Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I dread the day when AMA sets pilot qualifications, for it will be a clear harbinger of the end of our hobby.

CDignition

My Feedback: (9)

AMA already has if clubs follow this type of pattern....too late.

Live Wire

Ill bet before the AMA gets to far involve in this they will tell them to either get the problem solved or they will pull the charter. They do not want to get involved in personal or club inter structure. Thats what bylaws are for! they do not want to be policemen.[>:]

[8D]

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi everyone,
I e-mailed our new ED, Don Koranda about this problem. He replied to my e-mail and he's looking into the matter and will get back to me as soon as possible with answers.
As soon as I hear anything I'll let everyone know.
BRG,
Jon

Hossfly

Michael, I have no information on any case remotely close to yours.

I am not aware of any thing in the AMA insurance other than what they post on the website and provide on the little card that comes with your membership card "license".

The comments you request are in a post above where I addressed some material presented by aresti2004.

I cannot do more or comment on your specific BOD as I do not know anything about your Club Bylaws and how your club operates. Any comment is of no importance in that case.

There has to be a legal beagle here that could give a much better opinion of the situation.

I do recall that a popular term in civil discussions always pops up" "Due-Diligence" defined as: "the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property."

In my books concerning corporate structure, one thing that is repeated is that the corporate officers' first duty is to protect the assets of the corporation. My club is incorporated and owns its flying facility, therefore it has assets. What about yours?

Only the attorneys and judges can define "reasonable". [>:]

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

There seems to be a lot of opinions here.
I for one would tell the guy to fly.
If the club denys him his right, then sue for discrimination.
We don't force people to have eye exams to see if they can see.
If they crash they either complain that they were hit or that they lost it in the sun.
I am as safety conscience as the next guy but this is a hobby where we fly toys.
These toys are dangerious, but the risk in this case is very small.
How long has he been flying before this one episode?
Has this happened more than once?
If not, then I would let it lie

abel_pranger

Right, Hoss. Billary's actions were right and reasonable because lawyers and judges found they weren't illegal.

Abel

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi everyone,
I'm sorry to see this thread starting to degenerate into name calling. It's a really serious issue that's has potentially far reaching consequenes for members of the AMA.
I've gotten responses from Dave M. and Don Koranda and I know that they're working hard to get the issue resolved and they've both said this subject is going to be discussed this weekend in Muncie.
I have to say, both Dave M. and Don responded quickly and both were very concerned about this issue, so my hats off to them.
In the meantime, I hope, in fairness to the member, the BOD will reconsider their decsion, but, of course, that's a local issue that they have to deal with.
As soon as I find out anything, I'll post it.
BRG,
Jon

abel_pranger

My bad, Jon. Horrace, I apologize. It never occurred to me that you might might be offended by the nickname I have been using to address you. As for the rest of my reply, when you said "Only the attorneys and judges can define "reasonable," I couldn't help but think of the lawyers that redefined what "is" is, and what "having sex" is not. Maybe I need to reconsider that too.

Abel

africanmike

Geistware, The man in question flew rc for many years, he taught half the members in our club to fly.
The defib unit has only gone off once that I am aware of, and has since been reprogrammed as it supposedly went off too easily.
the guy drives his car, comes to general meetings, is at the club field 3 or 4 times a week, once drove another member from the field to the hospital as we are out in the boonies and explaining to 911 operators where we are can be a chore.

After this incident , the GPS location and map grid refrences and Sheriffs patrol zone numbers where posted at the field
we considered installing a land line (phone) and buying a portable defib unit in case this happens again.
Most of our members are elderly, any one of us could drop dead at any minute, yet the BOD did this without any guidance from our by-laws, input from the membership, precedent, or for any viable reason that I can think of. They claim it is a safety issue and therefore have the right to do this .

I contend that they only have the right to implement safety policy when it affects all club members equally, surely if they want to restrict one particular person , the very minimum they should do is get a vote from the membership.

I firmly believe that what they have done is wrong, and even if the membership voted to recind his solo status I would still believe it was a mistake, but would bow to the will of the majority, that is after all what democracy is about.

My main gripe though is the way they went about it. They say they discussed it more than once and not for a short time and I believe them , but when this member stood up at a meeting and appealed for help from the membership , the BOD said that the AMA advised them not to let him fly solo and wouldn't let us vote on the issue

That to me is totalitarian. After the meeting, discussions in the parking lot got quite heated with some name calling and threats and calls for impeachment, in my opinion when things degenerate into a urinating contest , everyone just ends up smelling of urine.

