Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Can someone from MAAC please explain a rule regarding no trainee flights during sanctioned events.

The flying club I belong to held a sanctioned event this weekend ... there was no prior indication that as a member with MACC license, several hours of flying time, an experienced Club Trainer and a buddy box that I would be not allowed to fly during this event ... I was allowed to get my plane checked out plus register for flying but at the point when I asked to schedule a flight time I was told that it was against MACC regulations for trainees to fly during an event. I am wondering if this rule is being misinterpreted? I can fully understand that people just off the street coming out to watch an event like this might want to try flying and that this situation would be potentially dangerous and therefore not allowed. Part of learning to fly, I believe, includes flying with other aircraft included with the additional distractions of such an event. Further with an experienced trainer at the controls for someone who has some flight time, there should be no possibility that the trainee can cause any issues. Possibly there could be some time during an event that can be announced for new flyer's to have an opportunity to fly just so they can gain that experience. I also believe it should be up to the trainer to determine if a trainee is ready to fly under these conditions.

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Within the MAAC safety rules/constitution there is no there is no "Trainee" designation that can be applied to an individual. Check with your Zone Director for the official ruling.

Ed s

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

First - call MAAC or your ZD directly for teh official word on this.

second, the safety code includes the following.

That said, if the instructor that was assisting you was known and approved by the host club ... that should be fine. If you were visiting a club, they woudl have to know of and approve the 'experienced pilot.'

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

I feel for you man, the MAAC code is full of ambigous wording that gets interperted differenty from zone to zone, club to club.- for instance what in te maac wording defines a "qualified" flyer or what defines experienced.

We'll try again at the annual zone meeting to get recommendations off to the maac board to adopty a simpler concise safety code thats applicable but doubt that any head way will be made.
-ken

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Thank-you to everyone that responded ... I have received further clarification from the President of the Club which I fully understand and accept ... I will personally ensure that in future, new members are made aware of club rules ahead of time so this confusion doesn't arrise again ... the membership of the club historically felt that there is too much going on during a major event like this because most of the trainers are already involved with looking after event activities plus trying to get time to fly their own planes ... it was felt to include trainee flights would be a bit much. They also indicated that after the events in the late afternoon there would still be ample time to fly.

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Ken, do you have a complete safety code in hand to bring as a recommendation? Simply urging the board to simplify the current safety code will go no where ... as a member you ARE MAAC, and simply asking the association to make changes without offering solutions won't get you any results!

I also disagree that there is ambiguity in the use of 'qualified' and 'experienced' in this context.
Qualified is simply someone that the club has determined has the skills to fly in the event (MAAC Wings program sets a reference for acceptable standards) and Experienced is equally a judgment call by the club. This puts the power of decisions in the hands of the people operating the event/field - where you want it - rather than having a set of qualifications set by people who never have and never will see the flying site or - possibly - have never flown the discipline in question!

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Very well put Keith.

Ed S

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

unfortunately, the fact that knowledgable modellers are debating the "meaning" of undefined terms embedded within the safety code only demonstrates the legal difficulties that will arise should an incident take place. [&:]

Well intentioned, poorly executed. Needs fixin.

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Nope, I don't have a complete safety code rewritten nor will I do one because it does not appear that the MAAC board recognizes that there are issues with the safety code nor does the MAAC board take safety in a manner to indicate that safety in the #1 priority with them.

We have a several members in our local club that work and have worked in the aviation safety field, one retired DOT inpsector wrote regulations for DOT, he has ofter commented at the poorly written maac safety code, he could do a much better job at it than I ever could has offered suggestions on improvment but it has fallen on deaf ears.

But first MAC board had to acknowledge there are problems with the safety code and then ask the general membership for expertise help throught the zone reps.

Adopting safety recommendations from zone meetings with consultation of the clubs and those maac members knowledgeable in saety and risk has put us in the postion we are now - an ambigous MAAC safety code.

Safety in MAAC is more than a code, it's a attitude, a direction, a focus, a priority, a visible presence, it not part of the MAAC organization in a big way at this time.

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

Mark - it is comments like yours that lead to the formation of huge committes and 'hearings' that lead to absurdly complicated wording and lengthy rules that need lawyers involved to even begin to understand. To say that qualified and experienced are ambigious is stratching things a bit. As I have suggested, the lack of a specific definition allows for some level of judgement on behalf of the club ...

With an excessively defined ruleset, you end up woth people losing the ability to make common sense decisions ... some thing I thought you were wanting to see more of!

Ken - I think that MAAC has safety ver much at the forefront of what they do ... but find it difficult when no one wants to discuss the topic. When they upgrade their safety guidelines in order to improve the safety at the field - the members scream and complain! What I have seen is that the members want 'conveniant' safety or safety they agree with.

The issue of active thoroughfares is held up as an example of bad wording ... and while it isn't defined, I think common sense helps sort this one out.
I think we have probably both flown at the same field where the final approach in a north wind is directly across a grid road, and you basicly need a spotter to tell you there is no traffic coming. I beleive there is another field in that the same zone where the same can be said for south winds, and in that case I have seen inadvertant touch and gos off the grid road.
The common sense interpretation is that if there is a reasonable chance that your airplane coudl com in contact with a vehicle or pedestrian ... you should change the field lay-out ...

RE: Sanction Event Rule Clarification
 

I don't think so Kieth, safety is not at the forefront of maac at this time, the board may think, give it lip service, but thinking / talking verses implementing are a lot different.

For instance, does maac have a regular safety column in the maac mag, do we report accidents and near misses in the maac mag or discuss crash prevention strategies or methods / techniques on an ongoing basis.

How much of the maac web site is devoted to safety, how much of the maac budget is spent on safety, not very much if any.

the maac wings program is not a safety program.

you may call it a upgrade, some of the interpretations of the upgrades could be labelled as a downgrade.

Was their any consultation or thought before the board implemented these measures - not.

The hobby is safe, but the lack of a formal safety strategy leaves MAAC wide open for litigation on an serious accident.