Calculation Needed.......

[With The Birds]

As far as I can see as a recreational pilot there it doesn't make you any more safe in any way what so ever and is not required.

Even as a commercial operator unless you had need of these calculations as part of a process to determine lift capacity on custom built R.P.A. or perhaps calculations on engine life under maximum load or something obtuse like that it's pretty well redundant information but perhaps there's something I'm missing.

I knew it from my electronics background, I was taught it again when I did my RePL cert. Ask me again in 5 years if it has ever been a factor or I've used it. I have my doubts. A recreational pilot? Never going to need to know it.

Regards
Ari

All this is nice (most would agree the suggested level of theoretical competency is of little relevance to operating a sUAS safely) however of greater concern is that the question is flawed. None of the available answers are correct. The speed of the motor, as with any motor of it’s type is determined by line frequency and number of poles. Not supply voltage to the ESC or drive voltage. RPM is simply 120 times the line frequency divided by poles. The inverter output from the ESC does exhibit higher voltage with increasing commanded speed (with reduced current), as do most VFD however applied voltage times KV will not allow the speed to be reliably determined.

 

[With The Birds]

I completely agree, as I stated, I dont believe the question is relevant to the actual knowledge that is required for hobbyist flying, and nor would answering that question wrong likely cause anyone to fail the test. I believe it's more "survey" based to provide info back about just how much we actually do know above and beyond the minimum. I have no issue at all with that question.

You would be right to have an issue with the question as none of the available answers are correct.

 

[3rdof5]

You would be right to have an issue with the question as none of the available answers are correct.

Exactly my point, how can they mark it wrong???

 

[With The Birds]

Exactly my point, how can they mark it wrong???

That’s a big departure from your earlier position. That there was only one logical and correct answer. Chances are they don’t realise the issue with the question either. It might be that people who are sitting the exam are being disadvantaged.

 

[3rdof5]

That’s a big departure from your earlier position. That there was only one logical and correct answer. Chances are they don’t realise the issue with the question either. It might be that people who are sitting the exam are being disadvantaged.

No I stand by my original point, and I seriously doubt that question was included by someone who had no idea the answer could be argued logically and exactly. It was added as it is on purpose imo, for the reasons I've stated, and since the test does not require a mark of 100% to pass they have room to do research on our knowledge. Yes people make poor judgments when creating new policy and testing and many have argued that this is an example of that, but imo, if I was charged with creating a certification exam for a "debated and scrutinized" new tech that obvs has not been properly represented to the public safety, I would make every effort to gain as much knowledge from the students and "what they know already" to properly report back and say, Ok here's what we've learned and what the response has been, to properly further the regulations and safety procedures whilst ensuring the industry doesnt suffer from prejudice. Just my opinion.

 

[With The Birds]

No I stand by my original point, and I seriously doubt that question was included by someone who had no idea the answer could be argued logically and exactly. It was added as it is on purpose imo, for the reasons I've stated, and since the test does not require a mark of 100% to pass they have room to do research on our knowledge. Yes people make poor judgments when creating new policy and testing and many have argued that this is an example of that, but imo, if I was charged with creating a certification exam for a "debated and scrutinized" new tech that obvs has not been properly represented to the public safety, I would make every effort to gain as much knowledge from the students and "what they know already" to properly report back and say, Ok here's what we've learned and what the response has been, to properly further the regulations and safety procedures whilst ensuring the industry doesnt suffer from prejudice. Just my opinion.

That’s a strange sort of logic but fair enough.

 

[3rdof5]

I havent taken the basic test yet nor have I registered my P3 yet but I will soon, likely this weekend. I will report back with what questions I was faced with.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

however of greater concern is that the question is flawed. None of the available answers are correct.

No, as far as I can see what is of greatest concern is what is a reasonable level of knowledge to expect a recreational pilot to have? Also and fore most what are candidates going to be required to quote to pass the examination at the benchmark the authorities set, not what is technically textbook correct or you or I decide is correct.

Whether we like how the question is posed or not, you and I are not the ones setting the examination.

most would agree the suggested level of theoretical competency is of little relevance to operating a sUAS safely

Agreed to a point, MOST however would agree that the more pressing question to members of this forum is what specified competency is going to be required to certify as a R.P.A. pilot. Not get a degree in electrical engineering or a Technician's cetificate

Respectfully, while you may be correct, a fixation on technical minutia is simply going to distract from the general direction of "what do I need to know to pass?".

Regards
Ari

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

No I stand by my original point, and I seriously doubt that question was included by someone who had no idea the answer could be argued logically and exactly

The pointed words here are "logically and exactly". Logically and exactly as for the birds points out it is not exactly termed correctly and essential variables to formulate an exact answer are not included. It is however exactly the same format as is used in the Australian RePL qualification to the letter which by for the birds reaction I assume he has not obtained otherwise he would have 100% struck this question before.

