Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

As District V Safety Coordinator I've fallen heir to this issue.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristen D. Welter" <[email protected]> To: "GSAL" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 7:29 AM Subject: [Giant Scale Aerobatics] Stupidly Dangerous Stunts


Well. . I've had a few days to calm down since it happened. . so I can comment on it with a semi-level head I guess.

After Hours at the JR Challenge on Saturday afternoon, I look up and see a 3.3m Yak HOVERING in the pits. .then, not just hovering, but being TR/hovered the entire length of a 50 yard long pit area BEHIND the safety lines, between EZ-ups, right past people working on planes, and from one end of the pits to the other, and never with the tail more than 5' off the ground.

Then, the pilot did it again.

Okay, Mark Leseberg is a very skilled 3D pilot. . he's proven that time and again.

Okay, he didn't hit anyone THIS time.

But there comes a time you just gotta show what you are made of. I really don't care about politcal fallout or recriminations or people giving me a hard time about taking a stance on something like this. So here is what I have to say about it.

THAT HAD TO BE THE STUPIDIST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN THIS HOBBY!!!!!

Leseberg not only risked the lives of everyone in the area, he broke about every safety rule there is. I'll just cite two . No hovering within 25 feet of another person. . . that's the first that comes to mind. No flying behind the Safety line .. that's the next one.

The worst part. . it was at a major event, at least 2 videos have been made of it, lots of pictures were taken, and they are already all over the Net.

I just want people to WAKE UP and think about this for a minute .. it takes ONE mistake. . ONE glitch. . ONE problem to lose control of a plane in that situation. The prop will cut off arms and legs and heads in an eyeblink. . the plane is large enough to break bones if it hits you, even at low speed. . and I do not care WHO you are, a PCM lockout of any kind means you have NO control of the plane.

AMA Safety Regulations are there for a purpose. . to keep people uninjured and alive. Perhaps someone should remind Mark Leseberg of this little fact. As for me, the next time I see it going on, I'm just gonna go out and grab hold of the plane and put it on the ground. . peer pressure and possible broken airframes notwithstanding. The way I figure it. . if you are STUPID enough to be doing that crap, you don't need an airplane any more. We have these BIG things called "RUNWAYS". . . I suggest we learn how to use them.


Kris^

The incident happened in District V while the individual involved is in District X and the CD is in D-IV (incident happend after hours so CD's responsibility is in question).

I have passed the information up the line to my VP, and notified VPs in D-IV and D-X.

If the charges are verified what action if any should be taken and by whom?

The duties, responsibility and authority (if any) of the AMA District Safety Coordinator have not been defined to any degree.

lukeshort

Just because some one is a cleaver pilot doesn't mean he can't also be an idiot. I fly at a privately owned field with a group which has chosen not to apply for AMA sanctioning. We have a list of field rules posted which call for abiding by AMA rules plus several other ground rules. Most of our dozen or so members are AMA members.
But we have no meetings, committees, officers, directors. No member has ever intentinally violated our safety rules. This sure makes it simple for us. All members know they are authorized and required by the owner of the field to eject and permanently banish any flier not flying responsibly or ignoring our posted ground rules. That's what would have happened to this joker. We may have even been rude when we kicked him out.

abel_pranger

Your authority extends to the bounds of D-V. Put whatever restrictions you feel appropriate on him within those bounds, and presume AMA will back your authority to do so. If AMA doesn't back your actions, you should demand that they should unambiguously define to you what exactly the limits of your authority are in the situation, or the whole SO/SC program is crap anyway. Ground him in D-V, and what D-X does with him is D-X business, and AMA business as well - it's up your DVP to take it to that level, so you've got it covered. If I were Furhrer he would be banned from participating in any sanctioned event in D-V for a year (if charges verified, of course). Is he sponsored? If so, sponsor should also get 'strongly worded' letter ala the one Kris wrote.

