New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
10-23-2009 | 12:14 PM
#1
Thread Starter
New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
In the new/revised AMA Safety Code effective 2010, there are some items that I have a problem with. I will list one here.
As a long time modeler for many years before the Safety Code and a professional aviator for 41 years, I have a lot of experience with such rules. YOU are going to see this come alive within your clubs in the not-too-distant future as we slip backwards. Maybe you might email your DVP for his input about this item at the coming next weekend EC meeting. I have.
2010 AMA Safety Code.
General:
9. I will not operate my model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug which could adversely affect my ability to safely control the model.
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, "....under the influence..."?
I do not question drugs as some prescription drugs, or medical "weed" is beyond my scope. OTOH, I can sit and have a good Mexican lunch, 2 beers to wash it down, and never know any influence, or be labeled a drunk driver. Now, may I do the same for RC flying?
Heck, back in days of old, some times I crawled into the jet, just me by myself, and I was still much under the influence of several hours ago, yet I'm still alive and never even used the ejection seat.
IMO, removing the 8 hours is going to open up a whole lot of snakes for Contest Directors (CD), Club Officers and Safety Officers.
As a CD, I see a guy having a beer at lunch. He has some time before he flies. What happens if I call him on it? He can sue me and AMA, that is what happens. I do not have any legal right to determine whether he is under the influence or not, and as a CD, I am the official representative of AMA, so making such a call brings AMA into the playing field. The same will happen within the Charter Clubs and Officers, as soon as the news gets around.
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
Seriously, this dropping of the 8 hour rule leaves a lot of room for much dissension among the ranks, and removes almost all teeth in the rule. Go ahead and play tough-guy with your answers, however come back after you have experienced a real situation and then tell us about it.
I like my brew, and I have a few whenever I wish to. I no longer wish to, either reasonably before driving or flying a model aircraft.
I don't care to see my club's officers start to looking the other way concerning drinkers, simply because the officers will have no real power to do anything about a drinker if he can stand up, without help. [>:]
As a long time modeler for many years before the Safety Code and a professional aviator for 41 years, I have a lot of experience with such rules. YOU are going to see this come alive within your clubs in the not-too-distant future as we slip backwards. Maybe you might email your DVP for his input about this item at the coming next weekend EC meeting. I have.
2010 AMA Safety Code.
General:
9. I will not operate my model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug which could adversely affect my ability to safely control the model.
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, "....under the influence..."?
I do not question drugs as some prescription drugs, or medical "weed" is beyond my scope. OTOH, I can sit and have a good Mexican lunch, 2 beers to wash it down, and never know any influence, or be labeled a drunk driver. Now, may I do the same for RC flying?
Heck, back in days of old, some times I crawled into the jet, just me by myself, and I was still much under the influence of several hours ago, yet I'm still alive and never even used the ejection seat.
IMO, removing the 8 hours is going to open up a whole lot of snakes for Contest Directors (CD), Club Officers and Safety Officers.
As a CD, I see a guy having a beer at lunch. He has some time before he flies. What happens if I call him on it? He can sue me and AMA, that is what happens. I do not have any legal right to determine whether he is under the influence or not, and as a CD, I am the official representative of AMA, so making such a call brings AMA into the playing field. The same will happen within the Charter Clubs and Officers, as soon as the news gets around.
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
Seriously, this dropping of the 8 hour rule leaves a lot of room for much dissension among the ranks, and removes almost all teeth in the rule. Go ahead and play tough-guy with your answers, however come back after you have experienced a real situation and then tell us about it.
I like my brew, and I have a few whenever I wish to. I no longer wish to, either reasonably before driving or flying a model aircraft.
I don't care to see my club's officers start to looking the other way concerning drinkers, simply because the officers will have no real power to do anything about a drinker if he can stand up, without help. [>:]
10-23-2009 | 12:30 PM
#2
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, ''....under the influence...''?
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, ''....under the influence...''?
