Sorry, J.R.-no slack for people who not only won't, but apparently can't read. You posted the thing, I referenced it, and Excaliburr refused to even consider it in his reaming.
For those of you too lazy to go look, here is the link.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/537.pdf
This is the Official AMA Web site. The operative word is [bOfficial[/b]. That means that anything on it has been approved by HQ, and by default, the EC. That means they Okay'ed it, for thos of you who have trouble with words of more than 2 sylables.

If you missed it, here it is again

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/537.pdf

J-R. Thanks for the cutting slack statement.
I need none, and I think I can hold my own.
But the fact remains. unless the EC receives a report and passes on it, it is not official.
I also question, the same as you. How did it get posted, who authorized it.
With your many ways of getting info from the HQ. Maybe you can find out and straighten out the question.
Quinn, did a BURR get under your saddle, oh! too bad.
The beauty of the forums, same as the old CB radio days.

excaliber

If you stick around long enough, you will find I always encourage AMA members to contact the leadership, whether it be the EC or HQ. I am nobody special... just an AMA member. Give it a shot, I am sure you will have a warm reception when you make the inquires.

Oh, and like I said, if you can show me where the EC passed rule 9, I will subscribe to the theory that everything has documentation.

J-R,
It appears you seem to have an inside track for acquiring info that was the reason for the suggestion.
I'm not that concerned to go that route.
#9. I never said it was passed by the EC, nor can I find anything in writing. So why referrence it to me.It was corrected anyway, was it not. So what is the big deal.
From what I'm seeing at the events I go to. The semi-pro pilots have moved on to other things other than tail touching. And it is only the wanna-bes that are complaining they need to get a life.
Not worth my time to get into any conflict over it.
In fact I spend too much as it is reading some of the garbage that has been printed on the various forums.
See ya around.

Come on now...get real!

JR you are one of the most, if not the most, studious of the AMA and its workings of anyone in this forum. You are a leader member with many years participation with the AMA...you are definitely above average in the repore you have with various AMA principals. Although sometimes it seems you take great pride in making those, without a known prestige, that post here feel inferior with your knowledge and your ability to utilize facts and/or the skillful use of semantics, you are indeed a hub in this forum. Be that as it may... it is far better than those that know far less and can only look for some little misconception or failure to know some obscurity to imply stupidity to make their selves appear greater.

JR I for one would very much appreciate your opinions in matters of AMA safety and other matters just as much as your facts. I feel you may have the insight necessary to visualize changes that would be of real benefit for our hobby and even the AMA.

BTW before some loose cannon weighs in and posts some BS that is nothing more than personal attacks… This post is not meant to be mean spirited or an attack to anyone… Just my observation and/or opinion.

crankshaft. my sentiments as well.

littlecrankshaf

First, I am a leader member only because it came as part of the CD package when I became a CD. When the program were split, I chose to send in the required resume and kept the designation. As I have said many times, I have absolutely no interest in any appointed or elected position within the AMA. Very few people in life intimidate me. I do not hesitate to write or call any member of the AMA leadership, or HQ staff. As a result, I have found that most are helpful and talkative. Occasionally, I cause some of them some heartburn.

The folks, in this forum, who have taken my advice about contacting those same people, have generally found the experience pleasant. On the other hand, if an anonymous e-mail is sent that opens with “you’re a jerk and need to quit”, the responses have proved to be less favorable.

This forum, by it’s anonymous nature, if filled with illusions. Occasionally, I, and others, will get it into our pointy little heads that some anonymous poster is really much more connected than appears on the surface. Anytime anyone tries to manipulate me for some unapparent reason, I start trying to figure out who it might be. Excalibur is such an individual. While it is not my place to disclose his identity, I do feel, correctly, or incorrectly, that I know who he is. If I am correct, he is much more able to get information than I am. In the past, I have suspected VPs, AVPs, and AMA staff of posting here anonymously. I have never seen much point in driving them off by exposing their identity, but occasionally I wonder at their motive. Occasionally, VPs, AVPs and staff have posted under their real name. Seems to me that an AMA official that has something to say should be willing to use his own name, but, nobody left me in charge to enforce my opinion.

