BP-
doesnt that fit under #3, that the FAA CD can still smackdown on folks 'affected' by any drug contrary to safety?


(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety;



wait... I just realized we are talking about making rules to govern AMA's MethSmokin segment.
Even if we had AMA Meth Rules, do we really expect AMA's methsmokin set of members to obey them?

Actually had a problem about three years ago at the club with a couple of "pill poppers". They were afternoon flyers so it went on for quite awhile before the officers found out. They were kicked out and of course threatened to sue. We just refunded there dues and it went away. Also had to ground for a few months one of the "senior" pilots after he changed his heart medication. In that case he had the right attitude as he knew that he was unsafe. But he did leave the club the next year and took up flying "ultralights", untill his wife and grown up son grounded him. .

Ok Hoss let's put the 8 hour rule back in. Now I eat lunch in my motor home, and down 4 beers by myself. How is the 8 hour rule going to affect my time to fly my aircraft in two hours? The only way this rule will work is to have every pilot take a Breath Test when about to fly his plane. The same goes for making sure the model is airworthy. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I find it incomprehensible that a detailed inspection of each plane is not done by qualified people, and signed off as airworthy. Believe this rule is going nowhere until some accident happens to put some teeth into the quaifications to fly at contests.

AERORICH73

It does lack enforceability. Here in San Antonio we have a rogue flyers group that flies every weekend with plenty of beer, and they're often three sheets gone by the time they're supposed to drive home. Kind of scary, and they've invited me to fly there. From what I've gathered through conversations with them, the majority of them have been asked to leave local clubs over their drinking.

Drinkers can be a fearsome bunch, they climb into a car because they're sure they are "okay to drive' and then kill people. Drinking alters one's perception, one person becomes bulletproof, and another becomes crazy and reckless, you just never know.

Drugs? Pretty much the same thing, it's all about how you want to feel, and everybody and everything becomes secondary to that.

I agree that's one that could use some more refinement to be made effective.

Jimbo

Coming toward you, rightside-up or upside-down, the low wing gets the stick. That's the LAW, and it never changes, EVER.

No, BradPaul, if you could read while focusing on the message rather than the prospect of argument, maybe you could comprehend that I am NOT focusing on alcohol. I am focusing on the the removal of one rule that all other fliers, be just a flier, club officer, contestant or whatever could use to keep himself out of civil court in such case where some flier was OBSERVED using alcohol. I do not profess to speak about drugs as I have a couple prescribed drugs myself.
Lipitor and Altace have brought me out of some dangerous levels, and my cardiologist now accuses me in jest of trying to put him out of business.

For the last time, just maybe this will assist others, besides KE who picked it up from the git-go, to comprehend the thesis of my posts. Copied from regular emails:
>>>>>>>>>>
Mike you are right. I agree with that thought. However I have had significant experience in the court room and what happens there is nothing like wishful thinking and/or being nice or even protecting property. Right now up in New Mexico several officers are under state indictment because they used tasers to stop a drugged drunk while the suspect was destroying private property and swirling a chain trying to beat off the officers.

When you see someone drink under the hour rule, you can stop his flying because the hour rule can be determined by a CLOCK.

When you accuse someone of being, "under the influence" you have no definite evidence of that fact. Therefore, you could very well wind up in civil court, or in criminal court as described above.

I've been in the criminal courts, civil courts, divorce court, been a witness, been on a jury, and in the past 3 years WON 2 cases in civil court representing myself, one against a very spunky attorney. In addition I have been fairly well briefed on the FBI's program 5K1 Rule 35. May I suggest you stay away from that program.

How many events do you attend these days? How many EXPERIENCED CDs do you see having safety Checks? Some years ago, IMAA stopped safety checks, except that the checker reads a checklist, the pilot makes the inspection and the pilot, himself, is responsible for whether the airplane is airworthy. Have you noticed some years ago, AMA started having event pilots sign a sheet stating the model and the pilot are both qualified to perform the maneuvers?
Now here AMA comes with a totally unenforceable drinking rule. Wonder WHY? It's pretty simple in that the Tort system in this country strongly favors the wronged person in the civil courts. If I wanted to start rumors, I would say it is because the insurance company wants more escape routes.

