Why is it that a waiver holder can not go to his own local field, take along 10 guys with fire extingishers and 4x4s, and do his maiden? How much of this is about safety and how much of it is about the dollars invested in a turbine? Does it have anything to do with the fact the pilot has, what? $3000 to $20000 invested in the aircraft? Same can be asked about other events, but, only turbines have a higher than normal risk of fire. What justification is there for Giant Scale or others to want maidens at events, other than money? Why not do them at a local site, away from crowds?

If pilots need experts to set up their aircraft, do the really belong in an event where there is a crowd?

I don't think you can make much of a case for allowing participants (not involved in the maiden flight) into a jet fly (or any other event for that matter), and spectators, along with thier vehicles, etc., onto the premesis and then do maidens. If safety were the prime concern, non-participants would not be allowed on premisis until the maidens are done. People should be at a higher premium than setting a fire on a ranking of safety concerns, at least in my opinion.

Hi Gordon-

Replying to a post several behind in the thread - time out to fly and catching up.

What you posted makes a great deal of good sense. I suspect the reason is does is because you have 'been there.' Sensible policy/procedures/rules generally do come from people that have been there.
I think we are fast approaching the root of the issue/problem of the moment, and now my question is: Why is CM making policy like this when it seems so obvious it should be tasked to available people that know the territory, e.g., Don Lowe and/or Tony Stillman?
That's a rhetorical Q; I know you know the answer.

Abel

Why point the finger at Carl? I would bet his inclination was to just say no. Do you really think this idea was his? You can bet that Don Lowe and the safety committee had plenty to say. <<<<<<<<<<<&lt ; opinion

I'm not pointing the finger at Carl, but to the people that put him in the position to deal with the issue. Who? dunno precisely, but Carl is an employee of AMA, not one of the guys that ostensibly make the decisions about how AMA is run. It's also true that I wasn't there. Maybe Carl wasn't either - what I said was based on my understanding derived from information from what I deem to be a reliable source. Don't we all? Don Lowe and the safety committee may well have had plenty to say, but apparently nobody in a position to say who does what to whom was listening.

Edit to add:
Left out one germane point I meant to include. As you well know, Carl is on the safety committee, too. You know I some misgivings about that. There are many examples of AMA policy that put preventing exposure of AMA to liability ahead of safety. Carl's primary concern is rightly the former, and I consider his role on the safety committee a conflict of interest.

Abel

Carl is the Director of the Special Services Department. His boss is the ED. The ED, and not the EC, is charged with running the AMA. As such, Carl has the power to make some decisions about the running of the AMA. Setting policy is another matter, supposed to be left to the EC. In the past, some of the relationships became fuzzy. I no longer believe that to be the case. I can not see, regardless of the time reference, that Carl set policy, in this instance.

Having said that, and I say this only somewhat tonuge in cheek, Carl would, in my opinion, left to his own devices, never allow any new aircraft within 10,000 feet of anyone or anything not absolutely necessary for a first flight.

Carl is one of very few individuals that have an understanding of the AMA's insurance policy. Not to have him on the safety committee could be a disaster. The safety committee has no power. It can make recommendations to the EC. I have a hard time seeing that sitting on a powerless committee is a conflict of interest, by any definition. He gets no vote in the EC.

Man, you've sharpened tha pencil to a very fine point. You know good and well the ED does not run AMA in such matters as safety and what we are discussing here. Yes, I know Carl knows the insurance like nobody else. Nobody else has even seen the policy.
The safety committee makes recommendations to the EC. The Special Services Department makes recommendations to the EC. Those recommendaions don't stand a chance of being weighted equally by the EC when the head of the SSD is the also the only full-time member of the SC. Just MHO, you don't have to agree with my view that it is a conflict of interest.
Back to the topic of discussion, the weirdly contrived policy of having the CD leave the site of the event when something might happen that AMA is skeptical of has one purpose and one purpose only: to distance AMA from liability risk that may arise if they were exposed to a lawsuit. As there has been much confusion over this, I mean a lawsuit against AMA directly, the organization that sanctions the event, as opposed to some party that AMA is the insurance agent for. It is not in the best interest of safety, and may well be counterproductive to safety. As such, it carrys the stamp of Carl Maroney the insurance guru, not Carl Maroney who has a seat on the safety committee.

