ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Certainly not good press, but I doubt it will affect anything the FAA will do. They really are not intrested in the relitive minor damage an R/C plane will do to a parked full scale airplane. As long as any damage is repaid before the plane takes off.

ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum

You guys need to go read the AMA website more regularly.

ORIGINAL: scottrc

Good article from a full scale columnist. Typical spin on the media looking to blow things out of proportion. However, I have flown at a few airshows and one time had a plane go out of control and fly over the tarmac where a few million dollars worth of full scales were parked. I recovered the plane and safely landed it, but got one hell of a chewing out from the FBO manager and a 1/2 dozen PO'd pilots.

I for one agree, we need for more failsafes and checks that will insure that our planes stay out of the no-fly zones if we are to fly at community events.

I don't trust RC planes, I cannot make 100% certain that a radio problem would not occur, and there is not any regulatory agency that supposedly will make sure that my plane is in compliance to operate safely. So any risk is 100% put into my hands. Owners of full scale airplanes do not like.

Full scale pilots, as much as they complain, have the FAA to back them up by requiring inspections, certifications, and medical cards just to turn the ignition key.

What do we have? AMA safety code? AMA Waivers? Those are just a pieces of paper that gives a RC pilot an !QUOT!option!QUOT! to comply. Not worth much to anyone in the aviation world who must deal with tons of regulation.

We have insurance? Again, aviation people do not like to talk about protection after an incident, they want to prevent an incident from occurring in the first place. Hence, take the RC plane out of the risk equation.

Because if these factors, we do not have a leg to stand on if airports decide not to have us operate at airport functions or even on airport property. Unless of coarse we want to invite ourselves to be regulated by the federal government, whom is into risk prevention more than trying to add another element to regulate.


Scott

Aero-Views: RC Plane Falls Close To Spectators at SMX Air Show!'

Mon, 29 Aug '05
Almost Hits Corsair!
by ANN Associate Editor Rob Finfrock

C'Mon, Guys...

When your day begins with watching an absolutely gorgeous red-and-yellow Decathlon as its pilot practices touch-and-goes on a calm, coolish (well, for Dallas -- 75 degree) morning, you know there are still at least a few things right with the world. Flying funk? What flying funk?

And then you read the news.

This morning, still buzzed from the spectacle of short approaches and perfect three-point landings, I came across an item written by Mark Baylis, staff writer for the Santa Maria (CA) Times. The headline: "Plane crash almost strikes spectators."

Like it or not, plane crashes are news -- especially this month. (Never mind what Green Day says, wake me up when August ends.) Anyway, I clicked on the link, hoping to read of tragedy averted, due to the last-minute heroics of a pilot who is still in one piece.

"The Thunder Over the Valley air show had a scary start Saturday when a radio-controlled plane lost its radio frequency, veered into the spectator area and crashed, nearly striking bystanders."

Um, okay. Further reading reveals that the plane in question wasn't a real -- full-sized, pilot-sits-in-it -- airplane, but rather a radio-controlled Piper Cub that looks from the photograph to have been about 1/10 scale.

I read on. According to the article, the accident plane belonged to a member of the Tri-Valley R/C Modelers club, an organization that has had a booth at the air show for 10 years. This was the first year the club performed -- and sadly, will likely be the last.

"Larry Schlagel, president of the Santa Maria-based RC club and pilot of the errant plane, said the plane lost its radio frequency, causing the free fall. The plane crashed in the spectator area - missing several heads by less than six feet - and crashed beside a vintage plane that was on display."

Of course this is a tragedy -- at least for the unfortunate Schlagel, who no doubt watched helplessly from the ground as the aircraft he was flying, and probably built himself, dropped from the sky and crashed into several pieces against the sun-baked concrete tarmac of the Santa Maria (SMX) airport.

I also sympathize with those spectators, some of whom where likely sufficiently scared into never attending an air show ever again. Seeing an aircraft falling from the sky would certainly be a frightening event, radio-controlled or not -- even more so if said airplane is heading right towards you.

(In fact, I'd be running with all my might, just as I did the time I saw an airplane directly overhead, in a spin, when I was twelve. Scary -- and while that airplane recovered in plenty of time and flew out of the spin well above 1500 ft AGL, you couldn't convince me at the time that I hadn't just witnessed a near cataclysmic event. I even still wonder, a little.)

Back to the article. "The accident ended the RC portion of the event Saturday and organizers canceled the RC slot schedule for [Sunday] as a safety precaution until they could figure out what happened."

Certainly understandable. In fact, so far I was mentally giving kudos to Baylis for his fairly restrained tone... until it all went wrong.

And not because of Baylis.

"Safety is number one," [air show director Mike] Geddry said. "That thing is flying fast as a bullet and someone is going to get hurt."

There were several things wrong with this, and I'm a guy who appreciates some well-thrown hyperbole. "Someone is going to get hurt," sounds too much like we're to assume one day, somewhere, a person IS going to get hit by an errant airplane. Just pray that it isn't you, or someone you care about! This from the director of an AIR SHOW?

Besides, show me a Cub anywhere, model or otherwise, that can fly as fast as a well-thrown baseball, never mind a bullet. Granted, the baseball hurts when it hits you, and that's without a spinning propeller attached to it, but still -- didn't the article just say that the airplane was in "free fall?"

