For years I have disliked the ARF because the beginner who did not know how to build was not encouraged to get the skills to repair his accident when using an ARF. I (sort of feel like) had the market place shove that down my throat with the advent of the giant scale ARF and the wide acceptance of that type of model. I have even gotten into trouble because I have concern for those who fly and do not build since I see that they tend to take more risks because it is just a purchased model instead of many hours of work to create. Frequently that attitude tends to show in thier approach to safety and I don't enjoy that part. However, WE as a group are beginning to have a real problem with the ARF and I think it has become time to discuss some sort of a solution (that I DO NOT HAVE!).

Recently there have been reports of ARF's with serious structural problems (H9, possibly Cermark, and others). Most of the reports have surfaced after the aircraft was lost. In many cases the vendors provided replacement and or redesigned the models involved. However I have seen many cases of firewalls departing the aircraft while under power. I have taken the position of warning all new folks I see with ARF's to check glue joints and bracing around the firewall, but I don't think that is a solution since not everyone gets those warnings. More importantly, it seems that AMA is experiencing some financial losses due to injuries from those types of failure.

Please read the next to last sentence again to see 'official' recognition of what I have observed in the 'literature' of on line reports.

Anybody got any good ideas? I don't think Carl's idea of not starting in the pits is going to significantly reduce the injuries since MOST of the time the body parts in the prop arc are the pilots own. His implied suggestion of additional restraint is a good one since I have seen more than one accident where the free plane ran into a pilot. I have a student who keeps trying to hand tach his engines, this is after he HAS run into himself. However we all need to remember that even from the back side when the plane is restrained the prop WILL cut, as my student has shown.

If people are being injured by faulty airplanes, it seems clear to me that the liability rests with the manufacturer, and the AMA should not be accepting the costs. There are three ways to resolve this: 1) the manufacturer voluntarily stops making defective planes, 2) the gov't regulates, or 3) the courts require the manufacturer to accept liability. From their posts on RCU, I'd say #2 and #3 are anathema to the RCU community, and given that bias, there's no chance of #1. Note that with any other consumer product, the widely hated (on RCU) court system would take care of the issue. Suppose you had a circular saw model where the saw blade broke off and ran amok cutting up the user. Either the courts or the government would take action, and the problem would be solved, and those injured compensated (yes, the lawyers would take a cut, but the problem would be solved). Or, we could endlessly debate it here in RCU. What do you think is most likely?

What do *I* expect is most likely with (as Fred says) this band of crazies? Everyone but the pilot is at fault and should pay. However, that does not really seem to be a reasonable answer and neither is waiting for the manufacturer to decide that there is a real problem they wish to fix. By the way, I have been involved with an ARF with a minor design flaw that resulted in an unexpected crash.

What do you think would happen if one of these ARF's became uncontrollable in the air due to a design flaw and the aircraft hit some uninvolved bystander? I KNOW you and I will pay through our participation in the AMA. I also know the manufacturer may not since a large majority of them are off shore operations with little or no local enforceable liability.

Think about it for a moment, 'Joe' has a factory in XYA that makes, say ARF B-17's under the name of YYT Models. One goes in due to a design flaw and kills or injures a specator who was just there for the show. The legal system grinds up all who were in the 'chain' of that airframe. When they are finished assessing YYT Models their share of the blame and financial responsibility, Joe closes YYT and starts an new operation known as TTY Models using the same factory, and possibly the same design with or without modification. TTY models has to penetrate the supply chain, but that is just a temporary set back. By the way, check out Iron Bay Models who emulate that action even though it probably was not brought about by legal action it WAS done to avoid the transference of liability.

I think 'we' need to look and see if someone can find another solution. In my small mind simply saying #1 is not possible, and #2 and #3 are not acceptable to the RCU community is saying we should all just bend over, hope for the best, and give the barracuda more money. Not my style. <g>

Good points, Jim. Sorry to be so pessimistic. I would argue that enough foreign manufacturers have domestic distributors with significant assets that the legal system would work, but you might be correct as well.

