mongo

My Feedback: (15)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Crashes-Mount

in Australia for sure, but interesting none the less.

bogbeagle

"this means that if I identify a failure *I* get the chance to plant the airframe "


Oh, really.

So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?




Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"

It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.

Do I understand you correctly?

JohnShe

Jim and I discussed and agreed on the reliability issue. First, Bob, there are two sides to the coin here.

Side one, our hobby side, uses less than perfect equipment. To reduce hazard we operate under a set of rules that requires us to fly away from spectators, structures and other items of significant value. As a result, we ameliorate the low quality of our equipment by flying over empty fields.

The second side of the coin, commercial Drones, wants to fly by a different set of rules. These operators expect to fly over people, structures and other items of significant value. In order for then to operate safely, Jim & I believe that their equipment must meet a much higher standard that our hobby toys. This Stanford requires known levels of reliability.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

OH LORD do you mean his HobbyKing drone is not up to par??????????????

Dennis

JohnShe

You got it, it's a toy. But you can have fum till you crash it.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Do you comprehend the difference between "man rated" and "hobby rated"? Or should we get you that translator? The comment you took from an earlier post had to do with evaluating the utility of equipment for use by a commercial concern that may or may not be in the view of the pilot and may or may not be over unwary bystanders, and was stated as such in that post. What part of that flummoxes you? Or are you just looking for anything you can twist up to try and start a fight?

I clearly stated that I get to decide where the airframe is going when a servo fails. So again the question, why are you pretending to be stupid? Is that your best?


One of the differences between commercial applications and hobby applications is over people or not, and the most important is visibility. Almost all the sUAV stuff can (and frequently is) flown out of the visual sight of the 'pilot' but ALL hobby stuff is to remain (at least in the US due to AMA Safety Code issues) in the pilots sight. Many sUAV operators have (and probably will continue to - until some serious blood is let) flown over people. As several have posted some sUAV's have flown in what most certified pilots know as 'controlled airspace'. This is prohibited by our COB, but commercial operators are not 'ruled' or guided by the COB. Note that I am not opening the argument about less than 400 feet, that is an entirely different made up issue by another just looking for something to pick a fight over and misdirect the thread.

Please tell us if we need to get you a translator to explain the above to you in whatever language you call your native tongue.

bogbeagle

I see what you actually said.

Our stuff does not provide a "reasonable level of reliability" ... but, you are going to use it, anyway.

I'd like to see you argue that in court, when your 20lb model has just stoved in someone's rib-cage.





What difference does "visibility" make, when you have lost control of the model as a result of equipment failure?


The "controlled airspace" argument is a red-herring. No-one is defending those who do that, afaics.

Anyway, there is no legislation prohibiting the passage of free-flight models through controlled airspace ... should free-flight be banned/regulated?

What about children's toy planes? You could definitely "have someone's eye out" with one of those. In fact, it's arguably more likely that an injury would occur, when children/adults are using stuff like that.





I don't need a translator. I can see perfectly well that you want to impose your version of "safety" upon other people; but, that you feel a whole lot less comfortable when your own practices are questioned.

bogbeagle

Out of interest, I just calculated the energy available in a 10 kg airframe, travelling at just 40 mph ... it is slightly greater than the energy in a bullet from a .44 Magnum.

Increase the speed to 60 mph, and you have more energy than a .50 SW. ... a little less than a 7.62 x 51.




A 5 kg model, at 40 mph, has more energy than a .45 ACP. (about 25% more)




A 1 kg quadcopter, travelling at 20 mph (is that a reasonable speed for an out-of-control quad?) ... has the same energy as an airgun pellet (13 ftlbs)






What sort of models do you fly, Mr. Branaum?

NorfolkSouthern

About 3 years ago, I was flying a .40 sized pattern plane. I got it to "three mistakes high" to check its stall characteristics, and noted that it did not have a tendency to tip-stall, yet still required a good rate of speed when landing. I was about ready to do another test, but when making a turn I totally lost control of the plane. There was no input, and this was with a 2.4 ghz Spectrum. It was headed straight DOWN. This was at a legally sanctioned AMA field, and I still had my AMA membership at the time. That pattern plane crashed right in the middle of a school playground. Fortunately, that school was closed for the weekend, and no kids were out playing. It was traveling at roughly 90mph when it nose dived between a swing set, and a sand box.

This was a model airplane, and was NOT set up for FPV. It may have contained the same amount of energy as that 44 magnum bullet, but who knows. Its total weight was just over 5 pounds.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Man, after all this talk about failure rates I think I better start flying quad copters and doing FPV. At least they don't have servos and linkages to fail like inferior "regular" models do.

