brownknows

The local Parks and Recreation committee for my city is drafting a new ordinance regarding what can and can't be done in our public parks. Initially there was a clause that lumped model airplanes in with other 'injurious objects' as follows:

I went to the hearing last night and one of the first discussions by the council was to strike the words model airplane from that paragraph, thus not regulating model airplanes at all (they are not mentioned anywhere else in the ordinance). I spoke up to say that while I appreciate their inclination to allow model airplanes, there does need to be some limitations imposed because we are talking about public parks. My suggestions were to limit the propeller size to 9 inches, the wingspan to 30 inches, and the propulsion method to anything except combustions engines (allowing electric, rubber-band, gliders, compressed air powered, etc.). In hindsight, I am wondering if the criterea should simply be weight and propulsion method instead.

Has anyone faced this within their locality and if so, how did you deal with it. Our flying club is 4 miles from this nearest park that would be governed by this ordinance, so I feel somewhat concerned about radio proximity, but my overall concern is that the public in our city be comfortable with this type of activity. Therefore I figured size and noise would be the top priority. I also want to be sure that since the initial draft of this ordinance included an all-out ban on model airplanes, that the provisions made to allow them are not so cumbersome that the council decides it is easier just to stick with a complete ban of the activity.

Ideas?

David Brown
PoBoys PropTwisters

SSRCCPREZ

Hi Dave,

As a former elected official and as a modeler, I can understand your concern about this ordinance, and frequency interuption. However, I feel it neccessary to say that you should have left well enough alone because by offering an opinion of restriction, you have left the door open to further restriction in the future. In this I mean that now anyone could go back and make the argument that even a modeler wanted and requested limitations. In government, especially local, everything is best left alone, and much is best left unsaid. When our local government brought up similar issues, they were grilled by local modelers, and finally backed off once they realized that they had a fight on their hands. After the meeting one selectman commented to me that he wished he never brought it up and had no idea that there were so many modelers and clubs in the area. Truthfully the average person has no idea that we, as modelers are an organized, intelligent, group of responsible individuals, not a bunch of yahoo kids.

Education about our hobby and what we do is the best defense to an ignorant offense.

brownknows

SSRCCPREZ, I considered letting them simply remove model airplanes entirely from the ordinance, however if there was no restriction, I know that someone would get their .90-sized nitro plane out there and ruin it for everyone. I'd rather see the guidelines done right up front than to have knee-jerk reactions cause a ban later down the road.

Crashem

Really?? Are you clairvoyant or something

Why is it that there is allways one that persumes to speak for the good of the many without first bothering to find out if the many wants/needs the help

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Gotta agree with SSRCCPREZ.

Frankly, it sounds to me like you just don't like IC engines. An 049 powered park flyer is no more harmful that a speedy electric one, IMO. And as for the size restriction, what about a 50" hand launch glider...or those estes foamy jets Walmart is selling?



I think, maybe, you should have "figured" more before saying anything.

Ione2fly

Starting a format for a rubberband playground is definately not good when done in the presence of council officials who already try to have as much control over the general populous as humanly (and politically) possible. I wouldn't do it for the simple fact that you could get into something you can't get out of.

R.F.A.

Ione2fly

Mostly because they panic and know not what they do!!

R.F.A.

Ione2fly

Which was your best consideration, and have an absolute blast because that is what the hobby is about!!

R.F.A.

brownknows

Before you flame me, know that I am brand new to the park-flyer arena, and all of my other planes fall into the .90 nitro category. I am very much in favor of nitro powered planes, just not at a public park, as this does not promote safe use of the park and could only make a bad name for the hobby. These parks are bordered on all sides by private homes, and although I don't own any of these homes, as a homeowner I can sympathize with those that don't understand the hobby looking out the window at these noisy planes menacing their property. I'd rather put forth a better perception of our hobby than that. As my original post stated, the initial inclination of the writers of this ordinance was to classify model airplanes as 'injurious objects'. Even though we all my be comfortable with our abilities to safely operate them, to the uninitiated homeowners and parents letting their kids play in this park, they may be 'injurious objects'.

As for the comment of 'Why is it that there is allways one that persumes to speak for the good of the many', this was a well-publicized public hearing and pretty well attended. I was the only one to speak up regarding this particular rule, making no claim to speak for anyone but myself. I really expected to find some positive advice here, but I can see this thread is decaying into really non-constructive rantings.

