RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

I think what we are seeing here is reflection of discussions that have gone on in PF groups for years and many thousands of posts. Only rational conclusion to be drawn is that no two people will ever agree completely. Fortunately, this hasn't held the PF pilots back. By and large they have been responsible and perceptive enough to assess what kind of model is appropriate in the venues they have available to fly in. Maybe they (us, I fly on the dark side too) just don't need mommy to tell them what they can fly? A wrong judgment as to what is appropriate in a given venue is dealt with ala Darwin. Those lessons sink in.........
IMHO what AMA has defined as a PF for their own purpose is physically somewhere between a typical PF and what is typical at club fields. They should have used another terminology - like Half Breed Flyer.[8D]

Abel

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Abel, I got into AMA fast combat back before we wore safety wrist thongs, had the engines harnessed to the bellcrank and way before mandatory fuel shutoffs. We always used the rule of "common sense". We had some contests in fairly busy parks. Spectacular 140 mph fly-aways were also very common, happening about 1 every 20-40 matches or so. 1000s of matches were flown back then without any major trauma to any bystanders until a contest at Sandpoint NAS about 30 years ago. A plane got loose and a guy out for a walk was drilled in the back of his head by a Fox .36 at over 100 mph. Several attitudes about the self government of safety and leaving things up to common sense got changed that day.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

2lbs and 60mph sounds about right to me. When I look at planes that I have flown, or would consider flying at a local field or park, that is a good max limit on weight and speed.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

CP


Your points are valid but I think they support my position also...the model pilot holds a responsibility to maintain safety. Even at typical club fields I see people trying to fly models with performance well beyond their comfort of control...the park will be no different. I can't even began to tell you how many times I am asked to help someone fly a model that they aren’t comfortable flying by themselves...Many times those are the same ones that will rally to restrict others...go figure.

Most of the pilots (beginners as well) I know have a real desire for safety and usually make the right decisions about where, when and what to fly but for the others…well I still have to drive on the same streets with them. No escaping the inevitable dumb*****.


The bottom line; model flying has been a safe and enjoyable activity for many decades before all this BS defining. The new choices that we have now give us more reliable and appropriately suitable models to choose from...everything is OK. Sure many hypotheticals and examples can be made but in the end it is just fine to allow each and everyone of us to be responsible for ourselves and our actions.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Glow or electric, any 40 sized plane can kill a person while at speed and out of control. A friend has an electrified Herr Little Extra with a 10 sized motor, and it didn't take long for me to develop a great deal of respect for what that craft is capable of. It is every bit as powerful, if not more so, than a glow engine. He can take the plane to a school yard if he was inclined to, and still be covered by AMA insurance. It will definitely go 60, no problem. We have several new members who wisely decided that a full AMA and club membership would be at theirs and the public's best interest. The requirements are far too liberal, when a 400 motor in a 2 pound plane at 60 mph will do more damage than a glow engine on a 22 ounce Sig Hummer.

NorfolkSouthern

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Two pounds and 60 MPH is about a control line Ringmaster or Flitestreak with a Fox Stunt 35 turning an APC prop. It would have to hit you just right to kill you. However, I would not fly same in a populated area with uncontrolled access.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

I dislike over-regulation for regulations' sake. I enjoy a certain amount of danger, just as long as the dangerous situation is of my own doing or one that I'm there for voluntarily .
I'm sure that the AP wire service would jump all over any model plane related death or mutilation, so far I can't recall any related to PFers. It seems that we can't go a month without hearing about a pitbull or rottweiler tearing off some kids' face and it is tragic that there isn't enough outrage to do something about that.
I wonder how patient the public will be then, when some little kids' face gets removed [or worse] by a PFer at the park?

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Or maybe its already happened and we just don't know about it... because the media didn't jump all over it.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Check this out...Our local TV newsteam did a little display on one of the micro helicopters. Was it out of control most of the time? Of course it was. Did it bounce off objects and people? Of course it did. Did the newsteam recommend this for young children? Yes! My point? Put a PF in the hands of the inexperienced and there ya go...Bounce, bounce. Hopefully, most will fly in areas that not heavily travelled. Not in a congested city park on a Sat. afternoon. Hmmm. That could get nasty.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

I have a plane that is 180z with a park 480 w/ 12X4.5 it probabaly wont do sixty becasued of air frame but would for sure do alot of damage to someone or something.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

That's pretty impressive power for a 18 oz model! About the same HP as a hot .15, but way more torque.
So far the biggest mishap I've witnessed with small electric was a charging fire in the engine compartment of a car while the batteries were being charged inside the plane. Accidental motor switch-ons are pretty common, too. Anyone guilty of letting that happen should have to buy a round of drinks and pizza for all in attendance.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

:D
edited cause wasn't nice. Really was a slam on left, right, up, down, throttle management.:)

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Chuck-

I've fallen behind you in this thread, excuse me while a catch up.

