2020 Nationals Finals

[Trostle]

Is someone going to explain what happened with Paul's flight in the first round of the finals?

Keith

[RC Storick]

As you know Keith, Paul flys electric. While the model was stopping and before Bob pick it up ,Paul switched hands with the handle. For a DQ 0 score

That was his lowest scoring flight so it would not have mattered anyway.

[Jerry Eichten]

Assuming Sparky's information is correct, I'm curious how passing the handle from one hand to the other results in a DQ.

The 2019-2020 CL Precision Aerobatics rules states in section 3.2 "The model shall be restrained at all times while the system is armed..."   

If 'restrained at all times' is indeed the issue here, at what point was the model not restrained?

Granted I wasn't there, but I do attempt to fly electric stunt, so I'm wondering if there's something I should be aware of.

Thanks - Jerry

[RC Storick]

Judges call

[Dennis Toth]

Question is if he switched hands without the safety thong does that mean that the model wasn't properly restrained? That is the only way I can see how it could be ruled unrestrained, he would not have put the handle down to do this so has to be the thong. Those that fly electric in competition need to know this ruling.

Best,   DennisT

[Frank Imbriaco]

In control line combat matches( I'm going back to when I was involved , which I hate to say how long ago that was) we switched hands if need be when things got tangled. I mostly fly electric stunt these days and am thoroughly familiar with the rules during competition and follow them.
That said, many electric flyers  fly alone , put the handle down after the flight, and walk to their model to disarm.
To me, that's no different then when I fly R/C. Upon end of the landing roll out, I (and countless others) walk up to the model and disarm it. With R/C , you have a chance of bumping the TX throttle or worse .By switching hands, one still has control.

[Tom Luciano]

I was there. The airplane came to rest and the pitman didn't arrive at the plane yet. I didn't see Paul switch hands but that is what the judges saw. So yes, the plane was armed and for a split second unrestrained. Similar issue happened last year with Samantha in Senior. As she was walking to her plane after signaling start, her pit man momentarily took his hands off the plane....DQ.
  Paul showed great composure and battled back with 2 great flights. All the top 5 guys were flying well all week.

Tom

[Brett Buck]

I was there. The airplane came to rest and the pitman didn't arrive at the plane yet. I didn't see Paul switch hands but that is what the judges saw. So yes, the plane was armed and for a split second unrestrained.

   Note that this is different from the written rule - the rule as written certainly allows you to remove your thong, switch hands, etc, as long as you don't actually let go entirely. Switching hands by definition is NOT letting go - if you let go, it would have fallen on the ground.  If you drop it, then, yes.

    I think this was briefed differently than written for the NATs, because the rule (which I proposed and got approved) certainly anticipated that you could switch hands, or hand your handle to your helper while the pilot goes and disarms it. There were several long threads about that here, and the draft proposal was modified prior to submission to remove any reference to the safety thong to permit that specific situation. 

    Brett

[Steve Scott]

In control line combat matches( I'm going back to when I was involved , which I hate to say how long ago that was) we switched hands if need be when things got tangled. I mostly fly electric stunt these days and am thoroughly familiar with the rules during competition and follow them.
That said, many electric flyers  fly alone , put the handle down after the flight, and walk to their model to disarm.
To me, that's no different then when I fly R/C. Upon end of the landing roll out, I (and countless others) walk up to the model and disarm it. With R/C , you have a chance of bumping the TX throttle or worse .By switching hands, one still has control.

I had a UMX (Ultra Micro) electric RC model leap off the table when I bumped the throttle stick.   I now program EVERY electric, no matter the size, with the throttle cut feature.

[Tom Luciano]

   Note that this is different from the written rule - the rule as written certainly allows you to remove your thong, switch hands, etc, as long as you don't actually let go entirely. Switching hands by definition is NOT letting go - if you let go, it would have fallen on the ground.  If you drop it, then, yes.

    I think this was briefed differently than written for the NATs, because the rule (which I proposed and got approved) certainly anticipated that you could switch hands, or hand your handle to your helper while the pilot goes and disarms it. There were several long threads about that here, and the draft proposal was modified prior to submission to remove any reference to the safety thong to permit that specific situation. 

