EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

The change to rule number 9 of the Safety Code may be revisited by the AMA Executive Council at the next meeting the first weekend in February. An item to consider removal of new wording has been placed on the agenda. The Safety Committee has also scheduled discussion of the item.

If you have constructive input on the rule, it might be prudent to contact your District VP. The contact info is on the AMA web site.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Hi J_R

Do you know if the agenda for the Feb meeting is anywhere on that site?

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Hi Matt

Yes it is, it is always under the "about AMA", "Executive Council", "Executive Council News and Information". The agenda is posted, then, after the meeting the motions are posted, then, after a 30 comment period the minutes are posted. Prior meetings going back several years are there.

For ease on this particular agenda, here is the link: http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...04ecagenda.asp

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

you have to go into the members area

February 7, 2004
National Aeromodeling Center Headquarters
Muncie, Indiana

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introductions
President's Report
Executive Vice President's Report
Executive Director's Report
NAA Report
2. Committee Reports
(Reports limited to 15 minutes - 5 to 10 minute question and answer)

a. Frequency


b. Safety
Review of the turbine Safety Regulations
Safety Code Radio Control #9) Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a powered model in flight; nor should any part of the model other than the landing gear, intentionally touch the ground, except while landing.

c. Bylaws

Bylaws Revisions to date
Bylaws Revisions concerning position paper for EVP

d. Development of a tier level for flight level achievement

e. Liability coverage for Paid Instructors
f. Selection Process for placing names on Ballot
g. Investigate methods to enforce reasonable safety practice on part of members
h. “Waiver Committee” and associated rules relative to world record attempts
3.
Old Business


a. Method to remove special category codes McNeill
b. Update on CL World Champs Kaluf
4. New Business

a. New Contest Board Frank
b. Contest Board Procedures HQ
c. Processing Memberships McNeill
d. Club Conflict Oberdieck
e. Strategic Planning Meeting Frank
f. Executive Council recognition Oberdieck
g. Review all Standing and Ad Hoc Committees Frank
h. Safety Code issue re: autonomous flight McNeill
i. Disaster Relief Fund Frank
j. Review 30 day temporary membership receipt Hager
k. Remove wording from 2004 Safety Code change regarding landing gear
Frank
5. Awards

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Could someone explain this?

d. Development of a tier level for flight level achievement

Thanks,

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Dave Brown has proposed a voluntary accomplishment rating system for pilots. It is based on the concept that the LSF started in the Sailplane community. http://www.silentflight.org/LSF_Base/tasks.htm

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

OK, Thanks J_R.
Is this for all pilots belonging to AMA or for the Sailplane community?
What is meant by voluntary?
I know volunteer means.......
Is this the first step for tier fees?
Just quesions, no more.
Thanks,

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

His proposal is not set in granite. It is patterned after the LSF for all pilots. With the LSF there is a certain pride in being able to say you have achieved Level V. It's my understanding that that pride is the basis of his proposal, not anything mandatory.

This is unrleated to tiered rates, but, I suppose it could be tied to them if tiered rates were ever actually considered. Who can ever be certain as to what the true agenda of any individual is?

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

so, we all heard about how the turbine thing came out, what about this one?

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

A motion was made, seconded, and was under discussion when I left the meeting. Unfortunately, I did not wait to observe the vote. I went there strictly for the turbine thingy.

I would like to state that Don Loews (sp) really put up a good fight to repeal the rule.

Regards

Ben

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

It became apparent that the EC would like to do something about the rule, during the discussion after the motion was made. Ultimately, it was sent to committee with several thoughts, including a setback. The motion was tabled.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Lifted from the Pro-Bro forum:

Motion II: It was moved to remove from the OFFICIAL AMA NATIONAL MODEL AIRCRAFT SAFETY CODE Radio Control item #9, the words “nor should any part of the model other than the landing gear, intentionally touch the ground except while landing.”
Motion III: It was moved to table MOTION II. Motion passed: 9 yes; 3 no (VII, VIII, X).
Motion IV: It was moved to refer tabled MOTION II to the Safety Committee to develop an alternative solution to Safety Code Radio Control item #9 the portion dealing with any part of the model touching the ground other than the land gear. A report is to be given at April 24, 2004 EC meeting. Motion passed: 11 yes; 1 no (VII).

