astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

EXACTLY! I agree that as participants in this hobby, we have an obligation to minimize risk to the non-participating public, even if it means that there is a higher risk that we suffer injury or harm. It is one of the prices to pay to play. Very simple, really. Kind of like the free flight contest video that was posted a while back. There should be no individual liablility posed on the participants in that event by the spectators who CHOSE to attend an event where they know there is an increased chance for harm as opposed to, say, staying in bed!

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

Agree.

I'm less convinced the hobby will be successful here. MLB is adding more extensive netting as a result of injuries to spectators. I think the concept of knowing of a risk is evaporating in favor of the injured party.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

There are differences. MLB spectators PAY to spectate. MLB is a for-profit venture. I believe they have more of an expectation of safety, where large profits are at stake.

I believe in survival of the fittest (WITHOUT stepping on anyone else's toes, or infringing on their rights). I have my thresholds for what I consider safe, others have theirs. I prefer we not legislate safety, for fear of living a completely vanilla, mundane existance in a world overpopulated with non-thinkers.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Sorry guys I'm not buying it. There are too many variables to accurately say which one has the more favorable odds of protecting the general public. That is unless either of you have accurate data. Perhaps this falls under what would be best for the flying site. Since the flying fields that I frequent are well away from the General public, there is virtually no risk to them should a loss of signal happen. The risk is to the participants at the field.

Now that being said, an actual failsafe event is quite rare. Most out of control situations are battery related with linkage failure being a close second. A Brown out is not a failsafe event. Since failsafe was introduced I have only had 1 failsafe event which I had all surfaces to neutral and engine off. The airplane glided into a hillside and was destroyed. However if flying a small model in a residential zone with minimal overflight to reach houses then the " all in " method my be best.

RCUer75345

Actually you've suggested more if the model is IC powered:

Hands up all those who fly IC powered models who think this is reasonable. For my money, putting a spring of any kind in opposition to a servo is generally bad practice. In this specific case, the spring will have to be strong enough to overcome the resistance of the servo with power off in order to close the throttle. No I don't have numbers but those of us who set up our own control systems know that it takes a few ounces to get the servo moving. So the servo will be fighting the spring all through each and every flight, drawing more current, running the battery down faster, and shortening the life of the servo.

Knee jerk solutions imposed by bureaucrats on the spur of the moment are rarely well thought out.

RCUer75345

I'm glad that meets your needs. I would not impose it on others without statistics showing how often loss of signal occurs and for how long. One size does not fit all.

My fail safe settings for power planes are generally set to the factory default: Hold the last position at signal loss. That gives me the best chance to regain control of the model, in which case I can direct it to a safe area or simply resume flying. I could support a fail safe which would "dump" it after signal loss persisted for an extended time -- say 10 or 15 seconds.

For sailplanes, I set my fail safe to motor off, full crow (flaps down/ailerons up) and full up elevator. This should put the model into a slow speed descent. With neutral spiral stability it will fall off on a wing anyway, no reason to force it. This doubles as a "thermal escape" mode.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm fairly sure that he ment adding ( modifying) the throttle gimbal. Do the new proposed regulation mention anything about equipment modifications?

init4fun

Grog is correct here , a spring heavy enough to force the throttle servo to the carb's idle position would quickly fry the servo , so the spring idea is not a solution .

Of course , gas powered models (with a spark ignition VS glow) can easily be equipped with an optical ignition cutoff that will kill the spark instantly should the TX and RX loose radio contact . I know of no such handy system for glow engine powered models , but I'm sure if it's that important some enterprising engineer should be able to come up with something . Perhaps a small "emergency battery" with a servo driver circuit that would electronically close the throttle in the event of radio system failure ?

init4fun

What happens with the throttle gimbal (in the transmitter) means nothing to the model who has lost radio contact with that TX , no , I'm pretty sure he meant a spring at the throttle servo itself , an unworkable idea as per my above post .

See ? I DON'T always agree with Franklin, or anyone else out here for that matter .

...... Hell , there are days when I don't even agree with MYSELF !

franklin_m

The wonderful thing is that I don't have to design YOUR system. You do, as you're the one who's obligated to "ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (emphasis added)."

So add redundant wiring, or batteries, or receivers, or all of them. You decide. And if something happens, you'll get your chance to tell investigators or litigators or a jury that what you decided was more than adequate - that 'accidents happen.'

RCUer75345

I've been asked by the OP to take this out of the EAA vs AMA thread, and since we're talking about failures and incidents, it seems an appropriate place to bring it up:

Not to hand the naysayers more ammunition, but there was a fatal midair collision in Germany in 1997:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=58711

A brief summary:
You can read the full report (auf Deutsch!) at this link:
https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikatio...ublicationFile

I applied Google Translate to some of the relevant paragraphs here:

Relevant to our current discussions, I see this case as a good argument in favor of the FRIA concept, and having FRIA locations marked on aeronautical charts. The Grob pilot violated the lower altitude limit of 600 m AGL for cross country flight in the area where the collision occurred. If he had known about an established flying site he might have paid more attention to his altitude - or been careful not to approach it from a direction where he was blinded by the sun.

