Some of this telemetry is safety based and our goal was to simply state that telemetry that comes from the model to the transmitter and/or smartphone and then to the pilot and/or caller that may be used to gain a competitive advantage may not be used. It's impossible to predict what will be coming in the future. We tried to write a proposal that blanketed as much as possible and made the most sense.
I would like to thank our committee which consisted of myself, Jon Carter, John Gayer, Jim Hiller, and Tony Frakowiak. A special thanks to Derek Koopowitz, consultant to the NSRCA Rules Proposal Committee and current AMA Contest Board Member, for helping us fashion these proposals in a way that would most likely be acceptable to the AMA Contest Board.
We hope, moving forward, that the NSRCA Board of Directors will take these proposals, deliberate on them, pass them on to the membership for comments and deliver them to the AMA to be distributed to the Contest Board. In doing so, we also hope the BoD will push the AMA Contest Board to have open communication with the NSRCA in regards to coming to an agreement to pass these proposals. There's nothing more that we would like to see than the AMA Contest Board and the NSRCA working together to better our sport.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve this board. Although trying, it was an honor to chair this fine committee. I look forward to the board's comments and we stand ready to help finish the process.
[h=1]Proposal 1 – Class Advancement[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
The class advancement process should allow the contestant to easily specify and change the class in which they feel they are most capable of competing in safely and competitively without unnecessary interaction and paperwork to the AMA.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”
ORIGINAL WORDING OF RULE 8: CONTESTANT CLASSIFICATION
“8. Contestant classification:
At his/her first Pattern contest a contestant may enter any one Pattern class at his/her own option (this decision should be made with care as no one at any time, except as noted in 8.1.2. and 8.2.5., will be permitted to change to a lower class). Once committed to a certain class a contestant will be allowed to move only to a higher skill class.
8.1: A contestant may promote himself/herself voluntarily to a higher class at any time; however, once the move is made, he/she may not change back to a lower class.
8.1.1: Exception: A contestant may fly in the next higher class at a contest where his/her class is not being flown without committing himself/herself to a permanent move to a higher class. He/she may not fly in a class lower than the one to which he/she is committed.
8.1.2: Exception: Consideration will be given to requests for reclassification to a lower class for various reasons, such as disability or breaks from participation of several years. For a contestant to be reclassified to
a lower class, the contestant must petition via email (or letter if email is not available) to the contestant's AMA District Contest Board (CB) representative explaining the reasons for the reclassification. The CB representative will forward a recommendation for approval/disapproval to the AMA District Vice President (DVP). The AMA DVP will concur/non-concur and forward the decision to the petitioner and AMA District CB representative with an info copy to the AMA Technical Director.
8.2: A contestant should advance through the classes as follows: A contestant should move out of the Sportsman class at the end of the calendar year of his/her second or subsequent year of participation if he/she places first or second and above at least 4 other contestants (having recorded an official flight) in any sanctioned pattern contest. For Intermediate and Advanced contestants, advancement takes place through the accumulation of points. In these classes, contestants receive points according to their finishing place in every contest they compete in. For contestants finishing third or below in a given contest, he/she will receive points equal to the number of official (having recorded an official flight) contestants he/she beats. The second place winner will receive points equal to twice the number of official contestants he/she beats, and the first place winner will receive points equal to three times the number of official contestants he/she beats. The points each contestant receives go into his/her cumulative record.
8.2.1: A contestant accumulating or exceeding 100 points and at least 2 years in Intermediate or Advanced class should automatically be advanced.
8.2.2: A contestant may voluntarily move to the next higher class at any time. He/she may also move to the next higher class upon attaining the goals itemized in 8.2.1 at any time during the year but will not be required to do. Any advancement by the contestant should only be made if the contestant feels that he/she is qualified to do so and he/she will not be a safety concern to his/her fellow contestants and contest management.
8.2.3: The accumulated points for required class advancement will be based on a sliding scale of 4 years time. Advancement points acquired before the fourth (4) year will not count towards advancement. In other words, a contestant’s point accumulation is based on the total accumulation for his/her previous four (4) years of competition.
8.2.4: When a contestant enters a new class, either higher or lower (as permitted by 8.1.2.) he/she begins with zero (0) points. Note: A contestant who flies in a higher class under the Exception Rule (8.1.1.) above still acquires classification points in accordance with 8.2. above.
8.2.5: There is no mandatory advancement into FAI from the Masters class. Contestants may enter their current AMA class or the FAI class at any contest but not both.
Examples:
1. The contestant is one (1) of eight (8) who flies officially in a given class, except Sportsman, and places
first. He/she acquires three (3) times seven (7) (the number he/she beats) or 21 classification points.
2. The contestant is one (1) of 16 and places fifth. He/she receives 11 points.
3. The contestant accumulates 95 points in 2010 and thus remains in his/her declared class into 2011. At the first 2011 contest, he/she picks up 12 points. He/she may fly the rest of 2011 in his/her declared class but will be advanced to the next higher class starting January 1, 2012. (He/she may move up sooner if he/she so desires) if he/she feels that he/she is qualified to fly in the next higher class without creating any safety issues.
8.3: Each Pattern contestant is responsible for maintaining an accurate record of his/her own classification points. “
CHANGE TO FOLLOWING REVISED WORDING OF RULE 8: CONTESTANT CLASSIFICATION
“8. Contestant classification: The contestant’s first contest of the year will establish the contestant’s competition class for that calendar year. This class may be one class lower than his or her class from the previous year or may be any higher class relative to their class from the previous year. The contestant that has not previously flown in a competition may select any class as their class. Contestants may enter their current AMA class or the FAI F3A class at any contest but not both. The class advancement sequence is Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, Masters. A contestant may voluntarily move to any higher class at any time but must remain in that higher class at least until the contestant’s first contest of the following year. If the contestant’s declared class is not offered at a contest or that contestant is the only entrant in a class, that contestant has an option to fly in any higher class for that contest and then resume the declared class thereafter.”
