"3D Waiver"?
11-12-2003, 12:50 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mesquite,
TX
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"3D Waiver"?
Rule 9 2004 Safety Code addition....
Turbine pilots have a "Jet Waiver" that takes them months to prove they are capible of hadling a turbine. Why can't we do the same thing ... a "3D Waiver"? We would have to prove to the AMA that we are able to perform "ground touchs" in a controled manner then we would be given "permission" to do so as a trained "3D Pilot".
Just because a jet pilot has a waiver does not mean he is less likely to have a major mishap but he knows the proper protocal to follow and is trained to do so. Same could be said for a 3D pilot with a "Ground Touch Waiver".
Just food for thought.
Rick
Turbine pilots have a "Jet Waiver" that takes them months to prove they are capible of hadling a turbine. Why can't we do the same thing ... a "3D Waiver"? We would have to prove to the AMA that we are able to perform "ground touchs" in a controled manner then we would be given "permission" to do so as a trained "3D Pilot".
Just because a jet pilot has a waiver does not mean he is less likely to have a major mishap but he knows the proper protocal to follow and is trained to do so. Same could be said for a 3D pilot with a "Ground Touch Waiver".
Just food for thought.
Rick
11-12-2003, 12:55 PM
#2
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Rick,
I'm afraid that the 'waiver' system would open the door to much more regulation!! I think it would end up a mess as it has with the turbine side (my opinion of course). I really don't see a problem with tail touching the ground if you're 20' in front of the pitts and your plane is 20' in front of you, especially if you are the only one at the field. If you can't 'safely' crash it (if something goes wrong) being that far out you probably shouldn't be hovering and dragging the tail to begin with. Are we going to have to start getting signed off on every maneuver before everyone is happy and qualified?
Jon
I'm afraid that the 'waiver' system would open the door to much more regulation!! I think it would end up a mess as it has with the turbine side (my opinion of course). I really don't see a problem with tail touching the ground if you're 20' in front of the pitts and your plane is 20' in front of you, especially if you are the only one at the field. If you can't 'safely' crash it (if something goes wrong) being that far out you probably shouldn't be hovering and dragging the tail to begin with. Are we going to have to start getting signed off on every maneuver before everyone is happy and qualified?
Jon
11-12-2003, 01:21 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Waynesburg,
PA
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
And I you Jon.
I think distance plays a much more important role than a lot of other things. With proper distance, I think you should be allowed to do whatever you want (with-in sane reason...of course
), sans regs.
Brian
I think distance plays a much more important role than a lot of other things. With proper distance, I think you should be allowed to do whatever you want (with-in sane reason...of course
), sans regs.Brian
11-12-2003, 01:51 PM
#6
My Feedback: (102)
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
LEt me play devil's advocate for a minute. I want to fly turbines, so I bought one (then another), invested some time in learning how to operate it safely, bought the right equipment (fire extinquisher, etc) and set aside a time to demonstrate my flying skills to an appointed person and perform a simple set of manuevers for that person, in order to get my waiver. The entire process took me a couple of months, but in reality it could have been done in a few days.
Now the gist of this story is to ask you if I am more qualified to fly this jet than I was before? In reality, the answer is no, but to put it in perspective I am defintely more knowledgable about the risks, and I am certainly more prepared for an emergency should one arise. How many guys out there who fly gasoline powered planes carry a fire extinquisher with them to the field? How many keep it on hand when they start they planes? How many have been properly instructed on how to start and adjust the gasoline engine or the big two strokes we run wchih swing large fiberglass and carbon fiber blades? I know I never was instructed, I just sort of learned it on my own and by watching others.
In my opinion, there does need to be some issues addressed. I have expressed my concerns in other threads about reckless endangerment of others, and sadly instead of pointing that out the parties involved, I did not. Not becasue I did not think it was dangerous, but becasue it has been allowed for so long, and condoned by some event CD's that it is generally accepted as OK and to represent a minimal risk to the pilots and spectators.
No today we are faced with more regulations in the turbine crowd, one of which is a proposal to require yearly requalification. More and more restrictions are being placed on a small minority while a larger group is allowed to go on without restrictions. Restrictions that for the most part would not be necessary if not for a few people.
Well I chummed the waters, the sharks are free to attack...[:'(]
Tommy
Now the gist of this story is to ask you if I am more qualified to fly this jet than I was before? In reality, the answer is no, but to put it in perspective I am defintely more knowledgable about the risks, and I am certainly more prepared for an emergency should one arise. How many guys out there who fly gasoline powered planes carry a fire extinquisher with them to the field? How many keep it on hand when they start they planes? How many have been properly instructed on how to start and adjust the gasoline engine or the big two strokes we run wchih swing large fiberglass and carbon fiber blades? I know I never was instructed, I just sort of learned it on my own and by watching others.
