This concerns Rule 9 of the 2004 AMA Safety Code...

Which do you feel is more dangerous. A skilled pilot doing a "Tail Tap" or "Rudder Drag" or a new pilot trying to learn to land? Never have I felt my life nor limb was in danger when a pilot was performing a "ground touch" . However, I have nearly had my head taken off quite a few times by a rookie pilot trying to land in a cross wind.

I encourage you all to go to http://save3d.org/ and email the AMA President, Senior Vice President and your District Vice President if you are against the 2004 change to rule 9 of the AMA safety Code.

We can complain on until we are blue in the face. Only action will solve this issue. Below is a copy of the emails I sent. Remember ... be tactful and professional. nor violent type emails will not help the cause.

Rick

Give us a little more information. Where do you want to tail-touch in this cross wind? 2' in front of the flight line? 10'? 20'? 50? 100'? 200'?

What size plane are we talking about? an 18 oz park flyer? a 40-60 size funfly ship? or is it a 42% Ultimate?

JR

jr:
what does any distance have to do with simply requesting that the ill thought safety code change be removed?
or are ya just trying to once again cloud up an issue with minutae and details?

Maybe you didn't read the initial post, in which the question was posed "Which is more dangerous?"

JR's question seems like a perfectly valid one in order to help answer the original question.

Gordon

Mongo,

How nice of you to ask. It was the thread YOU started on runryder that made me really start to wonder. You presented a related question to the heli guys over there, which, almost immediately drew this response:

"As written, sounds to me like a deliberate requirement to stop blade scuffing, lawn mowing and head button touching.

I wonder what prompted this? I suppose a bad lawn or scuff job could cause the heli to disintegrate and cause possible harm, but frankly a heli in flight seems even more dangerous than that, no? Once the heli is on the ground and doing the funky chicken, it's potential for injuring anyone is pretty much minimized.

I don't think planks do anything similar, unless they are grinding the heads off G-I Joe wingwalkers, flying inverted over the runway, but then that might not be considered part of the aircraft?

This suggests to me that AMA is starting to get worried about helicopters, which frankly is not surprising given their potential for "chop-chop".

Fly safe please."
http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t70695p1/

Now, mongo, I am not sure who the rule was written for, if anyone in particular. It just seems to me that there is some separation that allows both 3D helis and planes to do these things without risk to people. It does not seem to me that the distance is irrelevant. While I think the rule, as written is a poor one, I think that safety IS a concern. If this rule is going to be reversed, there needs to be some method to insure safety. I would suggest that seperation between aircraft and people might be the solution.

Do you really mean to say that you think it’s OK to hover a 42% Ultimate 2’ from the flightline in a crosswind and that is “minutae and details�, or to fly an inverted heli scuffing it’s blades 10' from flightline is “minutae and details�?

Although the original poster in this thread states that: “Never have I felt my life nor limb was in danger when a pilot was performing a "ground touch" “, I can direct you to posts, from 3D flyers that state that their experiences are different. Here is one: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...293&tostyle=tm

Bob Sadler is out here from NC and I had a chance to visit with him today. He was a Co-CD this year for the Joe Nall. When we talked about the new rule, his comment was “I'm glad about it. It’s about time�. He almost convinced me that I am too open minded about the safety of tail-touches. He should probably know better than most in the country.

Gordon

You took the question just as it was meant.

JR

i see what yer saying, but what you posted in the second post of this thread has little or nothing to do with what the original poster was saying.
i actually thought i had switched threads somehow when i read your first response. and this isn't the first thread i have had that feeling about when reading some of you responses.

and this rule really needs more thinking.
if perchance my super duper scale warbird has a retract extension problem, then my belly landing is a violation of the code, after jan 1. i can not see that this is a good thing.

Mongo,

If you landed 2' from the flight line, I would consider that unsafe. Wouldn't you? However if you did the same landing 25' from the flight line, there would be little chance anyone might get splattered with flying dirt or airplane parts.

I think that is the issue.

Well, I would hope that is the issue!

Let me remind you all. A properly done tail touch can be done anywhere on the field that the pilots likes. A newbie shooting touch and goes is likely to touch down everywhere that he doesnt want it to go. So I guess that answers the question about distance.

Good point....as long as everything is working and continues to work!

Jerry

don't know about the places you fly, but when i go to places other folks are flying at, i get to see belly landings fairly regularly.
after jan 1 every occurance is a safety code violation.
how is this good for safety code enforcement.
this, like the autonmous thing, was not thought through properly.
someone on the ec needs to show some gonads and move that the new code be suspended, and we revert to the 03 edition until such time as proper wording can be applied to the "newcode".

No ... a belly landing will still be "leagal" due to the "except while landing" part of the rule addition.

rick

Hmmmm ... does a crash count as a landing for the purposes of this rule ? (and yes, crashes can be intentional for good reason - such as sacrificing the aircraft to avoid a dangerous situation).

Gordon

Gordon

GREAT point ... I have ditched a few planes in my day to avoid "what could have happened". This is just another example of how the rule 9 addition was not thought out and should be removed, rethought, and most importantly ... VOTED ON!

Rick

those comas in the new stuff, make it so it could be read either way.
will take a legal ruling somewhere to actually sort it out, if it ever comes to it.
but that just put how poorly it was written front and center.

Voted on by whom? If you mean a vote by all AMA members, be careful what you ask for, you might get it. I highly doubt AMA members, who, not known for stepping out on limbs, overwhelmingly re-elect the incumbants ever time, would be inclined to support what their leadership considers dangerous stunts.

No ... by being voted on, I mean voted on by the AMA Governing Body. There is no record that I know of that shows this rule change was voted on. I have reviewed the minutes of the meeting where it was discussed then tabled for further discussing and a possible future vote. I however, cannot find in the minutes where it was ever voted on.

