Why are there no post on rules and Regs. People want to know what and why , where and when. Impound why, Frequency control ,what is it ? There are a lot of questions That need answers and a lot of Knowledgeable people out there that have the answers. AMA sets guide lines we support the rules! why were they made , and what purpose doe they serve?

>>>>>>>>>
There are a lot of questions That need answers and a lot of Knowledgeable people out there that have the answers. AMA sets guide lines we support the rules! why were they made , and what purpose doe they serve?


__________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<


HA! Ask the questions. OTOH that "Why were they made..." part is an extremely tough question,
There is no doubt in my mind that my answer to that item is far different than any answer the rules-makers will give!!!

<<<<<<<<<<<
If responding to self is like talking to self, well maybe I am on the verge, however my club has just been given a dose of why the rule of "SEE the AMA CARD" is a TOTAL Necessity. Yet a rule NOT enforced is not a rule.

Person shows up back in Feb. and wants to fly as guest. Person says that he is AMA, but card not yet back. (We took his word -- BAD MISTAKE) Appears to be accomplished RCer and is OK. Person is a very sociable guy that appears to be the kind of person that everyone likes. He even was helpful in mowing field without being on the Mowing-Group. Just great. OTOH our club has a paid mowing-group under contract and he was PAID the contract rate for what he did.

After guest times expire (maybe an extra one or two) person still cannot afford to join club. Keeps hanging around. Due to his spoken words, person believed -- but not proved -- to be flying when field is empty. Person finally told if he wanted to fly, he must join club. Person finally makes application to club. Has a fax from AMA stating May 01 joining. Club President verified with AMA that AMA date was actually May 01. Person was less than truthful.
Bad experience -- Had this guy over to my house end of APR. to give him a prop that he needed without making special 40 mile round trip to LHS. I directly ask him about his AMA. Oh yes he applied some time ago, but card had not arrived. I advised checking with AMA as they never took 3 months to get a card out.
(A direct untruth to my face at the time I was doing him a favor)

Person has accident at field on May 28 with heavy personal injury.
On May 29th, prior to club meeting, Club Treasurer checked Club PO Box and found notification that person's check for club dues had bounced. Needles to say person was not voted into the club at that meeting.

Accident happened while Person was violating a club rule reference engine starting procedures. The individual had previously been spoken to about other violations of club rules which are posted on field at 2 places under the shelter.

WHERE could this all lead to? Had we not been the NICE and Friendly types and had followed the AMA's strictest rules PLUS OUR OWN, then perhaps the injury could have been avoided.
The good news was that the person WAS AMA at the time of the accident.

I should not be too against ALL the rules AMA makes. I hope to do a better job of local club enforcement in the future.

I am pretty sure I have seen this pics of this injury and it aint pretty..

Where you there when this happened Horrace?

>>>>>>>>>>
Where you there when this happened Horrace?
__________________
Wayne
<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wasn't there holding his hand if that's what you're getting at Wayne? And futhermore I will not be doing so next time for him or anyone else except those that I may be instructing.

Horrace

It was just a question Horrace...

I was just asking to see if you had to witness the carnage.
Looks pretty bad in the pics I have seen.

Would have make me sick if I was there.

Before this thread goes off on a tangent....

Over a month ago, there was a jet rally in So. Calif. The Best of the West, I think it was called. An AMA sanctioned event as I understand, meaning that jet waivers were required. I was not there, however, I know several people that were. There were several crashes. One involving a landing approach that went wrong and crashed in the pits. No one was hurt. No one seems to want to talk about that, but, it seems to make a pretty good case for the waivers. Lord knows what might happen in this type of event if some guidelines did not exist.

Should jets be allowed? Heck yes, but, having some required skills also makes some sense. They do not fly the same as other planes.

I can't say which rules the AMA has made that should be rescinded and which are correct, but, I think the case is being made that safety can not be taken for granted and that some rules and regulations are a must.