In my opinion, there does need to be some issues addressed. I have expressed my concerns in other threads about reckless endangerment of others, and sadly instead of pointing that out the parties involved, I did not. Not becasue I did not think it was dangerous, but becasue it has been allowed for so long, and condoned by some event CD's that it is generally accepted as OK and to represent a minimal risk to the pilots and spectators.
No today we are faced with more regulations in the turbine crowd, one of which is a proposal to require yearly requalification. More and more restrictions are being placed on a small minority while a larger group is allowed to go on without restrictions. Restrictions that for the most part would not be necessary if not for a few people.
Well I chummed the waters, the sharks are free to attack...[:'(]
Tommy
11-12-2003, 02:26 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Doc, sounds like you are in favor of a "Giant Scale Gas Aerobatic" waiver. I've seen plenty of warbirds dork it, better expand to Warbird Waiver. Helicopters are certainly potentially deadly, do I hear a Heli Waiver?? Shoot, pylon racers have armored cages on their course, surely they need a waiver. For that matter, just about anything wth a prop is dangerous. Waivers are in order.
I'm sorry the AMA subjects the turbine flyers to a waiver process, often at quite a bit of burden to the people seeking the waiver as well as those issuing it. It's not my rule. Thing is, not many household items are turbine powered. Many are gasoline powered. A lot of people have a working knowledge of gas powered equipment, not many are versed in turbine operation.
So let's require waivers for everything, and we can only then truly be safe and even resemble the articles in Model Aviation....free flight rubber powered aviators.
Stock up on your rubber and tissue, here we come!
I'm sorry the AMA subjects the turbine flyers to a waiver process, often at quite a bit of burden to the people seeking the waiver as well as those issuing it. It's not my rule. Thing is, not many household items are turbine powered. Many are gasoline powered. A lot of people have a working knowledge of gas powered equipment, not many are versed in turbine operation.
So let's require waivers for everything, and we can only then truly be safe and even resemble the articles in Model Aviation....free flight rubber powered aviators.
Stock up on your rubber and tissue, here we come!
11-12-2003, 02:33 PM
#8
My Feedback: (102)
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
No, but what I am in favor of is a set of rules that that can be applied fairly throughout the ranks. I don't want to see a waiver of any kind, but let's face it that is not gonna happen. My interests is jets (turbines to be exact, love the smell of that bruning kerosene), therefore I only see it from my point of view. I agree there are lots of dorkers out there, some fly #-D,some fly warbirds, some pylon, etc. If you are going to initiate a waiver policy it could be broad enough to cover the majority of these. A giant scale waiver was suggested years ago, but never happened. Why, because of the large number of guys out there flying them. I bet there are more accident every year from those than there are from the jets.
As I stated early my intention was not alienate any group. I was simply pointing out that my turbines represented a signifcant investment which I will ahve to jump through a few hoops to be able to fly and run. OTOH, I learned a lot from my "introductory training" and am certainly more aware of the rules and procedures for safely operating them as well as any of my other planes, which includes giant scale, gliders, helis, and a few boats. A little education does not hurt anyone.
Tommy
As I stated early my intention was not alienate any group. I was simply pointing out that my turbines represented a signifcant investment which I will ahve to jump through a few hoops to be able to fly and run. OTOH, I learned a lot from my "introductory training" and am certainly more aware of the rules and procedures for safely operating them as well as any of my other planes, which includes giant scale, gliders, helis, and a few boats. A little education does not hurt anyone.
Tommy
11-12-2003, 02:59 PM
#9
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
I don't think a 'waiver' is the answer as a lot of people will probably just go 'outlaw'. What would probably work better is a club training program. Unfortunately either way is going to put a tremendous load on whoever is chosen to do the training and enforceing. As no one is going to be compensated it will probably be done about half way in either case. I don't think we need more rules. What we need is more people to step up and offer to help the people we see having trouble. If several members see that someone is unsafe or having trouble they should approach them. Someone said something about tickets. Maybe the club should issue warning tickets, 2 incidents and you have to go thru training again? Jon
11-12-2003, 03:18 PM
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arvada,
CO
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
ORIGINAL: ChuckAuger
<snip>Shoot, pylon racers have armored cages on their course, surely they need a waiver. For that matter, just about anything wth a prop is dangerous. Waivers are in order.</snip>
<snip>Shoot, pylon racers have armored cages on their course, surely they need a waiver. For that matter, just about anything wth a prop is dangerous. Waivers are in order.</snip>
We pylon racers have had to contend with waivers for about the last eight years (or thereabouts--I don't know exactly when this became active). I do believe that the pylon waiver was the first such document to be issued by the AMA. In order to fly at an AMA sanctioned pylon race, I must sign the waiver. Believe me, when the waiver was instituted, we felt like we were being singled out and picked upon.
