RE: Rule #9
 

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't. How many people ever heard of someone's throat getting cut by an R/C helicopter blade prior to last fall???


Also, don't misconstrue this into believing that I agree with rule #9.

RE: Rule #9
 

The rule is not for our safety, it's for our PROTECTION. There's a difference.

JR put it pretty succinctly... Your "Pshaw!"s won't hold up in a court of law. You can't PROVE that your intentional tail touching didn't damage the plane and cause the accident, whether the accident happens in the ensuing moments after a tail touch, or three flights later!

I maintain that many of the rules are to spoil the lawyers' fun, not ours. Insurance companies like that kind of stuff too. They're also helpful when you go looking for a place to fly... People that are sticking their necks out for us like to see rules on paper.

You can be the best 3D pilot in the world, and still lose the plane in a tail touch. Equipment failures, freak distractions, or even a simple brain fart can happen to ANYONE. Nothing is 100% sure or 100% reliable. Don't say that something "will never happen," because that's a blatantly FALSE statement. ANYTHING can happen, and you know it. Is it likely? Doesn't matter to the insurance companies, lawyers, or anyone else.

RE: Rule #9
 

What About tail wheel's??????
I have had rudder's broken and servos stripped due to the tail wheel getting hung in a hole or rut on take off, I have had the servo stripped and still had a great flight, some of us dont need the rudder, I will disconect the rudder on any of my planes and fly them around and land them with out a problem. Whats next???? No taildraggers????????

Just my 2c


bee

RE: Rule #9
 

The real question is: Is anybody doing something constructive about this???

Any e-mails, letters to AMA. Or, to the district presidents, etc???

As it stands, a rule is a rule, unless you can petition or something.

And, of course, this rule only applies at AMA fields.

I, personally, don't see a problem with this. The rule sounds like it is covering certain safety issues, which benefits ALL flyers.

But, that's just my opinion.

D

RE: Rule #9
 

Why shine the light on us every time you have a problem? :D Now I know how rc jet pilots feel.
Most heli pilots don't try to touch the ground, just get as close as possible. Besides heli control surfaces ARE the source of lift. So if you take them out, you take out the heli right at that spot. I guess you should not TRY to touch the ground. Just get as close as possible. It is not "intentionally" then. :D

"If someone gets hurt badly, can you, in a court of law, make a rational explanation of your actions leading to the accident?"

I'd reply "Uh, sorry he was injured because I was flying my toy aircraft and enjoying myself and all of the sudden and accident occurred."

What difference does it make what orientation it was in? It is not going to sound "rational" regardless. What part of the hobby is "rational" to outsiders. If a lawyer wanted to prove that tail touching was any more dangerous than any other aspect of the hobby then he would either need to put the AMA on the stand to explain it or have a AMA rule (such as #9) to point to. How else are they going to know? Rules that govern stunts to this degree would seem to make us more ripe for lawsuits, not less. They should stop wasting our time and just make one rule against crashing. So the AMA would not cover you if you crash. That way they do not need to worry about covering their butts in court and we still use our primary insurance as usual. How many of those who don't have insurance other than AMA also have large amounts of money? Lawyers want to get paid and they are not going to get paid if the targets of their lawsuits don't have money and so will not be interested. Everybody wins with this no crash rule except for the lawyers. I don't know if I am joking or not. :)

RE: Rule #9
 

What reference does an average person have about airplanes? Do you remember the last time you saw a real plane touch it's tail to the ground, then accelerate back up? I doubt that Mr. Average does either. Mr. Average does know what he expects from an airplane. Put him in a courtroom and he will apply those perceptions. With the help of a competent lawyer, he can be made to realize that tail touching is not normal, in his world, and apply those realizations to the case at hand.

JR

RE: Rule #9
 

I'm not much of a 3D pilot, but I do not see the reason to single out a manuver in the safety code when they all have risk. Did AMA ever do a risk assessment to define what level of danger a manuver has? If they are going to make rules like #9, then I wish they would put some of my $58 to use in doing some research before playing with my mind.

