Be honest, do you set the fail safe?

[Richard Duvall]

For ignorant people like me, can someone give a brief explanation of failsafe! And, is this a facility available on my Futaba 6EX?

[Major]

Richard

 

Here You can check it - downloadable pdf manual for 6EXAP.

[Major]

To set the Fail Safe Function:
1. Enter the programming mode. Access the “F/S” screen with the MODE key.
2. You can find the channel blinking on the left of the screen, which can be set to the Fail Safe.
The first channel you see is CH1 (aileron). Press DATA Input lever downward when you
need to set Fail Safe. The arrow moves to F/S side. This means this channel has been set
to F/S function. Then move the aileron stick to the position where you want the servo to
move when “F/S” function works and press DATA INPUT lever downward for about two
seconds while holding the stick. A figure in percentage will be shown with a beeping sound.
Press DATA INPUT lever upward if you want to set “NOR”. The arrow moves to “NOR”
side and then this channel will be set to “NOR” function.
3. Carry out similar procedure like this in setting “F/S” function for other channels. Use Mode
key to show a channel and do the same. But, CH3 (throttle) is set to 20% of the full throttle
for “F/S” function as a default.
4. Verify that your failsafe programming works by switching off transmitter power and observing the motion of the servos.

[Erfolg]

Martin

 

I think you are correct, in that if the failsafe is not set, you may have a case to justify why not. You can at least argue if the failsafe setting was relevant or why you had it set at the random setting.

 

On the other hand, with the must, it becomes a case you are guilty, irrespective if the failsafe had any substantive part in what ever the case is with respect. It becomes a situation like a driver over the drink drive limit, or speeding, you are guilty, irrespective of the circumstances.

 

I do think we need to set and encourage the use of a failsafe, yet resist the idea of you must to be legal.

[Alan Cantwell]

look at it this way, if the word gets around its not a legality, then more and more will not bother to set it, and when the inevitable case gets to coart, the hobby, and the plaintiff will get descended on from a very great height, treat it as a legality, be wise,

[Erfolg]

Alan

 

Just consider that most are setting or their Txs or Rx set the failsafe to low throttle already. Additional encouragement will improve the situation to almost complete setting.

 

What you are inadvertently advocating is the removal of any defense in any incident where a model is involved and the failsafe is not set. You would be guilty as a consequence that the failsafe was not set, irrespective of circumstance or fault. At a minimum it becomes a contributing consideration.

 

As it stands, there can be a debate if the failure to set, were relevant to the event. It could well be dismissed as not relevant to the case. Or alternatively, there could be a call for consideration of mandatory setting requirement.

 

I believe the situation is best understood as a recommendation and encouragement is considered to be part of the operation of a model. Just as airframe and evaluation of the radio and control surfaces operation is the considered pre flight or operational checks.

 

I do emphasis, the situation seems good without publicity, additional education and the inclusion of operational procedures of models,by magazines and the BMFA procedures, will result in something approaching 100% usage.

 

Yet it must recognised that indoor fliers do not benefit from the usage to the extent that a 10kg pylon or aerobatic model etc. does.

Edited By Erfolg on 14/02/2012 20:33:11

[Alwyn Gee]

If we are going to pick out the parts of the CAP 658 document then I would suggest that the third paragraph in Chapter 1 Introduction, reins supreme:-

 

It is the legal responsibility of the operator of a model aircraft to ensure that the model is flown safely. This publication is intended to provide guidance to anyone intending to fly a model aircraft.

 

I take from this that if there is something available to you like a fail-safe setting that you choose not to utilise then you would be in breach of this legal responsibility.

 

Not sure what David's intention was at the start of this thread but it has certainly stirred up a hornets nest. Hope they've all got their fail-safes set.

 

Alwyn

[Turbycat]

If you have fail safe available as part of your equipment why not use it? It is not there to "save" a model merely to reduce the possibility of a fly away model causing damage to property or injury to persons. Wether it is a legal requirement or not surely it must be a common sense requirement ! I can't see where the talk of jobsworths and health safety tsars comes in to it. If you've got it use it !

I myself have never seen a model fly away and I've been in the hobby on off for over 30 years, but with the advent of increasingly more sophisticated equipment available why not use it to it's full ability. It might just prevent that one big accident! If you have gear that will allow the use of failsafe settings and it is considered, by your hobby's governing body, "best practice" to use it and you don't then surely in todays litigeous society you are setting yourself up for a fall.

It 's surely just common sense as far as can see and I can't see why people would object to setting it whatever size model they fly, from light weight park flyer, to a huge almost full size job.

 

Andy

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Alan.

 

I believe that that's the reason why the BMFA don't discourage that viewpoint but I would hope the vast majority would see the sense in making use of the facility.

