J_R

Abel

In your past posts, you have stated a lack of interest in being a club officer on grounds that you have personal liability concerns, IIRC. Also, IIRC, your club has at least a couple of unusual requirements placed on it by the land owner that most other clubs do not have, which you have described here, one time or another.

That being the case, how can you belittle the efforts of those that will step to the plate and run your club? If you feel that strongly, and have that much personal insurance protection, why not step up yourself, run for office in your club, and accept the potential liability you would have others accept? If successful, you can try to reduce the number of rules.

Horrace has made it clear in the past that his neck is on the block in some capacity as the trust deed holder for his club, IIRC. If, in that situation, he has had a hand in the making of rules, who is to blame him?

OTOH, some clubs, such as the one I belong to, are run with very few rules and a lot of communication between the members. When someone does something another considers rude, we can all still talk about it and resolve things. Each club is different.

Certainly, those club with members that are more risk adverse than other clubs are going to have more rules.

the-plumber

How 'bout dumb rules ?

I don't understand the Jetero rule #11 :
11. The maximum number of fliers of fixed wing aircraft, at one time, is FIVE (5)

There may be a good reason for it at that location, but this rule is really common throughout AMA.

I might have understood the need for the rule twenty years ago, but we got past the wide band radio days almost ten years ago (when the last wide band radios were supposed to have been taken out of service). There is no technical reason for this rule, so it must be based on some other criteria - even with our current limited radio technology, that technology is more than sufficient to allow all 50 channels to be in use at one time (which was the reason we adopted narrow band standards in the first place).

What's the reason Jetero limits the number of fixed wing operators to 5, and do you not have any heli flyers or if you do are they not counted ?

I'm asking a question here Horrace, not trying to start an argument.

Liberator

Well abel, thats why I had the two versions of the ways to enforce...strictly or not at all.
Notice the not at all side comes with few if any rules. It is absolutely right that the more rules you have, the more stringent the enforcement HAS to be, but I believe that I stated that.

Common sense rules are simply don't stick your hand in the prop type of stuff. People self enforce that everyday for good reasons...they like the concept of an opposable thumb, they are used to picking up things like water glasses, children, etc. And finally they like not having to enlist help to wipe their own buttocks.

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

I fly 40%. I went to a field one year and was told that I couldn't until the safety officer cleared me. when he got to the field he said that he would put me on a buddy box with my plane. When I got my plane out of the trailer and he saw the size, he told me that he has never flown any thing larger than a 60 size. I set up the buddy box and taught him how to fly larger planes. By the end of the day most of the club members there got to fly my planes. I had a lot of fun that day. Rules work some of the time and some times they don't work. Dennis

3dbob37n

I think folks see an incident and decide that there needs to be a rule to prevent it.
After a while, a club can become obsessed with making rules. Various State Legislators feel they can get some brownie points by having a law passed in their name and of course every State has thousands of laws that everyone ignores. Passing laws and rules is obsessive.
The number of pilots in the air depends on geographics and the airport layout. In our club, we don't like more than 5 in the air because no one can do aerobatics if everyone else is doing their left turn circle around the sky. But then a model airport that has a 2,000' runway can space pilots out over more area. Our runway is only 400'.
We all know the rule about slapping a man who is chewing tobacco or spitting your cud on the runway.
But, I think we first must assume we are dealing with a responsible pilot and unless he demonstrates that he is less than responsible, we should leave them alone and this applies regardless of the age, even under 18.

3dbob

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Every club I've belong to had the same rule. Most fun flys limit the number of models in the air, usually five. It's not a technolgical reason, it's just hard to keep track of more than 5 models in the air at the same time.
Jon

50%plane

My Feedback: (5)

Well said. I would add just one thing though, money hungry lawyers.

Woops

abel_pranger

There are no conditions that I would deem unusual placed on the club by the landowner. The field is in a noise-sensitive area, and I was party to drafting a club rule that is derived from and directly traceable to community standards for sound emissions that are codified in ordinances. Not every club has such a constraint, but it isn't anything out of the ordinary. That rule is what is necessary to comply with the law, no more nor less.
Personal liability concerns are part of my unwillingness to take on an officer role in the club as it currently operates. I have held three different officer positions in the past, for multiple terms. As to why not take on the job now and accept the potential liability, I ask you why would I after others have obsessed themselves with making up rules that serve primarily to feed their need to control, and as an unintended consequence provide fodder for lawyers that could nullify insurance coverage? Another reason I won't take on club office is that I have no desire to enforce those rules that I oppose, as would be my duty, and further I don't want to be bound by them when I fly elsewhere. As an example of the latter, there is a club rule banning gas engines, on the theory that they are a greater fire hazard. I now have the option of flying gas-powered models at other sites where similar conditions as to fire vulnerability exist. I could not do that if I were on record as a officer of club that has decreed it is unsafe - the implications in the event of an accident will be obvious to anyone that has had the misfortune to deal with the tort industry.