And:

Here are a few things that Don Lowe hade to say:

"I think that if the council approves our recommendation the tail touching part will be removed. I personally never supported that requirement. I fly giant scale, Iattend a lot of events and have witnessed this maneuver many times; never with a safety problem. "

And "I'm not a tail toucher but I have never been very concerned by the low speed 3D that I see performed all the time. I hope we can clear this up at the April council meeting. I am in favor of the minimum required separation; 25ft"

Here are a couple from Sandy Frank:

"but let me tell you that there are several on the ama EC
that see keeping this rule9 as LIFE and DEATH

and are very stubborn about it..

this will require a full court press

stay on top of this..."

"this will take lost of gentle persuasion
many on the ama EC
just do not see the light
and will try to teach us a lesson for crossing them...

this will possibly need a letter writing and email campaign"

I just wanted to put it out there for you to see who is on our side.

For clarification, You had the first motion for the "removal of the wording from rule 9", that was my motion. The second motion was to table the first motion. Those that voted against the second motion were IN FAVOR of the first motion and wanted a vote. VIII is Sandy Frank. Then you see a motion to refer it to commitee for "alternative solution to Safety Code Radio Control item #9 the portion dealing with any part of the model touching the ground other than the land gear. A report is to be given at April 24, 2004 EC meeting." Just wanted that to be clear.

On Don Lowe, and the "25 foot" separation. First off, he is a very respectable, intelegent guy, who deals every day with 3Ders. Second, he thinks BIG PLANES. 25' to a 40% is like 2 feet to my Taco. And I really think we can convince him of that. Plus, the 25' separation already exists for everyone but the pilot, and is actually much more for spectators.

My position is now firm at WE DON"T NEED NO MORE RULES! But I won't shout or use double negatives with the AMA. You probably already saw my post on The Yahoo groups so I won't go into the details.

If you have some input, please give it!!!!! I'm not here to toot my horn, I want to make sure that we have a voice in what AMA is doing RIGHT NOW!!! This is simply the squeeky wheel (me) getting some attention. If we could convine them to drop this fight now, we will have one round one. I don't hold any fairy tale, happily-ever-after hopes that this is going away. But I prefer to be on the offense, or at least aware of who the enemy are and who are our friends. If nothing else, we are threshing out the "for and against", and in this case there is no middle ground.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Sounds like the membership needs to keep track of who votes in what fashion on this one.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Are you sure this is a clarification? Only three of the 14 EC members (Oberdieck DVII, Frank DVIII and Hanson DX) where in favor of the first motion, shown by voting no on the second motion? I think you may have left the wrong impression. It was my impression that there was considerable support for motion II, but, not without some other safety protection being substituted (maybe the setback of 25'). If what you state was the case, the motion would have failed with only the support of 3 members. It would not have been tabled, it would have been killed.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

I hope I did not give some readers the impression that the above post by me was penned by me...as stated in BOLD LETTERS "LIFTED FROM THE PRO-BRO Forum" I simply cut and pasted what I read as information that was posted by a member that was at the meeting.

I also received a message from Dave Mathewson, District 2 VP:

Hi Jonathan,
I want to clear up a mis-conceprion you may have re: your comments:

"For clarification, You had the first motion for the "removal of the wording from rule 9", that was my motion. The second motion was to table the first motion. Those that voted against the second motion were IN FAVOR of the first motion and wanted a vote. VIII is Sandy Frank. Then you see a motion to refer it to commitee for "alternative solution to Safety Code Radio Control item #9 the portion dealing with any part of the model touching the ground other than the land gear. A report is to be given at April 24, 2004 EC meeting." Just wanted that to be clear. "

That's not necessarily true. Not all who voted against the second motion were in favor of the first. I.E. some voted against the (second) motion to table AND the (third) motion to send it to committee. I'm not sure that means those that voted no to both were in favor of the original motion, but might conclude they weren't (just my opinion because I don't know for sure). And.... some of us who voted to table the original motion did so because it didn't appear to have enough support to pass, which would have killed the issue (and left the wording intact). The best solution, at the time, was to send it back to committee to investigate alternatives. Knowing Don Lowe's position on this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Safety Committee will try to find a way to address the concerns of some, while at the same time removing the wording in question. If the Safety Committee can do that then I think that would be a workable solution for everyone.
Dave Mathewson
AMA Vice President, District 2

To which I responded:

Thanks for the clarification sir, I just posted what I garnered from another forum (I actually cut & pasted it) from someone that attended the meeting. Not trying to state fact, just passing on what I read hoping it may be of intrest to some readers.

Hopefully all this will reach a happy ending, and we can all get back to improving our flying skills through rigorous practice and have the ability to "WOW!" the audiences that come out to watch us fly.

Thanks again!