 

A great deal of the guidelines from the handbook and CAP 658 have no strict legal controls but this doesn't mean that clubs and individuals ignore them - our flying rules, for example, generally follow the BMFA handbook with a few variations due to local circumstances which are documented and understood by the members.

 

(sorry if there's some duplication but I thought Alan's was the latest post when I wrote this...)

 

Turby - the only flyaway I've witnessed was assumed to be either a failed of disconnected battery on a PPM receiver (the model was never seen again) so unfortunately failsafe wouldn't have helped in that case.

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/02/2012 22:29:41

[Steve G]

always use your fail safes had a plane being set up in me front room thought id set me fail safe turned off my tx as turning it of and on agian was quicker to get my servos back to center than finding my servo checker, heres what happened

could of been a lot worse as i was sat on the floor and the plane was on a table lucky i got most of me out of the way (could of been my face), scared the hell out of me, made sure to check all my models after that, easy way to check is to RESTRAIN YOUR MODEL all powered up and ready to go then turn off your tx if your failsafe is set then nothing will happen if its not set then the motor will go full throttle, turning on your tx will send a fresh signal and drop the throttle off again, sorry for the pic just thought id show how dangerous it can be not have your fail safe set, SET YOUR FAIL SAFE YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENCE

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Never, ever, set up a model with the prop attached. A simple rule that can save you days, weeks or even a lifetime of regret.

 

A clubmate nearly found this out the hard way - he'd been doing the same and for some unrelated reason took the prop off and then somehow managed to start the motor with his face near enough to mark it with the spinning prop driver...

[Keith Simmons]

If a newbe or a visitor arrives at your club asking you to check his/her model, Do you also double check the fail safe that it is on and working as it should be? (without being asked?) it may not have entered his or her head to do so.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Yes

[Erfolg]

The irony of this discussion,is that those who are vociferous with respect to the use of failsafes, are pushing at an open door.

 

I have not read one person who has said it should not be set. The odd individual, has rightly asked and debated the real benefits of the device, all concluding, that in principal, they could help.

 

What I object to, are those who take it upon themselves to tell others what they should do. By all means introduce a rule at club level, with the agreement of the membership.

 

With respect to safety, it should be considered as "a given". I would expect all reasonable people would want to operate safely what ever they do. I would be very surprised if anyone or group deliberately saw virtue in deliberately maximising unsafe practices. In short, we should endeavor to be aware of risk, and manage it, as a everyday activity. Safety ideally should not be an add on, as often is a UK trait. It is noticeable that in many EU countries, the principal engineer is responsible for safety, as a normality of any activity. Safety not seen as a separate issue, requiring a separate autonomous risk manager, or individual, who feel it is their right to over ride management or individual wishes, as a consequence of their interpretation of regulations (the jobsworths).

[Ian Jones]

The discussion about jobsworths etc. is very interesting but the poll was:

" Be honest, do you set the fail safe facility for every model?"

[DizzyDuck]

Posted by Erfolg on 15/02/2012 09:57:22:

What I object to, are those who take it upon themselves to tell others what they should do. By all means introduce a rule at club level, with the agreement of the membership.

and who will enforce the agreed rules....oh . those same jobsworths..

I'd like to think club members can see the mutual good of safety rules and they wouldn't need enforcement but human nature being what it is...there are times when people need to be told for their own good and for the safety of others.

for example I have also had occasion to attend rifle ranges..is it safe to point a loaded rifle along the firing line? if it was pointing at you then would you "tell" someone not to do it..jobsworth or wanting to stay safe ?

Now if you're talking about thoise who unilaterally decide what you should do and their way is the only way then yes i would also find that annoying in extremis. and exceedingly condescending.. Telling people how to behave indeed..

okay back on topic yes , as said i always set the failsafe whether on the tx or the rx makes no odds i do it... really only 3 variations yes, no, dont have one

so from the poll rather than being Encouraging we have a potential 43% NOT setting a failsafe.., how is this good or even aan open door?

[Erfolg]

Quackers, There is a big difference between a club rule being enforced, the pointing a gun at some one, where I would expect a range of legislation, regulations and codes of practice all prohibiting the act , compared with being told what you must do, when the regulations say you should.

The gun issue also emphasises that not all risks are the same. The guidance and regulation (CAP doc)., does recognise the differing levels of risks. There is a massive difference in issue and risks, between an indoor model and a Large Scale Model. There is no one size fits all solution, which is not overly onerous on some, yet barely adequate for others, due to the models being flown.

Modelers as many groups of people are responsible, I see that 10% see no need. In some instances that could be arguably warranted. An example could be a indoor model, weighing next to nothing. I would expect those who fly a model with no setting of the failsafe as a policy of wishing not to conform to be vanishingly small.