AFAIK Horrace is personally responsible for only two of the rules in his club, those he put into deed restrictions as the mortgage holder. Neither appears to have any clear relationship to safety/liability.

Clubs with members that have more adversity to risk may have more rules if the members make the rules. OTOH, if the members do make the rules and they are smart enough to realize that rules may increase their exposure to uncovered liability, they may well make fewer rules. If my influence held sway, that is the way it would be.
No, I'm not motivated enough to take office in this club to attempt to make that happen. It's a trade-off I have considered, and the benefit/potential cost ratio is just too unbalanced.

Abel

abel_pranger

Yeah, I thought we were basically in agreement and expounded on why, not to present a counterpoint.

Abel

abel_pranger

Hi Fred-

I don't know if this enters into the reason Jetero has such a rule, but at a club field I fly at it is a part of our response to a community noise abatement ordinance. Every doubling in the number of sound sources at the same level increases the resultant (rms) level by 3 dB (assuming uncorrelated sources, for those that want to nitpick). The trade-off becomes one of limits on the allowable level for each model vs. limits on the number of models allowed to operate simultaneously. I expect the more prevalent reason for such a restriction is simply to limit the amount traffic in the airspace each flyer has to be aware of and avoid interfering with.

Abel

3dbob37n

Abel, I am curious about not allowing gas engines to be used because they present a fire hazard. Are they serious about this?
In your mind, do they really present a fire hazard or is this just someones conjecture?
If we didn't allow gas engines we would only have half the number of flyers.

3dbob

abel_pranger

Hi 3dbob-

Yes, I think they are serious. The rule came about during the days after a meeting where I demonstrated a Ryobi 4-stroke gas engine conversion that could meet the club's 91 dBA @ 3 M sound level limit - part of my ongoing experimentation to identify powerplants suitable for noise-sensitive sites like ours. It was a decision made by "The Board" sans any discussion with me as the only member to bring a gas engine to the field, or with the general membership, so their rationale is a mystery. I went to AMA for comparative stats on fires started by gas vs. glow engines, to no avail - at that time (perhaps 6-8 years ago) AMA had never paid a claim for a fire started by an AMA insured's model airplane.
The engine might have been suitable for a trainer with a light wing loading, but didn't have the pwr/wt ratio that would make it practical for a typical sport model, and certainly not for 3D. Because it lacked potential in that regard, I didn't press the matter any further.
As for MHO, I have not seen any data nor heard of any incidents to indicate that gas powered models are significantly different from glow powered models as to the fire hazard they present. I do know of incidents where fires have been started by models, but they were due to short-circuits in damaged battery packs. AFAIK, this is simply somebody's conjecture, perhaps based on the observation that gasoline is more flammable/burns hotter than alcohol. It matters to race car drivers, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that it should be of special concern to us.

Abel

50%plane

My Feedback: (5)

LiIons have caused a bigger fire hazard then DAs. Why not a rule about that? Any other rules related to safety that are good?

Woops

abel_pranger

"The Board" didn't miss that opportunity to impose a ban - it was in effect for a year, until this past summer. That was a battle worth fighting, unlike the gasser with a puny power output.
As for other safety rules that are good, why do you think anything beyond the AMA Safety Code is needed? Modelers are generally people that are capable of rational thought and have self-preservation instincts, you know. As for me, I had a mother once, up 'till about 40 years ago. While I do miss her, I've somehow managed to get along without her guidance for quite a while now and don't feel the need for self-appointed surrogates.

Abel

J_R

abel

Is there any truth to my understanding that the club you are discussing is in an area where homeowners insurance has become unobtainable, extremely expensive, or available only from a state program at elevated prices, for many of the residents of the area, due to the brush fires in the area the last couple of years? If not, I apologize.

Maybe it is just me, but, I can understand why, when quite literally, hundreds of homes were lost to fire, the board of a club in the area may have some concerns about whether they should make rules to reduce the potential for fire. I guess I am not surprised that they might be somewhat conservative. Of course, I can also understand your personal concern with the benefit/potential loss ratio. I guess what I don’t understand is why you think others should accept that ratio instead of minimizing the risk as best possible.

