bradpaul

I would expect that it is up to the FAA to decide what they want to show on the sectional maps. Just how would they show all RC fields as you do not need to be at a RC field to fly a model aircraft? As for AMA insured fields they ask for GPS co ordinates for the insurance certificate, however t has been my experience that there is no check to see if the co ordinates are accurate.

franklin_m

If an organization may not even be checking coordinates for accuracy, let alone checking them against full scale airfields or that they don't conflict with special use airspace, how could that organization argue they have effective "programming?"

Sport_Pilot

Why the heck does that matter? There are no requirements for this. This is for toy planes FGS!

franklin_m

I disagree. AMA has pushed to get themselves recognized as a CBO, and have advocated that their "programming" is part of the safety management system that justifies the FAA allowing them (AMA) to manage safety for model aircraft. So if that "programming" doesn't even check to make sure that sanctioned club fields are not in conflict with full scale aircraft or special use airspace, then I for one question effectiveness of this "programming" in terms of safety. It comes down to AMA trying to play with the big boys, which means they need to start checking things like that (IMHO).

cj_rumley

Brad is right, the coordinates for the club flying site in AMA's data base is sometimes the mailing address of a club officer. We have several instances of that noted in this forum.

The 'programming' is effective depending on the chosen MOE. Send AMA $58. You are programmed and the effectiveness is AMA has the $.

For all the discussion about it, I have yet to see what else is considered "safety programming" by the CBO. Waivers for jets and overweight models have been mentioned, but that affects a very small fraction of the members. I suppose the requirement for clubs to designate a Safety Coordinator as POC for AMA to communicate urgent safety alerts through could be "programming," but after having held that position in a club for three years without getting a single safety notification, I'd rate that as having no effect at all.

Anybody got info from the CBO on this, or any independent thoughts about what it might be, other than another gimmick to draft members ala club mandated personal liability insurance sold exclusively by the CBO?

bradpaul

Nice try once again at trying to discredit the AMA as a CBO, when it was you that did not understand that the AMA DOES NOT REQUIRE that you only fly at AMA Club fields. THEY DO REQUIRE that you follow the AMA Safety Code wherever you fly.

franklin_m

Actually, if I want to comply with the law and fly an airplane over 55lbs, I have to be a member of the CBO regardless of where I fly. I take issue with them injecting themselves into the middle, without a truly effective safety management system. They have "programming," but I continue to question the effectiveness of it.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

but after having held that position in a club for three years without getting a single safety notification,
Looks Like U did a wonderful exemperlery job as Safety Coordinator ...

Now for your statement "The 'programming' is effective depending on the chosen MOE. Send AMA $58. You are programmed and the effectiveness is AMA has the $. "

All the more reason to have all people in the USA intending to Fly any R/C TOYs in the NAS that they receive Instruction from a Certified R/C Flight instructor and pass a written exam on the Rules/SC/Far's concerning Flying R/C TOYs in the NAS. This Instruction would make sure that the Student Pilot is capable of doing about 10 different primary flight manuvers and signed off for solo by a flight examiner other than the students primary instructor.

Of course the very experianced (Like most of the people commeting in this fourm and others here on RCU) could/would be grand fathered if they became Flight instructors... Maybe all present AMA members should be tested for compentcy in the 10 primary manuvers.
Ounce again for give the Mis-Spell'n t he Spl CKer Dun died.

Len Todd

Not exactly sure what all the B.S. is about here. We fly off a basic airport, frequently off the Main Runway. We have Jets, Giants, quads, electrics, etc. etc..

We contacted the regulators and they outlined our two turf runways and a area on the Main Runway on the Airport Directory and labeled them "RC Traffic." There is also text in the Directory indicating RC Traffic in the area. They have been very supportive. The FAA Rep that visited our site when we were flying was also very supportive.

We monitor the radio and communicate with full-scale arrivals and departures or have a spotter and get all RC on the ground when we are flying in the approaches or on the Main Runway and full-scale traffic shows up. We have designated loiter areas should we get inadvertently trapped in the air. Of course, Full-Scale planes have the right of way. When we have a lot of RC activity, we sometimes call in a NOTAM. The only restriction the FAA has put on us during those periods so far is < 5000' altitude and stay within 5 miles.

We even have full-scale guys fly in during our airshows and park behind the flightline to watch our shows. Basically we integrate all planes (RC and Full-Scale.) Work with the Airport Manager. Teach him how to fly RC. Buy him lunch once and while. You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Guess we are lucky?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Awesome to hear!!! Maybe lucky but I'd bet you guys are very good at not throwing monkey wrenches into the gears.... Seems an unusual trait nowadays...