RCUer75345

Or not. I use typical, practical, and prudent steps to reduce my operational risk. Such as making sure my solder joints are good and by battery connectors are snug. Such as making sure the wires aren't kinked. Such as checking my battery voltage before each flight. Such as verifying flight controls are "free and correct" before each takeoff.

That has served me well for over 40 years, and I don't propose to change anything until forced to. Experience shows it's entirely sufficient for my fleet and my usage.

franklin_m

Regarding your statement "if he (the Grob pilot) had known ... and he (the Grob pilot) might have paid more attention ... and (he) been more careful to approach..." - In the US, no matter what the manned aircraft does, FAR 107.37 clearly puts the responsibility on the unmanned aircraft operator. No exceptions. For your convenience, I've appended the applicable section below.


§107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

franklin_m

Again, if something bad happens, it isn't you that gets to decide whether something was "typical, practical, and prudent," the FAA or the jury does.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I say that it is the RC pilots' responsiblility to yield the right-of-way to a manned aircraft EVERY time. And is a better argument for a spotter than for a FRIA!

Astro

RCUer75345

Of course, and the model pilot stated that he took evasive action as soon as he saw the Grob:

And actually there is an exception, in that the regulation language contains the qualifier "unless well clear". If the Grob had been flying above the minimum enroute altitude, it would have been "well clear" and no evasive action would have been required.

Evidently a spotter was required to be on duty:

All I'm saying is a FRIA would have resulted in better situational awareness. If model aircraft operations are concentrated in known areas (FRIAs) full-scale pilots, as well as unmanned aircraft, can more easily avoid them.

RCUer75345

IF.

And if nothing bad happens, the issue will never be put to the test.

franklin_m

Some have said the current hullabaloo is unwarranted. Perhaps. But you cannot deny the fact that the public, media, regulators, and legislators are taking action none the less. Can you imagine what it will be like the first time something bad does happen?

My point to the AMA is that all it will take is one. One "Fast Freddy" at Mayhem Park that instead of pulling out of his high speed dive loses control and crashes his turbine in the middle of a busy interstate resulting in big pile up with injuries or worse. Or a slight change in circumstances that put the MR in New York through the windscreen of that helo and a resulting crash. All it will take is one. And yet they continue to take a hands off view of safety ... that it's the club's responsibility.

RCUer75345

Well why don't you go tell AMA that instead of posting it on a social media forum?

And what does it have to do with the NPRM?

franklin_m

I have. Despite losing on registration, losing on preservation of 336, and now Remote ID staring them in the face, the don't realize how precarious their situation really is.

Examples of irresponsible behavior by AMA members, especially when there's video supporting them, can be powerful influencers that this particular CBO should not be trusted to ensure the operations at FRIAs is as the FAA expects.

RCUer75345

And all it will take is one...commercial delivery drone that goes stupid and crashes in the middle of a busy interstate resulting in big pile up with injuries or worse. Or one that loses power and crashes through the roof of an occupied house, causing injuries or worse.

I haven't finished writing up my comments, so I'm thinking about adding a couple of items related to commercial delivery drone safety. I mean, these things are obviously going to be bigger, heavier, and probably faster than typical model airplanes; so their damage potential is greater. In addition, projected numbers are much greater than the number of model airplanes, further increasing the risk. So it's entirely appropriate to recommend risk mitigation, such as:

Requiring all UAS used for commercial delivery purposes to undergo a formal risk analysis, and prohibiting commercial operations unless the manufacturer can show all flight-critical components have a MTBF of not less than 1,000,000 flight hours.

For each flight critical component having an MTBF of 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 flight hours, a backup component shall be provided. The system shall auto-detect failures and shall be capable of continued operation with one component failed. For a non-simultaneous second like failures, the system (if fixed wing type) shall be controllable to a safe landing. If rotary wing type it shall immediately enter a vertical descent to impact. (In the flight control business we call this "fail-op/fail-safe")

Furthermore, given the low altitudes at which such systems will operate, they shall at all times be operated such that, considering the current velocity vector, a total loss of control will result in impact no closer than 100' to any person, vehicle, or building, other than the intended points of departure and landing.

Ya wanna fly pizza to my neighbor's house? Fine with me -- just keep the thing 100' away from mine. Houses in the neighborhood not separated by 200'? Too bad. Safety is paramount, ya know.

Now would you like to help me word it more properly?

franklin_m

I think you're off to a great start. I really think you should write that up and submit it.

mach5nchimchim

nice planes and flying site...

franklin_m

Again, what a coincidence that you hail from the same spot as SpeedRacerTrixie. I also noticed that of your three total posts, two are quoting him. The coincidences are just stunning.

mach5nchimchim

Who's this guy?