Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

That is simply overkill, and totally unnecessary.

There's nothing at all wrong with allowing alcohol on the club site, for legal and responsible consumption.

The issue here is not the presence of alcohol on the site (which is permitted by both the club and the landowner), but rather the operation of a model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol, which is already a violation of the AMA rules, and therefore (by extension) a violation of the club rules.

Trying to widen the issue to cover that of acceptable presence and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises is simply absurd IMO.

Gordon

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

Looks as if we know who's doing the drinking.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

LOL - are you by any chance angling for a nomination for the next supreme court position ? Maybe you can work on reinstating prohibition.

Gordon

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

As I said, its clear where you stand.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Ditto, in a very big way.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Easier just to ban drinking at the field. Eliminates people having to deal with this issue at all.
I'm not a teetoatler, not by far, but, frankly, I don't want to have to tell somebody
"Hey...better give me the keys to your transmitter...you may have had one too many to fly..."
To each his own, you can decide on the club level how your group feels about it, and what they want to allow, but I have no problem with a club taking the smarter, easier, less liability-prone ruling of "no drinking at all".

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Gotta disagree with that. In Kenny's scenario where someone is flying after drinking, then they are already busting established AMA and club rules, in which case they will not hesitate to bust the new rules about "no drinking at all". All you do in your scenario is punish the people who have been abiding by the rules, rather than doing anything about those who are irresponsible.

Personally, I refuse to take even one drink in the 8 hrs before I drive or fly (military training dies hard) - but if someone is done flying for the day, and isn't driving home, I see absolutely nothing wrong with him popping open a beer after checking whether the site allows it. I see this all the time at jet meets where people are done flying and are camping out at the field overnight.

Telling Kenny that the club needs to ban alcohol on site to address this issue is very much like a preposterous situation I saw in a town near where I lived a while ago... there was a 35 mph limit already in place, but a lot of people drove 50 mph+. Instead of enforcing the law that was already on the books, and punishing those who broke it, the local city council just elected to reduce the posted speed limit to 15 mph (still without bothering to enforce it). The result - all the people who were conscientious and obeyed the speed limit got screwed while those who felt themselves above the law continued to speed recklessly through the town.

When someone's already busting the rules, you can already sort them out them without any need to invent even more rules that do nothing but punish the innocent.

Gordon

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

All true. And just banning it makes the good guys suffer with the bad. But it DOES simplify things in so many ways.
To ME, it's something that can be decided on the club level, depends on the guys, and if a club said "no booze at all", I would not have a problem with that. AMA rules still apply.
I think I got your axiom mixed up, I have been doing no less than eight drinks within one hour before flying. Let me tell you, it smoooooths out the landings...
My buddy used to say about his Kawasaki H-2:
"This bike handles like a dream...after about three drinks."

KFalcon

My Feedback: (18)

I don't believe banning alcohol all together is the best approach. I too enjoy the after I'm done flying sun going down beer. If someone can't understand that beer consumption while flying is wrong than I don't want to be a part of it.

I didn't get into the liability aspect of this when I was on the phone with the AMA today. I do believe that I will be brought into the pile IF it ever comes to that though. Someone also stated that if everyone refused to sign anyone off then there would be no more waivers and I agree. I will have no problem signing other people off, I will just much more careful about it. When I got my waiver it was much harder to get than it is now. I did take a written test, I did have to learn about the safe handling of turbine engines. Now it only takes two signatures and thats it, I don't know if maybe it is too easy? We all have to do our part in keeping this hobby alive. If that means taking a little risk for someone that is going to play by the rules then so be it. I think turning in the guys that can't think about everyone else's safety over themselves is also helping to keep this hobby alive. All it takes is one big mess up and everywhere will be like Southern California, but worse.

I am to make a written statement to the AMA stating why I no longer want to be one of the signatures for this guy and they said they would take it from there. Where that is I don't know, but they said they would let me know what they where going to do.

Every time I fly I try to ensure that I don't do anything that might cause the two people that signed me off to be put in the lawyers cross hairs. I understand that not everything is preventable, but I don't add anything to the equation to increase the odds.

