Article 16 Benefits & Failsafe: Cut Throttle a Legal Requirement?

[DocPrinter]

Morning,

 

I realise this topic can easily get inflamed, and so am treading carefully.

 

Are the main benefits article 16 brings; the ability to fly from a younger age, the ability to go above 120m, and the potential to fly heavier models at designated sites?

 

Article 16 does not cover airborne drones (fixed wing or otherwise) that are flying under the control of an autopilot, stabilisation is exempted from being defined as an autopilot for clarity. The way I understand it if I wished to test automatic flight I would discuss this with the club (or of course fly it elsewhere), fly as if it was a general public area where flying was not forbidden, and fly to the drone code.

 

Is the throttle cut a written legal requirement of article 16, CAP 722, or another piece of legislation?

 

I have the ability to define a rally point for my plane. For my clubs site I had intended to pick a location beside the normal flying circuit where if the plane detected a fail-safe it would go to and circle (under with GPS, so no drift) to give the operator a chance to resolve any ground transmitter issues. If this fails for a long period of time then the throttle can be set to cut and the autopilot would attempt to maintain the circle with lower airspeed, and so sink to the ground and likely crash land. It would be capable of performing a fully automatic landing (with flair etc) but I thought this unsafe at a club as the plane does not know what is on the landing area.

 

If cutting the throttle cut is a legal requirement it basically cuts the above process down to a controlled crash, removing the potential on the ground of resolving the RC issue before landing under full manual control. This would not be what I would expect of a fail safe on a quad copter where I would expect it to use motors to control decent, not fall like a brick. Given the amount of ground distance a model could cover in a throttle cut fail-safe I think the circle option to be lower risk overall. I will be discussing how the system handles GPS faults and how these effect the ability of the plane to control crash in the Ardupilot forums directly.

 

I have an interest in both fixed wing auto piloted fixed wings as well as pure RC planes. My first plane to hit the air has the ability to autopilot (Ardupilot, rather than just stabilise) but is set up to default to manual control mode for learning, where there is no interference from the autopilot.

 

Finally I would like to recognise that while I am putting a fair bit of thought into this I hope to never encounter a RC failsafe, let alone find out what a controlled crash lands like! I hope that appropriate range checking, regular visual inspections, and a decent routine with battery charging will reduce the risk to a minimal level.

[Brian Cooper]

Failsafe:

Reducing the throttle to idle is the minimum requirement. 

We are of course at liberty to add other control deflections if we want to. 

 

These rules were instigated before drones came on the scene. Drones are not renowned for their gliding capabilities.  But if the drone is not being flown over people, dropping to the ground would seem to be a satisfactory outcome for a loss of signal. 

[Simon Chaddock]

It appears that Item 14, Chapter 2 of CAP 722H makes a landing mandatory following any sort of control failure.

 

14 Control system failure

14.1 The unmanned aircraft must be equipped with a mechanism that will cause it to land in the event of a disruption to, or a failure of, any of its control systems, including the C2 Link.

14.2 The remote pilot must ensure that this mechanism is in working order before any flight is commenced. 

 

[DocPrinter]

42 minutes ago, Brian Cooper said:

Failsafe:

Reducing the throttle to idle is the minimum requirement. 

 

 

I know that's the general guidance, but is throttle to idle in a piece of legal legislation? I've scanned through CAP 722 and article 16 and couldn't see it.

[DocPrinter]

@Simon Chaddock thanks for those links. So those describe explicitly say land, but not cut throttles. This is more along the lines of what I expected as it would allow a quad copter to make a controlled direct decent and my proposed circle down method potentially acceptable. Technically it does say land, rather than crash land so I'd want a better read around that point.

[GaryW]

1 hour ago, Brian Cooper said:

Failsafe:

Reducing the throttle to idle is the minimum requirement. 

 

 

 

 

Personally on ALL my models Planes & Helis whether powered by Glow, Petrol or Electric.... If for any reason god forbid they were to go into failsafe.. ALL failsafes are set to cut/kill the engine/motor dead & NEVER do I set them to go to idle..... some may agree or disagree, Just my own personal choice

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[DocPrinter]

@GaryW I realise there will be personal preferences and opinions on what is best practice. I'm just trying to establish whether people have begun to muddle best practice with a legal requirement.

[Ron Gray]

The BMFA handbook, specifically 13.3 (and maybe 14.4) details failsafes.

