speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Andy, I would have to dis-agree with you on this one. A lawyer is going to follow the easiest path to a big pile of money. It would be the property owners insurance company. When we are talking about a serious personal injury or wrongful death they will be talking about millions and the average Joe doesn't have it but the insurance companies do. I am involved is such a case right now. Even if it were to go to trial and expert witnesses are sought out guess who they are going to be? Retailers and manufacturers. The only real thing that a CD can do to protect himself from all sides of the fence is have each aircraft inspected, follow AMA guidelines and have pilots sign a statement of air worthiness on each aircraft. At that point he can easily illustrate that a reasonable effort has been made on his part to keep the event safe. It would never come down to the CD though, he's not the one with the bag of money.

AndyAndrews

@speedracerntrixie, no doubt they will go after the insurance companies. They will also go after AMA, the event organizers and the pilot. Here is a similar case study. Although this is full scale the basic premise remains the same. Airshow - spectators - death and distruction - and the lawsuits to follow:

http://www.rgj.com/article/20111101/...air-race-crash

And from this one:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/11/01/r...collin-county/

“Some people say this was an accident,” said Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee, who filed the civil liability lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Sezen Altug, a physician and widow of dead spectator Craig Salerno, and their two children, ages 6 and 8. “But it seems to me the formula that they created made an accident inevitable.”

"The attorney said he wanted to hold “two groups of wrongdoers” accountable: “Those who pushed the limits of physics on the plane, being risk takers and reckless without regard for the people who might be watching them, and those who promoted and profited from hosting the show.”

Anyone who sponsors or directs a jet rally without doing everything they can to prevent an accident is simply rolling the dice. Sure you can't prevent all failures that create accidents from happening. That would be impossible. What we are talking about here is preventing accidents from becoming catastrophes when there is a KNOWN issue that is not currently being addressed. Grounding known defective air frames eliminates this particular risk. Ignoring a known risk is simply increasing the odds that a catastrophic event will happen.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

As far as safety is concerned I am on your side, I just don't see a mechanism in place that supports grounding any R/C airplane based on failures of like airplane. Yes it is common place in full scale where airplanes have known stress limits, max speed specifications, max loading and such. In the event of a structural failure on a full scale, the FAA steps in and requires the manufacturer to investigate and come up with some sort of cause and fix. I remember one occurrence of this on the Bonanza V35. That aircraft was limited to a certain airspeed until they developed a cuff that went on the junction of stabs and fuse to prevent the stabs from fluttering. At least that was how it was explained to me by a friend whom owed the aircraft. The issue is that one, we don't have any such flight specifications spelled out for models, they have not gone through any real static stress analysis and there is nobody that can step in and force the manufacturers to be accountable. Secondly the issue of locating anyone who is qualified to examine a composite structure and make the call if it can handle the flight loads or not is another can of worms. As educated modelers we know the tech in our airplanes but most of the general public still view them as toys and its going to be general public that deals with the event of an accident ( lawyers, judge, DA, jury, insurance investigator ) not that I think it would get to that level.

gjhinshaw

My Feedback: (303)

I think with ALL this information being put on here, You all are making a easy case for ANYONE to sue for anything!! All they need to do is come on RCU and get the information all of you are providing them.
You all are feeding the hands that will kill RC jet flying

CafeenMan

In my dreams I own the hugest most fabulous hobby shop ever. Behind the shop is 10,000 acres of beautiful scenery, a lake, several paved runways and putting green grass runways for those who prefer grass to pavement. Built into the shop are a half dozen drive through "garages". When you pull into the garage you will park, remove your planes from your car and set them on conveniently located tables where the planes will be inspected by experts who are empathetic but firm.

If one of my experts says you can't fly a particular airplane then there will be no exceptions. You can't fly it until you fix whatever the problem is. If you don't agree that it's a problem and nothing needs to be fixed then there's a cow pasture ten miles away where they don't care what you fly. That club has to move every couple of years because the locals are tired of planes crashing into their roofs.

I suggest you join our mailing list to receive a detailed listing of specific things that won't be allowed to fly at our field that of course will have all the amenities one could ask for including a masseuse or three, a couple of jacuzzis, 120 vac at each pit station and lots of other great stuff.

