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.

There has been some discussion of this from time to time. I think most of us have seen or suspected that this rule is not always followed. When variousmodelers call the AMA and ask about this, there have been a number of different interpretations of this rule offered to the callers by AMA officials.

Some have actually said it is OK to more or less skip this rule for fly in type events, or leave exceptions to the ruleup to the CD.
Some have said it is OK to fly unproven models before orafter the event's posted hours.
Some have pointed to the rule and said it is plainly written and not subject to any other interpretation, and that unprovenmodels really cannot even be flown after hours.

Senior AMA officials tend to feel there is no wiggle room at all in rule 4.

I have been to an event...a non AMA event....where a large number of fairly large and heavyR/Cmodelsof experimental designare flown for the first time in public, in competition. This goes completelyagainst the AMA Safety Code and would not be allowed if it was an AMA event. There are a couple of these events in the US every year.

The eventsare the SAE Aero Design payload competitions, where experimental modelsof various levels of quality and difficulty are designed and built by college teams and flown in weight lifting competition,in public, often for the first time. The better teams tend to have flown and proven their model well before the event, but something like half of the models have never left the ground at the start of the event.

I have only been to one event, the 2008 one in Fort Worth. I was a designated pilot, available to any team that needed a pilot and did not have one. I flewfour college teams models that had never been flown before. Three flew successsfuly. One was incapable of taking off.

FYI, the SAE Aero Design competition arranges for a specialinsurance policy for each event.

This activity flies in the face of the AMA safety code and yet, in spite of something like 15 crashes on first, second or third flights at the event, there were no insurance claims, no injuries andno property damage resulting from flying and crashing models flown in public the first time. I think this puts rule 4 in an interesting light.

Certain precautions are taken, of course:

1. Pre flight safety inspections are conducted to make sure that certain mechanical details like clevis retainers and servo mountingare correct, that the model appears to be more or less structurally sound enough to attempt flight, that the motor isunlikely to fall off whenstartedand that the control surfaces are moving in the correct directions. No check is made of CG...the teams are supposed to know how to calcuate that detail...

2. At the event, the director announces each flight. Unproven models are mentioned and for these,the crowd is asked ot look up and keep an eye on the modelas it makes it's lap around the field. Models that have doubtful propects get even higher levels of attention during takeoff and flight.

The event is about as big a crash fest as one can imagine.

I have no data on other SAE eventon injuries or accidents, but I would like to hear if there were ever any recorded. There were none in Fort Worth in 2008.

Given this experience, I haveseveral personal opinions on rule 4.

1. I feel that AMA park type models flown at fly in type events should not be subject to rule 4 as currently written, given the inherent low risk of 2 lb models flying at less than 60 mph.

2. I think that at fly in, airshow and model demotype events, it would be safe to atleastallow first flightsbefore and after event hours,

3. I think that it could be possible to safely allow first flights during fly inevent hours, witha safety inspection before flight and with the event management taking steps to keep all eventpilots, staff and spectatorsalert and safe during first flights..

What do you think?

Im on the side that say, as long as the model is checked and appoved by someone who know what he/shes doing, it's anounced and everyone is cool with it and aware of it. Go for it. It sounds like in this case it is what it is meant to be,a college challenge lab, not an AMA event.

I've been to a couple of these events. I think I even got a prospect of flying for a cal poly team, I hope so.The kids building the models really have no clue what aeromodeling is or rules and the saftey involved but everyone of these events has avid modelers as inspectors and designated flyers, yes there are allot of crashes but I've yet to see any even remotely close calls. The few that could have been the pilot recognised it and ditched the plane. This sound like a wannabe laywer just wanting to rain in on the parade.

The only thing I would like to see is maybe a ban on PCM recievers if your going to maiden a plane at an event like this, that pcm lockout thing can be very dangerouse. At least if you get marginal control on a PPM stystem you can bump it away from the crowd. I say this becuase these events most of the time are not at designated flying feilds where the known frequecy problems would be identified. The two close call mishaps at any event I've been was becuase of PCM lockout on a low time model.