The Gorilla cages are a thing of the past. Now the only people allowed on the course are the pilot/caller teams, the starter and the asst. starter. Everyone else must be at least 300 feet away.
11-12-2003, 03:23 PM
#11
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
I personally think a 3D waiver would be a waste of time, and far more restrictive on the average pilot than need be. If a waiver was presented by the AMA in order to cover rule #9, I would hope that it would only be required at big events with a large spectator audience, and not at local flying sites. I feel the events are really the only place where a significant safety issue is present because of the large crowd. Frankly, I think just adding some distance between the spectators and the pilots is all that is really needed to keep it safe. And keep in mind that Rule #9 is not about touching the tail in a hover, but also covers such things as touching a wing tip in a low knife edge pass, hovering inverted in a helicopter while cutting the grass, etc. I've only seen a couple instances where torque rolling and tail touching presented a risk, and they were all at big events. I've never seen any other 3D flying to be any more risky than any basic aerobatics, anything in the IMAC sequences, etc.
As one that has been through the waiver process for turbines, I can say its not a big deal. I needed to spend a little time to understand how the turbines operate, normal start up and shutdown, emergency slam shutdowns, increased fire risk, residual thrust, etc. All common stuff once you understand the turbines. Basically, they just wanted to make sure I had taken the time to understand the difference between turbine flying and prop flying, and the safety equipment and procedures. Then I just had to fly with a existing CD who has a turbine waiver to show I could handle a high performance airplane. It probably took me about 6 hours over the course of a couple weeks. If scheduling permitted, I probably could have done it in a couple days.
However, even though it was easy, I wouldn't want the waivers to start applying everything else. Flying turbines is unique and presents a whole new set of operating parameters that exist in no other area of the hobby. In my opinion, flying turbines deserves a waiver process because of this, whereas flying 3D doesn't.
As one that has been through the waiver process for turbines, I can say its not a big deal. I needed to spend a little time to understand how the turbines operate, normal start up and shutdown, emergency slam shutdowns, increased fire risk, residual thrust, etc. All common stuff once you understand the turbines. Basically, they just wanted to make sure I had taken the time to understand the difference between turbine flying and prop flying, and the safety equipment and procedures. Then I just had to fly with a existing CD who has a turbine waiver to show I could handle a high performance airplane. It probably took me about 6 hours over the course of a couple weeks. If scheduling permitted, I probably could have done it in a couple days.
However, even though it was easy, I wouldn't want the waivers to start applying everything else. Flying turbines is unique and presents a whole new set of operating parameters that exist in no other area of the hobby. In my opinion, flying turbines deserves a waiver process because of this, whereas flying 3D doesn't.
11-12-2003, 03:24 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Doc, I think my post would have benefitted from a few smilies. I understand where you are coming from, nobody wants a waiver for every aspect of the hobby.
I feel for the dollar investment you have made, only to then have to go through the waiver process. But on the other hand, the same giant scale gas aerobats you mention can have a signifcant dollar value attached to them. As can high end pylon fleets. High end helis. You know the rest....lots of people have lots of money tied up in lots of facets of the hobby. None of them are going to be any more thrilled than you, and like you said, you are in the minority. At least on the turbine end..I see you fly a variety of types of craft.
With all of the new rules suddenly thrust upon us all, as modelers in general, it's going to take a while to see what shakes out. All I can do is offer the advice passed on to me in my opposition to the no tail touch rule (some of it from jet pilots). Well, on second thought, I'm not going to pass that advice on.
I feel for the dollar investment you have made, only to then have to go through the waiver process. But on the other hand, the same giant scale gas aerobats you mention can have a signifcant dollar value attached to them. As can high end pylon fleets. High end helis. You know the rest....lots of people have lots of money tied up in lots of facets of the hobby. None of them are going to be any more thrilled than you, and like you said, you are in the minority. At least on the turbine end..I see you fly a variety of types of craft.
With all of the new rules suddenly thrust upon us all, as modelers in general, it's going to take a while to see what shakes out. All I can do is offer the advice passed on to me in my opposition to the no tail touch rule (some of it from jet pilots). Well, on second thought, I'm not going to pass that advice on.
11-12-2003, 03:31 PM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
ORIGINAL: js3
Chuck,
We pylon racers have had to contend with waivers for about the last eight years (or thereabouts--I don't know exactly when this became active). I do believe that the pylon waiver was the first such document to be issued by the AMA. In order to fly at an AMA sanctioned pylon race, I must sign the waiver. Believe me, when the waiver was instituted, we felt like we were being singled out and picked upon.
The Gorilla cages are a thing of the past. Now the only people allowed on the course are the pilot/caller teams, the starter and the asst. starter. Everyone else must be at least 300 feet away.