Abel

I disagree. I believe the ED now runs every aspect of the organization, except making policy. If the safety policy is in place, it will be administered at the ED level or below.

Here we are in disagreement. No policy was made. No Rule was made. The Rule has been in place for gosh knows how long. All that was done was to point out the specifcs of the rule that was pre-existing. That is not a policy change, at least not in my book.

If you want to redefine what a sanction is, send a proposal to your VP.

Since the same policy covers the CD, the AMA member, and AMA clubs with a site aggragate of $2.5 million, and the landlord has coverage for $2.5 million, I can't see what your point is. I am not enough of an attorney to understand why you believe the AMA could be sued for issuing a sanction. If you have some reason to believe that the CD is covered by some special policy for that purpose, by the AMA I could see your point. I do not believe it is a seperate policy, and therefore do not see your point. Is there different coverage within the policy for a CD? I believe there is, but, having never seen the policy do not know for a fact.

The rule carries the stamp of the AMA. I strongly doubt that Carl had anything to do with the definition of a sanction.

You mentioned coverage for the CD, member, and landowner, but didn't say anything about coverage for AMA itself. I was very specifically talking about AMA being sued. I may be missing something crucial to the central point of this tedious discussion, but I am under the impression, mistaken or otherwise, that the policy of having the CD leave the event premises is based on the following legal theory:
The CD is an agent of AMA. While he in on the premises, AMA is on the premises, and has responsibility for what may transpire during the course of the event they are sanctioning. If something goes bad that results in a liability situation, AMA is exposed to being accused of negligence in an ensuing lawsuit. If the CD is not there, then AMA is not there and so has excused itself from the nastiness to come.

It seem less a shelter and more house of cards to me, but IANAL.

I don't give a rat's corpse about the definition of a sanction, and I'm not biting on that attempt at evasion and diversion of the issues being discussed. This is your thread, your topic, remember?

Abel

Abel

As I have said before, I have never seen the AMA policy. To give you an example of the nature of the policy that I do know about. Let's look at coverage for flight instructors. Commercial flight instructors (those in it for profit) are not covered because of an exclusion to the policy. Casual instructors are covered, by virtue of an exclusion to the exclusion. As I understand, CDs are covered by the same type mechanism. In a rather long discussion with Dave Brown 14 months ago, we talked about the potential liability for his doomsday scenario involving turbines. He stated, several times, that the maximum exposure of the AMA in the case of any incident was $5,000,000. He stated his concern was not the potential loss, or his concern with a claim, but with what the media and politicians might do. I have no reason to doubt his assertion. As I said, I can't see any liability in the issuance of a sanction.

As near as I understand, the only difference in coverage for a CD relates to his enforcement of the rules and any liability that might be generated in those enforcements authorized by the AMA in the form of the competition rules, safety code, etc. The CD is also able to issue instant memberships. Those are, as far as I know, the only elements of agency bestowed on a CD. I suppose I could be missing something else, but that is all that I recall at this point.

*********

As to this thread, let's look at what we know the rules do require of the CD. He must provide, within the constraints of the rules, a safe environment for people and property at a sanctioned event. If he is present, he has the responsibility to enforce the rules. If he does not, by those same rules, he can have is CD status reviewed, with potential loss of the title.

I think we have established that if he is present on the date of the sanction, the sanction is in force and he has the responsibility to enforce rules. It may be that the AMA should junk the program and start over. Most (my opinon) CD's do not have a clue as to the scope of the responsibilites they have taken on. While it is understandable that any CD might not know any particular detail of the program, it amazes me that they are not aware of the main theme of the program, which is to provide a safe environment at a sanctioned event.

It's something the EC needs to look at.

He can, and wherever possible he does - but at his local field he may very well not have the nucleus of jet experience and talent that is available at an event. I kinda thought I had already covered that ?