#1. I disagree. No exceptions. If you wish to fly in these events then be ready to run with the big dogs or stay under the porch.

#2. As an AMA CD since Feb. 1963, I do so. When Carl Maroney was AMA's insurance guru, he was pushing that the sanction was a 24 hour thing, midnight to midnight, and as such all rules were in that time frame. Carl was as fine a gentleman as could be in this worldly world, but just a tad on the "fixed vision" list. As I stated in another forum somewhere in answer to this question, if AMA wishes to change my operation, then they can do so, or at least provide me with more detailed instructions. Right now, no maidens during business hours, however prior to and after official flying, thenfield is open to normal flying rules.

#3. Not just NO but "L- NO". In true competition there is really no time for such time-breaks. In Fly-Ins or Fun-Flys, you are taking up the time of the paying customers. You obviously are not a seasoned Contest Director, as you would know that such delays will create much alarm among the cattle.
a. If one has that chance then all should have it. Won't work. One guy loses a flight that may have been a winning flight, because someone else received special treatment when he came NOT PREPARED.The P& Ms fly fast and furious.Then after the event you will be filling out Protest answers while everyone else is playing Happy-Hour.

b. Are YOU going to make the decision that an unproven model is safe to fly? I definitely no longer do so. The pilot signs a form stating he and the airplane are good-to-go. That is then his decision. If by chance he is found to have signed an untrue statement, then he gets direction to the gate and beyond.

c. The current procedure seems to work well enough. I see no need to have more restrictions. If one comes to an event with a new untested machine, not early enough to test prior to the advertised start time, then place it in the display area and have a beer.

Hmm...interesting comment on the PCM Rx......., my experience is that PCM tends to be more reliable than PPMon 72 and not less. Local flying fields that I attend for events post known 72 mHz problems and do not allow flights on channels known to have interference.

Personally, I would not require any specific type of RX for a first flight.

PS: I think one of the teams I flew for last year was Cal Poly...small world!

Not a good enough reason, IMO. I think I made a good case for the small model exception, as the AMA did when it set the Park model classification. The little dogs are much less likely to cause a problem..

Looks like we agree on this one. I think this is acceptable and I do so as well, both as a flyer and as a CD..

First of all, you are wrong in your assumption. I have CDed six of the past Fort Worth Thunderbird Big Bird events in the1990s, one or two competition fun flys in years pastand I now CD a yearly electric fly in for the same club. I have about 10 years of competiton flying experience scattered over 40 years of aeromodelling as well.I think9 or so CDedevents constitutes some seasoning.Feel free to apologize if you can... Your resume is impressive, but there ARE other viewpoints that are valid.

I did not and donot advocate delaying the general flying at an event for a first flight....that is another poor assumption on your part.I am advocating a model inspection and a heads up announcement bythe CD or flight line supervisor. Neitherneed causedelays to general flying. I never advocated this for true AMA competition, only for fly in type events. I am on the fence when it comes to airshows and model demos, as they tend to be more public.

I have safetyinspected models at past Big Bird events and have gone thumbs down, with agreement from other inspectors, on a couple of models that had issues. As long as it is known that the inspectors have the final decision, I see no issue here. Models get safety inspected in certain competiton events, such as line pulls for control line models. Are they not making a safety judgement?

I do not agree. The rule sometimes gets a wink and a nod and sometimes gets ignored or overlooked. I am advocating consideringfewer restrictions and a rule refinement on this issue, not more restrictions. It gives a way to openlydo what should be done with a first flight at an event. and make things safer than someone choosing to sneak in a first flight.

Hoss, why did you snip out my entire example of an event that proves that first test flights at an eventcan be made andoften fail and the event can still be operated safely? I feel this is a very powerful example of the discussion at hand that nicely supports my point of view....