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

how exactly do you decide whats deemed as an unsafe airframe.
If I was to go through a list of various aircraft that I have seen lost ( on multiple occasions, not just one offs ) due to some form of structural failure, and then expect a CD of an event to ban those aircraft on the grounds of being unsafe, then wow. You are going to have allot of unhappy pilots at the next event. I want to see the CD that will have the balls to stand up and do that.
On that note. What is to be done about builders/ pilots who have a history of crashing models. Often for the same reasons. Can you find a CD thats going to go up to that person and say
" I dont think that the likely hood of you completing this event without crashing is at all high, and on that grounds I am not allowing you to fly "
or
" I have looked inside of your plane and I do not think it is fit to fly"
What about these considerations?
Dont get me wrong. I am not trying to go down the route of heavy regulation. I just think that more thought has to be put into it than a knee jerk reaction. Crashes happen. I am a believer that they always have and they always will. This year I have seen some of what I would consider the most vocal ( certainly on line ) safety conscious, and in some cases publicly outspoken, self declared jet safety campaigners have incidents. Some not so serious, others much more so. WHat I am trying to say is that if these guys can mess up... I guess anyone can. I agree that something needs to be done. I just think we need to be measured and thought out in our response.

ira d

Makes good sense to me.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Just curious, how many of these large Hawks have crashed due to structural problems?
I only know of two, were there more?
Does anyone know the total sold.
Thanks,
Jon

BobbyMcGee

WOW !!! Simply wow! This seems reckless to me.

I'd rather run a safe event, and have happy pilots that are responsible than run a risky event with questionable jets and pilots. Those unhappy people who are banned can make their own event. I'd have the balls to tell them so ... and even ban them or the particular jet forever.

I am part owner of a gun range in South Florida. We have banned people from entering our establishment ranging from a few months to life due to their reckless behavior and/or attitude. I don't need those kinds of people risking the safety of others, my establishment or reputation. Due to this philosophy of banning reckless people (even for pointing an unloaded weapon in the wrong direction) my business has increased, and I get the full support of all my patrons. To the best of my knowledge, other gun ranges do the same. However, we are the strictest. That policy has gained us much support from the entire community and the Police Depts. in the area.
So yes, we have often told people they are not welcome in our establishment. It's not "balls", its common sense and good business combined with safety. Anything less would be reckless stupidity.

Even restaurants have banned "problem customers" from ever coming back.

For the jet community to begin doing similar, is not a "knee-jerk" reaction. It is a damned good start to fix a problem and safety issue. Then, additional rules can be added or modified later on.

Ali, if you (or anyone else for that matter) feel so strongly as to allow jets with a failure rate to fly at events, then come to the USA and wire two million US dollars to be held in an escrow account until the end of the event, and also sign an indemnity clause that will put your financial situation at risk should someone you believe should be allowed to fly their jet at the event in which the CD of that event has otherwised banned for safety reasons.

earlwb

I think this is a interesting discussion myself. Lots of food for thought. So many twists and turns with this. One other thought was that one could get sued for preventing someone from flying a plane too. Not just lawsuits for the effects from a crash, but the other way around as well.
It is sort of darned if you do and darned if you don't kind of thing.

But if I know that a certain plane has had problems, then I would need lots of assurances it woin't be a problem at a event I was a CD of too. Otherwise it can't fly there.

BobbyMcGee

No one can sue another person, or entity for not being allowed to fly their plane.

AndyAndrews

Ali, It's quite simple. If a Hawk is presented at an airshow (of a type that has already experienced 4 crashes due to similar circumstances, for example) with the honeycomb construction, and no modifications have been completed on the airframe correcting the defective parts - you are grounded. Stop trying to complicate it Ali. Every single jet at the JWM was inspected by 2-3 inspectors on a table before flight. The inspections were quite rigorous. Not one jet flew in the event before getting signed off by the inspectors.

You would be amazed at some of the items that were discovered during these inspections. Everything from missing bolts on pipe connections, to loose hinges, to wires getting too close to turbines, to brakes not working etc, etc. Moreover, many of the jets were not set up on failsafe. How many times have CDs at events check failsafe? Never from what I have seen. This is a test that takes all of about 30 seconds. These are all things that a cursory inspection can find that the owner may not have noticed in the rush to get his jet flying at the event.

The point my friend, is that we are trying to reduce the chance that an accident can occur. You have again come on here criticizing every idea brought forth and then you end your criticisms with the statement "I agree that something needs to be done". That doesn't help anything Ali. How about offering some concrete suggestions instead of just stirring the pot?

rcjets_63

My Feedback: (4)

How silly, you must have been wearing a T-shirt when you wrote that!