Rick

Call Dr. H. Sanford Frank, our great and wonderful (just ask him!) AMA VP and ask! ...........(snicker snicker)


Yes there IS a valid answer.

In my opinion a rookie pilot flying at all is the most dangerous maneuver at the flying field.
I have almost been hit be rookie pilots more times than I care to remember,
yet I DO NOT believe there should be a rule to ban beginners from the field.

Lou
AMA #677071

I'm glad people don't advocate banning the 'dangerous rookies' at the field, as I would guess every single person flying RC was one once.
Plus if we did that, the hobby would die. []

zx:
you bring up a good point.
now, in yer opinion, others can answer too, just how much danger are you willing to accept at the field, in order to keep the hobby from dieing? and for which group of modelers should this danger level of presentation be higher or lower?

well Mongo...if you look at some of my other recent posts on various threads following safety concern issues, I'm sure you'll see my views. But I guess being concise here is kind of hard for such an important issue. I'll try
I have a few different feeling. First, I don't think that rules targeting different specific segments are that great of an idea. As shown they are doing a LOT to divide the membership. Bad Juju man. The whole 'targeting' segments thing in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, smacks a small bit of favoritism and mis-understanding/fear, coupled with solving insinuated liability issues (percieved or not...I'm no expert) and a desire on the part of the EC to 'right' some perceived safety issues with-in the RC community. That being said.........I do believe that some reg. is a given. Can't get around that one. Could some of these issues be boiled down to blanket regulation which could be applied to various groups w/safety concerns??....I'm sure they could and will. Plus you can't really enact every regulation at the same time, so one type of reg. concerning certain segments of the community before others is only to be expected I guess (ie-jet waivers). When groups point and say...'that's dangerous too'....I think it's only a matter of time before that too may be regulated. Is it a vicious cycle...?? Maybe.....

As far as how much danger I'm personally willing to accept (my 'assumed risk')......well personally I'm a daring kind of guy, so my level may be considerably higher than the average Joe. But I don't think that because of this that others should be subject to my standard. I do, however, believe that the safety of all others aside from those taking that 'assumed risk' is paramount to the survival of our sport!!!!! Some things are worth rules, and I think that no matter who you are and what risk is involved for the modeler, protecting the general public should be a big part of any 'safety rules'. I assume the risk going to the field. That risk includes anything from fliers period (newbies, warbirds, jets, helis, 3D/acro, Giant, etc...), to open props, weather conditions, and yes....even falling down and hurting myself (the majority of all claims!!)

I feel that the biggest mitigating factor that can reduce my assumed risk in going to a fly site would be distance. This would be the only regulation that I would desire....safe distance to me. I mean....if anyone wants to go out and stand next to their heli or 3d while doing a maneuver......that's all them. They're assuming that risk. If someone wants to go out to the flight line, or be with-in a dangerous distance when a newbie is flying...or a warbird is doing a low/fast pass....or a jet....or whatever....that's their prerogative. If I don't ...I'll wait!! [8D]

OK....rambled too long......
sorry if I missed anything....it's sleepy time <yawn>
next

Brian

Brian

Well ... for the sake of not getting myself in trouble, allow me to make this comment about Dr. Sandy Frank ... "Ahem ... NO COMMENT!"

Rick

ROFLOL!

Yeah, HE is the most dangerous one out there right now. That is NOT funny.

I know this is pretty dumb, sort of like covering yourself in blood and jumping in a shark cage, but I would like to throw in my two cents as well. In the past year I have seen things done at fun flys that have scared me a heck of alot more than a newbie with a trainer. This past year after hours I saw guys with 33% and 1/4 scale 3-D planes hovering and doing tail touches within 30 feet of spectators with no barrier between the planes and the fascinated onlookers. I have seen guys flying helis within 50 feet of onlookers with no barrier. I have seen guys hovering over the runway with other planes in the pattern, some in total disregard for those flying the pattern.
Now before I sound like I am complaining about these guys, let me clarify. I am not so much complaining about their activites, because I know they are just having fun. What I do see is a "target rich" environment for a plaintiff's attorney should an accident occur. How big will the headlines be when a large scale aerobatic airplane goes out control into a crowded group of kids stanidng near a fun-flier totally mesmerized by what they are seeing? Or for that matter any plane? I am hopefully a new turbine waiver holder, and I jumped through hoops for 6 months to complete a very simple procedure to get this waiver. My activites are certainly safer for doing so. I am more aware of the dangers involved. I am more aware of where spectators are standing when I fire up my jet. I double check everything. I have demonstrated my ability to handle a technically complex piece of equipment which I know is capable of inflicting serious harm to both me and others. Now I fly lots of different things, including giant scale planes, and I feel safer around my turbine than I do around a 20 inch carbon fiber prop. Do not take the safety issues for granted. The insuarance companies are watching us carefully, among others. We have to police ourselves, or sooner or later we will lose our insurance coverage. The rules are there for a purpose, they are not so much for the many as they are for the few. I know I work in a field where the least little thing will put your hiney in the defendant's corner. The only refuge we have is to practive a "CYA" policy.
Well there you go, I covered my self in kerosene, and handed you the lighter.
Fire away.
Tommy

I think Brian hit the nail on the head. The key to safety is distance. The current AMA recommendations for field size are way too small for the kinds of planes and the way they are flown these days. (My club just built a field exactly to the Pub 706 specs, and 45 feet between the runway and the pits is just too close for (my) comfort.)

High speed jets are fine out on the desert with a few people watching, but putting on a jet show with a crowd of 100s of people just 65 feet from the runway is inviting disaster. Same thing for 3D 33% models and helicopters.

Flame me if you will, but I'm comfortable with folks 65 feet from a trainer with a 10" prop on it.