pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

In my opinion this falls under the heading of personal responsability and not legislated by someone else's idea of a rule. What this means is that you will have to leave the canopy off your aircraft at all times or install an arming plug on the exterior. So in effect they are telling us we will have to have an arming plug as it is not practical to not have our our very light canopies not secured. So at the nats or other fields where your car is not readily available your going to have to carry the canopy or devise some other method to secure it. It was my understanding being able to demonstrate a fail safe kill to ecu by the tx would surfice as meeting the rule. Now I learn that is not the case and by default this WIIL require an external arming plug. I am totally against this and ask that anyone who feels as I do call or write AMA and your district rep and let him know how you feel. For sure the "Devil" is in the details on this rule!
Dick

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I couldn't agree more. This was a poorly considered and written rule that was modified by a poorly written and conducted survey then modified by that poor survey.

If you put in a rule that says each pilot shall make sure that the motor to their electric model cannot come on until necessary for their flight, and will be "disarmed" by any appropriate method after the flight, leaving the method that they use up to them, then I'd be OK. Then I suggest add a rule that says any accidental motor operation that causes personal injury or property damage would result in disqualification from the contest, to be determined by the CD.

You have now put the "How" completely in to the hands of the contestant for them to determine if they meet the "What".

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Scott, I understand what you are saying and trust your ability in trying to do the right thing. We (Americans) have a reputation of "having a short memory". I only hope everyone involved in this process can glean a lesson and remember all that has been said and done come next winter when most of us have too much time on their hands! BTW, I did enjoy talking to you on the phone and look forward to flying with you in the near future. Everette

pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Scott
Am I reading this correct that without some form of external arming device I must leave the canopy off the aircraft at all times unless said aircraft is in the car or in the air? Who is going to enforce all this? In my opinion NSRCA needs to revisit this and pull the saftey proposal.
Dick

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Dick,
There a many ways to address the rule which, honestly, was left very very generic because of people's comments that we were requiring something i.e. the arming plug. The proposal simply states that "Except when airborne, physically restrained or on the runway..." you must show that your aircraft is disarmed. How you chose to accomplish that is totally at your discretion. Note, you do not have to have your canopy off to show this. One way, and Iuse this simply as an example, you could put a "restraining device" i.e. string, rope, etc. around your tail, tail wheel, wing, prop, vertical fin, etc that holds the plane still. This conforms to the proposal because the plane is now physically restrained. You are one of the smartest guys I know Dick and I know you could figure out a way without drilling holes, having canopies off or anything else to meet this. Everyone seems to think about what they do and not about others. Like I've said before as an example.....It's not me on the motorcycle riding 75mph down the interstate that I"m worried about, it's all the other trucks and cars around me that scare the crap out of me because they aren't paying attention. Everyone is safe in their own minds, including me. Accidents still happen, just as I described a few weeks ago to someone that lost a Vanquish, totally disarmed and sitting in the pits that had a wild E-plane go right through it thus destroying it. It wasn't the Vanquish's fault but the fault of someone else not being safe.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Scott, you really have to be kidding about the rope, right? If I have to tie my model down at a pattern contest in the pits then I'm just going to move on to something a little less ridiculous.

Please reconsider what you guys are doing. Just as in your example of the highway, what will be next? Are we going to bring breathalyzers out to the pattern contest? Are we going to require a flying license? Are we going to hold safety inspections of every model flown?

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

And Scott, you are not even quoting the proposed rule correctly. It says this,

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.

If it was "disarmed", then I could say having the R/C power off disarms my system. But that is not what the proposal, that you wrote and submitted, says.

pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Scott

All you had to do is say "Yes" to my post. It is my guess that I am not the only one that did not understand the actual implications of the rule as written. I know you guys mean well and a statement/rule written as Tony stated is a much better solution. If this rule get's passed by AMA all "HELL" will break out when it's tried to be enforced either at the Nat's or a local event. It is my opinion this will hurt NSRCA.

As for the accident that destroyed an aircraft I have two thoughts:

1. I doubt we have all the facts and full story as to what actually happened.
2. This is a case of "Personal Responsibility" and the resolution to this incident is unknown but I suspect the offending person paid an agreed amount for his mistake and that's how it should be handled. If I trip in the pitts and fall on someone's aircraft and destroy it, are you going to make a rule that states "no person may walk unattended in the pitts. This is exactly the same situtation! "S__T HAPPENS" and no rule is going to stop it! I have seen more mid-airs resulting in uncontrolled aircraft crashing into the pits than I have ever seen ellectric aircraft all of a sudden arm and hit something. Should we make a rule that in AMA Pattern you can have only one aircraft in the air at a time?

I will fight this rule with all available avenues to me and would hope others that feel this way will express themselves and do the same!

