mongo

My Feedback: (15)

hell, from what i have seen in the AMA, 3 is a large group.

abel_pranger

LOL!
You prolly went to Knife and Fork School. I took HS typing classes in the hope that if conscription came my way, it might land me behind a typewriter instead of an M-16.

Abel

the-plumber

What you feel compelled to do in your own shop is hardly relevant to what Joe Public, non-modeling visitor to a flying site, feels 'compelled' to do. Like, get a closer look at the gee-whiz model over there, never mind standing with his back to a running engine. What is common sense to us in aeromodeling cannot be attributed to the general public - by definition they have no common modeling sense. The worst part about the proposed sign is that it doesn't say anything about not sticking fingers in spinning props; it doesn't mention props, fuel, batteries, out of control models, or any of the specific hazards >we< accept as part of the aeromodeling landscape. The proposed sign characterizes our hobby as a dangerous one - "Aeromodeling can cause serious injury", and it is quite simply not true that our hobby is fraught with danger.

It is that very characterization of the hobby of aeromodeling as a whole as dangerous that is the crux of the matter - the sign is too ambiguous to be of any real use except in a lawsuit where it would be used by the plaintiff to _document that AMA thinks our hobby is a dangerous one_, rather than a relatively safe passtime with a few areas that could be dangerous if not properly controlled.

Again, the sign doesn't contribute anything of real value to risk management (buzz word du jour), does nothing to advise visitors regarding the portions of aeromodeling that can be hazardous, and will only serve to prove some future plaintiff's case.

No, the regulations I'm talking about aren't poorly crafted because they don't reflect my opinions, the regulations I'm talking about are those poorly crafted regulations which have been almost immediately revised or revoked in entirety when the Executive Council was given more than one man's opinion on the subject at hand. I don't fly combat or foam models, so I could care less what happens to those disciplines. Neither did I participate in the debate about the foam combat issue (which by the way had to do with slope soaring, not powered models). That the EC made rules which in the first light of day had to be revised or rescinded is simple enough indication that the regulations were in fact poorly crafted, my opinion notwithstanding.

I also don't fly 3D models, and I'm nowhere near practiced with my heavy scale models to do 'tail-touches', not that I would want to anyway. The infamous "Rule 9" has been in hot debate ever since it's conception at an EC meeting, said conception and promulgation being one and the same. Even I could see the problem with that rule the way it was written - hand-launched models were suddenly illegal in AMA, according to that rule. Modelers could no longer catch their hand-launched models, the way hand-launched models have been caught for decades. Rule 9 hasn't gone away, but it was revised almost immediately after being put into effect. In it's present incarnation, the rule makes it illegal to make a wheels-up landing, because according to Muncie the only thing that can touch the ground is the landing gear, period. The short-sightedness of the Executive Council, in passing that rule, was very akin to using a ball peen hammer to kill a fly sitting on the window pane. Maybe the fly gets dead, maybe not, but the window pane is a goner. Similarly, in their zeal to deal with flying demonstrations where someone touches a hovering model, an act only a few of the exhalted EC had witnessed in person, they managed to pass a rule which put an entirely unrelated model aviation discipline at risk.

Rule 9 was a bad rule when it was written, it was a bad rule after the first two or three revisions, and it's -STILL- a bad rule. In fact, it's such a bad rule it being held in abeyance pending further consideration.

Combat engine size limitations were subject to another ill-advised 'rule' just a couple of years ago. The metric to have been used would have required giant combat models to be so far away from any person that they couldn't have been flown safely, and that is just plain stupid. The rule-makers invented a metric without any consultation or experimentation - plans on a paper lunch napkin, as it were.

Fuel limitation proposals have been equally wrong-headed, particularly with respect to multi-engine jets. The proposed limits for on-board fuel were so stringent that the models were in danger of causing more crashes than ever before, and the net effect of the rule was exactly opposite the desired effect, to improve safe turbine engine operations.

