Hossfly

Not to my way of thinking. Everything is dangerous. As someone else has on a signature somewhere, this life ain't permanent.

Nothing is as dangerous as the drive to the flying facility, or wherever.

Actually, even since before the EC meeting, my club has had this idea in consideration, especially since we own the property. Makes sense to advise the rubber-necked sight-seers that they could get hurt. Then if they are willing to take the chance, so be it, if not, well, good riddance and goodbye.

I still think modeling is just as safe as most any out-door sport. The difference is that we have a few people running the show that have different objectives than just enjoying the sport/hobby. It's easy for them because the few that care about who runs the show are too busy fighting among themselves to really promote new show-runners, many don't really care about the show, and the vast majority haven't a clue that the show exists.

Now just whose tongue is planted in whose/which cheeks?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

with the vast majority of claims being of the trip/fall catagory, why leave out the non flying events?
if a waiver is a good idea, apply it across the board.

might help to deflect the, flying models is a known danger tact, by the land sharks, luv that term.

Ben Lanterman

It can be a dangerous sport. On almost every flight we put our hands and arms within inches of what is virtually a power saw. Some of us use gasoline or perhaps a Lipoly battery pack - either if misused will cause explosions and fire. The difference between an accident and not is the twitch of a beginner's thumb or finger (perhaps of an expert's thumb or finger). A momentary lapse of reason, distraction, just plain mistakes that we make (not to mention the random radio failure).

Then throw in the obvious hazards of taking the same power saw and balancing it on its tail, making inverted passes at 100mph only 30 feet or so from the pilot's line, doing inverted helicopter hovers just a few inches off the ground, doing 3D maneuvers in a small enclosed room (last years 3D indoor contest), 30 or 40 percent models doing 3D maneuvers not all that far from a spectator station. All just waiting for a servo failure to fulfill the promise of injury.

This is not your daddy's rubberband powered 2mph freeflight ship. The fact is that people have gotten hurt and killed while pursuing the hobby. How many of us have reached through the prop to adjust the needle valve or given our wrist a little buzz while removing the glow plug driver. Heck on landing and taxing back the other day I simply gave the wrong directional command and almost hit my leg with the prop (and I have been flying RC for over 40 years).

Some things in the hobby are inherently more dangerous than others. Indoor freeflight might hit you in the eye if you stood in front of the airplane and waited for a few seconds while it slowly moved into position. I for one don't feel especially fond of the concept of paying insurance out for accidents that are a result of 3D flight, either helicopter or airplane and flight as a result of high speed jet engines (waviered or not). However I do feel obliged to support the hobby in its many forms so I don't complain too much.

However reminding modelers and spectators alike that it is a hazardous hobby isn't out of order. That is the reason we have insurance. If it weren't hazardous why the need for insurance?? Hazard and insurance go hand in glove, piston in liner. One implies the other. Can a sharp lawyer make court fodder out of the sign, perhaps, but that does not change the ultimate truth of the situation. Should we sign a liability release form - probably, but keep the insurance for when the airplanes goes through a farmers roof. Remember the big B-52 in England that flew just fine until a mistake was made by the pilot and whack - 8 model jet engines and a huge airplane splatted itself over the countryside.

Folks we are all just one bad error in judgment or radio failure from hurting or killing someone. Don't insult anyones intelligence by saying this isn't a hazardous sport. Accept that it is and prepare the best you possibly can for when the accident happens.

That someone at the AMA headquarters writes something about the hazards in the hobby - good grief - at least he is being responsible and realistic enough to accept what is fact and mention it without trying to hide it. Whether or not he wrote something does not prevent a good lawyer from showing that this is a hazardous hobby in the first 10 minutes of a hearing or court room battle.

Honestly I enjoy reading this forum but some folks have their heads in the sand (yes mine too occasionally)

End of rant -

Merry Christmas to all, now if it would get warm so I can go flying and try to hover the little electric beast. I am scarey to watch try.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I don't want anyone to get hurt, I believe in safety precautions.... Just a little fun


I can see it now. A waiver for spectating/walking...

Requirements

1st. Be able to run the 100 yd dash in 10 seconds (in case you need to outrun the plane of course and you had trouble with rule 3) At a jet event you need to do it in 5 seconds...

