BMFA and failsafes

[Vecchio Austriaco]

Martin don't ask me about my opinion about lawyers.... my divorce seems to be a possibility for them to make a lot of money. Means my budget for lawyers is already spent for the coming 10 years.....

VA

[Erfolg]

As with other contributors to this forum, in my working life as an integral part of my duties I had regular contact with regulators. In some cases I knew individuals as past colleagues.

The use of "must" and "should" have very definite meanings, to regulators and licence holders. In the case of "must", there is no argument, you must, no debate. In the case of "should", wriggle room has purposely been left, this could be because the regulator envisages situations where a particular action, could be counter productive.Should is still strong, in that it is a recommendation, where you could be required to expalain why the recommendation was not followed.

I am in no way saying we should not set failsafes when available. I do support the concept.

Where my concerns lie, is in the position of the BMFA with respect to its members. In the commercial world, be it (Government owned organisation) or Goco (Government owned organisation) the prime responsibility of those representing the organisation is to its employer. To do this regulations are interpreted in a way which does not undermine the position of those they represent, you do not close off a defensive argument of why an action could be defensible, if the regulations provide this option. The public stance would recognise the substance of the clause, whilst allowing employees the opportunity to achieve the argument in the most open manner possible. No action or procedure would be encouraged which is so restrictive to the point where any omission of an action is one of non-compliance. You do not get respect from regulators by either doing their job for them, or selling your employer short. It is by offering professional advice to those you represent and arguing your position well when dealing with the regulator. Not being a soft touch.

So my complaint is that the first action of the BMFA in any claim is to automatically check the failsafe setting. This is the equivalent of stating that you are guilty irrespective of what has occurred, if the Fail safe cannot be demonstrated to be working to the satisfaction of investigator. The failsafe should be checked only if pertinent to the incident.

This is compounded by the repeated references to: "must" use if failsafe enabled.

It is all a question of tone and position.

By all means encourage, as actively as possible the use of the failsafe. Remembering that it is a recommendation, which the BMFA should not interpret in such a way that the insurance cover could be voided by the originations stance or a modeller being guilty irrespective of what occurred.

[fly boy3]

I am still using 35Mhz system,with a FutabaT6EXP Tx.This can be programmed for PPM or PCM. The manual states the Fail Safe only works in PCM. Does this mean I need to buy new recievers that work on PCM to comply with CAP 658. Or do I comply with the phrase " where a fail safe system is available" Cheers

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Assuming you only fly models below 7Kg and don't fly gas turbines, you comply with the "where the failsafe is available". If its not available you don't have to make it available.

BEB

[fly boy3]

Thanks Beb, I was thinking on those lines, as the TX has the system available but the receiver that came with it has not. Max weight of my biggest model is about 7lbs, nowhere near 7 Kg. Thanks

[Alan Cantwell]

when me n lad where show flying, on 35mhz, it was a condition of many shows that the models, of any weight, had a fail safe fitted, we used mole system failsafes on throttle only,

[fly boy3]

Hi Allan, can you expand what a "mole system fail safe is". Cheers

[Alan Cantwell]

mole system was the company, it was a low black box, that went between the throttle servo, and the reciever, throw and direction was controlled with a potentiometer, they are no longer available, but i think i have one somewere that will never get used, if i can find it, do you want it?

[Alan Cantwell]

so not now made, that i can find no tinternet referance to them, beginning to think i made it up!!

[fly boy3]

Hi Alan, its called a "senior moment". Thanks for the offer anyway. but I will decline it, as I do not need one on my system. Cheers and thanks for the info. FB3

Edited By fly boy3 on 17/07/2012 21:03:32

[Terry Mills]

I'm with erfolg on this. Anything which has legal ramifications but which lacks clarity is a disaster waiting to happen. Consider a case where the failsafe is set, and is activated by events, but where the model then causes harm to a third party. As things stand, it would be possible for them to argue that setting the failsafe was not a legal requirement, and that the action of so doing was the cause of the damage.

Surely the best way to deal with this problem is for the BMFA to discuss it with the insurers. Could a statement of "best practice" not resolve this matter, to our mutual benefit?

