Wattflyer RC Network: RC Universe :: RCU Magazine :: RCU Forums :: RCU Classifieds :: RCU User Reviews :: RCU YouTube
Home Who's Online Calendar Today's Posts RealTime Post Spy Mark Forums Read
Go Back   WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > General Electric Discussions
Register Members List Wattflyer Extras Articles Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Social Groups

General Electric Discussions Talk about topics related to e-powered RC flying

Thank you for your support (hide ads)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2012, 09:53 PM   #1
CNY_Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: near Cortland NY
Posts: 774
Thanked 36 Times in 35 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default New AMA requirement- pilot must be able to deactivate stabilization gyros

If I'm reading this correctly-

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/560.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTITUDE FLIGHT STABILIZATION SYSTEMS are designed to maintain intended model aircraft flight attitudes. The pilot can program and activate a system to stabilize yaw, pitch, or roll or any one attitude or combination of attitudes. Systems are often based on inertial motion sensors utilizing 3-axis gyros and 3-axis accelerometers for attitude stabilization.

b) AMA pilots must be able to instantaneously deactivate programmed flight stabilization and autopilot systems at any time during flight and resume manual control of the model aircraft.


e) STABILIZATION & AUTOPILOT SYSTEMS MAY BE USED FOR/TO:
• Stabilization/automatically stabilize aircraft to level flight when control sticks are centered.
• (rest is autopilot I think)

d) Pilots usually choose to incorporate stabilization and autopilot systems for model aircraft flying to enhance flight performance, correct bad tendencies of the model aircraft, maintain stability in windy weather, establish precision heading holds for takeoffs/landings, flight training for novice pilots, create a steady flight platform for cameras, and generally just to make an airplane easier and safer to fly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the letter of this demands that any gyro stabilization system, even if just used to stabilize in the wind, be able to be deactivated from the TX, under penalty of their insurance not being honored (that's the way I read this next part)

************************************************** ***********************************
AMA is not and will not be responsible for model aircraft operations conducted outside of AMA’s safety program and will not be held responsible for the actions of these non‐participating pilots.
************************************************** ***********************************

Ask me why your DX5e is doomed... and how to fix it.
CNY_Dave is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 10:46 PM   #2
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,214
View xmech2k's Gallery21
Thanked 214 Times in 212 Posts
Club: CVMRCC, SEFSD
Awards Showcase

1kW  Outstanding Contributor Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

Hope my UMX MiG-15 is grandfathered... Of course, how much damage can that thing do?
xmech2k is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 10:50 PM   #3
CNY_Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: near Cortland NY
Posts: 774
Thanked 36 Times in 35 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

Don't find out the hard way.

Ask me why your DX5e is doomed... and how to fix it.
CNY_Dave is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 11:50 PM   #4
rcers
Community Moderator
 
rcers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Trophy Club TX
Posts: 6,062
View rcers's Gallery57
Thanked 496 Times in 486 Posts
Awards Showcase

WAA-08 Pilot 
iTrader: (4)
Friends: (9)
Default

Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
Don't find out the hard way.
Yea I am not too worried about a <3 oz UM Mig.
rcers is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 01:32 AM   #5
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,214
View xmech2k's Gallery21
Thanked 214 Times in 212 Posts
Club: CVMRCC, SEFSD
Awards Showcase

1kW  Outstanding Contributor Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

LOL!

Wonder what happened to prompt that rule? Usually, stuff like this is because there was an incident.
xmech2k is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 02:17 AM   #6
pmullen503
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 734
Thanked 60 Times in 59 Posts
Awards Showcase

Scratchbuilders Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (3)
Default

There are several low cost 3 axis stabilization systems that do not allow cutoff. They are always on. If you set them up wrong and don't realize it, you can launch a plane that is uncontrollable. I.E. the gyros themselves destabilize the plane.

Honestly, it's crazy that a company would produce a device like that in the first place but I guess if they can sell it for a few bucks less....

