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

Fri Nov 25 12:19:39 AKST 2011

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  The base rule for me from this is
"Closed Loop".  As long as the pilot is in 100% control of the aircraft,
whatever information he uses for deciding what to do is irrelevant, be
it from the caller, his eyes/ears, or telemetry.

- Robert Beaubien

- D7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Ford
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 11:58 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

Sometimes, looking at the extreme case will give clarity to the question
at hand.

Some current technology is only a short step away from the "extreme
scenario"...consider my wish-list ski goggles from Zeal Optics
(Transcend model).
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/01/recon-zeal-transcend-goggles-now-ship
ping-gps-and-head-mounted/

For less than the cost of a set of good servos, these goggles display
directly to your right eye, GPS data such as speed, altitude, position,
mapping, and a host of other tidbits of info. 
I'm sure that by now, some whiz-kid at Futaba or Spektrum has played
around with a Bluetooth link to goggles like this and very easily puts
downlink telemetry into a head-mounted display. 

If that's the case, then so what? So, we've succeeded in putting
ourselves (and possibly anyone else, including the judges) into the
cockpit of our planes? Raises some interesting questions, I think...
1) I believe this doesn't create any "closed loops"...at least no more
than a full-scale aerobatic pilot would have. Or does it? I still don't
see any autopilots, flight directors, or software that is slaved to the
telemetry.
2) It certainly allows some critical safety data to be displayed or
alarmed to the pilot, but at what cost? 
3) Is there in fact someone who has the brain-power processing ability
to take in all this data (plus all the usual visual and audible cues)
and somehow translate it into an advantage on the sticks? If no such
person exists then there's no problem. If such a person does exist, then
are we simply saying that we are threatened by the competitive
consequences of this technology?
4) Judging by how many times society (or even our own hobby) has been
faced with new technology that certain groups found objectionable or
that made existing rules or laws obsolete...what has been the success
rate of being able to bury, ban, or repress that technology? 
5) If technology eventually always becomes more affordable than the
traditional technology it replaces, is this evolution a good thing in
the long term, or only a bad thing in the short term, if in fact it
steers clear of the telemetry rule?
6) If we were to count on this for box violations, then does that imply
that everyone would need a GPS unit on their plane to be allowed to
compete? If it was deemed to be a safety feature, then does that imply
everyone would need to have "safety telemetry" to fly at the Nats, for
example?

I don't disagree with most of the posts, and I don't have better
answers, but if I take a step back, it seems to me that there are a
number of interesting points to ponder.

John

--- On Fri, 11/25/11, Murray Johnson <murrjohnson at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Murray Johnson <murrjohnson at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, November 25, 2011, 12:16 PM

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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20111125/19f10ce6/attachment.html>