[NSRCA-discussion] Safety Proposal amended

Thu Mar 15 12:38:59 AKDT 2012

Earl,
   Thank you sir.  I think OSHA requires HAZMAT recurrent training and
licensing as well!

Have a good weekend,
Scott

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:36 PM, ehaury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:

> **
> Scott
>
> Derek & I've swapped notes on this and I expect he'll seek clarification.
>
> I also understand that your original note is regarding the AMA rule
> proposal. The FAI reference just could stand some clearing up.
>
> It could be worse, OSHA would require a locking enclosure over the battery
> connection with personal padlocks & tags from everyone associated with the
> thing.
>
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Safety Proposal amended
>
> Earl,
>    I agree with you 100% and the conversation was as such with him.  I
> gave examples of the Anderson Poll Maxx Products disarming plug which
> actually does physically break the circuit and was told no.  I do
> understand how the Emcotec would not work.  That does not physically break
> the connection and, more importantly, fails closed.  I've been actually
> talking a little bit to Maxx Prod guys about getting Emcotec to develop and
> fail open device.  I'd like to have one if for no other reason than it
> looks cool!  Sorry, I had to say it.
>
> Most important is to note that we are working on AMA proposals and not
> FAI.  I was just trying to make sure people understood that phraseology was
> not being structured into the proposal.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:21 PM, ehaury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Scott
>>
>> There may be some terminology issues here. A disarming "SWITCH" was
>> determined to not meet the disconnect requirements, as a switch makes /
>> breaks a circuit internally making it impossible for an official to quickly
>> determine which position is on or off. OTOH, an external disarming "PLUG"
>> or "KEY" or "CONNECTOR"  doesn't have that problem.
>>
>> Derek may have had further discussions with the F3A committee regarding
>> this since the WC - I can only speak to what the official interpretation
>> was at the Worlds.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>  *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:13 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Safety Proposal amended
>>
>> I'd like to see it as well Earl.  This was verbatim from Derek
>> Koopowitz.  I had to rely on him because what I originally wanted to say in
>> public, I ran passed Derek and he said that was not the case.  He said you
>> may use a disarm plug but that did not satisfy the FAI requirement to
>> display disconnected batteries.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM, ehaury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Where do you find this interpretation?
>>>
>>>  "A disarm plug is NOT allowed to demonstrate a disconnect - there has
>>> to be a physical disconnect of the wiring and must be seen by an official."
>>>
>>> This was not the case for the 2011 WC. I participated in the TM meeting
>>> where it was initially stated that both battery leads would need to be
>>> disconnected. After some discussion the jury, ED & TD (me) determined that
>>> one lead was sufficient and it didn't matter if it was internal or
>>> external. Most of the E competitors made the connect / disconnect
>>> internally, often with the person doing it exposed to the prop arc. Models
>>> were also removed from the runway, so as not to impede the next competitor,
>>> before making the EoF disconnect (before returning to the pits). I was one
>>> of the officials watching for this.
>>>
>>> If the quoted interpretation is official, then so be it - but I'd like
>>> to see the publication.
>>>
>>> Earl
>>>
>>>
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:27 PM
>>> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Safety Proposal amended
>>>
>>> With a passing vote of the NSRCA BoD, we respectfully submit to you the
>>> new Safety Proposal.  Essentially, the Safety Proposal that is currently
>>> with the AMA is being retracted and two new proposals put in its place.
>>>  The first one is simply the Fail-safe proposal that was part of the
>>> submitted Safety Proposal.  Then, the second new proposal will replace
>>> 6.9(a) as 6.9.1 and *directly quoted and out of the current FAI
>>> Sporting Code*.  The referred section is on page 16 in 5.1.11 of the
>>> FAI Sporting Code for 2012.  Please note that in FAI, in order to follow
>>> the rule, the disconnect must happen right after landing before the helper
>>> picks up the plane.  A disarm plug is NOT allowed to demonstrate a
>>> disconnect - there has to be a physical disconnect of the wiring and must
>>> be seen by an official.  Interesting huh!
>>>
>>> Before anyone says it, I disagree that the arming plug does not
>>> constitute a physical break in the wiring.  Through some consideration and
>>> advice from people that have run the Worlds, the plug is external and does
>>> not constitute proof that the physical connection internally has happened.
>>>  That's the FAI rule.  As submitted, that part is *not* written into
>>> the proposal.  It is simply the direct quote from the FAI Sporting Code.
>>>  Here is the exact verbiage of the new proposals as submitted to the AMA.
>>>  I don't know when AMA will get the physical proposals up on their site.
>>>
>>> *New Proposal for 6.9*
>>>
>>> 6.9 – Propeller safety - All contestants using radio equipment with a
>>> failsafe function shall be able to demonstrate that propeller rotation will
>>> either stop or reduce to an idle RPM when the transmitter is powered down
>>> while the aircraft receiver system is powered on.  Idle RPM for this
>>> purpose is defined as an RPM during which the model will remain stationary
>>> when already motionless.
>>>
>>> *New Proposal for 6.9.1*
>>>
>>> 6.9.1 – For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must
>>> not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun and must be
>>> physically disconnected immediately after landing.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4872 - Release Date: 03/15/12
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4872 - Release Date: 03/15/12
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4872 - Release Date: 03/15/12
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120315/6a20e024/attachment.html>