2nd. At the sound of 'incoming' be able to jump a minimum of 10 ft any direction including straight up (unless it's a giant scale event then 20ft min, if it's a 3d event the higher the better, especially if they're touching the ground with their rudders, no one's safe on the ground)

3rd. Be able to tell your right from left so that you can run the proper direction

4th. If it's a turbine event be skilled in the stop, drop and roll in case you're in the fire path from a crashing turbine (this also is a requirement for the electric fliers as we know that the li poly's can cause the same effect)

5th. Carry a first aide kit (and if at a turbine event also 2 fire estinguishers, 1 co2 and 1 water based at all times + a log so we can see if you're qualified to use a fire estinguisher and remember you have to go thru this process every year and be signed off by 2 qualified fire estinguisher operators)

And of course remember that if you have an accident you must first try your car insurance, house insurance, bike insurance, personal property insurance, school insurance, kids insurance, dental insurance...............

Extra labels, the food is fattening, the coffee is hot........

<JK>

Ben Lanterman

Many many years ago in Cincinnati, Ohio (as reported by my brother who saw it) a model was gliding in for an unpowered landing and wandered over toward the pits (not much control if ever in those days). Somebody yelled the needed "heads up" and sure enough somebody gave a heads up just in time for the airplane to nail him in the head.

The bottom line - regardless of how you present the hobby - accidents can and do happen. When they happen with a prop going at 10K or with a hot turbine they just might be spectacular and it just might be you.

Being aware and preparing for it isn't a bad thing. Burying you head in the sand and saying I hate all these restrictions and waviers and stuff does not make it go away. I think it is a responsible thing for the AMA to point out the hazards and prepare for the eventual time that someone more is going to die as a result of the hobby. It will happen, you just try to make the reverberations throughout the hobby and industry minimal.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I agree that there needs to be safety regs. I also think that short of outlawing everything and keeping everyone in rubber padded rooms there are going to be accidents!!!! If you look at the past record, over the last 20+ years of rc modeling. Even back when the giant scale models with the g62's were only using futaba 148s etc, there has been very few incidents vs # of models flown, other than the usual cut fingers etc.... It's sad to hear about anyone being hurt, but I think that the record that we do have is proof of just how safe our hobby is!!!! Out of all the thousands of wrecks a year, this hobby is probably safer than just about anything else that you do (there have been a couple of terrible instances in the last couple of years, Casey and the incident with the helicopter comes to mind). We already have a lot of regs!!! What needs to be done now is enforcing the regs that we have! The distance from the pitts to the flight line, for people to be aware of their surroundings when people are flying, keeping the airplane on the other side of the runway, revoking turbine waivers if people are wreckless, even cancelling the ama membership if someone is breaking the rules and becoming a constant danger to other members. How about when people see something that's unsafe actually steping up and trying to help and if it continues to be unsafe then escalating the problem to the club safety officer and pres....... More rules/waivers aren't the answer, following the ones that we have is....

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry Ben,
I vehemently disagree with the approach being discussed. It is MY opinion that this is just another back door approach at destroying the organization through the rule of unintended consequences by making more stupid rules. While your comments have some value, I am much more concerned about the direction we (AMA) seem to have been heading. Let me suggest a slightly different approach, lets have fun rather than run and hide as this approach suggests.

Let's compare the dangers of model aviation with something common. Driving a car is dangerous and a great many more folks get exposed to the possibility of death, dismemberment and disfigurement EVERY SINGLE DAY then are involved in any way with model aircraft of any kind. I have yet to see a single person sign any sort of release form before they embark on any trip in any vehicle, from car to planes. Why should we sow the seeds of destruction for the AMA when society ignores the dangers presented by vehicular transportation? THAT is a question *I* would like to see answered.

Ben Lanterman

Jim it is an easy answer. We don't have any problem with cars, etc, relative to insurance problems and the like - because all of us drive them. We are all aware of the dangers and we all have to have liability insurance (at least in Missouri). There are safety programs in abundance and we must take a test to get a license, both written and driving (at least once in a lifetime). Everynight the news does tell us of all of the accidents in the region and we say to ourselves, well that won't happen to me so no problem. We get in the car and feel that it will not be us joining into the carnage of an accident. We have to ignore the problems or else we would never get into a car and drive at 65 mph passing another car going the other way at 65 with only a few feet between us (without having a clue what the other person has drank or taken that will mess up his driving).