Don't doubt what you said about an incident that occurred and produced a fallout of changed attitudes re trusting in common sense of individuals. OTOH, I question whether such an incident was an unfortunate random chance occurrence (not to say it was an unpredictable occurrence), or could/would have been prevented if safety had been under control of some authority other than self government and common sense, as you imply. And if so, what authority?

I really don't see any correlation between CW re safety and real world accident stats in our hobby/sport, and actually the available data suggest an inversion of such a correlation. As a pragmatist, I tend to trust the latter over the former.

-- CW says model flying is safer at organized flying sites that enforce AMA safety rules. Insurance claim stats compiled by AMA show half of all liability claims processed are incurred by clubs, though only about half of AMA members belong to clubs. Certainly not all claims resulting from incidents at club sites are against the clubs, and some must result from claims against individual members. Seems clear from that info base that more than half of the claims are coming from incidents involving the half of the AMA members operating in the organized/controlled/rules-enforced club environment prescribed by CW (and no, I'm not ignoring reports that some claims resulted from unsafe conditions at the club sites). Where is data that supports the CW hypothesis?

There are other examples, but I don't see any real point in citing them as yet. Park flying is growing at a robust rate, no doubt sites are being lost due to screwups by some participants, but not to an extent that threatens extinction of that aspect of modeling, nor could reasonably be construed even as a significant impediment to further growth. If there is something wrong with their perception of what model characteristics and operations make them generally acceptable to other users of the venues of their choice, I don't know where they will find any more competently formulated definition than their own. I am pretty confident they aren't going to get it from marketeers and agents of an insurance company that comprise the part of AMA staff in pursuit of a PF clientèle.

Abel

edit: 2nd thoughts about being too harsh re staff efforts to recruit parkies

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Abel, the difference is that when AMAers hurt themselves or other willing participants...that's bad enough....but we knowingly accept that risk.
Park Flying with 2 pound, 60 mph planes involves a much higher chance that someone not involved with our sport will get hurt and that is the part that is hard for me to accept. I don't think you would need to resource any stats to see the difference.

BTW, if only I had a camera rolling at some of those C/L combat contests, there were so many miraculous close calls and near misses. At 200 fps, if one of those suckers has your name written on it, you don't even have time to blink. We had a flyer attacked by his own plane, he had just enough time to shield his face from the prop nut with his hand and the bare styrofoam leading edged wing broke his collar bone.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Chuck, I can see the differences you refer to, but not clearly the point you want to make.

Should model flying only be allowed under AMA control? Are PFs really, demonstrably, more dangerous to non-participants? I do need to ref some kind of stats and/or other info resources if I am to buy into that theory. I know of several severe injury incidents that happened in AMA club and like venues, and at demonstrations where I would include spectators as willing 'participants,' but none of comparable consequence involving the parkies. Unregulated model flying in parks is widespread enough and involves numbers of participants by all indications orders of magnitude greater that AMA member ranks. Yet the bad press one would expect if it is true that "a much higher chance that someone not involved with our sport will get hurt" just isn't materializing from that arena. BTW, see my prior posts in this thread, and note that I have stated what I perceive to be reasonable parameters for models flown in parks as they are now, outside AMA's sphere of influence. They are a lot closer to those you proposed than the 2 lb, 60 mph planes AMA would sanction. I don't/won't have any opposition to AMA's definition a PF model before I see their proposed design of a PF flying site. For lack of any information to the contrary promulgated by them, I presume recommendations are the same as any other AMA club flying site except that it is located in a more urbanized area than the norm for existing AMA clubs. Did I miss some missive from AMA that points to other differences?

Abel

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Since I don't fly Parks, and know very little about them or how to fly one, I'd have to ask what is a good Park to start out with?

Seriously, I think the AMA has been too liberal with the definition. Since a park is a multi use facility and uncontrolled as far as pedestrian traffic is concerned. I can see the possibility of their being liability issues in the future.

This therefore begs the question: What would a more fitting definition of the parameters of a Park Flyer be?

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Are the playgrounds at schools Parks?
Cause House Of Balsa has been putting out Schoolyard Scale planes for a long time,
maybe that old standard should be used for PF definition.

If we cant fly SchoolyardScale at parks,
does that mean ParkFlyers cant fly at schools?[&:]

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

I think the 'Schoolyard scale' models (the nomenclature, not the models themselves) are an artifact from a past era. Schoolyards across much of the country are now under lockdown, especially those in urban areas where AMA's stated objective (one of the objectives of PPP) is to establish AMA chartered clubs. AMA's definition of a PF model is out of whack with what most people that fly them know them to be. The AMA definition is too liberal for models flown at ad hoc flying sites within park spaces that must be shared with other park users, and too restrictive for models flown at designated club sites located within parks, where other park users are excluded. The imagined AMAPF models are an unsatisfactory compromise that results from a mash-up of two AMA objectives (get the PFs in AMA, and get AMA clubs established in urban areas) erroneously assumed to have a single viable approach to attaining them.

