Tx past flight line?

[CARPERFECT]

Question ? Why do do BMFA rules/guide lines state that  your Tx should be left behind the flight line when retreaving your model. Reason for question we have some heli pilots that are on 2.4ghz and think it should not apply to them as they do not trust any body with their Tx and will not put it on ground

[Andy Gates]

The Tx should be passed on to another flyer to hold while you retrieve your machine, not necessarily put on the ground.

 

I guess the idea is to stop flyers taking their Tx onto the flight path strapped around their neck. With the aeriel extended, the aerial will swing the tx around as the flyer walks.

 

Now imagine said flyer picking up their model and walking with the Tx swinging around.

If it is an electric model and the pilot has not killed the power, there is a chance the motor could fire up causing injury.

 

I am sure that this is not the only reason, but it is the first that springs to my mind.

 

If the flyers in the club you attend are really that untrusting of fellow flyers, then that can't be a very friendly club.

 

If the rule is a fixed one, then any members who do not follow the rules should be gently spoken to or failing that reported to the club safety officer / secetary / chairperson to have their actions addressed.

[CARPERFECT]

The person involved is on the committee and so am i, both of us new to committee.

I have been flying 20+ years at another club, joined this club last year to find very little saftey , People allowed to fly on their own with not enough experience no (A) certificate. No pegboard (because most are on 2.4.) the person in question has been tought by an other club member,and allowed to do this, and most of the heli people just walk out passed flight line and stay there hovering blocking the runway.But what i am trying to find out is why no tx passed flight line. I have had reasons of all tx to be in one place (pits), possible interference with other aircraft, and i just don`t want to

Edited By CARPERFECT on 25/02/2010 20:49:40

[Andy Gates]

I was asked by a fellow modeller to join the club he was with but I found a similar issues to the one you have so I did not join the club.

 

For me personally, if there are rules, then all should adhere to them.

 

The club I visited had established members bypassing all sorts of rules, launching models from the pits, over flying the pits and generally flying stupidly

(I witnessed a twin glow model being flown on a down wind high speed flypast over a small group of trees at the start. The flyer was the "best" pilot in the club. The model did not make it over the trees but went through them - one dead model).

 

Others were getting picked up by the same flyer for rule infringments.

 

The A test was required to fly unsupervised, only one of the flights I observed was flown anywhere close to A standard and crashes were frequent.

 

I fly as a park flyer, and I believe I fly to a much safer standard than the club.

Needless to say I am stillsearching for a club to join where I consider the standard good enough and the flying times suitable to how I want to fly.

[Erfolg]

Rules

 

Hmmm Rules are always tricky

 

Sometimes, they arise from a time when it was very real issue that a Tx could swamp a Rx on another frequency, due to poor discrimination. Is it an issue today, possibly much less of an issue with 2.4.

 

In other instances, it is about predictable patterns of behaviour. Can reduce incidents etc.

 

Other times it is an inherent trait of some to control others, the older we get the more we seem to exhibit this trait, sometimes it is a case of liking a perceived order. These are the only rules which I dislike, unfortunately some are prepared to die in a ditch to maintain them.

 

If a rule is worth having, we should understand the basis, appreciate its relevance and be prepared to ditch those rules that are indefensible. The real world is often not like this though. Now pass me that tablet, my chisel, where is the mountain, I will be back shortly.

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

The none 2.4 reason for keeping transmitters close to each other was one of interference. If you take your transmitter on the field, then you can be closer to other peoples (still flying) models than the models own transmitter. In an extreme case, the much stronger signal received from the transmitter on the field can swamp a receiver even if it is on a different channel. Apart from this, as stated in other posts, having two hands to retrieve the model is also safer.

 

So this "good practice" can save models from being shot down. It really isn't hard to do and even though it probably isn't an interference issue with 2.4Ghz I think everybody adhering becomes so "normal" that nobody forgets.

[Erfolg]

The reference to Bfma rules and that some may be turned away from flying or modelling has caused me to think a little about the area.

 

Many of us do not want to have our lives regulated by laws, regulations or penalty payments. Yet as we live in an ever more crowded planet, some are necessary, for society to function. Thinking people invarably do not welcome rules into theire hobbies, although most if not all hobbies must have rules etc. to function. Imagine football with no rules, no off side, fouls, handball. Wow, what a great game that would be, no game would ever end, maimed bodies everywhere, no agreed score, where can I see it!. What, it can be seen every Friday and Saturday night in the city centres in the early hours, what both male and female paticipants.

 

In the case of the BFMA, it does need to be recognised, that the rules will be well intended. The issue with rules can be

 

a) Without a statment of purpose, the odjective is not necessarily understood and the current relevance cannot be assessed.

b) The rule in my opinion, should tell you what charactristics of what is to be done, not how to apply the rule.

 

In many ways the members who turn away from clubs because of rules of the type, you will do this, can be the very people who we require to ensure the rule book is thin and relevant. As I stated earlier, I believe rules should have an understood purpose.