Essentially it is human nature to put out of mind what they don't want to change. We need the car and just don't care that much about the deaths and destruction that come with it. It is worth it to us. It is human nature.

I seriously doubt we sow the seeds of destruction for the AMA when we honestly look at the hazards of the hobby. The other thing about human nature is that they can easily see the mote in someone elses eye when they have the boulder in theirs. A car driver can easily point out the dangers in model flying. The fact of the irony in the situation never occurs to them.

There is nothing running and hiding when we have a realistic appraoch to the dangers involved in our hobby. Be up front about the good stuff of the hobby and also say that you do have to be careful, be honest about it and nothing bad will happen, try to hide the dangers and you will get in trouble in the end - look at the latest of Bush's nominations.

How many people do you really know who sit around and say to themselves, "Hummmm what can I do today to take another back door approach at destroying the organization through the rule of unintended consequences by making more stupid rules."? We have gone from very few rules in the beginning to what we have now - a large increase in rules - without the hobby being hurt in the slightest.

In my observations over a lifetime I have seen a lot of rules made by a lot of people and organizations. I have also seen a lot of people yelling and screaming that the sky will fall and the world will crack if the rules go through - how dumb can the guys making the rules must be. But, instead trust them, they certainly know better, let them make the rules and everything will be perfect - never mind that another group will start screaming and yelling the same thing as before.

In the end no matter who makes the rules the inertia of life keeps right on going. The AMA is heading in a direction that you don't care for, but another person thinks the direction is perfectly fine. History will certainly prove one right or wrong. Meanwhile we the membership are hearing several voices from every side of the question saying that they absolutely know the only logical heaven approved right way to run the organization (no matter what side of the issue they are on).

If you can honestly prove the AMA is going in the wrong direction by being honest with the safety issues at question please do. But opinion just doesn't carry much force of evidence.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Ben,
No screaming about the sky falling here sir, just serious concern when the numbers clearly indicate the wrong direction for the future of the AMA, as we know it. The *MODEL AVIATION HOBBY* is growing, as can be seen at the local toy stores, hobby shops, and parks but the AMA is not. Make all the rules you guys want and see just how much further the membership rolls can be reduced. Enjoy raising the dues to cover the new costs for the enforcement people we are going to need to motivate in addition to the monument in Muncie.

the-plumber

Can't think of any real reason to exclude the non-flying events except that I actually had in mind events like mall shows and swap meets.

Don't think we get too many tripped-and-skinned-my-knee lawsuits resulting from that sort of event, but ya never know.

There is also the notion that making a bunch of swap-meet visitor-types sign a release/waiver form just so they can wander around a bunch of toy airplane stuff on card tables seems a bit much, and while it might provide the nth degree in avoiding liability suits, it might also have the same effect as putting up the offending sign at the flying site : folks who wouldn't have thought to sue AMA because they took a prat fall on the mall floor might well do so if they have reason to think they can get money for free.

the-plumber

Don't recall mentioning the nutty idea of dropping the insurance, that would be plain lunatic.

The plain fact of the matter is that while the proposed sign says in so many words, "You can be injured by what we do here, be careful", the legalistic translation for those of that persuastion is "We have a lot of insurance money. We'll give you some of it if you raise a fuss about getting a splinter from our home-made fence.".

It's one thing to be forewarned and prepared vis a vis having insurance, having a safety code, and doing our best to prevent needless injuries to modelers and visitors alike.

It's quite another to advertise the fact that we've got insurance and the potential for injury all wrapped up in one sweet package for the taking.

Like the man said, keys and padlocks only serve to keep honest men honest; there's nothing you can do about the real thieves.

Why plant ideas about the dangers of models coupled with the available insurance if we don't have to ?

IMHO it's nothing more than yet another ill-considered knee-jerk reaction by the AMA EC or someone closely associated with the EC, and it is a proposal the consequences of which have not been subjected to the checks and balances of open debate.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Ben,
How many people do you really know who sit around and say to themselves, "Hummmm what can I do today to take another back door approach at destroying the organization through the rule of unintended consequences by making more stupid rules."?

