[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
ronlock at comcast.net
ronlock at comcast.net
Sun May 17 11:58:56 AKDT 2015
+3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 9:57:15 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
+2
On May 17, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote:
+1
Sent from my iPad
On May 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote:
<blockquote>
Well, I figured I would stay away from this discussion, but it scares the crap out of me so maybe I can scare the crap out of someone else and take the discussion in a different direction that could produce results…
Rest assured, I won't even debate the merits of widgets…I won't argue in favor or against arming switches, failsafes, or anything else…how about that?
So, from the perspective of someone who has managed (or tried to manage...) risk in professional settings for many years, here is how I see this whole debate and what, frankly, scares me…
If you put yourself in the shoes of a spectator reading this year-long discussion thread, there is one thing that everyone seems to agree on…that an electric pattern plane sitting in the pits by itself is a "loaded gun". On that point, there seems to be universal agreement.
The heated debate in this thread is about how to make that plane safe from inadvertent starts and causing damage or injury. I think we all agree on that. Simple enough.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the lawyer who is working for the spouse of a pattern flier who bled to death before the ambulance could arrive at the contest site, because the prop sliced his femoral artery while he was squatting in front of the plane, while installing the canopy.
The lawyer's case is pretty much made for him, isn't it? A known hazard, surrounded by 25 pilots (or at least one designated caller) all belonging to an organization that have established in 4156 emails that the hazard was real and present..all of whom neglected to restrain or mitigate the known hazard in any way. All of these people, whilst assuming the pilot had some sort of lock-out device in place, made no effort to determine if it was adequate or even installed correctly. And even if it had been, all these people are involved in a debate about the validity of such devices and have been unsuccessful in establishing a universal practice. Yet, they took no mitigating actions in the mean time, leading up to the fatality.
So, I was at a contest yesterday, and I was asked to call for a pilot. If he asks me prior to putting the battery in the aircraft, I always hold the plane while he does it. When I set the plane on the centerline, I always look to him to signal me to let it go. When I return the plane to the pits, I always inform the pilot verbally that the plane is still armed and I wait until he disconnects stuff physically so I can see it, then I get up and walk away. I really don't care what failsafe, interlock, or widget he uses to disarm the plane electronically…I wanna see some sort of physical broken connection before I feel my personal responsibility ends.
I've had several pilots say to me.."ok, John, I disarmed it already…it's OK"… NO, it's not OK! Not until I can see the physical disconnect.
When you ask me to call for you, and you ask me to handle a 5-hp, 80 mph meat-cutter in the middle of a crowd of 30 people…I feel deeply responsible for IT, for YOU, and for ALL the pilots on the line. I WILL insist on you showing me that this thing is physically disarmed, or else you can find another caller…it's that simple.
See, I promised I wouldn't discuss widgets…I didn't even tell you how mine is set up. But, did I scare the crap out of you?
Out of the box…
John
On May 16, 2015, at 11:43 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote:
<blockquote>
You need to have the motor at least idling before turning the transmitter off. The test should prove that failsafe will stop the motor and is not just a throttle hold.
John
On 5/16/2015 4:55 PM, David Harmon via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
<blockquote>
With as much talk that has gone on and on andonandonandonandon about this
arming device......puff..puff....not much percentage.
Especially when it is so easy to check.....
Before the first takeoff of each pilot on the first round....the helper
holds the plane off the ground and the pilot turns off the transmitter.
The judges can verify that the motor does not start.
Easy....no drama.
Oh wait....this was never done with glow....but I HAVE seen several guys
chawed up by a howling YS.
One time a guys airplane chased him in a circle as he was trying to catch
it...he had one leg in front of one wing and for an old guy he moved pretty
quick.
I can't describe how long I laughed about that incident.
In the end....my opinion is checking the fail-safe function should be a must
at each contest.
