RE: ama rule

RE: ama rule
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: ama rule

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ama rule - 10/3/2006 10:56:18 PM

Posts: 314
Joined: 7/16/2005
From: York, PA, USA
Status: offline

AMA SC #3. "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."

An experienced pilot flying a slow trainer straight down the runway doesn't seem reckless or dangerous to me. What are the odds of a slow plane like that flying 25+ feet away and maybe 15' or 20' high getting damaged so bad that it completely goes out of control and actually make it to the spectator area? My answer would be, "far less than the many unexpected failures that occur on a regular basis in just flying R/C in general." And those are surprises, with the paintball shooting it's anticipated, slow and with an extreme probability of a majority of flight control that the experienced pilot can easily ditch in a safe manner. We're comparing grapes to watermelons here. Trust me. It's SAFE! Have fun with it. Just be smart about it and keep it safe. Sheesh!

_____________________________

Alan - YARCC (www.yorkrc.com) Admin/Editor (Say What?!)
AMA 338508

(in reply to Hossfly)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 1:36:42 AM

john68

Posts: 252
Joined: 1/20/2006
From: Burgettstown, PA, USA
Status: offline

It doesn't matter how good of a pilot you are. You could be chuck yeagar himself, but if someone knocks the receiver offline, then the guy holding the Tx is just as much a spectator as everyone else.

Here's the thing, you can argue this all day long that it is safe, or it isn't safe, blah blah blah... I guarantee you, from a legal standpoint, that if you shoot a plane out of the sky, and it does damage to someone's property, there isn't a court in the land that wouldn't award that victim money. I don't worry about getting hit with the plane, I can duck and swerve. What I can't do is quickly move my equipment out of the road. If somone's whoopdee trainer slams into my $1200 helicopter, or my $300 field box, or any thing I have sitting in the pits, I guarantee you, I will take the food out of your mouth to replace whatever you break. Your kids will freeze to death because you can't pay the heating bill, because "daddy was a moron and broke some expensive stuff." This doesn't belong in AMA discussions. This is something for rogue fliers on rogue fields. Unless it is a private field, and a private club, I don't see this happening on an AMA field. If you tried it on my AMA field, and ruined my Sunday flying, then I guarantee you, I would find a way to make you uncomfortable. That is how America works. You can be stupid and do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't interefere with my rights, or anyone else's rights. The moment you infringe on their rights to have a safe and relaxing day at the airstrip, then you, my friend, are in the wrong.

here's another tip... If you are going to do something stupid, make sure you get it on tape, and premeditate it in front of an audience of 277,000 people. That way, there is no question as to whether or not the act was intentful.

(in reply to ArCeeFlyer)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 2:18:41 AM

Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

It is illegal to shoot down ANY aircraft, whether it's full-sized or R/C if you want to get technical and carries the same punishment.

quote:

I guarantee you, from a legal standpoint, that if you shoot a plane out of the sky, and it does damage to someone's property, there isn't a court in the land that wouldn't award that victim money.

Well, seems we all know & agree that the activity would be Liable for Damages to Non-Participants.
We want to know the law that makes shooting a volunteers plane down, without non-participant damage, illegal with punishment.

As for "I will not willfully fly my model aircraft in a reckless and/or dangerous manner." ....
simply take safety standards & precautions & protections and it wont be Reckless, it could be done quite Reckfully if all spectators had a cage like the pilot stations for example.... just one example of being Reckfull rather than reckless to appease SC#3

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to john68)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:07:21 AM

Posts: 5057
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline

What is your definition of an AMA field? As others have mentioned, the AMA charters clubs, not fields. The only field that I would consider an AMA field is in Muncie. I know there are many clubs who would not allow this activity, and that is the clubs prerogative. If a club wants to, it can limit flying to Sig Four Stars covered in neon pink MonoKote.

At the flying field used by my old AMA chartered club, shooting planes with paintball guns was allowed. I had a SPAD that was only flown on target drone missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: john68
Unless it is a private field, and a private club, I don't see this happening on an AMA field.

(in reply to john68)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:10:54 AM

mongo

Posts: 1252
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Midland, Republic of TEXAS, TX, USA
Status: offline

you guys really don't want to read this thread<G>

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t289515p1/

_____________________________

for muroc1, frank, none of the above is intended to be either bullying or insulting, it is just the way i communicate.

(in reply to depfife)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:30:58 AM

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

Depfife, do you think the AMA would cover you if your plane caused damage after a hit from a paintball gun? Just wondering. We know your allowed to do anything you want at your AMA chartered club, but that does not mean the AMA has to grant you a charter each and every year. Honestly I don't think they would pull your charter if they found out ... unless something happened.

