ORIGINAL: JohnMac
Yep it is a pretty serious position to take. But this jet crashed 100 metres from the boundary to an the local air museum, full of families enjoying their Sunday afternoon. There was no one where it actually crashed, but on a different day there would have been a fair, again with families having a good time. To make it clear, this crash position was about a mile away from the flying area, well beyond the normal flying boundary because without a fin the model was out of control. The pilot was complimented for struggling to avoid crashing within the boundary of the air museum.
John - I agree that the club has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to protect not only the club site, but most importantly the lives of anyone nearby.
I am, however, a bit puzzled by the above. Maybe there are salient facts missing, but given what I've read so far, my take on the would have been somewhat different than banning a given servo...
So, the model crashed a mile away from the flying area, with the pilot struggling with the aircraft the whole time, right ? Why was he fighting to keep the aircraft flying ? Once flutter occurred, surely the first thing that should have been done is retard the throttle to idle, or even kill ... at this reduced speed it would not cover the ground as fast, giving more time for the pilot to realise that he should plant it before it got to be a whole mile away.
I know hindsight is always 20/20, and I know that we may be missing some important details here, but I just wonder whether the corrective action by the club should have been not to ban a given servo, but to require you to all use spotters who in situations like this remind the pilot ASAP about the need to make any "sacrifice the aircraft" call sooner rather than later ... and if necessary, for the spotter to be authorised to reach over and shut down the engine if the pilot gets tunnel vision.
Gordon