Unless it's been revised already, the last time I read the thrust limitations for jet models it would have had the effect of rendering twin-turbine models unflyable on loss of one engine - the total thrust limit for multi-turbine models was so low that a single turbine could not have kept the model airborne. It's a really, REALLY, ill-considered rule which turns a safe multi-engine model into an unsafe multi-engine model on loss of one engine.

The whole issue with turbine engines has been a sore point for many, many model builders ever since the EC decided to start making rules applicable only to turbine engines. The last rule they made which was still-born was the requirement for on-board thrust limiters, passed at a time when the turbine manufacturers had yet to design an operable limiter. There is still no reliable thrust limiter available, so that fine edict from Muncie is on hold.

It's not my opinion that a great many rules and edicts from Muncie have been poorly crafted. Even the magnificent eleven believe they've got it wrong more than a few times. Check the AMA web site, under member services, and read the list of turbine rules and requirements which have been rescinded in the last two years. If those were such well crafted rules and edicts, why have they been rescinded ?

At one time we had a Safety Code which addressed safety issues. A member could read the safety code, understand it, and comply with it for a few years before needing to re-read it, because the Safety Code addressed well-known safety and flight operations issues, the vast majority of which do not change from month to month.

For the last three years, a member had to read the minutes of each Executive Council meeting to find out what changes and revisions had been made to the safety code _in the last quarter_ just to keep up.

Model aviation has always progressed at a fairly good clip, but never so fast that we need new "safety" rules every time the Executive Council meets.

Muncie has been operating in a knee-jerk mode for almost a decade, mis-using the Safety Code to enact rules not related to known safety issues.

I'm not the only member who thinks that.

Before you climb on the wrong horse again . . . I don't own a jet model, or a foam model, or a 3D model, or a speed model. I only own and fly scale models, and none of the 'wrong-headed' rules have had any potential impact on my perspective of model aviation. I _do_ watch what is going on in Muncie, and _am_ concerned when I read rules made without any input from the affected disciplines within AMA - if the EC can continue making nonsense rules at will, I have no doubt they will "discover" high-wing loading scale models and start inventing a whole new series of half-baked, poorly crafted rules.

You really should read Dave Brown's column where he provided the 'information' about the dangers of LiPo batteries. REALLY. Then you should read what Fred Marks had to say about his attempt to get the bad information corrected, and along with it read Mr. Brown's defense of his "safety article".

All of that exchange was posted in this venue about two months or so ago. You _really_need to read that thread to find out how badly Dave Brown treated the issue of LiPo safety.

Search for articles where the author is Fred Marks. He doesn't pop in all that often, so it should be a short search.

And that Sir is the crux of _this_ issue - Dave Brown wrote a column under the guise of providing timely and critical SAFETY information, and he painted a picture which would have the members believe that LiPo batteries are exploding all over the place, which is simply not the case.

In my humble opinion Dave Brown did a serious disservice to the AMA membership with that misbegotten "safety" article.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

Very well put Fred. I totally agree!!!!!!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Hi Abel,

I think you got it right. Combine that with hungry lawyers (that IS where the ED was sent - wasn't it?) looking for a way to earn a living and the AMA membership begins to look like legal aid and food for poor starving attorneys. Those two attitudes seem to have been "leading" us for the last several years.

Comes the next question. Who among us thinks the legal advice mentioned the fact that this would move the AMA into the line "of fire" (as it were) in litigation? Remember, a good lawyer only addresses issue you raise with him. That is exactly what he is trained to do, absolutely no more but no less. That is why a good lawyer will spend lots of time educating you HOW to answer questions before you are put on the stand. Be involved in a lawsuit or two and you do get an education.

Fred, don't waste your time and efforts. You can lead a horse to water. . . . .

