RC Pattern Flying Discuss all topics pertaining to RC Pattern Flying in this forum.

R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Reply
Old 05-21-2012, 05:58 AM
  #26
klhoard
 
klhoard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 1,289
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215
. . .<snip>. . .
The RC Aerobatic rulebook has eight safety rules including:
6.1: The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from using equipment which in the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.
.
That rule is so nebulous that a CD could walk up and down the flight line disqualifying every single airplane. Why does that rule have to be repeated in the Pattern section when it is just a copy of the authority every CD running a Fun-Fly has?
.
Did the NSRCA take a look at the Pylon and C/L Combat SIG's helmet rules to see if we could incorporate them into our operation?
.

klhoard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 06:02 AM
  #27
jonlowe
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 638
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: klhoard


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215
. . .. . .
The RC Aerobatic rulebook has eight safety rules including:
6.1: The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from using equipment which in the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.
.
That rule is so nebulous that a CD could walk up and down the flight line disqualifying every single airplane. Why does that rule have to be repeated in the Pattern section when it is just a copy of the authority every CD running a Fun-Fly has?
.
Did the NSRCA take a look at the Pylon and C/L Combat SIG's helmet rules to see if we could incorporate them into our operation?
.

Shhhh, don't give them any ideas!
jonlowe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 06:02 AM
  #28
smcharg
 
smcharg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 390
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Jon,
   You're right.  My apologies.  I did not see in the "logic" where it was defined that the "weight limit" was what was currently enforced i.e. the 115g would be good.  As far as voting goes, I did not abstain but please understand I was NOT asking Mr. Lockhart to do so but I am under the impression that's what happened because there is one less vote on that proposal vs. the others.  None of the 3 BoD members that were on the Rules Proposal Committee was asked to do so and in retrospect, that was probably the right thing to do.  It wouldn't have affected the outcome however so I do fall back on that to sleep at night.  
smcharg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 06:05 AM
  #29
jonlowe
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 638
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND

Jon,
You're right. My apologies. I did not see in the ''logic'' where it was defined that the ''weight limit'' was what was currently enforced i.e. the 115g would be good. As far as voting goes, I did not abstain but please understand I was NOT asking Mr. Lockhart to do so but I am under the impression that's what happened because there is one less vote on that proposal vs. the others. None of the 3 BoD members that were on the Rules Proposal Committee was asked to do so and in retrospect, that was probably the right thing to do. It wouldn't have affected the outcome however so I do fall back on that to sleep at night.
Peace!
jonlowe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:00 AM
  #30
mjfrederick
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs, LA
Posts: 1,175
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: klhoard


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215
. . .. . .
The RC Aerobatic rulebook has eight safety rules including:
6.1: The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from using equipment which in the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.
.
That rule is so nebulous that a CD could walk up and down the flight line disqualifying every single airplane. Why does that rule have to be repeated in the Pattern section when it is just a copy of the authority every CD running a Fun-Fly has?
.
Did the NSRCA take a look at the Pylon and C/L Combat SIG's helmet rules to see if we could incorporate them into our operation?
.

We might be better served with shin guards.
mjfrederick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 05:18 PM
  #31
jetmech43
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 1,665
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

or one of these http://www.armorvenue.com/ab0024.html
jetmech43 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 11:17 AM
  #32
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Keith,

If you take exception to this rule, go talk to the AMA. I suspect it has been in the rulebook forever, so why don't you contact the AMA, find out when it was proposed, by whom, and who was on the contest board at that time. Then take it up with them. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the NSRCA, except for the fact that we have not asked for it to be removed.

John
jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #33
klhoard
 
klhoard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 1,289
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215

Keith,

If you take exception to this rule, go talk to the AMA. I suspect it has been in the rulebook forever, so why don't you contact the AMA, find out when it was proposed, by whom, and who was on the contest board at that time. Then take it up with them. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the NSRCA, except for the fact that we have not asked for it to be removed.

John
.
Maybe I'll just stop by during the Nats . . . . It is right on the way to Site 4. . .
.

klhoard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 01:49 PM
  #34
smcharg
 
smcharg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 390
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: klhoard

.
Maybe I'll just stop by during the Nats . . . . It is right on the way to Site 4. . .
.