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
Currently, the competitor has the right to petition the AMA for a waiver based on certain criteria but those conditions do not include the inability to be competitive or to safely fly the more advanced maneuvers required in the higher class. A participant in a competition is there to be competitive and match his or her skills against pilots with similar abilities. This rewritten rule will allow a competitor to declare a class each year but still does not allow for drastic jumps between classes and does insure that, once the class is declared, the contestant sticks with his or her decision for the entire year. This will eliminate the need for AMA record keeping, CD tracking of classes, or any other extra work that would be involved in more detailed classification and also still allows for the “peer pressure” effect. Additionally, the current rule is based on points accumulation that no one in the AMA or other organizations is currently tracking. The proposed change simplifies the advancement process.
[h=1]Proposal 2 – Indoor R/C Aerobatics Class Creation[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
Indoor RC Aerobatics is growing in popularity in the United States. The NSRCA has been designated by the AMA as the SIG for Indoor RC Aerobatics. The FAI, similar to F3A, specifies the top-level sequences for F3P competition. (Currently F3P-AP-15 and F3P-AF-15) Currently we do not have any entry level Indoor RC Aerobatics classes defined. This rules proposal is to define two entry-level Indoor RC Aerobatics classes similar to our current progression in RC Aerobatics.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
RCA-5, Section 7. Pattern Event Classes. second paragraph currently reads as follows, “The indoor Pattern event will only have one class, 407 (F3P). This class is not run at a standard outdoor Pattern event and will only be used at a standalone indoor event and will follow all the rules and guidelines of the current F3P Radio Controlled Aerobatics rules that are published by the FAI and CIAM. The builder-of-the-model rule, if any, shall not be enforced. The AMA Competition Regulations will be applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on, or does not provide guidance concerning the conduct or rules of the FAI - F3P events.”
Proposed text for RCA-5, Section 7. Pattern Event Classes, second paragraph. “The Indoor R/C Aerobatics event shall be divided into three (3) classes. The first two (2) classes shall (in order of increasing difficulty) be referred to as Intermediate and Advanced. The maneuver schedules and definitions for the two classes will be developed and published by the NSRCA in a similar manner to the standard outdoor pattern schedules. The third class shall be referred to as F3P (407). The indoor r/c aerobatics classes will follow all the rules and guidelines of the current F3P Radio Controlled Aerobatics rules that are published by the FAI and CIAM. The AMA Competition Regulations will be applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on, or does not provide guidance concerning the conduct or rules of the FAI - F3P events.
Change RCA-10 Section 15 as follows. Existing sentence “The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402 and 403 at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required.”
Change this sentence to “The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402, 403, “Indoor R/C Aerobatics Intermediate” and “Indoor R/C Aerobatics Advanced” at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required.”
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
As stated in the summary, this change is to provide two entry level classes in indoor r/c aerobatics pattern to facilitate people learning the discipline and allow for an entry to indoor pattern. The NSRCA will define these two sequences and change them at appropriate intervals. There is no provision for these classes in the current AMA rules. It is understood that the “Indoor R/C Aerobatics” classes will eventually be given a numerical identification and the numbers can then be inserted into the wording of this proposal.
New event test data/information (new events only), please provide what testing of this new event has taken place to include number of participants and number of contests.
These two additional indoor r/c aerobatics classes are currently being run in Canada and have been used in several test events around the United States. There is good acceptance of this concept both here and internationally.
[h=1]Proposal 3 – Inclement Weather[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To update Rule 13 Inclement Weather to reflect the current situation for the Nationals and better clarify how to handle inclement weather
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ORIGINAL WORDING
Inclement Weather: In the event that inclement weather prevents one of the preliminary rounds from being flown, those rounds will be completed on the morning of Day 4 (Finals Day) and only the top 4 contestants will fly in the Finals that afternoon. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly on Site 3 on the day of the missing rounds will fly those rounds on Site 3. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly the missing rounds on Site 1 will fly their rounds on Site 4. The number of rounds flown in a rain shortened Final will be at the discretion of the ED as detailed in 13.2. In the event that the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] (Finals) day is rained out, the National Champion will be determined by using the
ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two
contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
Change INCLEMENT WEATHER TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Inclement Weather at the Nationals: If a “Rain Day” has been given in case of inclement weather, the following shall be followed. The Rain Day is a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day added to the schedule where no specific activity is planned. The Rain Day may be used if inclement weather prevents any of the rounds from being flown in its entirety and that round or rounds cannot be made up on its scheduled day. Should a round not be able to finish and the Rain Day is implemented, the Finals day may be pushed back one day to accommodate. The missed round(s) should be flown at the Site they were originally scheduled for and, if possible, in front of the judges that were assigned to that round. If a round was partially flown and the same judges are not available, that round must be flown again in its entirety or that round must be discarded completely. In the event that two or more days are rained out and the finals cannot be flown, the National Champion will be determined by using the ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
Example: Monday through Wednesday are set as preliminary and Semi-Finals days. The Finals are scheduled to be flown Thursday. The Rain Day is scheduled for Friday. In the event that it rains on any day of the preliminaries and/or Semi-Finals and the day is a total loss, the Rain Day will be implemented and the finals pushed to Friday utilizing Thursday as the Rain Day. All missed preliminary and/or semi-final rounds will be flown on Thursday. In the event that it rains on Thursday for the Finals and the day is a total loss or the Finals cannot be completed on that day, the Rain Day will be implemented and the Finals or the completion of the Finals will be held Friday.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This updated the section “Inclement Weather” to present day times. The AMA has seen fit to give us a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day for potential flights to be made at the National Championship and our rule does not take this into account. The current rule also loses some sensibility in where the participants will fly the missed rounds as well as how many contestants will fly in the Finals based on inclement weather. It also does not address the needs of the classes that are currently on Site 4 and may have also missed flights due to inclement weather. This needed to be addressed and an example given to utilize the Rain Day granted to us.
