justin_92_92

My Feedback: (2)

I was told somthing about there are new rules for flying sites this year. Something to the idea of, how many feet you can be from a road. Is this true, I cant find the info anywhere.

Warbird Joe

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/915.pdf Page 14 outlines the rules and there are nothing noted about how far from a road you have to fly.

Joe

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

With the close proximity that many model fields have to busy roads it's kind of amazing that the safety record is as good as it is.

justin_92_92

My Feedback: (2)

Yeah thats what I thought. I was told by a guy that some of the local clubs were not going to be covered under AMA because they were near roads. I knew he was mistaken. Thanks for the link and the info!

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if, in the wild chance that the city, county or state, enacted an ordance/law/or other restriction making it illegal to operate model aircraft within XXft of a rodeway, then, the AMA insurance could be at risk. this would be a fairly local thing, and would have to be verified at the local level.

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

I prefer to fly right over the road. Makes for a nice landing too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Compound
In spite of being a NO AMA NO CLUB area for the last 15 years, no one has been hurt here to date.
It's just a fluke, you shouldn't fly on every street in town.

Silent-AV8R

Just for clarification, the AMA really does not have any actual flying site rules. The membership manual (cited above) contains some general field guidelines to aid clubs or individuals in setting up fields, but there is no AMA requirement that they be used.

AMA does not sanction, approve, inspect, or have any oversight on RC flying fields. The one and only requirement that even comes close is requiring clubs within a short distance of each other to work out a frequency sharing plan. And that's it.

beepee

This sounds a lot like a rehash of that contraversy a year or so ago (I think), about a Club out west where an AMA representative was called out by a 'disgruntled' member and the rep agreed that the road was a risk. This shut the field down for a while (at least) until cooler heads prevailed. There was a long thread here on the subject.

Old stories die hard.

Bedford

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

Oh my, rehash after a year of being dormant? I'd call it still in the hash stages.

Rehash are like topics on the reclusive Aurora 9, the most hard to find radio ever made. Another is OS brand loyalty vs. all other engines ever produced and currently produced. Those are rehashed topics on a weekly basis, a new thread comes up yet again. Is there a downside to it? I don't know. I like new research found and shared, fresh comments from experienced hobbyists, and always, a moderator chiming in to close the thread when you finally can't distinguish the children from the men! How about best first trainer? Best second model? Battery upgrades? What the AMA can do for you? What is your best warbird?

I've been searching for new things to read about. It's been a long winter for Florida.
What is cool, RCU has a magazine online now. RCU beats all the other forums combined.

The user ratings http://www.rcuniverse.com/product_gu...m?engine_id=40
on products is probably the most valuable source of reading material I've ever come across and use it routinely before I buy anything now. It's saved me more than any other resource found in this hobby, next to RCU book pricing on new and used items sold here in the marketplace. http://www.rcuniverse.com/product_gu...ubook-home.cfm

Did I get off topic again?

AERORICH73

Silent: You are absolutely correct. As a retired aircraft mechanic with degree, I am appalled at the lack of safety requirements for clubs and members. My discussion on the AMA website brought forth all kinds of excuses for the lack of safety rules, and enforcement. I suggest everyone read Dave Mathewson's President's Perspective in the March issue on page 5 where in column two he mentions having the FAA place the regulation into an Accepted Community Based Safety Program to be submitted to the FAA for approval. I cannot see where the FAA is going to agree on the AMA's non safety program now suggested with no club or member required to follow. Our operation of flying models should follow the same path as that of a state drivers license. Either follow the required enforced rules, or walk. My club refuses to make any attempt to comply with safety suggestions, or promote a written bullet proof flight training program for new members. What we have here today is a hobby just about to be deleted for lack of safety rules enforced in flying site construction, and pilot training. It is my opinion that the FAA is not going to agree on the AMA's safety draft.

AERORICH73

blikseme300

My Feedback: (118)

It is exactly for these reasons that myself and a large number of other passionate flyers do not fly at AMA sanctioned clubs. The local clubs are just an outlet for the power-trips that the officers enjoy. Safety is just another word to them.

We might be called outlaws, but we insist on safe & responsible flying at the fields we use.

Bliksem

Silent-AV8R

Having not yet seen it or really heard much about the proposed content I fail to see how anyone can make a statement like this. I know that the AMA has a fairly decent grasp on the kinds of things the FAA is looking for from a community based organization's safety program so I will give the AMA the benefit of the doubt on this until we actually see it and can make informed comments.

I do agree that the attention to safety has not been what it could be. If safety concerns really are that obvious, then why do we see so many people doing so many bone-headed things??? But I also agree that many times safety is used as an illegitimate excuse to for one group to try to control another group.

cj_rumley

I hope not, because FAA is not generally responsible for safety of model airplane operations. Their charter and mission is safe navigation in the national airspace. Their interest in model airplanes is (or maybe I should say should be, as AMA is clearly pushing for more) limited primarily to prevention of conflicts with the aircraft they have to regulate, and secondarily with safety of non-participants on the ground. If FAA were forced into regulating model airplane operations, their answer would be simple: we'd be grounded. If you can't operate a model airplane safely or convince others in your proximity to do so, either by reliance upon individual responsibility (best) or by following rules like AMA's (2nd best), do the honorable thing and find another hobby lest you ruin it for the rest of us.

justin_92_92

My Feedback: (2)

I just dislike the ideas of some clubs in competition with other clubs in areas.