Abel

papermache

My Feedback: (35)

Red,
The thing that disturbs me about this tale is that it happened at a major event, with other people around and yet NOBODY said or did anything about it?????? After hours or not, NOBODY should be flying or hovering over a pit area, PERIOD! Morons that do that sort of thing should have their AMA cards confiscated and be told to hit rhe road.

papermache

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

I could not agee with you more. But who present at the incident would dare to make an issue out of it then and there. Would he have been ridden off the field on a rail or hailed as a hero for standing tall on the issue?


Red S.

J_R

Hi Red

First, we have to quit putting e-mails or claims with the names of individuals up in this forum. If we don’t, it is only a matter of time until RCU pulls the plug on the forum.

This issue runs a lot deeper than what you have disclosed here. The major issue with the re-write of Article X of the AMA by-laws lies within the questions you asked. It was not delayed because of the definition of the EVP position, as I suspect many here guessed it was. The ultimate question is should AMA officers, and pseudo-officers, have some authority to take action against the membership, and if so, with what due process should be assured for an accused? The AMA currently has only one way to deal with this under the by-laws. The offender can be considered for expulsion from the AMA on the following grounds, set forth in Article V.

“ Section 3. Any individual may be expelled or excluded from membership by the AMA by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Executive Council if, in the Executive Council’s determination, such individual willfully commits any act or omission which is a violation of any of the terms of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Rules of the AMA, or which is detrimental to the AMA or to model
aviation. Expulsion from membership is subject to the following procedures and rights.”

Section V goes on to describe the due process the individual is entitled to. No other grounds, for any other action, is authorized.

On the other hand, an interpretation of the terms of a sanction was issued by Carl Maroney some time back. He said, essentially, that a sanction is in force when the CD is on the premises. No terms of a sanction allow for setting hours on such a date. If the CD was present, the sanction was in force. As a result, in the case being reviewed, it was the duty of the CD to take action to insure the safety of the event. The CD’s actions or inactions should be examined and action taken against him/her (which are authorized under the terms of accepting CD status) if it was not appropriate, in addition to the pilot. If the CD was present and took no action, it might be that the recourse is against the CD and not the pilot at all.

If, in fact, the CD had left the premises, then it falls to the club and it’s officers to enforce the safety code IF this was at an AMA chartered club field. There is no mechanism to take action against the club under the AMA by-laws. However, the club is charged with enforcing the safety code under the terms of it’s charter. The club has the ability to forward information to the AMA if their efforts went unheeded, thus, essentially, calling on the EC to consider Article V chargers against the pilot. If the event was not held at an AMA chartered club field, and the CD had left the premises, the only recourse is against the pilot, as outlined in Article V. If the club and it’s officers were there, and took no action, they too should be examined as a source of this problem.

Red, we have seen a VP that wanted unlimited authority when dealing with certain classes of members. The EC rejected those attempts to gain authority then, and they should again. In my opinion, unless the EC wants to avail themselves of Article V, and the due process it contains, the AMA officers and pseudo-officers have no business with their nose in this, unless brought to them for Article V consideration. The mechanisms are in place, and there is no need for new ones, only the enforcement of the old ones.

You, above all others, should understand putting power in the hands of those unqualified to administer it.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

JR

I can't argue with your position. All it takes is for a few witnesses to the event to file a complaint. Let's see what the EC would do with it.

the-plumber

[SOAPBOX ENGAGED]

IMHO that's precisely why a great many members and club officers have delayed appointment of a club safety coordinator, and precisely why so many respondents here and in other online forums have voiced concern, that the new safety coordinator positions will be nothing more than field nazis with big sticks.

If I understood Tony correctly at the D-V 'kick-off' meeting on the 4th, the new safety coordinators are not intended to be the field police, they are supposed to act as conduits of safety-related information between AMA and the clubs.

Face it, neither Red nor any other safety coordinator will ever be everywhere a safety related incident occurs. Odds are better than even that unless the incident has a duration of more than a few minutes, a safety coordinator on site might not even witness an incident unless it happened right in front of him.

Ergo, Red and the new safety coordinators cannot be the enforcers of safety because it is an impossible task. Moreover, I don't much care for the notion that only one person at the District level, and one person in each club, are the only folks who are tasked with enforcing safety.