[h=1]Proposal 4 – Inclement Weather Removal[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change:
Remove section on inclement weather
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ORIGINAL WORDING
Inclement Weather: In the event that inclement weather prevents one of the preliminary rounds from being flown, those rounds will be completed on the morning of Day 4 (Finals Day) and only the top 4 contestants will fly in the Finals that afternoon. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly on Site 3 on the day of the missing rounds will fly those rounds on Site 3. Those contestants that were scheduled to fly the missing rounds on Site 1 will fly their rounds on Site 4. The number of rounds flown in a rain shortened Final will be at the discretion of the ED as detailed in 13.2. In the event that the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] (Finals) day is rained out, the National Champion will be determined by using the
ranking scores that would have determined the finalists. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker will be determined by using both scores the contestants earned on the day they actually flew on the same line. In the event the top two
contestants are still tied, both will be declared Co-Champions.
CHANGE TO:
Remove the inclement weather paragraph above
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
The inclement weather section of the rules is very specific about how to deal with delays due to rain at the NATS. Removal of this section will allow more flexibility to the Nats ED in dealing with rain delays and how to use the rain day.
[h=1]Proposal 5 – Aircraft Safety[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To add additional safety features to the aircraft in order to provide a safer environment to the pilot, spectators, fellow competitors and crew. This proposal also falls in line with the current FAI Sporting Code Sec. 5.1.11 Paragraph L for electrics and adds similar criteria for gas/glow powered aircraft
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ADD SECTION 6.xTO THE SECTION 6 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
6.x – For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun or the aircraft is preparing to be taken out to the runway for the flight and must be physically disconnected immediately after removal of the aircraft from the landing area. For gas/glow powered models, the engine must be shut off in the same area as electric models. At no time will a model be left unrestrained or unattended while running or in an “armed” state (for electrics) unless the model is on the runway. If maintenance or testing need to be done on the model and the model must be running or in an armed state, this must be done in areas designated by the CD.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and certainly spectators during a contest as the current description of Rule 6 clearly states as its intention. The model having a physical break in the connection between the batteries and the ESC/motor makes the disarmed state clear and insures that the motor cannot restart. In addition, gas/glow engines must be shut down. The penalty for this addition is defined in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
[h=1]Proposal 6 – Telemetry[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
As telemetry functions become more prevalent, it is imperative for verbiage in the rule to be updated to allow the existence of this technology but prevent it from being used as a competitive advantage.
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
CHANGE SECTION 4.4 EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONS AS FOLLOWS:
4.4: Equipment Functions. There are no limitations to the type of control equipment or to the number of control functions. Limitations of other functions are as outlined. As used below, telemetry is defined as any communication sent by systems in the model and transmitted to receivers on the ground.
4.4.1 Use of telemetry communicated to the pilot or their caller will only be permitted in competition for the purpose of model safety. Any telemetry communicated to the pilot or their caller used for competitive advantage is not allowed during competition. Telemetry data shall not be used as a basis to request a re-flight.
Examples of Uses of Telemetry allowed:
1. Receiver power supply voltage.
2. Remaining fuel or Motor battery voltage.
3. Radio link status or fail-safe activation.
Examples of uses of telemetry not allowed:
1. Airspeed, altitude or attitude data.
2. Position data such as GPS.
3. Power plant data such as RPM limits, throttle setting, Current Draw, etc.
4.4.2 Use of autopilot control or aircraft axis stabilization using any reference during competition is prohibited. Automatic control sequencing or timing devices either in the transmitter or the model are prohibited. Any equipment containing such abilities must have them disabled during competition and are subject to spot-checking by the CD.
Examples of control functions allowed:
1. Control surface throws or power plant limits that are changed by the pilot.
2. Any control that is initiated and terminated by the pilot using any sort of transmitter control. These controls are not limited to external controls on the transmitter but can also be internal.
3. Programmable mixes either in the transmitter or the aircraft systems. Any form of manual input by the pilot can adjust these mixes.
4. Powerplant management such as mixture control or systems that normalize the power delivered to a motor over time.
Examples of control functions not allowed:
1. Snap buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Preprogramming that will automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Automatic leveling or electronic stabilization in any axis.
4. Power plant management systems that adjust power with regards to model performance, position or attitude.
5. Positioning systems utilizing any sensors such as air data, GPS, distance, etc.
6. Learning functions involving maneuver-to-maneuver or flight-to-flight analysis.
7. Feedback from the model of any kind except as outlined above.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
Technology in the equipment available to a participant continues to evolve. Many systems that can improve the safety of a model but not add a competitive advantage are either currently available or under development. Many of these safety systems will involve the use of air data, model attitude and position. Manufacturers are developing model control equipment that will contain the sensors or equipment to enable these features. Systems are now available that can assist a pilot during training. These systems in many cases will be integral to the equipment in the model and will either be difficult or impossible to physically remove them.
Also, the features in both the controls on a transmitter and the communication between the transmitter and the model’s receiver continue to progress. Voice from the transmitter is now somewhat common. Switching such as the use of dual rates or flight modes is or will soon be available by the shake of a transmitter or by verbal communication.