Countryboy

My Feedback: (25)

Kenny,

You think the guy has presence of mind to recognize that he could possibly be charged with "Vehicular Manslaughter" if he were too strike and kill someone while flying under the influnce....and I do believe that an RC Aircraft would fall under the definition of (Vehicle).




Under law, a person is guilty of Vehicular Manslaughter in the First Degree when, with criminal negligence, that person
causes another person's death by operating a vehicle while he or she has .10 of one per centum or more by weight
of alcohol in his or her blood as shown by chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, urine or saliva
or while he or she is in an intoxicated condition, or while his or her ability to operate such a vehicle is impaired.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Beware of advocating "simplifications" that amount to little more than collective punishment ... it can lead you down all sorts of paths that you really don't want to travel.

e.g. based on that kind of approach, if a club ever determines that even one guy flew a turbine at your club one day without a waiver, then the solution that you have trained them to look for is that it's simpler to ban all turbines from your club, than have to check whether each individual is waivered and deal appropriately with the isolated offender.

Gordon

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Exactly.
That happened at my local club. A guy flew right after 911 and people freaked out. We banned all turbines.
Here's why.
Back in the eighties, we were forbidden from flying for one day because Ronald Reagan was coming into Teterboro(we are right near there) and the tower said "no flying today". Well...ONE guy said "I'm flying anyway!" and he did, and the Tower freaked out. We were thrown off the field for some three years. The police and the airport authorities were not interested in singling out the one offender who really created the problem. Not interested. Everybody suffered.
So, consider how these two things are related, and consider how the "authorities", whoever they may be, may disburse collective punishment on ALL(namely, elminate the field) because of the auctions of one guy(drinking and flying)...is it worth it?
You guys have to decide, on a club level, what works for you.
But respect the "no drinking at all" stance if others take it. We are really there to fly, not drink, and a lot of guys (including me) are perfectly happy to ameliorate the risk to the field by not having alchohol at all.
It would be a nice world if we would really just adress the single perpetrator, the single problem person, but you sure cannot count on someone like the County Parks Department or the STate Police or Teterboro Control to adress it that way. More likely their attitude will just be "Lets get rid of these guys."

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I'm perfectly happy to do so, if the club chooses that as their plan of action ; what I am totally against is some uninformed individual trying to tell Kenny that this is what the club must do (quote: "You first must make alchohalic beverages, drugs and any other prohibited practice a violation of the club rules " ), because that is, quite simply put, a load of bull. I find it even more distasteful when the individual doesn't normally have his "I'm a JPO big-wig" info in his signature, but adds it specifically for that post - which IMO comes across as a failed attempt to lend some kind of official credibility to his personal opinion.

YMMV, which is fine.

Kenny - please keep us informed. BTW, if you want your letter reviewed / proof-read before you send it to the AMA, I'd be happy to help (feel free to erase the individual's name to keep that info between you & the AMA if you so wish).

Gordon

PS - the TLMs and FLMs are just for you, ET, as I know how much you appreciate them.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Points well taken. Like I said before, this is the kind of issue that can be decided on the club community level. What works for the Bayonne Swamp Ratz Club may not be appropros for the Northern Viriginia Flying Gentlemens Club.

TLM? FLM? Those are the early Harleys with the floorboards and the hand shifter on the right side of the tank?

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

I have to agree with Countryboy. The simple fact is people like Gordon will defend this issue relentlessly, at least until he himself is held accountable for charges due to his own negligence. It is not possible to personally police the entire flying site nor is it realistic to assume each pilot is following the AMA rule as written. Kenny IF YOU WANT TO LESSON YOUR CHANCES OF LOOSING A LIABILITY SUITE, LESSON YOUR ODDS, it is that simple, good luck.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Go ahead and point out where my alleged negligence is... unless, of course, you are just blustering once again...

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

Oh Gordon, your feathers have been ruffled once again, stick to the subject man, it will all work out.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Your non-response to my question simply confirms that you have absolutely no facts with which to back up your outrageous assertions.

