[NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Mon Feb 13 16:16:57 AKST 2012
Seems like we might want to be protected from the guy using a very cheap
chinese brand and weak shutdown processes, not just those with good
processes and topline equipment. It is still a latent 4 horsepower
scimitar sitting there in the pits either way.
John Gayer
On 2/13/2012 5:41 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:
>
> I've made the inquiry to Castle.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> Team Castle Creations
>
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Keith
> Hoard
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 6:32 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch
>
> I guess I'd have to defer to the ESC manufacturer on that one.
> Does anyone know Castle's official position about killing the
> receiver signal to disarm the ESC? Apparently Tony has done it enough
> that he's confident with that method.
>
> Keith Hoard
>
> Collierville, TN
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 17:17, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> Keith
>
> Tony advocated doing just that on RCU post #35:
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10952866/anchors_10955113/mpage_2/key_/anchor/tm.htm#10955113
>
> John Gayer
>
> On 2/13/2012 3:45 PM, Keith Hoard wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, you're right, I thought you were talking about the
> transmitter. I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to turn off the
> receiver signal ON PURPOSE as a means to disarm an ESC. You're
> really relying on that firmware to do the right thing.
>
> Ya gotta treat these things like a loaded gun. What's the best
> Gun Control Law? Use both hands!!
>
> Keith Hoard
>
> Collierville, TN
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 16:12, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com
> <mailto:bob at toprudder.com>> wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> Agree with everything you say, except your #2. I said that
> turning off the "rx" (receiver) is not completely safe.
> Perhaps you thought I said "transmitter". Turning off the
> receiver has nothing to do with failsafe settings as the rx
> can't output ANYTHING including whatever the "failsafe"
> setting may be. Some of the so called "arming switches"
> included on some ESCs do nothing more than turn power off to
> the rx, or disconnect the signal wire from the rx to the ESC.
> As someone pointed out, this leaves the ESC open to possible
> interference after it has been armed.
>
> Bob R.
>
> --- On *Mon, 2/13/12, Keith Hoard /<khoard at gmail.com
> <mailto:khoard at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> 1) So is leaving your canopy off with ESC plug displayed
> until you are in the ready box. I'd argue that it is more
> visible AND directly addresses the problem. Arming plugs
> are small and can only be seen from one side of your
> airplane.
> 2) That is a failsafe setting issue that an affect your
> airplane any time the batteries are connected, even during
> a flight where the disconnect device is useless. I agree
> with demonstrating proper failsafe setup.
> 3) Very true.
>
> What I don't agree with is the NSRCA issuing an
> "Airworthiness Directive" ("AD" in FAA-speak) requiring me
> to install equipment to address a /potential /problem when
> I can address that problem in other ways. I think the
> Board would be much better off proposing a rule defining
> WHAT outcome they are desiring, then allowing the
> competitor to come up with an effective way to accomplish
> that objective. I think we'd be better off adopting the
> FAI rule that mandates when power can be connected to the
> plane and let the competitor accomplish that objective in
> any manner they wish, either through good battery
> management techniques or disconnect devices.
>
> Besides, if you read the NSRCA rule proposal, all it
> says is that you have to install a disconnect device. It
> does not mandate when it will be utilized to arm or disarm
> the plane. So. . . according to the rule, I can install
> the arming plug and leave it connected at all times, thus
> not even solving the original "problem".
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=khoard@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Bob Richards
> <bob at toprudder.com
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bob@toprudder.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> What you say it true.
>
> What I have taken from this discussion:
>
> 1) An arming plug is an externally visible indicator of
> "ready and dangerous".
>
> 2) Turning the rx off alone is not a completely safe
> condition, and less so AFTER a flight.
>
> 3) No safety measure is 100% infallible, simply due to
> human error.
>
> Regardless of how you render your aircraft safe, you still
> have to remember to do it!!! People will forget, and that
> unfortunately will happen regardless.
>
> Bob R.
>
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 2/13/12, Keith Hoard /<khoard at gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=khoard@gmail.com>>/*
> wrote:
>
> Just how many airplanes have we seen fly out of
> caller's hands at contests? Is this a widespread
> problem, or just isolated to a couple contests? Why
> can't the caller maintain positive control of the
> airplane until the owner gets over to disconnect the
> battery? If the caller and/or pilot are that
> distracted after a flight, what is to keep them from
> forgetting to removing the arming plug?
>
> I think this is a solution wandering around looking
> for a problem. If you can't remember to disconnect
> your battery as soon as possible after a flight and to
> only connect it just prior to flight then you won't
> remember to use your arming plug to perform the same
> functions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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/20120214/7664a20c/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list