Stickbuilder

I received information from one of the guys who will be an inspector for the AMA Experimental Aircraft waiver program. Have any of you seen anything on this? You will have to do your inspection flights before a panel of these inspectors in order to be signed off. I wonder if these guys will be able to get a $29.00 membership as well. They probably won't need all the perks that a norman open member will want, such as the magazine..... They might want to vote though.

Bill, AMA 4720

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

I would wager that they would have to be fairly advanced and experienced flyers themselves. Advanced and experienced on something bigger and more complex than a park flyer at least.

Sarcasm aside would you not agree?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Bill, I'm in the dark as to what an experimental aircraft in the eyes of the AMA is. 99.9% of what I fly doesn't even get put on paper until after it is flown and wrung out.

The Toolman

If you deviate or change anything on an arf from factory specs, I suppose that could technically be called experimental???



Ron

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

See: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/520-A.pdf

For additional information, forms, or a list of inspectors access AMA website at
www.modelaircraft.org. Select Membership and choose AMA Documents and review documents
520-B & 520-C

Also an applicant must pledge:
I pledge that if I am granted Experimental Radio Controlled Inspector status, I will:
� Maintain a high level of proficiency in the use of materials as well as building and
flying techniques for large aircraft models.
� Maintain strict safety standards and adherence to the AMA Safety Code, the AMA
Experimental Radio Control Aircraft Program Requirements and Inspector
Information and its Authorization documents.
� Submit all required documentation promptly.

Kemosobie

A quick read disclosed the Aircraft must weigh no less than 55lbs and no more than 100 lbs. Thats pretty big.

Stickbuilder

It should operate something like the turbine waiver. You must demonstrate proficiency with models that will be heavier than 55 pounds, but not more than 100 pounds. The monster meet that is set for Lake Wales, has no top limit.

No Sarcasm from heree.

Bill, AMA 4720

abel_pranger

Bill-

Did you ask him why he would expose himself to the liability that might entail (rhetorical question)? Really, signing off on the airworthiness of any aircraft built by someone else you probably don't know, that may have hidden structural defects you can't see, seems cause for sober contemplation as to potential risk to one's fiscal well being. I recall another organization (possibly IMAA) dealt with that concern and settled on inspection procedure that left the owner/builder solely responsible for the integrity of the aircraft; the 'inspector' just verified that owner/builder certified he had complied with specified build standards/inspection procedure.
I really don't care to be around those bloated behemoths anyway, but even if did I wouldn't have any part of sign-off on them.

Abel

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Maybe these inspectors are modelers working with fellow modelers and not guardhouse lawyers.[>:]

abel_pranger

As D-V Safety Coordinator it would seem you have already been tagged as having the qualifications for the job. I do hope you will be a good 'modeler working with fellow modelers' and step up to the plate, undaunted by machinations of the great American tort enterprise.

Abel

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I don't see how minimum design standards can be established with materials like balsa wood and spruce. To be not just fair but also thorough, all various construction methods would have to undergo destructive testing then safety factored. I gotta think that this program is nothing more than an anvanced degree of TLAR engineering. Who would fund the research to establish thoroughly tested design criteria for giant scale models?
An entire wall full of books with special design principles could be drawn up [about giant scale construction] and you would only be scratching the surface.

Stickbuilder

Abel,

If you will download the pdf file that entails the requirements for these large models, you will find that it pretty much does just that. The inpector's basic job, as I read it has more to do with the capabilities of the pilot than the model in qustion.

Someone raised the question of Balsa and Spruce.....I seriously doubt that you will find much balsa in a model that size, but rather mostly composites and ply and some spruce. Don't sell your fellow model builders short though, Have you ever seen Mac Hodges B-29 fly? I can promise you that it surpasses the minimum weight requriement for this program, and it does fly very well, and very safely. I would put more faith in something that most builders would engineer and build, and do so knowing how much it would weigh, and the flight envelope that it would pursue.

Bill, AMA 4720

abel_pranger

Bill-

I have not downloaded the pdf, but I will. Meanwhile, I will trust your interpretation and judgment. Sounds good so far.

I have not had the opportunity to see Mac Hodges and his B-29 'live' but from what I have seen in videos and accounts of those that have, I'm sure I would enjoy the show. It isn't the superstars like him that give me doubts. My personal exposure to X-category models has been more typically the guy that has been building a 15 ft span P-51 for the past ten years, and in the meantime not getting any time in the air. One day he'll show up at the field and fiddle around with his Heathkit R/C gear for a few hours, then just because time is running low and the audience is headed home will decide to make a test flight though he hasn't resolved the issues of the engine running too lean or the starboard flap having twice the deflection of the port side yet. You are experienced enough that I know you know this guy, or clones of his ilk. I am also mindful of the guy in in Ohio that had a large furrow plowed down his backside a couple of years ago, and the couple in Poland that lost their lives to an errant supersized model airplane. Expert pilots, and I presume builders, central in both incidents.

As I indicated earlier, I will not likely be around when such incidents occur, nor will my name be on any certification of their models' integrity or their piloting skills. Not anti to point of wanting them banned, just don't want to be a part of it. For the benefit of those that do want to engage in such activity, good that guys like Red are willing to stand behind them (or encourage others to do so while standing in the wings?) and not be deterred by the potential adverse consequences of getting involved in a significant liability situation.

