RE: Is it true?
 

:D

Bill,

You said exactly what I was gonna say. (By the way, I should maiden that profile sometime late this week, maybe I will do some tail touches and ruddergrabs and send that picture to the AMA).

RE: Is it true?
 

been teaching folks to fly since 64, fixed wing, rotorwing since 83,and have yet to ever use a buddy cord for the first time.
a good instructor can make the pass the box method work very well.
i know the instructor refrenced in the incedent, and he was amoung the best. and the student wasn't a raw greenhorn, but rather moving up to a larger heli and getting experienced help to set it up properly.

RE: Is it true?
 

Ok, so you are validating thats what happened.....

Being an old timer doesn't make it right. In fact, I'm getting up in years too and have to work double-hard to realize that I need to take advantage of technology and keep an open mind that my old way may no longer be the best way. And, I learned on the "pass" the Tx technique before buddy boxes were invented.

I disagree and I think the AMA should permanent ban this method of teaching which is often used as a replacement for spending the money on a buddy box and cord or dealing with it as a quick fix to forgetting the cord at the field. It is less safe than giving two people a shot at saving the aircraft and a life. The days of passing the Tx are over...we should be thankful and give its well deserved RIP. Not saying that it would have saved this tragic situation but tragic situations are typically the result of cumulative errors of safety and mistake. Of course, the AMA would never endorse the validity of any training method because it might invite culpability but they could add it to the Code of Conduct.

RE: Is it true?
 

you didn't read, or didn't understand my whole post.

when you set up anothers pilots heli, you do not do it with a budy box, you do it with their tx. when you have it right, you give it , the tx, back to them to try out. then you make any changes that they want or desire in the set up after they have flow it. it is not "training" in the classical sense. this student was beyond needing help to hover etc. his heli.

RE: Is it true?
 

hovering is a boring stunt anyway...its been done! move on to something else that is exciting. why do people have to do the same stunt over and over? get creative and invent a stunt not copy somebody else's tired routine!

just my 02

john

RE: Is it true?
 

Hell, these new rules will eleminate 2/3 of the flyers at my club from flying, since none of us can land a plane without having the tail, wingtips, and the nosecone touch the ground.:D

Sounds like a few more rule makers who want publicity and atta boys for "doing something positive" to protect the welfare of us flyers. More rules that are made by fiction instead of fact?

Scott

RE: Is it true?
 

blue62,


Hovering is not really boring for those who are learning to do it. Maybe you should try it b/c its usually those who cant do it who cry about it. AND tail touching does add a little something else to hovering. Everything we do is copied in some form or another. If you have ever done a roll or a loop or a low pass maybe you should take your own advise and come up with something different.

Just my 0.000000000001 worth

RE: Is it true?
 

Well thats much worse....

I'm not familar with Helicopters...but there is something completly wrong with setting up someone elses very, very complicated transmitter, (so complicated they haven't taken the time to learn its complications) in the air, and then handling it to them blindly with the friggen thing in the air. These transmitters have gotten way, way too complicated for that. Even with all of your experience, I bet you I could set up that 9H to crash the helicopter and there wouldn't be a darn thing you could do about it after I handed over to you and whispered "good luck" in your ears.

What you describe is even less safe than I imagined..... It seems obvious to me that the AMA with all their care about the stupid things can't see the obvious unsafe things right in front of their face.

If you can't set up your transmitter or trim or radio to fly your aircraft....you are NOT trained by any definition that I understand...you are, for all intensive purposes, still a co-pilot.

RE: Is it true?
 

Hey guys, join the fight:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Save3D/

Here is our point of organization. Your memebrship in this Yahoo group and letters/emails to AMA will help.

Web site to come.

RE: Is it true?
 

The field I fly at is non-AMA, just some open land that we use to fly. So I'll continue to tail touch as long as I please. Being that my field is not a club or AMA I am not an AMA member, but from my understanding the AMA is just an insurance company right? It's a new rule not a law. So I would think that this rule would only come into play IF there was a claim filed with AMA where it could be proven that a tail touch was intentionally performed during the flight in question, right? Wouldn't it then be up to individuals whether or not they wanted to do tail touches? Or does a club that is part of the AMA enforce these rules as law at their fields?

RE: Is it true?
 