One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks


They know not what they do...just paving the road...

bogbeagle

Your 5lb, 90mph model had equivalent energy to a 7.62 short ... about 2000 Joules.


http://youtu.be/IIFkLAgGy6w?t=10s

Silent-AV8R

Since I have seen an abundance of hair splitting in this thread already, allow me to say that there simply is no such thing as "a legally sanctioned AMA filed."

AMA does not sanction, approve, legally recognize or in any other manner or means grant any approval of an RC flying site. AMA Sanctions contests/event and charters clubs, but they do nothing with respect to flying sites. They do have a set of recommended flying site set up guidelines, but there is no requirement that they be followed.

AMA will offer a club a policy which provides the site owner with primary liability insurance for a fee, but all you need to do is send the money and tell them who the owner is.

And for anyone who feels that even a small foamy airplane presents zero safety concerns I wonder if you would be willing to allow such a model aircraft to be flown into the face of one of your kids, or yourself for that matter?

JohnShe

Electronic components also have failure rates. The camera, transmitter, receiver and any other, more or less, pure electronic component can fail unexpectedly. Ideally, the components in certified commercial drones will have identified failure rates and required maintenance cycles. As a general rule, toys, that we fly for recreational purposes, don't.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

John,

That last couple of sentences seem to be beyond the comprehension of some foreigners who have no business in an AMA forum but want to pick fights. Since some think these FPV things are so very safe, I think it is a great idea that think they should all have to take a foamie at full throttle in the face, of the face of their children. Then they can personally attest to the rest of the world being wrong.


Flying in the wind today was . . . interesting!

cj_rumley

When I see you do this, I may accept that your convictions about reliability of RC model equipment are for real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw

NorfolkSouthern

That's a lot of the point I was trying to make. Also, bogbeagle did an interesting calculation. The energy force was the same as a 7.62x39mm round. That 7.62x39mm round is equivalent to the .308 Winchester cartridge which is popular for deer and other larger game hunting. Now again, this was a model airplane, essentially a drone used for non-commercial sport and recreation, and fully OK with the FAA and AMA. Part of this may be why I am so adamant about supporting features like FPV, and multi-rotors. I would rather have something that will stop and flutter if it can't make it back home by use of the GPS, rather than barrel into the ground and make a big hole like the plane I was flying that day.

Drones often get a bad rap that they don't deserve. Here is an illustration: A 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun can have the same power as a fully-automatic 30 caliber machine gun with a full 30-round magazine, if the right ammunition is used: 00 Buckshot, for example. Yet, that shotgun and ammo is just as legal as a .22LR lever gun, which packs only a fraction of the energy of the 12 gauge. A quarter-scale Extra 300 packs many times the amount of energy that is contained in a 2 pound quad copter flown FPV. Yet, there is little talk about regulating the quarter scale Extra while everybody wants to attack the what is essentially a 2 pound foamie with a camera. I find this rather interesting. A bad battery or faulty receiver can make that Extra wonder off for quite a distance beyond the flying field.

cj_rumley

Many don't want either the quarter scale Extra or the 2 lb foamie intentionally flying over people. How hard is it to understand what the topic is after 17 pages?

NorfolkSouthern

OK, how about unintentionally, like when a faulty battery is used or when a receiver mysteriously decides to reboot in the middle of a stunt? I've seen that happen, too. This one was a 50cc Yak, and it made a continuous loop, almost hitting one of the club members, until it finally buried its self about 20 feet away from a busy road.

JohnShe

Yeah, I think we are beating our heads against the wall. Most of these guys don't have a clue.

cj_rumley

How could that be? Several posters have given their testimonials about how reliable our model airplane gear is, inferring that it is sufficient for commercial UAV operations.

FWIW, I have dissed Boggie's input re reliability - he probably drives a British car, so what the heck could he know.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

AAARRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUCUS prince of darkness I know thee well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BSA= Bast turd Stopped Again

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ummm...I haven't made any statements of my convictions about our toys reliability...Just pointed out how quad copters, even with FPV have less mechanical things to go wrong...Its already been widely stated, by others, they are easier to fly...so easy in fact, many say you can just buy one and start flying and having fun immediately. But what the hey, lets keep throwing FPV under the bus....We all know "those" people that fly FPV are the dregs of society...there needs to be some law against them!

JohnShe

You just said that you think our model airplane toys are reliable. Actually, more than once.


Really, who said that?

cj_rumley

C'mon, man - you know I have spoken out on several occasions advocating AMA acceptance of FPV with reasonable rules, that is the same rules everyone else is expected to comply with, no more and no less. Once again, this thread isn't about FPV, it is about flying what are physically the same as our model airplanes outside of traditional/accepted model airplane flying venues.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Yea...not sure why you think I'm advocating anything less than reasonable rules for AMA members... ???