It is felt that using these systems during training and for improving safety should be allowed. It is also the current belief that the use of some of these systems in competition should be disallowed. The enforcement of these rules may be difficult, but it is no more difficult than our current rule regarding gyros. Today gyros are so small that a visual inspection would be nearly impossible to detect them installed in a model.
This purpose of this proposal is to adjust the rules in the RC Aerobatics event regarding equipment and their function to reflect the current or near future level of development.
[h=1]Proposal 7 – Transmitter Failsafe[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
To promote safety and recognize the importance of properly implementing the “Fail Safe” function on transmitters
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
ADD SECTION 6.x TO THE SECTION 6 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
6.x – All models that have the capability of Fail Safe in the radio shall have the throttle set to Fail Safe in a way that the motor/engine comes to a complete stop or a minimum idle if it were to lose signal from the transmitter. The CD may spot check the Fail Safe function at any given time during the contest.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and spectators during a contest. Revision 6.x insures that the importance of proper set up is not overlooked when it comes to safety. The penalty for this rule is clearly stated in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
[h=1]Proposal 8 – Transmitter Impound[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change.
Field Procedure regarding impound of transmitters
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
CHANGE SECTION 17.2 AS FOLLOWS:
WAS:
17.2: There will be no testing of transmitters or receivers during the flying period.
Transmitters may be impounded at the discretion of the CD. Any person causing interference will
suffer immediate disqualification. The CD should provide a monitor receiver, if available, to
check for interference.
TO:
17.2: Frequency control, if needed, will follow the established procedure at the host club flying site. Any entrant causing interference will be subject to disqualification.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This rule has been obsoleted by the changeover to Spread Spectrum radios. The testing of transmitters occurs throughout the contest day without regard to any frequency control in disregard of the existing rule. For the few remaining radios that are on 72 Mhz, the existing frequency board and pin system used by the host club will suffice. This is the system currently in use at most contests to provide frequency control of 72 Mhz radios and works very well.
[h=1]Proposal 9 – Weight Calibration[/h]Brief summary of the proposed change. Remove the calibration requirement from the weight rule
Exact wording proposed for the rule book. (List paragraph numbers where applicable. Example: Change “quote present rule book wording” to “exact wording required”.
_
From Section 4.3
If no calibration system is available for the scales, a tolerance of 50 grams will be allowed
for possible inaccuracies in the measurement instrument.
Change to:
A tolerance of 50 grams will be allowed for possible inaccuracies in the measurement instrument.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This rule applies specifically to the Nats as local contests do not enforce the weight rule. However, at the Nats, there is typically not a “calibrated” scale available. When this is the case, a 50 gram tolerance is applied. Since the contestants do not know ahead of time whether the scales will be calibrated as opposed to just an effort to insure accuracy, there is vagueness in the maximum weight contestants must meet. Removing the distinction of meeting calibration standards insures both the contestant and the contest management know exactly what is required before traveling to an event.
01-01-2015, 06:34 PM
#2
My Feedback: (4)
Hi Scott,
I guess I have a question/issue/thought about the below examples used in the changes for telemetry.
An argument can be made that knowing your voltage on the model's battery packs would be safety of flight, and I would agree. It would identify uncharged batteries or failed or otherwise compromised cells.
The example of knowing fuel remaining in a glow model would achieve a similar goal. So would knowing capacity remaining in a battery be allowed? That's arguably the same or equivalent bit of information for an electric model. For some, the ability for radios to have this bit of information via telemetry is considered a "killer app". And once you use it, you likely won't go back. In a contest it wouldn't necessarily be required but during practice it would be invaluable as you could do pass after pass working on something and not be limited to using a timer, which depending on the maneuver(s) could be too conservative or not conservative enough.
Many of the aftermarket devices that do this transmit amperage, mah consumed/remaining, and pack voltage. If capacity remaining is NOT allowed, then these devices would have to be disabled even though they do provide safety of flight information and the same type of information that IS allowed for glow models.
The below snippet is what gave me pause...
Under this proposal, the "electronic fuel gauge" would apparently not be legal. One for fuel models would be legal... Or am I misunderstanding this?
Honestly, I don't care either way. My models will have them down the road, and if need be I would just disable it during a contest. But my reason for bringing it up is that at least by the way it's written, it leaves it open to be possibly considered a double standard, though I am SURE that is really not the intention.
I would bet that most radios down the road will have this ability. Jeti radios with Mezons already have this as a native ability.
Regards,
Tom M
I guess I have a question/issue/thought about the below examples used in the changes for telemetry.
The example of knowing fuel remaining in a glow model would achieve a similar goal. So would knowing capacity remaining in a battery be allowed? That's arguably the same or equivalent bit of information for an electric model. For some, the ability for radios to have this bit of information via telemetry is considered a "killer app". And once you use it, you likely won't go back. In a contest it wouldn't necessarily be required but during practice it would be invaluable as you could do pass after pass working on something and not be limited to using a timer, which depending on the maneuver(s) could be too conservative or not conservative enough.
Many of the aftermarket devices that do this transmit amperage, mah consumed/remaining, and pack voltage. If capacity remaining is NOT allowed, then these devices would have to be disabled even though they do provide safety of flight information and the same type of information that IS allowed for glow models.
The below snippet is what gave me pause...
Honestly, I don't care either way. My models will have them down the road, and if need be I would just disable it during a contest. But my reason for bringing it up is that at least by the way it's written, it leaves it open to be possibly considered a double standard, though I am SURE that is really not the intention.
I would bet that most radios down the road will have this ability. Jeti radios with Mezons already have this as a native ability.
Regards,
Tom M
Last edited by ExFokkerFlyer; 01-01-2015 at 07:04 PM.
01-02-2015, 06:19 AM
#3
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your question.