If what I have seen is the norm, no manufacturer would be liable, as I have almost NEVER seen an ARF with a motor in the correct size range, it is always massively bigger than spec.

The firewall problem is easy to solve. in your flite box, place a 1/16 drill bit that will fit the electric screwdriver next to it. Put in a box of round toothpicks and some 5 minute epoxy. When you check out a beginners airplane, fix the firewall (unless he has already done that).
As far as the construction quality--I have see those fancy Edge 540 ARF's with absolutely NO glue on the wing carry-thru. That is none, zero, nada, nil - glue of any, repeat any kind. This detail is only discernable after the crash.
What do you do for that? I dunno, but somebody needs to pay...

Roger

I do, also think we should be careful around SIG planes. Such as the Extra 300XS. @ people I know have got either a finger cut off or just deep wounds. They put a gasser on the plane and the firewall shook loose. When building my Aeroworks I Put Carbon Fiber rods through it and put Tri stock in all corners. I don't like to see people get hurt. Minor things happen also. My friend tried to start up someones plane with his hand and the plane didn't even backfire his hand slid on the prop and he ended up with four stiches!!! Careful guys

Dan[]

Matt,
I do have to plead guilty as charged because I believe my radio HAS a throttle and it is NOT on a two position switch, I am well known for bolting on more power than the 'book' calls for. As an example, the current bird was designed around a G-62 and it is going to get a 3W-75 but there have been some structural adds made to reduce the risk. However, the problems I have heard of (FW's coming out, wings delaminating, wings folding and etc) were NOT overpowered versions of the equipment. Read Roger Guinn's comment carefully as it describes at least one in that category.

Roger, your idea works well for those *I* see. Got any ideas how we solve the problem for those we don't see?

mAvRiCk, I THINK carbon fiber rods are over kill but they DO work. I approach the FW from two or three directions. First I make sure there is tri stock all around. Second I pin with 1/8 dowel stock. The third 'trick' is fiberglass cloth on the inside of the FW and sides in a "U" shape BEFORE the T-nuts are put in. That transfer's the load to the aircraft sides and keeps the FW attached. In cases where I am seriously concerned about how much excess power I am putting on, I put a wrap of glass on the outside but under the cowl.

The club in which I am a member has a rule that has helped to some extent with the problem of inadequate structural integrity of new planes or repaired/rebuilt planes. Several experienced modelers in the club have been designated to inspect these aircraft before they are allowed into the air at the club field. Ones membership is on the line for breaking this rule. Also, I don't assume that just because an aircraft was an ARF/RTF that it has inferior structural quality. I have seen many scratch and kit built planes that were a disaster looking for an opportunity. The problem is not necessarily with the type of construction but rather with the builder. Whether due to inexperience or less that sufficient skills as a builder, the final responsibility for proper constuction and use of the aircraft lies with the one using it. Those of us with more experience should guide and advise those less talented or experienced with those type of issues, which by the way, is one very important function of the club and AMA. The clubs membership should work to educate new members to the hobby. and correct misconduct and/or take disciplinary action toward those individuals that are rebellious and refuse to follow sound procedure. We owe that as individuals, to the total membership, so that we all can enjoy the hobby without interference from lawyers and/or the government. Rather than complain about the preference of some people to fly ARF/RTF aircraft rather than build from scratch or a kit, and look for someone to place blame with, we should ask what we personally can offer to resolve these issues.

ya know,
now that it has been mentioned, a good lawyer could probably make the same case for neglegance in using motors above the mfgr recomended range as they could for touching parts of the airplane to the ground at times other than landing. ya know, the whole logic behind the rule nine thing.

mongo

Good observation.

What smokin1 suggests is what we did for years. Now safety inspections are disappearing from clubs and even from sanctioned events. Everyone is concerned that if the plane is involved in an accident, after a safety inspection, that the inspector, CD, and anyone else standing around may be named in a lawsuit.