    Brett

100% agree

[Dennis Toth]

I think this is an important ruling that should get an explanation from the CD that made the call and what was his bases. As Brett said if the rules allowed switching hands as long as the person is physically in touch with the handle, not including the thong, it should be explained why the ruling. My concern is even thought this flight was not Paul's high scoring flight and would not impact the outcome if let to stand could cause problems at other contest. Rulings at the NATS for PA (and VSC for OTS) tend to carry a lot of weight in how things are ruled in other contests.

Not to make a federal case out of this, was this specifically brought up and explained at the pilots meeting as applying to this NATS only for some safety reason?

Is the contestant the only one who can get this corrected or can the CD revise his ruling?

Best,    DennisT 

[Shorts,David]

In Control Line General 4. it states, "if the contestant releases the controls AND the safety thong during flight or before the model has come to a complete stop, the contestant shall be barred from further participation in the event and all of previous flights canceled."

In CLPA regulations 3.2 it states 'The model shall be restrained at all times while armed...including holing the handle...the device must be disarmed after flight before the airplane is left unrestrained..."

I see no mention regarding switching hands or even removing the thong so long as the handle is held, the model appears to be restrained.

So, as Brett assumes, releasing (unrestrained) would mean the handle drops to the ground. Of course, if the judges thought he released it, the consequence is not a Zero, but disqualification. 

[Dennis Toth]

I guess we need a clear description of what actually happened. At this point we are assuming it was the thong on the handle as he switched hands but no one has said for sure what happen.

That said this seems to be a serious situation for future contest rulings. It appears to evolve around the interpretation of "the model comes to a complete stop" or the model being restrained. If for electric if means the models is on the ground, with the propeller not being turned by the motor and the model not moving, as would be with an IC powered ship, then the judgement is wrong as nothing includes the safety thong. However if "complete stop" is interpreted as also including "the power is disconnected" as in a positive power cut off, it would be a problem.  For PA under section 9. Fouls  For precision aerobatics, any foul defined in these regulations happening between when the model begins a takeoff and when the model comes to a stop shall result in the flight being official and receiving a zero score. We don't have anything that defines a Foul in PA that I can see in the rule book.

Looking at the landing maneuver description in the judges guide for complete stop it only refers to stop "forward motion" nothing about power cut off or power disable for electrics.

They really need to explain this ruling. It looks like they should restore Paul's score. If not and they rule that it violated General 4, then they should have DQ him completely for releasing the model (which he clearly did not).

Best,    DennisT

[Ken Culbertson]

They really need to explain this ruling. It looks like they should restore Paul's score. If not and they rule that it violated General 4, then they should have DQ him completely for releasing the model (which he clearly did not).

 

[Dwayne Donnelly]

In control line combat matches( I'm going back to when I was involved , which I hate to say how long ago that was) we switched hands if need be when things got tangled. I mostly fly electric stunt these days and am thoroughly familiar with the rules during competition and follow them.
That said, many electric flyers  fly alone , put the handle down after the flight, and walk to their model to disarm.
To me, that's no different then when I fly R/C. Upon end of the landing roll out, I (and countless others) walk up to the model and disarm it. With R/C , you have a chance of bumping the TX throttle or worse .By switching hands, one still has control.

[/b][/i]

I'm the CFI for our club and always teach new pilots how to use the throttle cut on their radio.

[Brett Buck]

I think this is an important ruling that should get an explanation from the CD that made the call and what was his bases. As Brett said if the rules allowed switching hands as long as the person is physically in touch with the handle, not including the thong, it should be explained why the ruling. My concern is even thought this flight was not Paul's high scoring flight and would not impact the outcome if let to stand could cause problems at other contest. Rulings at the NATS for PA (and VSC for OTS) tend to carry a lot of weight in how things are ruled in other contests.