It's also on your way to Site 3. Move up!

smcharg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 06:42 PM
  #35
klhoard
 
klhoard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 1,289
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Quote:
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
Quote:
ORIGINAL: klhoard
.
Maybe I'll just stop by during the Nats . . . . It is right on the way to Site 4. . .
.
It's also on your way to Site 3. Move up!
.
Y'all are a bunch of Doo-Doo heads over at Sites 1 and 3. We got it going on over at Site 4 . . .
.

klhoard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 07:03 PM
  #36
grcourtney
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: huntsville, AL
Posts: 864
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

The grown ups say poopy heads..

g
grcourtney is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 08:47 PM
  #37
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Scott Smith


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215
...they will not even consider a proposal that increases the weight for AMA classes. I would like to see a justification of that position.
That seems like a reasonable request, speaking for District 1:

- Masters would be mostly impacted (since the development classes already have an increase) and 68.6% of the Master’s pilots that took the NSRCA survey voted against an increase.
- Not a single person from my district contacted me with a desire to have the limit raised; not this cycle or the prior.
- Popular vote aside, while raising the weight limit may decrease cost for some in the short term, I believe it will increase costs in the long term.
- I do not believe raising the weight limit will have an effect on participation at the local or national level.
- What action would we take in the future when people are butting up against the higher limit? Raise it yet again?
- The last rule cycle contained a weight increase for the development classes, give it time.
- I feel it is important to maintain the integrity of the sport which is bounded only by 2m and 5kg.

Scott
Scott,

we could argue all day to no avail about your rationale, all of which have had counter-arguments put forward. I certainly understand and respect your position. I am still left somewhat aghast at the fact that the "penalty" weight increase proposal passed instead. It seems quite clear that the weight rule right now has both a weight limit and a penalty for going past that number.
The NSRCA proposal amends only the weight not the penalty. The Lockhart weight proposal changes both the weight and the penalty. Under that proposal, you can fly at the Nats up to 5500 grams, same as the NSRCA proposal. However, the penalties for exceeding 5000 or 5115 effectively eliminate anyone from contention that exceeds the weight limit. Even the 5% amounts to over 1/2 point per maneuver.
Since this is a Nats rule only, a masters pilot who shows up in Muncie with a plane that weighs in with the calibrated scales at 5002 after spending a lot of money getting his plane to weigh 4998 on his scales, will be told that a 5% penalty applies to his flight scores. Upon being told that, most would be on the road home, never to return.
Something that is missing here that was in our proposal is adding the 50 gram tolerance regardless of scale calibration. This tolerance allows not so much for the accuracy of the Nats scales but the accuracy of the scales back home and hopefully eliminates the above scenario.
The Lockhart proposal was clearly created as an alternative to the NSRCA proposal that would maintain the weight situation status quo without appearing to do so. Since its raison d'etre hs been removed, it should also be allowed to quietly sink into oblivion.
I hope that the contest board can find a way to add the 50 grams in as a weight tolerance, not a Nats scale calibration issue.The FAI sees it that way and it makes sense. Hopefully it will prevent surprises at weigh-in.

John



jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 07:48 AM
  #38
grcourtney
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: huntsville, AL
Posts: 864
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

I see it differently if you are a" serious" NATS competitor you will make weight and all other rules that pertain ... period.. If you do not then you are not. Period.. No rule or penalty will concern you... The rules as they are are attainable it has been proved over and over year in and year out.. YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gary
grcourtney is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 07:04 AM
  #39
TonyF
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,077
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Not to worry. The Final Vote is out and the CB failed to pass any of the proposals. So after all of this there are no changes to any of the rules.
TonyF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 04:36 PM
  #40
stuntflyr
 
stuntflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 1,881
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: burtona

It seems to me if these are to be enforced as AMA safety rules then they should not be specific to only pattern events. Let's take them out of the Pattern specific rules and turn the issue over to AMA for them to consider as general safety rules or part of the Safety Code.
Dave
This is right on target. It should be a safety code regulation.
Chris...

stuntflyr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 12:54 PM
  #41
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Chris,

I take it you have never seen a 3000 watt or equivalent 11 pound airplane at full throttle on the ground with the radio off. I hope you never do.

AMA is not addressing this problem, probably because they think of electric models as weighing less than one of our motors. One of our planes could kill.
At our spring contest, I checked failsafe operation and found that 40% did not have failsafe properly set. None were full throttle problems but in some cases that was just lucky.

Since the AMAis not going to take any action, I feel that it is up to us to ensure safe operation of our models. Once checked at a contest, they will also be safe at the club field during open flying. While we are, in general, some of the most experienced and knowledgeable flyers at our club fields, we are all capable of making stupid mistakes. I know I am.

John Gayer
jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 02:44 PM
  #42
danamania
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Stewartsville, NJ
Posts: 415
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

From a practical point-of-view there is more than one way/device to secure the model on the ground.  If safe operations are the goal, we might allow ourselves more than one route to achieve the goal than mandatory arming plugs which are controversial.  Thoughts?
danamania is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 07:37 PM
  #43
MTK
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215

I take it you have never seen a 3000 watt or equivalent 11 pound airplane at full throttle on the ground with the radio off. I hope you never do.

