The potential control loss would be any one control surface being disabled, made inefective, or posibly jammed in a fixxed position (theory only, I have no experience with shooting at aircraft) AirSoft pellets will not break control rods or servos so it would have to be from several sructurally damaging shots. Potentially a portion of a wing could be severed causing a loss of control. The source of the loss is the structural damage caused by the impact of the plastic pellets. (Aprox .25 cal)

A similar control loss could and likely would result from a "midair" which I hear is common when flying combat but I have no practical experience. It is also possible to have a midair on your regular Saturday at the feild. The difference being the loss of control would be anticipated in the shooting senario. The pilot can throttle back or even cut the throttle. If a ceiling cap of say 25 ft is made for the event the plane will not make it far before it harmlessly lawndarts. While a PAIR of combat planes at 250ft spin out of control will likely fall in a less predictable manor. However the pilots will have more time to cut their throtles assuming neither one lost an antena wire.

To avoid damages/injuries and recklessness the event would have to be planned not just a bunch of kids from "Club No Fear!" going out with anarchy on their minds. My idea may not be perfect or complete and it would have to be expounded upon with a colaberation of safety minded indeviduals to ensure the most is done to make a safe event. Thus as a a starting point I would recomend 2 pilons be erected 25 ft apart with the shooter at least 25 ft away as per AMA rule 7. The target craft would take a perpendicular flight path on the far side of the pilons. The shooter is only aloud to fire when the target is between the pilons. Giving the shooter a 60 degree firing zone hence controling the downrange. These pelets are ineffective after aproximately 200ft I would wear safety goggles and a Speedo and let you shoot at me with one of these from 200ft. Trust me you don't want to see me in a Speedo. The pilon spred (firing window angle) could be adjusted based on feild conditions. At my feild we have 180 degrees that could safely be used due to its rural location but that would remove the challenge which is after all what makes anything fun. Remember this is a basic outline and I admit it is possible I am overlooking something so all of you that never wore a helmet riding your bycycles, like me, but won't let you kids or grandkids leave the house out of fear they might get hurt trynot to attack but expound instead. Oh and tell those kids to get off of the Playstation or X-Box and go outside and play and don't come back until you skin a knee!

Excuse my poor spelling as I do not feel like proofreading right now.

You guys go out and paintball the daylights out of your planes, just keep it to yourselves and have fun. If something happens it's all on you and part of the implied risk. Enjoy because it sounds like fun. Some of us old farts used to go out into the desert in days long past and do some pretty off the wall stuff with old, tired planes. No specifics to protect the guilty

Me, I'm more concerned about the guy with the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle in the side thread. I've played with one of those and you don't stand a chance at 4,000 meters.

24 inches of concrete is only a marginal safety net for this ballistic display of destruction. I don't think I would want to be involved in that project either, and he would likely not salvage anything from the aftermath.

So are you saying your only going to take 1 shot with the pellet gun? You don't keep shooting these planes until they lawn darts? Who are you kidding here?

I had a pellet gun as a kid so I know what damage they can do. We are talking balsa here not steel. Not only that they are also talking about paintball guns and those things will take a balsa plane down with ease.

Also who are you are trying to sell this concept of this event as compared to combat too? Well guess what, shooting planes with objects IS NOT COMBAT in any way shape or form. There is a 10 page document created with rules and standards and if you try to use that document as your relief from negligence after your lawn dart impacts something it shouldn't have hit, BUZZZZZZ. If you think the 2 are alike, you never read the combat rules. You can try to make this comparison to me and to sell to yourself till your blue in the face, but the only loser will be yourself if you ever try to look for a claim.

Hollow point bullets would be much more fun.

how about a sonic module like Parkzone planes have when a hit is scored the throttle cuts out for a second. that was we can have fun and be safe at the same time!!!

Stang-
Nice post. Thanx for the input.