J_R

Hi Ben

In the interest of getting the facts straight, and not in support of Dave Brown’s positions:

Rule 9 was not crafted by the EC. The EC never voted to place the rule in the safety code. Dave Brown has claimed in articles in MA that the EC passed this rule. No other EC member will tell you they voted for such a rule, nor does such a motion appear, in any form, in the EC minutes. It simply appeared in the Safety Code at the end of last year. Dave Brown wrote a couple of articles supporting such a rule in his MA column. (You can find his columns on the AMA web site in the MA section). Ultimately, the EC voted to revoke the rule, as the simplest way to get rid of it. It was never re-crafted and was never held in abeyance.

As far as I can remember, there has never been a rule, involving turbines, about the amount of fuel that can be carried. There has been such discussions (mostly by the JPO), but no such rules. The rule is no turbine may weigh over 55 pounds wet. That is the same as any other aircraft under AMA auspicies, except those of a dozen pilots who are under the experimental class that allows some types of aircraft up to 100 pounds. If you have a twin turbine that weighs 50 pounds dry, it is a de facto limit on fuel of 5 pounds. The rules on turbines have been crafted by the JPO (Jet Pilots Organization) which is the SIG (Special Interest Group) for jets. Dave Brown opposed the new rules. Specifically, he wanted speed limiters, not thrust limiters, as a requirement in the new regulations. He called a special telephone EC meeting to make his case. During that meeting the previously passed new regulations, which had not gone into effect, were put in abeyance. At the next meeting of the EC, the new regulations were affirmed and became the current regulations, over Dave Brown’s objections.

Turbine powered aircraft where prohibited by the safety code for many years. The rules apply only to those that would like to have that rule waived, thus they became “waiver holders�. The actions of more modern EC’s have been to slowly loosen the controls on turbines, with the help of guidance from the JPO. Current rules have replaced older, more stringent rules.

The EC consists of 14 members. The president, the executive vice president, 11 district vice presidents, and the NAA rep. I am not sure who the magnificent eleven might be. I can tell you that over the last 18 months the majority of the EC members has often taken positions in opposition to those of the president. This is evidenced from the positions taken in his columns relative to the votes shown in the EC meeting minutes by those other members.

This year, led by Bob Underwood, the EC did craft a new Safety Code, making it readable and simplifying it to where someone might actually be able to understand it. This now shows as the EC approved 2005 Safety Code.

Up until the last 18 months, some of the rules passed by the EC could, quite fairly, be characterized as “knee jerk� reactions. Over the past 18 months, this, at least in my opinion, is an unfair label.

All of these items have been discussed in depth in this forum, should you want read more.

Hossfly

Maybe not by motion and vote HOWEVER:

EC Minutes Feb '03 Safety Committee Report:

>>>Discussion of Safety Code, Radio Control section, item 9. Reword this item to read: Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a powered model in flight, nor should any part of the model, other than the landing gear intentionally touch the ground, except while landing.<<<<

The EC accepted the "Rule 9" by DISCUSSION. Therefore the EC did pass on the item. THE EC IS AS RESPONSIBLE AS DB. Since there is no official record of any individual EC member having ever stood up and stated his opposition to the *Discussion* then, IMO, EACH EC MEMBER is just as much a part of this KNEE-JERK operation as any other EC member.

There is only ONE GOOD thing I can see from the AMA EC so far and that is the Hold-Up of the changes to the By-Laws so well touted as being "on the way". Guess a thank-you is deserved by R. Hanson. Keep it contained Rich.

J_R

ROFLMAO

I always wondered how that worked. Anything discussed is a rule. Agendas, motions and votes are just so much BS.

Thanks for the insight.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I've got to wonder how it became a rule then in the first place? Someone just stuck it in?

Ben Lanterman

Hi JR, just thinking about all of the meetings I have attended in the industry the EC, etc. sounds just like them - it doesn't sound like they can get together enough to have a conspiricy!! Dave is sure having trouble getting his way.

And I don't see much of anything scarey in the process, but perhaps I have more faith in checks and balances than most people.

At the end of the day it amounts to this.....

The guys that lost the election (insert names here) think the AMA is doomed to destruction.
The guys whose modeling activities (insert kind here) are curtailed think the AMA is doomed to destruction.

It isn't about the rules or anything but instead - who is calling the shots. Don't we call that sour grapes.

