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

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


Miniature Aircraft USA Ion-X - RTF
Seller:  1surfer
Details:   $5,000.00   |  10/5/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: ama rule
Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 3:30:49 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7728
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArCeeFlyer

How about a compromise. We could just shoot little nerf balls at it and score points for each hit. Of course, it might not work on a windy day.



Hollow point bullets would be much more fun.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to ArCeeFlyer)
       Post #: 76

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 4:13:24 PM   
timothy thompson


 

Posts: 2761
Joined: 6/19/2004
From: saginaw, MI, USA
Status: offline 		how about a sonic module like Parkzone planes have when a hit is scored the throttle cuts out for a second. that was we can have fun and be safe at the same time!!!

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 77

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 4:38:48 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3418
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: online 		Stang-
Nice post. Thanx for the input.



STL-
Are you still harping on the activity not being exactly the same as Combat?
The subject is the loss of control and its affect on safety, not what caused the loss of control. We could have a contest to see who's TX is most Soda Resistant by pouring soda on it till your plane crashes. The point is, in events that will cause planes to crash more frequently than plain flying, safety precautions & measures must be taken. It doesnt matter what you were doing that made OutofControl more or less frequent than Combat, the fact is Combat does have safety rules for when it happens, because it does happen.

Clearly, flying combat at all would be reckless because it is far more likely to cause OutofControl than Standard Flying the traffic pattern. But they saw that planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. Read that again- planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. The helmet rule is not to prevent loss of control, it is for when the plane does lose control. How could the AMA say any activity that is so unsafe as to require helmets for its participants not be reckless? Easy- they placed procedures & measures to minimize the terminal effect of what happens WHEN a plane loses control. What makes Unsafe not be reckless? An AMA PDF I guess.

IF we add that all spectators within 250' must be behind a cage, that would not be the AMA combat rules, it would be better than AMA combat rules. And you are correct STL, Better is not the Same As.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to timothy thompson)
       Post #: 78

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 6:54:01 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9221
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Are you still harping on the activity not being exactly the same as Combat?
The subject is the loss of control and its affect on safety, not what caused the loss of control. We could have a contest to see who's TX is most Soda Resistant by pouring soda on it till your plane crashes. The point is, in events that will cause planes to crash more frequently than plain flying, safety precautions & measures must be taken. It doesnt matter what you were doing that made OutofControl more or less frequent than Combat, the fact is Combat does have safety rules for when it happens, because it does happen.

Clearly, flying combat at all would be reckless because it is far more likely to cause OutofControl than Standard Flying the traffic pattern. But they saw that planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. Read that again- planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. The helmet rule is not to prevent loss of control, it is for when the plane does lose control. How could the AMA say any activity that is so unsafe as to require helmets for its participants not be reckless? Easy- they placed procedures & measures to minimize the terminal effect of what happens WHEN a plane loses control. What makes Unsafe not be reckless? An AMA PDF I guess.

IF we add that all spectators within 250' must be behind a cage, that would not be the AMA combat rules, it would be better than AMA combat rules. And you are correct STL, Better is not the Same As.
No matter how much you try to convince me how the 2 compare, when you go looking for help by the AMA for a claim, it's my humble opinion that you won't see dime number one from the AMA or their affilates. I know they are both fun to do, but only one is FULLY approved by the AMA. Do you understand the difference at all?

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 79

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 7:31:24 PM   
Mr67Stang



Posts: 2274
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: , NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

No matter how much you try to convince me how the 2 compare, when you go looking for help by the AMA for a claim, it's my humble opinion that you won't see dime number one from the AMA or their affilates. I know they are both fun to do, but only one is FULLY approved by the AMA. Do you understand the difference at all?


To this point, I agree. This idea is unconventional to say the least. As was combat at some point in R/C modelings history.



_____________________________

He who dies with the most toys wins!

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 80

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 7:38:57 PM   
Mr67Stang



Posts: 2274
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: , NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy thompson

how about a sonic module like Parkzone planes have when a hit is scored the throttle cuts out for a second. that was we can have fun and be safe at the same time!!!


Now your thinking! You said your in the military you must be familiar with "miles gear" (SP?). How about something like miles gear that when the sensor detects a hit one of those smoke show sticks (these are okay w/ AMA not pyrotechnics like fireworks) goes off and the pilot could bring the plane in, reset it and do it again. It would only marginally satisfy the natural human desire for destruction but the skill involved (challenge) would still make this fun. Now we could have multiple targets even. The downside is, I am not aware of a civilian equivlant to miles gear with a narrow enough beam and the required range.

_____________________________

He who dies with the most toys wins!

