Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

FYI, in case you, as an AMA Leader Member did not receive this communication.

For other AMA members you may forward pertinant comments to your District Vice President or Associate Vice President. See listing at the AMA web page:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...CE181962001C11
for addresses.

Dear Leader Member:

Definitions and other Safety Code Ambiguities was a topic for discussion at the April Executive Council meeting. At that time Dave Brown appointed an Ad Hoc committee to "clean up" the current safety code but not change the original intent. We wish to provide you, as a Leader Member, with the option to review the new Safety Code changes and provide input.

Please go to our website at http://www.modelaircraft.org/surveys...gid=2036059919 to provide your input concerning the 2004/2005 Safety Code. The proposed Safety Code will be displayed on the above page. The ability to provide your input will be at the end of the propsed Safety Code that is displayed.

The responses that we are looking for are:

1) Approval of the new wording of the safety code

2) Additional minor wording changes which are needed to a section or paragraph in order for it to be clearer to the average modeler. (Intent of safety code not changed).

3) Change to the safety code (intent of the safety code is changed). If you select this option, responses will be mailed to the Safety Committee for review and consideration at their next scheduled meeting, if justified the changes will then be presented to the Executive Council for consideration (probably for the 2006 Safety Code).


Joyce Hager
Executive Director

Hal deBolt

Ok all leader members>
Hopefully you are aware that a group including those you find on RCU have been working for
some time to correct the shortcomings seen with the safety code.
Finally headquarters has had some action and all leader members were advised to view a presentation on a given web site.
The message to you includes a link address, do click it and study what is given.
Now know that I am sp0kesperson for the members desiring changes and that Dave Mathewson
and I conjured up what can be a proper modification.
When you view the web message you will note that the end has buttons for you to press that
register your opinbions. For the 3rd and last one there is a space to submit desired changes,
I have registered a detailed modification proposal via this means and support of it would help
greatly?
To keep things simple, if you desire, would you please enter the following phase in this place?

"We understand the modification proposal submitted by the Hal deBolt group and support
it completely"
Signed> your name

Guys, this is our chance to show city hall what needs to be and it would be wonderful if we
could do in strength and for once see the membership have a say, OK?

Hal deBolt [email protected] Just ask if more info is desired!!!

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Hal,

I suggest just posting your proposed modification here so it can be reviewed prior to stating agreement.

headshot

Hal,

I also would request a posting of your proposal. While I trust you and respect your opinions, I have tried to make a point of not providing blanket support to any submitted document sight unseen.

Also, not being a leader member, I don't know what, if any, impact my opinion will have with the AMA.

Jay L.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Just send your opinion to your District VP, Bill Oberdiek at: [email protected]

abel_pranger

I like the changes a lot. What I like best is the removal of of the following, which immediately follows the title line in the Jul 2004 version of the SC:

"I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage"

That would make Excalibur's assertion that the SC is guidelines and not rules correct. I would very much like for him to be proven right on this. Allowing the SC to be about safety rather than a laundry list of what is/might-be-if-they-feel-like-it exclusions from AM insurance coverage would be a big step forward.

Abel

Hal deBolt

Hi ya'll,
Would you believe I just spent a half hour writing the info P-51 requested here and once again
this place deleted all my effort? Sad situation?
Need an out. if P-51 or anyone else desies details of the needed modifications that info is stored
by me and if you wish I would be pleased to send it to you, just ask by Email, OK?
Address>[email protected]
While the current action seen is for leader members all others are encouraged to join in.
Simply supply your district VP with your thoughts and opinions. Model Aviation will have the
VP's address.
If the adminstration will see fit this is an opportunity to get the membership exposure we have felt needed to accomplish desired changes. You can assist by voicing your desires and opinions!
Good luck,

Hal deBolt

Hossfly

Actually the newly proposed Safety Code is a whole lot better than the thing being shoved around this year.

Fairly good editorial action has been accomplished.

I found two items that should be revised.

They changed the CL from 50Ft. of any electric line to 50' from OVERHEAD electric lines. Well, EC, those that are off to the side can get you same as the Overhead. Bad choice there.

Now the one that really burns my butt is the inclusion of COMPETITION into the groups, shows and demonstrations, that require the straight flight line. Again, far too restrictive where a club can offset two flight lines like scale and pattern and use the old curved line for spectator separation.

Other than those items, I was pleasantly pleased with the results. I said so.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

He, he, love technology don't ya. I'll Pm you an e-mail address to send it to.

J_R

I am impressed with the committee that produced the potential revision. Bob Underwood, Dave Mathewson, and Ron Morgan managed to do the re-write in about 3 months, AND get the support of the rest of the council. Minor changes took about 3-4 weeks and the push e-mail was sent.

Now, if we can just get this type of effort to be the norm, we may be in business.

I am going to support Mr. deBolt, and his group. The wording may wind up with some minor revisions, but the concept is right, IMHO.

Hal deBolt

Hi ya'll,
Maybe a brief description of the proposed mods would help?
First, initially numerous shortcomings were found and corrections asked. Happily the
adminstration took some action and appointed a committee to review any grammer and such
which would not alter the intent of the code as the 2004 edition.
The committee did a good job and the revised code is what the leader members are asked
to consider and if approved this would be the 2005 code.
However there are two items which need changing and the committee was not even allowed
to consider them. Question is why establish a code with known descriprencies?
As described otherwise we placed the needed modifications on the leader member release
as was requested. and now ask you to support it as a leader member. If not a leader member
give your opinion to your leader members and also to your VP, support is needed!!!
Summary of needed changes>
R/C section item #9 now reads>
the aircraft shall be controlled from the GROUND
In effect that bans control from any other place?
Difinition of ground is> Earth or planet, period!
Difinition of location is> where located
So, change wording to > the aircraft shall be controlled from an established location ,

Second needed change is in same section>
This reads>>No aircraft shall be flown with devices creating autonomous flight.
Difinition of autonomous is> self controlled
In effect this bans the flight of ALL AIRCRAFT as all craft must have a form of self control
to fly safely be it electronic, mechanical and for all it is aerodynamic
The intent of this statement is said to be to seperate model aircraft from those which supposedly can fly anywhere. UAVs? Can't say that as model airplanes are unmanned aerial
vechicles? Need is for all models to fly in same manner?
So, change wording to> all model aircraft shall be flown from an established flying site and
not be flown beyond the line of sight, at no greater distance.

Guys, these two changes plus the committee's effort would produce a legitimare safety code'
Problem is to have the adminstration realize the need and make the move.
It appears membership demand would be an aid to create the change, OK?
So, your help is requested and it can show that these forums are for real!!

Otherwise> election is coming, DO YOUR BEST TO GET OUI THE VOTE!!

How's zat?

Hal [email protected]
In effect this bans the flight of ALL AIRCRAFT as every craft has devises that allow self control

Jim Messer

My Feedback: (2)

Hal: Just a note to say that I have complied with your wishes. Now all we need to do is to get Dave Mathewson elected. Keep up the good work.