I certainly hope that none of these guys really think someone trying to emulate a top masters class flier touching the tail of a 150cc power flame throwing monster is a great idea for the averge guy at the local flying field. If that isn't hazardous then what is?

Torque rolling - convince me that a average guy trying to learn to torque roll at the local flying field isn't a hazard. They do it close and personal to see it better and to show off. That isn't a hazard. I never turn my back on them - that's how afraid I am. What of the spectator that doesn't know how nearly uncontrolled the model is?

Isn't it fair that they be made aware that this guy may not be a master's class flier with a switch wire about to vibrate apart.

The knee jerk reactions seem to be coming from those that don't seem to thick much beyond their own immediate gratifications.

But of course I have been know to be wrong before, perhaps my observations are being skewed by the retoric being used.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I have to disagree on that one. I've seen flier after flier trying to learn how to torque roll with many wrecking. ALWAYS the plane has landed within a few feet of where the plane was torque rolling. On the other hand I've seen many new and experienced fliers alike anywhere from just flying around to high speed passes etc wreck, in the pitts, close to the fliers/spectators, etc etc etc. The danger has been much greater on the later group!!!!!! If you want to call someone a hazard you need to stick more to the other group!!!

the-plumber

You might want to make that "has been breeched".

Don't forget that AMA already tried to mandate that clubs adopt AMA's club by-laws, and when that blew up Muncie decided to back off to the point that now clubs must simply have by-laws, if they want a charter. The fat lady hasn't even cleared her throat on this issue, and I for one think that in the not too distant future AMA will mandate that clubs adopt specified by-laws or lose their charter.

AMA made itself a potential co-defendant when it started chartering clubs, and it's way too late to step back from that plate.

More recently the edict that clubs have a safety officer who is to have direct contact with AMA, and now their 'arms' are very much shorter than ever.

J_R

Hi Ben

I am sure that some on this forum are feeling sour about the election. Those that actually lost the presidential election will go forward and continue to try to do what is right for the rest of us. I think it is a fair statement to say that Bill Oberdieck and Dave Mathewson consider themselves more than capable of working with Dave Brown. They might even call him a friend. The philosophical differences notwithstanding, these guys, and all the EC members, for that matter, try to do what they think is right for all of us. The fact that some of us disagree with some of the actions taken should not come as a surprise. If we all thought the same thoughts, this would be a very boring world.

Dave Brown has become obsessed, in my opinion, with the potential demise of areomodeling through potential "what if" disasters. He has previously stated that he was concerned with the potential of a larger aircraft hitting a school bus and taking out a bunch of kids. More recently, he has replaced that doomsday scenario with a turbine that crashes and sets a bunch of homes on fire. He states his concern is not insurance, but the reaction of media and politicians to such incidents. This is not conjecture on my part. He has told me these things, face to face.

Dave Brown may be a visionary, or he may be a roadblock in the continuing evolution of model aviation. Each of us has to decide which, in their own opinion. I think it is fair to say that this forum, which is a VERY small sampling of the membership at large, tends to believe that Dave Brown has become the latter.

The purposes of the AMA are set forth in the beginning of the AMA by-laws. Providing insurance is not one of those goals. The furtherance of model aviation is. Now, there is no question that insurance is nice to have, and that many clubs would not be in existence without it, but, it should never become the reason the AMA exists... at least not in my opinion.

There is a very simple way to make almost any RC activity safe. Many on the EC subscribe to the basic concept. Simply put... keep some distance between aircraft and people/things. I agree, for instance, that hovering in my face with a 40% model annoys me. On the other hand, do it a couple of hundred feet away and my fears decline with the distance. Along the same lines, I am not nearly as concerned about a 20 oz foamy doing exactly the same thing at a much closer distance. A one size fits all approach does not work when making rules to cover all the venues of RC. In many cases, rules were written with one scenario in mind with no thought given to the unintended consequences on other areas of RC. These are the types of actions that become classified as "knee-jerk". With a little more time and effort given to discussion, the EC might have gotten it right the first time, not withstanding the recent assertion that discussion is the same as voting when it comes to making rules.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Unfortunately, the world has changed, and in our litigious society, the existence of good, widely accepted insurance is necessary for the furtherance of the sport (as we know it, parkflyers notwithstanding).

