Can you be too experienced or has familiarity bred contempt?

[Graham Bowers]

On 18/07/2022 at 11:17, David Davis said:

<SNIP>

 

Now what was the expression? Prior planning and preparation prevent poor performance? 🙄

 

 

Unfortunately, where humans are involved, mistakes happen.

In the context of the original post: If it can't be automated, the best we can do, in my opinion, is to train ones self to follow a safe system of work.

I have a habit of talking myself through the pre-flight. "Left is left, up is up........etc"

[gangster]

Ok hands up time here.  Throughout my modelling life, over 4 decades, I have meticulously done a range check at the start of every session. Probably set in my mind from the days when I flew home brew radio. Back in the day it was aerial down and more recently with radios that indicate that they are on low power. So out I went with a brand new model , RCME plan cannot remember name.   Faithful old JR tx but this time with an FR SKY modules. Range check fine, failsafe fine so took off. Perfect, one of those models you know will be fantastic in the first few seconds.  Then it went into failsafe and stalled in . The FRSKY module gives little indication that it’s on failsafe and of course nothing onnTX display. I had left the damn thing on low power. Ain’t done one since

[David Davis]

33 minutes ago, gangster said:

Ok hands up time here.  Throughout my modelling life, over 4 decades, I have meticulously done a range check at the start of every session. Probably set in my mind from the days when I flew home brew radio. Back in the day it was aerial down and more recently with radios that indicate that they are on low power. So out I went with a brand new model , RCME plan cannot remember name.   Faithful old JR tx but this time with an FR SKY modules. Range check fine, failsafe fine so took off. Perfect, one of those models you know will be fantastic in the first few seconds.  Then it went into failsafe and stalled in . The FRSKY module gives little indication that it’s on failsafe and of course nothing onnTX display. I had left the damn thing on low power. Ain’t done one since

 

Doing a range test at the start of every session?

 

I've never done a range test after the maiden flight. It makes sense though and I'll adopt the practice from now on.

[leccyflyer]

35 minutes ago, gangster said:

Ok hands up time here.  Throughout my modelling life, over 4 decades, I have meticulously done a range check at the start of every session. Probably set in my mind from the days when I flew home brew radio. Back in the day it was aerial down and more recently with radios that indicate that they are on low power. So out I went with a brand new model , RCME plan cannot remember name.   Faithful old JR tx but this time with an FR SKY modules. Range check fine, failsafe fine so took off. Perfect, one of those models you know will be fantastic in the first few seconds.  Then it went into failsafe and stalled in . The FRSKY module gives little indication that it’s on failsafe and of course nothing onnTX display. I had left the damn thing on low power. Ain’t done one since

I had exactly the same experience with the FRSKY module - hadn't RTFM'd properly and having done a range check as was my best practice had inadvertently left the module in range check mode. The model took off beautifully, got to the other side of the strip, went into failsafe and barrelled in. Lesson learned and I put a wee pad of foam around the button on the rear of the module to prevent inadvertently pressing it. I prefer the Spektrum range check method. which gives an indication of range check mode and defaults to normal operation more simply.

[J D 8]

29 minutes ago, David Davis said:

 

Doing a range test at the start of every session? on.

  With my Futaba set the throttle function is disabled when in range check mode.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

3 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

I prefer the Spektrum range check method. which gives an indication of range check mode and defaults to normal operation more simply.

Look out for the tray style (18 channel?) version though.  The one for a model I was asked to fly had no audible indication and being unfamiliar with the radio, I hadn’t realised it was still in range check. Luckily only minor damage as I had intermittent control before meeting the ground but it could easily have been so much worse. 

[Mike T]

One of my friends who uses a high-end JR set religiously range checks at the start of every session.  A few weeks back he forgot to 'check-out' and piled in accordingly.

 

I use FrSky modules in my JR and Futaba txs, but confess I usually only range check new installations or after 'servicing'.  With the FrSky's you have to hold the button down for about 5 secs. for it to enter range-check.  Exiting requires just a touch on the button, so in this sense it 'fails safe'.