I fly, but I also have a hobby shop. So I try to be involved with all the clubs that are around me. But we all know gas prices are high so I fly mostly at the closest field. But it seems every time I turn around Im hearing why that club might lose their field for this or for that. Its never anything real either. Maybe they are misinformed? Either way, I dont really care. I just want to fly, have good company and increase the interest in our hobby. While at the same time, being safe.

AERORICH73

blikseme300: You are absolutely correct about the AMA's safety suggestions. I am not sure how many modelers have been sued, and spent some weeks in a court room, but I assure I have while in the automotive repair business. In the case of a model aircraft accident, if the club sued does not have their flying site properly setup, and a bullet proof pilot training course, the members could loose everything they own. My writing was to bring out the safety issue to alert all readers what they could be having to face IF the flying site, and pilot training are not up to what would be reasonable safety standards. Even an out of court settlement could bring some real financial pain to everyone listed in the lawsuit. Just what safety standards can the AMA bring forth for the FAA to examine? Now on the other side of the coin, what would be the reaction of the property owner if the club was not following reasonable safety rules? How would he feel about the possible lawsuit being handed to him? Want to see clubs loose their flying sites, then just mention the non safe flying habits of the club members on a site not set up following the AMA's suggestions. I believe everyone who reads this will not want to discuss with a flying site owner about lawsuits due to a lack of following suggested safety rules. I would hope everyone will review how their clubs operate, so if a lawsuit does arrive they will have a good chance of presenting evidence that the accident was not the clubs' fault.

AERORICH73

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Could you give us just one real life example. I hear this many times but no one that proclaims such has ever been able to give me one real account to substantiate the hypothesis.

Not trying to argue but just trying to learn the truth. Thanks in advance.

PS I can give you accounts of people being hit by meteorites for comparison of the frequency of these events if desired.

Hossfly

As far as the manner of building a site, you are correct. They simply present some suggestions that are sort of dream-land for most facilities.

OTOH, there is one RULE, when applied to the liability insurance plan, that could ruin someone's day, especially in the court system of this land in which we live: [:-]

AMA Safety Code: "1. I will not willfully fly my model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner, and will abide by this Safety Code and any additional rules specific to flying sites."

MajorTomski

Wow! How difficult and painful can you make a hobby?

Ok I'll play your game.

DEFINE "reasonable safety standards"

DEFINE "bullet proof training program" (from your previous posts"

The Oklahoma Radio Control Society (TORKS AMA charter 1648) (http://www.torks.org/) has been flying off the same piece of Oklahoma City park land since 1971 Following nothing but the AMA guidlines and rules and a little common sence.

NOT ONE SINGLE incedent of harming or injuring a spectator visitor or bypasser.

How many more rules do you intend to place on the modeling community?

Tom Solinski
FAA Reliabilty Engineer
Former ASI

KidEpoxy

Someone up a bit said
Just as I asked why we cant use the FAA's own Alcohol & Drugs policy as ama's policy,
when we look at the p103 Ultralight Aircraft requirements FAA has
I have to wonder why we dont emulate that.

Who is getting killed and maimed if we just do a cut&paste of the fAA's p103
just replacing the word Ultralight with Aeromodel?
Perhaps the FAA would be willing to accept for 50lb craft what the FAA already considers 'reasonable' for 250lb craft

AERORICH73

Major: THANK YOU for bring forth that your club is following rules, and using common sense at your flying site. I am really encouraged by all of the comments posted concerning the safety issues I raise. While I cannot bring forth a model accident to report, I was sued for $500,000.- for a worker who used a malfunctioning truck manlift, and got hurt. My work on the equipment had no bearing on his injuries, as he and his employer were at fault. Just the same, I was in court for 5 weeks being called every ugly name possible. The 12 person jury returned the verdict of 10 to 2 in my favor. This did not replace the hell I went through, and lost funds from time away from work. Even an expert witness from my section of the SAE called me names on the witness stand. Later, I mentioned what he had done, and he soon vanished. Money can cause people to lie a bunch. It was my experience of this lawsuit to believe the same situation can arise of an injury/property damage case from a club field activity. The club I belong to is set up to have no defense if sued over an accident because of no real effort in following safety rules, and I have had no influence to bring this situation to their attention. I really do not want to read on this forum where a club was sued, and lost in court.

AERORICH73

Muroc1

AERORICH73,

Sorry to hear about that. Seems like all too often someone wants something for free (or get it by suing someone else). Sad state of affairs it has turned out to be.

Frank

cyclops2

Amazing how 1 site can fly safe so long.

Rest of the sites are pooping in their paints over a possible lawsuit.

#1 site has humans. All the others must have showoffs in charge.
What else can cause such a difference ?

Sport_Pilot

LOL as though that would work! Do you know how many people fly RC who are not AMA? A bunch, there is no law requireing that kind of enforcement, and hopefully there will never be one.

cyclops2

Agreed.

A dangerous jerk is the same with or without AMA guides.

warningshot

Or AMA membership.