John Gayer
Not a 3000W but how about an 700W? Range checking a 48" Vanquish with failsafe not set caused the crate to go full throttle into the back of my van. Scared hell out of Joey Lochowski and Eddie Alt who were helping me set it up. I was the guy walking the TX away. Lesson learned.

Setting failsafe should be the first thing we do after getting one ready to fly. Frankly, I don't fly e-power and it didn't occur to me that the motor was active; heck the prop wasn't turning so I was safe.....Wrong!
MTK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 09:42 PM
  #44
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Just one time turning the TX off first with failsafe misset will ruin your day. Can also happen with IC engines. Say after landing with engine still running on the runway, get distracted, turn TX off.....
More common is leaving the throttle as a failsafe hold rather than low idle. Losing link for any reason with throttle not at idle will be a problem. Seen cases where link was lost shortly after takeoff in climb with wings level. You may never find the pieces...

A failsafe that is not set up properly is an accident waiting to happen. From a pattern perspective, I recommend that CDs run a failsafe check during registration and help correct any issues before flying starts onSaturday. Before I fly an electric for the first time I check all combinations of power up and shutdown to check failsafe operation, including confirming that this particular ESC will not turn a prop without a valid TX throttle signal. This testing is done in a stand that secures the model. Ever try to control a pattern plane sitting on the runway at full throttle and find a switch or shorting plug that will shut it down?

Another important function to use is the throttle cut. This sets throttle at full idle and deactivates the throttle stick. This should be on for an electric at all times if you are not intending to fly or taxi. Prevents problems due to TX tipovers, neck strap entanglements or just a wayward hand movement.

Even though you will see incidents due to misset failsafe occurring not infrequently at a busy field, I guess we will wait until there is a serious accident and lawsuit before the AMAwill take any action.

John
jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 09:57 PM
  #45
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

I set up my electric planes with failsafe set to throttle off.
I confirm proper operation on the ground.
I also confirm that the ESC will cut off power to the motor if the RX is turned off.
If it does not, I will not use that brand any longer.

I have my planes set so the default turn on condition has a zero throttle curve.
The default also requires that the throttle be near full low in order for the RF to transmit.
In order to fly I need to flip a switch to a certain position AND move a slider above the midpoint.
Both those positions are required for any of the flight conditions where a non-zero throttle curve exists.

I also use an arming device made by Emcotec that is installed between the batteries and the ESC.
The ESC cannot receive power until the RX is on AND the magnetic plug is removed.

If the TX is turned off, the motor dies.
If the RX is turned off, the motor dies.
If I get a lockout, the motor dies.
If the Emcotec SPS fails before the radio is turned on, no power can get to the motor.
If the SPS fails after the TX and RX are turned on, the motor dies.

To transmit the TX must see a low throttle, a switch in a certain position, AND a slider at full low (this slider also acts as the throttle trim).
To power the motor the switch must be moved AND the slider must also be moved.
If either thing does not happen, the motor will not see a throttle curve and the stick can be moved with no response.

Not sure what else I can do, but I feel very comfortable with my set up.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 02:45 PM
  #46
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

If everyone were as thorough as you, we wouldn't have a problem.
It is very unlikely, but if the Emotec switch fails it will fail closed which energizes the ESC . They are/were? considering producing one that will fail open. As far as I know it is not yet available.

John
jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 09:09 PM
  #47
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jgg215

It is very unlikely, but if the Emotec switch fails it will fail closed which energizes the ESC .
According to what they told me in an email just a few weeks ago the only way it can fail with power is a hard short. If it is on and blows a MosFET it will stop working. If it is off and something fails in it (again, anything other than a hard short) it will not energize the ESC. I've been using one of these for a couple of years now and so far it has performed flawlessly, which is why I put them in everything else.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 07:09 AM
  #48
jgg215
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 214
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

That's great news as it is a very nice product. Guess they did some more research into their failure modes.
jgg215 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:30 AM
  #49
Brenner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgman, MI
Posts: 721
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

The problem with the Emcotec arming switch is that it adds weight, which makes it all the more difficult to meet the 5000g weight limit.

If it's just a matter of setup, couldn't we just turn off the TX as part of the sound check to demonstrate that failsafe is properly set? There's a guy holding the plane during the sound check anyway, so instead of pulling the stick back at the end of the test, the pilot could just turn the TX off.

Brenner ...
Brenner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 09:58 AM
  #50
wattsup
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 599
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote

Brenner, I, like many others, could not agree with you more! But, just watch and see, a few will find your suggestion "just too easy".....Please submit your suggestion directly to the R/C Aerobatics Contest Board for consideration and hopefully, approval. Thanks, Everette
wattsup is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 AM.