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

Mon Nov 21 15:03:35 AKST 2011

Just my 2 cents. I think this technology would be best used to eliminate
the judges. Take a few (box & center) gps coordinates before the contest
and voila a judge who will work all day without lunch or a Bio break. Mike

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:45 PM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

>  I wasn't going to get back into this but thanks to your thoughtful reply
> I now have more questions / concerns we may need to be aware of before
> adjusting rules.****
>
> If allowed I can envision telemetry expanding to include absolute
> positioning of the flight plane, feedback to a processor giving the pilot
> audible instructions during the flight similar to a good caller. Call this
> a virtual or electronic caller helping the pilot with timely verbal advise
> throughout the flight assist him in correcting any and all deviations from
> the required track. ****
>
> If we allow that only visual feedback be used but the pilot than the rule
> needs to allow only system related data be available in real time, no
> flight data.****
>
> If electronic flight sensor data is allowed need it be interpreted by a
> biological assistant or should electronic processing of the raw data be
> allowed resulting in usable pilot commands. Should the instructions talking
> electronic device?****
>
> If we start nitpicking functionality within the rules we will be
> revisiting the rule about as often as snap rolls. It appears to me every
> thing except closed loop electronic flight command could be allowed. ****
>
> Disallowing advancing technology doesn't work for long. That sounds
> familiar doesn't it. ****
>
> The nice young lady in my truck computer does a good job assisting me with
> navigation. I bet she could just as easily help me keep my RC airplane on
> that invisible flight path as well as call the next maneuver. It admittedly
> wouldn't be the same as a real live caller including selective additives in
> their verbal suggestions.****
>
> Looks like another move to the latest and greatest equipment few of us
> would benefit from.****
>
> Jim****
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
> *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 10:27 AM
> *To:* NSRCA List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>
> ** ******
>
> 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<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<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****
>
> 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/20111122/70fb29ca/attachment.html>