STL-
Are you still harping on the activity not being exactly the same as Combat?
The subject is the loss of control and its affect on safety, not what caused the loss of control. We could have a contest to see who's TX is most Soda Resistant by pouring soda on it till your plane crashes. The point is, in events that will cause planes to crash more frequently than plain flying, safety precautions & measures must be taken. It doesnt matter what you were doing that made OutofControl more or less frequent than Combat, the fact is Combat does have safety rules for when it happens, because it does happen.

Clearly, flying combat at all would be reckless because it is far more likely to cause OutofControl than Standard Flying the traffic pattern. But they saw that planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. Read that again- planes do lose control in combat, and issued safety rules for when they do. The helmet rule is not to prevent loss of control, it is for when the plane does lose control. How could the AMA say any activity that is so unsafe as to require helmets for its participants not be reckless? Easy- they placed procedures & measures to minimize the terminal effect of what happens WHEN a plane loses control. What makes Unsafe not be reckless? An AMA PDF I guess.

IF we add that all spectators within 250' must be behind a cage, that would not be the AMA combat rules, it would be better than AMA combat rules. And you are correct STL, Better is not the Same As.

No matter how much you try to convince me how the 2 compare, when you go looking for help by the AMA for a claim, it's my humble opinion that you won't see dime number one from the AMA or their affilates. I know they are both fun to do, but only one is FULLY approved by the AMA. Do you understand the difference at all?

To this point, I agree. This idea is unconventional to say the least. As was combat at some point in R/C modelings history.

Now your thinking! You said your in the military you must be familiar with "miles gear" (SP?). How about something like miles gear that when the sensor detects a hit one of those smoke show sticks (these are okay w/ AMA not pyrotechnics like fireworks) goes off and the pilot could bring the plane in, reset it and do it again. It would only marginally satisfy the natural human desire for destruction but the skill involved (challenge) would still make this fun. Now we could have multiple targets even. The downside is, I am not aware of a civilian equivlant to miles gear with a narrow enough beam and the required range.

Exactly and hopefully with a lot of help from members and the AMA they'll be able to come up with a solution for this great new event and make it organized. Like, what are the limitations of weapon used, prolly the most important piece of the pie. Also what is going to prevent a gunner from tracking a plane right into the crowd? If he or she is looking down a barrel with one eye closed, and perhaps even with a scope, what is going to prevent that person from following a plane to a degree no greater then a certain angle? Right now there are no written rules for RC gunnery which means you think you can do whatever you want because this is America. It's true to a point, up until the point something happens. Again, I'm all about a good time. But what your suggesting to your fellow AMA members is that it's compared to RC combat and it's not in any way shape or form.

I really like the sound, or maybe even laser light, idea to do this as a club function or event. The sensor could be plugged into a channel and used to trigger various options on a plane, such as releasing confetti, or have a sound and/or light module go off, etc. What a great idea. There wouldn't be any need to make a whole new set of rules for it either. It would be great at club events without any added dangers. They could even have safe AAA war simulations and such. If the market would be viable, it would also be another product for the R/C industry to capitalize on. All positive stuff I think. The guys that really want to have a blast actually destroying a plane could just find a secluded private area where nobody but themselves would be at any risk and the responsibility would be solely on them.

Hey, look. I got my answer, and it turns out be be Yes this whole time. Sweet.


So, if the AMA can come up with a PDF to make it not Reckless, with ...um, lets say... with 50 rules. What if next month we hold a RCGunnery event with 144 rules, which happen to encompass every one of the rules that will eventually become the AMA 50Rule RCGunnery pdf?

