Scott Dilley

My Feedback: (3)

Horace, I agree that common sense is not "common." But those same individuals that are dangerous are not going to listen to rules any more than they listen to common sense now. What a quandry...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hoss has a good point! We should restrict those "wanna-bees" ...They are just plane dangerous! Either you are born with it or do without... The good old American way!

BTW what position in the AMA does Hoss wannna-bee in? I won't to make sure and extend the help he deserves! He's da man!

Wings of Peril

When it comes to other people's habits, only two situations will keep me on the ground until it's "my turn". One is extreme air traffic. The other is when one or more nitro helis are flying in too close - and only because that sound tends to break my concentration. Other than that and unless someone is taking off or landing, I yell "going up" and fly no matter who's hogging the airspace over the runway. 3D flying, even in close, doesn’t usually bother me but I don't understand people who need to fly close to the flight line consistently, regardless of skill level. Any maneuver that can be done 20-30 feet away can also be done at 60-100 feet and if they can't see clearly that far, even a small model, then they probably are a danger to others and shouldn't be flying R/C. Besides, it just seems like common sense and courtesy.

Scott Dilley

My Feedback: (3)

And there is the question of the day...how do we regulate the "dangerous" ones without restricting those who have the proper skills and equipment to 3D down and dirty? And who defines "dangerous?"

Propwash in Pa

Interesting question

Everyone knows the answer following an accident. The real trick is to understand what the precurssors of accidents look like and take appropriate action. Industrial safety professonals (which I am not) wrestle with this constantly. Typically, they focus on modifying ones thought processes and behaviors related to all the things that occur BEFORE the accident. The thought process that I go through is:
1. What are the critical steps?
2. When / where are errors likely to happen?
3. What is the worst thing that can happen?
4. What defenses have I put in place?

There can be a wide range of interpretation and that is okay. Generally, if everyone thinks through the four key questions, then the jobsite, home, flying field will be a safer place.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

All right we'll take it all the way through the process!

Prevent model airplanes from flying.
Whenever model airplanes fly at the model airplane field.

People will die
Prevented model airplanes flying.

Now you are successful! Relax.

Propwash in Pa

I hope others glean some insight. Let me guess, if someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, that is their purgative and why do we need seatbelts anyway.

At times, things must be believed to be seen.

abel_pranger

Hi Propwash-

I definitely think an approach like yours would be beneficial. Most discussions about safety seem to focus on preventing crashes, with factors like building and flying skills at the forefront. I don't feel that really addresses the safety objective, which is to prevent personal injuries and property damage. Most model airplanes eventually crash, so efforts focused on preventing crashes haven't really proven effective in meeting the real objective. Perhaps a more structured, disciplined approach as you presented would conclude there is a need to redirect the focus on safety, accepting that we can't really prevent model airplanes from crashing, and applying the bulk of our efforts toward ensuring that they don't endanger people and their property when they do crash. Not that we ignore it now, but possibly we don't give that aspect as much attention as we might.

Abel