Your information is in error, it says nothing about a rudder, in particular. This is the actual wording of the rule, which was passed and published months ago:

“Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a powered model in flight; nor should any part of the model other than the landing gear, intentionally touch the ground, except while landing.”

I specifically asked several EC members about this rule. Apparently, the activities are guided by a simple question. “If someone gets hurt badly, can you, in a court of law, make a rational explanation of your actions leading to the accident?” Dave Brown, in particular, was adamant that the tapping of a tail was extremely unlikely (to the point of impossible) to cause loss of control of a plane. He rejected arguments about damaging servos, breaking the tail, or bending/breaking pushrods. His concern is how the person, upon that type of damage, who then lost control for whatever reason, might be viewed in court. Could you explain in a court law that you were banging the tail of your plane, then lost control and it hurt someone to a mother/wife or widow? What do you think a jury would do if the opposing attorney made exactly that case?

Landing a heli, taking a plane off, or just losing control of a plane in normal flight makes a much better case. Blame the attorney, the courts, and the tort system.

JR