STL, is it possible we could now be in accordance with what the AMA will require in the future? ... or even more safe with the additional 94 rules in our 144rule RC Gunnery Safety Codex of the SoRCG?

infrared system military rated is available but prices are steep do a search in ir tagging systems

well a lot of the "older people" are way way way way more dangerous behind the wheel of a car the me or someone else shooting at a rc plane in a controlled environment with a toy gun, if i use my 12 gauge the plane isnt going out of control because theres nothing left ya bunch of mary's...its to bad that thread ended up having to be deleted that had the photos of that trainer rittled with plastic bb holes because 1 person didnt like it being shot down what a shame.my club is going to use that airsoft style shoot at the last flyin this year to raise money to lengthen the runway for next year..there was a vote and the members ALL loved the idea, and you know what, not one person said anything about"ooooh that against the ama saftey codes".just because we will do this as a fundraiser or for fun does not mean we/ I lack ownership appriciation or that we do not enjoy building kits..uh hello im not shooting down a 2 thousand dollar bird..JEEZE.i hate how people judge you for having an arf and not scratch building it, well not everyone has the room to kit build you know or the time for that matter.I say enough with a saftey police already..leave it to the club officers to handle after all thats why they are at the field, if someone is doing something wreckless then they always handle it.I think that older people should have to pass a test to be able to fly..ive seen so many at fields that can barely stand up..how good do you think that persons reflex's are? i would be way more afraid of them than someone wrecking a crappy old plane in a controlled environment.

STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX.

Kid,

You definitely earned it! Congratulations are in order....After the confetti and band a little speech would be nice.

LCS-
I knew all that "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?"
as a youth would pay off some day.

Seems about a page or two ago, I figured if I can get him to say It Is Possible To Be Done Not Recklessly, then it would be a walk in the park to say if someone can make up safe rules, why not us.

Kinda like-
AMA will pick a number between 1 and 100, but there is no way any number you pick could be it.... oh, um.... well yes it is 71.... but that doesnt matter- you misspelled indemnity so I will tirade on that.

I don't know Kid, I guess I would have to see how the AMA presents such an offer. Then I guess the real answer comes in the shape of who gets hurt and who doesnt, that's the true answer to how safe it is. But these things don't happen overnite and I can bet the AMA won't be jumping into RC gunnery range mode for quite some time. Your talking about intentionally damaging a plane, but not only that, you are also talking about a gun on the other end. BB, Pellet, Paintball or Shotgun or whatever you want to use. I mean lets get real, do you think for a second the AMA would honor such a thing as a written event? No flippin way. Plus I think they have quite more to deal with then that at the present moment. The AMA's image is damaged enough, let alone to add ANY kind of gun into the equation.

Also, I'm not an insurance provider, it's up to them to determine whether it's safe or not. That comes in the shape of insurance rates. Insurance providers won't give you a custom quote until you provide them with a lot of good information, which is what that 10 page PDF was originally for, before it came an official event. The insurance provider has to be satisfied before the members get to be satisfied.

I told you a bunch of times I think this could be a fun event, if it was controlled and most importantly, insured. But right now, it's not, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't want to see someone lose their life savings over having a good time at the field. But one thing I won't do is play god and try to convince some kid that what you think is safe could turn deadly, especially at an AMA chartered club. So I'm not going to answer your question and play god, I'll just leave that up to you guys to do.

At least that guy shooting the Heli with the .50 cal is doing in a safe environment, in the proper location, not at an AMA field with spectators.

There is your answer.

Where?

STL,

What is the Question?



Give Hillary and Chelsea my best!

This is not about if it is safe, how safe it is, or what the activity is.
This is about conducting aircraft activity within the AMA code, which we assume is the Safety Code. The phrase you guys are clinging to is Reckless. IF the AMA eventually puts out a PDF for RC Gunnery SafetyRules, following them will not be reckless. In who's eyes? The only ones that matter, the AMA Insurance Lawyers. If they sign off on the PDF (sure they dont have ama by the brassones..) then they cant say obeying the AMA rules is reckless.

You would need to see what the AMA RC Gunery Rules were before you can tell if they violate AMA rules??????
Or are you saying you need to seef if the AMA Rules are reckless..... in your opinion, despite what the insurance will pay.

oh, that's right, having a gun exist is just plain evil & wrong: "Do not suffer a Gun to live"

Mayby you should take a page from SilverSurfers book and say any AMA members that own guns should quit the AMA.

