|
RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
ORIGINAL: Kevin Greene Horrace, I said basically the same thing since this rule # 9 was initiated. I ended up being the poster child whipping boy when I said this in the 3D forum....Most of them had the attitude that they were going to do what they pleased, when they pleased. As a former club officer (president and v/president) I'm fully aware of liabilty issues. If I were an officer now, I would ground the repeat safety violators and would not let them fly again until we reached an "understanding". In today's world full of litigation you just can't chance it!!! Some, in this regard, just don't get it!!!:eek: Kevin Notice my comment again. Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message. I was simply trying to get you to think outside the"AMA Box". So many times, myself included, we can't see the forest for the trees. YOU WILL NOTICE I SAID YOUR AMA INSURANCE WOULD BE VOID. People get to thinking the AMA rules everywhere and they do not, only if you want AMA insurance, whether it's at a sanctioned field or not. Yes, I am well aware of liability issues having been a President of a 180 member club and now as president of a float flying club. Horrace, since you are a member, can you comment on how this is viewed by UMA. |
RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
ORIGINAL: iflyj3 ORIGINAL: Kevin Greene Horrace, I said basically the same thing since this rule # 9 was initiated. I ended up being the poster child whipping boy when I said this in the 3D forum....Most of them had the attitude that they were going to do what they pleased, when they pleased. As a former club officer (president and v/president) I'm fully aware of liabilty issues. If I were an officer now, I would ground the repeat safety violators and would not let them fly again until we reached an "understanding". In today's world full of litigation you just can't chance it!!! Some, in this regard, just don't get it!!!:eek: Kevin Notice my comment again. Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message. I was simply trying to get you to think outside the"AMA Box". So many times, myself included, we can't see the forest for the trees. YOU WILL NOTICE I SAID YOUR AMA INSURANCE WOULD BE VOID. People get to thinking the AMA rules everywhere and they do not, only if you want AMA insurance, whether it's at a sanctioned field or not. Yes, I am well aware of liability issues having been a President of a 180 member club and now as president of a float flying club. Horrace, since you are a member, can you comment on how this is viewed by UMA. True, sorta. We've had this part of this discussion so many times I'll just do the brief rebut: Most clubs use the AMA safety code as LAW to start with, and go from there. At my chosen flying place, AMA Safety Code are RULES, period. And I want to fly at MY club the way I have always flown at MY club, and do it within the rules. If I didn't want to obey the rules I wouldn't have put this much time into it! Second, I WANT the AMA liability coverage. (OK, I want coverage from somewhere, and the AMA is the only option where I fly and when I travel) No, UMA isn't an option, that's why they aren't growing by leaps and bounds. I can't fly with other guys around the country without AMA, and most of us won't pay for 2. By the way, Guy from UMA has responded to several emails on this subject, and they are not in step with AMA on this. He said they don't care if you touch your tail or whatever as long as you're flying safe. So the goal is to work within the system to protect 3D while keeping the AMA "for the members". It seems to be "self aware" as one person said, like it's purpose is to be there not to serve the members. Sure, we can touch our tail as long as no one complains, and no one gets hurt. But then, I can speed all I want, as long as I don't get caught by the Police, and as long as no one gets hurt!;) But that don't make it the best solution, and look at the limits now, the Poeple got them raised! Power to the poeple~!!!!:eek: Nuff said |
RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
1 Attachment(s)
If tail touching is the dilemma, this is the answer.
|
RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
ORIGINAL: Zpat If tail touching is the dilemma, this is the answer. |
RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
TR and 3d Quote
"The first part here is certainly not the case. There is never a time that "only means for recovery is going full power" But I really am tired of argueing the merits of 3D and tail tapping. TR and 3D are thrust vectoring manuevers. If the thrust is gone how do you expect to recover? I have personnaly had to drop to the ground while spotting for my father at a very prominenet air show when a TR gone south. The plane ended up hitting my Fathers antenna while he was flying. The pilot was gracious and seriuosly moved but he hanged on and pulled it out. I doubt this naturally reaction to save the model can be overcome. Just put them out 50'-75' and prove just how good you really are....... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.