     I am not calling on anyone for anything, because:
     1 - I was not there, so I am not sure exactly what happened and why it was ruled a violation
     2 - To be entirely honest, I wasn't paying very close attention during the briefing of this rule, since it didn't apply to me and can't recall if the action (whatever it was) was described or how.
     3 - I was not a NATS official, and at the time it happened, not a competitor, either, so my opinion carries no weight anyway

     As the author of the rule, the intent was to avoid a dangerous situation, and the idea was that we just didn't want people doing auto-launches or arming it in the pits and walking away, and switching hands or handing off the handle to the helper does not leave the model unrestrained.   

   Holding the handle at the end of the flight is specifically mentioned in the written rule as OK and anything about safety thongs was intentionally removed to permit either switching hands or handing off the handle while the pilot went to disarm the plane (which was originally mentioned by our host, as I recall...) .

    The CD/ED is perfectly within their right to make it more demanding than that if, in their opinion, something unsafe might have happened.

    In any case, the CD is ultimately responsible for the safety of the contest and the rulings, and I think the point is now moot.

     Brett

[Derek Barry]

I do not pretend to speak for Paul, but I was the first person he talked to after the flight. This occurred while the judges were discussing what actions needed to be taken. Apparently they all agreed that it was a foul, and David delivered the news to Paul. He was probably frustrated with the entire situation,  but he stated to me, the rules are the rules, and walked away. As stated before,  it would not have changed the outcome,  so at this point, it doesn't really matter. Paul handled it with class, and went on to fly two more solid patters.

Derek

[Brett Buck]

I guess we need a clear description of what actually happened. At this point we are assuming it was the thong on the handle as he switched hands but no one has said for sure what happen.

That said this seems to be a serious situation for future contest rulings. It appears to evolve around the interpretation of "the model comes to a complete stop" or the model being restrained. If for electric if means the models is on the ground, with the propeller not being turned by the motor and the model not moving, as would be with an IC powered ship, then the judgement is wrong as nothing includes the safety thong. However if "complete stop" is interpreted as also including "the power is disconnected" as in a positive power cut off, it would be a problem.  For PA under section 9. Fouls  For precision aerobatics, any foul defined in these regulations happening between when the model begins a takeoff and when the model comes to a stop shall result in the flight being official and receiving a zero score. We don't have anything that defines a Foul in PA that I can see in the rule book.

Looking at the landing maneuver description in the judges guide for complete stop it only refers to stop "forward motion" nothing about power cut off or power disable for electrics.

They really need to explain this ruling. It looks like they should restore Paul's score. If not and they rule that it violated General 4, then they should have DQ him completely for releasing the model (which he clearly did not).

Best,    DennisT

     I think it is perfectly clear with general agreement that the safety thong has to be on until the model stops rolling (IOW, the flight is over).

     That's a different issue from the arming plug rule, which is merely intended to protect against a single-point failure/glitch that is common to (as far as I can tell) *all* electric systems currently in use. The principle is as always, that two failures have to happen before safety is compromised. In this case, the two failures are the controller glitching "on", plus, the airplane getting away from the pilot or helper afterwards. If you weren't restraining it at all, then, one failure causes an unsafe situation.

    The same principle applies to the safety thong - without one, a single failure (handle getting released or jerked out of your hand) and that allows the airplane to fly free, hence unsafe. With a thong, the first failure is letting go of the handle, and then the thong also has to fail, before it is unsafe.

     Same principle with the pull test - they are set so that each individual line is tested to about 2x the anticipated flight load. One line fails in flight, and you still have the other line, tested to ~2x the normal flight loads, to restrain it. Both have to fail before an unsafe situation (for the innocent bystanders, not necessarily the pilot or the airplane) can arise.

   Of course, two simultaneous failures *could* happen and cause a dangerous accident. The idea is that you set everything up so that the odds are very low of both things failing at the same time. But not impossible.

    Brett

[bob whitney]

how would this have been handled if it had happened at 7;30 in the morning

[Paul Walker]

I had finished my flight. The plane was at a complete stop. I was waiting for Bob to pull the arming plug. I thought I saw him bend over to pull it so I switched hands. At no point was there no hand on the handle. Once in my left hand, I slipped my hand out of the safety thong.  I looked up to see Bob had stood up before pulling the plug. At that moment there was a judge watching me.

As we walked the plane back in the judges grouped together for a conference. I knew what was about to happen.

