[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

Tue May 19 01:06:36 AKDT 2015

How we know that is disconnected? OSHA requirement. Lockout/tag out
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:44 PM Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's not in the rule proposal
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://taps.io/outlookmobile>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <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/20150519/821351f7/attachment.html>