HK's $15 system appears to operate like this and has resulted in crashed aircraft from reversed setups.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
pmullen503 is online now  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 02:32 AM   #7
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,573
Thanked 131 Times in 129 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

It is a truly stupid rule. I'll ignore it and sneer in their general direction. No safety background, no reasoning that the rule makes sense, just a blanket writing out of everyone with non-complying equipment.

Folks. BUY YOUR OWN INSURANCE and tell the AMA to pound sand! They are more interested in creative weasel clauses than protecting their membership. They already had a clause that specifies that if you lose radio contact with your plane they don't have to pay. If a family member is injured they don't pay. If someone who normally occupies a space on the property is hit they don't pay. What's next? Yellow planes? Only insuring Futaba radios (for a nice bit of cash on the side)? A television reality show with call-in votes to determine eligibility?

Their job is to promote safety and protect their members. There's none of that with this idiotic rule.

You know, since radios malfunction, how about a rule that all planes must be able to return to base and orbit the launch point at 100' when the radio quits? That would be expensive, but at least it would make a little bit of sense.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 03:55 AM   #8
dgjessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Columbus, OH USA
Posts: 534
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Club: Westerville Model Aeronautics Assoc.
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
b) AMA pilots must be able to instantaneously deactivate programmed flight stabilization and autopilot systems at any time during flight and resume manual control of the model aircraft.
Seems to me that "programmed flight stabilization ... systems" does not refer to something like that HK thing because there is no "programming" involved in it's operation. It simply responds to inertial changes in a fixed way. And you always have manual control with such a device, so the requirement to be able to resume control doesn't apply either. If they did intend to refer to simple stabilization devices then the rule is quite poorly written. Just my 2 cents...

Dave
AMA #56519
dgjessing is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:06 AM   #9
Nitro Blast
Community Moderator
 
Nitro Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunny San Diego Ca
Posts: 3,941
View Nitro Blast's Gallery38
Thanked 400 Times in 342 Posts
Club: Silent Electric Fliers of San Diego
Send a message via MSN to Nitro Blast
Awards Showcase

100mph Speed Demon  3kW  1kW  WAA-08 Pilot 
iTrader: (20)
Friends: (67)
Default

Ok, so that means all the models with AS3X are not covered?

Ya cant turn that off...


On my Feytech FY-30A, you can turn it off completely. Looks like with that I'm covered.

Electricity... It's not just for light bulbs anymore.

GoProfessional Cases industry grade protection for your gear

Dinogy Lipos professional grade energy

Project Globetrotter Participant 7/09
Wings Across America Participant 6/10
Nitro Blast is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:51 AM   #10
hoghead5150
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: poteau, oklahoma
Posts: 150
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (2)
Default

i don't know what they are thinking but this sounds kinda dumb to me. i could see that with some flight stabilization systems IF there was a problem with the plane the system would allow the plane to continue flying at the same altitude, and direction until the battery (or gas) ran out and then the plane would come to mother earth. if you were able to turn this system off, it may allow the plane to come down quicker and maybe not get into populated places. if you were flying at a field away from everyone.

the problem i see is if a plane has a problem like this it is usually transmitter related. if the problem is transmitter related, and you can't control the plane (loss of signal?), how the &^%$ are you supposed to turn off the stabilization system!!

just seems like an "out" clause for them.
hoghead5150 is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:57 AM   #11
Wildflyer
2014 President of PSSF
 
Wildflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lacey WA, 1 mile E of Mushroom Corner
Posts: 1,049
Thanked 123 Times in 120 Posts
Club: Puget Sound Silent Flyers -PSSF & Thurston County Miniature Aircraft Association - TCMAA
iTrader: (3)
Friends: (7)
Default

What I read, is that they are talking about programmed flight, with AUTOPILOT FLIGHT SYSTEMS, that is when you have preprogrammed the airplane to fly at a certain altitude to a certain point, and then perform some maneuver or return.

I see nothing to say we can't use a simple stabilizer, other than it must be flown within VLOS of the operator. That is Visual Line Of Sight. I have flown large gliders at 2500-3000 ft away (measured by car) in my younger years. My range is a bit shorter now, so I am not concerned about their new rule.

