In the March issue of Model Aviation (page 177), Steve Kaluf, AMA Technical Director, appears to take the position that indoor Free Flight facilities should be shared with Indoor RC. How do you feel about the AMA using Model Aviation as a soapbox to tell a club, or a sector of the hobby what they should do?

I haven't read that article yet, but based on what little information you have provided here, I'd say that if the AMA is intent on mandating the sharing of facilities they need to be told to stick it in their ear. Just a suggestion from the AMA on the other hand, with intent to promote model aviation, should be heard and seriuosly considered. But, if the individual clubs decide not to share for whatever reason the AMA should respect that and leave it be.

I took this as a suggestion or recommendation and not a mandate.

It did not appear to be a mandate. The words were carefully chosen.

Oh, THOSE kind of facilities, I though AMA was going to make clubs designate the outhouse as male, female, or unisex.

Its not the AMA's place to tell a club what type of flying they MUST allow at thier site.

If an indoor FF club doesn't want to share with indoor RC, its thier choice.

They may have a good reason for the choice... they may not. That isn't even a point of the issue.

I think AMA should tell the indoor flyers what to do. Those indoor flyers never get the full AMA experience of having somebody think for them and make up goofy rules they have to follow, except for the married ones of course. Besides, us sport R/C flyers could use the break, if only briefly.

Abel

I get the feeling Steve was expressing some personal frustration at the difficulty of finding indoor RC competition venues. Maybe it was a bit out of line to use an official column. Dave Brown has had a thing or two to say about jet flyers' behaviour over the years, so maybe the precedent has been set.

I do admit the president's column is probably has more of an editorial aspect than the tech. director's. Perhaps Steve should have written a letter to the editor instead of using his column. But then, maybe his frustration has come about during the execution of his duties as tech. director.

I flew indoor free flight for several years in the 80's. An indoor contest or flying session will be broken into time segments. A one-day contest might be broken into 4 or maybe 6 segments. The reason for this is that various classes of indoor freeflight models are incompatible. For example, I can't imagine a contest (including Nats, been there, done that) were hand launched gliders and pennyplanes would be flown at the same time. A hand launch glider would go right through a pennyplane in the launch and probably be upset by pennyplane prop turbulence in the glide.

Steve Kaluf says that Nats Indoor RC Duration will be flown at the Johnson City facility at the same time as Indoor Free Flight. I know nothing about RC duration, but whatever it is, it is clearly incompatible with some of the Indoor Free Fight events, In other words, what will happen is that RC duration will be flown with some (maybe none exist?) compatible Indoor FF events. Either the time available for Indoor Freeflight will be cut down, or some Indoor FF events will have to share airspace (indoor airspace is crowded, almost by definition) with RC duration airplanes, or the indoor venue will have to be lengthened.

Suitable Indoor sites are, as Kaluf says, difficult to find, and highly prized. If I were still flying Indoor FF, I would be very reluctant to invite indoor RC flyers to share the facility. Camel's nose under the tent syndrome. I'm sure some indoor FF'ers envision being pushed out of their facility by RC fliers.

Jim

Personally, I think the man (Steve Kaluf) has as much right to offer an opinion as the other editors. That's about all Bob Hunt offers -- opinions -- same as we do here on someone else's web site. Of course those Editors do not have to endure immediate cave-ins as we do when we dig holes for ourselves. IMO it is nice when an AMA person will speak something of his own rather than quote the company news-line.

Operationally, whoever secured, contracted and maintains any flying facility has -- and I certainly hope they DEFEND -- total rights to how, when, and where that facility is used, within the specifications of their contract and/or agreements, between others and/or themselves. AMA itself has no right to intervene in that portion of a club's business, yet they have a right to define how the NATs will be condoned.

In this case, I see many loopholes in Steve's arguments, however this is not the place to present such. Only those that have admired the wonders of a microfilm moving along in a slow walk speed, or heaved a hand-launch glider into the rafters or performed either awe or accomplishment of those other wonders of rubber-indoor, can truly contribute to those decisions of co-existence with air-disturbing electric motor props. I doubt many on this forum have done such but I know some have.

Again, IMO, the choices of the poll were considerably slanted.

Well... seems all the poll respondents saw through the slant of the poll... NO ONE says the AMA has any place telling a club what they MUST allow at thier facility.

and the indoor rc-ers would have waivers as well!!!!!!!!!