I must despite the outrage I can feel coming say, it IS a close enough analogy for real world use for the layman even if not technically perfectly phrased.

Please save the technical outrage, I'm not going to argue this point on technical merit, you don't have to be a Qualified Tech (which I have been for near 40 years as well as an r/c instructor with FAI type F and S rating for 27 years) to make a judgment. A quick web search will let any reader make their own decision on whether the question is close enough to reality to be valid in real world situations given the vague wording not even taking into account under load or no load situations ... it's a ballpark calculation, for a ballpark answer it'll do , and again I say. For the layman. C.A.S.A. and now Canada Transport happen to think it is, argue it with them not me please.

I would make every effort to gain as much knowledge from the students and "what they know already" to properly report back and say, Ok here's what we've learned and what the response has been, to properly further the regulations and safety procedures whilst ensuring the industry doesnt suffer from prejudice.

You might be right 3rdof5. I'm not much given to "conspiracy theories" but one thing I am sure of and would be more likely to ascribe to is the fact that the sub 400Ft airspace has for decades been worthless commercially. Manned aviation is mostly 500Ft and above and no one was interested in below. In the last few years however (with the advent of off the shelf U.A.V. tech) that airspace has suddenly become worth billion$ to big business. We all know big business LOVE to share right? Just like big business would never use the huge amounts they contribute to our Governments to try and sway them to clear the airspace for automated delivery services for example. Likewise we all know Governments would never be swayed by such lobbying right?

Maybe you're right, maybe this is a fishing expedition to see where the bar should be set and things may roll back to a sane level. if they do not however it can only be considered that the new Canadian certification scheme is punative to recreational flyers and you must ask why. I have speculated on one reason above.

Regards
Ari

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

I havent taken the basic test yet nor have I registered my P3 yet but I will soon, likely this weekend. I will report back with what questions I was faced with.

Wishing you the best of luck!

Ari

 

[With The Birds]

The pointed words here are "logically and exactly". Logically and exactly as for the birds points out it is not exactly termed correctly. It is however exactly the same format as is used in the Australian RePL qualification to the letter which by for the birds reaction I assume he has not obtained otherwise he would have 100% struck this question before.

I must despite the outrage I can feel coming say, it IS a close enough analogy for real world use for the layman even if not technically perfectly phrased.

Please save the technical outrage, I'm not going to argue this point on technical merit, you don't have to be a Qualified Tech (which I have been for near 40 years as well as an r/c instructor with FAI type F and S rating for 27 years) to make a judgment. A quick web search will let any reader make their own decision on whether the question is close enough to reality to be valid in real world situations given the vague wording not even taking into account under load or no load situations ... it's a ballpark calculation, for a ballpark answer it'll do , and again I say. For the layman. C.A.S.A. and now Canada Transport happen to think it is, argue it with them not me please.



You might be right 3rdof5. I'm not much given to "conspiracy theories" but one thing I am sure of and would be more likely to ascribe to is the fact that the sub 400Ft airspace has for decades been worthless commercially. Manned aviation is mostly 500Ft and above and no one was interested in below. In the last few years however (with the advent of off the shelf U.A.V. tech) that airspace has suddenly become worth billion$ to big business. We all know big business LOVE to share right? Just like big business would never use the huge amounts they contribute to our Governments to try and sway them to clear the airspace for automated delivery services for example. Likewise we all know Governments would never be swayed by such lobbying right?

Maybe you're right, maybe this is a fishing expedition to see where the bar should be set and things may roll back to a sane level. if they do not however it can only be considered that the new Canadian certification scheme is punative to recreational flyers and you must ask why. I have speculated on one reason above.

Regards
Ari

Outrage? Not from these quarters. The fact is KV is useful for determining the optimal operating speed range for matching a brushless AC motor to an application. That’s where it ends- KV * V from the supply does not determine RPM. If I reduce the voltage on the VFD for my CNC routers the spindle speed doesn’t change. 300hz gives 18000 rpm on a 2 pole spindle at any voltage sufficient to run it.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

The fact is KV is useful for determining the optimal operating speed range for matching a brushless AC motor to an application. That’s where it ends- KV * V from the supply does not determine RPM. If I reduce the voltage on the VFD for my CNC routers the spindle speed doesn’t change. 300hz gives 18000 rpm on a 2 pole spindle at any voltage sufficient to run it.

it's a ballpark calculation, for a ballpark answer it'll do , and again I say. For the layman. C.A.S.A. and now Canada Transport happen to think it is, argue it with them not me please.