It is our opinion that there is a difference between knowing total voltage remaining and knowing current draw. If you are able to have telemetry that only tells you what the total volts of your battery packs are (receiver or motor), this would be legal as covered in the top example #2. If you were receiving telemetry that was being reported to you, in any form, during the flight that told you current draw, this would be illegal as covered in the bottom example #3.
Thanks,
Scott
Thank you for your question.
It is our opinion that there is a difference between knowing total voltage remaining and knowing current draw. If you are able to have telemetry that only tells you what the total volts of your battery packs are (receiver or motor), this would be legal as covered in the top example #2. If you were receiving telemetry that was being reported to you, in any form, during the flight that told you current draw, this would be illegal as covered in the bottom example #3.
Thanks,
Scott
01-02-2015, 08:50 AM
#4
My Feedback: (4)
Thanks for the reply Scott.
Again, I don't care either way but I honestly don't understand the logic. This is something that most radios will have available in the coming years and really will not allow one to attain higher scores if you have it but would instead give you a more accurate "fuel level" reading. Something that would be legal were the plane to be powered by liquid fuel.
Tom M
Again, I don't care either way but I honestly don't understand the logic. This is something that most radios will have available in the coming years and really will not allow one to attain higher scores if you have it but would instead give you a more accurate "fuel level" reading. Something that would be legal were the plane to be powered by liquid fuel.
Tom M
01-02-2015, 01:44 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of telemetry, the original rule banned certain types of telemetry which are becoming more common. The committee recognized that banning specific types of telemetry is difficult to police and also unnecessary. Instead we restricted the communication link between the model and the pilot/caller team to safety information only. Usually this link is aural and relatively easy to control. You obviously can use any type of telemetry during practice.
The proposed rule specifically allows both battery voltage and fuel used to be reported. Fuel used for a battery system is an integration of current draw which cannot be reported but the "fuel gauge" can be reported and is presently available in a number of telemetry systems. I see no reason to know the instantaneous current draw from a safety POV. However, it could possibly be used to establish consistent power in a given flight attitude. Keep in mind that the rule allows any kind of telemetry you care to add. However, the only information the pilot/caller team can receive from the telemetry must be safety related.
Thus I would expect the only information the team would be able to legally receive would be the voltage level approaching cutoff or fuel used approaching the battery capacity. Personally I would rather know the battery voltage approaching cutoff as that could indicate a battery problem of some kind.
John Gayer
Rules Committee member
The proposed rule specifically allows both battery voltage and fuel used to be reported. Fuel used for a battery system is an integration of current draw which cannot be reported but the "fuel gauge" can be reported and is presently available in a number of telemetry systems. I see no reason to know the instantaneous current draw from a safety POV. However, it could possibly be used to establish consistent power in a given flight attitude. Keep in mind that the rule allows any kind of telemetry you care to add. However, the only information the pilot/caller team can receive from the telemetry must be safety related.
Thus I would expect the only information the team would be able to legally receive would be the voltage level approaching cutoff or fuel used approaching the battery capacity. Personally I would rather know the battery voltage approaching cutoff as that could indicate a battery problem of some kind.
John Gayer
Rules Committee member
01-04-2015, 04:52 AM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Agawam,
MA
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding clarification...
1. Snap buttons with automatic timing mode.
Could "automatic timing mode" be defined? I recall there was some historic event that prompted this and maybe it's now obsolete? Could it be worded differently to eliminate any interpretation?
7. Feedback from the model of any kind except as outlined above.
Does this mean we can't look at the plane or listen to it in flight?
1. Snap buttons with automatic timing mode.
Could "automatic timing mode" be defined? I recall there was some historic event that prompted this and maybe it's now obsolete? Could it be worded differently to eliminate any interpretation?
7. Feedback from the model of any kind except as outlined above.
Does this mean we can't look at the plane or listen to it in flight?
01-04-2015, 10:22 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
A lot of the "control functions not permited" was carried over from the current rules, which also have a lot in common with the FAI rules in this regard. When looking at this section we focused more on items we disagreed with, such as "Any type of voice recognition". We removed that restriction with the opinion that voice recognition could replace throwing a physical switch or aux control. You cannot use a voice recognition system to perform any action that would be illegal if done with another type of input. There is currently an input on the Jeti from transmitter attitude or movement. There is nothing to preclude this, so why voice?
The learning system exclusion seems a bit far-fetched. This item is also in common with FAI. IF you could come up with a system that would "learn" the way you fly maneuvers, it would still have to issue commands during competition based either on aircraft position, rates or else base commands on a timeline. All are illegal so I see no point in the exclusion of learning systems although it is not restrictive in any way to leave it in.
I would consider the snap switch timing restriction to be a special case of the second item "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of actions". As such it is unnecessary.
The concept here is to prevent a function that is initiated by the pilot but then further actions occur automatically based on a timeline. A simple case for a snap switch would be to initiate elevator on the switch with rudder and aileron inputs delayed slightly using a timer, thus showing an elevator break automatically. Release of the switch returns control to the sticks. Simple but illegal.
I think I would like to combine 1 and 2 into:
Programming devices such as a snap switch to automatically perform a series of commands based on a timer.
Comments?
John
A lot of the "control functions not permited" was carried over from the current rules, which also have a lot in common with the FAI rules in this regard. When looking at this section we focused more on items we disagreed with, such as "Any type of voice recognition". We removed that restriction with the opinion that voice recognition could replace throwing a physical switch or aux control. You cannot use a voice recognition system to perform any action that would be illegal if done with another type of input. There is currently an input on the Jeti from transmitter attitude or movement. There is nothing to preclude this, so why voice?