In my heart I know the rules are for safety and not to deprive us of our fun.

JR

As experience has shown time and time again, rules are needed. We may not agree with them, usually because we are un-informed as to the reasons behind them. A lot of people get the feeling that rules infringe on their personal rights to do what ever they want. Me thinketh they doth protest to much. its easy to keep honest people honest, but not all the others. For them its rules, with clear explanation of the behaviors not allowed and consequences of breaking the rules spelled out. No wiggle room for the whiner's about rules. Do rules need to be reviewed and updated from time to time, you bet. I was a very nice guy once about the rules, just takes one idiot, one time to ruin it for everyone. Now im not so nice about the rules. Use em or or lose your field. Dont like a rule, work for a better one, no effort, no gain. Be sure its for the benefit of all.

Vince

from JR:
"I can't say which rules the AMA has made that should be rescinded and which are correct, but, I think the case is being made that safety can not be taken for granted and that some rules and regulations are a must.

In my heart I know the rules are for safety and not to deprive us of our fun. "


Fully agree with you in spirit, JR, save one issue. The AMA rules (specifically Safety Code) are for liability avoidance rather than safety per se. Not just a semantic difference IMHO. Your contract with AMA for liability insurance contains a condition that you are in conformance with the Safety Code, and furthur invokes as a condition any local club rules that are safety related. Non-compliance voids your coverage.
Here's the problem as I see it, from experience at my own club:
There have been many sensible recommendations for good practice in the interest of safety that are pertinent to our flying site from club members over the years. They have not been incorporated in club rules, and in fact some that were in the past have been purged - and I freely admit they were purged at my behest. Why? Because they expose our club to uncovered liabilty is why. Accidents happen due to carelessness whether or not rules are in place that proscribe the practices that lead to them. If an accident happens that results in a liability situation, you'll certainly understand why we don't want a rule on the books prohibiting the activity that led to its occurence.
Safety issues should be addressed separately from liability issues. No denial there is a relationship, but having them tied together directly as AMA has done can and does result in compromising safety to avoid liability. Case in point: the pylon cages thing. They weren't perfect, and therefore making them available exposed AMA to liability risk. Though imperfect, would they make pylon racing safer for the callers and race officials? Of course they would. Avoiding liability won over safety concerns, and this is far from an isolated example.
I'm one of the guys that has been vocal in opposition to the EC's continual tinkering with the Safety Code. Now you know why. Comments?

Abel

Abel

Most of what I know about AMA insurance, I first learned from you. I too have pressed, with moderate success, to have my club eliminate certain rules for the reason you stated.

I believe that the EC is aware of these efforts to avoid losing coverage by eliminating club safety rules, across the country. I also think that part of the reason for their tinkering is to put common sense rules in place. Most of us would agree, for instance, that grabbing a power plane that is hovering, out of the air, is not safe.

I think we sometimes forget that the avoidance of liability is not just for the AMA, but for the clubs and members as well. The EC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I just can't see that they are mean spirited in their actions. I can't refute your position about safety vs. liability. BUT.... the bottom line is that there seems to be a shortage of common sense and no shortage of lawyers.

JR

JR-
I have no objection whatever to putting common sense rules in place. On the contrary, I think the AMA EC should act to allow clubs to do just that, without shooting themselves in the foot by adding further exclusions to their insurance coverage. The first action the EC should take is a no brainer; strike from the Safety Code the following:

"3) Where established, I will abide by the safety rules for the flying site I use, and I will not willfully and deliberately fly my models in a careless reckless and/or dangerous manner."

This rule serves no purpose in the interest of safe flying at club sites, nor is in AMA's interest of avoiding liability. It is only an impediment to clubs establishing common sense rules that address safety issues peculiar to their flying sites.

