OK, I can. I apologize for my assumption which I based on your viewpoint. I still do not consider that viewpoint to be one learned from a result of long administration in all kinds of sanctioned evnts from small club events to the Nationals. I do not apologize for that consideration.
Your experience is mostly in RC Fly-In type events. While that is a difficult task, due to the lack of pilot disciplines found in regular CONTEST fliers, it alsocan be verylax in comparisons to the rigid scheduling of real competitions.

Nope, not ajudgment. The CL pulltest is complying with a directed procedure and list of specifications. "Judgment" is not a well accepted factor in the courtroom. BTDT.

In addition you state "Big Birds". Is that an IMAA event or just AMA alone. Lots of difference. IMAA defines that the pilot determines the final airworthiness of the machine. OTOH AMA does give the CD the final authority.

Maybe so. Makes no diff. to me. If someone places his liability insurance in jeopardy, then so be it. Hope he has deep pockets.
It is in your original post and not germane to my point. Anyone can go read it in your post. Saves bandwidth.

OH, here is an item thrown in for how AMA pursues "Safety". Kind of funny yet displays organizational bureaucracy and maybe KE will get a kick from it.

</p></font></font>

So Hoss,
what you are saying is we can get a great deal on some 'used' Blemish/SubStandard cages?



I dont get what the OP is trying to allow folks to avoid with his change-
isnt it just putting the bird in the air even once prior to going public?
Even a secret design contestant could do that out at the corner of Nowhere St &amp; Desolation Ave in BLM land.

Is this a proposal to change the rules
just so folks dont have to simply put the bird up at any point before a public flight?

It dont matter too much to me,
he wants to exempt all my 2/60 scratched e-abominations as Safe by definition
regardless of them being designed &amp; built by some drunken lunatic (me )

"Carried out to the extreme, we should only fly unproven models way out in the desert after serving 48 hours notice to all of mankind. <span class="info"> </span> "


I've tested a few for people were this could have been nesasary

In response to the very first post. The college students having a non-AMA sactioned event means they dont fall under the AMA guidelines. That is probaly why they have special insurance for the event. Also, the students are not required to be AMA members so they are not bound by the AMA guidelines. For those of us who are AMA members and are planning to fly an aircraft at a sactioned event it must be test flown previous to the event NOT at the event. I dont care how good you think your building / piloting skills are, rules are rules. They are there to protect person, property, and our hobby. If you dont like them then dont be an AMA member then you wont have to worry about test flying an aircraft before a event because you would be able to fly at any AMA sactioned events or flying sites for that matter. I like the rule as currently stated and abide by it.

I would have to say that the only reason to have the discussion past trolling and pot stirring would be a situation where the person had such an inflated ego or overwhelming need to be recognized that they just can't wait a day to flyat a venue that is less crowded than a contest or fly in.

It really doesn't make any difference whether it is a 100# model in the great out of doors or a 3.5 oz. model indoors being that anxious to fly something untestedaround a group that has gathered for a specific agenda is ill thought out and just downright rude.
[quote]ORIGINAL: Thomas B

While some will think it is sacreligious to discuss the modification of a safety rule, I would like to think that somethingcontroversial could be openlydiscussed witha minimum ofdrama andheated argument.Let me set some ground rules...I would like this to be an open minded, honest and respectful discussion of the following AMA rule:

AMA Safety Code Rule number 4: I will not fly my model in sanctioned events, airshows and model demostrations until it has been proven airworthy.

No one is right or wrong in this discussion....we are simply offering our opinions.

All those qualifications are mentioned or alluded to in the first post. I am using it as an illustration of an alternative way of approaching maiden flights at AMA events.

I happen to find it quite interesting that the Aero-Design competitions are succesfully and safely conducted in public with unflown and untested models of some risk.

Given this real world proof, it stands to reason that Rule 4, as written, could be relaxed with a neglibible result onoverall safety.

do I actually think it will ever happen? Nope. But, it does make for an interesting and thought provoking debate.

I do believe in and follow to the best of my ability the AMA safety code. However, I do not automatically consider it to be a perfect set of rules that are beyond reproach.

I don't think those Aero Design contests are using aircraft designed and constructed by someone who does not have a reasonable knowledge of aerodynamics. I don't think we can assume the same for the local club balloon bust on a Sunday afternoon.

