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

[Murray Johnson]

I for one am all in favour of any kind of technology that will in even a
small amount increase safety. I think with telemetry a lot of
mechanical/electrical issues could be reported well before a real flight
critical event happens. Any programmed parameter could trigger an alarm if
that parameter is exceeded and at the very least save an airframe. Having
said that, I am not in favour of any kind of information that may be passed
either by the caller reading the tx screen or even verbally from the tx
itself with regards to heading, altitude, speed or aircraft attitude. I
think this would create a certain advantage and of course generate a cost
increase in equipment. If this type of feedback from the airframe is
allowed, we will all have to spend the big bucks just to remain
competitive. Once we all have it......then what? The techno playing field
has been leveled and it will still be the skill of the pilot which will
determine the score outcome.......just as it is today without telemetry.
Same with the contra drives but that is another touchy subject. If we are
going to have an investment of 5k or so per airframe I think I will have to
start looking for crash insurance. Or take up knitting.

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com>wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 9:55 AM, Michael S. Harrison wrote:
>
>  I agree with what you are saying and that is how we currently do and
> perceive the plane.  However, this is a chance to embrace technology to
> make judging fairer and easier reducing the bias, subjectivity and emotion
> the judge is burdened with.  The new technology, applied properly would
> make the administration and work of putting on a contest much easier.  How
> we see and perceive the airplane would change to adapt to this new stuff
> and we could fly accordingly.  We would have to adapt the rules to fit, of
> course, but it is doab le.  I would love to see it.  I would love to know
> the truth about box violations, drifting, altitude changes, whatever, etc.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I think it would be a game changer and it would bring out the best/. ****
>
> ** **
>
> That is just me.****
>
> Mike ****
>
> I have been out of Precision Aerobatics for quite a while now. Even when I
> was an eager enthusiast, I never developed the skills to be a successful
> competitor.
> It was never about winning or losing for me. No one ever enjoyed the game
> more than I.
>
> Is the information provided by the new equipment really a problem?  If it
> is available to all is it really a problem?
>
> As I recall, there was a period where the TOC permitted the use of gyros.
> I think the idea was to provide a better show through the use of available
> technology. It did not take long for the top contestants to abandon their
> use. In addition to reduced reliability it was soon discovered that the
> best pilots preferred total control to limited control. When the rule was
> made to outlaw the gyros, no one cared because no one was using them
> anyway.  The point: is this new equipment really a problem?
>
> If the telemetry provides a higher degree of safety to person and/or
> property it is hard to justify not allowing it.
>
> An onboard device that limits operation of the craft beyond the specified
> flight area could become a requirement in the near future. Think about it!
>
> I have always felt that a constant speed controller for IC engines should
> be available to the fuel burners. Current rules simply prohibit it....
>
> Back to lurking mode....
>
>
>
> --
> John Ferrell W8CCW
> "The man who complains about the way the
> ball bounces is likely to be the one who dropped it."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111125/d67cdb7c/attachment.html>