Secondly, the EC should recognize that risk comes in shades of grey, but the way AMA currently handles it only allows for black and white. If an activity is proscribed by the Safety Code, your insurance is void if you do it, period. There is no way of accomodating good safety practice that advises against activities that may increase risk of injury to people or property, but to a lesser degree that does not warrant the draconian measure of exclusion from insurance coverage. The misuse of the Safety Code as a list of exclusions from the insurance should end. Activities that are deemed to carry risk beyond what is acceptable should be listed in 'Exclusions from Coverage' in the insurance agreement. Call a spade a spade, and let the Safety Code address safety rather than than AMA's exposure to payout for liability.

Thirdly, separate safety from the insurance business of AMA. I don't know who chairs or is on the Safety Committee, but it is apparent that insurance czar Maroney has the major voice in any of its recommendations to the EC. As it is, in a conflict of interest between safety and the welfare of AMA members vs. liability avoidance and the welfare of AMA insurance reserves, the latter will always win, as it always has.

Those are few steps AMA could take that would improve our position with respect to both safety and avoidance of liability. I agree that the actions they have taken to date aren't likely motivated by mean-spiritedness. I do think there is some ego involvement in the reluctance to move from the status quo, however. I'm pessimistic about seeing even the first item that I listed above actually implemented. I know you are much more optimistic than I about where AMA is headed. In our difference of opinion on that, I hope you win.

Abel

I think the concept of labeling exclusions to the insurance as exclusions and having a separate safety code is a great idea. I am certain that rule 3 of the safety code was drafted with a completely different vision of what it was including and what it was causing to be excluded.

As an example, the AMA suggests the use of frequency markers on transmitters. If a club makes a rule requiring them, they eliminate coverage to anyone not having the markings. I don't think the EC, or Carl Maroney ever envisioned clubs removing that type of rule in the interest of maintaining liability coverage. There are a lot of suggestions in the AMA literature about safety, but, with rule 3 in place, it basically says to the clubs: "do not make these suggestions an official part of your operations".

Someday, I hope Carl Maroney writes a FAQ and puts it on the AMA web site. I see the same insurance questions asked again and again.

Oh, btw, Carl is the Chairman of the Safety Committee and he also sits on the Insurance Committee. All the committees are now listed in the Member's Only section on the AMA web site.

JR

>>>>>>>>>
JR says: "As an example, the AMA suggests the use of frequency markers on transmitters. If a club makes a rule requiring them, they eliminate coverage to anyone not having the markings. I don't think the EC, or Carl Maroney ever envisioned clubs removing that type of rule in the interest of maintaining liability coverage. There are a lot of suggestions in the AMA literature about safety, but, with rule 3 in place, it basically says to the clubs: "do not make these suggestions an official part of your operations".

Someday, I hope Carl Maroney writes a FAQ and puts it on the AMA web site. I see the same insurance questions asked again and again.

Oh, btw, Carl is the Chairman of the Safety Committee and he also sits on the Insurance Committee. All the committees are now listed in the Member's Only section on the AMA web site.

JR"
<<<<<<<<<

Yes, JR, here is another perfect example of a person that has little or no interest in the operation, dictating rules and regulations that do nothing FOR the operation, other than placing anchors in every direction, totally hindering progress.

Of course he has 12 others that seem to enjoy the same attitude of "Look what we did to them today!"

The Safety Code is simply the way the EC makes the rules for Clubs in the same manner they use "Standing Rules" to avoid Bylaws changes. The 2003 Safety Code is an absolute horror especially when attempting to get the average club pilot to pay attention to it. IMO those supporting this Safety Code levy upon those Club Officers that really work to do things right, simply are no better than the dictators that dream up the all the rules.

(We cannot get AMA to even send us the changes for our field-posted SC board. They even eliminated the club {charter 1218} from the list for a while. Either the entire hdqtrs. section is in total chaos or they simply make a supreme effort to screw up everything reference to H D Cain -- I have a long list)

The Safety Code is an attempt to eliminate RC Combat and RC Pylon from any significant growth and to eventually die, as only a few fields can support the stupidly contrived distance requirements.