[Vecchio Austriaco]

As written before I think it is common sense to use the failsave feature if it is available. But I think there is a lot of cheap RTF out there without any failsafe function, not to forget the 35MHz gear (still got one but never use it) and last but not least are we sure everybody can set a failsafe properly? I think there will be quite a number of people making it worse and not better by wrong failsave settings. I remember several roaring electric motors at the moment the pilot switched off his tranny (which is the first mistake as the model needs to be switched off first...)

I don't want to go into a direction where we need a technical commission on 3rd party bases to check every new model if it is airworthy....

So switch your common sense on, take responsibility when flying, don't fly in pubic places, this may help also for future generations of model enthusiasts.

VA

[Barryorbik]

After I read the article I decided to check the failsafes on all my helicopter fleet last night and had a bit of a shock. I recently changed my transmitter from a DX7 to a DX8 and assumed ( that always makes an ASS out of U and ME!) that the fail safes would still be the same but ~I found on one model that switching off the Tx caused the esc to default to full output!!. After a quick re-bind with the Tx throttle set at minimum it now performs correctly, so a cursory tale and this quick check could have saved my helicopter and even more importantly, reduced the risk of damaging property or causing injury.

Please remember: "safe flying is no accident"

Barry

[Erfolg]

I do agree setting the failsafe makes good sense. The bigger, the faster flying and heavier the model, the more sense it makes, as the potential for serious damage is greater.

I also agree setting the failsafe is not as easy as it might be. I have tried a number of times on a particular model, with no success. Perhaps a plug in card as used on ESC's could make life easier with some systems.

The current position of the BMFA is flawed and has potential dangers for us all. Some could find that insurance claim is rejected if it cannot be demonstrated that the failsafe had been set. Also the current stance has implications for those who do not have a failsafe facility available. That implication is that acceptance by the BMFA of a requirement for failsafe, could lead to regulators insisting that any RC equipment must have a failsafe fitted.

If the BMFA thinks that will prevent so called toys being sold, I am sure they are mistaken, the toy trade will quickly adjust their equipment. The losers will be those on 35 etc.

If BMFA is really pushing for all RC equipment new equipment to be failsafe enabled or to retro fit failsafes, be open. The question that would need answering is what evidence is there, that such devices have a material or statistical impact on the severity of accidents. It is not good enough to take the view that anything which can be done must be done, as this ultimately leads to the premise, should model flying be permitted.

Remembering the document states "should" not "must". Lets not make a rod for our own back.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I can understand and appreciate both sides of this but I feel there's an element of over-reaction here.

First, why does anyone think that the insurers will reject a claim if we fail to do something? We might as well not bother if this is the case. You could just as well expect the insurer to reject a claim if you fail to stop yourself putting in a wrong input and your model hits a car - or your battery fails and you didn't check it with an ESV under load and get a sign off from a BMFA registered examiner that you'd done so before and maybe during a flight...

The insurance cover we have is to indemnify you against something that was your fault and/or under your control.

Yes, the BMFA are guilty of making an error in publishing incorrect information but they are doing so in order to promote the use of the failsafe facility which by universal agreement is a "good thing". I'm not sure of the ethics here, but the primary reference is the ANO and then CAP658 which clearly states that they strongly recommend but don't compel you to use a failsafe. The logical assumption is that if an accident was proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused by the failure to follow the recommendation, a court of law could use this fact to bring in a guilty verdict of failing to ensure safe operation under the relevant clause(s) of the ANO.

So, as our national advisory body, the BMFA seems to have taken the line that we must set our failsafes in order to avoid this possibility. I don't think that misquoting CAP 658 weakens our position in any way - in fact previous editions did state that they were compulsory and the CAA have made the decision to downgrade the wording in the advisory publication, I presume, because as far as I can see from my non-expert reading of it, the ANO makes no mention of them whatsoever!

[Erfolg]

Martin

I will be happy in the BMFA encouraging the use and raising the awareness of the benefits of failsafes.

