[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Tue May 19 03:33:29 AKDT 2015
I agree. I also agree that most pattern flyers are reasonably cautious
and reasonably informed.
There are many facets to a safe operation and most of us follow most of
them. Any accident is a combination of at least two errors at the same
time.
Personally I use an arming plug or an external bullet, as much for
convenience on the flight line as anything else. I also make sure my
failsafe is doing the right thing. I also use a throttle cut which is
always on unless taxiing, testing or flying. I also keep my thumb
holding the throttle in a retarded position. I suppose it is possible to
still cause a problem but I feel I've taken all the steps I can to
prevent it.
But individual examples of safe or safer operation are beside the point.
I am almost always behind or beside my model pre and post flight.
However I may be in front of someone has decided that a throttle cut
alone, used sparingly, is good enough for him. It's not good enough for
me when my body is on the line because he is convinced his process is
safe enough. Not many of these guys but all it takes is one.
I keep noting that there are two rules proposals on the table for the CB
to consider. One requires a physical connect/disconnect but does not
require external evidence of disconnection. Personally I feel this does
not go far enough. The second requires a failsafe check which is the
more important of the two rule proposals.
As the subject says, this is about arming plugs but it really should be
about general flight line safety and what we can do to promote it. You
haven't seen any rules like the ones that would generated be after a
mishap that sends a 3000 watt electric slicing machine careening into a
crowd of people. Just because it hasn't happened, sometime it will and
when it does we, the hobby, had best be able to show that good safety
rules were in effect. Safety rules like the ones we are proposing and
will hopefully continue to evolve are intended to increase the MTBF(mean
time between failure), hopefully to a point where the only remotely
possible problem would be due to a willful disregard of the rules.
Cheers
John
On 5/18/2015 7:09 PM, Dave Lockhart 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
> <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 <mailto: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/c1e6fd34/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list