<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Myself I think the best safety fail safe purely for
spectators is engine idle or dead and plane in spin.. Not much forward
momentum and chance for verbal warning in needed to get out of way. Course they
shouldn't be flying over people so moot point from spectator aspect.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Del <BR> nsrca -
473</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=brett.terry@gmail.com href="mailto:brett.terry@gmail.com">brett
terry</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Two
killed by model airplane</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Good points, all. Maybe this sort of feature could be
tied in with an autopilot system to level the wings and maintain altitude
until the interference is gone.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 5/21/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Ed Alt</B>
<<A href="mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com">ed_alt@hotmail.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Any RF link can be interfered with, marketing
hype aside. The DSS systems will primarily offer protection from each
other, which is definitely a good thing. It's not going to be
completely effective at rejecting other sources of RF on the same channels
that arrive after initial open channel has completed at startup. Not
everyone plays by the same rules from a protocol observance
standpoint. Net-net, they won't be immune to intererence, although
they may be a significant improvement from what we have today.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Again, what I am proposing is simple to do and
could be incorprated in any radio technology. For that matter, it
could even be a pot (potentiometer replacement) to an unused extra channel
if older transmitters needed the feature. A small protocol module
add-in takes over the function of a pot, could be swapped by a skilled
modeler or better yet, Radio South, Horzon/Hobby Services etc. Bingo,
you have your failsafe protocol ready to interface with 3rd party kill
switches, audible alert speakers etc. </FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=sg>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>