Correct, you are not familiar with helicopters and their operation. Setting up a helicopter is not something that can be just picked up from reading a book or surfing the net. It's 40% tech skills, 40% art and 20% black voodoo. You need an experienced pilot to test fly because as a new pilot you have no reference on how a heli is supposed to feel in flight. A computerised heli Tx is much more complicated to setup than a 4 channel trainer. A newbie can't setup certain things because it requires the heli to be flown through certain maneuvers (climb, descent, autorotations, max pitch settings, engine settings, tailrotor compensation etc.) Any mistake in programming the Tx can result in a unflyable heli, there is absolutely no leeway. Changing the length of a few control rods can completely change the flight characteristics. Using a Buddy Box during initial training is useless. While learning to hover close to the ground - the first maneuver to start with - any mistake will crash the heli faster than you can release the trainer switch.
When taking about swapping transmitters it wasn't meant to say to do this while the heli is in flight. You can't scratch your ***** while the heli is flying let alone hand over a Tx.
A expert heli pilot like Curtis Youngblood or Alan Sazebo can take hours or days to tweak a newbies heli to make it fly right. Once the novice knows how a heli flys, he/she can then adjust their own settings.

Fritz

RE: Is it true?
 

Nothing you said changes my opinion. I have a 9C which is nearly as complicated as a Heli and I already think that that radio is too complicated to be changing in flight and handing it over to someone to see if they can "handle" the surprise changes I've made.

Too me, this trategy has a very specific and predictable cause....related mostly to AMA not keeping their rules up with how complicated current radios are.

1. If you cannot adjust your own radio, you have no business flying. I don't care what your flying, who you are or what club you belong to. You need to develop those skills (by making small incremental changes) to understand them enough to realize the radio related to the vehicle is "not right" and how to handle that case instaneously with skill.

2. You should never hand over a radio to another flyer while a flying vehicle is in operation if that radio has been changed in any manner from the last time that same person flew with that radio. Thats a surprise best dealt with during takeoff so the crash is instantaneous and has the least liklihood of damage to people or things.

I believe the facts of this case will show that the Tx was handed over in flight....we'll see.

RE: Is it true?
 

10) I will fly my model aircraft only after I have ground tested my radio and have the required understanding of its switches, toggles and trim levers to adjust it safely on the ground or in flight. I will never hand over my radio to someone else while it is controlling the model aircraft in flight who is unfamiliar with the current settings and operation of the radio or the aircraft.

AMA needs to add this rule to its Code of Conduct.

RE: Is it true?
 

First off, if you know anything about physics, airflow, mass, pressure, flight dynamics, relative wind speed, relative ground movement then there is no definition of 3D. Every maneuver is the same no matter whether in straight in level or in hover. The same basic principles of flight exists in every maneuver. The only thing different is the position of the plane relative to the person viewing it and how he/she is controlling it. All flying is the exact same, the only difference is how it looks to the viewer. Do I fly in hovers, yes. Do I fly the pattern while harriering, yes. Is there a difference? Not at all.

There is no such thing as 3D flying. There is flying, and there is crashing. Before you argue about what is 3D and think that it maybe unsafe. Learn before you talk. This thread is a bunch of BS.

As much effort as you type in this thread about tail-touching you should state a letter to the AMA concerning your opinion. Tail touching is not illegal, it is just not covered under the insurance. I'll do it when I want, where I want. If someone gets hurt, my homeowners will cover it.

RE: Is it true?
 

There really is 2 threads in this discussion...a moderator needs to split them.

RE: Is it true?
 

I can't quite see which side you're on here, though I guess you are a 3D pilot. To say there is "no such thing" is silly, if you want to argue that you're on your own.

If you fly at a club that sees the AMA safety code as the Ten Commandments, you won't be doing it there. If you're on your own, fine. Support those of us that aren't. You can say it's not illegal, but if you attend a IMAA event in Muncie ("I don't do IMAA" isn't a fair answer) will you do it there if you want to? And if yes, what will you say when the safety officer says "YOU-leave!"?

Any way. we will do our best to save the 3D rights of those that fly 3D, even if some don't actually buy into the term 3D

Gordo

RE: Is it true?
 

uhhh...Im no scientist but there is a such thing as 3D flight. Its flight beyond the stall. To argue that there is not a difference in a stall and horizontal flight would be ridiculous. I think I understand what your saying but how about clearing it up a bit.

RE: Is it true?
 

My only complaint with hovering, other that it's relatively boring to watch after awhile, is that 99 percent of model airplanes are not designed to do a tail touch. Use a rubber rudder, etc. pick something, that lets the airplane maintain it's flying configuration when a MISTAKE is made and it's a different story.

It is a question of percentages. Our hobby is dangerous, we have a prop going at flesh and bone cutting speeds. BUT, we have learned to handle the machine under the conditions where flight is performed. We don't expect to fly with part of a prop, tail, wing, etc. You don't fly intentionally to try to break the prop (low high speed passes are made with some ground clearance intended, prop strikes are unintentional), why do it with a tail touch, the key word being touch. Once touched how do you stop from breaking it other than luck? Are you really that good that you can make up for all of the factors involved that can cause a break? I sincerely doubt it.