Dave Brown, for a starter. IMHO he must be getting into his "What if" mode again, as I see his fingerprints all over this rule.
BRG,
Jon

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

it may seem a bit much, but ya also get a name adress and phone number, ifn ya do it right<G>.

Ben Lanterman

the-plumber - I don't think I mentioned dropping the insurance either, where did you get that?

Do you really think not having a sign is going to stop anyone from suing either the person, the club, or the AMA once the injury is a done deal? If your model hurts another person their lawyer will go looking and will know who he can and will sue in a manner of minutes regardless of the sign presence or not.

Getting a splinter and bringing suit - having or not having the sign won't slow down the potential swindler much more than 2 seconds. You had better hope for a jury that is made up of people who can think for themselves.

Thinking that the sign is going to bring a host of suits seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction also.

Jon you are speculating, and that and a $1 will get a cup of coffee maybe.

You guys are on solid ground when you talk about not having put issues to a vote (unless making the decisions are in the purvue of the EC and president) but you just fall off the wagon when you go from that to the all encompassing Dave Brown is going to destroy the AMA. It just isn't going to happen. You sound as if you wish it did hurt the AMA just so you could say I told you so. That is an unpleasant thought, I sincerely hope it isn't true.

the-plumber

We don't have the signs now, and obviously we have lawsuits. I don't see how adding the sign will accomplish anything contributory to our cause in terms of reducing injuries, just as we have not been successful passing a workable law against stupidity. Accidents and injuries will occur. Expecting that Joe Public can correctly identify the hazardous areas of model aviating, and avoid them, based on the non-content of the proposed signs is just plain wrong - Joe Public can barely read, never mind understand the import of what he's read.

Further, not only will the signs not reduce the number of lawsuits, they will likely increase the number of lawsuits, particularly in terms of making frivolous lawsuits attractive and successful. The mere presence of the sign would add fuel to the plaintiff's fire by demonstrating that 'we' continued our activities despite the corporate knowledge that the activities could be dangerous.

The signs appear to me to be an a priori admission of culpability. It's bad enough that we lose lawsuits, let's not set the stage so that we cannot even beat the frivolous suits.
The track record of the extant Executive Council under Dave Brown's leadership to date is one of knee-jerk reactions, poorly crafted 'regulations', and regulations which do nothing but restrict model aviation in the U.S. The number of shining examples are too numerous to list here, but "Rule 9", combat foamies, combat engine size restrictions, and on-board fuel restrictions are come readily to mind. All of these rules, and a goodly number of others, were ill-considered, ill-advised, and had considerable negative impact on segments of aeromodeling outside the intended scope of the restrictions.

Mr. Brown has done about as much damage to the hobby as he has made actual contributions, particularly during his current term. People who know him have described his outlook as "myopic" in the extreme. His most recent faux pas was writing a poorly researched anti-LiPo article, and then defending that truly lousy editorial in the face of established facts presented by an expert in the field. He was wrong to print that article and doesn't want anyone publishing a contradictory article in MA.

Presenting bad information under the guise of "safety advice" is about as wrong-headed as a leader can get. Refusing to allow an acknowledged expert in the field to present information which would correct the errors in the orignal column is not only wrong-headed, it is as you put it, "scary".

J_R

This is an item, in the minutes, that probably should have been discussed in closed session. Instead issues like Reese Airport and by-laws rewrites are discussed out of the watchful eyes of the membership, while this is handled in open session. The priorities of some seem to be juxtaposed. Attorney client relations are fair game for executive session, IMHO.

I suppose it is only fair to remind everyone that we were forewarned. This is not the first time an issue related to risk management has been discussed. It surely won’t be the last. Somehow, I think most of us had a different idea of the approach risk management would take. I, for one, did not envision the emphasis on avoiding insurance claims in this way. I expected more effort to be placed on things like the much discussed safety video. Was the action taken relative to instant memberships also a risk management initiative?

