jhsa wrote:ok, no more safety to our radios.. it seems that everybody agree now..
No, that's NOT what I am saying at all, the only thing I was taking exception to is the concept of having to power the RX off in the event of the TX being powered off, as that may not be possible if the model is "remote", like possibly flying.
The changes on systems like the 9X we've seen are good, and I for one want to see them continue, but in a way where the user remains in the loop to a sufficient extent that if for ANY reason the automation goes belly up, the user is not left in a position where they don't have a clue what to do, which is effectively what happened to the Air France Airbus over the Atlantic a while back, it stalled, and because the crew had not been adequately trained they never reailsed that the situation they were in was recoverable, and a lot of people died as a result.
My concern is that if we make it too easy, and too automatic, there will be people flying unsuitable models in inappropriate locations and in a manner that risks serious consequences in the event of a failure of any sort, as they won't have the skills and the underlying knowledge to get out of a situation for which they have not done the basic learning.
It's happened in full size aviation, and the skill set required to be demonstrated to a competent instructor and examiner is a whole different ball game to the requirements to fly a model, if I have the money, I can walk into any model shop and buy a model, radio and all the add ons, and go and do with it as I will, regardless of my skill level or understanding of what I am doing, and how I am doing it. That is the area of concern for me, having flown full size and models, and seen the similarity and the differences between the two disciplines, I don't want to see modelling regulated in the same way that full size aviation is regulated, and I see warning signs of a real possibility of that level of restriction happening, given the way that the capability of modern equipment is going.
30 years ago or so, a model Bell 212 helicopter cost close on the cost of the monthly payment on a mortgage, and the radio equipment to then operate is was equally expensive, now, it's very easy to get a 650 size helicopter and radio to operate it for a fraction of the cost. In many respects that's good, but the downside is that there is a significantly increased risk of accidents happening due to the number of people that can now afford to buy that level of equipment, and the same is true for fixed wing models, as well as RPV and UAV. Some of the video's I see of people operating large helicopters make me cringe, in that they seem not to be aware of the real risks of injury if anything goes wrong, and having a large heavy helicopter within a few feet of people, regardless of it they are involved in operating it or not, is a risk that really should not be taken.
In the same way, some of the videos of large fix wing models being operated on car parks and the like makes me wonder about the understanding of the people doing the flying, 45 years ago, a member of a flying club I was also in was seriously hurt when he was hit by a .60 powered sport model, and that was at a club field where the general public did not have random access. When I read in recent days "My landing was baulked by 3 soccer mums driving their SUV's across the car park at the wrong moment" my initial response was considerably less than charitable towards the person that was operating the model.
So, I don't want to stop progress, and I am happy to encourage developments that make modelling safer, but not if it means that people end up flying on mental autopilot, because they don't have to mentally engage with the process. It's probably an urban myth, supposedly Winnebago lost a court case when a new user crashed their mobile home after setting cruise control and leaving the wheel to go and make coffee because he could, and after the inevitable crash, the case was lost because there was nothing in the manual to say he couldn't do it.
I don't want model flying to get to a stage where we can only use certified approved software and after completing a 6 month mandatory flying course that includes how to use the chemical toilet at the flying field before I get my licence to fly, and in Europe, the Health & Safety Lobby have already killed way too many activities by becoming increasingly intrusive in their regulation.
So, if that means we don't say "do you really want to do that" 3 or 4 times before making the change, I don't have an issue with that, if it means that the user has to engage brain before taking the action. I do a lot of computer support, and the presence of a "are you sure" window doesn't prevent some of my users from making fundamental mistakes when doing things that they perhaps don't do very often.
In the same breath, and here I'm only talking about the Stock 9X firmware at the moment, I'm not having a dig at anyone here, as I've only just started getting the upgrade process going, the programmers of some of these things have a lot to learn about making the user interface friendly and intuitive, and the windows experience hasn't helped that any. A classic was a DVD recorder we had a few years ago, where the most regular user item, programming it to record off air, was the last item on the menu box, and the first item on that same menu was the set up screen that was used probably once a year, if that, but of course, it was the first thing the programmer had to do before anything else would work. The end result was that the User interface was effectively a Geek Interface, requiring way too many button presses to get to what the user needed, and totally the wrong way round for the end user. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's a crazy keypress sequence, or some other issue, the significant issue is that the programmer, who knows the thing from end to end anyway, has to find a way to make the end product user friendly so that the user that's not working with it every day can make sense of how to do things when they get into the process.
So, hopefully, that makes clear where I'm coming from, and why I've made some of the comments I have, not to prevent change, or stifle innovation, but to hopefully make sure that the changes and innovations are managed in a way that forces the user to stay involved with the activity, and that the user can understand what is happening, and why. Acheiving that objective requires a lot of system analysis, a programmer that understands the requirement, and (often the weakest point) documentation or other support information that provides the user with a clear and structured way to access the information about the product in a way that is both friendly and informative, and at the right level, and that is a very difficult art to master, and if I were to expose my own perferences here, You Tube video's don't hack it.
Hope that makes sense, and hasn't ruffled too many feathers
)