If you've got a list of various aircraft that you have seen lost on multiple occasions, due to some form of structural failure, please share it as perhaps the owners of these models (not to mention CD's and other pilots) would like to know that there is a potential problem. I suspect that the owners would be happy, not unhappy as you have suggested, to hear about a problem and fix it before their jet blew apart and potentially endangered life or property. If someone told me that they'd taken a look inside my plane and said they felt it was unsafe to fly, I'd happily listen to their input, if only to protect my investment in my jet. Who knows, they may have seen something that I missed.

As for the builders/pilots with a bad safety history, I've seen CD's issue warnings or ground pilots for reckless/unsafe behavior. I pulled a particularly dumb-***** play at an event and got quite the talking to by the CD and club VP and they were right. I haven't done it since and have no plans to do so in the future.

You state that crashes happen; they always have and they always will. I agree with you. There are many reasons for a crash....structural failure, control surface failure, linkage failure, servo failure, battery failure, receiver or transmitter failure, and pilot error to name several. While there will likely never be a method to prevent ALL of these different scenarios, that doesn't mean that we should just throw up our hands and not attempt to prevent any of them.

At the 2013 JWM, all planes were given a thorough inspection and the inspectors indeed found issues with some planes. Similarly, I found issues (linkages mostly) with multiple planes as the inspector at the 2011 JWM in Dayton. Did I find everything? No! (for instance, Reto Senn's Hunter had a two piece tailpipe which came apart at it's mid-point which wasn't visible with the aircraft fully assembled). But I did find items that, if not corrected, could have easily resulted in a crash and those planes went home in one piece.

This is about reducing the likelihood of a crash. Since you agree that something needs to be done, stop whinging and make some suggestions. You are a very skilled and accomplished pilot who is well-known and respected and you can help lead this effort to improve safety in our hobby.

Jim

earlwb

Considering what people are suing for nowadays, it could certainly happen. It doesn't have to be because they weren't allowed to fly. Defamation of character, or falsly claiming a product is defective in public which hurts the company's business or bottom line, and so on.

AndyAndrews

Good luck prevailing on that one.. Especially if the company is from China..

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Taking this one step further, if you attended a meet and saw a large FEJ Hawk flying, would you go to the CD and question him as to why he allowing a "dangerous" model to fly at his event?
Jon

basimpsn

My Feedback: (5)

The fun of flying turbine Jets lately is slowly fading...and if we are not careful..weekends will slowly feels like Monday :-(
Just warning about the product defect is enough instead of trying to punish or embarrassed who already have and willing to fix this problem. Remember the VIPER 2 jet?..I thought you guys were Republ#$3an lol and want less government lol..Just kidding...?

Just my Opinion

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

Andy. Do you not remember the conversations I had with you and Jim in the Hilton Lakeland breakfast area???????? I am not criticising. I am just saying that I am just not sure that these forum posts are the right way to go about it. I certainly think there has to be a really decent clarity of definition as to what constitutes a banning.
Do you not remember me suggesting some form of scrutiniser at Events Andy and Jim? I sure do. The only problem I see with that is the liable implications. Lets say a Scrutiniser passes a plane as fit to fly, and it fails and causes damage. In a culture such as yours in the US where does that put the guy that put his name on it being safe to fly?
What I think it needs is some form of national body in the US to be set up that actively tests a model design/ new or old, and then signs it off as fit to fly. Of course I just know that people are going to shoot holes in this idea. I accept that it will have flaws. The main ones being how to fund it and run it. Also how to ensure that the same aircraft that is tested is then supplied to the same level as that of the one tested. However, its a start maybe?
This would benefit the rest of the world , as I think its fair to say that the USA leads the RC market in every avenue. So whats signed off as fit to fly and safe to fly in the USA would be generally accepted worldwide. Yes it will be difficult to set up and yes it will be difficult to operate, but I have some ideas on how to do it... Just wether or not it would be viable is the question.....


Jim. So glad that my post has been deemed as silly by someone such as you.. Do you really want me to go through and list all of the aircraft that I have seen crash due to a structural issue???? Whinging... Really. Coming from you thats a big bit of an insult. Trust me. I am not whinging. This stuff is what puts food on my kids table. I have far more to lose than you ever will, so trust me. Its not whinging.
Do you really think I write this stuff for my health? Do you think I love spending hours on forums? Trust me I dont. I could put the same amount of effort into writing a magazine article for a RC magazine here in the UK and get paid for the time.
Regards the T shirt thing.... Really!!! Do you want to have a guess how many Fly eagle planes I have sold??? Let me save you the aggro. Not one! I have acted as a rep on one Vampire where the customer went direct to the factory. Other than that all I am doing is trying to help FEJ and customers of theirs get their planes flying as well and safely as possible. Just today I am getting involved in trying to assist a new F-14 owner that bought direct from the factory. Whats in it for me???? Nothing. I just want to see these guys enjoy their hobby and their new toy. SO please take your T Shirt comment and poke it!