The real question is not whether the AMA should change the rule, but will the insurance underwriter allow coverage at sanctioned events for unproven aircraft.

Why fly an unproven model in sanctioned events, airshows and model demostrations until it has been proven airworthy?  What's the reward for the risk?

Seems to me its only responsible behavior to test an aircraft at an uncrowded field before flying it in front of crowds.  As for the SAE Aerodesign event, clearly the insurer understands there are unproven aircraft, and procedures are in effect to account for this.  For the types of events sanctioned by AMA, I don't see any practical need to change rule 4, other than poor planning on the part of the person that wants to fly the untested model.  To me that's an excuse, not a good reason.

I'm with Hoss on this one.     

Brad

Has a CD of a GS meet and co-CD of a jet meet. We always open the field the day before to let people test fly there planes. This has always worked well for us. Also we call the meet at 5pm so the pilots can fly anything they want for the rest of the day. This also lets the pit crews time to relax. If at the time some one wants to test fly a plane, we close the flight line and announce the test flight.
Only once in all my years have I had one person fly a new plane during the event hours. How did i know? He was chasing it down the runway trying to get it under control. I had to go out on the runway and tell him to land or crash, but get the plane down NOW. We did have a talk about that and he said he was sorry and we both had a good time for the rest of the meet.
A side note, all the test flight we has allowed have always gone well. That is testament to good pilots and their set-ups. Dennis

The AMA is self insured on all smaller claims, so the decision is not only up to the insurance company that handles larger claims.

I think the rule is worth discussing as it gets danced around a good bit and it gets quietly ignored here and there.

I have never seen how allowing a new model to fly at 5:01 PM is materially safer than allowing it to fly at 4:59 PM, if the event closes at 5PM...

I mentioned the Aero Design event as it shows that with proper manangement, the risks are insurable and managable, in a situation far more likely toresult ina crash thanallowing a model to take a first flightat an AMA type fly in.

One issue I forgot to mention was re-flying a model damaged to some extentat an event. I think this is done fairly often and in lots of cases, it probably fractures rule 4, dependin on various interpritations of Rule 4. I may have done this myself, thinking back.

Small electric seaplane at a AMA float Fly. Knocked off motor frommount in a bad landing and splashed in pretty hard. Fixed motor mount, made a cursory check of the model repaired a couple of other minor cracksand all was well. I flew it again at the event.

Did I fracture Rule 4?

I don't think you made a case at all for an exception. Ever been hit in the head by a2 lb object traveling at 60mph?

Heck a baseball only weighs around 5 ounces and kids have been killed by those.

wow I totaly spaced about our float flys. At lake cachuma out here we are allowed to fly 3 weekends a year on it.2 of the three are open ama events and 90% of the models are maidend at the event, there is no way around it, there is phsically no where to test them before hand with in 5 hours of us, blatant ignoring of the rule, darn right.

I think his point was; all other factors being the same, smaller, lighter models have lower risks than larger, heavier models. How can anyone argue with that?

Reality is, by virtue of nature, more precautions are taken with larger more expensive models...evening out the differential to a high degree.

At some point risk becomes acceptable...where is that point...where you say...where I say...or what?

Maybe just scrap rule #4 in the general SC and leave it up to CD’s, particular events and competition rules, since it really is only material at that point of their interaction anyway.



Anyway, if we would just ban baseball and model flying the world would be much more safe…

I think he was trying to say that a 2lb 60mph can't hurt anyone and should be exempt from rule 4.



Careful, the FAA committee may be monitoring this thread, and baseballs do travel in the air...in some cases within three miles of an airport!

I fly CL Precision Aerobatics.  I like to have flown the pattern 50 times with a new airplane before I compete.  I have gone with as few as 12 previous patterns but  did not like to do so.

I think he was saying 2lb 60mph models are less likely to harm someone...and I agree if so... and therefore I also agree those light wieght low energy models should be exempt.