Not every club has an enormous number and diversity of members, including experienced turbine waiver holders who can handle everyting from a fast sport jet to a very heavy scale jet ; not every clib has suitably experiened heli pilots, giant scale pilots etc. If Joe Blow has no experienced help locally, then it seems he must choose to (a) increase the risk by attempting his maiden flight without qualified help, (b) try to convince a more experienced pilot to travel potentially many hundreds of miles to come help him, or (c) travel to an event where he can get help from the substantial talent pool that is likely to be available there.

Are you aware that we get guys travelling down from Alaska to jet meets in California or Oregon just because they don't feel comfortable getting suitable help in AK ?

Additionally, as I know I have already pointed out, many of the events occur at fields that have substantially larger runways than the local field may have, so having that maiden done somewhere where there is more runway and more open space to deal with the unexpected is something that is clearly advantageous both to the modeller and to hte AMA.

That's a question whose answer will depend very much on the individual, but I can tell you for sure that the turbine community is sufficiently aware of how much DB and others would like to find an excuse to clamp down on us even more, such that we consider at least 3 aspects in the equation - (1) Reducing risk for safety reasons ; (2) Reducing risk for financial reasons ; (3) Reducing risk for political reasons.

Furthermore, IMO it matters less to me what a given individual's reason is for playing safe than it matters that he DOES play safe for some reason or other, by seeking out qualified help wherever he can find it.

Same as above - the nucleus of talent available to assist the individual in having a successful and SAFE maiden flight. Any idea how many clubs don't have giant-scale experts that are truly capable ? I know there are plenty. The talent in these other disciplines may not be nearly as disperesed as is the case for turbines, but nevertheless I know of plenty people who have travelled hundreds of miles for such assistance. (Including coming to my old club during giant-scale events in order to enlist the assistance of 2 of Northern California's best heavy warbird pilots who typically did 2 or 3 maidens per day, after the event closed.)

Perhaps you'd rather see Joe Blow take off his first 200cc powered 55lb giant scale, out of trim warbird without suitable help, and stuff the aircraft into the pits, the nearby busy freeway, or take out the local birdwatchers or bikers (yes - there are "innocent bystanders everywhere - not only at events), but I'd rather see him go to an event, have 2 or 3 experts look his model over for anything that he missed, then wait until the event is done for the day and the crowds disperse, then have expert hands handle that first flight.

Perhaps you should try re-reading my prior posts, as it seems you have this one backwards. I happen to be the one who has been advocating that it is safer to have the maiden occur out-of-hours when the crowds have either not turned up in force yet, or have largely dispersed for the day, rather than allowing a maiden to occur in front of large crowds just because the CD has temporarily stepped off-site - which (judging from your posts) is what the AMA position amounts to.

Gordon

Think back to the bad old days of the Great Satan, SFA. SFA sued AMA. The basis of their suit was libelous claims against SFA made by some people at a model show/convention. The claim would have been thrown out as without merit except for one fact they were able to establish early on. The people accused of libeling SFA were agents of AMA. If they were to be found to have committed libel, then AMA as a corporation would also be culpable. Please note I used this for example only. I don't want to get into rehashing that sorry piece of history.
It may be that a CD's agency has some bounds that could keep AMA itself shielded from a lawsuit against the CD, but I doubt it. The CD's agency encompasses the safe conduct of the event, and given that, I don't think AMA could wriggle out of the path of the tort enterprise. But as I said, IANAL.

Abel

Gordon

As I suggested before: schedule a day before the event to do maidens. Sanction an extra day if you please. It may be inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient some family having to schedule a funeral.

Even in the earliest or lastest hours of an event, there are more people present than would normally be present on “just another day�. It sure shouldn’t bother those coming in from AK.

You're more of a lawyer than I am. I have no idea about the factual details of the SFA/AMA suit, and I don't really care. I also don't know what coverage the AMA has or does not have, and I don't really care.