 

[With The Birds]

You have applied some effort to suggest you understand the principals- to suggest it might even pass as a “ballpark” calculation doesn’t make sense.

For anyone who is interested KV * voltage is useless in determining the speed an AC motor will run at.

It’s not an issue of opinion or a subject for argument. It is fact.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

You have applied some effort to suggest you understand the principals- to suggest it might even pass as a “ballpark” calculation doesn’t make sense.

For anyone who is interested KV * voltage is useless in determining the speed an AC motor will run at.

It’s not an issue of opinion or a subject for argument. It is fact.

I've read the forums well enough to be aware of your adversarial nature. You apply enough fixation on hyperbola to the original question to suggest your interest is other than furthering the interests of the forum members and that sir, is a fact. What doesn't make sense seems to be anything that doesn't align precisely with your view. Just not buying in.

If you can't follow the premise that excessive fixation on technical detail obfuscates the primary point of determining what the regulatory body wants and what the candidates need to pass (the point of this thread) and further that if Canada Transport and C.A.S.A. are satisfied that the premise of kVa x V = unloaded RPM is close enough for their purposes then you should argue it with them and convince them the change the syllabus. Until such time I'm not going to argue it with you. I'm here to assist where I can, not debate.

Personally, I decided not to argue and just got certified and am chief pilot for my own business. I recommend it to you.

Best wished in the hobby, I've said all I think I have to say in this thread.

We shall not discourse again.

@3rdof5 I'd still like to know how you get on with the exam.

Regards
Ari

 

[With The Birds]

I've read the forums well enough to be aware of your adversarial nature. You apply enough fixation on hyperbola to the original question to suggest your interest is other than furthering the interests of the forum members and that sir, is a fact. What doesn't make sense seems to be anything that doesn't align precisely with your view. Just not buying in.

If you can't follow the premise that excessive fixation on technical detail obfuscates the primary point of determining what the regulatory body wants and what the candidates need to pass (the point of this thread) and further that if Canada Transport and C.A.S.A. are satisfied that the premise of kVa x V = unloaded RPM is close enough for their purposes then you should argue it with them and convince them the change the syllabus. Until such time I'm not going to argue it with you. I'm here to assist where I can, not debate.

Personally, I decided not to argue and just got certified and am chief pilot for my own business. I recommend it to you.

Best wished in the hobby, I've said all I think I have to say in this thread.

We shall not discourse again.

@3rdof5 I'd still like to know how you get on with the exam.

Regards
Ari

Speak for yourself re discourse.

It is unfortunate you might form the view that the necessary level of detail that might be applied to a discussion is that which you have assumed might be sufficient for all.

Each to their own.

 

[With The Birds]

The pointed words here are "logically and exactly". Logically and exactly as for the birds points out it is not exactly termed correctly and essential variables to formulate an exact answer are not included. It is however exactly the same format as is used in the Australian RePL qualification to the letter which by for the birds reaction I assume he has not obtained otherwise he would have 100% struck this question before.

I must despite the outrage I can feel coming say, it IS a close enough analogy for real world use for the layman even if not technically perfectly phrased.

Please save the technical outrage, I'm not going to argue this point on technical merit, you don't have to be a Qualified Tech (which I have been for near 40 years as well as an r/c instructor with FAI type F and S rating for 27 years) to make a judgment. A quick web search will let any reader make their own decision on whether the question is close enough to reality to be valid in real world situations given the vague wording not even taking into account under load or no load situations ... it's a ballpark calculation, for a ballpark answer it'll do , and again I say. For the layman. C.A.S.A. and now Canada Transport happen to think it is, argue it with them not me please.



You might be right 3rdof5. I'm not much given to "conspiracy theories" but one thing I am sure of and would be more likely to ascribe to is the fact that the sub 400Ft airspace has for decades been worthless commercially. Manned aviation is mostly 500Ft and above and no one was interested in below. In the last few years however (with the advent of off the shelf U.A.V. tech) that airspace has suddenly become worth billion$ to big business. We all know big business LOVE to share right? Just like big business would never use the huge amounts they contribute to our Governments to try and sway them to clear the airspace for automated delivery services for example. Likewise we all know Governments would never be swayed by such lobbying right?

Maybe you're right, maybe this is a fishing expedition to see where the bar should be set and things may roll back to a sane level. if they do not however it can only be considered that the new Canadian certification scheme is punative to recreational flyers and you must ask why. I have speculated on one reason above.

Regards
Ari

Keep your eye on the current drone delivery trial in Canberra. I’m with you in sharing the concerns- the implications to our future enjoyment of this pursuit is likely to be significantly compromised. In case you haven’t seen it Australia – Wing