Chuck,
We pylon racers have had to contend with waivers for about the last eight years (or thereabouts--I don't know exactly when this became active). I do believe that the pylon waiver was the first such document to be issued by the AMA. In order to fly at an AMA sanctioned pylon race, I must sign the waiver. Believe me, when the waiver was instituted, we felt like we were being singled out and picked upon.
The Gorilla cages are a thing of the past. Now the only people allowed on the course are the pilot/caller teams, the starter and the asst. starter. Everyone else must be at least 300 feet away.
11-12-2003, 03:33 PM
#14
My Feedback: (102)
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Stephen,
I agree with most of what you said. The waiver procedure was for the most part pretty benign. IT did require a few hours of time and little extra reading and paperwork, but it was not hard. But now there are more rules on the horizon, some of which will free up some of the guys who like to fly the larger planes and pwerplants, while making it a little harder for those who live in an isolated area, or where there are very few turbine pilots available to fly with or for. I hate rules and regulations as much as anyone, and am a strong advocate for smaller government.
As to your mention of the large events, I will say that earlier this year I traveled up to Joe Nall where I saw some things after hours that were totally unsafe. I have seen some guys in are area who fly recklessly. Turbines do require a little bit of training and represent a very technologically advanced aspect of our hobby, but they are no more dangerous than some of the giant scale planes hovering less than 20 feet from spectators or the flight line.
The tail touch rule could have been addressed more effectively by limiting the manuevers that could be performed while there is energy directed at the spectators or flightline. A loop or roll can be just as dangerous if a pilot loses it in the sun and it is directed at the flightline.
I am not trying to be "ornery" here, I am playing devil's advocate from the perspective of someone is already under the microscope.
TOmmy
I agree with most of what you said. The waiver procedure was for the most part pretty benign. IT did require a few hours of time and little extra reading and paperwork, but it was not hard. But now there are more rules on the horizon, some of which will free up some of the guys who like to fly the larger planes and pwerplants, while making it a little harder for those who live in an isolated area, or where there are very few turbine pilots available to fly with or for. I hate rules and regulations as much as anyone, and am a strong advocate for smaller government.
As to your mention of the large events, I will say that earlier this year I traveled up to Joe Nall where I saw some things after hours that were totally unsafe. I have seen some guys in are area who fly recklessly. Turbines do require a little bit of training and represent a very technologically advanced aspect of our hobby, but they are no more dangerous than some of the giant scale planes hovering less than 20 feet from spectators or the flight line.
The tail touch rule could have been addressed more effectively by limiting the manuevers that could be performed while there is energy directed at the spectators or flightline. A loop or roll can be just as dangerous if a pilot loses it in the sun and it is directed at the flightline.
I am not trying to be "ornery" here, I am playing devil's advocate from the perspective of someone is already under the microscope.
TOmmy
11-12-2003, 05:44 PM
#15
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
just a note,
the pylon waiver is not a have or or do not come to fly item, it is a release from indemnity to the ama, club and organisers for any liability occuring from participation in the event. ya have to sign one at each pylon event ya enter, and it is good for that event only.
no where near the same thing as a turbine waiver.
the pylon waiver is not a have or or do not come to fly item, it is a release from indemnity to the ama, club and organisers for any liability occuring from participation in the event. ya have to sign one at each pylon event ya enter, and it is good for that event only.
no where near the same thing as a turbine waiver.
11-12-2003, 07:49 PM
#16
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown,
IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Why doesn't someone call up to the AMA headquarters and find out what some of those people do for a living..........
Oh that's right...they sit there and think these things up and WE pay them to do this. And WE also let them get away with things like this....
It is not right for the Jet guys to have a waiver and it's not right for ANYONE else either. We shouldn't have to have these discussions. We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......you pay your premiums and when you need their support, they find a loophole. It just so happens to be that every once in a great while there is no loophole for them so then they start making "RULES and REGULATIONS" Those people sit in an office chair in front of an office desk in a BIGGER office then they had but just a couple of years ago.........I do not recall ever hearing a SINCERE THANK YOU from any one of them. It is a business and is being ran like any other business.....such that it puts more money in their own pockets.
There is an absolutely awesome flying sight in MUNCIE INDIANA and an ENORMOUS amount of land and now 2 NICE BUILDINGS.....all paid for by you and me.....Each and everyone of us should do what we can to take advantage of those facilities because that is all you are going to get for your $58 a year.
Plain and simply the AMA has set GUIDELINES for an AMA REGULATED FLYING SIGHT.........These regulations describe in detail the distances set for the flying area, the pilot area, the pit area and the spectator area. THESE guidelines should be the only guidelines that the AMA should give any thought to changing to maintain SAFE FLYING.
Oh that's right...they sit there and think these things up and WE pay them to do this. And WE also let them get away with things like this....