Please reply if you have anything helpful, otherwise save your keystrokes and let me assume you all simply despise my concern for the public's perception of the hobby.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

The comments about rules always leading to more rules has some validity, but it avoids your basic question.

No, I have not been involved in any formal action concerning model aircraft in any of the 3 or 4 cities I frequent with my aircraft. I do know of locations across the country where model aircraft are banned at public parks, so this is a very serious issue. You did not do poorly, but I think you might have better served your own goals by taking a slightly different tack.

Suggesting public parks (not leased or organized as formal flying fields) be limited to electric only might have left more doors open to you and your friends. I am afraid you may have closed the door on your local P&R folks ever providing you a flying field on public land because of prior ordinance. Getting ordinances changed takes more effort than most would believe.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Your good a presenting the hobby in a positive light!

Just because people don't agree with your opinion or method of handling the situation, doesn't make their comments rantings.

So, in summary to be helpful, I recommend that you go back to the council, explain you were overzealous, and the original idea to simply remove model aircraft from the list of injurious objects be followed through with. Further, they should be specifically excluded from banned items and listed as items allowed.

Mike in DC

I agree with P-51B. This comment is unfair. You asked for advice. Just because you disagree with the advice does not mean that it's non-constructive.

Folks that have read my posts know that I am very much pro-safety, and usually pro-rules. However, I agree with the others that you should have left well enough alone. If you could influence the committee at this point, you can probably influence them if and when there was a move to restrict models. The committee seems very reasonable in removing models from the list. Flying a model is very different from throwing stones.

As far as your theory that someone will come and "ruin it for everybody" with a .90 nitro plane, my guess is that the regulations almost certainly include a "catch-all" regulation that bans any dangerous activity not covered by the specifically mentioned activities. Let that catch-all apply to the .90 nitro (if it is indeed dangerous). I would be willing to bet that your locality has a noise ordinance as well, which would apply to your concern about noise.

rcmiket

I have too agree with the majority. You asked and I have to agree. You might have wanted to leave well enough alone. Hope it all works out.. Mike

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

My positive advise would be this ;

Go to the park flyer forum and ask the guys what arrangements and lou's they would write. I agree with your concept of limiting size and noise. It makes sense. Perhaps simply limiting the park to electric flight would be a broad enough definition without stating size. I think 9" is too small a prop. Many of the electrics are much more effecient swinging a bigger prop. I just flew a tiny plane the other day, its prop was 12 1/4 inches. It was a 24 oz plane. I would try to avoid defining a wingspan limit. Gliders are fun and not at all intrusive. They would be great at a park. Lay on your back and soar. That generally wouldn't offend the neighbors.

Ione2fly

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

Saftey is the single most important aspect in this sport

After all its not just a bunch cantankerous rantings, some of us really do mean well.

P.S. Plus if you get your head into the game you can have alot of fun...lol...

R.F.A.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

OK. Be quite and never open your mouth again!If people like you would quit trying to help OUR hobby that would be the best help for OUR hobby[>:]. BTW that is my HO.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Here's another positive approach, I can't believe I didn't post this one earlier,

Go back to the committee, and suggest that an area of the park be set aside for model aircraft use of ALL types. Go prepared this time. Take some proposed drawings, and speak about the benefits of model aviation activities, such as it gives kids positive role models etc.

Ione2fly

I put this in another topic, you will find it on the back of your 2005 A.M.A. card;

AMA coverage applies anytime, anywhere – it is not limited to model flying at contests or on
the club field. It even applies to flying at public demonstrations and air shows. Failure to
comply with the safety code may endanger insurance coverage.

R.F.A.

SSRCCPREZ

Positive approach? Sooooo...If we do not agree with your stance than we are immediatly being negative.....
O.k., in that case you did the right thing and are way ahead of your time in your forward thinking and openmindedness. Please, on behalf of all modelers in your area speak loud and clear to the local government, explain to them the dangers in flying an R/C aircraft. That way they will ban it all together and you will have accomplished the same thing in less time. See you even get to help the local government become efficient. In addition, the louder you speak in wanting the local constabulary to restrict the use of r/c craft, therefore, the local clubs and flyers can enact positive change on your narrowmindedness in person.

Ione2fly

SSRCCPREZ,

Are you refering to me in this post or P-51B. I have never said anything about shutting down model flying in our area, or anything to that effect!!