So, as long as its an "event" and not a "competition"... ???

If I'm understanding you right, then this seems like the wrong "solution" to me.

If someone brings a previously unflown aircraft to an event (regardless of whether this is a jet event, or giant scale fly-in, or whatever) in order to benefit from the nucleus of talent available at the site, the larger than normal runway, the fire-crew that's present at the event, or whatever - then it seems to me that the sensible thing to do in order to minimize risk is to ask that the test flight simply be done before or after the event's core hours ; in this way the model is not being flown "in the event", and more importantly the crowds of spectators that show up at the more popular events will have either not shown up yet, or substantially dispersed.

If instead of the above sensible approach (which has been used at MANY events with great success), the AMA is saying "just have the CD step off-site momentarily, and all is wel for you to do the maiden", then they create the option for increasing the risk ... Now, instead of doing the maiden flight when the site is less populated before or after hours but while he is still there to ensure that things are done as safely as he wishes, it seems that the CD may instead elect to run down to the local McDonalds for a burger during the event's busiest hours, and have a maiden flight take place in front of thousands of spectators (aka potential victims) ???

Just doesn't make any sense. Do the maiden when the risk is minimized, not just when the CD is removed from the site.

BTW, often the event CD is THE most knowledgeable and most capable pilot around, such that insisting that he get lost during the maiden removes the option of using the person who is most able to perform the maiden with the least risk. If they care about minimizing risk, shouldn't AMA be advocating the use of the most capable pilot, rather than prohibiting his use ?


On a slightly different but related topic - how exactly should we define "maiden flight"? If the AMA is going to try to control details like whether the CD is present during an after-hours maiden-flight, then presumably they should at least define for us what constitutes "maiden" ? If it is the very first time that aircraft has ever flown, then it's a maiden - pretty obvious. What about if it already flew once, but unsuccessfully (e.g. got 2ft in the air, then crashed). Is the 2nd flight a maiden (because the aircraft has not been successfully flown (and landed) ? What if it was previously flown ok by a prior owner, but it now has a new owner who has installed completely different radio gear, changed all of the throws and the CG, and a whole host of other "untested" modifications ? What if the aircraft was recently crashed, and has been substantially rebuilt ? Is its first post-repair flight another maiden, or not ? If it is, where do we draw the line between major & minor repairs ?

The above may sound picky, but if the intent of the "no maiden flights during event hours / while the CD is present" idea is that the AMA needs to tightly control all of the activities in order to reduce risk, then the above should perhaps be considered. I know that when I was involved in the giant-scale race scene, not only did you have to show video of three flights and three successful landings of your aircraft before being allowed to fly in the event, and were subjected to airframe and rabnge-check inspections etc - you also got a 'fix-it' ticket assigned to any aircraft that sustained damage, and had to have the fix-it ticket signed off by an inspector before flying in the event again - and quite often the ticket did not get cleared until you took the aircraft off-site to another location and did another "test flight" to confirm airworthiness before being allowed back into the event. So, just how far do we want to take this concept of the AMA trying to control the minutae rather than allowing the event CD to exercise his judgement about what is permitted to fly and when ?

Gordon