Re: [ciam-f2] AW: Voting on the F2 Subcommittee proposals Response before November 15

[Bill Lee]

Hello, all;

Regarding the revision of the definition of CL, I have the following conversation with an American F2D competitor, Mark Rudner:

He wrote:
----------------

I think there is a problem with the wording of section
c).  It does not make sense to specify 2.4 GHz as the only band for sending
signals to shut down the engine.  We currently have a system for shutting down
the engine which sends a very low power, low frequency signal through the
lines.  The device functions both as an automatic shutoff in case of flyaway,
and can be used for shutting down the engine once both streamers are cut, as
will be required in 2013.  Why should this be excluded?

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

I responded by saying
----------------

I do not read that as saying "only band" although I think that is what is meant.

However, I do NOT view the system you described (i.e., "which sends a very low power, low frequency signal through the lines.") as any sort of violation. The rules would say in essence "If you are using RF to operate the shutoff, use 2.4gHz.". Your system falls outside that statement since you are not using RF but merely a signal transmitted through the lines directly coupled to the receiver. (In this context, RF means signal transmitted through the air.)

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

Mark's response and a suggestion:
----------------

Thank you for your reply.  It is true that paragraph C does not specify 2.4 GHz
as the *only* band.  However, what worries me is this section, in combination
with paragraph B:

"Powerplant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset,
onboard processes."

At least as I read it, or as I fear some could later interpret it, this means
that in general no electrical/electromagnetic signals can be actively sent by
the pilot or others in the flight area to control the engine (powerplant). Then,
paragraph C appears as an exception to this rule, allowing external,
non-mechanical control, for one single purpose of shutting down the engine to
end a flight.  Of course our system, which sends the electrical signal through
the lines and therefore can be argued to be in compliance with paragraph A, may
be viewed by some as a violation of paragraph B.

If the committee is going to go through the trouble of changing the rules, I see
no reason for them to limit the exception (paragraph C) to one particular
technology.  An equally valid approach from the point of view of safety and
legality, but which allows more freedom for the control line community, would
be to write

c) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), it is permitted to use non-preset
electrical and/or electromagnetic signals, in compliance with all applicable
rules and laws at the site of the competition. The competitor will determine
the suitability for use of the chosen system.

If there is no particular reason to keep a specific mention of 2.4 GHz in the
wording, then in my view it makes no sense to keep it.  If you agree, and the
others do not object, then I would kindly ask you to please suggest an
alternate (less potentially/inadvertently restrictive) wording to the CIAM,
such as the one above.

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

I agree with Mark and suggest the alternative he has offered.

Regards,

Bill Lee



On 11/11/2011 04:10 AM, Peter Germann wrote:

Thank you, Bengt-Olof

 

Please find the SUI votes attached

 

Kind regards and looking forward to see you in April 2012

 

Peter Germann

---

Von: Bengt-Olof Samuelsson [mailto:bengt-olof...@lottingelund.se]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. November 2011 15:39
An: 'CIAM F2 List'
Betreff: [ciam-f2] Voting on the F2 Subcommittee proposals Response before November 15

 

Dear all,

I apologise to all of you that I am very late with the Subcommittee proposals to the Plenary Meeting 20-21 April 2012.

The proposals shall be sent by me to the FAI Office November 15.

I have attached all the proposals and the voting form in zipped format. If anyone will have problem opening it, please contact me and I will send it unzipped.

I would like to have your votes by November 14 if it will be possible for you.


Best regards
Bengt-Olof

[Peter G]

Good Morning, Bill

 

I’d like to comment as follows:

 

• Same as sending mechanical pulses down the lines for shutting off A and C motors, using non RF electrical impulses for the same purpose fully complies with sub paragraph a.)

 

• In c.) the suggested proposal refers to “2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum” because this is the only currently available mass market technology being, to a very high degree, free of interference problems and therefore eliminating the risk of unintentional shut-offs by thirds.

 

I do take Marks’s input seriously but in order to do a major step forward in terms of safety and compatibility with future technical developments, I do recommend carrying forward the proposal as submitted.

 

 Kind regards, Peter Germann

[Peter G]

On Friday, November 11 F2 S/C member Peter Halm (UK) has commented:

 

Dear All

In view of Bill's comments may I suggest that paragraph c) is amended as follows,

 

c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any devise or system it is permitted including the to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system.

 

As these are only devices to shut down the engine then I believe this small amendment will meet the requirements of Mark Rudner as well as the wishes of the F2B working group.

 

Best regards, Peter Halman

 

Here is my reply:

 

Dear All

As ”any device or system determinated by the competitor to be suitable” brings with it the risk of someone showing up with a wireless device which unintentionally shuts off my motor when being triggerd by a pilot flying on another circle at the same time, it would be helpful if you natural english speakers could come up with a phrase saying that the system used must be free of interference.

 

Thank you and kind regards,  Peter Germann

 

 

 

[Bill Lee]

Hello, Peter;

First (and perhaps a difference between English as spoken by an American vs. others): "devise" is a verb, meaning "to plan to obtain or bring about" whereas "device" is a noun.

Perhaps this:

c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any device or system it is permitted including the to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must  1) be operated only by the pilot, and 2) not affect any other model.

Regards,

Bill Lee

[Joan McIntyre]

I missed this but you are correct. “Device” is the noun.

 

I have sent my responses in, but I am not sure if they have been received. Peter, can you let me know if the F2 Sub Committee has received them, please?

 

Kind regards,

 

Joan McIntyre.

 

---

[Peter G]

Thank you, Bill,  I agree on your version of c.) now reading:

 

c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any device or system is permitted including the 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must 1) be operated only by the pilot, and 2) not affect any other model.

Regards, Peter Germann

[Peter G]

Hi, Joan.

 

As I have not seen a copy of your vote, you may want to check with Bengt-Olof...

 

rgds ,Peter

[Joan McIntyre]

I am happy to agree to this amendment.

 

Kind regards,

 

Joan McIntyre.

 

---

From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2011 3:13 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Peter G; 'CIAM F2 List'
Subject: Re: [ciam-f2] AW: Voting on the F2 Subcommittee proposals Response before November 15

 

Thank you, Bill,  I agree on your version of c.) now reading:

 

c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any device or system is permitted including the 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must 1) be operated only by the pilot, and 2) not affect any other model.

Regards, Peter Germann

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/NZLMlJax5pMJ.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.

[Roger Ladds]

Hi All
Would it read better as follows?

(c)  For permanent shutdown of the engine(s) any device or system is permitted.
      The suitability of the device or system shall be determined by the pilot.
      The device or system shall only be operated by the pilot.
      If a Radio Frequency system is used it must be "free of any interference" such as
      the 2.4GHz Spread Spectrum type and be legal for use in the country of the competition.

Regards

Roger ladds

--
Roger Ladds

[Bill Lee]

Roger, the change that I proposed covers it nicely:

c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any device or system it is permitted including the to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must  1) be operated only by the pilot, and 2) not affect any other model.


Regards,

Bill Lee