ORIGINAL: J_R
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.
Indeed. You have errorneously assumed that all CDs need to stay current regarding sanctions. I have been a CD for more years than I care to recall, and during several of those years I ran up to 10 events per year .. but I never
once ran an event that was sanctioned. My experience in running numerous events (nicluding up to 100 pilots and 2 r 3 thousand spectators at some of them) all involved using a club site that was already chartered; the club generally only sanctioned pattern events, and that was only because the pattern guys wanted regional "points" scores awarded.
Furthermore, I got burn-out from running so many events, and have consequently not run one for about the last 5 years. I'd be quite happy for the AMA to take my CD status away from me since I do not currently need it for events, but the AMA in their infinfite wisdom decided that they needed me to be a specially designated "Turbine CD" in order to help them overcome problems that their waiver program had introduced. Since the Turbine "CD" position involves absolutely no contest director activity, it should further be obvious how ludicrous that situation is.
In the case of an event at a non-AMA chartered field I will assume that the landlord wants insurance coverage
So, we are clear that a sanction is not required at a chartered club, but is more likely to be required at a site that is not ; given that, and given the restrictions about "no maidens during a sanctioned event" that you seem to be advocating, how does adding an extra day of sanction help people do maidens during the no-maidens allowed sanctioned day that is before the main event at a site tat is not a chartered club ?
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.
Not even after me pointing it out several times ?
The whole point of creating rules should be to cover the cases where the governing body considers that "common sense" may not be enough, and they need to put in some restrictions that ensure that the governing body's concerns are adequately covered. Introducing rules that cluelessly reduce such coverage rather than increase it, is totally counter-productive.
Now, on the one hand you seem to be willing to rely on the CD being sensible enough to schedule the maidens at a sensible time (by him not leaving during the busy periods), yet on the other hand you don't seem to be willing to rely on the same CD being sensible enough to say that "A maiden can be done while I am on-site, but it will be done when I say so, based on my assesment of the crowd situation etc.". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Are these guys trustworthy to decide when it is a safe time or not ? If they are trustworthy, let them determine the time when the maiden may be done in his presence ; if they are NOT trustworthy, then write the rules such that the period during which the guy must be off-site for a maiden may not occur during the core event hours.
Which is it to be ?
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.
FWIW, I stopped flying ANYTHING at that site 2 or 3 years ago once the situation developed where the available space was significantly reduced. That doesn't stop others from flying there tho - including some 180 mph 55 lb Giant Scale models, so why discriminate against the waiver holder ? Let's at least be consistent in our standards.
Gordon