At this time there are no responses to my threads bringing attention to the year's elections. While some will P&M on these seldom reviewed forums, there is little evidence that anyone will move to make a change of their oppressors. The EC can run right over the pi$$ ants as there are no elephants to worry about.

Horrace

1) I put the information about Carl in the post primarily for Abel's benefit. It was not a shot at him.

2) The major difference between your view and mine is that you seem to believe the EC does counterproductive things intentionally, whereas I believe that they are simply caught by the law of unintended consequences.

3) You sure seem to blow hot and cold about the election process. This is a quote from you. "Speaking of wasting money -- well, it seems 'ta' me that elections and meetings are useless and simply wasteful. No one cares about the work and responsibility."

Perhaps, Horrace, you are getting caught by the law of unintended consequences yourself. Some do care about the work and responsibility... they are embedded in the EC. Not a bunch of Good 'ol Boys, but modelers, like you and I, that care and got themselves elected and give of themselves.

JR

2. JR, that is like me telling the Highway Patrol that I was doing 70 in the 55 zone because some others were passing me. It won't wash either with the cop or the judge. BTDT
Whatever any person signs his name to is -- in this country -- of his own free will and choice. Any EC member that votes FOR or AGAINST any proposal does so of his own free will. There are NO excuses and the only reason is because he wanted to. Now why one wanted to do something some certain way opens a whole 'nother door.

3. JR, you more than anyone can see the answer to that. I am totally FOR the election process. I am AGAINST the way the AMA membership ignores the process. (Same for real life) Yes, holding elections IS a WASTE of money because the membership IGNORES their one method to have a say in AMA DIRECTION and POLICY


Well JR, since I have also BTDT, I do not totally agree with you.
While most go there with the best of intentions, very few have the ability to stand and be counted day after day. Most people want to be LIKED. To be LIKED, one must be a member of the "me too" group and go with the flow. They like being liked much more than they like doing a good job as doing a job isn't remembered very long. The news media, seldom promotes the good job, but try to find , magnify and glorify some item into something bad. Example: The recent flack about those that PAY NO TAXES GETTING A REFUND. IMO those that pay nothing deserve the same. Therefore the average EC member knows that re-election depends on not being remembered -- he must be "good."

The average EC member soon attains the "I must be good because they like me," syndrome and says "me too" to the few strong personalities that run the show. They da-n well don't tell the membership about their views. They never liked me because I did tell, and because I never caught the syndrome.

One question JR: Do you think if the AMA EC had NOT been a condoning partnership, that the main event of last Oct. by the current EVP could have happened in an official AMA election? I certainly think not. No one has come forward saying otherwise.

Horrace

I can tell you without doubt, in my mind, that only one other member of the EC and/or HQ knew of the action being taken before you sent an e-mail to the entire council alerting them to it.

I made my living for years making up my mind about people in 5 minutes of conversation. I have talked to most of the EC either on the phone, or when possible, in person. I spent three days at the IMS show so I could look into the eyes of members of the EC. As you should realize, I do not pull punches. I asked questions point blank.

What I can't tell you is whether there was a party when they did find out, or if a few rounds of drinks at an EC meeting dinner were devoted to it. That's another issue, brought on by your frequent, and sometimes... well, maybe frequent.. , unfounded attacks on them.

I can also tell you after talking to them, that they do not agree on much. They debate, fight and ultimately come to a consensus, and when the vote is taken, it is as one, in most cases. Several of these guys do not like each other. They do what they do for the benefit of the membership. I was pleasantly surprised that they are not secretive and will discuss most issues openly. Dave Brown debating me and lecuring me in the middle of the IMS floor with anyone that wanted to listen being able to do so, comes to mind. And, yes, Horrace, you were discussed... in depth. So was splitting the AMA and a lot of other topics. Hours worth.

Horrace, you have reached the point where no matter where the truth lies, you refuse to see it. Occasionally, you are right. Reminds me of the old lament: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts".

JR