It is not right for the Jet guys to have a waiver and it's not right for ANYONE else either. We shouldn't have to have these discussions. We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......you pay your premiums and when you need their support, they find a loophole. It just so happens to be that every once in a great while there is no loophole for them so then they start making "RULES and REGULATIONS" Those people sit in an office chair in front of an office desk in a BIGGER office then they had but just a couple of years ago.........I do not recall ever hearing a SINCERE THANK YOU from any one of them. It is a business and is being ran like any other business.....such that it puts more money in their own pockets.
There is an absolutely awesome flying sight in MUNCIE INDIANA and an ENORMOUS amount of land and now 2 NICE BUILDINGS.....all paid for by you and me.....Each and everyone of us should do what we can to take advantage of those facilities because that is all you are going to get for your $58 a year.
Plain and simply the AMA has set GUIDELINES for an AMA REGULATED FLYING SIGHT.........These regulations describe in detail the distances set for the flying area, the pilot area, the pit area and the spectator area. THESE guidelines should be the only guidelines that the AMA should give any thought to changing to maintain SAFE FLYING.
11-12-2003, 07:59 PM
#17
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Tommy,
I think you just about hit the nail on the head. I don't think many would feel that 8 airplanes all torque rolling right in front of the pilots station was anywhere near safe, let alone having a couple hundred spectators behind them. There was precious little room to maneuver normally, let alone for unusual recoveries. On top of that, someone had the presence of mind to turn on the smoke and bury a couple planes in the smoke, loosing the vital visual connection between the airplanes and pilots. The recoveries were interesting to say the least. It was a blast to watch, but exactly the kind of activity that would bring about rules such as the one we are all discussing. Torque rolling with one hand while holding the rudder with the other is pretty impressive as well. But again, not something that should be done without adequate safety measures. Doesn't help with a name TOC pilot drops his rudder on the deck jamming the linkages and stripping all the gears.
I don't think waivers are needed to resolve those types of issues. That can be done in the sanctioning process by having safety standards for these types of maneuvers, and enforcement can easily be accomplished by refusing to sanction future events if the rules were violated and reported. This enhances the safety at the events, yet doesn't impose or unduly restrict the local pilot from those maneuvers at his local field. Those maneuvers done in front of a large crowd without adequate safety considerations can be very unsafe. Yet the same maneuvers done at a local field with a minimum number of people around would be far less risk, and the liability greatly reduced.
However, if this is all insurance driven, and the underwriters determine the risks to high to underwrite, we have little defense against it. The AMA then creates the rule, and anyone that violates the rule will not be covered. Case solved for the insurance company, and the pilots are left wide open for litigation. If someone tail touches, looses control and it goes into the spectators killing someone, I sure hope the pilot has a separate rider or insurance policy or he can kiss his retirement and kids college education goodbye. Even with the AMA 2.5 million policy, thats not nearly enough if someone gets killed from an activity that was deemed unsafe, yet performed by a pilot anyway. The AMA would cover the first 2.5m, but the pilot would be responsible for the rest. In todays litigious society, 2.5m for a untimely death is pittance. Win or lose, the legal costs will devastate most families.
I think you just about hit the nail on the head. I don't think many would feel that 8 airplanes all torque rolling right in front of the pilots station was anywhere near safe, let alone having a couple hundred spectators behind them. There was precious little room to maneuver normally, let alone for unusual recoveries. On top of that, someone had the presence of mind to turn on the smoke and bury a couple planes in the smoke, loosing the vital visual connection between the airplanes and pilots. The recoveries were interesting to say the least. It was a blast to watch, but exactly the kind of activity that would bring about rules such as the one we are all discussing. Torque rolling with one hand while holding the rudder with the other is pretty impressive as well. But again, not something that should be done without adequate safety measures. Doesn't help with a name TOC pilot drops his rudder on the deck jamming the linkages and stripping all the gears.
I don't think waivers are needed to resolve those types of issues. That can be done in the sanctioning process by having safety standards for these types of maneuvers, and enforcement can easily be accomplished by refusing to sanction future events if the rules were violated and reported. This enhances the safety at the events, yet doesn't impose or unduly restrict the local pilot from those maneuvers at his local field. Those maneuvers done in front of a large crowd without adequate safety considerations can be very unsafe. Yet the same maneuvers done at a local field with a minimum number of people around would be far less risk, and the liability greatly reduced.
However, if this is all insurance driven, and the underwriters determine the risks to high to underwrite, we have little defense against it. The AMA then creates the rule, and anyone that violates the rule will not be covered. Case solved for the insurance company, and the pilots are left wide open for litigation. If someone tail touches, looses control and it goes into the spectators killing someone, I sure hope the pilot has a separate rider or insurance policy or he can kiss his retirement and kids college education goodbye. Even with the AMA 2.5 million policy, thats not nearly enough if someone gets killed from an activity that was deemed unsafe, yet performed by a pilot anyway. The AMA would cover the first 2.5m, but the pilot would be responsible for the rest. In todays litigious society, 2.5m for a untimely death is pittance. Win or lose, the legal costs will devastate most families.