I will take your leave

That kind of approach was tried before, for Frank Tiano's ill-fated "get your waiver the day before the event starts" fiasco. Here's the problems:

(1) The required experienced personel are frequently only at the event during the sanctioned days. Whlie you can easily convince the newbie who needs help that he should take an extra day off work, those from whom he needs the assistance can't reasonably be expected to just keep taking lots of unpaid leave.
(2) If I'm understanding this right, the AMA suggests we should have a sanction in order to provide landowner protection - is that about right ? If so, then having a non-sanctioned day before the event suggests asking the landlord to forgo protection. If he's willing to do that for one day, he's probably willing to forgo it for the whole event, in which case we just rendered sanctions pointless. What am I missing ?


Clearly you simply are not reading what I wrote multiple times. Compared to the scenario in which the AMA would permit a maiden in the middle of an event if the CD simply removes himself momentarily, my approach makes the funeral MUCH less likely ... so why would you rather eliminate the approach that has less risk, and keep the one that allows more risk ? For the life of me I simply can't figure that one out.

Beg to differ, most strenuously. You evidently haven't been at some of the clubs I've flown at. SCCMAS club in Morgan Hill, is on public (county) property and is frequently inundated with members of the public on "just another day" ... the club is right next to the freeway, so attracts qiute a lot of "gawkers" who see the models as they drive by and come by for a closer look ; then there's an extremly popular bike / jogger / pedestrian path that runs down the right-hand side of the club (about 800 ft from the runway maybe ?), so loads of cyclists, rollerbladers, horseback riders and walkers stop by the club to get their mid-way refreshments and some entertainment; on the left hand side, about 700ft from the other end of the runway is a hole in the ground that has become an environmental attraction, with a viewing platform built by the county off the end of the runway for the birdwatchers to stand on .. and there are often parties of 40 or 50 of them out there ; etc., etc; etc. - to say nothing of the 100 or so members that are out for a day's flying or spectating with their families. Most of the events that I've attended peter down having to a mere fraction of that number of people around within half an hour to an hour after the MC announces that the event is over for the day and closes the snack shack etc.

Next - these rules apply only to sanctions, correct ? So then please explain to me why you are concerned about the funeral that may occur at a location that is not an AMA site and is simply sanctioned for a few days, but not equally concerned about the funeral that may occur at a location which is an AMA chartered club's site and no sanction has been obtained for the event which still takes place in front of thousands of spectators, and still has a maiden take place after hours. Why is one of these funerals more important to you than the other ?

Gordon

[Edit : fix html tags]

Sorry you've decided to bow out of your discussion. If you care to continue it without me, please do and be assured that I won't interrupt.

As for the parting shot, any notion that casts me as bearing any resemblance to a lawyer is patently absurd. I have other hobbies that make me likely prey to their deprivations. They are my enemy. The causal form of reason that their institution is based on is foreign to me and makes me uncomfortable, as my familiar world functions on logical reason. What little I know of the craft they have so miserably corrupted for their own illicit gain has been acquired in the spirit of "Know Thine Enemy."

Abel

Da_n! I just hate it when you do that, JR.

Yes the Club is responsible for the Safety Code, not only by the Charter but also by the Sales Contract and Deed Restriction. They are subject not only to AMA but to foreclosure if they don't stay serious. Deed restriction dissolves when they pay off the note.

HOW-SOME-EVER! There is a loophole and you made me review all that stuff in the Charter Kit. I will recommend they consider obtaining a separate "Additionally Insured" for Jetero RC Club, Inc.

Ouch that is a big ball-bat you have![]

Gordon

I had made the assumption that you are a CD, or at least had a rudimentary understanding of the process involved with sanctioning an event or running one. Obviously, I have been made an ass of by the assumption.

Most sanctioned events take place at an AMA chartered field, and a separate insurance policy is not issued at all. Only where an event is held at a non-AMA charted field event is the potential for issuance of additional insurance an issue. It is not automatic, even it that case and must be requested by the CD. An event can be held without a sanction at all. I think it is safe to say that more events are held without a sanction, than with. If you have an interest in learning the reasons an event might be sanctioned, read the information at the initial link I posted in this thread.