 

My recommendation on range checks would be to turn off the tx when the check is complete.  This has the dual benefit of checking the failsafe settings and when turning the tx back on, it will do so (or should do so) at the full power setting.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I now remember last year only flying 'Warbirds' on 2.4, I got my trusty old Raptor 50 out for a bit of light 3D flying,

something didn't feel or look right, I hadn't pulled the aerial out but being close by and  a 'Futaba' radio 🥳( 41 Mhz) no problem at all.

[David Davis]

18 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

I now remember last year only flying 'Warbirds' on 2.4, I got my trusty old Raptor 50 out for a bit of light 3D flying,

something didn't feel or look right, I hadn't pulled the aerial out but being close by and  a 'Futaba' radio 🥳( 41 Mhz) no problem at all.

 

Well that didn't work for me! Years ago I had a SLEC T240 inadequately powered by a Thunder Tiger 91 FS and guided by a Futaba F6 radio. I stood behind the model, checked that everything was working correctly and then I advanced the throttle. The model careered down the runway, took off, reached a height of about twelve feet, (3.7 metres) then plunged back down onto the tarmac damaging the cowling! I had forgotten to extend the aerial.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Maybe i was lucky because my Raptor had the ariel fixed to the horizontal stabiliser,  and the Tx has the orientable ball with the ariel pointing vertically ( Tray radio ) gives me 19cm so you would probably get 100 metres on a range check.

 

[Peter Jenkins]

I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned what is written in the BMFA Handbook.  There are a number of references to operation of failsafes that I have attached below for information:

 

13.2 A Safer Flying Field and You
When you arrive at a flying field and before you start flying, we recommend that you take a few moments to consider the surroundings and the flights you will be making.
Think S.W.E.E.T.S.
S - Sun
W - Wind
E - Eventualities
E - Emergencies (Inc. Failsafes)
T - Transmitter Control
S - Site Rules

 

13.3 Radio Control Flying Safety
(a) Before you do anything else, make sure that you understand and are complying with the field frequency control system. NEVER switch on until you are sure it is safe. ALWAYS check the pegboard – on EVERY flight.
(b) Before every flight, check that transmitter trims, rate switches etc. are in their correct positions and that each control surface on the model moves freely and in the correct sense and make sure that a failsafe is set to prevent the aircraft flying away in the event of loss of signal.

 

13.4 Pre Flying Session Model Checks
On arrival at the flying site:
(a) Check airframe for any transit damage.
(b) Check that servos and linkages are secure.
(c) Check undercarriage for secure fixing and correct alignment.
(d) Check propeller for damage and secure fixing.
(e) Check receiver aerial for damage and, with 2.4 GHz equipment, that the orientation is correct.
(f) Carry out a range check if any changes or re-installation of equipment have taken place since the last session or if a history of range problems exists.
(g) Carry out a failsafe check and make sure that it does what you expect.
(h) Check that the receiver and transmitter batteries have sufficient capacity for the intended use.

 

There is also the Air Navigation Order that requires a pilot to ensure that he can conduct his proposed flight safely.  To my mind that makes doing a range check pretty much essential as if you have an accident that can indicate that the range of the radio was compromised and you answer "well, I checked it worked when I installed it" or "I only do range checks now and again" just imagine how that would go down in a court of law when the the part of the ANO I've flagged up above is quoted.

 

The issue of the failsafe is very clear cut.  The BMFA Pre Flying Session Model Checks call for a failsafe check before every flying session.

 

I must admit that I always range check and do a failsafe check before every one of my flying sessions.  To date, nothing has caused me to have a problem with either of these tests.  I have a high end JR Tx (XG11) and you have to enter a screen to select the range check mode.  Exiting the screen automatically cancels the reduced power status of the Tx and the blue light indicating RF transmission flashes all the time range check is selected.  

