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

Michael S. Harrison drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
Sat Nov 26 07:30:59 AKST 2011



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems


I haven't followed this whole thread but I'm convinced that if I had had
feedback on signal strength as I believe the Spektrum system provides I
wouldn't have a lost a very expensive pattern plane earlier this year and
the cost doesn't include the hours of work it took to get it to be a
competitive airplane.  I crashed and burned and I heard there were 60 to 70
firefighters, 18 trucks and two helicopters called out to put out the fire.
Luckily no one was hurt.  Luckily it didn't set the whole California coast
on fire.  I had been getting "hesitations" in control and I should have
stopped and found out what was wrong.  It turned out to be the RF module in
the transmitter but I had very little experience with 2.4 and thought maybe
that it was normal.  As soon as Futaba provides telemetered information I
will have it.


Jim O


On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Del wrote:


So true John. Many don't consider what the effect will create for new blood
that I thought was sadly needed. For years many have said the changes that
were made would not effect the bulk of competion..  How wrong they have been



This brings the specter of another technology war.   Any everyone complains
about cost for newcomers and beginners !   Potentially takes it to another
level.  Now everyone will need an IPhone and the TM app to go with their
other stuff.


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 3:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems


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

Some current technology is only a short step away from the "extreme
scenario"...consider my wish-list ski goggles from Zeal Optics (Transcend

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
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.


--- 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
<x-msg://20/mc/compose?to=jferrell13@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.



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
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


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

NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org





NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20111126/255f0665/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list