Is it true?
 

What is this I am hearing about a new rule saying that there are no tail touches. I think this is another useless rule set up by the cronies that don't like 3D pilots. It cant really be a safety issue b/c if you are standing in the box and doing it over the flying zone then it is by all means safer than forward flight when you look at it from a physics standpoint . I say this b/c the airplane is less than a foot off the deck and pointed straight up (a direction in which there are no spectators) if all control of the airplane is lost it will hit the ground very quickly due to the alt. If they ban tail touches then they have to ban low passes and combat (which yield a much higher risk). You know this rule will be laughed at by the 3D pilots and its still gonna go on at AMA sanctioned events (i.e. Joe Nall).

RE: Is it true?
 

Your answer is to be certain that those persons making those rules are exited from the rule-making body. Each election is important and those saying yes to these rules need to be shown the door.

As usual the ball is in the control of the membership, which does little beyond FUMBLE.

RE: Is it true?
 

Yep, here's another thread with more info.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Touc...1235751/tm.htm

RE: Is it true?
 

Yep, it's true

The AMA working against it's members.

Here is a link[link=http://modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/PDF-files/105.pdf]2004 code[/link]

This doesn't only pertain to tail touches, it states any part of the model. So you will not be allowed to touch the ground with the wing tip while flying, the vertical fin on helicopters, etc..

Bill

RE: Is it true?
 

Hmmmm.... I guess this means no more turn left and then pull up. Gonna hafta practice a new way to turn on the touch and go - Maybe a wheel in the wing tip - DRAT!

While I understand the frustration with less than perfect rules, I don't think tail touches are all that good an idea with 25% and 35+% birds. I have several friends who are impacted by this rule, and we disagree. Look at my logic for a moment and consider the dynamics involved.

Most (but clearly NOT all) large (30%+) birds use multiple servos ganged together to drive their large rudders and allow them to do knife edge loops. So far, we are fine. However when the same ganged system is bumped during a tail touch, there is NO way to insure that any, some, or all of the servos OR THE GANGED LINKAGE don't fail locked to one side or another. So now we have a big plane with a big motor turning a big prop with less than perfect control down low and wanting to go where we would rather it did not. Most super pilots would willingly plant the bird rather than endanger some spectator. The problem is that not all of us are always super pilots. The issue is further complicated by not knowing what control responses may be available if the rudder happens to lock over on one side or which way the wind is going to blow this unguided whacking machine. Since I have seen something like this happen (he actually ran out of control authority before the airframe ran out of energy), I am more willing to accept that there IS some risk the AMA EC is trying to minimize.

I am not sure the rule is great, but I do think the subject needs some attention from folks other than political animals looking for votes when name calling won't work. Anybody have any better idea? Serious question. If we can find one, I am willing to bet it would be welcomed.

RE: Is it true?
 

Yes - adopt Joe Hunt's DOD 3D flying guidelines. My club adopted them and most members are quite happy with them.

http://www.downonthedeck.com/clubrulesfor3D.htm

Speaking of mechanical failures, here's a video of a jet biting it after some sort of structural problem. Tell me honestly, do you get a warm fuzzy from this? Just imagine if the failure forced the plane to go left instead of right.

http://www.uaerc.com/crash1.mov

I keep hearing about how people are afraid of new pilots coming down low and hovering their huge planes and causing danger to those around them. Have many people have actually seen this happen? Sure, hovering low is an awesome aerial stunt, but it is usually done by people that have enough skill and maturity to do it safely. I don't think the same can be said about people who stuff standard servos in their G62 powered fire breathing, 30lb+ Mustangs, doing passes down the flight line at 150+ mph. Which plane causes more danger - the one travelling at 100+ or the stationary one? There is risk in everything, and I dare someone to prove that hovering low and touching the tail is more dangerous than any number of other RC activities.

RE: Is it true?
 

Hi guys, welcome to the club. As a turbine pilot I have been dealing with this kind of thing for about 5 years, with more rules than you can imagine.

As one bit of free advice (IOW, take it for what it is worth), the techniques you are using in this post (complaining about other segments of the hobby that are not regulated) will get you NOWHERE. In fact IMHO, it will actually make it worse, like whining from a kid.


Good luck.

RE: Is it true?
 

Like Hossfly already said, the best way to fix this trend is to vote in the election.

RE: Is it true?
 