Who said anything about it being reckless? I don't need to judge anyone on that level. I'm saying that I don't believe the AMA would ever cover someone if an accident arose. You can do whatever you want on your own property both AMA chartered or not. But don't go crying to the AMA because the safety code didn't say you can't do it. Also don't expect the AMA to pass out charters like they are popcorn if you want to have a free for all at your club. Intentionally shooting an airplane with any foreign object is not flying an airplane in a safe manner, but I'm not saying reckless, that's dependent upon who is behind the barrel of the gun. There can be a middle of the two, not one extreme or the other extreme. But at either extreme, just wait till what you think can't happen, does happen.

It's my humble opinion that you should not combine the two, at least on an AMA field, as the rules sit. This is not your AMA, this is the members AMA. And don't go think for a second that I have something against guns. But I do have something against guns being used the wrong way. There I go thinking about Homer Simpson opening his beer can with a gun .... what a hoot.

thats to bad stl, so did you ever find that rock?

"Who said anything about it being reckless? I don't need to judge anyone on that level. I'm saying that I don't believe the AMA would ever cover someone if an accident arose.
....
....Intentionally shooting an airplane with any foreign object is not flying an airplane in a safe manner, but I'm not saying reckless, that's dependent upon who is behind the barrel of the gun....."

Who said Reckless? um, that would be you, STL.
You envoked SC#3 as the bane to the activity for AMA clubs & insurance.

Nowhere does SC#3 say Safe, it says reckless or dangerous.
Is buying a ticket & flying on a 373 Reckless? Is it Dangerous? Is it Safe.... well, seems some folks in Brazil will say NO at this point. Is sitting at hoem watching TV Safe? How about going to sleep at night, is that Safe? If it were, folks wouldnt lock their doors when they go to bed... Home Invasion RoberyHomicide mean anything. Is AMA RC Combat safe, like so safe you have to wear a helmet.... No, not Safe, but not Reckless or Dangerous.

So, since we can pretty much say nothing IS Safe, we can let that go... right?
Leaving our test of SC#3 with Reckless or dangerous, both very subjective terms without reference to limits of either.

I've been harping you for 3 pages on "Reckless" & Reckfull from SC#3, and you just now realized it?

You still just don't get it kid. This is not about whether or not I think it's reckless, no matter how you try to distort my viewpoint.

At the end of the day the AMA will decide whether or not they will pay, if an incident does arise. Right now I don't believe for a second that the AMA will pay dime one if someone is shooting an RC model with any kind of gun, if an accident does arise. The AMA are not rulemakers, but they do get to decide when they will pay and support and when they won't.

Remember we are talking in the AMA forums here, not the combat forums. If you want to find out whether or not the AMA will cover you for something of this nature, that's up to you to find out. But anyone with half a brain can prolly figure out they will not be covered, no matter what precautions they took to keep it safe.

I wasnt the OP asking about whether this was against the code, that would be Tim.
He did want to know, and he came here to find out.


You are the one accusing folks of having only half a brain if they dissagree with your interpretation of Reckless or Dangerous, as posed in your citing the vagueries of SC#3 to answer Tim's query.

I am the one trying to demonstrate that it is all just interpretation of SC#3, so it can, and may very well be, interpreted not in violation of the Code as asked by Tim in the OP.




so , it could be covered inside SC#3 when the AMA puts out a PDF on the rules, but anyone with half a brain knows there is no way anyone could come up with 144 rules that would encompase some 50rule AMA pdf that may come out someday? To take a cue from Flight of the Intruder, will you agrue it cant be done safely upto the day before the AMA says it can be done safely?

Even if that previous day we did it exactly as the impending PDF says to?

I wore seatbelts before the law said I had to, now that they are mandatory, am I any safer?
Was I unsafe because there wasnt a law saying I was safer in a seatbelt?

Wore a helmet when on a motorcycle too. Did that law make my head safer, or was I already helmet law/pdf safe before the law/pdf came out?

Will people all of sudden recognize French Fries & Donuts are bad for you, if NYC bans them?
Some folks know that now, and chose all by themselves not to eat fries with every meal every day.