The day before an event, or the days of the event, if held at an AMA chartered club field, would/should (the club needs to have requested insurance for the landlord in their charter application which applies all year long) have insurance already in place and no sanction needs to be in place. In the case where a sanction is issued at an AMA chartered field, insurance is in place without any action on the part of the CD (subject, again, to the AMA club having requested it as part of it’s charter). In the case of an event at a non-AMA chartered field I will assume that the landlord wants insurance coverage, although, many cases (public facilities such as Sepulveda Basin) would not require such coverage. Now we are down to a very few cases where events are held on non-AMA chartered club fields where insurance is a condition of use by the landlord. I hope this explains why the answer to the question: “If I'm understanding this right, the AMA suggests we should have a sanction in order to provide landowner protection - is that about right ?� is a qualified “no�.

Most of this discussion has been about a technicality that allows a maiden flight to be performed on the date of a sanction. It never occurred to me that any CD would be so callous or insensitive to safety that those flights might be performed in the middle of an event. I assumed that if a CD were going to take advantage of this technicality it would be done at the earliest, or latest hours possible. I have to admit, you have painted a picture of a CD running a turbine event that I would never have considered, and I suspect neither have the EC nor the staff in Muncie. After seeing this, they should consider closing the loophole. If the image you conjured up is an accurate assessment of the turbine waiver holder, they should reconsider the entire program.

I had held the view that the turbine waiver holders were overly concerned with safety. I have seen a couple turn up at my club’s field, take one look, and decide to leave the turbine in the car for the day. It is not suitable for turbine flying, yet, it is much more suited to turbines that the field you describe flying at. If I read that description correctly, there is about 1500 feet, plus the runway, to fly before violation of the safety of individuals. If you actually fly a turbine at that site, and if I have read your description correctly, you have made me rethink my position that turbine waiver holders have good sense. If, in fact, what you are implying is that jet events are actually held at Morgan Hill, after your description of the facility, I don’t have words to express my concerns with the actions of waiver holders.

My suggestion to sanction an extra day for maidens implied the use of the technicality at a non-AMA chartered club field. One where flying is not normal, and it would be unlikely non-involved people would be around on “just any day�. If you understood the CD process and the purpose of a sanction, you would have realized that. Again, my assumption has made an ass of me.


edit: I suppose that if the runway at Morgan Hill is several thousand feet long, it might change my thinking on flying turbines at that site

Indeed. You have errorneously assumed that all CDs need to stay current regarding sanctions. I have been a CD for more years than I care to recall, and during several of those years I ran up to 10 events per year .. but I never once ran an event that was sanctioned. My experience in running numerous events (nicluding up to 100 pilots and 2 r 3 thousand spectators at some of them) all involved using a club site that was already chartered; the club generally only sanctioned pattern events, and that was only because the pattern guys wanted regional "points" scores awarded.

Furthermore, I got burn-out from running so many events, and have consequently not run one for about the last 5 years. I'd be quite happy for the AMA to take my CD status away from me since I do not currently need it for events, but the AMA in their infinfite wisdom decided that they needed me to be a specially designated "Turbine CD" in order to help them overcome problems that their waiver program had introduced. Since the Turbine "CD" position involves absolutely no contest director activity, it should further be obvious how ludicrous that situation is.


So, we are clear that a sanction is not required at a chartered club, but is more likely to be required at a site that is not ; given that, and given the restrictions about "no maidens during a sanctioned event" that you seem to be advocating, how does adding an extra day of sanction help people do maidens during the no-maidens allowed sanctioned day that is before the main event at a site tat is not a chartered club ?

Not even after me pointing it out several times ?

The whole point of creating rules should be to cover the cases where the governing body considers that "common sense" may not be enough, and they need to put in some restrictions that ensure that the governing body's concerns are adequately covered. Introducing rules that cluelessly reduce such coverage rather than increase it, is totally counter-productive.