This should put some wood on the fire, Any one that buy's this stuff takes full responsiblilty, you are the final builder ,whether you are a pro or a newbie at buliding!! You have to read the FINE PRINT the disclaimer, it usually is in or on the box some where! What you put on the nose is up to you and you pocket book. Just be carefill where you point it , It may be loaded!

Smokin1 your ideas are not bad, but the fail to address the issue of the ARF with a basic HIDDEN structural flaw which seems to be causing problems. I think you went were I did not intend to go and implied some things I DID NOT. I have NO problem with folks who buy their airframes, it is their pocket book and their time to manage. I prefer to build because *I* KNOW what is under the covering which is NOT true for almost ALL ARF/RTF's. Heck, I don't even enjoy letting someone else build my planes because many do not build (structurally) to my standards!

Rather I was trying to get some light shed on a problem people in the hobby are beginning to have with cost savings steps taken on some assembly lines in the Far East. Go read Rogers post for a very specific example that is much more widespread than most are aware of. That is post #6, the next to last sentence and the final in his first paragraph.

It seems to me that everyone thus far has ignored the fact that if we all stopped buying ARF's, they would go away problems and all.

I know that not everyone is willing to build a model, but I for one would rather build one than buy one. Of course, building and building right are two different things, but if you take the time to build it, I would think that the chances of it being done better than the ARF's in question is fairly high.

Uh huh, and McDonald's didn't have to pay anything because of hot coffee.

If you build a plane put an engine outside the manufacturers specified range, that may be one thing, but if it is within in the range, and firewall pulls out causing injury, I doubt the disclamer matters. Just because there is a disclaimer doesn't mean they aren't responsible in a court.

LOL!

CRFlyer,
That works for you, me, and most of my friends most of the time. The problem is that WE are somewhat out of step with the "IN" crowd. Proof that it works so poorly can be found in looking at the numbers of kit makers that have fallen by the wayside or successful kits that are no longer available. Go into a very busy hobby shop and count the number of KITS and compare that to the number of ARF's there.

P51B is right, all the disclaimer REALLY does is make some think that they cannot play legal games. That is until they speak to a barracuda.

P-51B

You porbably have a point.. right up 'till the time you make the first landing.. or maybe when you transport it the first time. Just how hard was the landing? Prove you did not bang the fuse on the garage wall while loading it in a car.

The truth is that only the owner can know what has transpired with the aircraft. It is up to the owner to assure that it is in acceptable condition before he flies it. Any other action is like throwing a cow in a river full of piranah in the event of an accident.

How about trying a different approach .....

How about starting an educational program for the ARF/new flyer participants .... maybe through the AMA mag. or others.
I mean a real push for education ! And, maybe a push to have all "NEW Pilots with New ARF's" checked out by an experienced modeler "before" they can be flown ... period.

Even new builders could gain some knowledge ... lets face it, even homebuilt planes from a new builder may have problems.

Educational articles could begin to show up in mags on what to look for, current problems found, how to "fix", etc..

I personally think some of the ARF's are pretty good, and I currently fly a GP Patty 300.
But I wouldn't mind at all if someone in the club inspected it "before" I flew it. In fact, when I got back in the hooby a couple of years ago I "assembled" a Sig Extra 300 and "ask" someone to inspect it before "they" flew it for the first time.

I am not the worlds best builder, and I don't really enjoy that aspect of the hooby as much as flying. I would hate to see ARF's go away ... but I do agree that the quality must be there. If the reviews from magazines told the whole story ... it may put pressure on the manufactures to increase quality.

There is a lot the AMA and magazines could do, in my opinion ,to help this aspect of our pastime.
We need to get more youth involved ... the ARF's may be our only hope in luring the "instant gratification" society into our clubs. I know our club has over 200 members, but the same 2 dozen are seen at the field, and hardly anyone under 40 years of age can be seen.

