Can you be too experienced or has familiarity bred contempt?

[Don Fry]

Throttle servo reverse, and not reset the failsafe? How the signal was suboptimal is not an issue. Wrap the thing in aluminum foil. That will cure all reception. 

The point is, try it sometimes.

 

Many years ago I collected a car after brake rebuild. Anyone checked it?  Sneer, no, from the engineer in charge, no need. Drove car across garage. Applied brake, no brake, not my problem, it piled into a new car set up for delivery. 

In the case, loads of shouting, no rubber/carbon on the floor, no brakes before going anywhere on the road. Not my problem. Now I know I do not come out well. Youthful aggression.

But, how far do you drive an unchecked car (aircraft) as to whether it works as expected. 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

3 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Failsafe on a Futaba, how and where were the antenna's placed ?

Maybe 35 MHz if it was “a few years ago”?

It wasn’t unknown for the aerial connection to unscrew itself on certain models.  

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I have never had 35mhz only 40/41 the aerials are all soldered they did break sometimes where the rubber grommet lead it out of its plastic case.

 

The newer 2.4 Futaba 617 receivers do not have the range of the old 41Mhz.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Dumped my Privateer last week, knocked the nose off so it will repair. It had flown several times really well on the "last" flight it became difficult to bank left or pick the wing up after a right bank, unfortunately the wind direction mean a righthand turn on finals and a struggling to get it back I couldn't pick the wing up and ended up knocking the nose off.

 

Post crash analysis revealed that the right hand aileron servo arm retaining screw had loosened and the arm had dropped down the spline and was ratcheting around. Was metal geared servos with a metal servo arm, moral put some thread lock on the servo arm retaining screw. 

[David Davis]

Talking of aerials on FM radios. Years ago I had arranged a training flight with an inexperienced pilot. He could fly well enough but panicked when near the ground on take off or landing. When I got to the flying field I realised that I had left my slave transmitter behind but I did not think that that would be a problem, we would use the grab-the-transmitter method, after all that's how I learned to fly! Just before take off someone said, "Your aerial is loose." I tightened it checked the controls and advanced the throttle.

 

The model, a three channel Super 60 powered by a Merco 35, took off and started to climb in tight left-hand spirals. I put in right rudder. No response. Full right rudder still no response. I was left with watching the model climb away and drift downwind. Then some bright spark remembered that there was a Futaba Skysport 4 transmitter in the Boot Hill department of the club hut. This was duly produced and willing hands removed the battery and crystal from my transmitter. I don't know why I was still holding the transmitter, it wasn't doing anything! Trouble was that the Skysport 4 was Mode 1 and I am a Mode 2 pilot. I think I managed to stop the engine but I'm not sure. We watched the model glide down behind a wood. We searched for it but without success.

 

I contacted a local RAF base and they sent a helicopter to look for it the following Moday. They found it and gave me the co-ordinates. It was damaged but repairable. Cost me two bottles of champage!

 

I had broken a small white wire at the base of the aerial. Apparently this was not unheard of with Futaba transmitters of the period, mind you, that transmitter was twelve years old and had never given a moment's concern until then.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The one I was thinking of used a ring tag connecting lead secured by a screw into the base of the aerial rather than a fixed post. 

[J D 8]

   Dodged a bullet the other day. I was prepping aircraft to go flying, I have 4 flight battery's for IC and loaded one into my Citabria and did a check switch on, as I did so there was a short delay before every thing worked as normal, a couple of more on/off's but still ok.  Had a feeling so swapped the batt for another and had a good day flying.

   Later that evening put the load tester on the batt and all looked good until when moving the cable about in one position the power dropped away. Wire failing in the cable near where they join into the batt I recon.

[Andy Gates]

On 31/08/2022 at 10:40, Keith Billinge said:

Our Club Secretary decided a 'safety check' was in order, the other day.

Before anybody could fly we each had to demonstrate our model's failsafe condition, by cracking open the throttle slightly then turning off the transmitter to simulate signal loss.

1 or 2 models were found to go straight to full throttle during the test.

Maybe we have become a little complacent. This was a good wake-up call to double check something so fundamental to safety.

 

About 90% of our club members fly Spektrum and many just assumed that the failsafe was automatically set when binding a Spektrum RX.

 

I thought it was a good exercise

 

KB

 

 

I am the club secretary Keith is talking about, and our club has no appointed safety officer.

