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

[J N Hiller]

"Closed Loop" ?? Dose this include information displayed for pilot and or
caller to use during a competition flight? Or only electronic? If the info
is displayed on the TX screen should it be blacked out during flight? A beep
for low voltage is obviously a good thing but much more than that could be
perceived as unequal advantage. Personally I don't have the time or
processing ability to deal with it in real time. Keeping track of what I'm
trying to do is about all I can manage.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:00 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
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>  [
mailto: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
<mailto:astropattern at yahoo.com> > wrote:

From: John Ford < astropattern at yahoo.com <mailto:astropattern at yahoo.com> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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
<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
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=humptybump@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
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vogel.peter@gmail.com> >
>> *To:* " nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org> " < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<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
<http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel>

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20111121/ccefe340/attachment.html>