What remains is what we already have, that is, willful acts of safety violations have to be dealt with by the members themselves, and the only way anyone can do anything about something like the incident described earlier in this thread is if and when a member or group of members file a formal complaint IAW the By-Laws and Standing Rules.

JR is absolutely correct in pointing out the fallacy of handing any one person the 'authority' to ground a member at will.

We are all very lucky that the previoius attempts to garner that authority failed, because if such authority were ever granted it would, knowing human nature, ultimately be mis-used for reasons having nothing to do with safety violations.

Trust me, if Jim McNeill had been successful in his attempts to get the authority to punish CDs, Leader Members, and Open Members, neither I nor Red nor a couple of dozen other District V folks would be on AMA's membership rolls - those attempts to garner ultimate authority had nothing to do with anything except furthering McNeill's political agenda of silencing critics.

It would be a HUGE mistake to grant any single person the authority to 'ground' or otherwise discipline any member irrespective of the severity of an incident.

STOPPING an in-progress safety violation, such as described earlier, lies entirely with the folks present at the time of the incident, and it will _always_ be the responsibility of those present to stop unsafe activities.

If they choose to avoid confrontation at the time, it is decidedly unfair to demand that Red or any other official take unilateral and arbitrary action _after the fact_.

Now, with the incident is over (and thankfully no one was injured) is the time for those present to prefer formal complaints to the EC via >any< officer.

Even so, the officers are simply the conduits by which the complaints are forwarded, until such time as an investigation may take place.

What is most important in this purported incident is that the incident may have occured and that the AMA members present apparently did nothing to stop it.

THAT, IMHO, is why Red's position was created and why the clubs need to get off the proverbial pot and get their safety coordinators appointed and hooked into the safety coordinator communication lines which as we speak are being created.

The mindset of those members present at this alleged incident are living proof that safety is NOT a paramount concern of the rank and file membership, but it should be.

If I understood what I think I heard, THAT is the reason Red's position exists - to open up the communication lines between AMA and the rank and file so that safety information and data can be provided, with a view toward changing the way the rank and file >is still doing business at the same old unsafe stand<.

The only authority for dealing with intentional safety violations is at the club level and is also vested in the EC. Neither Red, nor I, nor any other District officer have any authority to DO anything, and IMHO that is as it should be.

[SOAPBOX OFF]

My official AVP $0.02, anyway.

abel_pranger

Red has been ostensibly been charged with some level of responsibility within his district for promoting/ensuring safe operation of model aircraft within the sphere of influence of AMA, specifically within D-V. At least that is my take on his interpretation of the position, but I certainly have no authority re what he thinks! As he said. the bounds of his authority have not been clearly defined. I'll have to admit that when I have been given some responsibility such as this, I have always assumed authority commensurate with that level of responsibility, as it is rarely defined explicitly. More than nine times out of ten I get the backing from those above me; Less than one time out ten it is "act now and ask forgiveness later." Of course in this situation, there is no urgency to warrant haty action. Red can defer the issue up the chain of command and 'recommend' to all CDs in his district that the guy not be invited to upcoming sanctioned events, and 'recommend' that if he can not be excluded for reasons of due process concerns that somebody be assigned as the CDs agent to stay on the guy's butt like stink on dog poop from the time he arrives until he he has left the premises. Where there's a will there's a way, and there should should enough will to discourage this kind of behavior. I've meted out a lot of such discouragement as warranted, and managed not to run afoul of the legal system, or at least managed not to get it pinned on me.
I don't have much respect for bad actor's civil rights, and I don't expect Red does either. I'd have to say to Red, if you are restrained from taking any action against this guy with at least the authority of a CD, then quit the job, as its no more than what many of us anticipated: being an AMA mole planted in an AMA chartered club to report 'incidents' back to Muncie.

Abel

J_R

It would take a change in the by-laws to do so, but it might be wise for the EC to consider a remedy other than pitching a member out of the AMA. Possibly a suspension for a set amount of time, determined by the EC, on a case by case basis. I know it has been brought up by Dave Brown and others.