10-23-2009 | 01:01 PM
#3
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Scappoose, OR
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Ok Hoss: I have not gotten a chance to review the whole new safety code, but your discussion brings up a valid point. In the first place any breathing human, warm and moving SHOULD KNOW if they are in good mental, and physical condition to operate machinery of any kind. SO, you would think that this rule is not needed in the Safety Code. On the other hand, there are humans that lack the distinction of clear though at times; so here comes the rule. Believe the rule could be written differently as the following: "I will not operate my model aircraft if I am physically, or mentally unable to operate it safely". Believe that this is what you had in mind Hoss, so that CD's are no longer required to challenge someone about their condition to operate a model aircraft. It would be a hard thing for all pilots at a contest not to grab a pilot staggeriing to the flightline without the CD's help in putting the person back into a chair.
[email protected]
[email protected]
10-23-2009 | 01:02 PM
#4
Thread Starter
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
I think it is a move in the right direction since it puts the definition of “under the influence†squarely on the individual...as it should be…which has its benefits in more ways than one... I am all for “personal responsibility†and this is another change to promote that agenda. Kudos AMA!
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, ''....under the influence...''?
Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing? For whom! Who or What defines, ''....under the influence...''?
Atta' Boy, little CS. Then let's save our tax dollars and eliminate the police officers that nab drunk drivers. The alky's will recognize their "personal responsibility" so there will never anymore be drunk drivers crashing thru red lights and splattering folks over the tarmac. [:@] When it's your daughter and grand child, then come explain that it's ok, it was just a lapse of that SOB's "personal responsibility", so all is forgiven. My blood pressure just went up at least 50 points.
10-23-2009 | 01:21 PM
#5
Thread Starter
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: AERORICH73
//snip// Believe the rule could be written differently as the following: ''I will not operate my model aircraft if I am physically, or mentally unable to operate it safely''. Believe that this is what you had in mind Hoss, so that CD's are no longer required to challenge someone about their condition to operate a model aircraft. //snip//.
[email protected]
//snip// Believe the rule could be written differently as the following: ''I will not operate my model aircraft if I am physically, or mentally unable to operate it safely''. Believe that this is what you had in mind Hoss, so that CD's are no longer required to challenge someone about their condition to operate a model aircraft. //snip//.
[email protected]
In the real world no one is pronounced dead except by a proper medical examiner.
Heck, a few weeks ago I tried to fly in an IMAC contest. If "under the influence" was a valid call, then I should have been called. With that performance, there was an "influence" all right, like lack of ability, and no practice with a formal sequence.
Any type of call requiring medical determination is simply going to be ignored or create big trouble. Replace the 8 hours.
10-23-2009 | 01:29 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
The 8 hour rule is totally unenforcable and highly arbitrary. The spirit of the law is still unchanged.
Hoss, if you want to ban alcohol consumption at the field, that is enforcable and very reasonable.
The mental and physical faculties of a totally sober 80 year old might still be lagging behind a well equipped 25 year old who just put away a few, so if someone wanted to take the impairment issue to the Nth degree, you would have to have all flyers pass a performance test in a simulator before handing them their transmitter to fly.
Hoss, if you want to ban alcohol consumption at the field, that is enforcable and very reasonable.
The mental and physical faculties of a totally sober 80 year old might still be lagging behind a well equipped 25 year old who just put away a few, so if someone wanted to take the impairment issue to the Nth degree, you would have to have all flyers pass a performance test in a simulator before handing them their transmitter to fly.
10-23-2009 | 02:32 PM
#8
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Atta' Boy, little CS. Then let's save our tax dollars and eliminate the police officers that nab drunk drivers. The alky's will recognize their ''personal responsibility'' so there will never anymore be drunk drivers crashing thru red lights and splattering folks over the tarmac. [:@] When it's your daughter and grand child, then come explain that it's ok, it was just a lapse of that SOB's ''personal responsibility'', so all is forgiven. My blood pressure just went up at least 50 points.
Atta' Boy, little CS. Then let's save our tax dollars and eliminate the police officers that nab drunk drivers. The alky's will recognize their ''personal responsibility'' so there will never anymore be drunk drivers crashing thru red lights and splattering folks over the tarmac. [:@] When it's your daughter and grand child, then come explain that it's ok, it was just a lapse of that SOB's ''personal responsibility'', so all is forgiven. My blood pressure just went up at least 50 points.