I know I'm dreaming a little here ... but there must be a way

I hate ARFS & RTFS but when all you have left is a bag of sticks ist's hard to prove it was put to gether wrong. The disclaimer sure help cover the back door. I have had people in my store ,that wanted me to replace the planes because I was a dealer. You tell them to send them back to Man. they get mad or unless you go to the Dist. they will take care of you just to keep PR. The Man. most generally doe's not even here about failers until the model is a total flop and some one else is building the kit. I will keep building my own planes and picking up the peaces and passing the BUCK's

I recently watched a TV program that discussed, among other things, the fact that in 45 of the 50 States a waiver of liability is absolutely worthless when it comes to litigation-even if you have someone sign one, you can still be sued and lose....JIM

JB

What are your benefits / reasons behind adding more power to your airplanes than what the manufacturers recommends?.

I do the same thing myself, but I would like to compare my reasons with an experienced, intelligent and safety conscious person like you.

Thanks in advance for your prompt response.

BTW, I am a proponent of the fact that an under-powered RC Airplane is more dangerous than an overpowered airplane.

Regards

Ben

MustangFan

I think you are on the right track. One problem is that it must all be generic. The magazines are dependent on advertising dollars. Your not going to see them kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs by zeroing in on specific planes.

Probably the biggest problem is that people do not like to read. Whatever the source of the information, it is going to need to have a lot of pictures. Maybe the AMA could run a series of articles, and then, ultimately, produce a brochure incorporating all of the articles. It could be sent to all new members with their AMA card.

Just a thought

I guess you are saying "was it handled in a reasonable manner, consistent with a reasonable R/C flier would do?" I don't think you can trust the courts on that one based on publicized cases. Heck, I didn't think a reasonable person would drive a car while holding a disposable cup full of hot coffee in their crotch!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it is necessarily a manufacturer's fault, I was just trying to point out saying it is necessarily the consumer's problem may not be accurate.

Mustangfan;

sounds like the basis for a good monthly column in the AMA mag.

Jim,

Being alittle hypocritical here aren't we??? You bash the turbine guys for not following the rules, but you break them yourself. So I guess that rules don't apply to you but should apply to the rest of us?

Don't see my logic? Don't think you have broken a rule? Well the manufacturer recommends an engine range for you so in essence he has designed an airframe with a particular structural limitation in mind. It doesn't matter that you have reinforced that airplane YOU disregarded the manufacturers recommended engine range for the model. I am just trying to see how your logic in this matter is ANY different from my logic in turbine related matters.


I'm with Ghost Rider on this one, BUT I want to see you explain your rationale when YOU are trying to tell ME that MY airplanes are not worthy of more power. If you are flying ARF's or anything else for that matter the responsibility for safe operations lies ultimately in YOUR hands not the hands of the AMA or ANYONE else. WHY should the AMA have to come up with rules and regulations to try and cover YOU or ME for that matter?

J_R

I know your right about the magazines and their sponsors. But maybe the reviews could be subtile.

Since I am NOT the worlds best builder, when looking through a magazine, I am always on the search/lookout for "helpful tips" . I know there are many clever people that have solved many problems, and I love to find out their solutions. Could this kind of approach be used? ... I have even purchased books containing helpful tips.

I love to fly ... but my building is sooooooooooo slowwwwwwwww that I am frustrated. In fact I left the hobby for many years because I did not have the time or place to build. Got back in recently and am sorry I had gotten out. Trying now to get some building skills, but the ARF's are helping me fly. Love the pastime, love the people (most) that are in it. A great bunch of people.

But I must say, when I first started to fly again ... I wanted some help, to know if I put the plane together correctly. I didn't want to lose it ! I was also surprised that they took my word that I could fly OK. I think I was given too much latitude !.

Another thing that amazes me is this....
when a beginner is signed off .... thats usually it ... he has completed training.

Then he can show up with a low wing aerobatic plane, or a warbird, and fly without further training ... ( most clubs ???).
I believe a tiered learning program should be in place right up to and including jets. Then maybe the AMA president would be more comfortable with opening up the weight/speed parameters.

Well enough rambling (almost) ... I hope this problem can be solved to everyones liking. I know there is a lot of dislike for ARF's. I also know that I am in awe of master or even very good builders. Wish I could be one.