It will take a little longer to get my thoughts down about safety… and this post is long enough anyway.

When I comes to safety, I think the first thing that has to be realized is that modeling has changed in the last 10 years or so. Time was, a potential RC flyer purchased a kit and built it. In that process, he learned about the structure of a model. Most also spent some time at the potential flying site, watching and talking to people. A lot of those kits were never finished, and that eliminated the less dedicated souls. The kits that were completed had a substantial investment of time and effort in them. The advent of higher quality ARFs has changed the landscape of modeling.

The first timer now can quite literally buy a “kit” and have it in the air in a week. My observation is that this new comer now expects to learn to fly immediately. Clubs say simply “Get your AMA so you have insurance, and we will teach you to fly”. Again, from personal observation, there is little if any time spent discussing the safe operation of the craft. He is shown how to start the engine, which takes virtually no time to break in, and he is in the air. Many that now pass for instructors were never trained sufficiently themselves. They were left to learn to fly and about safety on their own. I can’t see that they are bad instructors, but many simply pass on what they experienced when they were new.

The day where the old timers were the instructors is rapidly disappearing. Most have trained one to many “instant gratification” newbies and have lost patience with those that crash and disappear permanently.

So, the question becomes: How do we instill the knowledge in the new comer to teach about both flight and safety. In my opinion, the AMA should put together a “recommended” training program for instructors. In reality, they have done that. The intro pilot program has an acceptable set of guidelines for the would be instructor. Unfortunately, like many aspects of the AMA, all to few of the members are aware of the guidelines. Next up, the AMA should develop a set of “recommended” guidelines for the new pilot to work toward. Being able to make a circuit, take off and land is not sufficient, IMHO, which is exactly what I have all to often observed at clubs. Clubs should be encouraged to use such guidelines before the new pilots are unleashed on the rest of us. After the recommended programs are in place, the AMA must find a way to communicate their existence to clubs.

Safety, as opposed to flying skills, is another matter. One that is much more difficult to instill. The pilot that builds his own plane has a feel for construction techniques that assure the linkages work correctly, the firewall is secure, the hold down system is structurally sound, etc. The new comer with an ARF has no way to learn these things, independently. The same can be said of many things we take for granted, as experienced modelers, such as restraining the plane when starting the engine, or making adjustments to the engine from behind the plane of the prop. He may or may not pick up these practices by observing, or actually having someone explain the correct way to do things. We need to quit taking that chance.

Personally, I think the idea of a DVD is fantastic. It’s a media that might actually get the message across. Trying to force people to actually read is… well… close to hopeless. Part of the presented idea is to send the DVD’s to clubs and have them attempt to inform the membership. It is a place to start, but, since something on the order of 50% of the AMA members are not members of clubs, and the fact that only about 15-20% of the members in a club attend meetings leaves this sadly lacking. The effort will have succeeded in it’s goal if it only reaches 7-10% of the membership. My opinion is that this is of enough importance that the AMA should make the DVD available to every single member, regardless of a cost of $100,000 to $200,000. That comes to about a buck a member. If the leadership can’t find a dollar a member that has the potential to affect each member (hitter and hittee), then there is something very wrong.

Now, to the safety code. IMHO, the safety code has become absolutely worthless. It has reached a point where people do not read it. It is too long, too technical and, simply, gets set aside. When the first item addresses autonomous flight, the casual reader says to himself, “This does not apply to me” and that is it. The safety code needs to be reduced in size to address the real, major problems. We really do not want rockets being fired from out models, or explosive fuels being used in the models. These types of warnings are necessary. Many of the items in the safety code could be addressed on the DVD. Recently, I posted the FAI safety code. Simple, concise, and useful come to mind as words to describe it. Alternately, the Safety Committee should go back and look at the AMA SC from 25 years ago and use it as a model.

I personally believe that the single most important concept in flying safety is to keep separation between pilots and their aircraft. I think we can assume that if a pilot should not be flying near himself, he should not be flying behind himself, where the pits, spectators, etc. should be. The other concept is that a one size rule fits all is not appropriate. Separation for pylon racers needs to be more than a foamy. In there area of separation, it may be appropriate for the AMA to include some rules in the safety code, IMHO. In some domains, such as thermal sailplane, a protected circle rather than a line may be appropriate. At any rate, the individual SIG’s should be able to supply input for rules on separation.

excaliber,

This forum gets treated like the old CB days by those unwilling to put their given names to their scribblings. The rest of us try to wade through the manure for the occassional gem.

