Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I found the article "Crashing is NOT an Option" by Don Apostolico in this month (November 2009) to be a great article full of useful information. Although expressly for the Giant Scale modeler, much of the information is pertinent to all model aviation enthusiasts. Lately, I think R/Cers in particular, seem to have a somewhat cavalier approach to flying, especially with the predominance of ARFS and RTF types of models. There is little sweat equity involved in these airplanes; so, the attitude seems: "If I crash this one, I'll just go out and buy another!" He points some very good points! In particular His Keys to model longevity are very good:

Carefully choose the correct Equipment
Set the equipment up properly.
Learn to fly with proficiency.
Regularly maintain the aircraft.

He also points out people who may be considered experts could be teaching bad habits to the new folks entering the hobby thereby perpetuating miss information and information gleaned form the Internet forums can also be totally incorrect, yet unchallenged by people who don’t know what they don’t know!

It’s my understanding this is the first of two articles on this topic! Thank you AMA, Model Aviation and Mr. Apostolico for this great information!

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

+1

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Years ago when I used to fly at Sepulveda basin, there were a number of "experts" who would grab an unsuspecting newby and volunteer as instructor. The problem is that while a lot of these guys had some stick skill, they were horrible teachers. Lesson 1; "I am totaly awsome, and you should strive to be just like me" Lesson 2;"Don't listen to that other jerk because he doesn't know how to buzz the runway inverted" Lesson 3;"All planes are doomed to crash, it's only a matter of when"

I liked the article, and agree that the "all planes must crash" attitude in not an absolute. One thing I would add to Don's list is; Learn to fly from someone who's biggest skill is explaining the principles, and has an attitude that crashing, while a possibility, is not a given.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

There must be a secret bar code on the radio system components that warns these guys who never crash as to which servos, batteries or switches are doomed to early failure?

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

IMHO. It all depends on what the meaning of the word crash "is" LOL!!! You can not convince me that setup is the "Main Problem" behind crashing Our models,no matter what it might be" Sooner or later you will have something fail beyond your control no matter how hard we strive to keep it from happening. Even though the article was OK, but I know there are many views that he has that many will not agree with.This is just Human Nature. Look at the History of General Aviation!!! crashes do and will Happen no matter how hard we strive to keep them from happening. Most of the article seems to be like a commercial for his Hobby Shop!
IMHO PILOT ERROR Is the Biggest problem. Reason being it is the responsibilty of the Pilot in Command to make sure that the plane is safe to fly.
BOTTOM LINE IS BE SAFE AND BY ALL MEANS HAVE FUN
jerrysu29 Call Sign Wild Man

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Nope. The ones who "never" crash still get bit by random equipment failures. Never in common vernacular being a sarcastic way of saying "seldom."

The only person who truly never crashes, never flies.

They just don't use random equipment failures as an excuse for poor piloting skills and/or poor maintenance habits.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I don't reacall anywhere in the article where he said he doesn't crash or has never crashed, or that following the four tenants stated above and in the article will eliminate crashing.

I also didn't see any place where he espoused his hobby shop. He did point out some equipment that will help keep crashes fewer and farther between.

I think far and away general aviation crashes are caused less from mechnical failures and more by human error.

I also think that if you fly them eventually they will crash; so, I disagree with his opinion on this. Because I disagree with him on a few ideas, I don't think diminishes the value of the article.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Combat,
I've saved myself several aircraft by doing a thorough preflight. I have a 50 cc extra 260 and noticed an aileron servo not working right, it turned out to be stripped. I also had a rudder servo on the blink on my big TF P-47, I found it during preflight. It worked, but didn't sound right.

I check all my batteries between every flight with a good checker, any battery that seems to drop prematurely, gets replaced.

Knock on wood, I haven't had an in air failure for several years. And, go ahead, if you are working your equipment hard, and buy upper line parts, not bottom line parts, such as servos and switches.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Yes, full scale general aviation and commercial aircraft crash. When they do it makes headlines. The point of the article is that the crash rate for models is much higher than it needs to be. Compared to full scale it is horrendous. Given the state of the art for high quality R/C stuff these days, the odds of having "random failure" is greatly reduced by proper selection, installation and diligent maintenance.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

As stated in the article about the full-scale industry learning from each crash. These same causes they are trying to stop, seem to repeat them self's, time after time, after time. Any Private Pilot that reads "Aviation Safety" can attest to this. He is correct about this being an Imperfect World though. I hate to dismay the masses but Full-Scale accidents repeat themselves day after day after day. They are the most preventable causes that kill people every year. Such Items as, running out of gas on takeoff. Forgot to put the correct amount of oil in the engine, engine locks up on take off. forgetting to lower the landing gear, and the list of these goes on and on. Many people are killed every year because of these most preventable, repeated accidents year after year after year. Know matter How hard we try, Accidents will and do happen no matter how simple.
jerrysu29 Call Sign Wild Man

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I'll make this one short WHY DO MODELS CRASH ? Because they have People Flying them, it's as simple as that! We can make a difference by trying to the best of our abilities to help others. Here is something that really ruins the Hobby for a lot of new people to the sport. EASY TO BIULD EASY TO FLY JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO AND GO FLY LIKE AN EXPERT RC PILOT.
jerrysu29 Call Sign Wild Man

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

There are planes and pilots that fit certain catagories.