To me, if the AMA was forced to morph into nothing but an insurance provider, they would be doing what had to be done to further (ie first ensure the continued existence) the sport.

BTW I have heard Dave Brown say the same sorts of things. Right, wrong or indifferent, he will be the president of the AMA for as long as he wants. If you don't like what he is doing, call him up and engage him...I did during the turbine debates, and I went to Muncie for the big vote....in the end we got a good solution, but it took real effort on many people's part.

I think getting involved and trying to influence the debate is infinitely more productive than posting endless negative diatribes for the enjoyment of the same 10 guys in the AMA forum (did not mean you specifically, JR!)

J_R

Hi Fred

We have a substantive difference on what took place with reference to the by-laws. The AMA never said that the suggested by-laws produced and placed on the AMA site must be the ones adopted by clubs. The AMA did mandate by-laws for clubs. The content of those by-laws was left to the clubs. There was only one common element that was required: due process when handling complaints, or ejecting members from a club.

Even then, as you state, the AMA backed off that requirement for by-laws and stated that no club would be denied re-chartering due to lack of club by-laws.

In spite of the assertion that discussion is a rule, the Safety Officer rule has one single requirement… the Safety Officer must have an e-mail address. He has no duties, no functions to perform other than to act as a contact with an e-mail address. If you believe rules are made by discussion, and not by vote, he has many more duties.

abel_pranger

Stay tuned - from President's report, 30 Oct EC meeting:

It was determined that the AMA needs a mechanism for the reporting of incidents that occur, even when there is no intention of filing a claim. Currently, JPO has created a risk management initiative where they track incidents and regularly review the data to determine if an issue needs to be addressed. AMA could include an incident form with all sanction packages, or include this form in club charter packages for the club safety officers to use. (Safety officer mandated for each club starting in 2005.)
The Safety Committee and Special Services Department will develop a form and mechanism for its use.

Take note that there was no motion/vote deciding that club SO's will be required to report 'incidents' to Muncie; the assigned action is to develop the implementation means. Seems the idea that AMA rules are made by discussion and not by vote is verified, again.
When the spectre was raised in this forum of an AMA 'mole' in the club reporting directly to HQ was suggested as the arcane agenda for mandating club SO's, the notion was pooh-poohed. The SO, we were assured, was to be a conduit for disseminating safety info outbound from AMA HQ. So much for that disinformation....... The SO is going to be one lonesome SOB. Appointing one should be interesting. "Hey Billy Bob, y'all wanna be a paraiah?"

Abel

J_R

The operative word in the quote is "could". Replacing the word "could" with "will" will take a vote... oops, discussion is rule, I forgot.

the-plumber

<SNIP>

AMA Safety Code, 2002 :
Radio Control section ends with Rule 8. Rule 9 not yet invented.

AMA Safety Code, 2003 :
Radio Control section has a new rule, Rule 9 -
9) Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a powered model in flight.

AMA Safety Code, 2004 :
Radio Control section has a revised Rule 9 -
9) Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a powered model in flight, nor should any part of the model other than the landing gear, intentionally touch the ground except while landing.

AMA Safety Code, 2005 :
Radio Control section has yet another revised Rule 9 -
9. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other
than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected
location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.

The current Safety Code Radio Control Rule 9 bears no semblance to the orignal Safety Code Radio Control Rule 9, which lasted every bit of two years.

The current Safety Code Radio Control Rule 7 has seen an equally marked change, and with the re-write last Fall now contains at least a workable prohibition against touching models in flight.

Never been re-crafted ? Wrong.

The EC got rid of the rule ? Wrong again. Read Rule 7. Sure looks like about half of it's Rule 9 ancestor.