I am concerned that this unaccepted but web posted requirement for club safety officers has a couple of major problems with it. If that offends you, so be it.

The first one is strange as it seems to put the AMA in a position of dictating to the clubs. Actually the problem is with the AMA 2005 REQUIREMENT that the Safety Officer have e-mail. The AMA can require contacts to have e-mail, that hurts no one. However by requiring a specific individual to have e-mail the AMA takes the position of setting the qualifications for club officers. Is that really a good idea?

Here is an example where an AMA changed from a club responsibility to a targeted individual for the official club contact point that created problems in the field. Some larger clubs had to do double work to maintain the recharter effort. In large clubs the club president does not keep the entire paid club roster since frequently there are other officers responsible for that (sectrary or treasurer of membership chairman). I know of at least one case where this created a major problem, but that is transparent to the AMA.

Now let's couple that with this appointed Safety Officer who is responsible for enforcement of the AMA Safety Code. Ignoring J_R's on target comments about liability there is another important thing we have done to our selves that is negative. By making a specific individual responsible for safety, we have released the general membership from the task. Sorry, but why should they worry about it when it is Sam's job? This is a serious concern since once a month most club officers I know tell the members it is EVERYONE's job to be safe.

When I teach folks to fly, I teach safe operations AND the AMA Safety Code with the local club add on rules. If we had a DVD to give to beginners, it could be used to point to a structure of lessons that ALL instructors might use. That is the first step we need to take in standardization which leads to SAFER operations.

It should be clear that since there seems to be lots of 'stuff' that suddenly turns up as rules we have to live by, the web site is reasonably considered a good source.

Unfortunately most of the manure comes from those that declare their given name.

Jim I couldn't disagree more.

I have a totally different perspective. First and foremost this is hobby...you know for enjoyment. If it becomes a rigid totalitarian organization I would be outta here(the AMA) and so would most others... it will not last long after that type of dictatorship.

I believe our hobby/sport is very safe compared to many other activities and I also believe safety issues are blown way out of proportion. Of course safety is important and maybe some form of education is desirable such as DVD to especially for the newbie but I have witnessed even the most seasoned modeler have a brain fart and cause an accident...Oh BTW he knew better. Matter of fact most accidents I have witnessed has been the more experienced modeler...go figure. Accidents do
happen! The old saying "safety is no accident" is cute but has no real merit.

Gentlemen,

Newbie to this discussion, but as a r/c combat pilot, one of the first things in my mind is always safety.

I have a few (may or may not be valid) points that I think I should make.

1. I will not speculate as to final results of the AMA’s wishes on the safety officer position, but I will use my home club as an example;
- “Safety Officer” is the chairperson of the “Safety Committee” This committee of which I am a member is charged with maintaining field rules, safety inspections at club events, and hopefully gentle reminders to members at the field when it is seem they are flying in an unsafe manner.
- ALL members of our club are charged with the duties of being field marshals/safety persons
So if they see something out of the ordinary, it is their/our responsibility to mention items that a person might change to fly in a safer manner.
- Our club Vice-President is the “Chief Flight Instructor”. He runs regular “Ground Schools”
For new student’s and club members who wish to freshen up on their safe starting, handling procedures.
- It is highly recommended that “new” students go through these safety courses.
- Instructors are charged with the responsibility of teaching not only flight, but also good field practices.

2. If the AMA wants reports of “accidents” filed by the club safety officer, maybe they should better
define what constitutes an accident. Do they want reports on every crash, or do they want reports on
circumstances resulting in major personal injury. Here a better definition (more clarity) would most likely due a greater service to the membership in the long run, as major accidents can be investigated and safety recommendations made in a timely fashion as they are needed. (Maybe I am discussing what is already in place, or I am seeing a “perfect” world that will not exist)
-MAAC is dealing with a major accident right now. MAAC has requested a moratorium on on-line forum discussion of the
accident so that all details can be reviewed by MAAC and the local Police. I think that this is wrong, because discussion (without
names obviously) would be healthy for the membership. Also a statement from MAAC would be
a good thing, pertaining to the incident and a possibility of steps being taken in the future to
avoid future incidents.

