[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Matt Finley ( Arming Plug )

Tue Feb 24 15:37:26 AKST 2015

Well, that’s one of us.

Let the fun begin.

Ron

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Always stirring up trouble!
> 
> If it ain't a barrel roll, and it ain't an axial roll, it must be a snap roll. Best definition I ever heard for what is REALLY done in AMA and FAI.
> 
> 
> Now we'll start hearing a whole bunch of BS about stalled conditions, departure from straight and level, etc etc.
> 
> I'll shut up now.....
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Please remember that I warned about a potential “holy war” if we started discussing arming plugs.
> 
> Let’s talk about snap rolls or something else that’s not controversial.  I kinda think that the “flick snaps” in F3A are really neat and the pilots whose airplanes perform the snaps in which the tail cones all around should be severely downgraded..
> 
> Ron Van Putte
> 
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
> I know, I thought before this thread was over we would be going back to one piece wings, single aileron and tail servos, and non computerized tx's lol 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message -------- 
> From: Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >  
> Date: 02/24/2015 4:10 PM (GMT-05:00)  
> To:  jpavlick at idseng.com <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com> , John Pavlick < jpavlick26 at att.net <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net> >, General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >  
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( Arming Plug )  
> 
> I know.  This effectively kills the idea for an automatic, electronic rag thrower. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 4:09 PM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote: 
> 
> Be careful, you just made WAY too much sense! LOL
>  
> John Pavlick
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>  
> <image001.png>
> Integrated Development Services
>  
> From:  NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( Arming Plug )
>  
> An arming plug was never intended to be the cure-all for all electric safety issues. I consider it a baseline that is easy to comply with. All the anecdotal evidence in the world that each responder to this list is safe does not help establish a minimum set of standards. Each one of you has a good process that works for you. Each one of those processes could be easily amended to incorporate an arming plug if it doesn't already.
> It isn't those with a good process that are the safety problem. It's the neophyte that hears the experienced pilot expound on why he is safe without an arming plug because he does everything else right. The beginner doesn't hear or doesn't understand all the issues with setting up failsafe, throttle cut, arming conditions, thumb on throttle stick that are part of that process of achieving safe operations in the pits and on the runway whether you have an arming plug or not.
> I have seen models without arming plugs, without external receiver switches and canopies that require two hands to remove. Last time I checked failsafe operation at a contest, full throttle kill was running about 50%. Most of the remaining were simply going to hold which doesn't help at all if you already have a problem. Eventually a setup like that will cause a disaster.
> An arming plug is a small thing to add. It can be done lightly, cheaply and reliably. It provides a visual indication to all that the motor/ESC is unpowered. It is not dependent on any other function in the model to operate. 
> John
> 
> On 2/23/2015 10:49 PM, Steve Hannah via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I agree 100% with Jerry. 
>  
> The multiple throttle kill approach is the best. I have seen the same things as Jerry. The best safety approach is always a multi-pronged solution. 
>  
> I use a slider to drop the throttle below arming level and a switch to nullify the throttle stick. Then, for added security I always hold the stick down with my thumb as my caller/helper retrieves the plane. They usually don't turn off the receiver so I assume my plane is live until I prove otherwise and shut it down.  
>  
> An external plug is one way, but I fail to see how it provides any more safety than my method. Switching it off from my transmitter and disabling the throttle stick are very secure means and I know the ESC has been shut down. I don't rely on a person to pull a plug. 
>  
> Along with that, proving you have a failsafe is a reasonable request and shouldn't be an issue for anyone. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 08:50, Budd Engineering via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
> At nearly every contest I've attended since I started flying electric in pattern (the 2004 Nats in Masters) I've seen at least one occurrence where someone retrieved a plane without removing an arming plug first.  Usually the pilot reminds the person to do it while they're carrying the plane back or as they're setting it down somewhere.  It happens with my planes too and I make sure they switch the receiver off and then I remove my canopy and disconnect the battery directly.  But before they even get that far I've taken the other steps to make sure there's virtually no chance the motor is going to run.
>  
> My point is this.  A layered approach is the only way I've found to effectively mitigate this particular risk to the levels of safety that you claim.  Relying on someone to remove an arming plug is not a complete panacea and may lend a false sense of security that the motor system has been de-energized, when in fact it may not have been.  There's many ways to manage the risk to the desired level, the use of an arming plug is one, and may not necessarily be the best.
>  
> Jerry 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
> I use the Ultra Deans stlye Arming Plug from F3A Unlimited, and It works very well. I would gather it provides you with a 99 % dagree of confidence that your caller , plane carrier , yourself, or anyone else will not be harmed. Yes... I do agree that there is a miniscuel chance that a pilot / caller could forget to unplug the safety, however I feel most pilots that have been doing it a while is like tying your shoes, or etc.... On all of my electrics except for indoor ships, I have some sort of disconnect. I for one would like to see it an inforced rule at all sanctioned meets not just pattern meets, that any plane over a certain size or weight must have one in order to fly. Just my three pennies 
> 
> 
> Matthew E. Finley 
> QCI - Technology Assistant 
> 614-557-3846 Mobile 
> mfinley at quadcityinnovations.com <mailto:mfinley at quadcityinnovations.com>   
> 
>    
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 <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 <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 <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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion><Mail Attachment.txt> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 <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 <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/20150225/fdd471bd/attachment.html>