Please understand this does not mean I will not come and drink all your beer at a contest!

Dick

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

I want to know just who is going to walk through the pits and enforce this rule?

What is the penalty if we don't meet this silly rule?

As written the only thing we'd need to do is tie the tail down while the model is sitting in the pits.

Again a silly idea.

I truly hope this idiocy gets voted down, at first I agreed is was a good idea, but after reading others opinion I believe this is a completely unnecessary rule.

Maybe something like, "Pilot must demonstrate the eng/motor will instantly come to a zero RPM condition when the transmitter is turned off."

Tim

Tom Miller

Demonstration that turning off the TX will cause the ESC to go to low rpm or off is only half the battle. The RX needs to be turned off as well as the second part of the demonstration or test.. As we know, many failures happen inside the airplane... rx battery goes dead, for example. My ESC shuts down both ways.

This is a bad proposal.

Tom

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Hi Tom,

In the second half, as you pointed out, if the esc goes to "cut off" if the on-board battery goes dead this in itself is much safer than an IC powered plane. In the IC example the engine is taking the airplane directly to the crash site at possibly WOT.

I'm of the mind to just leave it alone.

I personally have mine set to go to cut off if either happens along with using the "Throttle Hold" switch to kill the power.

Tim

nonstoprc

My Feedback: (90)

On the topic of weight limit increase, there are two proposals listed on AMA site: one is for 5200g total weight and the other is for 5500g.

What is going on?

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

Looks like we really don't know what we want and we want anything to make it look like we are doing something........[sm=sleeping.gif] [:@]

Gary

cmoulder

Reminds me of the Monty Python Olympics event... "[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYvbaqfq9mI]100-Meter Dash for People with No Sense of Direction[/link]"

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

Here's the deal. I submitted my proposal long before the NSRCA did theirs. Only reason I submitted it then was because there seemed to be a great deal of discussion pushing no weight limit at all. I felt that that was not the way to go and submitted a compromise that a thought was reasonable. I still think it is better than the NSRCA 5.5kg. I would rather take smaller steps than one big one.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Any AMA member may submit a rules proposal.  They are simply not limited to the proposals that the NSRCA makes.  You have until the 15th of March to get in your proposal.

mdjohnson

We are debating a safety issue here. If all we do is save the use of one handor maybe someone'sability to continue his livelyhoodin the next twenty years it will be worth it. I have personally seen electric airplanes do things they were not intended to do in regards to throttle movement. You guys are a pretty smart group. There are definately ways to make it work. I use 4mm bullet connectors. I intend to use a blank plastic housing (no connectors) that goes on the ESC side as soon asI disconnect the battery and tie a 5lb fishline to it and hang a flag outside the airplane with "remove before flight" written on it. Canopy will still go on and the CDand all around can see at an instant that the airplane is inert. Easy, cheap and quick. There are many more ways.

While others continue to say this is a silly rule IMHO it is even greater silliness to debate a safety issue. All fine and dandy to say this is a solution waiting for an issue but when someone is severly injured in a future mishap (the old law.....if it can happen it will happen) the guys standing around will mutter......well, maybe it would have been a good idea. Much better to be proactive than reactive.

Like it or not, we are some of the leaders and trend setters at our local fields. Trickle down effect always comes from the people who are looked up to. Because of this rule, and if it is used diligently at the local flying field level, maybe, just maybe a few sport fliers will follow suit and start making sure their electrics are inert and preventing some of the near mishaps that I have witnessed and I'm sure a few of you guys have seen as well.

This is my 2 bits worth on the subject.

Murray Johnson

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

It is always easy to wave the safety flag over these issues. I prefer to wave the personal responsibility flag. As I said earlier, if we made a "safety" rule every time we saw somebody do something stupid that causes a hazard, when will it stop? As Dick said earlier, we have all seen the dangers that a mid-air can cause. Yet we continue to send two airplanes up in to the same air space at every single contest, even the Nats.

mdjohnson

I can see your point Tony. You are right, if we made a rule for everything, just like in full scale aviation, no one would ever leave the ground!! This one is an important one though IMHO.I hate new rules as much as the next guy but when I am potentially the victim, it makes me sit up and think! I think of myself as a a personally responsible individual but I must admit I have left transmitters on, airplanes plugged in and a plethora of other "stupid" mistakes. The older I get, the worse it has become. How may personally responsible individuals have done the same? If they were honest with themselves, probably a lot. We are all human and as so are fallible.As I said before, better to be proactive with this and mitigate the human error factor.