(in reply to timothy thompson)
       Post #: 81

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 7:42:32 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9221
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

As was combat at some point in R/C modelings history.
Exactly and hopefully with a lot of help from members and the AMA they'll be able to come up with a solution for this great new event and make it organized. Like, what are the limitations of weapon used, prolly the most important piece of the pie. Also what is going to prevent a gunner from tracking a plane right into the crowd? If he or she is looking down a barrel with one eye closed, and perhaps even with a scope, what is going to prevent that person from following a plane to a degree no greater then a certain angle? Right now there are no written rules for RC gunnery which means you think you can do whatever you want because this is America. It's true to a point, up until the point something happens. Again, I'm all about a good time. But what your suggesting to your fellow AMA members is that it's compared to RC combat and it's not in any way shape or form.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to Mr67Stang)
       Post #: 82

RE: ama rule - 10/5/2006 7:58:16 PM   
ArCeeFlyer



Posts: 310
Joined: 7/16/2005
From: York, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I really like the sound, or maybe even laser light, idea to do this as a club function or event. The sensor could be plugged into a channel and used to trigger various options on a plane, such as releasing confetti, or have a sound and/or light module go off, etc. What a great idea. There wouldn't be any need to make a whole new set of rules for it either. It would be great at club events without any added dangers. They could even have safe AAA war simulations and such. If the market would be viable, it would also be another product for the R/C industry to capitalize on. All positive stuff I think. The guys that really want to have a blast actually destroying a plane could just find a secluded private area where nobody but themselves would be at any risk and the responsibility would be solely on them.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 83

RE: ama rule - 10/6/2006 3:31:12 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3418
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: online
quote:

Exactly and hopefully with a lot of help from members and the AMA they'll be able to come up with a solution for this great new event and make it organized.


Hey, look. I got my answer, and it turns out be be Yes this whole time. Sweet.


So, if the AMA can come up with a PDF to make it not Reckless, with ...um, lets say... with 50 rules. What if next month we hold a RCGunnery event with 144 rules, which happen to encompass every one of the rules that will eventually become the AMA 50Rule RCGunnery pdf?

STL, is it possible we could now be in accordance with what the AMA will require in the future? ... or even more safe with the additional 94 rules in our 144rule RC Gunnery Safety Codex of the SoRCG?

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 10/6/2006 3:32:10 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 84

RE: ama rule - 10/6/2006 3:34:42 AM   
timothy thompson


 

Posts: 2761
Joined: 6/19/2004
From: saginaw, MI, USA
Status: offline 		infrared system military rated is available but prices are steep do a search in ir tagging systems

(in reply to 50%plane)
       Post #: 85

RE: ama rule - 10/6/2006 4:03:34 AM   
graze420



Posts: 38
Joined: 9/15/2006
From: framingham, MA, USA
Status: offline 		well a lot of the "older people" are way way way way more dangerous behind the wheel of a car the me or someone else shooting at a rc plane in a controlled environment with a toy gun, if i use my 12 gauge the plane isnt going out of control because theres nothing left ya bunch of mary's...its to bad that thread ended up having to be deleted that had the photos of that trainer rittled with plastic bb holes because 1 person didnt like it being shot down what a shame.my club is going to use that airsoft style shoot at the last flyin this year to raise money to lengthen the runway for next year..there was a vote and the members ALL loved the idea, and you know what, not one person said anything about"ooooh that against the ama saftey codes".just because we will do this as a fundraiser or for fun does not mean we/ I lack ownership appriciation or that we do not enjoy building kits..uh hello im not shooting down a 2 thousand dollar bird..JEEZE.i hate how people judge you for having an arf and not scratch building it, well not everyone has the room to kit build you know or the time for that matter.I say enough with a saftey police already..leave it to the club officers to handle after all thats why they are at the field, if someone is doing something wreckless then they always handle it.I think that older people should have to pass a test to be able to fly..ive seen so many at fields that can barely stand up..how good do you think that persons reflex's are? i would be way more afraid of them than someone wrecking a crappy old plane in a controlled environment.

STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX.


< Message edited by graze420 -- 10/6/2006 4:20:11 AM >

_____________________________

"We request that model aviation not be innocently sucked into a black hole of regulation..."

(in reply to timothy thompson)
       Post #: 86

RE: ama rule - 10/6/2006 4:28:00 AM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2135
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

quote:

Exactly and hopefully with a lot of help from members and the AMA they'll be able to come up with a solution for this great new event and make it organized.


Hey, look. I got my answer, and it turns out be be Yes this whole time. Sweet.




Kid,

You definitely earned it! Congratulations are in order....After the confetti and band a little speech would be nice.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 87

RE: ama rule - 10/6/2006 5:13:36 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3418
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: online 		LCS-
I knew all that "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?"
as a youth would pay off some day.

Seems about a page or two ago, I figured if I can get him to say It Is Possible To Be Done Not Recklessly, then it would be a walk in the park to say if someone can make up safe rules, why not us.

Kinda like-
AMA will pick a number between 1 and 100, but there is no way any number you pick could be it.... oh, um.... well yes it is 71.... but that doesnt matter- you misspelled indemnity so I will tirade on that.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)