The situation in the US is different re such models exceeding the guidelines for model airplanes set by ICAO. In at least some other countries that have formally promulgated the ICAO standards down to the modelers (FAA has not...yet), the required inspections are done by employees of the civil aviation authority counterpart to FAA. I presume they are lawsuit-proof, as gummit inspectors would be here. Volunteer workers for AMA are not so insulated. I'm curious to know if they are to be 'agents' of AMA, as are CD's. If not, and they do perchance become involved in a civil court hearing re their liability for damages to somebody, they will be on the side of the courtroom opposite AMA's legal eagles.

Abel

rack

My Feedback: (11)

im an inspector and also fly in the experimental class its not that hard to get an aircraft certified it just has to be built proper and you nead at least 5 years flying giant scale,

Jim Messer

My Feedback: (2)

A story about being an inspector:

Back in 1980 we formed a new group of Giant Scale Modelers, known as the IMAA. It was felt that giant models flown at any IMAA sanctioned meet must be inspected prior to flight. Shortly therafter, at a meet in NY, I was one of the inspectors for a giant B-25 with two Koritz 50cc engines. It was owned by the top dog in the IMAA organization.

What we then inspected was all outside the airplane. We had no idea of what lurked inside, so we were limited to clevices, hinges, and the like. I signed off on this particular model.

During the airshow, while the model was doing a pass down the runway, all of a sudden the elevator began to flutter, and the model crashed. A solder joint on the elevator pushrod had come loose - something that an inspector would never find in a jillion years.

I decided right then and there that I would never inspect another model in my lifetime, and be subjected to a possible lawsuit in the event that someone got hurt. Our club thought likewise. So from then on - our inspection consisted of the pilot signing a paper that he had inspected the model; it was safe to fly, and the model had at least six prior flights. It was his responsibility, and his alone to put the model into the air.

I wouldn't want to be the person today that had signed off on a large over-weight model, if and when it crashed into someone or something that he could be sued over. Why would anybody in this day and age want to put themselves at such risk?

KidEpoxy

How & where do you put 6 flights on the aircraft to get it ready to recieve its signoff?
Just fly it un-inspected & un-certified 6 (or more) times at the club?

Muroc1

Jim,

Thanks for the history on it. I do have a question though, would an inspector also be held liable? I understand that we are in a sue everyone society, but could an inspector wind up losing everything also if sued?

Frank
851911

The Toolman

Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to KE's questions too.

Why don't the ama have some sort of insurance to cover the inspectors, or are they afraid they might hafta pay some $$ out along the line somewhere?

I'll bet the ama lawyers have pretty well got their (ama) butts covered when it comes to safety officers an inspectors for big planes, etc. By ama's own rules, you hafta have a saftey officer to be able to have an keep your club charter. (page 184 Sept. 08 MA)


Ron

Muroc1

I've made life or death decisions in my line of work for over 20 years now inspecting work that others have done. Of course these jobs were performed by highly trained individuals. I never gave it much thought that I could be sued for my actions. Although I'm sure if I were negligent in my duties I could be.

Frank

rack

My Feedback: (11)

hi im an inspector for the ama and i also fly in exp. we do get added insurance from the ama, i also carryan umbrella policy to help protect myself, its not a perfect system but it works ,vern

Jim Messer

My Feedback: (2)

Answers:

KE - The model only has to be inspected when flown at an IMAA or AMA sanctioned meet. You can fly it all you want at your home field without any sort of inspection. That's where you get in your six flights prior to flying at a sanctioned meet.

Muroc1: At the time (1980) we felt that in any lawsuit, anyone and everyone that had anything to do with the model could be sued. I can see the inspector sitting in court - answering the question - did you certify the model safe to fly? - and he has to answer - yes. Otherwise, he would not have approved the flight. Then the fun begins. Who has the deepest pockets?

I worked as an expert witness on several huge $$ lawsuits, and I can tell you that anybody can be dragged into a lawsuit for the tiniest of reasons.

One example is a prominent kit manufacturer that I knew very well - one of his designs that somebody else had built from a kit he had produced, was involved in an accident that injured a person - and he was sued for having manufactured the kit. He had nothing to do with how it was built or flown, and had no connection what-so-ever with the pilot, but he had deep pockets.

The last airplane I inspected was the B-25. Never again will I sign off on somebody else's work. That's the only safe way to look at it.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

no the model and pilot has to be inspected every year and all flights must be made in the presence of the insp to count, outside of this you cant fly at ama sites. im not worried about my liability the libility lies with the builder-pilot lacking in the skills neaded to safley build and fly giant aircraft theres one being built on rcu now where the guy wont listen he was going to use snap on ball links because he dosnt know better we just have to screen these people out

Muroc1

Jim,

Thanks again for the additional info. It's sad to hear that the kit maker was drug into court and I suspect held liable for his design. As you mentioned, he has no control over how his model is built or flown. But I guess it's no different than other companies being sued for products that have been safely used by thousands of others with no issues. Times we live I suppose. I can see what you wouldn't want to take that risk.

Thanks,

Frank

The Toolman

Thank You, I'm glad somebody finally gave me a straight answer

ira d

IMO the AMA should have its own staff or contract employees do all sign off's for
weight or turbine, thearby if an issue came up it would be the AMA that was libel
not the individual who did the sign off.