Inverted helicopter flying is different than hovering, you don't intentionally try to touch the ground with the blades.

STLpilot, you said, "First off, if you know anything about physics, airflow, mass, pressure, flight dynamics, relative wind speed, relative ground movement then there is no definition of 3D. Every maneuver is the same no matter whether in straight in level or in hover. The same basic principles of flight exists in every maneuver. The only thing different is the position of the plane relative to the person viewing it and how he/she is controlling it. All flying is the exact same, the only difference is how it looks to the viewer. Do I fly in hovers, yes. Do I fly the pattern while harriering, yes. Is there a difference? Not at all. "

I have been a prof aero engineer since 1965, I worked on the F-4, F-15, F-18 and various advanced design projects for McDonnell Douglas (before it became Boeing). What you say is true in the sense that saying night is dark and day is light.

Every aero engineer knows that there are many flight regimes, amoung the many (but not all) that can be listed are takeoff, landing, climb, cruise, combat, intercept, high angle of attack, post stall, etc, etc. We worked fairly hard in being sure we covered all of them in our design work.

Hovering or 3D flight is considered just one of those regimes. Saying the same basic principles of flight exists in every maneuver is TRUE, BUT, not very precise or knowledgeable. Each regime of flight will put emphasis on a particular aspect of the airplane airframe or propulsion system that is needed to optimize the airplane flight for that regime. In that respect there is a large difference between hovering and level flight or high G maneuvering. We spend many hours working on those different regimes.

Your statements did nothing to show or support the validity of your statements.

Ben

RE: Is it true?
 

Ben, I'm running like crazy trying to keep up with all this, so my statements come of terse, I don't mean it that way, just trying to be short. In no particular order:

Yes, actually helis do touch the grass w/ the blades, and even touch fence posts w/ a pin in the head.

Planes fly fine w/o rudders and the chances of damaging a rudder are very slim. I've lost a pull-pull twice, no biggies, fly slow, land, fix. hover again. If we're talking odds, the statistics aren't there to show danger in 3D, but they sure are there for new pilots!!! 5 crashes in or near the pits this summer alone. Though I crashed about 200 times, all were benign belly or back flops on the runway, no damage but to my pride.

Rudder touches by the thousands resulted in zero reported accidents, according to the AMA, what is the real issue? It's not safety.

Thanks

Gordo

RE: Is it true?
 

Ok, I'll bite. I know a lot about Newtonian (F=ma) and Einsteinian physics as well as chemistry (pv=nRT) and flight theory (drag coefficient)...but I have no idea what your talking about....[sm=rolleyes.gif]

3D is just some made up name for a class of flying....like Pattern, Sport, Scale, Fun-Fly.... Being a physict, chemist or biologist has really nothing to do with anything. There is no definition of any kind (type) of model airplane flying in my physics books. We as hobbyists define the term.

RE: Is it true?
 

Ummm no. Flight beyond a stall is 3D? That is your lame definition, please. You may need to pick up a book and read about the physical properties of flight. First, I would like to hear your definition of a stall. Then get back to me.

What I am doing is trying to do is not define 3D as any type of flight because there is no such thing as 3D. If the plane is in the air and not on the ground then it is flying no matter what position it is in. Stop using the term 3D so much and it won't be defined.

RE: Is it true?
 

Sorry Gordo,

I meant the first part to be a general comment about the half dozen commenta above, not you in particular (like this one is).

Ben

RE: Is it true?
 

Where is that documented? Is it posted somewhere? Who is the author?

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

See the main thread in Fun Fly. Dave Brown says he has no reports of any incidents involving 3D.

RE: Is it true?
 

STLPilot,

No thats not my lame definition thats the definition accepted by 99.9% of the pilots out there. When we give something a name we are establishing a reference. According to what you have said there is no difference in any type of flight which would include such things as a roll, loop, snap roll, or a stall, its all flight. Yes, these things happen in flight but they are distinguishing factors just like 3D. If you were to roll the aircraft 4 feet off the deck would you and someone ask what you just did would you tell them you were flying?
Off of the top of my head I would define a stall as the sudden loss of lift due to the disruption of airflow over the wings. I could go into lengthy explanations of different types of stalls and how they are achieved and recovered if you would like. I have been around airplanes since I could walk and I have designed a couple of my own wings a time or two. I currently have a 3D model in design now. My point of telling you all of this is to make you think before you open your mouth. You sound very arrogant, sort of a know it all that probably knows just enough to get your arse in a crack if you were to have a discussion with any real pilot. Now maybe you should go back and polish up on your airplane knowledge as well as your social skills.

Have a Nice Day :)