[NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug and Failsafe +

[David Harmon]

>>I've been at a *lot* of contests where people from the anti-arming plug camp have lost their canopies in flight.  Hmm.  Maybe the task loading of preparing the fly a round, telling your caller where you want the plane positioned on the runway, AND removing your canopy to plug your batteries in and then replacing the canopy is too much?<<

 

You forgot to mention that people from the arming plug camp are so concerned with bolting the canopy on and making sure the arming plug is not connected….that they forget to secure the battery.

Then after hopefully landing safely….the arming plug is redundant.

 

As you can tell…..I stocked up on popcorn….kaff….kaff…

 

 

 

David Harmon

Sperry, OK

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Vicente Bortone; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug and Failsafe +

 

I'm a bit of a history buff.  All this discussion is reminiscent of the heated discussions that occurred in the newspapers of the day when, first Britain, and later the United States, imposed rules on how one drives a car on the motorways of the day.  People complained bitterly at being "confined to the side" of roads (left or right) and being "constrained to a speed little more than walking speed" (which, was, in fact, the constraint in the early 1800's when cars were steam powered).  When signage, and, later, traffic lights appeared in the early 20th century, the uproar was quite similar.  Everyone had an argument why "their" driving process was absolutely accident proof and if everyone just followed their brilliant safety system there would be no need for such ridiculous and outrageous "regulation" and "government intrusion" into their preferred activities.

 

The proposed rule makes no requirement for an arming plug, but it does require: 

 

 "the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun or the aircraft is preparing to be taken out to the runway for the flight and must be physically disconnected immediately after removal of the aircraft from the landing area."

 Personally, given the hassle of canopy removal and replacement, particularly just prior to flight, I will use an arming plug as I have since I got into this sport.  Even my first electric helicopter (which is how I got back into RC after a 15 year hiatus) had an arming plug, even with the added safety of a throttle hold switch on the TX.  It was cheap and easy insurance to be certain I never had a situation where I'd unexpectedly encounter a 290mph blade tip speed...

I've been at a *lot* of contests where people from the anti-arming plug camp have lost their canopies in flight.  Hmm.  Maybe the task loading of preparing the fly a round, telling your caller where you want the plane positioned on the runway, AND removing your canopy to plug your batteries in and then replacing the canopy is too much?  Or maybe relying on a caller to know exactly how your canopy needs to be secured is expecting too much of them?  I trust anyone on the flight line to take my plane out and plug in the deans arming plug securely and remove it before they roll my plane into the pits...

Peter+

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20150518/1e74f6e4/attachment.html>