Hoss, what you don't know about my perception of "personal responsibility" would fill a book... if I could have my way about it, lack of concern for others would have much more severe consequences than they do now. When or if someone was found to be at fault for causing harm to another because of their lack of control due to alcohol or drug use, they might find themselves in the electric chair...I am a firm believer in strong deterrents up to and including removal from earth as the ultimate measure for lack of “real†personal responsibility. When we start frying those folks that have little regard for otherwise innocent people we will make greater steps in the right direction of "personal responsibility". I would have no problem frying someone for causing the death of one of my loved ones or yours for their inability to maintain control of their automobile or their model airplane due to being under the influence of a drug (that includes alcohol)…prescribed or not. We need genuine accountability…and the only way is to have the debt paid! And when it comes to genuine personal accountability, money is not a measure... if it were, you could just buy some/more insurance... wrong plan!
10-23-2009 | 02:43 PM
#9
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
10-23-2009 | 07:42 PM
#10
Thread Starter
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
BTW I find this statement very telling...it is always the other guy?... huh
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
CP says, "The 8 hour rule is totally unenforcable and highly arbitrary." Heck, anyone knows that or at least I gave credit for such. The "under the influence" simply builds a total unbreakable wall around the drinker.
As far as any alcohol is concerned, with this rule, it may as well be, "Don't leave the cooler open: gotta' keep things cold." No toy airplane flier will ever be able to say anything as because the toy airplane flier is simply NOT qualified to determine "under the influence". To try to be so, only invites litigation. with the time slot deal, as I said, if one is OBSERVED drinking, then another AMA member can advise the legality and risk. How simple does it HAVE to be? [>:]
Think about this: I attend a fair amount of sanctioned events. The last 4 weekends have been such, none tomorrow, 10-24-09.
At least 4 in a row. NONE have had a Safety Check of the airplanes. One had a DVP there and all had at least one AVP. WHY do you think this is? IMO it is same for all CDs. AMA requires the pilot to sign that he and airplane can do the maneuvers. If he signs that, then why should the CD do the chores of a safety check? IMAA still wants one but the checker reads the check-list, the pilot performs it and the pilot alone determines airworthy status. If the checker says the machine is ready to fly, then the checker assumes responsibility. That means in case of damage to life or limb, the checker and the CD are responsible, not the pilot, as he listened to their call. The same will now exist reference no time limit with the alcohol, as somewhere else the term is, "Don't ask, don't tell." If you bring it, you fly it. "EES na' muy pro-bleem, senior!"
Now, such statements about not allowing alcohol on the field, and such off the wall crap, only displays a lack of comprehension and vision about the potential of a simple rule, that when removed, can create a very undesirable atmosphere. If I should again be CD, club officer, whatever, and a pilot is consuming, guess someone will have to dial 1-800 - AMA-Call if it bothers them. I'll be looking the other way. I've had adequate time in court to satisfy me. [sm=47_47.gif]
10-23-2009 | 08:20 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Hoss, the 8 hour time frame does put some teeth into enforcement if the CD lacks the respect and UNDERSTANDING of the priviledged guests who HE is hosting at HIS contest.
In the 25 plus years that I've been flying AMA combat, this has never been an issue, not even remotely.
In the 25 plus years that I've been flying AMA combat, this has never been an issue, not even remotely.
10-23-2009 | 09:11 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sheridan,
IN
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Where do you come by '',,,it is always the other guy?'' Hey, in my posts I readily admit to using a tremendous amount of bad judgment, especially in my younger days. Sometimes I was the pilot and sometimes the caller, in that specific item quoted by LCS.
CP says, ''The 8 hour rule is totally unenforcable and highly arbitrary.'' Heck, anyone knows that or at least I gave credit for such. The ''under the influence'' simply builds a total unbreakable wall around the drinker.
As far as any alcohol is concerned, with this rule, it may as well be, ''Don't leave the cooler open: gotta' keep things cold.'' No toy airplane flier will ever be able to say anything as because the toy airplane flier is simply NOT qualified to determine ''under the influence''. To try to be so, only invites litigation. with the time slot deal, as I said, if one is OBSERVED drinking, then another AMA member can advise the legality and risk. How simple does it HAVE to be? [>:]
Think about this: I attend a fair amount of sanctioned events. The last 4 weekends have been such, none tomorrow, 10-24-09.
