Originally Posted by
donnyman
I do not wish to belittle and or criticize anything said thus far, my intent is to inject a level of sanity? into the situation.
If the two second rule existed how does one enforce it? fail safe systems could accomplish the shutdown but shutdown or no, loss of signal produces a uncontroled projectile and no rule is going to change that no matter what it is.
As I said earlier, drunk drivers continue to drive with or without a license, the rules can't stop that. Look at the list of child molesters, the list, and pictures, hasn,t stopped them.
I commend you for your concerns, but I know rules are only a guide and provide a means to administer disipline AFTER THE FACT. I have tried to prevent disasters and I find rules do not accomplish the task. How many times has the established speed limits on our highways been exceeded?
Another appproach has to be used and it starts with each individual.
Respectfully..................DONNY
In dealing with any number of real world events, I've observed that "There is no problem that can't be made worse." Sooooo, let's say we have that out of control airplane and it's going to crash. One of the premier operators, Bob Violett, said that "Experience has taught us that if the engine is switched off just seconds before impact, the probability of a fire is greatly reduced (note 1)." Therefore, why allow the engine to run w/o receiver control for 2 seconds, or almost 600' at 200mph, before it crashes? AMA's rule takes a bad problem and makes it worse by greatly increasing the chance of a crash AND a fire.
As for compliance? At events attended by the by the public, make it a condition of participation that failsafe be demonstrated. Start turbine on the ground, then event official shuts off signal and watches what happens. Given that AMA's recommended standoff is well less than 600 feet, I'd recommend a shutdown more appropriate to the distance one of these projectiles can travel before the motor shuts down (plus some safety buffer). So maybe more on the order of half-second?
The problem with many unfamiliar with public policy making and implementation is that they expect a single rule to solve all problems. In reality, compliance with any rule is imperfect, and it's a fabric of rules that result in the desired outcome. In professional aviation safety program management, we don't assume that any single think will prevent a mishap. We look for layers of protection, each imperfect, yet any single layer can prevent a chain of events (note 2). In aviation safety programs we go one further, and that is assume failures, and develop ways to mitigate the impact of the failures. That's why at full scale air shows there's seldom maneuvers that have the velocity vector pointed at the crowd. Yes, the Blues and the T-Birds do it, but that maneuver is tightly controlled and executed by some of the most well trained and disciplined operators in the world, flying some of the best maintained aircraft in the world, aircraft that have redundant flight control systems. And even then there's extensive plans on where to point the airplane if there's any sign of trouble.
So yes, I think the immediate things AMA could do would be to change the failsafe to less than a second for these heavy and fast aircraft. But AMA's got to step up to the plate and enforce, something they're loathe to do. Just go look at minutes from the July 2016 EC meeting. They admit they know there's a problem safety in the jet community, but they "don't want to drive away members." I think that speaks volumes...membership concerns affecting safety decisions.
Note 1:
Safety Issues
Note 2:
Accident Causation Model - AviationKnowledge