3. Bill O. is my district VP. I have found him to be very straight forward. I cannot believe that he would make any recommendations to the EC that were not in the best interest of the membership. Yes, I agree that he might have overstepped the bounds of the charter for his committee. I think that his recommendations may be good, though I think some on this forum (no disrespect intended) may have taken them far too literally.
4. Our club is one of the largest in our area (250+ members). We have a very comprehensive safety program in place at our field. This program does not interrupt the day to day operation of the field, or it’s use. We are very proud that Bill O. and his AVP’s regularly use our field and club as an example for safe setup and operation

Enough for Now,

Jay Lawless
AMA member
RCCA member/state rep
AMA Contest Director

Hi Jay

Welcome aboard.

Your club sounds as though it should be a model for the way things should be. The really nice thing is that it was done without anyone saying you had to do it that way. It shows a lot of concern and maturity on the part of the leadership of your club.

As always, I have a thought or two.

If the club consisted of 35 members, would the same model work? It could, but, in the real world, how many of the 35 would be willing to become as involved? Would the system be so emasculated that something with less organization would be more desirable… and safe… than a *******ized version of something designed for larger clubs?

Out here, one of our largest flying sites is at a non-AMA chartered field; the Sepulveda Basin. At the basin, AMA membership is not required. It is not unusual to have a dozen planes in the air at one time. Although there is an AMA chartered club associated with the basin, it has no control of operations. That is the way the City of Los Angeles has set this site up. If anything were required by rule, it could/would not be enforced. If attempts were made to, say, investigate an accident involving an AMA member and a non-member, it could result in a confrontation. That’s the nature of the basin today, although it was not always like that. Although instruction is generally available, it might just as well be a non-member doing the teaching as an AMA member. These are the types of things that make mandated programs virtually impossible to enforce, IMHO.

Part of my concern does not lie entirely at the feet of Bill Oberdieck. Training/safety is a real issue. There is much speculation as to the intent of the documents that have been posted. As always, there are those who would lay blame at the feet of the individual that produced the documents, and it can, very easily, get out of hand. IMHO, the responsibility for this lies not with the members of this forum, but with Bill and with the AMA leadership. This is not a new issue. There has been time over the last couple of years to make the membership aware of the facts in Model Aviation. There should be no reason for speculation as to what an accident is, in terms of the documents. There should be no speculation as to whether this will be mandated, or voluntary. The discussions (not word for word specifics, but general discussions) that have taken place at the leadership level should have been put forth to the membership in MA, and if input was desired, it should have been requested. If the opportunity to do this was not afforded the author of the documents, that too, should be made known. If on the other hand, it has intentionally been kept close, then there is blame to lay.

It seems obvious that this is a complex issue. It is going to take many people, the Safety Committee, the SIGs, time, and work to resolve it. It certainly, IMHO, should not fall on the shoulders of one individual, or a small committee. There are just to many issues involved. On these issues, unintended consequences are not acceptable in it’s resolution.

J_R

Thanks for the welcome, and yes, I think that our club should be very proud of it's leadership. We have one of the best sites in the area I think, and I have flown at quite a few for combat meets.

Almost sounds like the Sepulveda Basin is a combat meet waiting to happen

I agree that a heckuva lot more thought is going to have to go into this issue. It is not simply solved with an edict. I submit though that some of the greatest policies and such have been developed from "all encompassing" ideas which were pared down to fit as many situations as possible, yet still reasonably accomplish the goal.

Finally, safety is a goal for everyone. It is not something we can just do now, but it must be strived for at all times.

Jay

Little Crankshaf
I might respectfully suggest you READ the document before just jumping up and saying you are against what ever it is I might say because it is me. I say that because you just said the same thing I have been saying all along.