The learning system exclusion seems a bit far-fetched. This item is also in common with FAI. IF you could come up with a system that would "learn" the way you fly maneuvers, it would still have to issue commands during competition based either on aircraft position, rates or else base commands on a timeline. All are illegal so I see no point in the exclusion of learning systems although it is not restrictive in any way to leave it in.
I would consider the snap switch timing restriction to be a special case of the second item "Preprogramming devices to automatically perform a series of actions". As such it is unnecessary.
The concept here is to prevent a function that is initiated by the pilot but then further actions occur automatically based on a timeline. A simple case for a snap switch would be to initiate elevator on the switch with rudder and aileron inputs delayed slightly using a timer, thus showing an elevator break automatically. Release of the switch returns control to the sticks. Simple but illegal.
I think I would like to combine 1 and 2 into:
Programming devices such as a snap switch to automatically perform a series of commands based on a timer.
Comments?
John
01-04-2015, 01:04 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Agawam,
MA
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole telemetry/function issue could be more easily addressed by allowing any and all provided only the pilot interpreted the data and no “system generated” corrections are introduced as a result of that data (so no gyros or autopilots.) What advantage it there to hearing something that you can already see (altitude, speed, track)?
As for timer controlled functions, would you consider programming the flaps to retract say in 3 seconds an illegal function? Or a 2 second transition when switching flight modes? Are timer functions only illegal when associated with a snap switch? (Your wording had “such as” so I think your intent would be no but the current rule seems specific to the snap switch.)
As for timer controlled functions, would you consider programming the flaps to retract say in 3 seconds an illegal function? Or a 2 second transition when switching flight modes? Are timer functions only illegal when associated with a snap switch? (Your wording had “such as” so I think your intent would be no but the current rule seems specific to the snap switch.)
01-04-2015, 03:26 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The timer controlled functions including your examples were already illegal, at least as I interpret the current rule. And yes, I would say your examples of condition switching and flap retraction were already illegal. Do I see a reason for them to be illegal? No, I don't. But I don't see a way to clearly write a rule that would allow timed condition switching and disallow timed function on a snap switch without getting very specific on allowed and disallowed functions. For you specific examples, I see no advantage in the condition switch delay and the flaps could be done by slowing the servo response which I consider legal.
For telemetry we allow all telemetry to be enabled and restrict info(normally audio) to the pilot/caller team. I believe there is a clear advantage to receiving audio relating to altitude and/or wings level attitude, for example. It is not technically difficult to use telemetry to download roll attitude and rate of climb to a PC. It is not difficult to write software that will produce a rising/falling frequency or varying repetition rate tone based on the telemetry. The tone is an aural feedback that will tell you whether you are climbing/diving and whether your wings are level. Quite possibly this could all be done through the open source software of the Taranis TX. This would be an excellent setup for practice although illegal for competition and much easier to handle than your coach yelling "get your wings level!". Track deviation is a bit more difficult but not impossible to handle the same way.
John
For telemetry we allow all telemetry to be enabled and restrict info(normally audio) to the pilot/caller team. I believe there is a clear advantage to receiving audio relating to altitude and/or wings level attitude, for example. It is not technically difficult to use telemetry to download roll attitude and rate of climb to a PC. It is not difficult to write software that will produce a rising/falling frequency or varying repetition rate tone based on the telemetry. The tone is an aural feedback that will tell you whether you are climbing/diving and whether your wings are level. Quite possibly this could all be done through the open source software of the Taranis TX. This would be an excellent setup for practice although illegal for competition and much easier to handle than your coach yelling "get your wings level!". Track deviation is a bit more difficult but not impossible to handle the same way.
John
01-05-2015, 03:57 AM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Agawam,
MA
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Jeti Duplex auto trim fall into this category? Flip a switch and it "learns" what straight and level is.
If your caller can tell you "inboard wing low", why can't the transmitter? How many times has a caller whispered "right rudder"? I'm okay with that because the pilot still has to interpret that info and input the correct response. The pilot is in command, not the radio and I believe that is the intent of 4.4.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if each rule clearly stated the intent first then went on to describe it?)
4.4: Equipment Functions. The intent of this section is that the pilot must initiate all input commands to the aircraft. Any telemetry or other types of radio feedback to the pilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPS coordinates, motor rpm, etc. are prohibited during….
I interpret “sequenced programming” to be the initiation of a secondary command after the initial command has been selected. So the 2 second transition to a new flight mode is fine.
We shouldn’t have to interpret the rules to this extent; they should be clear enough to begin with.
Edit: I guess bullet 7 of the proposal makes it illegal for the caller to offer hints.
If your caller can tell you "inboard wing low", why can't the transmitter? How many times has a caller whispered "right rudder"? I'm okay with that because the pilot still has to interpret that info and input the correct response. The pilot is in command, not the radio and I believe that is the intent of 4.4.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if each rule clearly stated the intent first then went on to describe it?)
4.4: Equipment Functions. The intent of this section is that the pilot must initiate all input commands to the aircraft. Any telemetry or other types of radio feedback to the pilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPS coordinates, motor rpm, etc. are prohibited during….
I interpret “sequenced programming” to be the initiation of a secondary command after the initial command has been selected. So the 2 second transition to a new flight mode is fine.
We shouldn’t have to interpret the rules to this extent; they should be clear enough to begin with.
Edit: I guess bullet 7 of the proposal makes it illegal for the caller to offer hints.
Last edited by Scott Smith; 01-05-2015 at 05:32 AM.
01-05-2015, 09:20 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Jeti Duplex auto trim fall into this category? Flip a switch and it "learns" what straight and level is.