How 'bout them tail touches ? Gone, for the moment.

I'd say the Executive Council as a whole spends the majority of its time KNEE-JERKING, 'cuz they are STILL screwing around with the Safety Code. The 2005 version is a good bit better than the Codes foisted on the membership between 2002 and 2004, but the fat lady ain't cleared her throat yet, bub.

The knee-jerking didn't slow down when McNeill kicked the bucket, either, 'cuz the Chief Knee Jerker is still around, most recently passing out mis-statements and half-truths about battery technologies he doesn't understand.

You may not be able to figure out who the magnificent eleven are, but the folks that can count the number of AMA Districts have probably got it down pat. We just replaced two of the eleven.

In the interest of getting the facts straight, that is.

J_R

Hi Fred

Unless you can show me where someone voted for the 2004 revision of rule 9, or... oh heck, if you can find someone to say he voted for it and you say he said it, I will go along. Anyway, I hold the position the rule was never recrafted. Yes, it appears in the code. You explain to me how that happened. I do not subscribe to the "discussion is rule" concept. The EC yanked the portion that had been printed in the code, by vote, to make it official. It never should have been there in the first place, by the process that governs the rulemaking of the AMA.

If you don't like the fact that it did appear, join the club.

Edit: I have personally, face to face, asked 3/4 of the EC members if they cast a ballot to approve the change to rule 9 and the answer was no, in each and every case.

the-plumber

Substantive difference ?

Is that supposed to mean one of us has got his "facts" wrong ?

From the October 2001 Executive Council meeting minutes :

MOTION I: Moved by J. McNeill (V), seconded by C. Bauer (VI), Bylaws for clubs will be mandatory for new clubs in 2002 and for all clubs in 2003 and beyond. Headquarters will create samples of bylaws and minimum requirements for such bylaws.

Nota bene : Headquarters will create samples of bylaws and minimum requirements for such bylaws.

The Executive Council did in fact mandate that 1) clubs must have bylaws, 2) that those bylaws must meet AMA's minimum content, and 3) that no new clubs would not be chartered, nor older clubs be re-chartered, for failing to have those minimum AMA-mandated club by-laws.


Yup, another flood of e-mails and letters pouring onto Muncie's collective desk protesting yet another bone-headed knee-jerk mandate.

I would suggest that for factual accuracy you try the AMA web site, but we've already been down that road, haven't we ?

J_R

Sorry Fred, that is not the same as "mandate that clubs adopt AMA's club by-laws". Making samples and a minimum requirement of "due process" is not the same a mandating adoption of AMA's club by-laws.

the-plumber

I don't have to explain anything. You clearly stated that the rule had never been re-crafted, and I _think_ the AMA Safety Codes published to date show otherwise.

I "joined the club" the moment the EC minutes were posted _at the time_, not now, years later.

J_R

Nope, you don't have to explain anything. You said it all. The fact the EC had no hand in the change makes no difference to you.

the-plumber

Now I think you're being argumentive for it's own sake.

What is it about "BYLAWS FOR CLUBS WILL BE MANDATORY . . . " that you find to be permissive rather than compulsory ?

Got another resource for you to peruse. The original document no longer exists, but when it was on the AMA site it was known as .pdf document # 542. I have attached a .txt copy of that original club bylaws announcement .pdf file. RCU disallows .pdf attachments, y'know.

Do have fun misconstruing the meaning of MINIMUM STANDARD.

BTW - just another example of bone-headed knee-jerk mandates biting the dust under pressure from the membership.

the-plumber

Correct, and precisly so.

The Executive Council have abdicated their responsibilities, and are in fact NOT PROVIDING PROPER OVERSIGHT TO THE RUNNING OF AMA.

Sometimes the Executive Council revises the Safety Code, and sometimes other parties revise the Safety Code.

I'm not going to attempt explaining who is actually running AMA because I don't know and don't care; it is sufficient to me to know that the Executive Council is NOT making the rules by which AMA operates.

And that Sir, is the problem at hand.