11-12-2003, 08:19 PM
#18
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown,
IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Stephen, I do agree with you and everyone else who shares those thoughts.......
I simply think that IF (and I know it is a big if), but if we all were responsible in the way we fly, we would be doing our 3D tricks away from the runway and out of the way of planes that are flying the pattern. And again if we are all responsible pilots we will stay out of the way of those trouble makers that are less responsible. The only time anyone should ever be 3ding over the runway is if that person is the only one flying at the time and if the runway is far enough away from people. Again........IF we were all responsible pilots, these actions from the AMA would not be necessary
I simply think that IF (and I know it is a big if), but if we all were responsible in the way we fly, we would be doing our 3D tricks away from the runway and out of the way of planes that are flying the pattern. And again if we are all responsible pilots we will stay out of the way of those trouble makers that are less responsible. The only time anyone should ever be 3ding over the runway is if that person is the only one flying at the time and if the runway is far enough away from people. Again........IF we were all responsible pilots, these actions from the AMA would not be necessary
11-12-2003, 08:27 PM
#19
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
ORIGINAL: CAPtain232
We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......
We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......
Plain and simply the AMA has set GUIDELINES for an AMA REGULATED FLYING SIGHT.........These regulations describe in detail the distances set for the flying area, the pilot area, the pit area and the spectator area. THESE guidelines should be the only guidelines that the AMA should give any thought to changing to maintain SAFE FLYING.
Being a turbine waiver holder, I fully agree with most of the waiver process, and in my opinion it seems that most other turbine pilots agree. While I may not agree with everything, there is a need to get new pilots properly trained in the operation and safety of turbines so that they may operate it safely, and not risk the sport as a whole. We are very limited in where we can fly the turbines as it is, all we need is a couple major incidents to have that aspect of the hobby dry up. If we don't police ourselves, all it will take is a couple incidents to make rule #9 look tame compared to the final outcome.
11-12-2003, 08:54 PM
#20
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Opps... we crashed on the above replies...sorry everyone if its redundant.
The problem is not the responsible pilots [
] Just as our drunk driving laws are not aimed at the responsible ones. Those that are responsible designate a driver, or take a cab. Its the irresponsible ones that laws are made for. Unfortunately, in many cases, its the responsible ones that also feel the effects of such laws. And we all can name a few irresponsible ones can't we. The ones that do as they please, when the want, where they want, all the time screaming that they have every right to do so.
We also know those that believe they have far more skills than they really have. The ones that take planes home in bags each month, yet always show up with another ready to go do it again. If these types went unchecked, they could singlehandedly drag our hobby to the point we could not get insurance at all. I think we would all be crying if a few irresponsible pilots flying giant scale created a few major mishaps, thus creating an insurance vacuum for the giant scale pilots. Or worse, having that activity slowly excluded form all local fields because they are not insured. It can happen very easily.
We must self police ourself to insure that doesn't happen. The turbine crew did it with a waiver to insure a standard level of training and safety awareness, with a side benefit being that its possible for a repeat offender to have his waiver yanked. Much like a driving license, an irresponsible turbine pilot could find himself without a waiver, and be locked out of all AMA sanctioned turbine events. While we can't stop accidents from happening, we can lower the incidents by managing the risk. The key is to do this is the least restrictive way for all concerned. IMHO, the AMA needs to backtrack on rule #9 and put the focus revised safety guidelines and/or safety revisions for sanctioned events. Rule 9 as it stands is far to general, and restrictive in ways that have no effect on safety.
ORIGINAL: CAPtain232
Again........IF we were all responsible pilots, these actions from the AMA would not be necessary
Again........IF we were all responsible pilots, these actions from the AMA would not be necessary
] Just as our drunk driving laws are not aimed at the responsible ones. Those that are responsible designate a driver, or take a cab. Its the irresponsible ones that laws are made for. Unfortunately, in many cases, its the responsible ones that also feel the effects of such laws. And we all can name a few irresponsible ones can't we. The ones that do as they please, when the want, where they want, all the time screaming that they have every right to do so. We also know those that believe they have far more skills than they really have. The ones that take planes home in bags each month, yet always show up with another ready to go do it again. If these types went unchecked, they could singlehandedly drag our hobby to the point we could not get insurance at all. I think we would all be crying if a few irresponsible pilots flying giant scale created a few major mishaps, thus creating an insurance vacuum for the giant scale pilots. Or worse, having that activity slowly excluded form all local fields because they are not insured. It can happen very easily.