I guess those turbine guys have been whinning a lot then. LOL


Well at the risk of being labeled a whiner... :DI think I will add to the conversation here and run the risk of being judged by the almighty turbine guy.[X(]

:)The biggest single risk of flying is the training of new pilots. We all know that is going to continue. My observations have shown that those I have witnessed 3Ding have taken due diligence to insure safety to a degree that those that are participants or spectators are comfortable. The street runs both ways...if you do not care for a particular style of flying express it! If there are more of those there interested in seeing or participating in a type of flying you are not comfortable with just LEAVE! This type of flying is a self righting proposition... THE RULE STINKS!


my opinion... not asserted as fact...and if you have an opinion different than mine you are just wrong:D

RE: Is it true?
 

I think all 3D maneuvers helicopter or plane should be banned all together. THIS IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN! I know this will upset a lot of you, but I am entitled to my own opinion.


Even thaw the pilot was probably not doing 3D maneuvers in this bad accident, We all should think be for you put a helicopter or plane in 3D maneuver that is not natural for a
helicopter or plane to do.

My thoughts and prayers are with both families.

Chris Johnson


HOUSTON -- A bizarre accident with a model helicopter killed a Houston man Sunday afternoon.

The victim was watching the radio-controlled aircraft at Tom Bass Park in southwest Harris County.




KHOU-TV
The helicopter that killed the victim is fuel-powered and radio-controlled.
"They can get up to some pretty high speeds," said Sgt. Hudson with the Harris County Sheriff's Department.


Traffic was grounded after the accident as sheriff's investigators tried to figure out what happened to cause the death of 41-year-old of southwest Houston.


"He was going through some flight maneuvers with the helicopter and he turned the controls over to the student and the helicopter got away from him," said Hudson.





The student, who police did not identify, owns the model involved in the incident.




KHOU-TV
Some children were reportedly in the park when the accident happened and may have seen it.
Its 2-inch wide blades are made of fiberglass, but the engine spins with enough power to make them dangerous -- especially if the craft gets out of control -- which appeared to be the case Sunday.


"Came back toward the two individuals and the helicopter struck the deseased in the throat area," said Hudson.


The impact of the crash killed
almost immediately.


Investigators say the man operating the helicopter had been in one of this areas ten chapters of the Academy of Model Aeronautics for about nine months. That organization has more than 170,000 members nationwide.


We are told the student was working toward a flight certification -- but had yet to complete it.


The impact of the crash killed Kyle almost immediately.


There are designated areas for flying and for watching at the park. Both men were in the operations area at the time.

RE: Is it true?
 

In that case all flying should be banned. You have supported ZERO evidence that these accidents were caused by 3D flight. If you dont like R/C airplanes leave this website.

RE: Is it true?
 

I fly 3D on occasion. I also am safety cautious to an extreme point. Though I think that rules are sometimes overdone, they are put in place to protect you and the masses.

You have every right to fly how you desire as long as it does not impact the safety of others around you. Problem is, tail touching can effect many others at a flight line or pit area if, heaven forbid, that tail touch causes loss of control. The plane may hit the ground close to point of touch, but that does not mean that props do.

I am on the fence on this one right now, I enjoy a really well done 3D show of piloting skill, but I would hate to have to pick an individual off the runway because of an incident that could have been avoided entirely. Ever see a 9 X 6 Prop hit the ground. I found a blade 30 feet away buried several inched into the ground. Imagine if that had hit someone. Now imagine it was a bigger blade from a bigger plane.

My opinion and 2 cents. Not intended to stir the pot.

Jason

RE: Is it true?
 

Frankly, it is not "natural" for anything other than birds and some bugs to fly, but I don't think flying should be banned.

RE: Is it true?
 

Even thaw the pilot was probably not doing 3D maneuvers in this bad accident. I fly RC airplanes myself.

RE: Is it true?
 

Assume that you have a reasonably competent pilot, good airplane, weather, flying site, etc. then fly and accept the small hazards of something falling off in flight or perhaps more often, radio failure. That we are in a hobby that some danger is inherent is the reason we have insurance.

I am not suggesting that hovering, 3D flight etc. be banned, just anything that has a real possibility of damaging the airplane is not good. We design landing gear to land on and build in a large safety factor. Wing tips can be slid over the runway without damage. Noses are whacked into the ground with great regularity without mishap, they are built very strong. There is a long history of these kinds of ground impacts being a safe thing to do with reasonable certainty of no one being hurt.

Vertical tails, horizontal tails, etc., in an airplane that is capable of tail touch maneuvers are not structurally sound enough to withstand mistakes of any sort. If the airframe and control system can be shown to be structurally capable of surviving pilot/mechanical mistakes during the tail touch maneuver then go for it.

I am a believer that the lower the rule count we have the better, just depend on good judgment of individuals, but I would prefer that my insurance didn't go up as a result of this kind of activity.

