[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Mon May 18 00:12:16 AKDT 2015
So...since no safety rule can totally prevent accidents, we should have
none?
I suppose you are against seatbelts, airbags and helmets because they
don't prevent all vehicle deaths?
I don't see the point in conjuring up ridiculous rule possibilities to
put down reasonable safety rules.
Failsafe checks are intended to be educational rather than punitive so
where's the harm?
Also, there is no rule being proposed that mandates any arming system at
all but you must demonstrate a physical disconnect of the motor battery.
I consider an arming plug/connection to be by far the easiest and
safest way to satisfy the proposed rule.
John
On 5/17/2015 11:47 AM, Dave Lockhart via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> So…..if we mandate arming systems….our airplanes will no longer be
> capable of causing carnage?
>
> Maybe we should require all planes have an impact absorbing foam
> spinner and a shroud around the prop to make sure the spinning thing
> on front can’t cut anyone? Of course the kinetic energy of the moving
> plane will still be substantial enough to cause carnage….so maybe a
> combination of speed and weight limit to restrict the kinetic energy
> level to a point that it is deemed “safe”?
>
> Accidents are accidents….and more likely to happen when safe
> procedures are not followed. Our airplanes will always be dangerous
> and capable of causing carnage….just like the cars we drive to the
> field in.
>
> Requiring the fail safe be demonstrated is a far better idea….but it
> still won’t protect against someone bumping the throttle stick of an
> airplane that passes a fail safe check and has an arming system in
> it. To my recollection, I’d say about 20% of the fail safe checks at
> the 2011 WC were not successful on the first attempt….and a surprising
> number of the pilots needed assistance programming there radio to make
> the failsafe work.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*NSRCA-discussion
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:09 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
>
> Yeah! Even if we are capable of causing carnage with our unsafe
> airplane, it’s nobody else’s business. Don’t mess with my airplane!
>
> Ron (with tongue in cheek)
>
> On May 17, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> Pattern is turning into a box checking, over-regulated government
> operation.
>
> -Keith Hoard
> -Sent from my Windows Phone
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:*5/17/2015 9:04
> *To:*David Harmon <mailto:k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>;General pattern
> discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:*[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
>
> TAG IN.....
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I started to do that in my contest in Kansas City last year. This
> year in pilot meeting I said. " If you don't do it the first round
> will be zeroed. Well I think worked well"
>
> John F.
>
> You just made my day. I do more or less the same you do. I review
> a lot of projects. Clearly will all here analyzed the system and
> we know the steps could be used to mitigate a possible situation.
> That is the end of discussion in cases like this. Just give me a
> real possibility of tag in and tag out.
>
> Jon,
>
> Good research. Now you have to find what is the code that applies
> to model airplanes. I knew that there is no one specific code.
> However existing codes applies for similar systems. If all if them
> arrives to the same conclusion we will be in better shape if we
> just follow the intent of all codes you can find. Now try to find
> the specifics for a system similar to the one we have. I already
> know the answer so I don't need to ask our friend Google.
>
> TAG OUT
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, David Harmon via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> 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:
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <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
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> > 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...
> >
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>
> >> On May 16, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
>
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Code doesn't apply to model airplanes. Cars do not
> disconnect the
> 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.
> >>
> >> If this was a big issue, AMA would address it with all
> model aircraft,
> not just pattern. Electric is common in helis, controline,
> etc. We are over
> killing this something awful.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>> On May 16, 2015 2:11 PM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> the ignition switch.
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Vicente Bortone
> <vincebrc at gmail.com <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Del R via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- 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
> 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.
> >>>>>> You just can't be too carful with these things!!!
> >>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jim Woodward via
> NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ... Going electric induces a mental physchosis that
> requires
> >>>>>>> everyone else to switch, then go and change the rules
> for glow
> >>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On May 16, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Keith Hoard via
> NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the YS guys should have their caller remove
> the fuel tank
> and glow plug before picking up the plane and exiting the
> runway . . .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: NSRCA-discussion
> >>>>>>>> [mailto:
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <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
> supply electricity to the electric motor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> <mailto: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
> put forth requires a *physical* break in the circuit!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sent from Outlook
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:16 AM -0700, "ronlock--- via
> NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm in agreement.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron Lockhart
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: "David via NSRCA-discussion"
> >>>>>>>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >>>>>>>>> To:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150518/c0b583c9/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list