I do think they need to take note of the actual wording of any documents issued by any official body, and report the actual wording, and where necessary the meaning, without spin.

I have reservations with respect that the first thing a BMFA investigator would check is the setting of the "failsafe". The first thing they should access is what happened. Then the why. The failsafe just being one of many factors which may be relevant.

I hope that the BMFA uses members who have experience in investigating and the preparation of reports typically used by insurance companies. As I am sure that there will a number of members who have experience that can be tapped into and used.

As to over reaction, I do not agree, it could be important the stance adopted by the BMFA.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Perhaps the best course of action would be for you to draw Manny's attention to your concerns then. He has always replied to me within a few days. I contacted him via [email protected]

[Prop Nut]

Collins English Dictionary defines 'should' as the past tense of 'shall', used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered to be obligatory. That seems clearly to indicate that 'should' means 'must', and that Manny Williamson is using it correctly. That seems to be at odds with WolstonFlyer's interpretation - perhaps he can quote the authority for the distinction he makes. Pedantry can be irksome to some people but, unfortunately, the legal vultures don't care whose blood they suck and we ignore such definitions, however fine, at our peril.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As it isn't being used in a legal document (I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a non-legal term) then I'd suggest we should take in it's more common form which is to express a preferred bot not obligatory action.

In addition, the full definition of the word "should" in Collins (online) is:

verb

1. the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory ( you should go) or to form the subjunctive mood with I or we ( I should like to see you; if I should be late, go without me) See also shall

which says it's "considered by the speaker" suggesting to me that it's subjective and not absolute!

Where's the authoritive ruling from Ken Anderson's Hair Splitting Department?

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/07/2012 15:44:03

[WolstonFlyer]

I think we all agree that it is a good idea to set the Failsafe feature correctly, no doubt about that.

Are we supposed to seal our TX and RX in a tamper proof evidence bag as soon as an incident happens? If not then any investigation as to the settings on the radio gear is invalid anyway.

Perhaps we should all stay up all night worrying about this, just don't suggest that we must stay up all night I will be fast asleep by about 11pm.

Has anybody asked the CAA about the change to the wording? Or as Martin suggests, ask Manny at the BMFA.

Anyway, using the Chambers dictionary.

should auxiliary verb expressing: 1 obligation, duty or recommendation; ought to • You should brush your teeth regularly.

must¹ auxiliary verb 1 used to express necessity • I must earn some extra money • Must you leave so soon? 2 used to express duty or obligation • You must help him out of danger.

 

This is an interesting example:

 

 

 

Edited By WolstonFlyer on 18/07/2012 16:13:48

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by WolstonFlyer on 18/07/2012 15:58:16:

Are we supposed to seal our TX and RX in a tamper proof evidence bag as soon as an incident happens? If not then any investigation as to the settings on the radio gear is invalid anyway.

Page 55

[WolstonFlyer]

Jolly good, it does say "possibly impounding the model and radio equipment". I guess it depends on the seriousness of the incident etc and how the impounding is done and by who.

I must remember to read that handbook more often!

 

I still agree with the OP.  There is all the world of difference in "must" and "should", perhaps it was just a typo / good intended word replecement in the article?

Edited By WolstonFlyer on 18/07/2012 17:21:55

Edited By WolstonFlyer on 18/07/2012 17:22:50

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

IMO, this thread is getting sadder and sadder

I think its about time some of you chaps got out a bit and did more flying of model aeroplanes! I blame the weather for all this.

Look its easy...

1. Setting your failsafe is a really really good idea

2. Not setting it is a really really bad idea.

End of.

I for one really don't care how many angels can dance on the end of my aerial.

BEB

[WolstonFlyer]

Hehe

That's a big 10-4
Over and out!


.....from the sadder and sadder dept.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

With respect, that's an irrelevence. I'd guess that your (new?) receiver battery failed or fell out but the failsafe isn't designed to cope with that. What it does protect against is transmission/reception failure and (in some cases) low receiver battery voltage.

EDIT

Did I imagine the previous (and now missing) post?

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/07/2012 22:24:49