If you strip out the 10% who have no failsafe to set, my calc indicated circa 75% defiantly set them.

There is room for interpretation of the heading, "where appropriate". Which then takes the % set ever higher circa 86%.

Yes I am encouraged,. Do I think a campaign is beneficial, yes. Do I want to be told what I must do, not unless it is a law, this is a hobby, which I want to enjoy, with mutual respect. Fortunately the club I am member has very few, if any jobsworths.

[DizzyDuck]

nowt to disagree with there..except the point i was trying to make, rather poorly , is that someone else's unthinking actions do sometimes need to be pointed out. ie they need to be told. or we can end up like the poor guy in the photo.

and a jobsworth is only a jobsworth if he's pointing out something you see as unnecessary. From another point of view he's doing the right thing... not liking being told what or how to do something ulnless you agree with it is not conducive to the good of the hobby.

That said I know the hobby is a low risk and most modellers if not exactly complying with the letter of the law are generally in accordance with the spirit of it. ie fly safe.

Back to the poll.. lets deconstruct it abit further.. ok 6% see there no need. no interpretation needed flying indoors or out a prop spinning at a few thousand rpm in the face is not good.

no the tx does it.. so thats a no then... as you dont know what your tx is setting it at

no old tx..not really fair so lets discount it.

Sometimes..= sometimes not so thats a no

If model req it so thats a no as well

Always.. mmm guess thats the only yes

so how does that stack up.. discounting 22 old tx

110 yes's

78 no's

so even rounding up in the favour of positives...as b4 not exactly a runaway...

just trying to  different perpective   Lies damned lies and statistics eh ?

more critically of those that set a failsafe.. how many test it as part of there pf checks? At the field i fly i've watched all sorts of pf checks but not many (any? check the fs. now i watch out for my own safety and dont need to tell others what to do or how to behave but just be aware not everyone will perceive risk the same as you.

 and what should be open for intrpretation is how a fs should be set in differing situations.as mooted in an earlier post.

Edited By DizzyDuck on 17/02/2012 15:22:36

Edited By DizzyDuck on 17/02/2012 15:27:24

[Erfolg]

Mr Duck

I do not check the failsafe at the field. I do however do a check at home when setting up.

I have an aversion to switching of my Tx, at the field, with the model live. In my home I can be much more controlled, than in a grass tusseted field.

Another big difference is that I fly only electrics, a 300w electric is powerful by my standards. However when it comes to IC, my perception, is that they are generally much heavier and generally fly faster than the models in my club. Using ke =(mv^2)/2, making general assumptions that an IC model is *2 in mass, than an electric (as in my club) will therefore have twice the energy, if it flies appreciably faster, particularly when crashing the energy will be 2KE(elec model) *delta V^2 higher still. Dependent on the time/distance and how the energy is dissipated will determine the damage done. Given that most electrics are much lighter built & often foam, I would expect considerably less damage. Now if we consider a very Large model, you are in a wholey different ball park.

I do see the benefit of setting the failsafe, though I am much more relaxed when a Easy Star is being flown, than a 80 IC powered scale pylon racer. I do fear there is a tone of one size fits all in the must, rather than the should.

[Alan Cantwell]

i am not,and never have been a jobsworth, the setting of a fail safe is a necceasity, interpret the cap 658 wording how you wish, but have an incident, and we will see if the word legal gets brought up, its up to the pilot to make the set up safe, to make sure the flight can be undertaken safely, i resent being labled a jobsworth, when all i am doing is trying to bring home the fact that we have to be responsible, i am done with this, the stress is simply not worth it,

[Erfolg]

Alan

There is a difference in the meaning of "must" and "should" particularly in any regulative, advisory and code of practice.

As a movement I would urge resistance to any "ratcheting" by thinking the words are interchangeable.

[Alan Cantwell]

you know, i dont care, you have insulted me, this i do not like, ok?

[Erfolg]

Alan for any insult I do apologise, publicly.

I have no wish to offend, I do greatly regret the offense I have made

Abject apology

Carl

[Glyn R]

RESTRAIN YOUR MODEL BEFORE ANY ACTION INVOLVING THE TX IS TAKEN. I have seen 2 or three incidents which would have been prevented with a restraint. I fly an Acrowot with an 1100 watt motor. The power is at least equal to a glow 55. Everyone seems to restrain glow models when starting. Restrain electrics when doing anything which involves connecting the battery. I know people will say small park flyers can do no harm, this is nonsense indoor flyers get injuries all the time.

[Erfolg]

Hmmm I can smell something.

Ahh, yes a wind up

Edited By Erfolg on 17/02/2012 19:51:23