The autotrim function would be legal. It is just a shorthand way of zeroing trims. Sort of like setting servo positions with a snap switch. There is no learning going on there. Now if you come up with an autotrim system that uses roll angle, rate of climb and yaw angle to zero trims, that would be neat but illegal in competition. If anyone has any idea what the concern was when the "learning system" exclusion was added, I'd really like to hear about it. Seems like it could be removed without affecting anything.
If your caller can tell you "inboard wing low", why can't the transmitter? How many times has a caller whispered "right rudder"? I'm okay with that because the pilot still has to interpret that info and input the correct response.
That's all true but there are arbitrary lines drawn as what tools the pilot can use as input to help him. That line was already drawn by the rules as previously established by the contest board. This equipment rule proposal is intended to clarify what is legal and what is not rather than remove all limitations on model to pilot communication and also to make the rule easier to administer. The caller is part of the pilot/caller team, and as such, can do anything to help except touch the TX.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if each rule clearly stated the intent first then went on to describe it?)
4.4: Equipment Functions. The intent of this section is that the pilot must initiate all input commands to the aircraft. Any telemetry or other types of radio feedback to the pilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPS coordinates, motor rpm, etc. are prohibited during….
I like this concept. However, your example only refers to the control function section of the rule and leaves out the telemetry part.
I interpret “sequenced programming” to be the initiation of a secondary command after the initial command has been selected. So the 2 second transition to a new flight mode is fine.
We shouldn’t have to interpret the rules to this extent; they should be clear enough to begin with.
I certainly agree that we could have been clearer. There is a fine line between too much and too little specification in the rules. There are many areas in the current rules that do not fit your criteria for clarity, specificity and intent including this rule as currently in the rulebook.Your interpretation of mode switching makes sense to me as well and I would consider it to be allowed using the combined one and two "control functions not allowed" I proposed earlier.
Edit: I guess bullet 7 of the proposal makes it illegal for the caller to offer hints.
The autotrim function would be legal. It is just a shorthand way of zeroing trims. Sort of like setting servo positions with a snap switch. There is no learning going on there. Now if you come up with an autotrim system that uses roll angle, rate of climb and yaw angle to zero trims, that would be neat but illegal in competition. If anyone has any idea what the concern was when the "learning system" exclusion was added, I'd really like to hear about it. Seems like it could be removed without affecting anything.
If your caller can tell you "inboard wing low", why can't the transmitter? How many times has a caller whispered "right rudder"? I'm okay with that because the pilot still has to interpret that info and input the correct response.
That's all true but there are arbitrary lines drawn as what tools the pilot can use as input to help him. That line was already drawn by the rules as previously established by the contest board. This equipment rule proposal is intended to clarify what is legal and what is not rather than remove all limitations on model to pilot communication and also to make the rule easier to administer. The caller is part of the pilot/caller team, and as such, can do anything to help except touch the TX.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if each rule clearly stated the intent first then went on to describe it?)
4.4: Equipment Functions. The intent of this section is that the pilot must initiate all input commands to the aircraft. Any telemetry or other types of radio feedback to the pilot or the caller such as airspeed, position, GPS coordinates, motor rpm, etc. are prohibited during….
I like this concept. However, your example only refers to the control function section of the rule and leaves out the telemetry part.
I interpret “sequenced programming” to be the initiation of a secondary command after the initial command has been selected. So the 2 second transition to a new flight mode is fine.
We shouldn’t have to interpret the rules to this extent; they should be clear enough to begin with.
I certainly agree that we could have been clearer. There is a fine line between too much and too little specification in the rules. There are many areas in the current rules that do not fit your criteria for clarity, specificity and intent including this rule as currently in the rulebook.Your interpretation of mode switching makes sense to me as well and I would consider it to be allowed using the combined one and two "control functions not allowed" I proposed earlier.
Edit: I guess bullet 7 of the proposal makes it illegal for the caller to offer hints.
Scott, You have presented a number of ways this proposal could be improved, many of which I agree with. I will discuss with the committee whether they want to make any changes at this time.
John
01-11-2015, 08:15 AM
#15
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your question.
It is our opinion that there is a difference between knowing total voltage remaining and knowing current draw. If you are able to have telemetry that only tells you what the total volts of your battery packs are (receiver or motor), this would be legal as covered in the top example #2. If you were receiving telemetry that was being reported to you, in any form, during the flight that told you current draw, this would be illegal as covered in the bottom example #3.
Thanks,
Scott
Thank you for your question.
It is our opinion that there is a difference between knowing total voltage remaining and knowing current draw. If you are able to have telemetry that only tells you what the total volts of your battery packs are (receiver or motor), this would be legal as covered in the top example #2. If you were receiving telemetry that was being reported to you, in any form, during the flight that told you current draw, this would be illegal as covered in the bottom example #3.
Thanks,
Scott
Volts are actually useless for measuring "amount of fuel (electrons) remaining" as at the point at which that data is sensed, you have massive variation depending on the load imposed on the battery (it's not like a static check on an unloaded LiPo that tells you roughly how much you've consumed from the battery).
Peter+
01-11-2015, 08:33 AM
#16
6.x – For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun or the aircraft is preparing to be taken out to the runway for the flight and must be physically disconnected immediately after removal of the aircraft from the landing area. For gas/glow powered models, the engine must be shut off in the same area as electric models. At no time will a model be left unrestrained or unattended while running or in an “armed” state (for electrics) unless the model is on the runway. If maintenance or testing need to be done on the model and the model must be running or in an armed state, this must be done in areas designated by the CD.
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and certainly spectators during a contest as the current description of Rule 6 clearly states as its intention. The model having a physical break in the connection between the batteries and the ESC/motor makes the disarmed state clear and insures that the motor cannot restart. In addition, gas/glow engines must be shut down. The penalty for this addition is defined in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future reference.