David Harmon
Sperry, OK
-----Original Message-----
From: NSRCA-discussion [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On
Behalf Of Ron Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 4:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
I have seen too many situations where an ID10T error caused serious damage
that would have been precluded by the use of a shorting plug.
What percentage of pilots’ transmitters would fail the fail safe test?
Anybody?
Ron Van Putte
On May 16, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
Seems like we have to many people with to much time on their hands sitting
around fantasizing about what might happen if .... Really.... if u cant
control the aircraft in all aspects then u prolly shouldn't have one... Let
alone legislate what i need to be doing with mine...
<blockquote>
Gary
Sent from my iPhone
<blockquote>
On May 16, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Code doesn't apply to model airplanes. Cars do not disconnect the
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
battery, except on race cars with a disconnect switch in case of a wreck.
Normal road cars do not, and modern cars leave a lot of things connected
when the ignition is off. A lot of cars have underhood fans that run for
awhile after the car is shut off.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
If this was a big issue, AMA would address it with all model aircraft,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
not just pattern. Electric is common in helis, controline, etc. We are over
killing this something awful.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Jon
<blockquote>
On May 16, 2015 2:11 PM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
the ignition switch.
<blockquote>
On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:
<blockquote>
On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Del R via NSRCA-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The nice thing about being brought up around GUNS.. It teaches
people to respect it always as though it is loaded and cocked
ready to deliver its physical life altering energy!!!.. < tic >
<blockquote>
----- Original Message -----
From: David Cook via NSRCA-discussion
To: Jim Woodward ; General pattern discussion
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
Just to open the can of worms from the other end.
Now that I have seen the damage a runaway can do to a pool table even
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
with an external arming device, I have begun to make it a common practice to
remove the prop from the electric planes any time I am not at the field
flying. Store the ammunition and the pin under two different locks. How easy
is it to be careless in the shop or transporting a plane. This thread could
just explode with stories of mishaps we have made or come way too close to.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
You just can't be too carful with these things!!!
DC
<blockquote>
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jim Woodward via NSRCA-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
... Going electric induces a mental physchosis that requires
everyone else to switch, then go and change the rules for glow
:)
Sent from my iPhone
<blockquote>
On May 16, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
I think the YS guys should have their caller remove the fuel tank
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
and glow plug before picking up the plane and exiting the runway . . .
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
From: NSRCA-discussion
[ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of
precisionaero via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 8:38 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
I think we should reconfigure a YS engine to drive a generator to
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
supply electricity to the electric motor.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™ III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
Date:05/16/2015 09:31 (GMT-05:00)
To: General pattern discussion , ronlock at comcast.net , David
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
I think we're all in agreement, which is why the rules proposal we
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
put forth requires a *physical* break in the circuit!
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Sent from Outlook
<blockquote>
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:16 AM -0700, "ronlock--- via
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
I'm in agreement.
Ron Lockhart
________________________________
From: "David via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 1:14:21 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
I'm not trying to bring up a sore subject but this has been
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
bugging me since it was up a while back. I am the senior electronics
technician in the plasma physics department at the University of Wisconsin.
About a third of what I do is make interlock circuits for the Madison
Symmetric Torus. I know that the best way of keeping things safe is to
remove the potential energy from a circuit to keep bad things from
happening. The problem with depending on a circuit such as the emcotec type
of disconnect or to just relying solely on the radio and ESC to keep things
safe is failure modes. You can plan for all different failure types but to
make it a circuit that isn't a lead brick being added to the plane there are
compromises that have to be made. This leads to designing systems that may
deal with only the most common types of failures. For example most common
diodes and tantalum capacitors usually fail in a shorted mode, but not
always. Many carbon resistors will decrease in résistance just prior to
opening up. You get the idea, there are just so many possibilities and
combinations that in my opinion the only real way to safe a power system is
to disconnect the energy source. Ok, now I feel better that I said
something.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
David
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
</blockquote>
--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 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
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
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/20150517/d8ab9bc3/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list