Please,

If you feel the need to e-mail or pm me with warnings about others on this forum (or others), do not. It is not necessary. I am quite capable of determining who I wish to communicate with. If you do feel the need to "warn" me, please do so in public on this forum so that all included parties can comment. Any attempts in the future of this will result in the immediate posting of the e-mail, whether you intended it as personal or not, for all to read, especially those parties included in your e-mail.

I have handled myself with dignity and respect on any other forum that I have participated in, though, if I am drawn into a p***ing contest, I always drink lots of water. I make my points and leave personal attacks at home.

I am not posting this as an attempt to offend anyone, just a public reply to a personal e-mail regarding some forum members that I received. The reply to this e-mail was bounced back as undeliverable, so I think I can get the message through here. It was an unsigned e-mail of course.

Jay Lawless

Jay

We may always agree, or we may always disagree, or it may be some combination.

In any case, I like your style. I hope you continue to post here for a long time to come.

JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732

Jay-
what he said. Glad to have you aboard, and thanks for coming.

Abel

Jim

I apologize for appearing as if I am "jumping up" and saying I am against what ever it is you might say because it is you. Actually I re-read the post in question to be sure that my position is the position I maintain and that it is opposed to yours...my conclusion is that I am still against standardization administered by anyone and especially the AMA and it appears you are a proponent for such. It really doesn't matter to me who is for "standardization" I will still disagree with it.

Just for the record it was not I that sent an email to Jay to warn him against Jim or anyone one else. Just can’t help wondering who might have sent an email to warn him about me though. No one comes to mind… oh well

O.K., we disagree, but probably not as much as you might think.

I have helped too many students others turned loose on the world as 'R/C pilots'. I saw one guy (an FAA type no less!) who stopped teaching whatever it was if the student EVER did it. Typically his ex students were replacing airframes with extreme regularity. That is why some of us noticed the problem. I have also seen the instructor who let student continue their first landing approaches into the pitts.

I don't think a standardized approach to instruction can be all bad because then we could all have some idea what the student is supposed to know. Look at it in the light of the guy I used to see let his students land in the pitts. Sure it might have been safe enough when there was no one around, but do you think that point was ever made to the student?

Consider that the FAA REQUIRES flight instruction to follow a very specific syllabus and have very measurable and specific check points and goals. It works for well over 3 times as many folks as are AMA members, so it cannot all be bad. However, I do grant that I would be afraid of a MANDATED standard. I think a suggested standard is the answer to the basic question of how do we tell if Sammy is ready to solo or not.

Now as for the letter to Jay, I could care less if my name was on the list of troublemakers or not. It should be pretty clear that whatever low life scum sucking dirt ball sent him the e-mail is a coward too.

Hang in there Jay and welcome to the forum where the crazies (according to some in power within the AMA - but NOT all) run the asylum.

I think a recommended structured approach may be the answer to the basic question of how do we tell if Sammy is ready to solo or not but ultimately that is up to the instructor, the club and Sammy.

We are getting closer

Point....

Again using our club as an example:

We use a tiered program. First the aforementioned ground school, then regular instruction through one of our club's instructors, then the student must solo and prove himself to the chief instructor (Vice President) or one of his duly designated representatives.

So I guess I agree, that a structured system would be best for the student, and in the long run, general safety.

I learned to fly on a Stick 40, then a Superstar 40. I had a very patient instructor, (he is still instructing my grandfather after 5 years).
He made sure that I knew what I was doing before I soloed (this was before we instituted the tiered system). I still wrecked a couple of planes after I received my certification, but I think that was more in the process of feeling my oats as it were. Students will be able to fly most times after they have finished instruction, but the experience is what they lack, and unfortunately, the only way to gain experience is to screw up.

"You will learn infinitely more from your own mistakes, than you will from the mistakes of others"

"IF" this video that is referenced will help to reinforce the lessons that are taught at the field, rather than replace them, I think it is a good idea. But face to face is still the best way, and I think the tiered system should be researched for all clubs (J_R, you can insert on a case to case basis in here), and instituted if applicable.

Jay

Is the title subject of the thread about training of newbies or safety? I see little nexus between pilot skill level and crashing of model airplanes. Nearly all model airplanes crash eventually. It follows that on average those with the most experience have crashed the most airplanes. If Bill O's video is to be about preventing model airplanes from crashing, it will be a fruitless waste of time and money. It would however be consistent with the drift from Sanctions and Liabilities to a pie-in-the-sky concept of a spy network of club safety nazis reporting to AMA HQ.