So, how many other manuvers are they going to eliminate from us doing? Flying inverted 2' off the ground? Flatspins? Snap rolls? c'mon, since they start banning one manuver, they mise well start going down the entire list.[:@]

Why did they pick a tail tap? Because it "looks" dangerous? Any statistical evidence to prove that a tail tap causes more accidents? Why don't they ban walking? Since almost all the insurance claims deal with tripping and falling and not getting hit by an out of control airplane.[:@]

Hey Dave, I propose Rule # 9a. : " No AMA member shall walk at an AMA santioned field or event, members must crawl on all fours and drag their model behind them." Ahem!

Scott

RE: Rule #9
 

Its the dumbest thing to me!!! Everyone that can tail touch has control of the aircraft!!! End of story. People who say wel a switch can fail and maybe a receiver too...well than buy better stuff for your plane?!?!?!

Too mcuhn complaining about this rule. Lets all hush and do what we want. There must be 200 threads about Rule #9

RE: Rule #9
 

Scott

Have you ever seen a full size plane do any of the manuvers that you describe? I have, I suspect most of us have. That should make them easy enough to support in court.

You are also paraphrasing the rule. It also eliminates "button touching", "blade scuffing" and "lawn mowing" for the heli guys. It makes no specific mention of the rudder.

JR

RE: Rule #9
 

"Lets all hush and do what we want."

If this means that you are going to continue to perform Tail Touches, I hope that nothing happens that will injure someone or damage anyone's property. Because, as an AMA member, you agree to abide by the rules of the AMA and the club that you belong to. If you are willingly breaking any rules set forth by the AMA or the club you belong to or the field that you are flying at and something happens, I doubt if your AMA insurance is any good...

RE: Rule #9
 

Don't stop there. Have you seen full size planes with the power to weight ratio of the models we fly? Lets make all rules based on what some lawyer might get away with and that way we can all just sit at home on a sunny weekend. AMA is supposed to fight the obnoxious lawyers not give them ammo. Do you think the insurance company that AMA is involved with knows what the hell a tail touch is? #9 is all AMA's doing. They would do a better job if they would relate their new rules to actual claims. I don't really think that tail touching relates to overall skill as much as it relates to how long you practiced hanging from the prop. But I do realize a plane at zero ground speed and close to the ground isn't as dangerous as some things you can do with one. Maybe the rule was a result of those who try to save their plane at all cost. That is where the real danger is with any stunt.

RE: Rule #9
 

I love all of this. Someone in the AMA is getting very political. Why single out that one manuver? How about hovering helicopters? I seem to remember someone getting their head knocked off recently. That sounds more dangerous than a plane touching the ground. Lets just say for arguement that the plane has a problem like a dead stick where is it going to go?

RE: Rule #9
 

If you don't like the rule... fine
If you don't like the reason for the rule... fine
It is a rule

Just obey the rules. Simple, huh?

RE: Rule #9
 

The whole world is getting this way about perceived risk. My SON had his baseball and glove taken away at school for playing catch at recess:eek:. In LITTLE LEAGUE the batters wear enough gear to be mistaken for HOCKEY GOALIES. They even have reusable "COURTESY RUNNERS", so the fat kids don't have to risk a HEART ATTACK while running to firstbase.Parents are wrapped around the block in their mini vans everyday so they can give their OBESE OFFSPRING a safe ride home from school [6 blocks and less often]. At work, the insurance companies have come in and DICTATED to all of us about how we should go about our business. I think DAVE BROWN needed to show the insurance company that he was going to clean up our act a little, and maybe save the AMA some money. It probably wasn't as much a question of what is most dangerous, but what concession to the INSURANCE CO. would affect the fewest members. I will continue to practice hovering low, and if I ever manage to touch the tail, believe me it will be by accident[:o] and will most likely cost me some time back at the shop fixing my 50 cent rudder.

RE: Rule #9
 

You are right. Someone getting hit in the neck with a heli is more dangerous than an airplane touching the ground. That is why that trick was eliminated from the XFC. :eek:

Someone was hit in the throat and killed. I don't know the whole story but there seemed to be several factors involved. I don't think there is any aircraft I would want to hit me in the throat. I can compare the pros and cons of heli safety versus airplane safety all day long but its not really the issue. BTW, rule #9 effects everything not just planes. I don't even know if they consider all parts of the hobby when they make these blanket rules. The only reason I can think of for the rule is that someone touches their tail and crunches it and tries to fly out to save their plane and thus flies off toward the pits. I've seen fairly good pilots screw up a torque roll and hit the throttle and end up heading for the pits to save their plane. But that can happen if they touch the ground or not. If you have the mentality that you will chop the throttle and risk losing your plane rather than risk heading toward the pits then there is no danger. If not then I wouldn't think this stunt is the only dangerous one. That is what I was asking before. Are the rules written because the stunt is dangerous or because some of the nuts that do it are dangerous?