Better check out the action on this 2.5 minute youtube vidbefore you give them too much credit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHCTutziZnY

The models are designed and constructed by student teams advised by a teacher, usually. Typically,some of the teams havestudents who have some theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics, but have zero real world experience in building and operating anything of the sort. The crash fest shows what happens at the intersection of some limited knowledge, interestingdesign decisionsand zero experience.

The better teams typically have a student or two who are "normal" modelers and they definitely rise to the top of the pack. Also the better and most successul teams have been doing it for a number of years and pass on the lessons learned to youngerteam membersas they graduate. These teams are more like what you are speaking of.

Something on the order of 25% of the models crash during the event. Some from structural failure, both design and construction caused, some from controlability issues, some from overalpoor design, some from pilot error. Some are unable to make it around field after a payload increase, but flewat lower loads.

Very high entertainment value. If one works, the cheers go up and if one does not work, the crowd gasps "Oh, no" almost in one voice.

The Aerodesign events prove that first flight risks, at a much higher level of riskthan the typical hobby model, can be managed inpublic ina reasonablysafe way,

All I know is if somebody had that Wolf Spider plane from RealFlight I'd fly it in a SECOND, maidened or NOT!

Jim

[sm=thumbup.gif]Enjoyed that very much. Thanks.

Also, did some research and FAA AC 91-57 regulation states that a model aircraft must be proven airworthy before being flowen before spectators. Here is the link:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf


So, AMA member or not you must abide by this rule.

Sammy
yes, to be fully compliant with AC91-57 you must obey part 3b about airworthiness.
Unfortunately, nobody is actually required to obey AC91-57.... there is no teeth behind the AC to mandate compliance.
If you want to look for the teeth, read up on AFS400 / Guidence0801 and how they use AC91-57.

To consider AC91-57 to apply in a 'must abide' way
one would first have to look at the 400' alt limit everywhere in the AC,
and how AMA is simply choosing to not abide it.

If you are further than three miles from an airport the 400 ft limit does not apply and if the airport operator gives permission you can fly higher than 400 ft right on the airport.

But what does any of this have to do with the original thread?

And yet the Aero-design events are doing first flights with more risk that the typical hobby R/C model first flight in public, in competition with a safe record.

I for one enjoy seeing first flights. I like to cheer the success and congratulate the owner and help mourn the dreaded failure, if one should happen.

I NEVER want to see a model crash...but if it does crash, I would rather see it than miss it....

I feel you are overstating the risks involved. If a first flight can be done at a field with other modelers present (and it can), I don't really see any significant extra risk is doing it at certain types of events when a few more modelelrs are present.

Given that we often make adjustments to computerized transmiters in between flights at an event...are we not doing a bit of a maiden, then.

I will confess an error on my part. Back in the days of more models than RX units, I was swapping an RX back and forth between two well proven models at an event.

The model had elevons and on the last swap I misplugged the servo leads. Roll was correct, pitch was backwards. I only checked roll before the hand launch

Instant accident on an unplanned "test flight" of a well proven model at a sanctioned event. Technically, I busted Rule 4, even though it was a well proven model......

Many fewer people at aero design events plus there are not several being held around the country each weekend.
The conditions at thos events presuppose that these are trial flights for a good many but that is not the case for a fly in or contest held under the AMA rules.
Again what is so important that a model needs to be flown untested at an AMA event?

The Aero Design events are notably larger than any others held at out club site when it comes to attendees and spectators. There are many hundreds of people there. There were 54 teams entered. I would estimate than something approaching half the models had not been flown.

These events make a very interesting case study in ways to mitigate risk of first flights in public.

This is not about whether or not it is important to test fly at an event. We are discussing the true nature of the risks involved. I feel some overstate the risks.

The rule is worth discussing as some number of test flights do take place at AMA events, despite the rules. Why not get them out in the open, add some safety by making sure people are aware that a first flight is taking place and improve overall safety?