Abel

Abel,
I doubt that any video will ever have any significant impact on the general subject of safety. However, IF we start teaching better procedures with a video, some impact will probably be seen.

For example, exactly what movements do you use to tune an engine you have just started and/or remove the glow heater? It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is to teach that particular series of cautions even knowing that most woud not intentionally choose to put their hand in the spinning prop. Yet I constantly see folks thatl have done so because they have never internalized the correct movements (STOP AND GET BEHIND THAT PROP!) .

Another example in the same area is engine start up, where we face the most personal injury risks. There is at least one correct manner to start an engine and there are several less safe ways to do so. I rarely see folks I have not taught use the correct manner. The correct manner is out of the prop arc (to avoid flying prop chunks) and not in front of that meat grinder (in case the plane lunges forward for ANY reason), not just something that is personal to me. How many folks do YOU know that use a correct manner? Another MAJOR part of that 'correct manner' is where the transmitter is placed. It becomes a real problem if the throttle gets bumped to full when you reach for the box (because you only have ONE hand on the plane), or the plane moves forward and masks the transmitter from you.

These are the sort of things that we need to teach all, including the OF's who have simply been lucky to date. Regulation WILL NOT HELP solve the problems but education goes a long way.

Having been involved in sailplanes, heavily, some long time ago, the League of Silent Flight (LSF) immediately comes to mind when tired skill levels are mentioned. The LSF had, and probably still does, a completely voluntary program. It relied on the pilot’s desire to improve his ability and the recognition of his peers. There were/are 5 levels that ranged from learning to land to long distance and long duration flights. The LSF concept has one drawback in today’s world of sport power flyers… it is heavily based on success in competition (rule book type events).

I personally like the idea of a set of goals, as long as they are voluntary. However many levels, with some minor form of recognition (maybe a certificate, maybe just a check sheet to be signed off, such as LSF uses), for advancing skills. This is a concept the AMA could produce recommendations for, that might be embraced by clubs and/or individuals. Give some concrete goals, and recognize the attainment of those goals. Such a program would probably accelerate learning of skill sets, and, thus, reduce risks to a more limited time frame, and, ultimately, make our fields safer. I believe that many pilots, after their initial training need some guidance (guidance, not mandates) in pursuing a better skill set. Many go to the field and do the same things over and over, rather than learning more advanced skills. Leaning to fly inverted, and rolling out, rather than looping out, is an example that is not obvious to a newbie without outside input, as an example. These goals need not involve an instructor, although it could. It just gives the new pilot the road map to a better skill set.

At the other end of the spectrum is the use of tiered licenses, or tiered insurance. This rises to the level of mandated activities and, in my opinion, should not be considered. As a matter of fact, unfortunately, the word “tiered” brings the hackles up on the necks of many because of such proposals in the past.

I guess it comes to this: I believe that if you order clubs, or individuals, to do anything, there may be resistance on principle alone, while, if you say, “here is a suggestion to advance your flying skills”, it will be viewed in a positive light. The whole thing, again, comes back to communication. Communication is THE weak suit of the AMA.

JR

I think you misunderstood my tiered comments. The piloting skill level is not tiered, but rather the instruction is. This is to ensure that the student would get the full benefit from each level. i.e.:

1- ground school: proper starting and field safety procedures, discuss taxiing etc.

2- flight instruction: discuss, learn and practice all basic skills, then move on to higher skills. Solo for instructor.

3- final test flight: Test Solo in front of Lead Instructor to prove that you are more than capable of handling your aircraft and all field safety rules, in a proficient manner.

4- Cleared for flight on solo basis. Realize here, that practice will lead to more handling abilities, therfore a better pilot in the future.

Though now that I think about it, a tiered piloting level within the AMA might be a good thing...oh s***, wait MAAC has that up north, and from what I have read recently, it is just a mess to administrate. Scratch the entire thought.

And finally, as I said before, if the AMA video merely augments the existing training programs on the club level, it is a good thing.

Jay