Gordon

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

It would depend On One's definition of Vehicle ? Also States have different levels of " Impairment" as NJ laws are .08 %

ET..... "Bayonne Swamp Ratz club" is that the one with tee shirt optional while flying & eating Squid sandwiches...

Semper Fi
Joe

Skymac

My Feedback: (8)

Why instead of causing more turmoil on RCU didn't you just call Carl Maroney at the AMA to get straight facts.

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

Good point Justin. Members voice their opinion based on the request of the sender, then others step in and criticize the opinions, creates turmoil. The AMA states a claim may be denied if rule # 9 is in violation. The AMA is secondary insurance to a primary source which generally follows evidence of the primary. That is why the clubs position on this subject is so critical.
Hey cool photo in your member box.

MLaCoste

My Feedback: (15)

Okay, enough is enough!!!

None of you asshats are the ones with your backsides potentially on the line here. Kenny and I are! Yes, I'm the CD who put his neck on the line to sign the guy off (and it's not Gordon, Mr. Osborn).

As Kenny stated early, this guy was on his best behavior during his buddy-box flights, review flights, and through his check flights. Up until about six weeks ago, the unnamed pilot was as careful and responsible as the rest of us.

Kenny did contact AMA, and he and I are in the process of writing up our letters for their review.

I do not think that rules changes at the local club level would make any difference in a liability lawsuit anyway. All of the local level constitutions and by-laws come second to the AMA rules & regulations.

When Kenny and I have more information, we’ll pass it on to all of you. So for now, please keep your flames and negativity to yourself.

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Mark and Kenny have done everything right ....

In no way did they agree or attest to being a booze cop for the rest of this butthead's jet model flying career......they attested only to satisfactory performance on all parts of Form 510-D IN GOOD FAITH......

As for all the Prohibitionists on this thread, Jeeeeeeezzzzussss Keeeeeeerrrrrrrriiiiist!........now I can't have a cooler or two or three, with the Austin or Mississippi gangsters after our birds are put to sleep in the hangar, while engorging myself on Dano's shrimp or Dennis' Mudbugs.......no breaking out the Club Grill for some Jalapeno Brats and Blatz's after a wild day of flying here in Fond du Lac...[]......

Where in 510-D does it even insinuate a Turbine CD and the other experienced turbine sign-off pilot are in any way responsible for the future abusive alchohol behavior of anyone they attested to, one day, one month or 10 years down the road......freakin' illogical nonsense...... booting drunks off the field and outa the club is the ultimate responsibility of the Club's Officers, Board, and Safety Officer(s), and AMA, once they have been notified by the Turbine CD, or any other AMA member for that matter, of a Members's flagrant rules violation........


Tom

mark osborn

My Feedback: (9)

Mark,
Your intentions to cease a conflict on RCU is appreciated, your choice of words (asshats) is not, in fact its offensive. Only after Gordon made a hasty reply to my post, which was directed to Kenny, did the conflict begin. If you want to point a finger point it at the right person.
Keep in mind my intentions behind the reply to Kenny's post was to share with him the process of a successful solution to the exact same problem experienced by my club several years ago. After extensive conversation and research with the AMA, and the advice of a couple of local attorney's the decision was made that it would be necessary to change the club rules and rewrite the by-laws. I realize this may not work for everyone and that is fine however, if you don't want the opinions don't ask for help, it's that simple. Again my intention was only to help, not to offend anyone. After all the scrutiny jet's have faced in the recent past it makes since that all member's support safety issues to help preserve our future in the hobby.

john agnew

Guys

From a Scottish perspective this is all very interesting! As you are no doubt aware we are quite keen on what is called " A small refreshment" here in bonny Scotland.

I must say I have never seen anyone with alcohol at our club either during or after flying although I would have no problem with the after part. I really don't think flying jets and strong drink is a good mix. We don't have any turbine waivers here. If you pass your first certificate you can fly any type of model unsupervised, although you will certainly be told about it if you are flying a model beyond what is thought to be appropriate!

Tom, I must assume , without any evidence to the contrary, that "Jalapeno Brats and Blatz's "are some arcane form of American comestible and not an exotic cocktail

John