abel_pranger

Hi JR-

Not really, or maybe yes and no - I think it may require some definition as to what the scope of the area you are specifically referring to is. As you know, I keep a home in SoCal, and that is the general area where the club being discussed is located. Insurance underwriters I have dealt with rate properties on 10-point scale wrt insurability against fire hazards. Factors include distance from the nearest fire station, distance to a fire plug, proximity of the house to expanses of wild, uncontrolled brush, accessibility for fire apparatus, etc. One of the club officers happens to live in an area of the greater community where my domicile is located. As I formerly owned a house in the same immediate area (within about 1/4 mi), I suspect he probably rates at or near 10 (worst) on that risk rating scale and so may be faced with the kinds of problems over insurance that you described. I had an insurance company cancel when I was in that neighborhood, and after some intervention by the state insurance commissioner had it reinstated, with my agreement to clear brush back from the house over several steep, rocky acres, far in excess of the Fire Dept guidelines of 75 feet. That situation does not prevail a mile or so away where I now own another house I keep as a residence, nor 20 miles away where I have a rental property - though that one is in close proximity to a major burn of a couple of years ago, possibly the most destructive in SoCal history. Bottom line is the situation you describe tends to cover areas measured in acres, not tens of square miles and certainly not the entire county or all of SoCal. As for the field location, I can tell you that a close neighbor and club member is a retired LA fire chief, and he isn't sweating it.

Conservative is not unreasonable, but making such decisions on speculation with no real data to assess the the risk is paranoid.

My personal concern with the benefit/potential loss ratio had only to do with my aversion to being a club officer at this time. A personal decision - not asking for any others to accept anything. If you mean I should strive for acceptance of minimizing the risk of causing a fire or creating other hazards, the end game in that process is to eliminate model flying altogether. I doubt that you are ready for that. Where would you draw the line?

Abel

3dbob37n

Well, we don't have any stats on gas engines starting fires to go by and no information from AMA and the lack of AMA information probably indicates that there is no hazard, otherwise, they would know about it.
I'm sure if there is a fire hazard, it would exist during the engine start up and would involve some gas leaking out on the grass which would be easily controlled. I can envision other scenarios but they are very remote situations indeed.
I agree that LiPo's probably involve more hazard than gas engines. We have had two LiPo powered electric aircraft start smoking and catch fire in mid air and crash. No ground fire resulted, however. Both were speed contollers that burned up.
3dbob

J_R

Grass? What does that have to do with model fields in So Cal? LOL. I suppose some fields exist, that have some grass. Most are paved or dirt surrounded by chaparral that is tinder dry this time of year. Santa Ana winds in Sept and Oct blow often, creating a potential fire problem. Have you ever noticed that each year at this time the news media makes it look like there is an attempt by So Cal to burn itself down?

While I have never seen the field abel flies at, I am lead to believe that it is surrounded by chaparral and void of grass. As I have often said, what works for one club does not work for another, including the assessment of potential hazards.

abel_pranger

Hi JR-

The field I fly at (not the only one, but the one I presume you are referring to) actually is covered with grass, to the entire extent of the flyover area and considerably more. It is a closed landfill, and the County agency in charge does a good job of maintaining it. It was mowed within the past month. It is not irrigated and dry this time of year of course, but mowed flat to within a few inches of the ground. There are portions of the surrounding area covered by chaparral, and larger portions that are cleared and under cultivation for avocados and citrus. Most importantly wrt fire hazards, it is readily accessible and defensible in the event a fire does occur (and it has occurred, fortunately not as result of our model flying). That is the most significant difference between it and the virtually uninsurable properties you mentioned previously - the latter are very exposed to wildfire hazards and would be difficult/very dangerous for the firefighters to defend.
A flyaway at our field could end up in dry chaparral and though very unlikely could become a source of ignition. Frankly, I don't know of any suitable place to fly a model airplane near the populated parts of SoCal where that is not the case. I also think model airplanes, however powered, present a lesser fire hazard than the possibility of a mower blade striking a rock and sending out sparks, or the catalytic converters on our vehicles igniting the weeds we might park in at the field.
You are right of course about the dangerous conditions created by the Santa Ana winds. Maybe it's a good thing they also create lousy flying conditions for model airplanes.

Abel

the-plumber

Yeah, I know about noise abatement issues - we have them at one field.

I also know about small fields, 'cuz another field is has a pretty tight pattern due to a close-in tree line.

I was thinking about a few clubs where noise and small field conditions are not a problem, yet these clubs with plenty of room and no neighbors all have limits on the number of airborne models, and some even have limits on the number of active transmitters.

Noise and small fields notwithstanding, I do wonder if clubs in general have these kinds of limits because 'we always did it that way' . . .

Oh, well. I can always go to the site that doesn't have either limit.

3dbob37n

Yeah, if you are in that part of So Cal I can understand the fire hazard. But, there are some wonderful varieties of Bermuda Grass that will grow there. Even in desert like conditions.
But then you will have to buy a riding mower and someone to mow.
Why not just keep a couple of fire extinguishers around for when one of those LiPo powered models catch fire. Gas would be a lot safer.

3dbob