1. They frequently crash.

A. Poor airplane design
B. Poor piloting skills
C. Poor quality equipment
D. Poor installation techniques
E. Poor or no pre-flight inspection

2. They seldom crash.

A. Well designed and constructed airframe
B. Well schooled and practiced pilot.
C. Top quality and proven equipment
D. Well though out installation. Redundancy where it counts.
E. Routine and thorough preflight inspection

3. No matter how well prepared and equippped, $&^% happens. [sm=cry_smile.gif]

Hey, JerrySU29. You do know that's a SU31 in your avatar don't you? I'm on my second H9 SU31. Love 'em.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

When you stop to consider how many thousands of electrical paths that need to work flawlessly to complete a flight, it's pretty amazing. Same goes for the mechanical side, from those tiny plastic servo gears on out.
How many of you do a full range check with the plane running and in your arms while you walk the boundaries of your field?

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Robotech. Almost forgot Yes it is and it is still flying Today.Allthough it has been through hell. many 100 hr Inspection's, Eqiupment update's ect. ect. I do like the SU29 better though LOL!!!!
jerrysu29 Call Sign Wild Man

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I really hope you are trolling and not serious here with this statement.

A regular range check as described on the manual of your radio manufacturer is sufficient. And with that mentality of electrical paths and mechanical failures is exactly what Don is referring to. A good pre-flight check can find those potential problems before they become a problem. It is up to the user and his approach to the hobby. People like you is exactly what this article is about.

Rafael

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

If you aren't intelligent enough to see how the range check I described can reveal problems that the "regular" check doesn't reveal, it's a waste of my time trying to explain it to you.

I will take the time to tell you that only a fool would try to pass judgement on my track record and abilities based on the case you are trying to make here. My advice to you is get a hobby that you can be good at. You'll feel so much better about yourself that you won't feel the need to insult guys to make up for your own failures.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Hey RaFael23cc. I think we might have misunderstood him. I believe he is explaining how he flies his plane while running around the field with the plane in his arms while leaving the Trans in the pilot box LOL!!! I Guess
jerrysu29 Call Sign Wild Man

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Jerry, you are the bravest keyboard cowboy I ever saw.


LOL

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I believe your keyboard has wings

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

There are many reasons an airplane crashes, model or full scale. The full scale industry has a full process to go through for airframe certification, pilot certification, required inspections, etc. We as model flyers don't have the same level of rigor, and we have a correspondingly higher level of failure.

Can those failures be anticipated and reduced? Yes. Are we willing to do the things that reduce those failures? There's the rub.

I have experienced in-flight failures that could not have been anticipated or identified as part of the preflight inspection. That doesn't mean those failurs cannot be engineered out of the system. A failure that cannot be determined by inspection is known in the engineering world as a hidden failure. If the failure cannot be identified prior to failure, and the results of the failure are unacceptable, then it needs to be designed out of the system.

Everyday we make choices about how we set up our planes. We decide if failure of the system is acceptable or unacceptable. The more you invest in the plane, the less likely you'll consider the failure acceptable. Do we put redundant batteries, switches, and recievers, along with power boxes, buffered inputs, etc, into the typical 40-120 sized planes? Yet those are exactly the things that will prevent a single point reciever or switch failure. Those items can and have failed in-flight. By not designing in the redundancy, we essentially decide that the consequence of failure is acceptable. For the GS flyers, these things are much more common, reflecting the greater investment.

Now the argument will be made that if we select components with a very high reliability, then the failure is less likely. True, but the failure is still possible. The discussion at this point is one of risk. Risk is defined as the probablity of failure multiplied by the consequences of failure (probability x consequence). Since probability can never be 0, the only way to eliminate risk, is to eliminate the consequence.

I think the article does a good job of starting the discussion, but there is a long way to go toward discussing each individual failure, and how the risk can be eliminated or reduced.

Brad

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Per combatpigg: "How many of you do a full range check with the plane running and in your arms while you walk the boundaries of your field?" Could you give more details, please? Do you have someone operate the TX while doing this?

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

BKD-
yup
haven't seen how to build much redundancy into the 12-16oz 1/2A planes yet

Take single conversion RXs,
obviously the article would have us stay away from them and always use the more expensive RX. Just who would be right to buy the singles then... will AMA ban single conversion as inferior and unsafer, or is it ok for members to use the equipment that nobody should use. I doubt AMA is going to declare single conversion RX are unsafe (like metal props), so we are free to take the single conversion option regardless of this Crashing Not Option article

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

I'd like to see ANYONE walk the boundaries of either of the fields where I fly, much less with a running plane in their arms. That would mean wading through mosquito infested swamps, fording rivers, and hiking up and down hillsides.

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Mode one, I had a fairly new plane with all new gear pass a "regular" range check and it flew great the first few flights but towards the end of one of the flights, it looked like it hit bad air over one section of the field. The next flight things looked great until it flew in the general area of the earlier disturbance and the plane went nuts, I was very happy to regain control and land it. Doing the "regular" range check again with the engine running at different levels did not reveal a problem. I cycled the on/off switch many times and manipulated the wiring going into the RX looking for a random wiring fault...still A-OK. I then left the radio back at the Jeep and went for a walk with the plane's engine running. I just left the TX on with the antenna extended. About 800 feet out as I walked toward the area where the plane lost the signal earlier, the servos all went nuts again, like they were being driven by a stray signal. I walked away from this spot and control went back to normal. I decided it was worth the time and extra effort to continue mapping out other problem areas at this field and found that the RX had similar range problems at 800-1200 feet [the limits of this field]. I swapped RXs with an older one that I carry and all the troubles went away. Whenever I bring out a new plane or new radio equipment I will take the time to do this test.
I fly .40 sized planes at close to 200 mph with concealed antennas, concealed linkages, etc., and high frequency vibration that tends to chew and burn up stuff that isn't mounted just so. The planes get very well inspected between flights, but there are no tests that can predict when any of the onboard equipment will fail and or drain a battery pack before you can count to 10..

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
 

Combatpigg, understand now and understand the logic of what your doing and think it's a smart idea. Did you ever figure out what was happening?