 

A further difficulty is the wide range of scope of flying sites, local issues etc. This can lead to a rule book that is clumsy, does not achieve what is desired and often is ignored. 

 

On balance I think most of us can see the sence in the transmitter rule, when explained what the issues are. As few are on 2.4 at present, it is on balance probably still relevant.

 

Erfolg

[Bob Cotsford]

Don't the BMFA just recommend practises, and the clubs make rules?

I'm pretty sure most of the BMFA handbook only recommends practises as being good, the Air Navigation Orders are the only hard and fast national rules (aka the law) as far as I am aware.

Anyways, I always understood the no transmitters on the field idea was purely to prevent the risk of a tx on the field swamping or masking the signal from a tx on the flightline as it will be closer to flying models, and not for any other reason.

[Marko]

This is a common sense thing ,if you put your tx on the ground and your walking out to your plane you are not in control of it what if the throttle opens are you going to run back for your tx ,i dont think so! Bmfa states you must be in control at all times if you dont like the rules dont fly! And.... You can take off standing behind your model on the strip as long as you return to the flight line after just !!! Cherrs .............mark

[Erfolg]

Bob

 

If this is how it is done great.

 

I think where I am not convinced, but most will differ, is that I am keen on stating the objective of the practice, from which I would expect the club rule to cascade.

 

A little while ago there was a similar thread regarding 2.4 and "black pendants", I am convinced that it was the critical examination of the requirement by contributors, which encouraged a reevaluation of why, which encouraged the BMFA to review the practice/rule/requirement.

 

I thought and believe this type of debate can help.

 

I must say at present I am in favour of the "compounding transmitter" as a sensible rule, for a number of reasons. Repeating myself, I would like the BFMA recommended practice, to carry a short statement of objective and purpose.

 

I think though most of agree, we want clubs, and want to encourage membership. Where the debate will continue is the thickness of the rule book and why there are rules.

 

Erfolg

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Erfolg,

 

Maybe the following will put your mind at rest a little.  The BMFA handbook does appear to me to justify the thinking behind the rule...

 

RADIO CONTROL FLYING SAFETY
~
(p) Care must be taken at all times to avoid
overflying operating transmitters. Pilots should stand
together and should not be allowed to wander over
the flying area when operating transmitters. Clubs
should take action to prevent operating transmitters
being taken out on to an active flying area when, for
example, models are being retrieved (see the
section on ‘Radio Control at your Club’.
There are exceptions to this particularly in some
silent flight operations, and extreme care should be
taken not to overfly transmitters in these cases.

...and under ‘Radio Control at your Club’ referenced above:

INTERFERENCE
Individual Cases
~
(g) Club interference – other members switching on
without frequency clearance, other transmitters
faulty, people wandering over the field with
operating transmitters etc.

Edited By Martin Harris on 26/02/2010 14:17:38

[Erfolg]

I think we are back to agreeing but have some differences.

 

I like the idea of

 

Clause: xyz

 

Title Operating: Transmitters to be kept in operating area at all times.

 

Purpose : To minimise potential interference from sources other than the allocated Tx and Rx pair.

 

Issues: Particular issue with27 and 35 frequency, 2.4 believed to be immune from phenomena.

 

Method of Implementation

 

Blah, Blah Blah..................... 

 

I realise that we are not an industrial type operation, where operatives are expected to know, the approved method of working, the operating procedures and how compliance is demonstrated etc. To auditors, regulators and management etc.

 

I also recognise that it is unlikely that the BMFA rule book will be re-written in another format. Partially in that there is no driver to do so, the work is significant, the resource required would be significant and that the majority are happy with i,t warts and all.

 

Most things can be improved and I know that change is not necessarily progress. Yet I feel that I have seen some very complex industries and sites have the the principles of operation  reduced to approx 30 licence requirements. How these are translated into procedures seems to vary greatly dependant on the skill of drafting, management style, processes undertaken.

 

A really good rule book would be a single piece of paper, that we all knew, which ensured that we are aware of our legal obligations, kept us  all safe.

 

I do not think we really disagree, probably differ in our opinions on how much room there is for useful improvement and how it could come about.

 

Erfolg 

[buster prop]

No, you can't be in control of your plane if the Tx is on the ground while you retrieve, probably the rule was made when everyone flew i/c and could stop their engine after the plane landed. With electrics this isn't the case but we don't take Txs past the pilot box. We have as few rules as possible consistent with safety, our pegboard has a 2.4 area for pegs we don't fly behind the line, all fly circuits the same way and always call LANDING!. No accidents as far as I know and one or two people even have the 'A'. 

[Romeo Whisky]

Although not a club member at present, safety is an issue for everyone, club member or not.

 

However I do think some of the rules should be reviewed occasionally in the light of new technology (and the take-up of it in any given club).  For instance the rule of having to have a black ribbon flying from a virtually non-existent 2.4GHz aerial was ridiculous and has thankfully been quietly removed from the BMFA rule-bbok.