[GaryW]

Again only my personal view but other than the pages that refer to Cap Articles... Article 16 regs, The ANO & DOE: Codes of Practice on Noise which are actual laws & rules & MUST be follwed,,, the BMFA Handbook is just Advisory, Guidelines & Recommendations NOT Rules... However...... Some clubs may and do incorporate the BMFA Handbook into the clubs own rules ,,, other wise the BMFA Handbook does not over rule or superceed a Clubs Rules as written...... Now I'm sure there will be those that again may agree or disagree with my view but its just my own personal view/opinion

 

 

 

[Geoff S]

1 hour ago, GaryW said:

 

Personally on ALL my models Planes & Helis whether powered by Glow, Petrol or Electric.... If for any reason god forbid they were to go into failsafe.. ALL failsafes are set to cut/kill the engine/motor dead & NEVER do I set them to go to idle..... some may agree or disagree, Just my own personal choice

Of course you're entitled to adopt that procedure but that means that what may be a brief loss of signal with a liquid fuelled model means you're dead-stick with no hope of recovery if not within gliding range of the patch. 

[GaryW]

31 minutes ago, Geoff S said:

Of course you're entitled to adopt that procedure but that means that what may be a brief loss of signal with a liquid fuelled model means you're dead-stick with no hope of recovery if not within gliding range of the patch. 

 

That is true Geoff... But i'd rather the engine/motor be dead stick than a spinning engine/prop come out the sky on the end of a model .. as fpr being in gliding range of the patch... strictly speaking if im right we shud all be flying within the perimeter of the flying field rather than in a way where a model wudnt be in gliding range of the patch which if amodel is too far out to make it back to the patch then maybe models are flying too far out to begin with????

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[Ron Gray]

2 hours ago, GaryW said:

some may agree or disagree

I disagree for IC powered models where mine all go to idle. The reasoning behind it is that if the signal loss is temporary I have a chance of regaining control but if the motor is dead there is no hope. There is also the school of thought that says an IC on idle will emit some noise thus making its presence known to the unsuspecting bods below.

 

20 minutes ago, GaryW said:

strictly speaking if im right we shud all be flying within the perimeter of the flying field

No, the only rules are for VLOS and separation.

[Don Fry]

Answering the original post, the safest answer, no messing about,  is throttle stop, ailerons full over one way or another, ditto rudder, up elevator and spin in. Flaps crows are nice, deduce impact speed. I assume you fly at all times so the ground under you is empty of people. And the machine does not have any chance of straying from that safe area.
Bottom line, unmanned toy with a defective control system. From memory, the reason the CAA want less power is to keep it from climbing into controlled airspace. 

Edited May 15 by Don Fry

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, GaryW said:

the BMFA Handbook is just Advisory, Guidelines & Recommendations NOT Rules.

The handbook is a mixture of advice and rules

[leccyflyer]

22 minutes ago, GaryW said:

 

That is true Geoff... But i'd rather the engine/motor be dead stick than a spinning engine/prop come out the sky on the end of a model .. as fpr being in gliding range of the patch... strictly speaking if im right we shud all be flying within the perimeter of the flying field rather than in a way where a model wudnt be in gliding range of the patch which if amodel is too far out to make it back to the patch then maybe models are flying too far out to begin with????

Ah, but you are not right, you are incorrect, for the reasons stated. The role of the failsafe is to prevent fly-aways from the flying area by causing the model to come to earth after a loss of signal. In the case of liquid fuelled models, reduction to idle ought to accomplish that , whilst still retaining the capability of regaining full control of the model, including the engine, if the failsafe condition is only momentary. That is far safer than the model falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled manner and being unable to do anything about that.

[Ron Gray]

Section 14.4, specifically j relates a bit to what the OP has asked:

 

Intelligent Failsafes – In order to use intelligent fail safe modes, the aircraft will need, as a
minimum, to be fitted with a control board capable of self levelling, with the more advanced options
also requiring GPS to be fitted. If the aircraft is not capable of intelligent fail-safe, then the fail-safe
mode should be set to reduce throttle idle/off as a minimum.
(i) Loiter – In this mode the aircraft will attempt to stay in a fixed position and maintain altitude
upon loss of radio signal. It is intended that the pilot will then have the chance to get closer to
the aircraft to in order to regain control. It is not advisable to use this mode without GPS, as
the aircraft can drift away with the wind.
(ii) Controlled descent – Aircraft that can self-level may have the option to set the throttle to a
soft point, such as to induce a smooth controlled descent on loss of signal.
(iii) Return to home – Aircraft capable of storing a take off point while using GPS may be set to
return to their take off point and land autonomously upon loss of signal. It is important to note
that in this mode the aircraft will typically fly a straight line from its current location to the take
off point, so careful consideration should be given when flying near obstacles such as trees or
buildings, which potentially may obstruct the return path. It is often possible to set the aircraft
to climb to a ‘safe’ height, before returning. If ‘return to home’ is to be used, careful
consideration should also be given to the location for the take off point, as the GPS modules
may only be as accurate as 5 -10m from the original take off point.