Sport_Pilot

So how often has a model airplane been involved with a midair with full scale aircraft? And those few that did, what damage was done. Much ado about, well not nothing, but very little.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Mr.Len Todd:
U are Not "LUCKY" U guys are Good ... U have done every thing everyone expects of U...and U have been rewarded with an Ausome site to fly. Again the Problem isn't with AMA/CBO members, it's the Ocasional ROUGE flying his TOY R/C Craft Where/When/How he pleases and to heck with the Ruls/SC/FAR/s knowling or Un nowlingly. PERIOD End of Discussion Except NO ONE net the FAA/AMA/U/me are doin anything to curb the maniac with the R/C TOY and that is what could might will kill TOY Airplane flying for all of us.
Again PLZ neglect the spelling mistakes My spell chcker died. Sorry

if U are the[TABLE="width: 740"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][h=1]LAKE COUNTY MODELERS & FLYERS ASSOCIATION[/h][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Club Contact:[/TD]
[TD="width: 740"]LEN TODD Please correct your field laoctor with the AMA find a field. it shows up at 3274-8410 Michagan AVE not the Baldwin Air Port where I would Presume Your field is located Thanks.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

phlpsfrnk

Len,
I believe you are talking about Oceana Co (C04)?



Frank

franklin_m

Len,

I think you've done it exactly how it should be done. Collaboratively, above board, and with excellent up front planning for possibilities (i.e. loiter area if caught airborne). Given the effort put into it, I strongly suspect you members are disciplined at following the rules, which prevents further issues. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen at five different clubs around the country (I moved around a lot), not all folks are so disciplined about AMA rules. Keep up the good work. People who show that you can follow the rules and still fly are a good thing.

scottrc

I agree, you guys are following the current rules in that you have a use plan and agreement with your FBO manager and are following the terms and rules withing that agreement that makes the pilots and airport management feel comfortable with you. A number of clubs where I live do the exact same thing as you and have a good relationship with the airport, local pilots association, and the FAA all because of good communication, flying plan, and documentation such as making sure the proper information is on the Sectional and using NOTAMS when doing special events. That is why is chaffs me to hear some responses to ban RC flying withing 5 miles from and airport. To do that would close 90% of the clubs in my area. Clubs CAN have flying fields on airport property if managed right. The key is getting 100% support from the airport manager, because this is the person the FAA makes responsible for all activity in and around the airport. Get that person to support you, and you pretty much will never hear from the FAA.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Yep, refreshing to see it can be done.

So very often model airplane guys are terrible negotiators. They seem to scare the hell out of anyone when talking to them about such possibilities. I have known some not so great ambassadors manage getting a city to react with banning ordinances due concerns raised by their SA negotiation skills while trying to acquire a public flying site...

bradpaul

Not surprising as those that actually get ambitious enough to try to negotiate with a local authority are often from backgrounds and age groups that are incompatible and ignorant of what motivates a bureaucrat to make a decision.

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

One case I am aware of, two or three years ago in Brighton, CO which is near Denver, an IMAC plane (giant scale size) had a mid air with a full size sport Bi-Plane with two occupants,
It was at a private airport during a fly in. The bi-plane had its lower wing crushed back to the spar and barely was able to make it back. This was a case of mutual negligence but the modeler didn't give right of way to the full size aircraft as he was required too. Very lucky no one was killed.
Larry

impulse09

My Feedback: (3)

What would you have the AMA do? What would be your plan to handle all of this?

Sport_Pilot

Then why did he land at another airport? Or did he? I saw the dent and it was not back to the spar but dented back to a sub-par which I believe was there to allow the leading edge to be removable for inspection. Also I was under the impression that the aircraft flew fine with that dent and the pilot landed at a different airport till the activities were over. But this may not be the case.

PBS_Rudder

Hey thanks for the info with the FBO. I will contact the FBO and see if he is willing to let my new AMA club Maricopa-Desert-Rats-RC members fly on or near the airport runways with complete coms both ways with all aircraft. I have had experience with FBO's in the past with not very good results. Wish me luck

ira d

This incident was at a airshow and IMO was caused by the full pilot, The modeler had permission to fly by the event coordinator/ air boss who also was in radio contact with full scale plane.

The full scale was told there was a modeler performing over or near the runway and agreed to go around and was also told to keep to the left of the runway but at the last minute made a
hi speed pass down the runway. As a result this pass surprised the air boss who yelled a warning to the RC pilot who was in a hover and in a attempt to pull out of the hover pulled in front
of the full scale who should have never been that close in the first place.

franklin_m

Don,

Excuse the long post. But since you asked what I'd do, I wanted to provide a full and complete answer.