RE: Rule #9
 

J_R,

you are correct we should not question the rules. Silly me. All hail Dave Brown.

RE: Rule #9
 

here here HAIL BROWN!! what was I thinking questioning a rule? I will be a good boy and not question authority. What do I think this is, a democratic membership where we should vote on changes? We are all wrong for even questioning a decision that was made without our input or reasoning for the rule in the first place. We are BAD MONKEYS.

RE: Rule #9
 

That's the LAST thing you want , in this situation.

Remember, 2% of the votes (in a Democratic society) loses EVERY TIME.

Dante

RE: Rule #9
 

2% is a good turnout for ama members

RE: Rule #9
 

It is not a democratic organization. The members elect representives, and thus it is a representive form of organization. The representives made the rules, now the members will live with the decisions of their representives. Dave Brown is one of the 14 members of the EC. He has one vote, which he, by tradition, does not cast unless there is a tie.

You did vote, didn't you?

JR

RE: Rule #9
 

Yes I voted but I dont remember him saying anything about prohibiting something that pilots have been diong for years. I just question his implementing this rule without giving the dues paying members a reason for the action. Have there been some saftey issues? Did the insurance company make this an issue? Will this lead to all high alpha manuvers done below xx feet banned? I am just burned up and want to fight this because all bad things start out pretty small. I want this nailed in the butt before we as a group pay for it in the long run.

RE: Rule #9
 

Let me make you a suggestion that has worked for a few in the AMA forum. Call Oberdieck (your VP?) and/or Dave Brown. They will talk to you. If you try not to be combative, you will get better results. I suggest you ask for an explaination of their position on the rule. Before you call, make sure you know what the rule says, as opposed to what you think it says.

That is how I got the information that I posted... talking to Dave Brown. I am just another member, no one special.

You know as well as I do that elected representives do things that you're not aware that they even might do until the matter comes up.

JR

JR

RE: Rule #9
 

JR, do you think Howard Dean and George Bush would be satisfied with each other after listening to each's personal position on Irac?

Personally I really don't give a tinker's-dam about how and why DB or *oberdick* woud SAY how they gathered a position on anything.
Yes, JR, you are "someone special" because any EC person well knows that you will come here and present whatever they want you to say. You are the big fawn and will parrot whatever they tell you as the gospel.[:-]

Regardless of what you may think, there are some individuals that can think for themselves.

When they make a bad rule, it's a bad rule. Not interested in their perceptions! Not going to sit still while they swing ball bats and spread BS over all.
I've probably spent more hours with DB, face to face, one-on-one, than you have with the phone to all AMA and I don't care for the reasoning that I hear. If you like it, so be it, but don't expect me to buy into it, and hopefully I can persuade a few individuals that they need not do so.

Admittedly, I am a definite minority. Hey maybe I can apply for a big GRANT from Big Brother. :D

RE: Rule #9
 

I think all rules or any other policies should be brought to the membership for votes.....
not just the EC to force changes on us for whatever reason they deem necessary.

RE: Rule #9
 

Think through your statement. How much do you know about the organization?

Elections draw about 10-20% of the membership voting. It's an expensive process. How much are you willing to have your dues raised to pay for all those votes? Are you really willing to abide by whatever rules the freeflight and control line members chose for you? They are MUCH more active politically than the R/C portions of the hobby. Dozens of rules are passed or changed in an average year. Why would some one flying indoor rubber want you voting on the rules that control them, if you have no knowledge about indoor rubber. Why would would the turbine guys want you voting if you know nothing about turbines, or sailplanes or IMAC or any of the many areas of the hobby?

Who did you vote for in the last election in your district for VP? What is his position on the things that matter to you? If you did not vote, or don't know, whose fault is it that you don't lilke the result?

JR