Abel

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

This reply is to the thread in general.

FWIW this thread has proven my contention about AMA’s new tier and the divisive effect it will ultimately have. One of the biggest problems isn’t the exact definition of a park-flyer but rather it is that a definition is trying to be made.


It doesn’t take a genius to figure out; what would be just fine in one park at one time or another would not work at any time in some other park.

The current definition of park-flyers as well as any other future definition will not only have the long term effect to undermine personal freedoms but will also have the effect to erode responsibility of one’s own actions. Just because you’re insured to do whatever doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Invariably some people will become PPP members and will fly at parks without any abandon with the notion that AMA says it is ok and I am insured…That is the same dumb***** we would be fearful of to begin with… without PPP. There isn’t anyway to escape those types…here…there…or anywhere.

I can tell you from personal experience that many long time know-it-all AMAers do not fully understand the partner they are in bed with…these park flyers will be no different and will probably be less interested/informed about particulars…for the most part they will only want one thing…the only real thing AMA has to offer them…the insurance…Hmmmm…just like the most of us do now….go figure.


Just my 2 cents

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

So what is the reasoning behind this thread? Is it to try and get the AMA to reduce the weight and speed of the current highly restricted class?

If they did make the wieght rule any lighter then you can pretty much rule out a vast majority of the parkflyers that are available.

As far as the speed things goes, well that can be lowered without doing much damage to the parkflyer group but it will cause them much less flight time since winds will become and even bigger concern. It will leave Parkflying to mostly windless days. I don't know what country most live in but here in the US it is already hard to find a day to fly much of anything other then a large scale model.

Heck way don't we just restrict the parkflyer group even more. That way they will have to go with full ama to fly there parksized models. [:@]

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

That sounds reasonable. Include them as actual members with full rights just like free flighters and control line flyers!

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

If free flight models or control line models meet the quidelines set for parkflyer then they also could get by under the PPP program.



If they did further restrict the Parkflyer models then what thay already are then I would not even become an AMA member. I am betting that then new members under the PPP program would also drop their membership as well as possibly some of the full members that dropped down to the PPP program.


I mean who would want to have an AMA membership so they can fly a toys r us foam model or a wally world toy?

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

I guess the point of this thread was to see if anyone else besides just me thinks that the 2 pound, 60 mph limits are too much [if not outright ridiculous]. It wasn't to see if I could ruin ParkZones' day......I'll bet if the limit was 1 pound and 35 mph, they would still have the market flooded with great flying planes. Planes this size and speed can still fly with plenty of gusto outdoors while having much less potential to do harm.
As Abel points out, the safety record is already very good as it stands. I can't argue with that.
Locally there isn't enough parkflyer activity to be of any danger, my chances of getting bit by a black bear are about the same as being mauled by a Slowstick around here.

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Rat,
The AMA definition of PPP says an 6oz rubberband powered 14mph FF plane is not allowed to join.
Nor is a 6oz 20mph RC plane with a cox.010 (1/40th of a standard .40glow)

The model must be under control, so no FF... not even the lil rubberband guys that bounce of you.
The model must be a quiet power system... just to make sure the 1/2A guys dont leave $58 for $29ppp.


The technology of firearm silencers has come a long way since WW2,
the technology of model airplane mufflers has not....
due mainly to a lack of market for engines that emphasize quiet over power. If the AMA adopted an actual db level of quiet for PPP, then perhaps serious developements in mufler technology would follow. But since neccessity is the mother of invention, and there still is not a need for ubermufflers (ama dont let 40mph 1lb glow planes into PPP no matter how low the db is), there is no drive to develope them. AMA doesnt care how many db an electrip props & gearboxes make, no matter how loud the prop howl is it is ok because it is electric... and no matter how muffled a Dieselized Texaco049 is it will be too loud, because we dont use db numbers to measure electric props or Texaco Muffler loudness.


<slightly edited for Detail Wrongness Abatement>

RE: Definition of Park Flyer?
 

Well I can't understand why anything that is rubber band powered can't be allowed under the PPP program. As long as there is no wet type engine in the plane and it meets the weight restrictions and speed restrictions then it should be allowed under the PPP program.


I don't ever see them allowing wet powered airplanes under the program simply because of the fuel.

I agree that some gear boxes are noisy on some models but I have seen some gearboxs that run almost whisper guiet. Not guite as quiet as an outrunner but still pretty quiet.