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

Mon Nov 21 16:36:20 AKST 2011

While the intent is clear enough, wordsmithing rules to get exactly the
desired intent and only the desired intent is never going to be truly
achievable..just like the perpetual wordsmithing for snaps and spins.

The simple solution is ban all telemetry and remove the problem of
determining what telemetry is / isn't allowed.  I am not opposed to systems
that enhance safety, but telemetry is not needed to do that, simply link
whatever onboard monitoring to the RX and have the throttle pulsed to
idle..just like the RF / low battery failsafe / holds setups do now.

Regards,

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of astropuppy
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

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
<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
<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.nsrc
a.org> " <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion%40lists.nsrc
a.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.nsrc
a.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.nsrc
a.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.nsrc
a.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/20111122/756a3567/attachment.html>