 

So, I find it strange that Clubs have difficulty in helping their members to meet their legal liabilities. 

 

Am i missing something?

[GrumpyGnome]

6 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

So, I find it strange that Clubs have difficulty in helping their members to meet their legal liabilities. 

 

Am i missing something?

 

I don't find it strange at all.

 

Failsafe is just one of the items in the checklist, perhaps we need someone to ensure that ALL the above checks have been undertaken..... I can't imagine any club member wanting to do that, or have that done to them.  

 

At the end of the day, it's personal responsibility, and I'm pretty certain it would not be seen as 'help' by any experienced modeller.  (Checking out a model before a maiden is a different kettle of fish...)

[Peter Jenkins]

16 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

 

I don't find it strange at all.

 

Failsafe is just one of the items in the checklist, perhaps we need someone to ensure that ALL the above checks have been undertaken..... I can't imagine any club member wanting to do that, or have that done to them.  

 

At the end of the day, it's personal responsibility, and I'm pretty certain it would not be seen as 'help' by any experienced modeller.  (Checking out a model before a maiden is a different kettle of fish...)

 

Part of the problem is that unless you realise that flying model aeroplanes is not like operating boats or land vehicles then you don't understand the legal implications.  There is common land but there is no common air.  The airspace is owned by the Government.  They have reacted to the introduction of multi-rotors that can be used by people with no flying skills who have no education on what is involved in flying in National Airspace.  At least our Government has listened to the case put forward by the BMFA and other organisations to exempt bona fide model aircraft operators from the more restrictive rules for drones in general.

 

It is up to us to make sure that our fellow flyers are aware of the requirements placed upon us and to raise the issue if we think that our club mates are doing something that is either unsafe or illegal in a helpful way.  The BMFA check lists have been derived to reflect best practice based on past experience.  Why wouldn't you want to keep your pride and joy in one piece and avoid the possibility either of damaging a third parties property or, indeed, of endangering life.

 

I hasten to add that I have also been guilty of failing to complete a thorough pre-flight check resulting in taking off with ailerons reversed.  I almost got away with it but lost the aircraft in the final stages of landing when a wing dropped and my brain refused to apply !opposite! aileron resulting in the destruction of a wing.  

 

If you are going to get upset by someone drawing your attention to something you should be doing to ensure model or personal safety then you should ask yourself if you should be pursuing this hobby.  We should all be open to learning something new.  Remember that minds are like parachutes - both work best when they are open!

[PatMc]

On 01/09/2022 at 22:43, Andy Gates said:

 

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.

@Andy Gates I've been quite busy with real life lately & hadn't read this post properly previously.

The text I've highlighted in bold seems to indicate that failsafe was irrelevant to the accident & there's nothing in the rest of the post to suggest that failsafe wasn't enabled on the crashed model.

If this is correct why was the failsafe check action subsequently taken on other club members' models ? 

And what remedial action(s) were taken re the accident ? 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Other than the immediacy of the impact, if I’m reading Andy’s post correctly, meaning that failsafe may not have initiated before the accident, isn’t transmitter failure a very likely scenario where a correctly programmed failsafe may reduce the energy imparted by both airframe and propeller?

[PatMc]

9 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Other than the immediacy of the impact, if I’m reading Andy’s post correctly, meaning that failsafe may not have initiated before the accident, isn’t transmitter failure a very likely scenario where a correctly programmed failsafe may reduce the energy imparted by both airframe and propeller?

Sorry my mistake, I misread that the fault was on the Rx not the Tx.

 

Still having a hectic time here, currently awaiting a call from the local A&E hospital re my 91yo SIL - admitted this evening with a suspected broken hip.

I'm her next of kin & hold LPA responsibility.   

 

I still don't agree with club committees taking  the action Andy took unless a proper procedure is included, which means a whole lot of bureaucracy if it's to be meaningful.

Perhaps club instructors should include how to set up fail safe from scratch early in their training sessions & always check that failsafe is activated it as part of the pre flight check.  