At least 4 in a row. NONE have had a Safety Check of the airplanes. One had a DVP there and all had at least one AVP. WHY do you think this is? IMO it is same for all CDs. AMA requires the pilot to sign that he and airplane can do the maneuvers. If he signs that, then why should the CD do the chores of a safety check? IMAA still wants one but the checker reads the check-list, the pilot performs it and the pilot alone determines airworthy status. If the checker says the machine is ready to fly, then the checker assumes responsibility. That means in case of damage to life or limb, the checker and the CD are responsible, not the pilot, as he listened to their call. The same will now exist reference no time limit with the alcohol, as somewhere else the term is, ''Don't ask, don't tell.'' If you bring it, you fly it. ''EES na' muy pro-bleem, senior!''
Now, such statements about not allowing alcohol on the field, and such off the wall crap, only displays a lack of comprehension and vision about the potential of a simple rule, that when removed, can create a very undesirable atmosphere. If I should again be CD, club officer, whatever, and a pilot is consuming, guess someone will have to dial 1-800 - AMA-Call if it bothers them. I'll be looking the other way. I've had adequate time in court to satisfy me. [sm=47_47.gif]
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
BTW I find this statement very telling...it is always the other guy?... huh
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time.
CP says, ''The 8 hour rule is totally unenforcable and highly arbitrary.'' Heck, anyone knows that or at least I gave credit for such. The ''under the influence'' simply builds a total unbreakable wall around the drinker.
As far as any alcohol is concerned, with this rule, it may as well be, ''Don't leave the cooler open: gotta' keep things cold.'' No toy airplane flier will ever be able to say anything as because the toy airplane flier is simply NOT qualified to determine ''under the influence''. To try to be so, only invites litigation. with the time slot deal, as I said, if one is OBSERVED drinking, then another AMA member can advise the legality and risk. How simple does it HAVE to be? [>:]
Think about this: I attend a fair amount of sanctioned events. The last 4 weekends have been such, none tomorrow, 10-24-09.
At least 4 in a row. NONE have had a Safety Check of the airplanes. One had a DVP there and all had at least one AVP. WHY do you think this is? IMO it is same for all CDs. AMA requires the pilot to sign that he and airplane can do the maneuvers. If he signs that, then why should the CD do the chores of a safety check? IMAA still wants one but the checker reads the check-list, the pilot performs it and the pilot alone determines airworthy status. If the checker says the machine is ready to fly, then the checker assumes responsibility. That means in case of damage to life or limb, the checker and the CD are responsible, not the pilot, as he listened to their call. The same will now exist reference no time limit with the alcohol, as somewhere else the term is, ''Don't ask, don't tell.'' If you bring it, you fly it. ''EES na' muy pro-bleem, senior!''
Now, such statements about not allowing alcohol on the field, and such off the wall crap, only displays a lack of comprehension and vision about the potential of a simple rule, that when removed, can create a very undesirable atmosphere. If I should again be CD, club officer, whatever, and a pilot is consuming, guess someone will have to dial 1-800 - AMA-Call if it bothers them. I'll be looking the other way. I've had adequate time in court to satisfy me. [sm=47_47.gif]
Since the days of Prohibition, there is less tolerance for drinking and doing anything now than ever before, legally speaking. And in the event of a catastrophe at an event, you do not want to be the CD who allowed a guy to fly and hurt someone after the guy was seen drinking, whether it was 1, 2, 4, or 8 hours ago. If something like this happens, the law will be involved immediately. If alcohol was involved, that will come up immediately, too.
In Indiana, and other states also, one doesn't have to have a BAC of .08% to be arrested and found guilty of being under the influence. That is only the definition of being legally drunk. A cop can arrest you for any BAC if he determines you are doing something unsafe. That doesn't mean you will be convicted, but if it involves death or injury, you are in a world of hurt with even a trace amount of alcohol (or drugs) in your system.
So, to me, this looks like an improved CYA for event officials and the AMA.
