[NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??

Ron Van Putte vanputte at cox.net
Wed Oct 28 16:07:21 AKDT 2009 

Amen.  I tried to make it VERY clear what pilots were supposed to do  
during practice day (go to the site you will be flying on during the  
first day of competition and look for the frequency pin; no pin - no  
fly).  Even so, some supposedly intelligent pilots would screw things  
up and cause accidents.  Flying on 2.4 GHz SS would make the event  
director's job a lot less worrisome.  He's got enough to do as it is.

Ron VP

On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Troy Newman wrote:

> I think this is a really smart move on the part of the Event  
> Director and the AMA. The reality is if you go to the NATS practice  
> sites, and the AMA site they are hectic and things are happening  
> very quickly. People coming and going, with 3 different flying  
> sites available. The frequency assignments were a needed thing  
> because there was no other option. If you ask NATS event directors  
> for the past 25 years they will all tell you the same  
> thing...Frequencies make their job a living hell. I remember NATS  
> check in when they tested your radio to make sure it was narrow  
> banded and you were on the right frequency. Thank goodness they  
> don’t have to deal with that now.   Flight line assignments,  
> seeding of pilots, and management of those things all take way too  
> much time from the guy trying to run the contest the best he can.
>
>
>
> By mandating 2.4 systems it will not only make the event directors  
> job easier, it will make the site a much safer place, for you and  
> your aircraft. How many years have we had incidents where models  
> were shot down during practice both at practice sites and the AMA  
> site after hours. I think there has been an incident almost every  
> year since I have been going to the NATS in 1997. This past year  
> excluded since I was not able to attend, and 2008 I don’t remember  
> any but most pilots were already on 2.4 systems.
>
>
>
> The truth is our models have huge investments of time regardless of  
> the money involved...The time to trim, setup and maintain the  
> models is the huge investment. My personal opinion is to risk that  
> level of commitment, time, and effort on 72mhz, is the same as  
> flying it on AM or 27mhz
>
>
>
> A trip to the NATS for me averages about $1000-1500 per year and  
> includes a 2000mile one way trip….. This doesn't include the models  
> or the consumables associated with the models, batteries, fuel,  
> maintenance and so on. It’s just travel, hotels, and food eating  
> out for the week. In perspective each manufacturer JR or Futaba can  
> convert your older TX to 2.4 for around $200 with a new module and  
> rx. This is extremely cheap for the added safety, and secure  
> connection to the model. Consider the lower end models are  
> $1500-2000 invested not counting the 200hrs worth of building and  
> the 100+ flights trimming and setting up a model. So at worst case  
> the cost to convert to 2.4 is around 10% or less of the models  
> total cost. How much of your time is invested in that model?
>
>
>
> 2.4 is more secure to your model not just from the no shoot down  
> stand point but the signal and connection along with noise  
> rejection is so much better on 2.4 than it was on PCM and  
> exponentially better than PPM. The Spread Spektrum technology is  
> not a fad, or a gimmick, it is not a dressed up FM signal like PCM  
> was…this is like sending your plane an email. Its faster and more  
> secure, and provides the individual ID of the TX by the RX. This is  
> really the biggest improvement to R/C since proportional control. I  
> would say the issues with radio problems I have seen at the local  
> field have dropped to less than 25% of what they were before on  
> 72mhz equipment, and that is just sport sector. We pattern guys  
> take very good care of our equipment and rarely have issues anyway.  
> The 2.4 stuff is made for events like the NATS, Pylon, Pattern  
> Soaring, Scale, IMAC….the list goes on and on.
>
>
>
> I know of clubs that have taken down the frequency board and  
> require 100% use of 2.4 at the field.
>
>
>
> My view is you can't afford to not be running 2.4 systems. Both  
> companies make excellent 2.4 systems that provide a safe and secure  
> environment for our models.
>
>
>
> I applaud the effort by the AMA, and the Event director to make  
> things safer and easier for the event.
>
>
>
> Troy Newman
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Chris  
> Fitzsimmons
> Sent: Wed 10/28/2009 11:35 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??
>
> As stated earlier please contact Dave. Then it's not heresay.
>
> It's not an AMA thing, but a cd thing.
>
> Chris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:24 AM, "Bill Glaze"  
> <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Earlier, on this list, Tony Stillman stated that there was "no  
> truth to the rumor" that DSS would be required at the Nats in  
> 2010.  Changed?
> Bill Glaze
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??
>
>
> I already fly with 2.4 so I'm not impacted. Having said that, it  
> seems a little autocratic if it's not an across the board AMA Nats  
> policy.
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> This will be true for Masters and FAI only.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:28 AM, "Lance Van Nostrand"
> <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I heard someone state that starting in 2010 all pilots must fly 2.4G
> at the Nats.  I searched the discussion archives and the AMA website
> and came up empty.
> Is there any truth to this?
>
> --Lance
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list