ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
ORIGINAL: J_R
As I suggested before: schedule a day before the event to do maidens.
That kind of approach was tried before, for Frank Tiano's ill-fated "get your waiver the day before the event starts" fiasco. Here's the problems:
(1) The required experienced personel are frequently only at the event during the sanctioned days. Whlie you can easily convince the newbie who needs help that he should take an extra day off work, those from whom he needs the assistance can't reasonably be expected to just keep taking lots of unpaid leave.
(2) If I'm understanding this right, the AMA suggests we should have a sanction in order to provide landowner protection - is that about right ? If so, then having a non-sanctioned day before the event suggests asking the landlord to forgo protection. If he's willing to do that for one day, he's probably willing to forgo it for the whole event, in which case we just rendered sanctions pointless. What am I missing ?
Sanction an extra day if you please. It may be inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient some family having to schedule a funeral.
Clearly you simply are not reading what I wrote multiple times. Compared to the scenario in which the AMA would permit a maiden in the middle of an event if the CD simply removes himself momentarily, my approach makes the funeral MUCH less likely ... so why would you rather eliminate the approach that has less risk, and keep the one that allows more risk ? For the life of me I simply can't figure that one out.
Even in the earliest or lastest hours of an event, there are more people present than would normally be present on “just another day”.
Beg to differ, most strenuously. You evidently haven't been at some of the clubs I've flown at. SCCMAS club in Morgan Hill, is on public (county) property and is frequently inundated with members of the public on "just another day" ... the club is right next to the freeway, so attracts qiute a lot of "gawkers" who see the models as they drive by and come by for a closer look ; then there's an extremly popular bike / jogger / pedestrian path that runs down the right-hand side of the club (about 800 ft from the runway maybe ?), so loads of cyclists, rollerbladers, horseback riders and walkers stop by the club to get their mid-way refreshments and some entertainment; on the left hand side, about 700ft from the other end of the runway is a hole in the ground that has become an environmental attraction, with a viewing platform built by the county off the end of the runway for the birdwatchers to stand on .. and there are often parties of 40 or 50 of them out there ; etc., etc; etc. - to say nothing of the 100 or so members that are out for a day's flying or spectating with their families. Most of the events that I've attended peter down having to a mere fraction of that number of people around within half an hour to an hour after the MC announces that the event is over for the day and closes the snack shack etc.
Next - these rules apply only to sanctions, correct ? So then please explain to me why you are concerned about the funeral that may occur at a location that is not an AMA site and is simply sanctioned for a few days, but not equally concerned about the funeral that may occur at a location which is an AMA chartered club's site and no sanction has been obtained for the event which still takes place in front of thousands of spectators, and still has a maiden take place after hours. Why is one of these funerals more important to you than the other ?
Gordon
[Edit : fix html tags]
Gordon
I had made the assumption that you are a CD, or at least had a rudimentary understanding of the process involved with sanctioning an event or running one. Obviously, I have been made an ass of by the assumption.
Most sanctioned events take place at an AMA chartered field, and a separate insurance policy is not issued at all. Only where an event is held at a non-AMA charted field event is the potential for issuance of additional insurance an issue. It is not automatic, even it that case and must be requested by the CD. An event can be held without a sanction at all. I think it is safe to say that more events are held without a sanction, than with. If you have an interest in learning the reasons an event might be sanctioned, read the information at the initial link I posted in this thread.
The day before an event, or the days of the event, if held at an AMA chartered club field, would/should (the club needs to have requested insurance for the landlord in their charter application which applies all year long) have insurance already in place and no sanction needs to be in place. In the case where a sanction is issued at an AMA chartered field, insurance is in place without any action on the part of the CD (subject, again, to the AMA club having requested it as part of it’s charter). In the case of an event at a non-AMA chartered field I will assume that the landlord wants insurance coverage, although, many cases (public facilities such as Sepulveda Basin) would not require such coverage. Now we are down to a very few cases where events are held on non-AMA chartered club fields where insurance is a condition of use by the landlord. I hope this explains why the answer to the question: “If I'm understanding this right, the AMA suggests we should have a sanction in order to provide landowner protection - is that about right ?” is a qualified “no”.
Most of this discussion has been about a technicality that allows a maiden flight to be performed on the date of a sanction. It never occurred to me that any CD would be so callous or insensitive to safety that those flights might be performed in the middle of an event. I assumed that if a CD were going to take advantage of this technicality it would be done at the earliest, or latest hours possible. I have to admit, you have painted a picture of a CD running a turbine event that I would never have considered, and I suspect neither have the EC nor the staff in Muncie. After seeing this, they should consider closing the loophole. If the image you conjured up is an accurate assessment of the turbine waiver holder, they should reconsider the entire program.
I had held the view that the turbine waiver holders were overly concerned with safety. I have seen a couple turn up at my club’s field, take one look, and decide to leave the turbine in the car for the day. It is not suitable for turbine flying, yet, it is much more suited to turbines that the field you describe flying at. If I read that description correctly, there is about 1500 feet, plus the runway, to fly before violation of the safety of individuals. If you actually fly a turbine at that site, and if I have read your description correctly, you have made me rethink my position that turbine waiver holders have good sense. If, in fact, what you are implying is that jet events are actually held at Morgan Hill, after your description of the facility, I don’t have words to express my concerns with the actions of waiver holders.
My suggestion to sanction an extra day for maidens implied the use of the technicality at a non-AMA chartered club field. One where flying is not normal, and it would be unlikely non-involved people would be around on “just any day”. If you understood the CD process and the purpose of a sanction, you would have realized that. Again, my assumption has made an ass of me.
edit: I suppose that if the runway at Morgan Hill is several thousand feet long, it might change my thinking on flying turbines at that site