[GaryW]

19 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Ah, but you are not right, you are incorrect, for the reasons stated. The role of the failsafe is to prevent fly-aways from the flying area by causing the model to come to earth after a loss of signal. In the case of liquid fuelled models, reduction to idle ought to accomplish that , whilst still retaining the capability of regaining full control of the model, including the engine, if the failsafe condition is only momentary. That is far safer than the model falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled manner and being unable to do anything about that.

 

As is anyone, you are entitled to your views & opinions.. there are many models that at Idle/Tickover will fly some distance before coming down in the time it takes a failsafe to kick in so I choose to kill the engine dead to help limit how far a model can actually travel at idle even failsafe has kicked in

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[Ron Gray]

Don't you mean after the failsafe has kicked in?

 

[GaryW]

One thing to also consider is not all failsafes kick in instantly on signal loss... some take a few seconds to actually kick in and shut the throttle down which in that short time a model can travel a ,long way

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[GaryW]

16 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Don't you mean after the failsafe has kicked in?

 

 

24 minutes ago, GaryW said:

 

As is anyone, you are entitled to your views & opinions.. there are many models that at Idle/Tickover will fly some distance before coming down in the time it takes a failsafe to kick in so I choose to kill the engine dead to help limit how far a model can actually travel at idle even failsafe has kicked in

 

Thanks for the correction Ron and yes that is what I mean

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[GrumpyGnome]

Regarding flying within the club boundary....

 

I have never belonged to a club where flying within the boundaries of the flying field itself is practical for anything other than a very small model, or a model capable of sustained hovering.  

 

Additionally, staying within the boundaries must increase the chances of mid-air collisions, and continual 'hogging' the airspace above the runway is often frowned upon.

 

You may, of course have belonged to clubs where the flying field rather large.  My current club field is 3.5 acres. If you take off in a manner which does not include a vertical climb out, you're probably only going to be at about 10 metres high when you pass the boundary.  Similarly, if you start your landing approach from within the boundaries, you're making sharp turns at low altitude, and speed. And you're likely to roll off the end of the runway....

[GaryW]

11 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Regarding flying within the club boundary....

 

I have never belonged to a club where flying within the boundaries of the flying field itself is practical for anything other than a very small model, or a model capable of sustained hovering.  

 

Additionally, staying within the boundaries must increase the chances of mid-air collisions, and continual 'hogging' the airspace above the runway is often frowned upon.

 

You may, of course have belonged to clubs where the flying field rather large.  My current club field is 3.5 acres. If you take off in a manner which does not include a vertical climb out, you're probably only going to be at about 10 metres high when you pass the boundary.  Similarly, if you start your landing approach from within the boundaries, you're making sharp turns at low altitude, and speed. And you're likely to roll off the end of the runway....

 

 

Thats a fair point of view , i did say " IF "  I'm right not saying I am in anyway mind and yes i have been a member of clubs with rather large fields over the years ,,, With regargds to flying within boundaries GG I myself endevour to keep as close to the field boundary as safely possible although I cud & can safely also fly withing the field boundary that wudnt need for sharp climbs or turning bank angles on takeoff and landing but then I am an experience flier and a mojority of my models dont need miles and miles of sky to fly,,,,,  and yes I agree it does depend on the size of any flying site

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, GaryW said:

 

As is anyone, you are entitled to your views & opinions.. there are many models that at Idle/Tickover will fly some distance before coming down in the time it takes a failsafe to kick in so I choose to kill the engine dead to help limit how far a model can actually travel at idle even failsafe has kicked in

 

You can choose to cut the throttle entirely or not - it's your choice - but what you stated was that if other flyers are flying at their fields, where they would be outwith the gliding distance to land safely on their field, if the motor was cut by failsafe, then they are flying too far away. That's complete nonsense and many, many clubs and even more flyers operate in an extended flying area, beyond the limits of the actual mown strip, yet you are declaring that they are flying too far away without the slightest knowledge of the set up of their particular flying site. 

[GaryW]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

 

 you stated was that if other flyers are flying at their fields, where they would be outwith the gliding distance to land safely on their field, if the motor was cut by failsafe, then they are flying too far away. 

 

Respectfully..... That is NOT what I said so please dont imply that it was what I said or claim I did & taking what im saying out of context.. Also again respectfully,, If you can't quote me correctly as to what I actually said or say then please dont quote me at all...... Happy Flying

 

Moving On Now

Edited May 15 by GaryW

[Cuban8]

Not forgetting the late, great, Roy Lever's Parachute recovery system on his Merlin radios, if memory serves.

Those of a certain vintage will recall it was a sure fire safety device. 😜