[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

Tue May 19 00:05:48 AKDT 2015

Agree 100%. I will add that the physical disconnect needs to be easily
visible. I guess that canopy has to be off the plane in order to
demonstrate the physical disconnect.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:41 PM Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> And, once again, the requirement is not for an arming plug, but for a
> physical disconnect from power when the plane is unattended or
> unrestrained.
>
> Peter+
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://taps.io/outlookmobile>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:10 PM -0700, "Dave Lockhart via
> NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>  John,
>>
>>
>>
>> My point was simply that “safe” is a relative term.  Adding an arming
>> plug requirement, or a physical disconnect requirement does not make a
>> plane “safe”.  Safer in some instances, but with an additional failure
>> point.  Most of the safety concerns / accidents / near misses, etc, I have
>> witnessed would not have been any different if an arming plug was in use.
>>
>>
>>
>> So far as failsafe, it also won’t make an airplane “safe”, but, from my
>> experience, if fail safe checks were implemented, that would do more to
>> make the airplanes safe than adding an arming plug.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John Gayer [mailto:jgghome at comcast.net]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:48 PM
>> *To:* Dave Lockhart; General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <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> 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
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *Sent: *‎5/‎17/‎2015 9:04
>> *To: *David Harmon <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern discussion
>> <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> 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:
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> 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:
>>
>> > 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> 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> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> the ignition switch.
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Del R via NSRCA-discussion
>> <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> 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> 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: <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> 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, 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> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 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
>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> <Mail Attachment.txt>_______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20150519/da7a2ee3/attachment.html>