Hossfly

Well I can!

A CD must be present when the event he is responsible for is taking place or he is to find a suitable replacement. A sanctioned event is for continuous dates.
"By definition, an AMA-sanctioned event shall be understood to include that period of time when the CD or his appointed representative is in attendance at the named site on the day(s) listed on the sanction." AMA General Rules

Sanctioned Event / No sanctioned event or whatever. The CD should not be held liable for this unless it was during the hours so depicted on the advertised literature, which is the time that such event is taking place.

Here is where the action should start: AMA RB General: (BOLD ADDED)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

AMA Member Responsibility

It is of the utmost importance that we AMA members
observe, first of all, the safety rules of our particular sport.
Every one of us is hurt when carelessness causes an
accident, hindering model aviation’s progress. The safety
rules may seem to be designed to obstruct your enjoyment
of this sport, but some guidelines must be set if we are to
prove ourselves the responsible people we proclaim
ourselves to be.
It is not a sign of intelligence or skill to be able to fly
among or above spectators. It shows a definite lack of
common sense. You may know what you are doing, but
you have no way of knowing what anyone else will do. The
unpredictable spectator must be allowed for, when you fly.
Remember, the safety rules are designed to protect you,
primarily.
It is to your personal benefit to make certain that no action
on your part will result in an accident. The temptation to
show off your flying skill increases in direct proportion to
the number of spectators. While demonstrating your
mastery of all the variables involved in this sport, it does no
good to scare anyone.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

So if the guy is an AMA member, then HANG the Simple Simon S#@B*^%
The subject accusation, if true, is what is used as an excuse to levy more and more rules on those of us that have adequate common sense and personal discipline with concern for our fellow modelers. I have NO sympathy for such imbecilic behavior.
Get all this type OUT of the AMA. [:@]

EDITED to add: To do so is the responsibility of the Executive Council. I fully agree with all that are of the opinion that no one person should have such authority as to suspend or remove any person's membership. ( Heck, I would have been gone a long time ago if DB or SF could do that! OK, OK, I hear ya'll changing your minds! )
Of course a CD can prevent any person from participating in the CD's event or a Club can prevent any person from entering their private field.

J_R

First you state the rule, then in the next line you want to subject it to your opinion. Don't work like that. Sorry. The rule is clear.

J_R

As an example, Carl Maroney has made it known to the turbine community that if they want to do madiens at sanctioned events, they need to get the CD off premesis. The sanction is for the full date of the sanction. Nothing allows for hours being specified.

Hossfly

Obviously not to you JR. If I have a 2 day contest/event and its advertised hours are 9AM until 4 PM, I can possibly be out the gate at 2 minutes after 4. The field is still open for practice flying and all contestants there are Guests and may fly as long they so care to do so. THE SANCTIONED EVENT IS NOT IN PROGRESS BECAUSE IT ISN'T TAKING PLACE OTHER THAN THE HOURS THAT I ADVERTISED on the days of the sanction. Outside those hours, No CD or rep. on site, no sanctioned event taking place.

That is the CLEAR rule whether your opinion coincides with it or not.

J_R

Horrace,

The sanction being in progress has nothing to do with it. The sanction is in place for the date, if the CD is present. Nothing has to do with advertised hours.

Call Maroney and ask. Oops, I suppose you are waiting on him to call you.

J_R

Is there something that is not clear in the rule? Do you see ANYTHING about hours? THE DAY(S) LISTED.

DAY(S) LISTED

abel_pranger

I think it sad that people are so driven by a totally FUBAR legal enterprise that they have to submit to an artiface like this. We're talking about an incident of flying a model airplane in a manner that borders on criminal negligence, yet the discussion centers on what his rights are according to AMA bylaws and such, and the restraints on ordinary citizens around him to demand their rights, as in the right to continue living and breathing, are treated as subordinate. Concurrently we have a situation in Florida where a guy has been restrained by his club from flying his model airplane because he has a defib unit in his chest. Screw the lawyers. The right thing to do is clear, along with the prudence of due consideration to keeping the esquirian bottom-feeders out of it highly recommended.