What if a suit is incurred by an AMA chartered club? Can the AMA be defended? In the past, the AMA has been careful not to tell clubs how they must be run, thus keeping itself at arms length. Does this item potentially cross the boundary, and open the AMA to being sued along with clubs? Will the AMA now be named in every law suit as the alter ego of the club or member, thus subjecting the AMA to every lawsuit filed involving members or clubs?

This is an issue that, had legal counsel been consulted first, might have died a quiet death. Well… maybe not. It seems that legal opinions can be disagreed with by some, and efforts continued in spite of sound legal advice.

abel_pranger

JR-
Legal counsel was consulted first, but demonstrably it did not die there. According to the cited snippet from the minutes, the specific wording of the signage was developed by the ED and legal counsel.
There is nothing here that is a matter involving attorney/client privileged information. As for being appropriate for 'closed executive session,' I am sure that happened, though quite possibly involving just one very closed executive, so obsessed with AMA business matters like insurance risk that he has become oblivious to the purpose of the organization. I have a strong hunch that the ED had a purpose in bring this out in open session, and that the recommendation to post it for the members feedback prior to acting on it was her primary contribution. I think she was 100% right in doing this.

Abel

J_R

I can't and won't argue the point about how the discussion between legal counsel and the previous ED came to pass. I will point out that if the question to the legal counsel was "how do we make such a sign", that is not asking for an opinion of "should we make the sign". My guess, and it is just that, is we will never see linkage between insurance and posting of such a sign. "Someone", as with several issues in the recent past, may want to know MORE facts than those presented in a senario such as yours. Those same "someone"s may not be very happy if they find the AMA, itself, might be put on the hook.

Near as I can tell, "someone" is not so blindly trusting as they used to be.

Ben Lanterman

Hi Fred,

In general I say exactly what I want. If I had wanted to drop the insurance I would have said so. The words in the box don't say anything about dropping the insurance!

---- The signs appear to me to be an a priori admission of culpability. It's bad enough that we lose lawsuits, let's not set the stage so that we cannot even beat the frivolous suits. ------

I don't believe so, the signs are only an a priori admission of the truth, that is can be a hazardous activity. What else can you call something with a 10,000 rpm saw that has no guards? My saw with gaurds has a caution sign on it that says be careful (at least until it wore off). With or without the sign on the saw I don't feel compelled to put my finger in the saw but if I did it would cut it off - the definition of that is that it is a hazardous activity.

What is implied by the sign is that you should not poke your finger in the prop. If you see an airplane coming toward you - duck. The sign does not set us up for lawsuits. Do you honestly think a good lawyer (or bad one for that matter) is going to see the absence of a sign as meaning he can't sue, or that a judge or jury is going to be overly swayed by seeing the sign and giving in to the frivolous lawsuits? I give the guys involved more credit for brains than you do.


----- The track record of the extant Executive Council under Dave Brown's leadership to date is one of knee-jerk reactions, poorly crafted 'regulations', and regulations which do nothing but restrict model aviation in the U.S. The number of shining examples are too numerous to list here, but "Rule 9", combat foamies, combat engine size restrictions, and on-board fuel restrictions are come readily to mind. All of these rules, and a goodly number of others, were ill-considered, ill-advised, and had considerable negative impact on segments of aeromodeling outside the intended scope of the restrictions. ------

I can't remember a single contest category ever that didn't have some kind of limits on either power, fuel, wing area or more. I had always considered those rules as a leveling device ensuring that all contestants are even, Heck even Nascar has rules that are more restrictive. The history of the AMA since day two has been rife with restrictions. Day one was spent with trying to get a rubberband powered airplane of any kind to fly. Arn't the regulations "poorly crafted" because you don't agree with them? There are apparently some other guys who think they weren't poorly crafted.

If you are talking about RC combat foamies, I think it is not a responsible activity to engage in as an AMA sporting event. We are purposely putting the airplane in a position to be readily hit by another with the result of loss of control while under full power. That is worse than any sign. RC combat says come and sue us much more than a caution sign ever does. I can see the Lawyers mouth drooling at the thought from here.

---- Mr. Brown has done about as much damage to the hobby as he has made actual contributions, particularly during his current term. People who know him have described his outlook as "myopic" in the extreme. His most recent faux pas was writing a poorly researched anti-LiPo article, and then defending that truly lousy editorial in the face of established facts presented by an expert in the field. He was wrong to print that article and doesn't want anyone publishing a contradictory article in MA.

