Sport_Pilot

Before seat belts were the law people always talked about those who were thrown through the windshield before the car burned to a crisp. But those were rare and statistics have proved that more people survive with seat belts than after.

Did this aircraft have a back up reciever and servos?

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I'm not against some safety precautions, but I am against over regulation out of a blind obsession to prevent every single accident. Saw it for years in the service. Some things make sense. I saw way more stupid restrictions made by over reacting people. Before anyone knew it, we were flying less and had a lot of flight profiles prohibited. Honestly, a lot of these safety decisions ended up making things more dangerous in the long haul.

fiveoboy01

My Feedback: (3)

Well said, and I agree 100%. As our US government has proven time and time again, more regulations make things worse, not better.

This was an accident, and no matter what anyone does short of banning R/C aircraft alltogether, there will be accidents and deaths in the future. Bank on it.

I'm not making light of the situation, but if this plane supposedly flew a circuit around a barn, behind some trees, etc etc for some time while out of control, it seems that the victim, had he been paying close attention would have had time to avert being hit. And I wasn't there so I really don't know for sure, but I know that when I'm at the field, my eyes are in the sky all the time. If ANYTHING is headed in my direction, I'm ready to jump behind something big and heavy quick.

Gordon, isn't the primary reason AMA has the fail-safe shutdown in turbines to prevent fires??

BasinBum, interesting theory. I'm all for conspiracy theories, but I don't think this is one that is valid. You never know, I might be wrong...[&:]

Sport_Pilot

So a back up reciever and servos is over restrictive? For a 50 pound model with plenty of room? Give me a break!

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Bill,
It may not be a conspiracy but after reading the "first hand account" posted in another forum it seems that the stated "facts" are way off base including the spelling of one of the pilots names. The extent of injury as well as some other things are very inaccurate and I find it hard to believe that the President of the IMAA posted that. If that is actually the case than the future of the IMAA is in serious trouble but that is another topic for another forum.

fiveoboy01

My Feedback: (3)

Hmmm, interesting...

MHawker

My Feedback: (16)

BB has proven to be very intuitive when it comes to this type of thing. I'll wait and see what happens.

excaliber

In response to revisdion 1 post 19, investigation.
, Seems to me there was a BIG stink about a certain AMA S & L committee report that recommended a type of accident reporting form to fill out, item #6. And it appear all the blame for the recommendation was directed to a current AMA Presidential Candidate.
Now was there a crystal ball involved or is it just coincidence. I'd say the committee seemed to know what they were doing.

MikeMc

I know the guy was 300 feet away but that chain link fence idea isn't bad. We always here "oh no some yahoo might fly into the pits" anyway.

At almost every club I see in my area there's...

1. a covered pit area (tarp or wood structure). People will leave if they can't find a spot in the shade.
2. a 3-4 foot high chain link fence all the way around the back of the pits to keep spectators out.
3. an 8+ foot chain link fence around the entire parking lot to keep everybody out when no members are present.

How frinken hard would it be to put a fence at the front edge and ends of the pits. God forbid anybody want to walk out into the sun anyway if not flying. We can keep spectators out, we can keep the sun out, but we can't keep planes out (crashing into the pits).

beepee

Mike,

Short of building a complete chain link cage, there is no way to keep out of control aircraft out of the pits. They can come from too many directions. Ground level fences are very good, but they cannot stop everything.

The best thing to do is pay attention to what is going on around you.

Bedford

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Pylon racing judges use to sit on the course inside of chain link fence cages until a judge was killed when the the engine went through the cage and hit him in the head.

The accident that the thread is talking about happened at a private field at someones home. You think anyone who flies out back of their house should erect structures like you are talking about?

The potential of accidents happening are real yet we hardley ever hear about things like this. New rules or spending money to solve a problem that is very rare is not needed. People sticking their hand in the proppelor is 100 times more common, why don't you make a rule about that.

J_R

What do you know that, apparently, no one else does?

First, from the first hand report here:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...576&tostyle=tm
it appears this took place at a private field. It appears that there was no club involved. It appears that there was no sanction in place.

What does the now defunct Sanction and Liabilities committee, which was charged with determining liabilities relative to sanctions, i.e. sanctioned events where a CD is involved have anything to do with this? Is it your contention that every member that has an accident, regardless of whether a CD or club is involved should submit an accident investigation to the AMA?

Wasn't this exactly the reason the S & L committee was admonished for overstepping it's charge by the AMA President?

EC120

As for the rx debate, I think if you use PCM you must set up failsafe. I don't mean we all must use PCM, but if you do then use the failsafe. No it will not save your model but it will save you from other problems.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

BB,

Thanks a lot! I bet we get foam props after the safety guys read your comments about hands/fingers in them.

Anyway, that is basically what I was trying to say in my first message.

islandflyer

Why are there 2 threads on exactly the same subject?
At least the other one has eye whitness account of the accident.
Many of the remarks/theories/explanations/suggestions are the same on both threads (see: Serious accident...)

Best of luck to Mr. Rowe

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

A better question would be, why are there only two threads (actually, I think there may be three). This topic is important enough that it should be one thread with a common sticky access at the top of all the forums.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

This is one incident. The real question is why aren't there lot's of threads about multiple incidents and the real answer is this isn't a common occurance. The reason there are multiple threads about it is that it is something that is in the back of our minds yet rarely happens, a lot like a shark attack. If this happened on a regular basis than maybe wholsale changes in field design and safety measure would be in order but that is not the case. The alarmists need to calm down and look at the reality of the situation and it is especially unerving that a lot of this was blown out of proportion by the initial post of the president of a national modeling association. Has anyone seen a follow up by Tom Haden explaining his half cocked post with misinformation?