John made a pretty good point and I would have to agree with him. For instance; let's say your in NYC, a pedestrian is walking across the street and he/she is not in the crosswalk, you accidentally hit that person with your car, he or she is supposed to be in a crosswalk and it was an accident as per NYC city laws. Now that same exact scenario, only your using your on your cell phone without a handsfree device. What do you think happens then ... take a wild guess.

Guy flying his plane safely and it crashes, accidentally. Guy flying his plane and he allows people to shoot at the plane and guess what happens, something in line with the guy on the cell phone.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all about having fun and maybe the AMA should create a rule that allows such an act, but it needs to be defined, much like combat flying is. It's defined, it has rules, you wear helmets, safety areas and so forth.

Point is, do you think for a second the AMA will pony up at an AMA chartered club if someone or something get damaged. To answer the original posters question I would have to say yes, this rule does fall under the #3 rule and the AMA would be against the AMA safety code, but that is just one man's opinion.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to mongo)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:38:17 AM

Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

STL-
With enough cages, and offsite parking, and helmets & flack jackets, Fire Extinguishers, redundant commo, and tanks of O2, asthma inhalers, babysitters for the youngones....

Could there be any amount of precautionary saftey equipment/enviroment/armor to make this event not Reckless?

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:46:21 AM

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

STL-
With enough cages, and offsite parking, and helmets & flack jackets, Fire Extinguishers, redundant commo, and tanks of O2, asthma inhalers, babysitters for the youngones....

Could there be any amount of precautionary saftey equipment/enviroment/armor to make this event not Reckless?

Put whatever you want, but will the act be against the AMA safety code as per the original posters question? I have strongly subbmitted my assumption and I have yet to hear someone give and answer of "no, it's not against the AMA safety code".

< Message edited by STLPilot -- 10/4/2006 3:53:11 AM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to KidEpoxy)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 3:58:19 AM

Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

I have yet to hear someone give and answer of "no, it's not against the AMA safety code". Just a lot of dancing around the obvious. I wonder why that is?

um, post #33, DepFife said he did it at a ama club.

quote:

From STL:

quote:

From Kid Epoxy:
Could there be any amount of precautionary saftey equipment/enviroment/armor to make this event not Reckless?

Put whatever you want, but will the act be against the AMA safety code as per the original posters question?

Egad!
that is the question I asked you.
Can this be done with enough precaution to make it Not Reckless, and therefore not against SC #3?

The OP says they shot at a volunteer's plane with airsoft, he made no mention of having or not having Helmets, cages, Kevlar Flackjackets, offsite parking, no structure airfield... etc. Cound there be enough forethought and preventative measures to make it non-reckless, meaning Not Against AMA Rules?

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 4:14:43 AM

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

um, post #33, DepFife said he did it at a ama club.

There are no AMA clubs other then Muncie. Egad.

He said he did it, but he also did not answer the original posters question at the same time.

quote:

The OP says they shot at a volunteer's plane with airsoft, he made no mention of having or not having Helmets, cages, Kevlar Flackjackets, offsite parking, no structure airfield... etc. Cound there be enough forethought and preventative measures to make it non-reckless, meaning Not Against AMA Rules?

So I guess this is your complex way of saying, no it will not be against the AMA safety code? There are no AMA rules in the safety code.

Also why stop at paintball guns, why not shotguns? What's the real difference if you want to speak in relativity? Put everyone in flak jackets and kevlar body armor. Do you think the AMA would cover that fun filled event?

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to KidEpoxy)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 5:05:50 AM

Posts: 314
Joined: 7/16/2005
From: York, PA, USA
Status: offline

Then why does AMA support combat? Relatively speaking, that is far more dangerous than shooting paintballs at a slow trainer flying in one direction. In combat, pilots aren't always going for the streamer. Putting a competitors plane out of commission is part of the game and it's not a paintgun doing it, it's another fast and powerful combat plane. And they are going in who knows what direction at much greater speeds when they collide. I swear these doomsayers are the type that would shut down a little kid selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of his house. So if this paintball thing is so dangerous and irresponsible, then AMA had better start shutting down all the far more dangerous activities, like combat, pylon racing, 3D, fun flies with all the crazy events, scale warbird events where I see so many hanging on the edge of the flight envelope, and so on. With that train of thought, we should only be allowed to fly blimps or go control line only. Notice I didn't make up any "what if" scenarios. Just comparisons with reality. Let's not take all the fun out of this hobby. Just keep safety at the front and enjoy it.

_____________________________

Alan - YARCC (www.yorkrc.com) Admin/Editor (Say What?!)
AMA 338508

(in reply to STLPilot)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 5:09:09 AM

Posts: 5057
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline

There are lots of AMA chartered clubs, but I still am not sure we have an agreed upon definition of an AMA field.