But that's okay... next up Baylis quoted an actual pilot, in fact the owner of the vintage Corsair that almost got hit by the errant (one-tenth scale, remember, radio-controlled) Cub. Surely he'd set the record straight... right?

"Chuck Wentworth, who flew the vintage Corsair plane that was nearly struck by the smaller plane, said there wasn't enough oversight for the RC flyers."

"This is a $1.8 million airplane," Wentworth said of the Corsair. "It's going to put a real damper on the show. I can't risk my airplane." Wentworth noted that the plane's owner probably wouldn't enter it next year because of the accident."

So according to this, the owner of the Corsair (not Wentworth, apparently, although he clearly considers it at least partly his) won't enter his airplane in next year's show, all because of an R/C model that ALMOST hit his airplane?

I'll be the first to admit that I will probably never have $1.8 million dollars to spend on anything, much less an airplane. I salute, admire, and envy the heck out of anyone who does, and can.

But Chuck, really, what was the greater risk: having your plane hit by a marauding model airplane (especially of it happening ever again) or having you -- or anyone -- fly the darn thing to the show in the first place?

It's one thing for "the media" to spin something like this in a way that may very well discourage someone from ever attending an air show -- one of the single most accessible ways for people to participate in the joys of flying. It even gets to the point when you start to expect it.

But when pilots (and those who put on air shows) start doing the same thing, we're done!

Yeah, it wasn't "my" plane that was almost hit, Chuck, okay. And Mike, I'd be ticked too if something like this happened at my show, scaring people and potentially tanking tomorrow's attendance figures in the process.

But please, couldn't you both have been just a little more pragmatic about all this? No one was hurt, no property (other than the Cub) was damaged.

And each and every person who saw that accident yesterday was at much greater risk the moment they got in their cars to drive home, than they ever were or will be watching an air show.

Why didn't one of you say that?

ORIGINAL: scottrc

Good article from a full scale columnist. Typical spin on the media looking to blow things out of proportion. However, I have flown at a few airshows and one time had a plane go out of control and fly over the tarmac where a few million dollars worth of full scales were parked. I recovered the plane and safely landed it, but got one hell of a chewing out from the FBO manager and a 1/2 dozen PO'd pilots.

I for one agree, we need for more failsafes and checks that will insure that our planes stay out of the no-fly zones if we are to fly at community events.

I don't trust RC planes, I cannot make 100% certain that a radio problem would not occur, and there is not any regulatory agency that supposedly will make sure that my plane is in compliance to operate safely. So any risk is 100% put into my hands. Owners of full scale airplanes do not like.

Full scale pilots, as much as they complain, have the FAA to back them up by requiring inspections, certifications, and medical cards just to turn the ignition key.

ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum

Daren,

That is a good question that you should be asking where you fly NOW. Unfortunately life stinks and NONE of those things can be guaranteed by any living person I have ever heard of in the last 2005 years.

If one were to follow your 'the sky is going to fall' thoughts to their logical end, we need to close down all hobby shops, flying fields, and modeling operations every where that those exact same guarantees cannot be cast in concrete. Where they have been and something happens we need to send the perpetrator to jail for even thinking it might be possible to do anything with out a potential problem.

I happen to think that is less than intelligent and speaks to the "I am better than you" crowd rather than being productive. I stand by my earlier remarks.

That all being said, the point many seem to have missed in this thread is that there are always some who do not demonstrate common sense, simply because it is not. With 150,000+ members all it takes to make us look bad is 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of us to demonstrate our lack of intelligence. In numbers for the handicapped that is 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of 150,000 or 1,500 *.1 /2 or 150/2 or about 75 idjots. How do you fit on that number line?

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Drink drivers and reckless modellers seems to have something in common. Impaired judgment ? Well, that and a Lack of respect for others.

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

I guess portraying modelers in the above manner really helps our endeavor
[]
I really dislike subjective use of terms such as reckless. If someone has a disregard for laws or rules then reckless applies but if someone operates with the intent of compliance but yet at the extreme edge the term reckless does not apply...to often reckless is used to describe those at the extreme edge and that is wrong!

Guys I would really hate seeing a gem like a Corsair become damaged because of an errant model BUT!!! I would be much, much more (more than a thousand fold) appalled if someone was seriously hurt by a model aircraft accident. Metal and glass can be fixed...it just takes money and time...but someone’s well-being can be lost forever very easily. With that in mind why should people take such risks? Well...assuming the fetal position in the corner of the work shop avoiding all dangers is much worse. As people we really NEED the excitement and the thrills this hobby and other activities provide. It really is up to each individual to evaluate how much risk they should expose THEMSELVES to.

When we fly...ANYWHERE...models or full scale...we take some serious risk!!! What we should try to avoid at all costs is endangering those individuals that are unaware that they are in danger. Anyone that attends or participates in an air show or model airplane airport is assuming a degree of risk and each person should evaluate what level is acceptable for them. I would have the biggest concern about the risks that involve neighbors of a model flying field or full-scale airport...Yet it goes un-checked all too often. It has always amazed me that many rules are promulgated to restrict the participants from endangering themselves but is lax to protect the unwary and innocent...

Bottom line...I really have a hard time reconciling this thread with the apparent great concerns of a potentially damaged aircraft, irreplaceable or not, instead of possible injury to SOMEONE!