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

[Peter Vogel]

That would be sweet, I'd have a better chance of winning :-)

I do not agree with Telemetry being used as part of the judging criteria,
nor do I agree with Telemetry data being used by a competitor for flight
data, but I do believe that safety and airframe protection make sense from
a telemetry perspective: system voltage, current draw, temperature, power
even would seem prudent and not allow for a competitive advantage.  GPS,
heading, altitude, airspeed, etc. should be illegal for both judges and
competitors. I could see altitude limiting functions being appropriate and
necessary in a potential future if the FAA were to designate a maximum
altitude for model aircraft operations regardless of proximity to full
scale airports.  But that would be a limiting/warning function, not an
always present data point the pilot or caller could see.

Peter+

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:10 AM, John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>wrote:

> Why don’t we just let the best computer programmer win?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Murray Johnson
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2011 11:16 AM
>
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20111125/15d9bee5/attachment.html>