The tabulators didn't need to add the scores. So I did. Being first up made me think it was unnecessary, but I did anyway.  It was a 568.

If it would have made a difference, I would have waited until I was done flying and then filed a protest. The plane was never "non restrained". But, it didn't matter.

[Dennis Toth]

Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to give a clear description of the incident, your sportsmanship was exemplary. Was the idea that you had to kept the safety thong on unit the plane was disarmed discussed in the pilots meeting?

Thanks,    DennisT

[FLOYD CARTER]

Our club has established some rules for field conduct during this epidemic.  We must take off using a stooge;  We do not touch or hold another's plane.  Of course, we observe the distancing rule.

Therefore,those of us who fly e-planes retrieve our own planes after flying.  This  does violate the unattended plane rule, unless we drag  our lines across the field while still holding the handle.  There doesn't seem to be a good answer for this.

[Dennis Toth]

Floyd,
The restrain rule only applies specifically to Contests not practice or general flying. What I do is to hold the down line with the controls set in full down so if it somehow starts (which in ECL seems very rare, RC different story) it will nose over before it gets to far. So far for the past 5 years I've flown ECL I have never had a motor restart after timer shut down.

Best,   DennisT

[Brett Buck]

Our club has established some rules for field conduct during this epidemic.  We must take off using a stooge;  We do not touch or hold another's plane.  Of course, we observe the distancing rule.

   There is no such thing as a "social distancing rule", and in any case, the asserted "required" behavior for outdoors is "wear a mask if social distancing cannot be maintained", so it's an "OR" rather than an "AND".

   Of course, masks being an entirely psychological/symbolic  phenomenon, it's entirely up to the fears and misapprehensions of those participating whether they want to do both and thus "feel safe".

  Your chances of being injured by flying with a stooge is also non-zero, stooges are notoriously risky overall, far more likely to cause an injury  than electrics starting unexpectedly.

Therefore,those of us who fly e-planes retrieve our own planes after flying.  This  does violate the unattended plane rule, unless we drag  our lines across the field while still holding the handle.  There doesn't seem to be a good answer for this.

 The arming plug rule is not in the safety code and sport flying is not subject to competition rules, so you are left with just the risk, no rule violations.

   Most of the "unexpected start" incidents I have heard about occurred right as someone touched the model after flight, presumably due to some sort of discharge event. This suggests that you should walk right up to it and grab it in a solid way, expecting it to go to full power immediately,  as your first act, then remove the plug.

  It's not that common, I fly with electric guys all the time and it has never happened to us, and I have only heard of about 10 or so unexpected startup behavior incidents total since I have first been asked about it - excluding Matt Neumann's problems at the NATS this year.  There have been *many more* "just quit for unknown reasons" incidents.

   Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

    Most of the "unexpected start" incidents I have heard about occurred right as someone touched the model after flight, presumably due to some sort of discharge event. This suggests that you should walk right up to it and grab it in a solid way, expecting it to go to full power immediately,  as your first act, then remove the plug.
   Brett

Brett:
I have had one unexpected start since going electric.  Not at the field.  I was doing a runup when it quit after about 10 seconds and it stopped.  As I was setting it back down it started back up again.  It was a loose wire between the ESC and timer.  Why it behaved that way, I am not qualified to even guess.  The likelihood of a restart from a normal cutoff is almost zero with my equipment because it requires a re-arming of the ESC but a restart from a non scheduled stop should be suspect.  A loose wire can make contact again with the slightest movement.

Just as a side note, I have had an IC start on it's own when I was just a kid.  McCoy 35 with battery assist on the glow plug (don't know if they still do that anymore).  Overheated as McCoys do and apparently stopped TDC with no compression then cooled just enough to fire.  I still had the handle but it scared the Cr** out of me.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Brett:
I have had one unexpected start since going electric.  Not at the field.  I was doing a runup when it quit after about 10 seconds and it stopped.  As I was setting it back down it started back up again.  It was a loose wire between the ESC and timer.  Why it behaved that way, I am not qualified to even guess.  The likelihood of a restart from a normal cutoff is almost zero with my equipment because it requires a re-arming of the ESC but a restart from a non scheduled stop should be suspect.