Sport_Pilot

There is a lot more .40 sized planes than 33%+ planes. It is not a common occurrence of them crashing into people either, so of course there will be a lot less occurrences of a giant plane accident.

But let just one of the large planes crash into a crowd of people and killing or wounding several and the impact will be much worse for us. This would be true even if it is one of those huge 90% scale planes that obviously cannot fly at a sanctioned AMA field or event.

excaliber

J-R,
what does anyone know of the incident more than the eyewitness.
the referrence made of #6 of the S & L committee was because of post 19.
And what is it with you rehashing the whys and wherefor of what was.
The point was someone mention an investigation. And it seemed that by coincidence a committee suggested a report might be filed when incidents happen.
So what if the President admonished the committee. Maybe it was unclear just what he wanted the committee to come up with.
Since you seem to have a finger on the pulse of the AMA maybe you could enlighten everyone on exactly what the president wanted.
How do you know what the charge was. In my opinion, liability would encompass every modeling activity regardless if it is sanctioned.
I think you're a liability, certainly no asset, otherwise you would be in a position, maybe on the EC.
Enough already, its ridiculus.
The accident happened and the injured person will recover quickly and I'm sure we all wish him well. As for the failsafe issue "No one can guarranty 100% that no matter what rules,regulations, devices or whatever will eliminate accidents" the best that can be expected is a reduction in some of the of them regardless of aircraft size.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Tom Hayden probably doesn't desire to shoot himself in the foot with larger cannon. That means some of us bet he has written all he ever will on the subject.

Failsafe settings ARE important, however they DO NOT assure that your engine will not be at WOT when it goes in. Remember, it takes a SERVO and electromotive force to operate that servo and MANY accidents are due to a shortage of volts. Broken switches, failed batteries, broken power connections all appear to be RX failures but clearly are not.

Consider what any one of the above listed faults will do to the screaming cutting machine, with and without PCM or any other type of failsafe. However, I think Mongo has the brightest idea on the block this week. His idea of a generic engine off signal from all transmitters is simple, easy, effective and NOT dependant on us idjots to remember.

Those of you who believe safety lies with MORE rules, requirements, and other intrusions on our fun consider ALL the possible facts before you send out the call for immediate action and more onerous instructions and exclusions from our meager insurance coverage.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I spoke to someone at the field today who is visiting from that club area in Ohio. He knows both of those guys and flies with them. They are real people and neighbors.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

BLW,
I realize they are real people and have verified their existance on the web. I am just amazed about the post that started this thread from Tom Hayden after reading the "eye witness account" in another thread. Again, president of national modeling agency and goofus reactionary post. The IMAA is in trouble.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I don't know about anyone else, but I am impressed!

First this exclaibur fella brings up a defunct committee that seems to have exceeded its charter. Then he tries to hang the very observation on someone else. Then this exclabur fella decides another person is a liability!

Can you beat that? I think any person willing to challenge another on FACTUAL DATA but unwilling (or too cowardly?) to sign his own name to his rantings is probably a liability.

Fella, I don't know about you, but most of us don't heal in a week from a large carbon fiber prop strike. You must be one of them superhero dudes.

J_R

From the EC Minutes April 4, 2004

Sanction & Liability – ad hoc (Appendix III)
The chairman thanked C. Maroney and L. Johnson for their work with the committee. He indicated that as a result of conversations with B. Underwood, D. Brown, and C. Bauer, he realizes the committee has strayed from the original charge. After going through the report with Council, Oberdieck requested an affirmative vote to accept the concept of the report. The president stated that he was not in disagreement with what was contained in the report however the original charge of the committee was to look into the liability generated on part of AMA as a result of sanctioning events, particularly Class C events over which AMA has no control over the rules. He requested a copy of the report be given to Don Lowe/Safety Committee.
The committee did present a report to Council previously that included what should and should not be sanctioned (proposed that AMA ‘sanction’ only rule book events—sanctioned and listed in contest calendar, and all other events would be ‘listed’ for purposes of the contest calendar). Also proposed at that time was the concept of contest directors (for rule book events)/event directors (all other events). The president noted that in the discussion last year it was determined that nothing could be done with the term event director until the bylaws had been changed, however we could do something about using the term sanction when using it in connection with Class C events. J. Gelwicks explained how liability is premised on the right to control. He also confirmed that by accepting payment for ‘instant membership’ at a contest, a CD is acting as an agent of the Academy but by removing the authority for a CD to do this, does not necessarily mean he is no longer considered an agent.
Conclusion: The item was referred back to Committee to review the motion from February 2002 which was rescinded at the April 2002 meeting and address the issue of sanctioning only rule book events and listing or registering the other events.



From the EC Minutes July 2, 2004
Appendix IV

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The post by Tom Hayden is typical of the words from many principals at clubs and the AMA. Nothing new. The post reeks with a "I told you so" "believe me" "I am right" innuendo style. Hmmm... I see the same thing over and over again. Oh BTW here in this forum also. The POST is nothing more than an assertion of someone’s self importance or self validation without any REAL productive or constructive insights. Sure the IMAA is in trouble but no more than the AMA, our government, this forum or just about any organized body due to the words or actions of one, UNLESS the mice blindly follow. The PROBLEM is there are too many blind mice.