 

Similarly, those (large numbers) who now use Spektrum TX sets have the added benefit of both no frequency clashing, AND throttle fail-safe.  With these sets it is, in my viewn MUCH safer to switch the TX off as soon as the model lands, so there is no danger whatsoever of the throttle stick being  pushed forward, either in the hands of someone else, or in the event of the TX being blown over if it is left on the ground.  The poor range of a TX on the ground in relation to a model on the ground is also a potential safety risk.   If the Spektrum TX is switched off and the model is therefore in failsafe mode, it is irrelevant whether it is carried to retrieve the model or not.

[CARPERFECT]

What had been sugested was those on 2.4 and electric should not have to hand over their tx but the rest do

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

While this sounds technically plausible, can't you just imagine the confusion - "he's taken his, why can't I take mine". The rule book might get thicker and thicker if you add sub clauses like, if you use Spektrum and fly electric then ignore this rule.

What about other makes of 2.4?? Or Spektrum and IC, throttle failsafe is throttle failsafe isn't it? IC or electric.  

What about a pilot that gets used to his Spektrum and then "forgets" on the odd occasion he uses 35Mhz and shoots your plane down?

Much simpler to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid??) and stick to a blanket rule that really isn't onerous, surely?

 

[Erfolg]

It is the discussion which helps the identification of the issues, testing the prepositions helps us get better rules.

 

I am impressed.

 

I do have issues now with 35 and 2.4 owners (myself). In the past i would get the peg and shout XY switching on. With 2.4 I just switch on. All this relies on me remembering which Tx  I am using. Seems like an accident waiting to happen. But I do not know the answer, other to remember what I am using.

 

Or is it?

 

Cheers

[John Privett]

Posted by Erfolg on 26/02/2010 17:59:34:

In the past i would get the peg and shout XY switching on. With 2.4 I just switch on. All this relies on me remembering which Tx  I am using. Seems like an accident waiting to happen. But I do not know the answer, other to remember what I am using.

 

Our club has retained the pegboard for 2.4G as well as for 35MHz - I think that is the BMFA advice too. 

 

2.4G users just add their pegs to a common 2.4 rail, rather than to the specific 35MHz channel location.  The actual use of the peg is meaningless for 2.4,  but it keeps people in the habit of using the peg.  They're then less likely to forget the peg when they turn up one day with a 35MHz radio that they've not used for 6 months.  We use a peg ON system though.

[Myron Beaumont]

If you can't remember/recognise that 35 & 2.4 have got different aerials I don't think you should be even driving to the site nevermind fly!

[flytilbroke]

Five pilots on the flightline. One model is landed. Which of the other four pilots get asked to "park" thier model in the sky and hold the Tranny of the one who landed while he/she fetches thier model? Of course you all take a "mechanic" out to the flightline to avoid this, don't you?

 

Put your tranny on the ground, who pays for a new one when it gets stood on? or knackered with the influx of cows' green deposit.  switch off model, switch off tranny = 2 to 3 seconds, now all safe.

 

Then again you could leave the model blocking the runway while the Tranny is taken back to the pits.

 

35Mhz, aerial retracted is not about to "capture" someone else's model nor is 2.4Ghz sets likely to.

 

Time the archaic advice was changed.

[Ultymate]

I think the technology overtook this advice a long time backand I don't just mean 2.4

Edited By Ultymate on 26/02/2010 22:00:19

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Each to their own, it works perfectly for us, its automatic. If there is no one available, there seems to be a sixth sense and someone from the pits area pops across. All part of the camaraderie and co-operation that makes for a great club atmosphere.

[IanN]

That sounds like perfect common sense 

[Erfolg]

Myron

 

Questioning my ability to fly properly is one thing. But the slur about my ability to drive (mans God given inherent ability to excel) is quite another. It is beyond the pale.

 

I have no option but to challenge you, to combat  by Harry Potter "magic wands" at dawn, or a non matched pair of "water pistols".

 

Erfolg the motorist of excellence 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

My club enforces this rule - and as a good member I of course comply. But I do agree with a number of the comments above - I think its time for a review. When side band rejection was not as good as it is now it was probably good advice, but with modern transmitters (35MHz or 2.4GHz) on balance its probably safer to hold on to the transmitter and turn the plane off - and in the case of transmitters with throttle failsafe, even to turn the transmitter off first.

 

Think about it, if your transmitter passes the adjacent channel interference check (which it should) there's no way its going to be interfered with because someone else is 5% nearer the model than you when both aerials are extended.

 

We have a technologically advancing hobby - the guidelines should be under constant review to reflect considered best practice at this moment in our development. Otherwise rules/guidelines fall into disrespect and then get ignored by some and that is a potentially much more dangerous situation with folks deciding what rules they are going to follow and which they will ignore!

 

Even the bloke walking ahead with the red flag was penioned off eventually

 

BEB