Presenting bad information under the guise of "safety advice" is about as wrong-headed as a leader can get. Refusing to allow an acknowledged expert in the field to present information which would correct the errors in the orignal column is not only wrong-headed, it is as you put it, "scary". ---------

One editorial mistake doesn't make a trend. I don't remember the editorial - in truth I don't read most of them. But if he said the Lipoly can and will burn up your model and should be treated like a can of gasoline - I would have to agree with him. I personally know one flyer who had a nicely crafted RC stick model burn up on his workbench and another had a model helicopter that "blew up" in flight. The local hobby shop has an example of a swollen charred Lipoly cell on display. There are lots of facts that an acknowledged expert might present that say if the Lipoly are treated right that they present no danger, and he is right - absolutely right (I am relying on it as I have about 10 models flying with Lipoly) but the Lipoly cells are hazardous because they did cause fires where other batteries haven't. Mistreat a Lipoly cell and it will kick back much harder than a Nicad subjected to the same abuse. If Mr. Brown presented the information as such, then he is on solid grounds.

Regardless, I hope you had a good Christmas with lots of toys of the RC persuasion.

Ben

abel_pranger

Hi JR-
Doggone, this is one one those days I can't seem to get on the same wavelength with others! I'll hazard another go at it though - weather is too crappy to go out and fly. Want to see a linkage between insurance and the warning sign?

"....requiring this sign creates a more defensible scenario when it comes to liability coverage. "

To me that's nothing whatever to do with safety, devoid of any consideration of AMA's chartered mission, i.e., advocacy of aeromodeling, and everything to do with making an insurance company lawyer's job easier. The explicit objective is so alien from my list of priorities re AMA and aeromodeling that the individual(s) for whom it is a priority might as well be on another planet.

Abel

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Ben,
Who's talking about competition regulations? This is about additions to the SC that affects ALL members of the AMA. Your position, IMHO, is the same as all the other groups when turbine modelers were in DB's gunsight, and we still are: Ol' Dave is not going to be happy until he bans turbines, is: too bad for them. Then when Dave moved his sight's to the 3d guys, ie rule 9, they screamed and yelled as loud as the turbine guys. Ol' Dave's rules are fine until they affect your activities, then they're not quite so fair and well thought out. Many modelers now realize that their activities are not immune from DB's "What if's", unfortunately, not enough to vote him out of office.
One last point: what does this sign have to do with "promoting Model Aviation?
BRG,
Jon

J_R

Hi Abel

I think it is me who is not getting his point accross.

The AMA has always maintained a position where it could be said that clubs were only chartered by the AMA. The actions of the clubs, in any regard, were those the club chose. If the portion of the quote that states "AMA could require posting this sign as part of the insurance or have a reduction in limits if the sign is not posted, however this would have to be coordinated with the insurance people" were pressed forward, the AMA could then be said to have more than a passive/non existent part in running of clubs (ie, becoming the alter ego of the club). This could put the AMA in a position to be sued more often. The arms distance relationship would have been breeched. It might make it easier on the AMA to defend a club... and it might not. BUT, all of the sudden, the AMA might have to worry about defending the AMA, as opposed to the club. As it stands now, most suits are against members, clubs and landlords, or some mix of the three. This might well add a forth entity to each suit... the AMA itself.

Somehow, I don't think it is the intention of the leadership to throw the AMA into the mix. If such an action actually has such consequences, you might well see any armtwisting of clubs reduced to a "strong recommendation" as we have so often seen before. The attraction of new "deep pockets" to an agressive attorney is not, I am sure, what is intended.

abel_pranger

Hi JR-
Ahh.......we may be tuned to the same channel again. If I grok what you are saying, in a nutshell the individual(s) behind this action probably know(s) no more and possibly even less about insurance risk and the tort industry than he/they know(s) about LiPo batteries. If I got that right, I have no knowledge or reason that would cause me to be in disagreement with you.

Abel

J_R

Hi Abel

I wouldn't have put it quite that bluntly.

wjb.1

NEVER underestimate the power of STUPID people in large groups [X(]