This is a nice club, with nice people. Some of the BOD are my friends, one of them has taught me a lot about IMAC. How do We let them see the light ?
Surely somewhere out there something like this has happened before. I dont want AMA to remove our charter. Nor do I want to see our club sued for discrimination. HELP.

GrnBrt

My Feedback: (5)

the club I belong to knows that I have a unit in me and the V-P is a doctor and they have absolutely no problem with it and don't see as a safety issue. I am really upset at the way this gentleman is being treated and it's uncalled for.

africanmike

Kingwoodbarney post#18
you give me precedent on ATC . pilot ect I was asking for precedence in the modeling world

Post #39 What if he is the only person at the field, I am often the only person there.
If this is not a legal disability then surely that proves my point, and it is discrimination
our club does not ask any medical questions of anybody else. There may well be other members there with Defb units. Someone with a heart condition and no defib unit is surely more of a risk that the man in question.
If thats not discrimination I don't know what is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

they really went about it all wrong.

should do what has been done in other places. simply enact that all flyers, at all times, will havve a qualifed spoter in place with them whilst they fly.
gets around the copilot issue, and dosen't single any one out, and hides the reason for the rule.

horace kinda hinted at this in an earlier post.
we did it at the last club i was in, backin 75, after a guy had a heart attack whilst flying unasisted.

africanmike

mogo: Worth thinking about .

Live Wire

This is not the only place having this type of problem but it boils down to PRIDE no one is willing to back down and discuss the problem like gentlemen. It can be done I agree with G.B. on OFs and the hobby. Young people drop dead to[&o]

[8D]

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Country clubs in the south still deny membership based on race and religion. The PGA actually visits these country clubs. A club can deny membership for any reason. The club need only be willing to endure the public's reaction .

When I mentioned the FAA, I was trying to tell you just who some of the players are. There have been lawsuits about this very issue. There are some heavy hitters that spent big money to insure that this is not discrimination. The law is the law. It doesn't matter what you do for a living, all are treated equal under the law.

There simply is no doubt in my mind that this is not discrimination as it is defined today. My point was only that the club is well within it's rights to limit, or restrict or even ban this man from flying or even belonging to the club. That aspect of the discussion has nothing to do with insurance or liability.

As for insurance and liability I am ignorant and can offer no opinion. It appears the advise that the club has been given is to treat him as a student pilot until the insurance information is resolved. That sounds reasonable to me. We all wait for the answer.

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks for responding.
TO me, this is wrong.
Do the club poll all members who have had a heart attack in the past and say they can't fly alone.
Do the club poll all members who had little floaties in their eyes and said they can't fly?
Accidents happen. People grow old and can't function in the manner in which they did in their youth.
To penialize a viable, contributing member, because he had a episode during the adjustment of his life enhancement device is just plain wrong. The club would be better off making sure people follow the rules already in existance instead of creating new ones that will causes desention within the club.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Mongo said it, just mandate spotters for everyone, problem solved.

I think flying without a spotter is very dangerous in any case.

abel_pranger

For what you fly, YES. For what most of us fly NO.

Abel

CDignition

My Feedback: (9)

I dont...I actualy perfer to fly alone if I can...much more relaxing and more fun..it isnt any more dangerous than flying in a crwod, and probably safer...Just remember, the most dangerous part of your flying day is DRIVING to the feild

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Abel,
I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are speaking of the PF crowd not needing spotters, I still disagree.

I do not want to tell the number of times I have been flying at the club field and set up a landing only to find some fool has decided to tune his engine while in the center of the runway. I have learned to look carefully, but a spotter would be a better idea. The PF crowd has a worse problem in that the general public has no clue what his landing needs might be. Again, a spotter is a better idea.

Hossfly

So what's the POINT?

MANDATE spotters -- _ell NO! When I want a spotter I will get one. When I don't, I won't.

Regradless of the safety experts, there are times I like being at the field by myself. Risk? -- yep, but that's MY choice. At least I can't hurt those not there. [>:]

abel_pranger

Disagree with me? That's not allowed. Gotta call my DVP and get a rule made.......[8D]

I think it's clear that what you and Matt and Mongo are concerned about is situational awareness, a necessary part of safe operation. A spotter can certainly contribute to that awareness, and I can see there are instances where it would not be prudent to fly without one. I see it as a judgment call to be made by responsible people, rather than something to be mandated, though.
If I'm flying my sailplane equipped with with E-power for launch, I don't feel the need to have a spotter by my side for half an hour while I chase thermals up high and out of the pattern. The field I usually fly at has only 3 pilot stations (number in the air is limited as a part of our noise abatement plan), so even when the field is busy it's easy to talk to the other pilots and be aware of what each other is doing. "Busy" at this field means more than half a dozen guys showed up to fly. I'm sure that conditions are more hectic at larger, more active clubs, and the need for spotters may well be greater. Actually, I had one yesterday. First flight on a new model (read all trims in 'surprise' mode), and I had my hands full. Apparently the flashing fingers on the computer radio had changed the elevator travel (BIG change) while I was setting throttle end points on the bench. Almost instantly I had a spotter by my side. He saw that my attention needed to be on flying the errant model 100%, and instinctively reacted to be my eyes and ears regarding other things in my surroundings I needed to be aware of. Should I have asked him to be there before I took off? Of course I should have.