I believe they just want ultimate control to be in the hands of the pilot.

Dave R, Proud PGR rider.
When you have flying skills like mine,
You become a master at repair.
Wildflyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 03:43 PM   #12
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 567
View starcad's Gallery14
Thanked 31 Times in 31 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (5)
Default

I read the samething Dave R.

starcad is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:07 PM   #13
copterrichie
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 39
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Originally Posted by xmech2k View Post
LOL!

Wonder what happened to prompt that rule? Usually, stuff like this is because there was an incident.
Maybe something similar to this event?

http://youtu.be/opZDKXybZGE
copterrichie is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:49 PM   #14
matiac
What, me worry?
 
matiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Westerly R.I.
Posts: 339
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Club: A.M.A. Member, not currently affliliated with a club
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (2)
Default

HK's $15 system appears to operate like this and has resulted in crashed aircraft from reversed setups.

System setup is not the fault of the stabilizer, the pilot should have ground tested first, whether it's a 15 dollar unit or a 150 dollar unit. Could happen regardless. This is, of course taken in the context that the H.K. system is cheap, which it is, but if not properly set up, 'yo plane gon' crash!

R.C. Hobby is a hole into which one dumps money.
matiac is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 08:59 PM   #15
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,214
View xmech2k's Gallery21
Thanked 214 Times in 212 Posts
Club: CVMRCC, SEFSD
Awards Showcase

1kW  Outstanding Contributor Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

I read the AMA document, and this sounds like, as Wildflyer has already pointed out, for autopilot and fpv stuff, not your average flyer. My MiG is safe from the government. So far...
xmech2k is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 09:21 PM   #16
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 567
View starcad's Gallery14
Thanked 31 Times in 31 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (5)
Default

Originally Posted by copterrichie View Post
Maybe something similar to this event?

http://youtu.be/opZDKXybZGE

Should also point out that this happened in Auckland CBD New Zealand.

starcad is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 12:25 AM   #17
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,573
Thanked 131 Times in 129 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

How can you guys read:
ATTITUDE FLIGHT STABILIZATION SYSTEMS are designed to maintain intended model aircraft flight attitudes. The pilot can program and activate a system to stabilize yaw, pitch, or roll or any one attitude or combination of attitudes. Systems are often based on inertial motion sensors utilizing 3-axis gyros and 3-axis accelerometers for attitude stabilization.

b) AMA pilots must be able to instantaneously deactivate programmed flight stabilization and autopilot systems at any time during flight and resume manual control of the model aircraft.
Please read it twice. Are the words "FPV" or "automatic flight" to be found ANYWHERE in this carefully worded, clearly stated and very specific indictment? No they are not. This is worded very carefully to dispel any such reading. They are talking about AS3X, aftermarket gyros, hell! they're talking about gyro flight stabilizers in helicopters! NO HUMAN BEING with average or above reading comprehension can read their words and then explain that they do not say what they say (without laughing).

But, thank God, the AMA is NOT a regulatory agency. We are not bound by their rules here. The only effect will be to deny you payment if your airplane, which you made safer by adding flight stabilization technology, injures someone. You should be buying your own insurance anyway. There are more weasel clauses in the AMA's insurance than in the Internal Revenue Code.

We MUST ensure that the AMA as now constituted NEVER obtains true regulatory status as a Federal Agency. Their level of incompetency is years ahead of the actual government.

You know, it would make just as much sense to say "AMA pilots must be able to instantaneously deactivate radio receivers at any time during flight and resume manual control of the model aircraft." Stealth joke. Read slowly.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 01:21 AM   #18
copterrichie
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 39
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

The “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012” signed into law as Public Law 112-95 in February 2012, contains a “Special Rule for Model Aircraft”. The language in this provision instructs the FAA Administrator to not enact rules affecting model aircraft activity conducted within the safety programming of a nationwide community-based organization.