My point is that I would much rather prefer via a flag, canopy off or whatever mechanical method is used to confirm that someone is personally responsible enough to disarm his airplane than to assume it. Big difference between a midair at 150 metersand apotential 12 lb, 3 1/2 HP buzzsaw going wild uncontrolled in the pits. All it takes is a small bump ot the throttle stick. It doesn't even take a full throttle application. If the buzzsaw meets flesh, flesh will lose every time. Do you recall a certainIntermediate pilot at the Arvin contest in 2010 who had a machine in the pits go out of control and hit the snow fence?Just bythe grace of (insert your favorite deity here)it was pointed away from the pits. I have seen other near disasters of the same makeup.

Ihopethat others can see the logic of this proposed rule.

Respectfully

Murray Johnson

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Murray, in my opinion the rule proposal as it has been submitted to the AMA is a poor one. I have suggested what I would do regarding this issue. I feel that what you as a member of the NSRCA BOD decided that every contestant at an AMA Pattern event must do is overly burdensome both to comply with and enforce. I feel there are better, simpler ways to address the issue. In my opinion, the NSRCA BOD has rushed these proposals in a last minute attempt to just do something. And in this case it is not a good solution.

We have all talked about incidents we have seen. Why not take the time to try to actually document these incidents, properly analyze the actual causes and then come up with a trial solution? Take the time to present something to the community for a proper evaluation rather then this rather poor survey and modification process that has been executed.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that a good enough job has been done on this particular proposal to put it in to our rules.

rileyf3a

Mr. Tony - Why don't you just submit your own proposal then?  Seems you have a lot to say, why don't you put it in writing and submit something to the contrary.  Actions speak much louder than words.

Riley

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Riley, I submitted numerous proposals for the last rules cycle. Some passed, others did not. This cycle the NSRCA decided that it would submit proposals that carry the weight of their backing in to the Contest Board. I agree with the majority of what the NSRCA has sent to the Contest Board. I do not agree with this particular part of one of their proposals. I have called my D7 rep and discussed this at length. I am responding here in this forum to the news posted by the NSRCA Secretary on what the results of the survey were and what the NSRCA BOD has decided to do.

I'm sorry if you feel I have not done enough. I thought this was an appropriate place to discuss this issue.

shannah

My Feedback: (5)

Hi Murray,

I think the overall intent of the new rule is to increase the safety margin as you state. However, if they just make the rule state that the motor batteries can't be plugged into the ESC in the pits then the goal will have been achieved. The incident you mentioned (I was also there) had nothing to do with an arming plug/switch/connector. A plane was being readied to fly in the pits. It is a case that I also referred to when I stated earlier that all of the "runaway" incidents I have witnessed would have happened with or without an arming plug. So, if you just make the rule state that the motor batteries can't be plugged into the ESC in the pit area then you will have achieved the result. It doesn't matter how you do it. Even with that safeguard, you can still have "runaway" events due to inadvertent throttle stick bumps etc on the runway. We could make it a rule to include a manual electronic arming control on the transmitter along with throttle cut function. That, to me, would do a lot more to enhance the safety of the operation than just focusing on batteries plugged into the ESC in the pit area. That is what I do and I don't feel safe unless I have the two step override on my transmitter (along with a fail safe setting that disarms my ESC). As a rule, I don't plug my batteries into the ESC in the pit area at a contest. I also don't arm my ESC with my transmitter and I don't disable my throttle cut until the plane is on the runway. I've seen many-a glow pattern plane and IMAC plane go errant while sitting on the runway/taxiway after landing at contests. Mandating a transmitter manually activated motor kill function of some type would have eliminated most of those events.

I agree with Tony on this rule proposal, it seems to be rather hastily put together and it isn't really addressing the issue. I'm one of those that clicked Yes on the proposal before I actually thought about it. I had no way to go in and update my vote and, after all, it was a survey not a formal ballot. Once again, after thinking about this, it doesn't do much to address any overall safety issue. The real issue is that you need to have proper handling procedures at contests and you need to make certain that guys have the necessary failsafe and overrides on their systems. Sticking a plug on your plane doesn't do that.

rileyf3a

Steve and Mr. Tony - I realize I'm fairly new to all this here in America and I, just like a lot of the world, know who you are and I have the utmost respect for both of you.  I have looked over this proposal and I really see no difference between what you propose and what has been submitted to the AMA aside from it must be visible to observers.  The NSRCA appears to have taken a requirement out of what was in the survey.  To me, being from Egypt, I see little difference and my spoken english is not so good.  I also see a lot of discussion but no action and I see the same few people upset with this.  No one has submitted anything to the contrary to AMA.  Please for me to understand, could you explain for me?

Riley

shannah

My Feedback: (5)

Yes, a big difference is the part about making the connection visible.

I don't see a need to submit a proposal because I think things are fine the way they are.

A proposal can be withdrawn or amended.