pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Scott
How about posting the exact verbage on all the BoD rules proposal that will be submitted to AMA. Part of the multiple survey issue was due to changing the proposals mid-stream. If you only took the first survey results, then for me it's wrong as I took the survey againg after the "change!" I am sure this affected a number of respondents. The results posted were very confusing so I went to the NSRCA site and it was still confusing but figured it out. It's probably just me but it was not easily understood. Thanks for posting it.
Dick

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Dick,
The new proposals are on the NSRCA website along with the results. I'm confused actually by your statement. There was no multiple survey, only the one. There was nothing being changed "mid-stream". We rewrote an alternative proposal that took out the arming plug but that was based on survey results and not part of the survey. My post prior was to simply state that we were listening.

Scott

pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Scott
Ok, the survey I took at the Arming plug as part of the saftey question. it was my understanding you took the arming plug out of the survey. I guess I miss understood. I thought I went back and took the survey again to support the proposal without the arming plug.
Dick

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

I understand sir.  Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about it.  I just wanted people to know we were listening.  There was too much nastiness going on and I was simply trying to settle things down.  Anyways, the ratified proposals are on the website and have been submitted to the AMA.  They are also available on AMA's website for viewing.

pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Scott
Yea, I went back to NSRCA site and found them.
Dick

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I can't make heads or tails out of the survey results posted here. And I really can't understand or see this talk about "What" and "How". Something about that discussion is going right over my head I guess. It still looks to me that the NSRCA BOD decided that the majority of pattern fliers flying electric models are not responsible enough to operate them safely and they are dictating some process that I practically guarantee is not done at the majority of practice fields and will only cause difficulties if anyone attempts to enforce this Safety rule at an event.

While I feel that the rest of the proposals are good, I really feel that this arming rule is going too far.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

I thought it was just me, I agree Tony.

Tim

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

The "what" is better known as a "requirement". The "how" is, for lack of a better way of saying it, how you meet the requirement. One of the things you are taught to avoid in engineering when specifying what a system must do is letting your concept of the implementation creep into the requirement. That's what you saw happen with the original rule proposal for the arming switch.Now, it's up to you how tomeet the requirement if the rule passes.

RByrd

My Feedback: (3)

So basically you leave the hatch off until you are ready fly.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

One way to go, for sure. Probably what Iwould do.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I can just see all the canopies blowing downwind after a dust devil moves through the pits.

We have lived for decades with all the dangers of IC engines without putting a single rule in to the pattern event about how you will start your engine, or how it will be restrained while you start your engine, or how it will be put on to the runway, or how it will be shut off or how it will be removed from the runway. Our normal process of having your model carried out by a helper to the runway, positioned for take-off, then picked up at the end of the flight isn't even in the rules. We allow people to go out on to an active runway without any process defined in the rules for their safety at every pattern meet I have been to since 1975. Why has that worked for all these years? Because for the most part we are responsible people who are interested not only in our own safety but the safety of the others at the field. That has worked pretty well up to now.

I'm sorry, I am against adding this rule to the pattern event.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Tony, if you had not noticed, I am not the author of the rule being proposed, nor am I trying to convince you that it is necessary to pass. I did try to clarify that since it has now been re-written in the form of a requirement, that you now have options as to how you will meet it if it does pass. If you don't like the idea of removing your canopy, theneither find another way to meet it, or maybe a way to defeat it instead.

Hey, that ryhmes!

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Ed, I never said you were. Don't see how you thought I did. I am simply voicing my opinion in this public forum.

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Well guys here we go again! It seems to me the last 3 years has been nothing more than a vast expansion of the "nanny state"! This updated fiasco smacks of a group of bureaucrats in search of a mission. We don't have to look far to see glowing examples of failures authorized by similiar types. Can anyone spell Solyndra or Chevy Volt? How about the "food police"? This just reinforces
(in a very small way) what has been a growing problem here in the USA! Ask yourself, when is enough enough? Not to strike a negative note, but like I said before, if you mess with something long enough under the guise of "making improvements for the sake of safety" you will achieve your goal (you will mess it up)! Wake up, life is all about taking risks! Just my thoughts, Everette

nonstoprc

My Feedback: (90)

To quote from the "disconnected power battery" requirement from RCA13-3 proposal (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...m.htm#10995145):

"ADD SECTION 6.9(A) TO THE SECTION 6 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
6.9(a) – Except when airborne, physically restrained or on the runway, all models shall have any batteries which drive the propeller disconnected from the Electronic Speed Controller and/or motor. This disconnected state must result in a break in the wiring and indication of the disconnected state must be visible at all times to observers."

Two comments:

1. Seems to me there are other ways to completely disable an E-power system, such as disconnect one wire to the motor. So why only the requirement to disconnect the power battery?

2. There is no similar requirement for IC-powered planes. Why not? Is it because we assume there is no starter onboard?

But I am happy that the requirement is excluded when the plane is physical restrained. Restraining the plane with a restrainer is all needed to bypass the requirement.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
Well, my plan is to install a webcam inside my plane, pointed at the ESC connector and have its video display on my iPad, which I will leave sitting on a stand in front of my airplane. . .
.
The advantage of this system is that I can release the IP address of the webcam to any interested persons so they can monitor my ESC worldwide or on the ISS . . .
.
Y'all are free to make this as complicated as you wish . . .
.

jetmech43

My Feedback: (9)

so I have to put a hole in my plane now....... hmmm interesting

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

I like it! Just be careful that you don't invade the privacy ofany cabin occupants (skeeters, moths etc). There are laws against that sort of thing you know...

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
No, just do this:
.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

No sir, you do not.

I think some of you are missing the main point to the safety proposal. The rule is intended primarily to "secure" or make safe aircraft in the pits. We all contend and agree that the flight line itself is fairly safe. I'm so surprised at how many folks are up in arms about the new proposal to be honest. There's a certain AMA Rules Committee member that completely lost his plane due to someone not disarming his plane in the pits in the past few weeks. The plane started up and went right through his plane destroying it. Maybe we should ask him if he feels everyone is safe. Even if you are safe, there are those that aren't. Not everyone is a professional and many are new to the sport or even just electrics. There was no rule for IC such as that proposed because IC planes don't just start up randomly because a cell phone goes off or the transmitter is shut down. If you have an electric starter on your pattern plane, you must really be light. I don't think anyone has that.

Everette, you and I had a very nice conversation on the phone. We talked about this "nanny state" and you agreed when we discussed the fact that the Safety proposal was the only thing that required anything and that was before the proposal was rewritten. In fact, all the other proposals reduce the "nanny state" more than ever before. Class Advancement - just pick your class and fly, Telemetry - ability to use more of the features provided by our technology, Weight - less restrictive.

cmoulder

OR, if you have the canopy off and there's no battery in the plane it's probably as safe as it's gonna get.

My ESC leads aren't long enough for the "stick" method.[]

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
I have to say that I totally agree with "safing" these electric airplanes whenever they are not being immediately prepped for flight or under direct physical control. I also agree that you cannot make a direct comparison with IC engines in this regard. Randy can tell you how paranoid I am about this at the field . . .
.
My only objection was going to a "what" "how" based rule instead of "how" "what" . . .
.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

OK, now I'm really confused. You were upset that there was a "requirement" of the arming plug. i.e. the rule telling you "how" you must prove your batteries are disconnected by adding an arming plug. You wanted to be able to do what you showed in your picture. We changed the rule to adopt this and now you want the "how'?

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
Perhaps you should consider my webcam technique?
.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
Edited. . . FIFY
.
BTW - you knew what I meant!!!
.