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

John Gayer jgghome at comcast.net
Mon Nov 21 14:26:09 AKST 2011 

I agree with Ed on this. Having your transmitter receive information 
about the airplane is not a big deal but what you should be allowed to 
do with that information will be a problem for anyone that tries to 
rewrite the rules. It seems obvious that receiving an audible signal for 
low battery is more a safety issue than any kind of technical advantage. 
But what about a rising and falling tone for deviating from your desired 
track at 175 meters out? How about a tone for a wing down? Is this any 
different from having a good caller that can give you the same info?
Maybe yes, maybe no for competition but I sure would like to have a 
system that would give me that info during practice.
True closed loop autoflight systems can and still would have to be done 
directly in the on-board electronics regardless of telemetry due to 
latency considerations. Just having a basic system that would neutralize 
yaw and roll attitudes unless a command was given would not be extremely 
difficult to implement but clearly should be(and is) banned.
The examples given of a timed application and release of various 
controls for a snap were for an open-loop system and would need the 
airspeed, power, air density to be consistent to get consistent results 
in the snap exit. Setting that up and keeping it setup was probably more 
trouble than it was worth.

Does anyone have an issue with an ESC regulating the RPM rather than a 
percentage of full voltage from the throttle input? This is another 
example of a closed loop control system like Ed's for the servos and 
voltage regulators. It just isn't buried as deep in the system and will 
probably have some objectors.

John

On 11/21/2011 11:27 AM, Ed Alt wrote:
> Is it against the rules for your caller to mention that the engine 
> sounds lean?  Can he tell you that it looks like you're dropping a 
> wing in the corners? What if he says you're drifting out to 
> 200 meters, or that you just about missed the pole on the turnaround?  
> All of these things are in-flight feedback, based on audible or visual 
> feedback from the model, that you, the pilot may or may not have 
> observed as keenly as your caller.  And you, as the pilot, may or may 
> not act on this feedback, which is different than an automated closed 
> loop feedback system.  It's called free will.  If your caller grabs 
> the sticks to fix any of these issues for you, it's another matter 
> entirely.
>
> So now there can be telemetry feedback.  It is only a closed loop 
> feedback system if there is a mechanism in place to take specific 
> action on that feedback in a pre-determined fashion, which results in 
> having corrected some condition of flight with the model.  How a low 
> voltage warning could count as closed loop feedback is debatable, but 
> I guess that if it's OK for a hearing imparied pilot to be assisted by 
> a caller to land when there's an engine problem, then it ought to be 
> OK for an audible beep or a glance at a telemetry display to clue you 
> in on what's happening inside the model, before it becomes a safety 
> problem.
>
> Just for perspective, your servos and voltage regulators are all 
> closed loop feedback systems.  So is the pressure regulator on a YS, 
> if you are still running one.  None of those closed loop systems fly 
> the model for you.  They only serve to stabilize that part of the 
> system that you are in command of.
>
> Ed
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:12:15 -0800
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>
> "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
> >
> >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%40sbcglobal.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%40gmail.com>>
> >> *To:* "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion%40lists.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%40lists.nsrca.org>
> >> 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%40lists.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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20111121/78503a4c/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list