Every successful safety management system (i.e. "programming") I've seen, whether personal safety, process safety, or aviation safety, has included several key similarities.

First, a person with formal safety training that reports directly to the organizational head on safety matters. In industry, they tend to be CSP's, in the military they are graduates of formal aviation safety schools (my experience).

Second, unambiguous operational and safety rules. I'm not talking wishy washing stuff like setbacks that are zero to some number (and waiverable at very low levels of the organization), I'm talking about genuine risk managed hard distances that are not easily waiverable. Yes, waivers exist, but they're rare and approved over someone's signature – an act that puts someone on paper as being accountable for the decision. Amazing how that alone changes how people think about safety.

Third, the organizations use leading vice lagging metrics. Lagging metrics are injuries and insurance payments. Leading metrics would be non-injury mishaps, near misses, equipment failures, rule violations that don't result in mishaps, etc. Perhaps focused tracking of crashes of certain aircraft types (large/fast for example). These allow you to do trend analysis as well.

Fourth, accountability. The effective programs I've seen or been part of ensure that enforcement is firm, fair, and - most importantly - consistent. I'm not saying you crush people for minor violations, but you do document and track them – all of them. Why? Those are called leading metrics! The reality is that absent accountability for not following rules, the culture develops what is called “Normalization of Deviance.” Simply put, it means the organization develops a culture that views rules like ice cream, easily melted. The distinction between big rules and small rules becomes blurred, and worse yet that distinction is in the eye of the beholder. It's chaos. If you want to see what happens in cultures like that, research the Texas City Refinery explosion, Shuttle Challenger, Shuttle Columbia, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and a host of others.

Fifth, a vibrant and honest safety communication system. The strongest cultures are very good at admitting mistakes, including those painful “pilot error” events. Only by being honest with ourselves can we really drive our risks down. It probably means fewer safety articles in MA written by English majors and more with hard technical content and first person stories about lessons learned.

Now, I'm sure there are some that will read this and react immediately to what they perceive as unrealistic, draconian, too many “rules”, etc. Each is entitled to their own opinion. While what I've described above sounds complex, it's really not all that onerous. It's highly scalable and very easy to implement – if the organization has the will to do it.

My interest in this is that sooner or later we're going to have an encounter between a passenger carrying aircraft or an injury to a spectator that makes the news unlike what we've seen before. As much as we like to think otherwise, there are some AMA members that not nearly so disciplined about following AMA rules as the commenters here. When that happens, what the media and the regulators will dig into the details of the “programming” and discover there's a lot of writing, few hard limits, and little if any enforcement. Furthermore, they'll find that we have no data to prove we're as good as we say. Sure, some will argue that the absence of prior incidents shows we're safe, unfortunately with modern safety theory, those interested in extracting money from AMA or using the incident to shut down flying sites will merely say we were lucky.

On the other hand, if we have a more professional safety management system ("programming") with the features I've described above, we'd like prevent such an event in the first place by "trapping" the rogue AMA member's lesser violations, and if it's not an AMA member, we could point to such a system as proof of our safety, with mounds of data to back it up -- thus preserving all of our ability to fly.

franklin_m

Here's the NTSB's determination. Unfortunately, I think that no matter what, the model pilot has the requirement to avoid full scale. Regardless, in this case, it's evident the NTSB determined it was the model pilot who was at fault. What concerns me is what would our hobby look like today if that airplane crashed and injured pilot, spectators, or worse?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: CEN10LA487
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2010 in Brighton, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/19/2011
Aircraft: SHPAKOW THOMAS SA 750, registration: N28KT
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

During a local fly-in event, a radio controlled airplane collided with a bi-plane while the bi-plane was performing a go-around. The radio controlled airplane was performing a hover maneuver just prior to the collision and initiated an escape maneuver which placed the radio controlled airplane right into the flight path of the bi-plane. The bi-plane sustained substantial damage, but was able to land without further incident. The radio controlled airplane was destroyed. Prior to the event, the event coordinator briefed the participants that they were to operate their radio controlled airplanes to the east of the runway, and not directly in the runway environment. While the event coordinator was monitoring the radio for traffic, it was not clearly communicated who, if anyone, was providing spotter duties for the radio controlled airplane operator prior to the collision.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

• The radio-controlled airplane operator’s decision to maneuver his airplane outside of the designated operating area, resulting in a collision with a bi-plane. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a formally designated spotter.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...no=8&pgsize=50

bradpaul

I can see it now "COMMON CORE RC SAFETY" Tens of thousands for "consultants", new HQ high paid jobs and rules and regulations for the modelers...