If YOU accuse me of being "under the influence " because I am flying badly and YOU demand I quit or be restricted from flying, thus embarrassing me in front of others, then I will win another court case. YOU are not qualified to make that judgment, unless you are a qualified medical person.
Under the 2-4-6-8-10-12 hour or whatever hour rule, and I am observed drinking within that time frame, then as a person involved in the activity you can demand that I be stopped because you are witness to my PERFORMING AN infraction.

Therefore I have tried to explain this thing from the legalities involved, based on my EXPERIENCEs. I am not an attorney, nor am I a medical person. Fortunately, one does not have to be professionally schooled to learn things.

As Albert Einstein stated: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school. The only source of knowledge is experience."



Horrace Cain
AMA L-93

Our club has a no alcohol on the premisis during flying time. No drinking and fly is allowed period. That is our rules and if a person wants to be a member of our club they will abide by our rules or not be a member. If a person wants to set around the camp fire and have a beer that is OK if they are not doing any flying that night.

Hoss, what kind of damages would a guy who has been told to leave an amatuer exhibition like one of these events expect to receive?
I guess if you find yourself standing in front of some lisping, poor excuse for a man type judge, the sky is the limit?

Hey, is this one of those deals where someone proposes a solution that makes perfect sense and is so simple it just might be the solution that pleases everyone?

Could it be?

+1

CP-
These are the Six Million Dollar Cup Of Hot Coffe days... anything goes in court [:'(]

KE, keep the faith that those who find ways to profit unfairly off the hard work of others get dealt with squarely when judgement day comes. What might be "right" in our legal system won't mean J.S. when some of these rodents meet St. Peter.

The chances of a field official being sued under Hoss's scenario are the same with the rule change as without, about the same as me at 52 winning a Supercross race.
Under the old rule, an official had one specific circumstance to stop a drinker. He has to see them. Serious drinkers don't worry about rules.
A CD has a lot more to lose by letting a drunk pilot fly, than not allowing a suspected drunk pilot to fly.

Taking up a subject that needs to be talked about. A lot of things on this and other sites are a lot of fun for me. As the KID puts it, I am not a spring chicken. Staying around does have some good. A person gets to see a lot of stuff. Everything I have seen that drugs and alcohol is part of. Is bad! There is three parts of a law. The intent, the spirit and the letter of the law. The problem with any law, is enforcement. Judges sit and debate for days, weeks and years a law that some cop has to make a call on in minutes. Right now before the Surpreme court is a case about drinking, and how the law was enforced.
So my friends I ask you go on and talk about this subject. Perhaps we can one day figure out how to put a end to this rule violation at the flying field. Please keep in mind that the first step is a rule or law. After we have a law or a rule. The law or rule must stand the test of time. How the law is applied. The bottom line is we do need rules.
One last thing about drinking. If someone is at "your flying field" and someone bites the bullet and tells a person he has to go because of drinking. What next? Think of this. After a person is told they must leave. They get into a car, truck or van and drive off. They crash into some poor slob. Were does that leave the club? Were does that leave the person that run the dude off?
Me and other like me have put the cuffs on people that hurt other people because of impaired driving. We have helped send people to the joint for a long time. None of any of that brought one victum back or ease their pain and suffering.
Our elected officials at the AMA are trying to deal with a very serious issue. We should all try to help.
Have a nice day.

I guess then the CD should be responsible for lassooing & hog tieing the drunk so he can't drive off, then call 911 for a paddy wagon?
We'll need to start making emergency hog roping equipment mandatory to have on hand at these wild fly-ins some of you have.

I missed the part of the SC rule that had the drunk flying at home
call a friend over to his house
and that friend has to eject the drunk pilot from his house.

... nope, I just dont see anywhere in the New9 that mentions EJECTION from the location.
What I do see in the New9 is a restriction on flying,
not on standing there drunk without a plane at ~flying location~ (club/park/home).