We have to remember what gave birth to the rule in the first place...there weren't any 2lb electrics at that time. The rule is antiquated and needs to be installed in specific discipline rules and not as a general SC rule any longer...times have changed and the rules needs to evolve as well IMO.

Nope...did not say that, or imply that. Here were my exact words:

1. I feel that AMA park type models flown at fly in type events should not be subject to rule 4 as currently written, given the inherent low risk of 2 lb models flying at less than 60 mph.

My position is that since Parkflyer models to the AMA standard have already been accepted as safer by the AMA, they should be considered for possible exemption from rule 4 due to themuch reduced risk in parkflyer model operations over normal model operations.

I look at this and think the answer is pretty straight forward, fly the thing previous to flying in a public atmosphere. I certainly would want to know that the repaired ornew plane flew right, before trying it at an event with all sorts of people around who may have no idea that the airplane coming at them is out of control.

I have no problem with the indoor type airplanes being exempt; however, who makes the decision about where the cut-off is and what it is?

There is really no way to enforce the rule but rather the cd has to go on the
belief that the pilot is being honest when he says the model has been
flown before. But I think time should be set aside at all events to test fly
models.

There isn't a definate way to be 100% sure that a test flight has been done without being an eyewitness. When I do an event I announce a beginning and close so test flights or other types of flying are open. Not even a small problem with a flight before the advertised time.
The major repair comment is however an interesting one, particularly in say a combat or racing event, what dictates a major repair? I need to think about that one since most of the event's I've done are high speed and racing venues, ergo interpretation.

ooops
sombody forgot to say "Electric Only".

Looks like you mistakenly applied logic & physics to your argument (you didnt exclude 1lb 45mph cox049's)
when you probably wanted to stick to the dogma
on how 2/60 planes are safe only when you cant hear them coming at you.

to be clear,
did you intend to say all 2lb 60mph planes are inherently low risk,
or did you mean to say that 2/60s are low risk, but only the quiet ones?

I meant exactly what I posted.

I excluded the electric only/quiet only ruleon purpose....most people get the basicpark rules.. ...don't forgetthey include other models besides park R/Celectric...small r/c gliders,rubber powered models, and other quiet things. The only thing excluded is glow/gas and noise.

The park rules are designedfor models not flown at regular AMAaircraft sites....AMA sanctioned events will be at regular aircraft sites as a rule.

Ialso happen tothink small glow models of the park weight and speed would be safe to do first flights at AMA events, since the events typicallyare at normal model sites where glow motors are allowed, anyway. I think it could also be expanded to most types offree flight models in this size class (PP rules do not seem to allow for free flight).

It is all about the interpretation of the rules....which is why Rule 4could usesome attention.

There should be no "ifs, "ands", or "buts" about it. Rules are easier to remember, easier to interpret and easier to enforce when you keep them simple. Rule 4 is a good one. You will always run across those who think the sky is green, so it is almost impossible to make any rule absolutely clear to everyone.
The safety code needs to be reworded, replace all of the "I will do this" or "I will not do that"s and have the code say, "You SHALL" or "You SHALL not".

Come on CP
If he wants to allow 2/60 electrics to break the public maiden rule, we could allow it.
Just as we could allow 2/60 electrics to use metal props.
Heck, I bet we could even let the 2/60 electrics fly without our Name/AMA#.
And 1 hour after drinking is long enough wait for a safe safe safe 2/60 model... uh, if its quiet


<of course, metal props would survive better on low impulse electric drives,
lending some actual science to back up the idea to allow them to break the safey code Ban
... much unlike the offhand non-scientific reasoning to allow only quiet planes to break the Public Maiden ban.>

Well, I think only Mother Theresa would confess to not testing her Delta Dart before the big rubberband power contest How strict the rule gets followed is up to the conscience of the individual for the most part. 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.