[Mike T]

19 hours ago, PatMc said:

Perhaps club instructors should include how to set up fail safe from scratch early in their training sessions... 

I think that instructors should ensure that their pupils know how to set up their own failsafes, with reference to the manual or with the assistance of a club member operating the same brand/model of tx (and who may well be the instructor).  But as written the inference is that that instructors should be familiar with the failsafe systems on all commercially available txs, which is a bit of a no-no!

 

The problem with failsafes is that some are ridiculously awkward to set (JR) and some are incredibly easy (FrSky).  I digress, but ones of the things that the UKRCC could (or should) look at is requiring standardisation (and simplification) of failsafes across brands - this would go a long way to securing compliance.

[Peter Jenkins]

I would have to disagree that the JR Failsafe is ridiculously awkward to set.  Then again, I have used JR to over 10 years.  

 

In any event, it is the user who is responsible for setting his failsafe and while the instructor can help in the first instance you merely have to read the manual to find out how to implement a failsafe.  A more useful discussion is how to set the failsafe and the fact that just selecting it ON does not always give you what you want.  We should not be encouraging members to just ask someone else to set up their failsafe - it is their personal responsibility under law to do so.

 

Good luck with getting a small market for RC, such as the UK, to influenced the RC manufacturers.  By the way, who is the UKRCC?  RCC stands for Registration Competency Certificate.  I think you might mean the BMFA and other UK model associations.  I doubt the CAA, the government department responsible for all airborne activity, would consider it their job to do so either.  You might as well ask all RC equipment manufacturers to use the same menu to access functions.  The menu function is an integral part of the design philosophy of each manufacturer and is what sets them apart.  IMHO, when transition from Futaba to JR (having lost patience with Futaba to introduce a 2.4 GHz set) I found the JR programming system far simpler than that of the Futaba.  I expect there are others who think differently as some things are possible with Futaba that are not with JR - it's just that for the stuff I need, and I fly F3A competitively, the JR XG11 Tx gives me all that I need and it can be accessed very easily.

[Don Fry]

Errrrr, straying here lads. As pointed out. We have responsibilities. 
Best find out how to do these things, like motor cuts on loss of signal. No objection to having deficiency’s pointed out. Allowed to disagree, and discuss why, or leave.

edit, and if secretary or whoever is judged, at the AGM to be the second coming of the leader, vote him off. Take care you have a replacement.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Don Fry

[Mike T]

My oldest JR tx (a 388s) was bought in 2000, so I've been a user for a mere 22 years... Perhaps, to bring us in line with the premise of this thread (and pacify Don), my problem is that I'm too experienced 😉 .

 

Re failsafe programming, I'm unmoved in my opinion of JRs and I find Futaba's not better but different.  They are both a country mile behind FrSky - press the bind button on the rx and job done.  I was warned when I got a FF9 that the programming was a nightmare compared to JR (evidenced by the US agents producing their own manual) but I had no difficulty with it.

 

Re the UKRCC, I know exactly what I mean.  The UK Radio Control Council is a body representing RC users which has the ear of Ofgem.  The links to it on the Ofgem website actually now point to the BMFA website.  Yes, it is unlikely to have a material effect on radio manufacturers' design policy, but in concert with other nations representative bodies, it should be possible to achieve change collectively.  No one is suggesting that manufacturers be required to abandon their own programming methods, just that for certain key functions they should be simplified and standardised.  It's not beyond the wit of man (but probably, I agree, beyond the will...)

 

@Don - our Club rules specifically encourage 3rd party scrutiny of members' models, to keep us honest.  I wrote them that way when (many years ago) a very experienced clubmate's latest creation came apart mid-air.  When he was assembling it, I spotted what I thought was a dodgy rigging-wire connection, but he was the expert and knew best and I didn't want to look like a divvy for pointing it out.  When we were picking up the bits and we were speculating on the causes and I mentioned my concern.  He was understandably upset that I hadn't pointed it out before he 'committed aviation'!