   I think you are wrong on that one - very low, but your "rearming" procedure is not going to fix it. There are a myriad of what are called "low-level" states in your timer and controller, that is, states of the processor that are "stored" as logic signals, essentially acting as solid-state "relays". They are always - repeat *always* subject to changing state unexpectedly, from anything from static electricity (far too low for you to notice) to cosmic rays. Your computer is also subject to this, too, but it uses "EDAC" (error detection and correction) that stores more bits that it actually uses, the extra bits being set based on the 32 or 64 bits that it uses, and can be used to detect unexpected bit flips. Usually for consumer equipment it can correct a single bit flip, but only detect two bits, at which point it halts/crashes.

    Same thing can happen with any - repeat, *any* - low-level logic signal, and that can cause unexpected behavior. I have seen or seen the results of *thousands and thousands* of these bit flips, even in the highest=end military equipment. They, however, are usually designed to recover from this with no outside interventions, for the most part, having separate equipment to detect a halt or fault, and rebooting it, restoring memory from protected checkpoints, etc. Some trivial examples are not protected against, and the states just change, and you fix them later. Early on in the space age, this sort of thing was not protected against, and the spacecraft just went out of control and sometimes ended up dead as a result.

    The controllers used in stunt are not that prone to this problem, but they have nearly zero robustness/built-in recovery methods. A lot of the glitches just cause odd behavior or shuts it off, or are cleared on the next processor cycle. A few will turn it on (assuming that the battery is connected). Those are the ones this rule is protecting against.

   Note that this says nothing about *failures*, but the rule still prevents a failure from having the motor run amok when you don't expect it or might take off on its own.

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

After reading Pauls post it sounds like the judges need to be more observant.   

[Ken Culbertson]

   I think you are wrong on that one

    Brett

If I read you right, you are saying that the loose wire caused a shutdown of the motor but did not trigger a condition that required re-arming and that there are a lot of these possible.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

After reading Pauls post it sounds like the judges need to be more observant.   

Nice & politely stated, Doc.

Not what I was going to post...no, not at all. My opinion is that it was total Bull Sh't.  Steve

[Ted Fancher]

DEFUND ELECTRICS!!  DEFUND ELECTRICS!! DEFUND ELECTRICS!!   @

[Howard Rush]

DEFUND ELECTRICS!!  DEFUND ELECTRICS!! DEFUND ELECTRICS!!

I was going to submit a rule proposal against them, but the horse was already out of the barn.

[Brett Buck]

If I read you right, you are saying that the loose wire caused a shutdown of the motor but did not trigger a condition that required re-arming and that there are a lot of these possible.

  I am saying that there are many issues that can cause it to spool up unexpectedly in addition to your loose wire.

    Brett

[Steve Helmick]

Somebody should submit a rule that disallows airborne batteries. Problem solved!  Steve

[Bob Hunt]

Electric airplanes matter...   

Bob Hunt

[Ken Culbertson]

Electric airplanes matter...   

Bob Hunt

Around here we have to use separate restrooms.

Ken

[John Rist]

I fly electric alone.  As I have stated many times on the electric board there is a way to do it safely.  What I do is drive a stake (very large screw driver) in the ground at the center of the circle.  I loop the safety thong over the stake.  If the airplane starts unexpectedly the thong jerks the down line and the aircraft noses over.  On the pave parking lot where I fly I have drilled a hole in the pavement and driven in a 1/2" aluminum tube.  A large Phillips screw driver fits in the tube.   After I pick up the handle I pull the screw driver and place it in my pocket so I don't trip over it.  Also here of late I am working on a remote START.  It amounts to a key fob with a push button.   When you press the button it starts the start timer ( mine is set at 1 minute)  This way, if I drop dead on the way to the handle the airplane will not start.  Also with this device I can stop the motor if things are going wrong.  Right now there is a thread on the electric board discussing all this.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/gettin-all-amp'ed-up!/remote-on-off-for-a-kr-timer/new/#new

PS Remote START/STOP may not be legal for contest.  I only use it for sport flying.  If I ever fly in a contest I would not use a remote START/STOP switch.