[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

Tue May 19 01:03:24 AKDT 2015

That's not in the rule proposal 

Sent from Outlook

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:50 PM -0700, "Vicente Bortone" <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:

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

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] 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
Sent: ‎5/‎17/‎2015 9:04
To: David Harmon; General pattern discussion
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] 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] 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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/adadac07/attachment.html>