 

I filled in a near miss report after a model crashed at full throttle very shortly after take off, hitting the floor vertically about 6 feet from another flyer hence the near miss.

 

As part of the near miss, some actions needed to be taken to reduce the risk to us all. A failsafe check was an easy no brainer test which as Keith says picked up machines where the failsafe had not been set as required by our club handbook.

 

The cause of the crash seems to have been a battery to board solder joint failure in the Tx.

 

As one of the 3 instructors in the club, I also have to set the example. All of my aircraft that have been flown since, have been inspected by committee members for their working failsafe - including my twin engined models where BOTH motors have to shut down - not always the case.

 

If this is being too officious then I am glad to be, as I have everyone's safety in mind.

 

In my youth, I had experience of someone getting caught on the back of the head by the leading edge of a 2lb thermal glider flying very slowly, eeking its way back to the field after a distant thermal trip. While there was no visible sign of injury - seeing someone knocked out for a short period stays in the memory.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Andy Gates
Additional info

[GrumpyGnome]

As our club Safety Officer, I think it's a great idea! 

 

I think I may see if I can change our club rules to allow it - just 'doing it' would upset some old,  opinionated flying chums......... even getting them to stand in the pilots box requires a cattle prod, and gets dirty looks 🤨

[Frank Skilbeck]

9 hours ago, Andy Gates said:

 

As part of the near miss, some actions needed to be taken to reduce the risk to us all. A failsafe check was an easy no brainer test which as Keith says picked up machines where the failsafe had not been set as required by our club handbook.

 

 

 

Never mind club rule this is a CAA requirement, I would have no issue with anybody asking me to demonstrate the my models failsafe settings.

[Ace]

And a condition of BMFA insurance if receiver supports failsafe - No problem anyone asking me to demonstrate operation, in fact as an instructor I ask to see operation on a new pupils aircraft and as part of pre flight checks before maidening anyone's aircraft if requested.

So yes I believe we can all become a little complacent without the odd prompt - done tactfully of course 😀

[Brian Cooper]

10 hours ago, Andy Gates said:

 

I am the club secretary Keith is talking about, and our club has no appointed safety officer..

 

In my youth, I had experience of someone getting caught on the back of the head by the leading edge of a 2lb thermal glider flying very slowly, eeking its way back to the field after a distant thermal trip. While there was no visible sign of injury - seeing someone knocked out for a short period stays in the memory.

 

I too have had the misfortune of seeing a model hit someone on the back of his head. 

Sadly he didn't get up again.   In fact, he was dead before he hit the ground.   He was 11 years old.

 

His death was the reason we now have a legal responsibility to have our failsafes working, and working correctly. 

It is a subject which should be taken seriously. . It can prevent a needless death. 

 

R.I.P.  Adam Kirby. 

[GrumpyGnome]

The 'barrier' in our club seems to be that previous safety officers didn't appear yo actually do anything! Should have heard the debate about moving the pits area back a few yards because I felt it was too close to the main runway!  Our small number of members like the club's 'laid back' attitude - something I'd like us to keep whilst being more pro-active about safety.

 

I reckon I'll probably need to tell everyone of the intention to check for CAA number and failsafe operation in advance..... 

 

AFTER I get the pilots box moved/amended to accommodate our new runway!

[Keith Billinge]

Safety is everybody's responsibility and as a member of a club, it's good to promote an atmosphere where anyone can speak up.
Club members often shout if they see something potentially unsafe is about to happen. It's often done in a light hearted manner without pointing the finger of blame.

I think we have a good atmosphere at our club and people feel free to encourage everybody to be safe.

 

But the pre-flight Failsafe Check was a good idea and I think should be repeated every few months to make the message stick.

 

So sorry to hear about the accident above. I didn't realise we'd had any fatalities in the hobby.

 

KB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There was another fatal accident in this country 15 - 20 years or so ago when a young girl, an uninvolved bystander in a public open space, was killed by a WOT4 which was built shoddily. 
 

More relevant to failsafes was a double fatality at a public display in Europe where control of a large model was lost due to a local broadcaster using a high powered 35 MHz transmitter. 

