Actually I know of several aircraft that have been landed on one receiver because the other quit working for one reason or another. In fact I know that one of our local guys landed his 3.3M Yak (about $7000 worth of airplane) on one rx earlier this year. Jason Shulman told me he has done it several times and it is basically a nonevent as far as control goes. Chip Hyde advocates it and has claimed to have the system save airplanes as well.

While yes it is rare (thank GOD) that an rx fails...it DOES occasionally happen. I don't buy the argument that it doubles the chance of failure.........I wonder how many of you would choose to fly an airliner equip with a single engine vs two if you had a choice? Oh yea...I forgot....the FAA REQUIRES more than one engine for part 121 use (that means scheduled airlines) because it gives you a chance if you loose one of those very reliable engines. Same damn pinciple.

It is obviously not a gaurantee. S#$t happens that sometimes cannot be prevented and truthfully I am also quit convince that the leading cause of crashes is pilot error, but I am talking about simple straight forward redundancy in my very expensive airplanes and I take exception when a guy like Mike Hurley writes in an article in Flying Models calling me ignorant to do so. I have been at this damn near 30 years and I do know "a little something" about this. But perhaps I am ignorant after all.. I mean it must be correct since it is in the magazine right?

Leardriver