10-23-2009 | 09:40 PM
#13
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Hossfly-
I think that in attempting to distinguish some rational reason for this change, you are failing to consider the real reason for it may well fall outside the realm of rational thought. The motive behind the SC changes (and it was advertised) is to make AMA's safety program 'more palatable to FAA' in their bid to become the community-based organization that will be delegated control of model aviation in the National Airspace per Section 2 of the sUAS ARC recommendations. IOW, it is in the interest of marketing, not safety.
That's as far as I can go with the 'why' of it........how marketeers think does not converge with perceptions of reality that are familiar to me. The good news though is that the Marketing Dept now appears to be the fastest growing fiefdom at AMA HQ, so if there are answers to be had you might find them there.
Cletus
I think that in attempting to distinguish some rational reason for this change, you are failing to consider the real reason for it may well fall outside the realm of rational thought. The motive behind the SC changes (and it was advertised) is to make AMA's safety program 'more palatable to FAA' in their bid to become the community-based organization that will be delegated control of model aviation in the National Airspace per Section 2 of the sUAS ARC recommendations. IOW, it is in the interest of marketing, not safety.
That's as far as I can go with the 'why' of it........how marketeers think does not converge with perceptions of reality that are familiar to me. The good news though is that the Marketing Dept now appears to be the fastest growing fiefdom at AMA HQ, so if there are answers to be had you might find them there.
Cletus
10-23-2009 | 10:01 PM
#14
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Here is what bothers me about dropping the 8-hour limit. Since the threshold is now "impaired" and there is definition of what is meant by that and no way to really ascertain and verify it, there is nothing stopping a person from downing a couple of colds ones and grabbing the TX of his turbine jet and having at it.
Unless a flying site has a no drinking rule there is nothing that can now be used to stop people from drinking and flying. And I am hard pressed to understand how that is a good thing.
As far as the FAA thing goes, it makes no sense since the FAA uses an 8-hour bottle to throttle rule itself. How does softening this restriction make our safety rules more palatable to the FAA??
http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGFAR.NSF/0/28757d8ae4d7d671862571960066be86!OpenDocument
Unless a flying site has a no drinking rule there is nothing that can now be used to stop people from drinking and flying. And I am hard pressed to understand how that is a good thing.
As far as the FAA thing goes, it makes no sense since the FAA uses an 8-hour bottle to throttle rule itself. How does softening this restriction make our safety rules more palatable to the FAA??
Code of Federal Regulations
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart AGeneral
Sec. 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
[(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.]
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart AGeneral
Sec. 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
[(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.]
10-23-2009 | 10:20 PM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
AMA rules are a bare minimum, not a maximum. Never lose sight of that. At a contest there IS something that can be done about this issue, it's called a pilot's meeting.
If alcohol is this big of an issue at your contests to be making an issue out of it here, you guys are running with the wrong crowd. Instead of running these "come one come all" mega buck events where every Tom, Dick and Harry is free to drag in from Timbucktoo, maybe some of that needs to be re-examined?....take care of it on the spot before it becomes a problem.
Like I said earlier, at all the events I've ever attended where your reputation as a competitor and as a man is on the line...drugs and alcohol has never needed to be addressed.
If alcohol is this big of an issue at your contests to be making an issue out of it here, you guys are running with the wrong crowd. Instead of running these "come one come all" mega buck events where every Tom, Dick and Harry is free to drag in from Timbucktoo, maybe some of that needs to be re-examined?....take care of it on the spot before it becomes a problem.
Like I said earlier, at all the events I've ever attended where your reputation as a competitor and as a man is on the line...drugs and alcohol has never needed to be addressed.
10-23-2009 | 10:41 PM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Back in the day
(or for many of the AMA members I should say Not so long ago)
A cop pulled me over cause he saw me swiggin a beer as I drove down the hiway.
He asked how many I had, and I showed him the 6pack with 2 missing
... 1 in my hand, my buddy was drinking the other.
The cop asked where we were going, and when he heard we were headed to the gulf for some R&R
he made an official direction that we "Dont get any more till you get there. Have a nice day & dont litter them cans"
Were we Impaired? Not really, maybe later if we chugged the whole drives beers in just the first parrish.