Matt flys jets, and if they are like some that my friends fly (not at our quiet field, BTW) the situation one needs to be aware for safety covers a lot of sky and real estate real quick. The ceiling of 400' that we observe to allow for some no-fly zone between our models and rider-scale aircraft is reached in a pull up from the deck in less than 2 seconds. That fact in itself mandates having a spotter. At the club I belong to where they are flown, everything else is grounded while they are operating. Frankly, I don't know if its a club rule or gentleman's agreement, but I sure don't need a rule to opt out of sharing the runway, frequency space, and airspace with them. Everybody present becomes a spotter when they light up! Turbines aren't a one-man operation anyway. Even in the start area one of the jet jocks will be watching so a bystander doesn't stray into the blast, and he'll generally stay with the plane as it taxis out for final control checks, and to disconnect the ground aux fuel tank that most guys use to keep internal tanks topped of right until rollout.

Mongo flys helis and though I don't, I imagine them to demand about that same level of attention as my untrimmed over-controlled model did. If that perception is anywhere near accurate, then I understand his position re needing spotters too.

I think it should remain a judgement call. If you are unable to maintain sufficient situational awareness to ensure safe operation without an extra pair of eyes and ears, then don't fly without a spotter. I'll trust good judgment over rules almost always. Fortunately good judgment seems widespread in our hobby/sport, and rules probably don't do much to mitigate the problems caused by those that are lacking in it.

Abel

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Same thing all of the bikers said when helmet laws were being discussed.

To me it is always safer to have a spotter, I mean while I am flying I never look away from the plane...never. So I cannot see ANYTHING else.

And the scenario of flying alone, what if a kid walks up behind you and pulls at the antenna (happened) a dog or kid walks on the runway ( happened) etc etc.

africanmike

Kingwoodbarney post#66 If a club was started for left handed males for argument sake, and a member turned out to be right handed then I agree with you, as ridiculous as it sounds, he could be kicked out , and by definition, it's not discrimination. Or if a woman wanted to join, or if the club was for Catholic people and a Jewish person wanted to join, sure such clubs actually exsist and operate within the law , and its not discrimination because they ban ALL such people who do not fit the social parameters that they have set for membership within their club.

BUT!! in this particular case having a defib unit is not a reason for exclusion to our club. No-one else is ever excluded from any activity at our club for any health reason. This man has been banned from flying solo by our BOD under absolutely no by-laws or social parameters established by our club. Now I'm not a lawer and I don't know if this is discrimination in the legal sense but it sure as hell is discrimination in the common sense........sense If that makes sense..LOL it sounded better in my head.

You said the club can kick him out if it wants, my whole point here is that the CLUB , meaning the vast majority of members does NOT want to recind his solo status , but the BOD does and I have been told by a member of the BOD that they can kick him out if they want too. But thats the B O D, not the members.

Are the BOD servants of the club or rulers?
Is a club not supposed to be a democracy?
When we run for a club position do we not say "we wish to serve our club"?

There are some good folks here who are trying to get the AMA side of it sorted out, If the AMA says that in their eyes he is no differant from any other AMA insured person, do you not think our BOD should re-instate this mans status.

BTW AMA has not denied him coverage, nor cancelled his existing membership, they just wrote a letter to our BOD advising them not to let him fly solo. They (AMA) also told this particular member over the phone that it didn't concern them, so we (members) are getting conflicting reports about AMA's stand on the issue. Hopefully that will be clarified soon.
As we are an AMA chartered club, if AMA denies him coverage we will have no choice but to not let him fly solo, But if AMA says he can be covered same as everybody else then we still have the BOD to contend with.
I know that that is nobody here's problem, when I started this thread I only wanted some advise or input on AMA coverage as far as disabled people because our BOD is using the letter it got from AMA as a big stick to beat the rest of us into accepting their decision.
if I can get AMA to clarify their position, maybe I can take that big stick away from them YIPEEEEE!

Phew my fingers are tired , thats the longest damn thing I've ever typed.....LOL Hope my fingers don't cramp up so i can't fly this weekend..............Oh Gawd! Do you think the BOD might recind my solo status?