Jon

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

If all the "hoopla" is just about tail touches...:eek:

How much difference in skill is there in doing a controlled hover keeping it 1 inch from touching vs actually touching? I see about the same "Wow factor" in either. (and from 50 ft away.. the crowd has a hard time seeing the difference at all...)

I think the practice of hovering a .60 size heli close enough that observers are wondering WHEN he's going to hit his own radio antennae is a bigger safety issue than tail touches... You can build a rudder to handle being drug on the ground. Its hard to make a guy's neck hold up against a 2000 to 3000 rpm CF rotor.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

Good point, though it conjures up a gruesomely graphic image, that is driven home by a recent incident in Tx. I don't fly helis, so I wouldn't pretend to know what is reasonable safety practice. Don't fly big IC-powered 3D models either, so I'd defer to guys that do and also are positioned to have some influence on safety rules, i.e., Don Lowe. I'd sure put a lot more weight on his input than some on the EC that have the voting power but no relevant experience, e.g. McNull.

Abel

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

OHHHHHH I'm Loathe to jump in here, but if you'll be easy on me I'll do it:)

Most of what is quoted from the Pro Bro site is from me. The motion put forth by Sandy Frank was mine. The clarification I tried to put forth on the voting was based on some phone calls and I'm not sure it was very clear, I was not there. I will certainly concede to Mr. Mathewson's view as I assume he was there.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

QUOTE DON LOWE:
"I fly giant scale, I attend a lot of events and have witnessed this maneuver many times; never with a safety problem. "

Being in this hobby since 74, I'd have to disagree with this statement. Don't misread my intent as I fly many disciplines constantly under revie ie.. Hoverbatics,combat, racing, helis and a current turbine waiver holder.

IMHO the events Don might attend have accomplished pilots. The smaller venue airshows I attend routinely have close calls and crashing in the pits because of hovering antics gone bad in a hurry. What is more troublesome to me as a pilot being in the pits, is that the only means for recovery is going full power till it hits.

I agree that some have mastered safe hoverbatics but during the learning process it is very entertaining on the sidelines. I would be in favor of a 50' seperation. I know some say this is more difficult as the eyes must see small changes, but IMO you can eventually "feel the force" and it will really show how skilled one might be....

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

I think the mindset of trying to recover the model at all costs is the real problem. I've seen a torque rolling plane tilt over toward the pits and the guy hit full throttle and flies at and over the pits. I understand if a model gets over the pits by mistake and the pilot flies it back. That stuff can happen. I don't understand intentionally sending it at the pits as a bail out plan. So I would guess the rule was a result of a few idiots acting badly and screwing up things for everyone else. I think a better rule is to not fly anything your not willing to dump. Don't know how you would enforce that but I'll still follow it.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

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.

EC120 has a good point, but it isn't related to this rule or thread. It applies to all flying of all types. I've had the distict misfortune of choosing to plant a plane (not 3D and not tail touching) because it was headed towards the pits. It sucks, but then, hitting somone would suck worse! 3Ders are under the same moral obligation as any and all RCers to put safety ahead of their planes and their pride. And if they don't, there are plenty of rules already to deal with that!! And they SHOULD be enforced!!!

But to be real clear, by Dave Brown's, And many other's, words, there was not even a single reported instance of "a few idiots acting badly and screwing up things for everyone else." While I would never say it hasn't happened, to relate that to the tail tap, or any other manuever (3D or not) is silly. It applies to every part of the hobby. It might not hurt as much, but the park flyer that hit me wasn't very great either!

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

I think you fellows are missing a point. The AMA is not law and what they are telling you is that if you violate rule 9 you will not have insurance. They can not keep you from flying the way you want to but they choose not to cover you if you do.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

True---But what you and many others fail to realize is that by breaking this or ANY other AMA safety rule (while flying at an AMA sanctioned field) that voids your insurance---You are placing you, your club, the officers in the club, and the land owner at a liability risk if you harm someone or damage another's property if you should crash while breaking this or any other safety rule. If you are out on your own and fly from a non AMA sanctioned field--Fly as you please!!!! I know that I do!!! However, don't be selfish by breaking rules at an AMA sanctioned field, putting others in a possible liability issue....Think of someone besides yourself!!!!:eek:

I'm in agreement that rule# 9 is BS---But, until it is rescinded you must not break it when flying from an AMA field...

Kevin

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

[sm=sunsmiley.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=idea.gif]

Hallelujah, The light does continue to shine out there. The light at the end of the tunnel and it ain't Newark. :D Good post.

RE: EC Revisiting Safety Code Rule 9
 

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