Given that CDs typically allow first flights before and after official event hours, I would love to hear a good explanation of how a model test flown at 8:55AM is a materially safer happening than the same model flown at 9:05 AM, after the event starts. ditto for 4:55 PM vs 5:05 PM

Again Aero design events are not held every week in multiple places around the country. As such the risk is lower because it happens fewer times per year with a lot less people involved. Your club events add into all of the other clubs events happening at the same time around the country increasing the risk of a problem if a model is tested during an event. As for testing before or after an event even by one minute the number of people in the potential flight area are a lot fewer than during the event. They don't all suddenly appear and dissapear by the clock. They do however get quite involved in the middle hours of the event increasing the chance of a problem should something happen.

Also I do not recall the Aero events running 3 to 5 flightlines. Correct me if I am wrong.

Gremlin
He was talking about AC91-57, not AMA SC and the Infamous Comma.

What this has to do with the thread
is that I was correcting his mistaken belief that AC91-57 compliance was mandatory,
(AC91-57 required proving flight before flying with spectators)
just as I am now correcting your mistaken belief that AC91-57 has the AMA Infamous Comma limiting the area of the 400' cap.

It's clear that none of you guys have ever been to a heli fun fly. This rule is routinely broken at these events all day every day...cuz the 3D guys crash so darn much and rebuild right at the field...especially the 450s. Also, one of the attractions of funflies for new pilots is all the experienced pilots available to go over their setups and test fly/trim their models. In a way, most funflies double as setup/flight clinics. This is all despite the fact that helicopter funflies often have double the participation of typical fixed wing funfly events.

What say the AMA regarding heli events?? Shall the Gestapo be sent forth to crack down on these events?

I an not really a heli pilot, and thus I do not go to heli events, but your point is well taken.

You have supplied another excellent example of a real world situation where the proven model rule really does not fit the needs of the event.

And another good reason to exempt 2lb/60mph type park models, like 450 helis, from the rule, as the risk is demonstrably less.

At the control line contests I attend, only entered contestants are allowed to fly during the time of the contest. When the contest is over, the rules are whatever the field rules are.

No doubt there are more AMA events. But, I maintain that the average model that would be first flown at an event is far less likely to crash than the highly experimental load lifters at the Aero Design events. I am still of the opinion that there are safe ways to manange first flights at events and have mentioned ways in previous posts to do so.

There have been many dozens of Aero design events over the years, two per year for many years. Still quite a record of first flights in public.

Yes, the Aero Design events are single flight line. I don't think it matters, though.

I could see reserving the fist hour or last hour of an event for a first flight...like you said, the tempo is lower then. I have never seen a very large difference in population at events from the pilots meeting to the middle of the day, but things do thin out towards the end of the day. I do not think your generalization that there are a lot fewer people present at the beginning and ending of the event is always true. Probably less spectators early and late, though.

First flights are beig done once in a while at events, anyway...why not work to make the happen in the safest possible way?

I was thinking you'd exempt all control line model flying
(especially the 45mph 16oz cox049 models)
before you let the 500watt 60mph 2lb RC 'flying all over the place and maybe in your face' models be exempt

... are not models on a 30' leash safer to spectators
than an RC one that gets a failure while pointing at the bleachers going 60mph?

You talk about when the risk would be less to spectators,
yet forgot about nitro 1lb CL planes

The arguments and examples given for why the rule should be relaxed are rationalisations. So far what I've read is that the rule is either too inconvenient or not adheared to anyway, so let's amend the rule with 2 pages worth of exceptions, fine print notes and special conditions.
The wisdom of this rule in it's simplest form is that it assumes nothing about the individual's judgement or experience or anything about the model's ability to do harm.

1. You are now trying to play lawyer, or are you saying that the small plane can hurt someone but it should be exempt anyway. As far as a 2lb model traveling at 60 mph not being a risk, I'll go back to the baseball analogy.


2. Lets take this statement to its its logical conclusion based on the logic presented in the statement:

Known: The AMA requires special inspections of models over 55 lbs.
Known: The AMA requires a waiver for turbine powered models.

Application of logic presented above: Since all models that are not powered by turbines or are less than 55 lbs have been accepted as safer by the AMA (since they require not special inspections or waivers), then they should be considered for possible exemption from rule 4 due to the much reduced risk compared to those models.


The way I see it, the rule exists. If you choose not to follow it and an incident occurs the AMA should not back you up. If a CD knowlingly lets someone break the rule I would think he puts himself at risk from a liability standpoint.

Just my 2 cents...which in today's ecomnomy is worth about $0.000000000000000000000000000001