Below is a Safety Bulletin from the B.M.F.A. which follows on from Inquest Touching The Death Of Adam Kirby. Again, the British Model Flying Association has asked all Clubs to make as widely known as possible the following information:
B.M.F.A Safety Bulletin On Frequency Controls
"Whatever system is in use, its operation must be clear to the users."
Equally encouraging was the number of clubs who took immediate action to address the "Failsafe" issues and to examine how they could improve safety on their own sites. Every club newsletter and bulletin we received carried articles on the accident but, more importantly, detailed decisions taken by the clubs to address the safety issues raised. Below, you will find the deliberations of the safety committee on transmitter control. We urge you to give this the same attention you gave to our recommendations on "Failsafes" to determine whether you can make improvements in your existing transmitter control systems. We will be releasing further recommendations on the other issues raised by the accident once they have been finalised.
Frequency Control Systems
Following on from the Coroner's inquest, the Chairman of the B.M.F.A., Kath Watson, set up a small group of experienced RC model fliers from a broad range of disciplines to review model flying safety with respect to the Coroner's remarks at the inquest.You were advised in the last edition of the B.M.F.A. News (also posted on this website Inquest Touching The Death Of Adam Kirby.) that the most likely, but not absolute, cause of the accident was the simultaneous operation of two transmitters on the frequency of the accident aircraft. In short, a "shoot down". This has prompted the investigating authorities to focus on the methods of frequency control systems in use by model fliers throughout the U.K. and a review by the select committee mentioned.
This is a topic bound to provoke reaction from all RC model fliers and club committees alike, each believing that the system they use is the best for them.
The review committee identified several different frequency control systems, plus a few variations, which are mentioned below. Doubtless there are many more, all in regular use on club sites up and down the country. However, every system we identified has some potential for error within its operating regime. Humans are not infallible when it comes to following systems such as frequency control and most clubs have identified problems with the systems they are using. The actions they have taken to try and avoid these problems can lead to some strange variations in otherwise simple systems.
What we ask of you and your club committees is that you read our findings below with an open mind and compare these to your system. You will find that whichever system you use, it is probably governed by the site from which you fly. Some have many merits, but some are wholly unsuitable for the job they are trying to achieve.
The most traditional system in use seems to be the Peg Off pegboard, and it is certainly the most common and the most favoured judging by the correspondence since the last B.M.F.A. News. It is not, however, infallible. This system requires the user to remove a frequency peg or marker to indicate that the frequency is in use.
The psychological effects of the user being in "control" of the peg are very strong and it is generally a very good system. However, once the peg is removed, no indication is given of whom is using the frequency. Another flaw in this system is the removal of pegs from the flying site by people forgetting to put them back on the board system when they leave. This normally results in a duplicate peg being produced and if the original returns, you have two frequency pegs for the same channel.
The second most favoured system is the Peg On system. This negates the need for a number of frequency pegs to exist and overcomes the problem of pegs disappearing home at the end of the session. The system requires the user to display an indicator on a pegboard to denote that he is using a given frequency. if the system requires the marker to bear the identification of the owner, and this requirement is adhered to, the system can be very good indeed. It is not unusual, however, to see unmarked indicators, spanners, car keys, battery packs etc. hung on the board to denote that a frequency is in use.The psychological aspect of being in control of the frequency is quite diminished using thissystem and this is an important part in ensuring that any control system works effectively.
A third system and the committee's preferred one for suitable sites, is a combination of the two described above. If your infrastructure and site allows you to easily use this system, you should seriously consider it. Frequency markers exist as with the Peg Off system but when they are removed from the board hook or whatever, they are replaced with an indicator of a distinctly different design bearing the identification of the person using the frequency. The psychological reassurance is back and if a peg doesgo home with the user they will probably have left their own named marher in its place. A new indicator can be made when it is clear that the original is irrecoverable, and temporary Missing Peg indicators can be used if the original is expected back. A simple way to avoid the markers going home is to remove the requirement for them to be displayed on the user's transmitter or placed in his pocket. You may request that they be placed by the user's flight box in his personal pit area or even on the flightline, and of course if the frequency is cleared after every flight, which it should be, the marker will be back on the board anyway!
A fourth system, and one in use by many slope soaring clubs, is where the user is required to place an indicator in a communal place on the ground or a wire on a fence etc. bearing his name and frequency number to denote that he is using that channel. This has many variations but the principle flaw seems to be that in some instances it does not tell other fliers if that frequency is actually in use at a given time; only that someone on the hill has a transmitter on that channel. There is then the added problem of expecting all fliers to congregate at the same point on the hill, and the issue of trying to determine if a fellow flier has gone off home leaving his peg, or merely go to fly "cross country".
We also identified occurrence of clubs using electronic frequency scanners as the primary means of frequency control. This system is fundamentally flawed as it only tells the viewer which frequencies are in use at the time. there is no identification of the user, nor the number of users on the same channel.
The use of a scanner is however a very, very good secondary system when used as a cross-check against a more traditional pegboard system. In this instance it can be utilised to check that the frequency pegs out in the field are actually in use.
We cannot rule out the use of a transmitter pound as a possibility for club sites although they can be very labour intensive and would only generally tend to suit clubs with adequate resources to man them correctly. the transmitter pound is almost universally found at model flying displays and is always used in conjunction with a traditional pegboard system, typically peg off. It allows some insurance against thesimultaneous operation of two transmitters on the same frequency as it employs the use of a third party who is monitoring the frequencies in use and ensuring that only one transmitter on any frequency is out in the field at one time. This third party also ensures that a transmitter is back in his custody before he allows another on that frequency to be taken from the pound.
After some considerable deliberation, the committee had reached a number of conclusions relating to frequency control systemsIt is clear that whatever system is in use, its operation must be clear to the users at the point of operation. It is preferable to have this also mandated in writing in your club flying site rules so that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding from "word of mouth" communication on its usage. It is also essential for good communication between fliers to be established, especially those on the same frequency, and vital that at any one time the user of a particular frequency can be identified.
Secondary systems can be extremely beneficial but must not be allowed to detract from the primary frequency control system. A secondary system can be as simple as the scanners we mentioned earlier, or holding areas or queues for frequency markers awaiting use.
The requirement for transmitter frequency pennants identifying the channel in use remains no matter what frequency control system is in use.
It is also clear that effective monitoring by the clubs' committees is required to ensure that no misuse from over familiarity with the system is creeping in, and it is vital that club committes do not tolerate members who think they know better and do not follow club rules.
We cannot overstress the importance of the role of the club committee and indeed the individual members of the club in contributing to the safety of our sport. Everyone must play their part in the effective policing of this most important aspect of model flying.
Everyone is a safety officer.