Its about the liability and determination.
When we say a CD has to make sure everyone is obeying the 8hr rule,
he can ask each pilot to attest they have not drank or pilled in 8hrs... the liability of the CD on drugs ands there and the liability of the pilot is now used: If the pilot falsifies an answer that the CD would have excluded him, it is the pilots liability.

How can we put the onus of responsibility on the CD to use his own determination on impairedness,
without giving him the method & policy to make that determination. The CD gets it from both ends, het gets blamed for negligence / incompetence if he doesnt catch every drunk, and then even Muncie can stap back and say the CD was supposed to stop that drunk before he killed the bus full of nuns with his PF.


Besides,
this really is a backup plan that should be using Pilots responsibility to assist SO/CD responsibility:
It is up to each pilot to obey the 8hr rule to prevent them from flying unsafely or recklessly,
but the SO/CD can ground a guy for flying like crap regardless of drugs...
you no safee, you no flyee

The New9 is taking the liability off of the pilot and dumping it on the CD.
However, due to the sweet way AMA is setup,
local clubs can still keep a 8hr rule on their books in addition to the New9,
as well as CDs putting one in the even sanction, just mention 8HR while describing the event and folks that wont sign the 8hr sheet dont fly.

Great Post Kid. Very nice new style and format for you. Excellent humor injection.

koastrc injects some detailed information. From his words, I suspect he is an officer of the law, and has BTDT. Very good.

Now to all: It seems that so many keep referring to a CD (Contest Director). Well, friends and foe, the AMA Safety Code is ongoing 24-7, 52 weeks each year. That is not all CD time. It is just ALL the time. When no event is in progress, just who gets the liability.
Some say the topic will never happen. Ingrained within our physic is that we will live forever, but that really doesn't happen.
The two are not compatible. Are you prepared for either experience?

The suggestion of a time limit rule in an event "flyer" is good and I will do so if I do any more events. OTOH, as a club rule it will only be workable at that specific club. That is rather limiting in scope, yet it beats no scope at all.

Well, I have argued my case. I am signing off this thread - or at least that is the current plan. The big boys know all about it, and they are in no hurry to take it up again. Rice says maybe late next year, so as far as I am concerned it is a dead horse and this horse will let it be buried. [>:]

Got to load the truck and go flying. Ya'll have a great day, or whatever your choice may be. Bye Now.

How can you be under the influence with two beers?
This gives the SAFTY OFGFICER something to act like a GESTOPO ....

Ever notice every drunk pulled over on COPS when asked if they have been drinking answers..... "No officer I just had two beers"

Change in "current plan" of 10-29: No, I have not noticed that item. I don't waste time on such shows. There are far too many other interests to WASTE time on, for example forums like this.

Obviously you do as you know "....every drunk puller over...", whatever "puller overs" are?

Mr. Cain, you've never made a typo?

If you drink one beer you are "under the influence". There are limits in place for how much you are "under the influence" before you are breaking the law.

Thanks Horrace for pointing out the typo..... I will correct it.

Have they let you back in to post in the AMA Forum yet?

11-12 email said: (Emphasis added)
>>>>
Mr. Cain,
It has been decided that you will be banned from the AMA forums for a period of one month. Ban will be up on 12/12/2009.
<<<<

In that case, I suppose I am legal to do so, when and if I find anything of interest there.

Brad, over there you seem to know everything about everything, so you surprise me that you were unsure about this point.

Just in case you do require additional assistance, please do ask for it here as I may fail to bother with it over there. [8D]

Hoss your kind words are appreciated... I will surely take them in the spirit you intended.

Brad

How about this?

Maybe NOT a time limit, but instead a level... Like you are DUI if you are over .08%. If you are on a boat, I believe it's only .02%. And, I;m sure there is a level for FAA..... And call it in like you would if you believe someone is over and being unsafe... Instead of MADD, we could be PADD....

Just a thought...

The only problem I see with that is that almost everyone has a watch to check the time. The equipment required to check someone's BAC is quite expensive. As a commercial driver, the BAC limit was .04%.