We must self police ourself to insure that doesn't happen. The turbine crew did it with a waiver to insure a standard level of training and safety awareness, with a side benefit being that its possible for a repeat offender to have his waiver yanked. Much like a driving license, an irresponsible turbine pilot could find himself without a waiver, and be locked out of all AMA sanctioned turbine events. While we can't stop accidents from happening, we can lower the incidents by managing the risk. The key is to do this is the least restrictive way for all concerned. IMHO, the AMA needs to backtrack on rule #9 and put the focus revised safety guidelines and/or safety revisions for sanctioned events. Rule 9 as it stands is far to general, and restrictive in ways that have no effect on safety.
11-12-2003, 10:02 PM
#22
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown,
IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Stephen....you have brought up several good points that highlighted the faults in my comments...IE the indoor guidelines vs outdoor.
But, as you and I sit here and hash this thing out, and I am certain we could eventually come up with something that would work, the fine folks located in MUNCIE should be able to do the same thing......I just do not feel like they are truly thinking about the people that support the AMA
But, as you and I sit here and hash this thing out, and I am certain we could eventually come up with something that would work, the fine folks located in MUNCIE should be able to do the same thing......I just do not feel like they are truly thinking about the people that support the AMA
11-13-2003, 12:41 AM
#23
My Feedback: (3)
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
ORIGINAL: sfaust
Tommy,
I think you just about hit the nail on the head. I don't think many would feel that 8 airplanes all torque rolling right in front of the pilots station was anywhere near safe, let alone having a couple hundred spectators behind them. There was precious little room to maneuver normally, let alone for unusual recoveries. On top of that, someone had the presence of mind to turn on the smoke and bury a couple planes in the smoke, loosing the vital visual connection between the airplanes and pilots. The recoveries were interesting to say the least. It was a blast to watch, but exactly the kind of activity that would bring about rules such as the one we are all discussing. Torque rolling with one hand while holding the rudder with the other is pretty impressive as well. But again, not something that should be done without adequate safety measures. Doesn't help with a name TOC pilot drops his rudder on the deck jamming the linkages and stripping all the gears.
I don't think waivers are needed to resolve those types of issues. That can be done in the sanctioning process by having safety standards for these types of maneuvers, and enforcement can easily be accomplished by refusing to sanction future events if the rules were violated and reported. This enhances the safety at the events, yet doesn't impose or unduly restrict the local pilot from those maneuvers at his local field. Those maneuvers done in front of a large crowd without adequate safety considerations can be very unsafe. Yet the same maneuvers done at a local field with a minimum number of people around would be far less risk, and the liability greatly reduced.
However, if this is all insurance driven, and the underwriters determine the risks to high to underwrite, we have little defense against it. The AMA then creates the rule, and anyone that violates the rule will not be covered. Case solved for the insurance company, and the pilots are left wide open for litigation. If someone tail touches, looses control and it goes into the spectators killing someone, I sure hope the pilot has a separate rider or insurance policy or he can kiss his retirement and kids college education goodbye. Even with the AMA 2.5 million policy, thats not nearly enough if someone gets killed from an activity that was deemed unsafe, yet performed by a pilot anyway. The AMA would cover the first 2.5m, but the pilot would be responsible for the rest. In todays litigious society, 2.5m for a untimely death is pittance. Win or lose, the legal costs will devastate most families.
Tommy,
I think you just about hit the nail on the head. I don't think many would feel that 8 airplanes all torque rolling right in front of the pilots station was anywhere near safe, let alone having a couple hundred spectators behind them. There was precious little room to maneuver normally, let alone for unusual recoveries. On top of that, someone had the presence of mind to turn on the smoke and bury a couple planes in the smoke, loosing the vital visual connection between the airplanes and pilots. The recoveries were interesting to say the least. It was a blast to watch, but exactly the kind of activity that would bring about rules such as the one we are all discussing. Torque rolling with one hand while holding the rudder with the other is pretty impressive as well. But again, not something that should be done without adequate safety measures. Doesn't help with a name TOC pilot drops his rudder on the deck jamming the linkages and stripping all the gears.
I don't think waivers are needed to resolve those types of issues. That can be done in the sanctioning process by having safety standards for these types of maneuvers, and enforcement can easily be accomplished by refusing to sanction future events if the rules were violated and reported. This enhances the safety at the events, yet doesn't impose or unduly restrict the local pilot from those maneuvers at his local field. Those maneuvers done in front of a large crowd without adequate safety considerations can be very unsafe. Yet the same maneuvers done at a local field with a minimum number of people around would be far less risk, and the liability greatly reduced.
However, if this is all insurance driven, and the underwriters determine the risks to high to underwrite, we have little defense against it. The AMA then creates the rule, and anyone that violates the rule will not be covered. Case solved for the insurance company, and the pilots are left wide open for litigation. If someone tail touches, looses control and it goes into the spectators killing someone, I sure hope the pilot has a separate rider or insurance policy or he can kiss his retirement and kids college education goodbye. Even with the AMA 2.5 million policy, thats not nearly enough if someone gets killed from an activity that was deemed unsafe, yet performed by a pilot anyway. The AMA would cover the first 2.5m, but the pilot would be responsible for the rest. In todays litigious society, 2.5m for a untimely death is pittance. Win or lose, the legal costs will devastate most families.