Now, on the one hand you seem to be willing to rely on the CD being sensible enough to schedule the maidens at a sensible time (by him not leaving during the busy periods), yet on the other hand you don't seem to be willing to rely on the same CD being sensible enough to say that "A maiden can be done while I am on-site, but it will be done when I say so, based on my assesment of the crowd situation etc.". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Are these guys trustworthy to decide when it is a safe time or not ? If they are trustworthy, let them determine the time when the maiden may be done in his presence ; if they are NOT trustworthy, then write the rules such that the period during which the guy must be off-site for a maiden may not occur during the core event hours.

Which is it to be ?


FWIW, I stopped flying ANYTHING at that site 2 or 3 years ago once the situation developed where the available space was significantly reduced. That doesn't stop others from flying there tho - including some 180 mph 55 lb Giant Scale models, so why discriminate against the waiver holder ? Let's at least be consistent in our standards.

Gordon

Gordon

As I said above: “My suggestion to sanction an extra day for maidens implied the use of the technicality at a non-AMA chartered club field.� Apparently, I need to explain it for you. The CD should not be in attendance at the field on the extra day. In that way, the landlord is covered and the sanction is not in force. After considering the rest of your post, I will withdraw even that idea.

I honestly believed that you were trying to make a point, not describing what actually happens. There is a considerable difference. I now understand you to be saying these actions do, indeed, take place.

Accepting your assertion that these actions do take place in the middle of an event, quite literally, putting thousands of people at risk, I do not see any choice but that the AMA close the loophole, slam the door on maidens at events, and prohibit them in the regular safety code for all events, so that no one may expose bystanders to risk.

I can’t even guess at the wording such a rule will take. You have certainly made your point.

JR, maybe I have not had enough coffeee this morning, but just WHERE did you see Gordon say that, in his observation, CDs are leaving in the middle of events to allow maidens?

I have personally NEVER seen this action, nor ever heard it even MENTIONED even during the many late night planning sessions at the hotel bar...NEVER ONCE.

Please excuse my attitude about lawsuits and the discussion of them. I am a firm believer that anyone can sue for anything. I am sure you could make some case that the AMA is an agent for the NAA and that they could also be sued. Perhaps there are grounds to sue the FAA. I really don't care and will leave it for the tort system to sort out. If you wish to speculate, I have no problem with that.

My concerns lie with actions that affect the general membership in a somewhat more direct way. Continue on, just don't expect me in the debate. I am sure others have thoughts.

How do you read that Matt? I think it is pretty clear what Gordon asserts. I would have agreed with you and find myself wondering why my impression was so different from Gordon's. On the ohther hand, he has made the case.

You guys are talking around each other.

I agree with Matt here, I think J_R and Gordon are going around in circles a bit here, and agree more than they realize.

Gordon, I *THINK* that having a sanction for a contest held at an AMA field does provide some extra "cover", but if I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it. Here is what I think:

If there is an accident at a normal flying field, during a normal "non-event" day, the club could be liable. The officers of the club might also be personally liable, espeically if the club isn't incorporated. (not all clubs are incorporated). Since they are "in charge", they are responsible for what goes on. (personally, I wouldn't be a club officer for a club that wasn't incoroporated).

If you're the CD at an event, you're "in charge", sanction or not. If an accident happens, and you're in charge, you could be held personally liable. If you have a sanction, then you're now acting as part of the AMA, not just as an individual, so you're covered as part of the "AMA, Inc.". This is espeically helpful if you're running the event at a club that isn't incorporated. With out the sanction, you're just an individual all by yourself in the middle of a field.

As I understand it, the difference is weither or not they could attach your personal assets if the judgement excedes any insurance that may or may not apply.

Mr.Matt,
Please do not get your nose out of joint when I say that you are not totally right but your clarification covers you.

I have seen event shut down in the middle of the day so a maiden could be done, just before a war bird scramble the newly flown A/C participated in. I don't think the CD left the premises, and I have complained and it was blown off. What was really uncool was the bird that had the engine depart while in flight. In fact, I avoid that particular CD's events just because of that incident. Took several years before I 'forgave' the club itself. Probably one of the JPO folks recalls who it was, since it is near me and they have several big events a year. I admit that was NOT at a JPO event, but it DOES happen.