Shortly after the bill was passed AMA communicated with the manager of FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (now the UAS Integration Office) and expressed our interest in working with the FAA in “establishing the provisions for enacting and complying with the language and spirit of H.R. 658”. And, in follow-up to this communication the AMA made a request through the UAS office staff to meet with the FAA leadership to discuss the model aircraft provision and to work toward establishing the necessary policies and procedures for complying with the new criteria.
.
.
.

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/10/19461/ama-faa-update/
copterrichie is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 01:45 AM   #19
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,214
View xmech2k's Gallery21
Thanked 214 Times in 212 Posts
Club: CVMRCC, SEFSD
Awards Showcase

1kW  Outstanding Contributor Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

On the AMA website, they announce this and another FPV rule or something (Haven't read that one yet.) in a brief titled "AMA revising FPV policy". I think it is aimed more towards FPV and UAS type flying, but it is poorly worded. I think time will tell. I may see someone more in the know tomorrow and will ask about it.
xmech2k is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 02:36 AM   #20
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,573
Thanked 131 Times in 129 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

So then it must mean something that it carefully explains that it does not mean. Sounds reasonable to me. Sorry for reading and thinking. Have some Kool Aid.

Vermin Supreme said it best. "I am your FRIENDLY fascist. Yes, I want to control every aspect of your life. That is good because I truly know what is best for you and you do not. Submission is the only appropriate response to my generosity."

I think Aldous Huxley's NewSpeak is nearer than we feared.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 06:51 PM   #21
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,573
Thanked 131 Times in 129 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Attention! Changes on the AMA site appear to back off their requirement for flight stabilization systems, while leaving the "disarm from the ground" requirement for FPV. If this holds true, their safety rules now pass the sniff test.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 09:01 PM   #22
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,214
View xmech2k's Gallery21
Thanked 214 Times in 212 Posts
Club: CVMRCC, SEFSD
Awards Showcase

1kW  Outstanding Contributor Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

My source didn't know anything further. I'll have to look at those changes, Rockin. Thanks for the update.
xmech2k is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 12:42 AM   #23
dgjessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Columbus, OH USA
Posts: 534
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Club: Westerville Model Aeronautics Assoc.
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins View Post
Attention! Changes on the AMA site appear to back off their requirement for flight stabilization systems, while leaving the "disarm from the ground" requirement for FPV. If this holds true, their safety rules now pass the sniff test.
Where on the AMA site are you seeing this? (I looked...)

Dave
AMA #56519
dgjessing is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 01:30 AM   #24
dumo01
dumo01
 
dumo01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 766
Thanked 99 Times in 99 Posts
Club: Westerville Model Aeronautics Assc
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

I was at the JR Indoor today and stopped by the AMA booth. I spoke with Mark Radcliff the Div 3 VP and he said they had gotten a lot of feedback on the stabilization issue as soon as it came out. They had realized that they way it was worded was not producing the desired intent and it is or was going to be redone. He was not sure if the new document is up on the website yet, but said it would be up very shortly and would correct the issue.

Good thing cause I really like the look of the Mig
dumo01 is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:36 PM   #25
Azarr
Electric Junkie
 
Azarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 242
Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Originally Posted by dgjessing View Post
Where on the AMA site are you seeing this? (I looked...)
The PDF originally quoted was revised. As I indicated in the thread in the other forum there was never any intent to require stabilization like the As3X systemto be able to be turned off in flight. The intent was to require manual override of programmed autonomous flight. It was a simple matter of incorrect wording that has now been corrected.

Azarr
Azarr is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Reply

  WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > General Electric Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale FMA CoPilot CPD4 Auto Stabilization System ShokWaveRider Radio Equipment For Sale & WTB 1 09-17-2012 08:16 PM
For Sale WTS: FMA Co Pilot II, 4 Channel Flight Stabilization System raitheslacker Radio Equipment For Sale & WTB 1 09-17-2012 08:13 PM
AMA vs FAA... Saddlebum General Electric Discussions 154 01-11-2011 03:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 WattfFlyer.com
RCU Eflight HQ

Charities we support Select: Yorkie Rescue  ::  Crohn's & Colitis Foundation



Page generated in 0.32821 seconds with 67 queries