I never said YOU used the word "pass", but if you go back through the thread, you will see that I did and your reply was a tacit agreement with my statement. Here is the original sequence.

My original statement in post 33 (emphasis added):

To which you replied:

So while you did not use the word pass, your reply to did not contest my statement and in fact implied agreement with it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Safe or unsafe?

And this from EAA AirVenture:

Just a few points:

A-The Cub landing on the "littlest runway" is a certified aircraft, has been well flight-tested, and will fly consistently within its flight envelope.

B-The pilot of the yellow Cub is a professional air show performer, and has practiced and performed this routine hundreds of times. And the driver of the truck is not just somebody off the street, but a practiced air show performer as well.

C-Just hypothicizing here, but I'm going to guess that the Cub on floats was put on them at that airport, without a legal body of water to depart from. This is not actually an unheard of way to get a floatplane airborne when insufficient water is present.

I think the difference is that the model in the FT video was brand new and not flight tested, and therefore there is ni way to know how the craft will react airborne, or even if it can do so. And I do believe that I've seen video of the flight it made. It didn't end well, as I remember.

If what you say is true, then when a law enforcement officer observes a violation but does not act on it, i.e. does not "contest" the action, are you saying that constitutes the officer's approval of the action? Good luck with that in front of a judge.

The reason is simple - absence of disagreement or constest implies nothing.

NONE of which speaks to the actual question at hand.

Every single maiden flight of a model is "Brand new and not flight tested". LOL nice try, though.

Astro

Do you maiden your models at an airshow? In front of large crowds? Or do you flight test them, get the kinks out, and have them proven properly airworthy and have knowledge of their flight characteristics?

Oh, I forgot. Reading comprehension is still not your strong suit.

LOL nice try, though.

Nice try, but any reasonable reader of your reply to my statement about giving Flite Test a pass would take it as at least tacit agreement. Now if these threads were legally binding legal documents, you might be able to argue the point that no explicit agreement was offered, and in a court of law that might make a difference, but this is not a court of law and threads are just conversation. BUT if it helps you to sleep better to now say that you had not intention of agreeing to my statement, then by all means, carry on.

Reading comprehension? Show me where reading comprehension even comes into play here? Please quote the written words I didn't comprehend. LOL

Does it make you feel better about your weak stance when you try to belittle others? Just curious.

Astro

So, to the point of the question asked in the title of this thread... What does flight test offer?
1. It has already been mentioned that they have programs and outreach that seems to be very successful at bringing young people into the hobby.
2. In addition to their outreach and their stimulation of enthusiasm they also offer easy to build kits, plans and electronics that can get someone up and running in the hobby at a very reasonable price.
3. They are now an officially recognized CBO with a set of safety rules that are common sense rules for participating in the hobby.
4. They offer a free membership in order to become a member of their CBO.
5. They also offer a very reasonable paid membership that comes with discounts and other benefits for the reasonable price of $24 a year.

Yes they have many you tube videos out there that some may feel are questionable from the standpoint of an officially recognized CBO placing on their you tube feed. So here is something that people are completely missing:
Flite test has been around for quite some time involving youth in the hobby, providing kits and plans and components that gets people flying at the most reasonable price I think you will find anywhere.

The video of the 10 foot plane, as an example, could be seen by some as being somewhat less than safe. Did anyone check and see that this video is from May 31 2017? This is long before they even had the concept of becoming a recognized CBO. I am hopeful that they may be taking things in the FTCA a bit more seriously than they perhaps did 6 years ago!

Just a few thoughts...

Jim

People keep saying that video shows unsafe behavior, yet nobody has been able to specifically say what is unsafe about it. Let's not continue to call it unsafe until that has been clarified.

Astro

I actually said "The video of the 10 foot plane, as an example, could be seen by some as being somewhat less than safe. But I do get your point Astro and agree even that 6 year old video being safe or unsafe is a matter of opinion.

Edit: Having watched the video multiple times I actually see nothing I can point to as being unsafe. No flying over the highway, no flying over spectators, The method of launch is somewhat unique but I'm actually not seeing where the launch method violates any safety rules... The only people in any "danger" whatsoever were participants in the building and the flight of the aircraft

I didn't mean to say that you said it was unsafe, I was just trying to establish that I didn't find anything inherently unsafe and that until someone provides a compelling argument for labelling them as unsafe, we shouldn't assume that FT is unsafe because one member said they are.. That (and another) video were hastily posted, clearly intending to discredit FT as being unsafe. After watching the videos, I couldn't find anything inherently unsafe, so I asked the member who posted the videos to clarify what they depicted that he viewed as unsafe. He hasn't provided anything.

Astro

Keep in mind that I didn’t say violated FAA or AMA rules. The first thing that caught my eye was the additional people exceeding the load rating of the golf cart. Per State Farm recommendation, all cart passengers should be seated. This is a two passenger cart we are talking about. Then you have to consider the raised CG of the cart with a couple 180 lb guys standing on the back and the rearward CG shift that combined will affect steering.

This video although 6 years old as well shows that FT has a history of unsafe practice. Taking off a 35% Yak with almost no runway separation from observers.

LOL. So what you MEANT to say in your original post was, "State Farm deems it unsafe to stand on a golf cart"?
In the future you might try to be more succinct because your post clearly seemed to be saying that the FLYING operations depicted in the videos were dangerous. I can see how I and others construed that to be the case, since this is an RC flying based forum and not an insurance industry chat room.

Seems you will go to ANY length to spin a narrative. Sad.

Astro

LOL Astro, only you would make an incorrect assumption and then blame somebody else.

I thought it was pretty clear. I posted a picture of four guys on a golf cart, two of them standing unrestrained. I asked if you deemed what was in the picture as safe practice.

Now if you want to talk about flight operations, they were not only flying an untested aircraft at an event but it was also an untested design. This happening with observers and shade structures very close to the runway.

First, as usual, you've not been clear in identifying my incorrect assumption, you just remain as vague as possible in order to try and set up some kind of "zinger" (I think that is what you like to call it). And the YOU assume I'm the only one?

How many here picked out the golf cart operations as the main focus of speedy's safety rant? LOL

Astro

Bringing up a golf cart load rating and a State Farm recommendation was truely pathetic. There was absolutly nothing wrong with anything in that video.

If 20 people make the same mistake, it’s still a mistake.

Figures you would view it that way! Most people would take responsibility for not communicating their point clearly. But you continue to do you.....

Astro

so far, it is only one person making the mistake, over and over...

Drone FPV pilot with no spotter. Yeah, that's safe.:rolleyes: Is that in the FT rulebook?

Only two aerial vehicles in the area and the pilots of those two vehicles are in constant voice communication during the event.
Each is spotting the other.

I suggest you read this
 

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...093c20ec93.png