I personally think it a good idea and should be required. In today's sue happy world, a lawyer could have a field day if an accident were to occur that could have been prevented by a simple shut off device.What do you all think? Should it be a requirement??? It is not a bad safety rule, and when you all answer me...... be sensible, I know some of you are tired of all the rules and politics! Think about the question, then use your heads, do not just get bent out of shape!
Isn't it funny that once something is required, we justify not having itInteresting question. On legislating common sense, in Florida, seat belts are required, motor cycle helmets are not; go figure.
I think they are a really good idea. They kill an engine despite any mechanical failures of the throttle servo, throttle pushrod, loss of signal, and loss of rx power, and they can be had under $10 for an RCXL Optical Kill, if you know where to look, reliability is high, weight isn't a downside on our planes. I just don't see a good reason why not to have them.
As for requiring it.....slippery slope.
I balk at helping folks w/o them and do everything I can to encourage them to get one though.
Least he had enough battery to go that long. That has always been my worry. I know of a few people that had a throttle servo crap out and they had to fly around for a long time until the fuel ran out. I was fortunate on my throttle servo failure that it happened on the ground. It has been a while and im pretty sure I had a ign kill on the plane but I would not swear on that either.A kill switch isn't an item that I think is optional. I watched a guy circle a great planes reactor for almost 1/2 hr when his throttle servo went crap. Maybe it was more like 20 min, but still, too long.
What AMA regulation are you referring to?Well....with all said -
I will still comply with AMA regulations, try sueing when you are found not to comply with statutory regulations set down by the goeverning body