AndyAndrews

I wouldn't word it that way to the CD. I would be much more respectful than that but, Sure, if its one of the ones failing in flight, why not?

AndyAndrews

Ali, I do remember. I also remember walking away thinking that nothing was really resolved or agreed to. It would be great if AMA would take up this mantle. The problem with it not being AMA or the like is that it would have to be impartial. How hard would it be to find someone who fly's jets to be impartial? Pretty hard. This is why I think the better idea would be to leave it up to each individual CD to make that determination on a case by case basis as needed. Plus a CD is the only authority with teeth in the USA that would be able to ground an unsafe aircraft should he make that determination.

Regarding the liability of this - its already there without inspections. Actually it's probably worse without inspections. A CD would actually be reducing his liability and the inspections would be active due diligence verses not doing anything which is paramount to willfully ignoring the issue.

BTW, what the hell is Whinging? lol.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Yeah, I'd ask the CD in passing.

Just like I'd approach if someone was flying clearly in an unsafe manner.

If I'm being unsafe (and hopefully I'd be doing that unknowingly) I want to be told to correct my ways. If I don't comply, I get kicked out. Easy.

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

Ask Jim LOL !

I do think it needs someone to step up and have a big pair. For sure, I have seen various planes and some pilots on my travels that I would class as unsafe. The problem is that A) Who am I to judge and B) I dont have the guts or the authority to go up and do anything about it.

AndyAndrews

Ok this one is going to blow your minds...

How about a quality control standard starting out with known quality kits and ARF's. An non profit organization shielded through corporate law from personal liability, could be established with a board of individuals who are experts in various fields of study as could be applied to model aviation safety. The organization gives it's "seal of approval" to all kits and ARF's that meet the minimum criteria set for the standard (Yet to be written but, which many would most likely pass immediately). Full build kits and ARF's could have separate approval categories similar to UL's separate standards for various appliances. Over time the organization could branch out to all forms of model aviation including props and foamies for that matter.

Factories could send their kits and/or ARF's to the organization for inspection. Once approved, the factories could use the "seal of approval" provided by the organization, similar to a UL label, on their advertisements and literature. If a kit or ARF doesn't get approved they don't get a label. It would then be incumbent upon the consumer to make that determination as to weather or not they would be willing to buy a kit that does not include a safety label. Insurance companies rely heavily on standards like UL and NSF to help lower the risk of insuring an item. I'm certain that an organization such as this would hold weight over AMA insurance should it become a viable entity in this hobby.

In my business, a piece of restaurant equipment cannot ship unless it has the various safety approvals. These include UL, ETA, CSA, NFPA, AGA and NSF.

Something to think about. Just tossing this out as an idea to banter around.

Btw, don't blame me for this... blame these hastily constructed ARF's coming from overseas. They are the real culprits here and everyone knows it. If we were not concerned about this it wouldn't have even gone beyond a page on RCU.

Tarasdad

If I were attending an event as a participant and saw an aircraft with known structural issues being allowed to fly I'd be packing up and demanding my entry fees back then leaving the premises. Same if I were a spectator and had to pay a fee to attend. If I or any of my family were injured by such an aircraft you can absolutely guarantee that I'd be seeking legal redress.

It is incumbent upon the organizers of an event to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. Knowingly allowing an aircraft that has a history of structural failures to fly puts everyone at needless risk. Any incident caused by such opens the organizing club, every event official and every sponsor up to legal action that could result in massive financial loss. Even if everyone there, participant or spectator, signs a liability waiver it can still happen. Too often those waivers prove to be worth no more than the paper they're printed on once they get into court.

To me it boils down to a simple question, is the risk of not inconveniencing someone by allowing a questionable aircraft to fly worth the potential of injury or death to someone, never mind the potential for a lawsuit? Seems to me the answer to that is equally simple: safety trumps an annoyed pilot every single time.

Neverlost1

My Feedback: (1)

I was thinking along the same lines. How do you declare an entire line of aircraft unsafe with only a few crashes - were they all structural and exactly the same structural problem? Could pilot input have caused it? (excessive speed, excessive G's).

Tom L. (F-106A, F106B, T33, 49Th FIS, 1976-1980)