I don't know if the AMA would have covered us if we had damaged something. In our case, this was not an issue. Everyone present was aware of the possible danger, agreed to being exposed to this activity, and we all had other insurance. This never occurred when anyone present had any objection to the activity. To me there are similarities with a backyard game of tackle football. I'm old, fat, out of shape, and we don't wear pads or helmets. Playing exposes me to unnecessary risks, but the decision to play or not is up to me and the other participants. Heck we might even stumble into one of our "fans" and injure them.

I would not make the argument that this is an activity that should be allowed at every club under every circumstance. But if the property owner is not opposed, and no one present objects, I don't see it as a bad thing. If a club does not want to allow this at the club field, I have no problem with that. Just like I would not have a problem with a club rule allowing only pink Four Stars. Their club their rules.

My point is that the danger is minimal and whether to allow it or not is better left up to a club than to impose a rule on everyone. Is this covered by #3? Hope I never find out.

The question about hitting a pedestrian on a NYC street is not valid. First, I would never be in NYC.

Second the location where we did this was very rural, and seeing a pedestrian on the road (not street) is about as likely as seeing a John Deere combine on that NYC street. Hitting someone not involved in the activity while possible, would be about as likely as getting hit by lightning. The circumstances dictate what is appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

There are no AMA clubs other then Muncie. Egad.

(in reply to STLPilot)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 5:16:23 AM

Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

fine, I'll play

um, post #33, DepFife said he did it at a ama CHARTERED club.

quote:

So I guess this is your complex way of saying, no it will not be against the AMA safety code?

It is my way of saying
No, it isn't against the AMA rule Safety Code #3. It could be if it was done recklessly, but if not done recklessly then it's not against SafetyCode #3.

So the question is, why assume safety precautions wouldnt be taken. I havent really talked to DepFife, but instead of assuming he was reckless about it, I'm assuming they had additional safety measures & procedures in place the day of the shooting. What kind, and were they sufficient? Dunno, but we know at least he made it out alive.

STL, will you recognize that there could be enough safety measures & precautions to make this Not Reckless, and in such, not forbidden by SC#3... therefore not against the rules?

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 10/4/2006 5:19:02 AM >

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 7:18:04 AM

littlecrankshaf

Posts: 2151
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArCeeFlyer

Then why does AMA support combat? Relatively speaking, that is far more dangerous than shooting paintballs at a slow trainer flying in one direction. In combat, pilots aren't always going for the streamer. Putting a competitors plane out of commission is part of the game and it's not a paintgun doing it, it's another fast and powerful combat plane. And they are going in who knows what direction at much greater speeds when they collide. I swear these doomsayers are the type that would shut down a little kid selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of his house. So if this paintball thing is so dangerous and irresponsible, then AMA had better start shutting down all the far more dangerous activities, like combat, pylon racing, 3D, fun flies with all the crazy events, scale warbird events where I see so many hanging on the edge of the flight envelope, and so on. With that train of thought, we should only be allowed to fly blimps or go control line only. Notice I didn't make up any "what if" scenarios. Just comparisons with reality. Let's not take all the fun out of this hobby. Just keep safety at the front and enjoy it.

Excellent points!

I guess only a genius could make some distinction between certain similar activities...Oh... I forgot, If AMA specifically says grace then it is OK but otherwise guys like mister cry baby ( I didn’t mention STL’s name now did I?

) will find it unacceptably unsafe and reckless.

Some people(again I didn’t mention STL’s name now did I?

) really do need a light, sign, buzzer or mommy to tell them when it is safe to cross the street.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to ArCeeFlyer)

RE: ama rule - 10/4/2006 11:26:59 AM

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

STL, will you recognize that there could be enough safety measures & precautions to make this Not Reckless, and in such, not forbidden by SC#3... therefore not against the rules?

I will confidently, in public, as blunt as I can be, say that in my humble opinion I do not believe the AMA would ever consider flying an airplane in safe manner under the current AMA safety code while shooting a plane with a paintball gun or a airsoft pellet rifle or a shotgun or a 50 cal or a mark 9 no matter what conditions you decide is safe and and not safe, again under the current safety code as it sits today. It's not to say it can't be done with perhaps a waiver or following some kind of guidelines the AMA can provide. Insurance money doesn't grow on trees, it's earned by being safe and SMART.

You guys made a good point, but .... combat is defined by the AMA and standards are given and must be followed to receive your AMA benefits. It's not like you can just show up at a field and start flying combat without following the AMA guidelines and expect that they will cover you in case someone gets hurt or something damaged under any condition you see fit. The minimum standards must be met firs