RE: Is it true?
 

Ben, should we then outlaw inverted heli hovering? Their blades aren't designed to handle mistakes either. Dork a heli during a low inverted hover and parts can fly. Besides, I have seen some hard rudder crunches and nothing happened. This was on 40% aircraft. Do you think a Pizza Box Flyer poses a hazard to pilots when it does a tail touch? That practice is now outlawed. While the rulemakers may have a genuine concern for their fellow pilot, you have to see what other aspects of the hobby are being affected and ask yourself if it is really warranted or necessary.

RE: Is it true?
 

I'll say it again, you can take it or leave it.

Trying to get your way by pointing to all of the other parts of the sport that are dangerous and do not have rules will not get you what you want. We tried this with turbines and it does not work. Good luck maybe it will work for you guys.

RE: Is it true?
 

Mr_Matt, I read what you said the first time and appreciate the input. However, I am trying to show there is risk in everything we do, not just what have been singled out by the AMA. If you consider it childish whinging, then fine, I'll reach for the cheese. I still have yet to see someone bring up a specific instance where tail touching resulted in an injury.

RE: Is it true?
 

How about, "I'm landing....oh no, I'm about to crash...I can only get my tail on the runway...Never mind" "Oh no, here it goes again"....Is that allowed?

[sm=lol.gif]

RE: Is it true?
 

Whether we like it or not, many times we all over-react to an incident.

The only way to stop this is for people to understand that accidents do happen. If I get hurt cutting the grass at the flying field, I need to just let my personal insurance handle it. Unfortunately, all too often, individuals will now sue the club, the president of the club, the safety officer, the lawnmower company, the AMA, and the property owner. Listen accidents happen. Until we as a nation stop trying to get rich by suing everyone, we will never get rid of the over-reaction to accidents or threat of them in our hobby.

Now that I am off my soap box, I don't excuse flagrant unsafe flying. To me that is flying above your skill in an area where other people could be put at risk. Make common sense decisions. If you think you are being unsafe, don't do it. If you see someone that is flying unsafe, tell them. If they don't listen, take appropriate action. First, get away from them, get in the car or in the club house. Second, take appropriate action through the proper channels of your club rules.

Safety rules are not made just to piss people off, they are their so the 'Majority' of the flying clubs can enjoy this hobby safely for years to come. I can see the National story coming on the helicopter accident. It will not be pretty for a lot of clubs. Especially any where there are houses close.

RE: Is it true?
 

WHOA it is not me that considers it whining, don't get me wrong. The AMA will. I was speaking to what we had seen at the AMA.

Think about it...this line of thinking goes somewhat like "hey there are a lot of dangerous things goin on, so why single us out, or whay not ban helicopters" etc.

That is the line that in my experience does not work.

If to you, it does not matter what the AMA thinks about your cause then so be it. It CERTAINLY does not matter what I think!!

RE: Is it true?
 

I think this is a discussion that Motocross motorcycle racers had once when cyclists began doing stunts off their bikes. It ended up creating a whole new class of motorcyle racing...and I thought I heard that it was or about to be added to the Olympics....

I enjoy watching the 3D flying...I think its cool to master you plane to the point were you can do these things. I really don't think this stunt is anymore dangerous than the next one if you have practiced them to perfection. I find the most dangerous people flying is the person with the brand new plane.

I think of the skiing slogan "Ski within your ability!"

RE: Is it true?
 

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion so here is my opinion, Moose24

Why don't you and the rest of you that are in such fear of everything, go dig a deep hole in the ground to hide in. Maybe you'll be safe there.

I've been thinking about something...
What if I modify one of my planes so that it will land on the tail. Will this be OK? Should be because I could land on it.;)

Oh by the way I found out what A.M.A. stands for..
Anti Modelers Association

Bill

RE: Is it true?
 

I also enjoy watching an expert show his stuff, as long as there is a reasonable distance between his plane and my fragile body. How about we take the same approach that was finally adopted in combat? You remember, more set backs for bigger engines. What do you think something like 10 or 15 feet from the pilots side of the runway for every cubic inch of displacement would do?

I suspect that a rule like this might have had a positive impact on quoted helicopter incident. I know that the extra distance between high powered birds and people builds in a margin of safety that nothing else will.

Just a thought.

RE: Is it true?
 

Well, hopefully I'm wrong, but from what I read...this guy was a student and they were using the "pass the Tx" form of training as opposed to the buddy box cord. And, that method is only a little better than going somewhere remote in the morning when no-one is around and flying by yourself.