[NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

Mon Nov 21 07:35:24 AKST 2011

Semantics....This is the Pattern Discussion List....What else is new?? Arguing over semantics is par for the course

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

“Good” and “No Good” are not the issue. As far as I am concerned, all information can be “Good”. The issue is how it is used – no closed loop control.

Jay Marshall

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

So, who's gonna draft a replacement rule for the old, antiquated one? Sounds to me like some types of telemetry are not a bad thing (airborne radio voltage, servo condition, are two OTOH). Other types are no good (direction, rpm, voltage/current of power supply, exhaust temp, etc)

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

They were removed in mine as well. That was the last Futaba top tier radio that came with good stiff springs.

Verne

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:21 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

I think we all know what the intent of the rule is, but I think we all agree that the rule needs to be modified to make that clear.

As for a snap switch, it is not a "control sequencing or control timing device" as it does not initiate any kind of sequence or start any kind of timing event, IMHO. Does anyone remember the very first Futaba 8SGA transmitters that DID have timers on the snap switch function, such that when you activated the switch it would deflect the different control surfaces for a predetermined amount of time (programmable). In my transmitter, the adjustment pots for that had been removed, presumably because of the rules against such functions.

Bob R.

--- On Sat, 11/19/11, John Ford <astropattern at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: John Ford <astropattern at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Saturday, November 19, 2011, 8:03 PM

I would speculate that the term "feedback" means a closed control loop where the telemetry data would actually become pre-programed data input to the TX software such that throttle, rates, flight conditions, or mixes would actually be modified by the software in real time. That would certainly be a game-changer! 
Just having open telemetry isn't an advantage...it's probably a distraction, unless you alarm on Rx battery voltage or something like that. 

John

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 5:37 PM EST Peter Vogel wrote:

>Hmm.
>
>So I'm looking at section 4.4 of the AMA Competition regulations here:
>http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012RCAerobatics1.pdf
>
>I see the following emphasis mine:
>
>Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type
>(i.e. *no electronic feedback from the model to the *
>*ground*)
>
>It then goes on to provide examples of what is/is not permitted:
>
>Examples of control functions not permitted:
>8) Electronic or other signal or feedback
>from the model of *any kind.*
>
>I believe the verbiage needs to be changed to reflect the spirit and intent
>of the rule, which is to prevent telemetry data (i.e. heading, airspeed,
>etc.) that would provide an advantage in precision to the pilot flying with
>said equipment.  Basic telemetry data such as the state of charge for the
>reciever and main system batteries (in the case of an electric) model
>and/or engine/motor temperature, RPM, etc. provide no such advantage and
>should be permitted as it enhances flight safety and provides some
>protection for the airframes themselves.
>
>Rex, says that "it goes on to say that the rule is to prevent
>pre-programmed control of the aircraft such as timed snaps" but I believe
>those are distinct sentences, the RC equipment must be open loop with no
>feedback from the model to the ground.  Period, full stop.  Then it goes on
>with additional requirements distinct from the RC TX/RX: Autopilots are
>prohibited (i.e. devices such as the UAVDev board or Ardupilot or the new
>AS3X from Horizon would be prohibited, even though they are not closed-loop
>control systems.  Further, automatic control sequencing or control timing
>devices (which I have always read as preventing the use of snap button
>functions on modern computer transmitters) are prohibited.  I've wondered
>how that last one is enforced given virtually every computer radio today
>has the ability to assign a snap of any form to any switch or button on the
>transmitter and it would be difficult to check that snap functions are
>inhibited in every contestent's TX.  I have assumed the honor system
>applies.  I would expect the same honor system, with, perhaps, a check of
>winning pilot's telemetry systems in high-stakes events would be sufficient
>to relax the telemetry rule to allow basic telemetry systems such as the
>Hitec, Graupner + Spektrum systems to be permitted.
>
>Peter+
>
>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>
>> The rule likely needs an update to verbage that is consistent with current
>> technology, but as long as there is no closed loop on any of the telemetry
>> it is well within the "spirit" of the rule to use/allow these systems in
>> pattern...
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
>> *To:* "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> >
>> *Sent:* Fri, November 18, 2011 4:20:02 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>>
>> I was just reading RCM&E (one of my favorite magazines) and noticed that
>> the latest systems from Graupner and Hitec have telemetry built-in to all
>> RX's, I suspect the others aren't far behind.  With the current rule
>> against any form of downlink from the aircraft, it seems the newer systems
>> will be out of reach to those competing in pattern aerobatics.  I'm just in
>> sportsman, any thought to relaxing the rule to restricting telemetry that
>> might actually be an advantage in competition as opposed to things that can
>> save an airframe like battery voltage data?
>>
>> Peter+
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone4S
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Did you know? Arthritis affects people in all age groups including nearly
>300,000 children.
>Please help me ride 525 miles down the California coast to support
>Arthritis Research
>http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20111121/cea0b323/attachment.html>