This change makes the flying field environment safer for contestants, judges, crew and certainly spectators during a contest as the current description of Rule 6 clearly states as its intention. The model having a physical break in the connection between the batteries and the ESC/motor makes the disarmed state clear and insures that the motor cannot restart. In addition, gas/glow engines must be shut down. The penalty for this addition is defined in Rule 6 prior to 6.1
I agree that relying solely on an ESC's refusal to arm until it hears a low throttle signal is not sufficient safety, but something along the lines of the emcotec or Jeti main power switches (which use banks of MOSFETs to do the equivalent of a high current relay) should be permitted -- that would require several systems to fail simultaneously to create a safety issue. The MOSFET bank would need to fail, the ESC would need to "hear" a stray low throttle signal to arm and then a stray non-low throttle signal start spinning the prop to create a dangerous situation. Combine that with the fact that we don't want a low level drain on our batteries (such as an Emcotec or Jeti switch or even an ESC would impose) for an extended time and you have a safe contest environment -- arguably safer than we have today with physical arming switches, particularly when those switches can eject their arming plug and leave you with a dead stick aircraft that, depending on the setup, may also be uncontrolled.
Peter+
01-11-2015, 09:29 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key to understand here is that instantaneous current draw is used by the radio to integrate total mAh consumed, which is the electric equivalent of fuel consumed. While my radio receives that data (and displays it on a secondary screen) the information that is important to me is the integrated value which Jeti radios track and the fact that I can have alarms at 3000, 3500, 3700, and 3900 mAh consumed so I have time to set up for landing.
Volts are actually useless for measuring "amount of fuel (electrons) remaining" as at the point at which that data is sensed, you have massive variation depending on the load imposed on the battery (it's not like a static check on an unloaded LiPo that tells you roughly how much you've consumed from the battery).
Peter+
Volts are actually useless for measuring "amount of fuel (electrons) remaining" as at the point at which that data is sensed, you have massive variation depending on the load imposed on the battery (it's not like a static check on an unloaded LiPo that tells you roughly how much you've consumed from the battery).
Peter+
While I agree that instantaneous battery voltage is of low value for determining fuel used or remaining, It is a very good indicator that you have a cell or battery deteriorating and your instantaneous voltage is approaching the low voltage cutoff set in the ESC. That was the point I was trying to make. Fuel used warning(legal alarm) is good for saving batteries and low voltage warning(also legal alarm) is good for saving models.
01-11-2015, 09:54 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque,
NM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given systems like the Jeti MainSwitch and the Emcotec switch, I would suggest that "physical" is going too far. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that I can turn my airplane entirely off from my transmitter is more safe than an arming switch that a caller unfamiliar with my aircraft may forget to remove while they take my plane off the flight line.
I agree that relying solely on an ESC's refusal to arm until it hears a low throttle signal is not sufficient safety, but something along the lines of the emcotec or Jeti main power switches (which use banks of MOSFETs to do the equivalent of a high current relay) should be permitted -- that would require several systems to fail simultaneously to create a safety issue. The MOSFET bank would need to fail, the ESC would need to "hear" a stray low throttle signal to arm and then a stray non-low throttle signal start spinning the prop to create a dangerous situation. Combine that with the fact that we don't want a low level drain on our batteries (such as an Emcotec or Jeti switch or even an ESC would impose) for an extended time and you have a safe contest environment -- arguably safer than we have today with physical arming switches, particularly when those switches can eject their arming plug and leave you with a dead stick aircraft that, depending on the setup, may also be uncontrolled.
Peter+
I agree that relying solely on an ESC's refusal to arm until it hears a low throttle signal is not sufficient safety, but something along the lines of the emcotec or Jeti main power switches (which use banks of MOSFETs to do the equivalent of a high current relay) should be permitted -- that would require several systems to fail simultaneously to create a safety issue. The MOSFET bank would need to fail, the ESC would need to "hear" a stray low throttle signal to arm and then a stray non-low throttle signal start spinning the prop to create a dangerous situation. Combine that with the fact that we don't want a low level drain on our batteries (such as an Emcotec or Jeti switch or even an ESC would impose) for an extended time and you have a safe contest environment -- arguably safer than we have today with physical arming switches, particularly when those switches can eject their arming plug and leave you with a dead stick aircraft that, depending on the setup, may also be uncontrolled.
Peter+
1) While I understand that there are electronic systems that will electrically switch the power on and off, I would prefer that the CD not have to keep track of which systems can do that legally. It is not a great hardship to physically unplug the battery before returning the plane to the pits. After all, the plug will need to be pulled sometime.There are many ways to insure that the prop will not start spinning and I would expect pilots to be using several.
2) Some of the switching systems such as Emcotec are a "fail on" system. Great for in the air failures, On ground not so good. I'm sure the MTBF is huge for this device but I am not happy with the fault mode. Attention is relaxed after the model is supposedly safed.
3) I agree that an accident typically requires more than one failure occurring. One of those failures is always the pilot/caller not adhering to their own procedures for preflight and postflight. If we provide a way that others observing can see that a general rule is not being adhered to, the chance of an accident is reduced.
01-11-2015, 05:01 PM
#19
My point is that for there to be a safety issue with the Emcotec and Jeti systems is that you need a cascade of failures -- the switch would need to fail on, AND the ESC would need to get two opposite stray signals. Pretty safe. In the Emcotec case, you have a "remove before flight" flag, which is really just the opposite of the arming systems we have in that you remove to arm, replace to disarm. In the Jeti case, you need an explicit and continuous PWM signal generated either by a magnetic switch -or- by a powered on receiver to arm the main battery and then the ESC would need to get an arming signal from that RX.
Peter+
Peter+