Were we drinking while driving? yup
Or the time some MPs told me to follow their car back to my company AO,
and when I showed them I just had a couple beers they said to just be real careful and dont follow too closely.
I can see that Hoss is concerned that the simple None For 8Hr
is now replaced with the difficult Impaired determination by the CD.
S3 just mentioned some states BAC cutoff,
so how do CDs get this BAC number from an event pilot that had a 2beer lunch?
Surely we dont want to do the Beer Counter,
my mother takes a nap after 1/2 a beer
while a few of my friends are big ole cornfed boys that can handle a beer or 2 without any effect.
ahh, there in lies the rub: When drinking, your clarity of though is affected.
Only after we drop the keys a few times do we stop and realize,
hey... maybe I shouldnt drive home after all them beers
(or for many of the AMA members I should say Not so long ago)
A cop pulled me over cause he saw me swiggin a beer as I drove down the hiway.
He asked how many I had, and I showed him the 6pack with 2 missing
... 1 in my hand, my buddy was drinking the other.
The cop asked where we were going, and when he heard we were headed to the gulf for some R&R
he made an official direction that we "Dont get any more till you get there. Have a nice day & dont litter them cans"
Were we Impaired? Not really, maybe later if we chugged the whole drives beers in just the first parrish.
Were we drinking while driving? yup
Or the time some MPs told me to follow their car back to my company AO,
and when I showed them I just had a couple beers they said to just be real careful and dont follow too closely.
I can see that Hoss is concerned that the simple None For 8Hr
is now replaced with the difficult Impaired determination by the CD.
S3 just mentioned some states BAC cutoff,
so how do CDs get this BAC number from an event pilot that had a 2beer lunch?
Surely we dont want to do the Beer Counter,
my mother takes a nap after 1/2 a beer
while a few of my friends are big ole cornfed boys that can handle a beer or 2 without any effect.
Original Aero-
In the first place any breathing human, warm and moving SHOULD KNOW if they are in good mental, and physical condition to operate machinery of any kind. SO, you would think that this rule is not needed in the Safety Code. On the other hand, there are humans that lack the distinction of clear though at times; so here comes the rule.
In the first place any breathing human, warm and moving SHOULD KNOW if they are in good mental, and physical condition to operate machinery of any kind. SO, you would think that this rule is not needed in the Safety Code. On the other hand, there are humans that lack the distinction of clear though at times; so here comes the rule.
Only after we drop the keys a few times do we stop and realize,
hey... maybe I shouldnt drive home after all them beers
10-23-2009 | 11:07 PM
#17
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
As far as the FAA thing goes, it makes no sense since the FAA uses an 8-hour bottle to throttle rule itself. How does softening this restriction make our safety rules more palatable to the FAA??
As far as the FAA thing goes, it makes no sense since the FAA uses an 8-hour bottle to throttle rule itself. How does softening this restriction make our safety rules more palatable to the FAA??
I didn't say or infer that it made any sense and would not as I do not believe that to be so, but rather just reported the motive for changing it as stated by an AMA source charged with government (US gov, not AMA) affairs, so don't throw it back at me.
I suggested to Hossfly who to ask, and refer you to same.
Cletus
10-24-2009 | 12:45 AM
#18
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
AS you seem to be replying to me.........
I didn't say or infer that it made any sense and would not as I do not believe that to be so, but rather just reported the motive for changing it as stated by an AMA source charged with government (US gov, not AMA) affairs, so don't throw it back at me.
I suggested to Hossfly who to ask, and refer you to same.
Cletus
AS you seem to be replying to me.........
I didn't say or infer that it made any sense and would not as I do not believe that to be so, but rather just reported the motive for changing it as stated by an AMA source charged with government (US gov, not AMA) affairs, so don't throw it back at me.
I suggested to Hossfly who to ask, and refer you to same.
Cletus
So clip a couple of coils off your spring there Cletus, OK?
10-24-2009 | 08:07 AM
#19
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Hoss actually asked this question on the AMA forum and got an answer from Jim Rice VP and Chair of the Safety Committee.
That was back on August 8th.......... I guess he just want's act as if he never heard the answer and try again here. Oh well......................