11-13-2003, 01:56 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
ORIGINAL: CAPtain232
Why doesn't someone call up to the AMA headquarters and find out what some of those people do for a living..........
Oh that's right...they sit there and think these things up and WE pay them to do this. And WE also let them get away with things like this....
It is not right for the Jet guys to have a waiver and it's not right for ANYONE else either. We shouldn't have to have these discussions. We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......you pay your premiums and when you need their support, they find a loophole. It just so happens to be that every once in a great while there is no loophole for them so then they start making "RULES and REGULATIONS" Those people sit in an office chair in front of an office desk in a BIGGER office then they had but just a couple of years ago.........I do not recall ever hearing a SINCERE THANK YOU from any one of them. It is a business and is being ran like any other business.....such that it puts more money in their own pockets.
There is an absolutely awesome flying sight in MUNCIE INDIANA and an ENORMOUS amount of land and now 2 NICE BUILDINGS.....all paid for by you and me.....Each and everyone of us should do what we can to take advantage of those facilities because that is all you are going to get for your $58 a year.
Plain and simply the AMA has set GUIDELINES for an AMA REGULATED FLYING SIGHT.........These regulations describe in detail the distances set for the flying area, the pilot area, the pit area and the spectator area. THESE guidelines should be the only guidelines that the AMA should give any thought to changing to maintain SAFE FLYING.
Why doesn't someone call up to the AMA headquarters and find out what some of those people do for a living..........
Oh that's right...they sit there and think these things up and WE pay them to do this. And WE also let them get away with things like this....
It is not right for the Jet guys to have a waiver and it's not right for ANYONE else either. We shouldn't have to have these discussions. We pay a premium that gets used but just a LITTLE. The AMA is just like any other INSURANCE company out there......you pay your premiums and when you need their support, they find a loophole. It just so happens to be that every once in a great while there is no loophole for them so then they start making "RULES and REGULATIONS" Those people sit in an office chair in front of an office desk in a BIGGER office then they had but just a couple of years ago.........I do not recall ever hearing a SINCERE THANK YOU from any one of them. It is a business and is being ran like any other business.....such that it puts more money in their own pockets.
There is an absolutely awesome flying sight in MUNCIE INDIANA and an ENORMOUS amount of land and now 2 NICE BUILDINGS.....all paid for by you and me.....Each and everyone of us should do what we can to take advantage of those facilities because that is all you are going to get for your $58 a year.
Plain and simply the AMA has set GUIDELINES for an AMA REGULATED FLYING SIGHT.........These regulations describe in detail the distances set for the flying area, the pilot area, the pit area and the spectator area. THESE guidelines should be the only guidelines that the AMA should give any thought to changing to maintain SAFE FLYING.
Where can I get ahold of my AMA insurance agent? I hadn't heard that the AMA had turned a claim down when it's insurance was the one covering an incident. Can you point me to some examples. It's not right if they are using loopholes. What kind of loopholes do they use?
Where can I find a copy of the list of "Rules and Regulations"? I haven't heard of them before.
You state that the AMA has guidelines for flying sites, and then you say that they are regulations. Which is it, are they guidelines or are they regulations? Does every AMA chartered club have to comply with them? Are you saying that those guidelines must be adhered to?
Are you sure of what you state?
JR
11-13-2003, 09:46 AM
#25
My Feedback: (102)
RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?
Well, jumping back and forth from a very heated discussion on the turbine waiver issue has my blood pressure up. Currently, there are actions being taken to increase the requirements that are already being put in place on the turbine pilots, which now will include re-certification very two year by a CD. Number one, if I am gonna put a couple of thousand dollars in the air, I am gonna make sure I can fly the $^%& thing before I do so, but even then an accident can happen. Becasue even serovs go bad. Second, there are numb-nuts out there torque rolling and tail touching within 20 feet of spectators. I have seen it with my own eyes, and feel fairly comfortable that I will see it again. I am aware of the safety issues, and I follow rules, even down to putting my name in my aircraft. I am not a stickler for rules, and do not advocate any more regulation, by I'll be damned if I my 18 years of flying experience makes me any more dangerous than some guy with a heli, or a giant scale Extra, or an overloaded warbird, or a quickie 500.
I'm gonna leave this discussion now. I have e-mailed my DVP, another frutiless attempt at getting my POV seen, and have taken 10 deep breaths. I think I may go flying, while I still can.
Live long and prosper,
Tommy
I'm gonna leave this discussion now. I have e-mailed my DVP, another frutiless attempt at getting my POV seen, and have taken 10 deep breaths. I think I may go flying, while I still can.
Live long and prosper,
Tommy