[leccyflyer]

Small point, IIRC that fatal accident was actually an Acro Wot, where the builder had sliced through the film covering on the horizontal stabiliser,  to remove the film before gluing, weakening the tail by scoring the balsa.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Although some French pilots  and 'others' were flying 35Mhz radios, the French Gendarmerie also used it 🤐

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Small point, IIRC that fatal accident was actually an Acro Wot, where the builder had sliced through the film covering on the horizontal stabiliser,  to remove the film before gluing, weakening the tail by scoring the balsa.

Sorry, yes I was going by memory and it was an Acrowot but I’m pretty sure that the failure was found to be detachment due to gluing the tailplane after painting it without removing any from the glue joint area. 
 

There was a BMFA investigation done into a tailplane failure (a club mate was involved with the process) after a non fatal incident where the owner blamed the manufacturer and that was found to be due to weakening the structure by cutting through the covering. 

[Don Fry]

There was another near London where a Wot 4 broke up. Hamstead Heath? Not picking out the designer, but the builder.
I remember, about 20, 25 years ago, the accident in Germany. Turn towards the crowd, from memory. Two people dead. I lost all interest in large model aircraft after that.

For those who fly them, carry on. Just not my game. 
Moments thought, I remember a Wot 4, Leccyflier might be right, and “only” one incident. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Don Fry
Last para

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There were two fatal accidents in the UK in the last 20 odd years - the one witnessed by Brian (a channel frequency clash) occurred at a club just north of London and the airframe failure was in a South London open space. 
 

The tailplane failure due to cutting through the covering I referred to was a separate incident and IIRC the investigation was initiated by the disgruntled owner contacting the BMFA. 

[Don Fry]

Whatever, I did some calculations once. The energy to stop a 3 to 5 kilo acrobat, warbird, is not much different to a .38 revolver bullet.

[PatMc]

1 hour ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

There were two fatal accidents in the UK in the last 20 odd years - the one witnessed by Brian (a channel frequency clash) occurred at a club just north of London and the airframe failure was in a South London open space. 
 

The tailplane failure due to cutting through the covering I referred to was a separate incident and IIRC the investigation was initiated by the disgruntled owner contacting the BMFA. 

IIRC there was a third, a hanglider collided with a slope soarer somewhere in the south coast region. The hanglider pilot lost control & died in the subsequent crash. The model pilot was exonerated as he was flying in an area designated for models only as already formally agreed between both groups of flyers. 

[Brian Cooper]

4 hours ago, Don Fry said:

Whatever, I did some calculations once. The energy to stop a 3 to 5 kilo acrobat, warbird, is not much different to a .38 revolver bullet.

Whilst not wishing to open up a new direction in this thread on ballistics, the muzzle energy produced by a .38 Special bullet is around 265 ft.lbs.

 

A .357 magnum does rather better at a muzzle energy of around 580 ft.lbs. and is renowned for its "knock down" power against a grown man. 

 

A model aeroplane weighing 10 lbs, impacting at 100 mph produces 3500 ft.lbs of energy.

This is what struck the boy's head.

It wasn't pretty. 

 

A correctly functioning failsafe can be a life saver. 

[Brian Cooper]

Not long after witnessing the death of the 11-year-old boy, I came across a bunch of slope soaring enthusiasts who had considerable piloting skills.... but was saddened to see them using their skills to deliberately fly gliders into their buddies whilst retrieving models which had landed. 

 

Despite leaving deep bruises and causing a few injuries, they thought it was a hilarious game. . . Indeed, they were so proud of their talents, they even had T-shirts made with "Phase Six Hit Squad" emblazoned on the front. 

 

They regarded me as something of a killjoy when I expressed my opinions on their stupidity.  

 

One can only hope that these types have either changed their ways or have left the hobby. 

.

[Graham Bowers]

14 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

The 'barrier' in our club seems to be that previous safety officers didn't appear yo actually do anything! Should have heard the debate about moving the pits area back a few yards because I felt it was too close to the main runway!  Our small number of members like the club's 'laid back' attitude - something I'd like us to keep whilst being more pro-active about safety.

 

I reckon I'll probably need to tell everyone of the intention to check for CAA number and failsafe operation in advance..... 

 

AFTER I get the pilots box moved/amended to accommodate our new runway!

It is my understanding duty of care for protection from harm extends to individual members and the committee.

I believe CAA number transgressions are a compliance issue, with no direct bearing on safety.

My point being, if you have to have battles, pick the ones you really want to win, and keep your powder dry for the others.