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=248
That was back on August 8th.......... I guess he just want's act as if he never heard the answer and try again here. Oh well......................
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=248
10-24-2009 | 08:50 AM
#20
Senior Member
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
I belonged to a CL Club of dedicated beer drinkers. After they lost a flying site because of the beer drinking, they became a bunch of blue-nosed teetotlers.
To comment on KidEpoxy's comments on drinking and driving. It used to be legal to drink and drive in Texas so long as you didn't get drunk. I was in Ft. Worth one time during a heat wave and the public radio was pushing hydration. "Chase each beer with a glass of water." The law as changed to no open container some years ago.
To comment on KidEpoxy's comments on drinking and driving. It used to be legal to drink and drive in Texas so long as you didn't get drunk. I was in Ft. Worth one time during a heat wave and the public radio was pushing hydration. "Chase each beer with a glass of water." The law as changed to no open container some years ago.
10-24-2009 | 11:45 AM
#21
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Actually your name only shows as ''reply to'' because I hit the quick reply. I was in fact not replying to you or anyone else. I was only stating my opinion and adding in the FAA precedent. And the stated reasons for the change have been circulated before, and they seem odd to me, as they appear to you as well.
So clip a couple of coils off your spring there Cletus, OK?
Actually your name only shows as ''reply to'' because I hit the quick reply. I was in fact not replying to you or anyone else. I was only stating my opinion and adding in the FAA precedent. And the stated reasons for the change have been circulated before, and they seem odd to me, as they appear to you as well.
So clip a couple of coils off your spring there Cletus, OK?
Cletus
10-24-2009 | 12:38 PM
#22
Thread Starter
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
Hoss actually asked this question on the AMA forum and got an answer from Jim Rice VP and Chair of the Safety Committee.
That was back on August 8th.......... I guess he just want's act as if he never heard the answer and try again here. Oh well......................
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=248
Hoss actually asked this question on the AMA forum and got an answer from Jim Rice VP and Chair of the Safety Committee.
That was back on August 8th.......... I guess he just want's act as if he never heard the answer and try again here. Oh well......................
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=248
Why is it so necessary in your mind that you have to lie, and then even present evidence that you did so?
Hope you read better in your other readings. OTOH, maybe you just have some personal vendetta that you prefer to unleash.
10-24-2009 | 12:43 PM
#23
Thread Starter
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
//snip//
Like I said earlier, at all the events I've ever attended where your reputation as a competitor and as a man is on the line...drugs and alcohol has never needed to be addressed.
//snip//
Like I said earlier, at all the events I've ever attended where your reputation as a competitor and as a man is on the line...drugs and alcohol has never needed to be addressed.
10-24-2009 | 12:56 PM
#24
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Silent-
yeah... I think we've all been the victim of the Quick Reply at one point or another
But you raised an interesting pondering,
why not just copypaste the FAA drug rule?
Sec. 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs Hypothetical AMA:SCg9 - Alcohol & Drugs:
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of acivil model aircraft
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
if we are trying to appease the FAA,
why not just use their text... it is not that different from what we already propose.
It meets both Hoss's concerns over the New9 moving the responsibility (liability) from pilot to CD,
it meets the new appreciation for drugs as well as booze,
and it even supports the Impaired whistle for CDs to blow if they want to.
.... so who is not getting what they want if we apply FAA's text to models, to appease the FAA?
yeah... I think we've all been the victim of the Quick Reply at one point or another
But you raised an interesting pondering,
why not just copypaste the FAA drug rule?
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
why not just use their text... it is not that different from what we already propose.
It meets both Hoss's concerns over the New9 moving the responsibility (liability) from pilot to CD,
it meets the new appreciation for drugs as well as booze,
and it even supports the Impaired whistle for CDs to blow if they want to.
.... so who is not getting what they want if we apply FAA's text to models, to appease the FAA?
10-24-2009 | 02:30 PM
#25
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
Perhaps it as an age difference thing, but everybody seems to be focused on alcohol. I'll put my flame suit on now, but I suspect in the "younger" age group, weed, meth, and pills would be the bigger "impairment factor" concern. Not sure where any "8 hour rule" applies there.