"It is the duty of good men to not obey the law too well" - Bertrand Russell

Abel

J_R

Abel

When you are talking about AMA pseudo-officials, you MUST take into account the need for due process. To do anything else invites a confrontation with the tort system we are so fond of. It is not even clear to me that the District Safety Co-Coordinator is an AMA authorized position.

Now, is mob justice an alternative? That is something else again.

carwood444

I have a question about the ability of a CD to change a safety rule that is voted on by the club membership to increase safety.

If the club as a whole voted to not allow torque rolling over the middle of the runway during an event and set aside an area off the runway say off to one side away from the pits and crowd, to torque is it ok for the CD to amend this rule the day of the show. And allow torque rolling over the run way. Being he is not an officer of the club.

Is there some rule that the AMA has about how close to a person someone can operate any model aircraft.

J_R

Your second question is easier than the first. AMA Safety Rule, Radio control #6 states: “With the exception of events flown under official AMA Competition Regulations rules, after launch, no powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any individual, except for the pilots and helpers located at the flightline.

AMA Safety Code General Rule 3 states: “I will abide by this Safety Code and all rules established for the flying site I use. I will not willfully fly my model aircraft in a reckless and/or dangerous manner.”

In the Comments to Glossary and Interpretative Documents issued to the EC and staff it states: “General Item #3 - Accepting the concept of local site rules becoming a part of the Code is an essential ingredient in making the Code site specific and able to accommodate unusual situations. This is very often overlooked by clubs and other groups.”

The bottom line is that the pilots at the event must obey the club rules. The club rules have become part of the AMA safety code. The CD has no authority to change the AMA Safety Code.

abel_pranger

JR-
No, mob justice isn't the alternative, and I tried inadequately to say that. It's a matter of priorities and considering things in an orderly manner as I see it. First, a moral person considers what is right, and resolves to see it done. Then he considers what the potential adverse consequences might bring his way, e.g., via a corrupt tort system, and then he proceeds to build defenses against same. You don't generally get off in the direction of your objective if you start out by considering the impediments, IMHO and experience.

Abel

J_R

Hi Abel.

Let's try this again. It wasn't an accident that I chose the term pseudo-official. First, there is not anything that I know of that gives the District Safety Coordinator any authority. I am not sure it is an authorized position. Do you remember the creation of this position by the EC? I will defer to you if you do. Your memory is better than mine is.

Just as there is no position of District Secretary, but there are in fact, District Secretaries, this may be a made up position. Nothing wrong with that ‘till the Bandini hits the fan, in your phraseology.

Let's assume for a second that my raggedy memory is correct and there is, officially, no such position. We have speculated that the AMA has in place, liability insurance, relative to the actions taken by the leaders. Let's assume this to be true. Would that insurance extend to someone not covered in the policy, a person in a made up position? If not, the individual, in this case Red, is hanging out with no net. He has one letter of complaint. Certainly not enough to take any action whatsoever. Would you, on the word of someone not known to you? Would you potentially commit libel or slander on the say of one stranger? How far would you hang your tail out?

There was a cop there... the CD. It is the first and primary duty of the CD to insure a safe environment for all. If he doesn’t do that, as a CD, he should give up the status or be fired. The CD does have an official position, is an agent of the AMA, and is insured for his actions. He saw what happened, first hand. Where is he? Did he report?

abel_pranger

Gotta call time out, JR. I'm not at the moment possessed of the attitude to reply as I would. Just had a call from favorite daughter informing me that my first natural grandchild is in the oven. I'll try to answer after somebody prys me off the ceiling. Priorities, ya know?

Abel

J_R

Wow

Congratulations!! sure beats this stuff.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

According to Kris, he spoke to the CD and to the pilot in question. This came from the newsgroup

It looks like he talked to the CD, then to the pilot. I didn't see any mention of talking to the club officers? Is the site where the event is held a club field or is it acquired just for the Jr Challenge?