Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

As a CD at an event would you consider grounding an air frame proven to be unsafe

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems
View Poll Results: As a CD in an event would you ground an ARF air frame if it is known to be unsafe
Yes
326
89.07%
No
40
10.93%
Voters: 366. You may not vote on this poll

As a CD at an event would you consider grounding an air frame proven to be unsafe

Old 09-24-2013, 03:39 PM
  #1  
AndyAndrews
Thread Starter
 
AndyAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 6,132
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default As a CD at an event would you consider grounding an air frame proven to be unsafe

With much talk going on about the recent chain of events surrounding certain factories selling inferior and unsafe airframes to the general public, would you as a Contest Director allow specific type ARF's to fly in your event if it they have been proven to be a potential hazard to the event?
Old 09-24-2013, 04:00 PM
  #2  
Art ARRO
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Holland Patent, NY
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Andy,
As an AMA CD/ Leader Member/Fixed Wing Turbine Waiver holder, I would ground ANY airframe (not only an ARF) that I deem as being unsafe either by design, construction or damage. That also goes for a pilot that presents a hazard due to their actions. Safety is NO accident.

Art ARRO
Turbine CD-Highland Jets, Co-CD Capitol Jets I-IX, RAAMS Fan Fly, etc/etc
Old 09-24-2013, 04:21 PM
  #3  
FenderBean
 
FenderBean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I think there are a lot of depends here, if this model had not been modified to address the known issue I say its okay. If not then its probably a good idea but are we going to start banning people that don't fly so good and make some bad landings or crash all the time. As for the larger stuff like mine if the individual had the model properly inspected and test flown like they should by an AMA certified inspector then I say they should be allowed to fly. Its on the owner/AMA at that point anyway since AMA signed off on the jet as well. Just my opinion, this topic is a double edge sword either way you look at it. I am a CD and I would follow the rules AMA has set forth to guide these type of events. Interesting to here from all the CDs out there, remember you have to take personal emotions out of the equation. I think every situation would have to be looked at, not just mass punishment.

Last edited by FenderBean; 09-24-2013 at 04:24 PM.
Old 09-24-2013, 04:21 PM
  #4  
rcjets_63
My Feedback: (4)
 
rcjets_63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I'm a CD and if the model is "known to be unsafe", the answer to the poll should be an overwhelming vote to ground the plane. However, what if the plane is "suspected as being unsafe"? I'd still vote to ground the plane.

Jim
Old 09-24-2013, 04:30 PM
  #5  
AndyAndrews
Thread Starter
 
AndyAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 6,132
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Art ARRO View Post
Andy,
As an AMA CD/ Leader Member/Fixed Wing Turbine Waiver holder, I would ground ANY airframe (not only an ARF) that I deem as being unsafe either by design, construction or damage. That also goes for a pilot that presents a hazard due to their actions. Safety is NO accident.

Art ARRO
Turbine CD-Highland Jets, Co-CD Capitol Jets I-IX, RAAMS Fan Fly, etc/etc
+1 and good comment. It's strange to see that there are so far a few votes against this common sense approach.
Old 09-24-2013, 04:59 PM
  #6  
rcjets_63
My Feedback: (4)
 
rcjets_63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I have to wonder how the two (2) people who have voted "No" in this poll would feel if they were testifying in court case in which they were named as a defendant and the plaintiff's attorney/prosecutor asks the question:

"As the CD of the event and it being in your authority to ground an aircraft, why would you allow a model plane, known to be unsafe, to fly? Why would you allow a model with a published history of sudden catastrophic failures to fly and endanger the lives of all attendees?"

I suspect that any answer is gonna sound pretty weak!

Jim
Old 09-24-2013, 05:10 PM
  #7  
rcjetsaok
My Feedback: (7)
 
rcjetsaok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FenderBean View Post
Interesting to here from all the CDs out there, remember you have to take personal emotions out of the equation. I think every situation would have to be looked at, not just mass punishment.

There is no emotion in right or wrong. It is either safe or not safe. Period. Doesn't matter who the manufacture is, who the builder is, or who the pilot is. It's black and white. It is or it isn't. It's like the old saying about being a little bit pregnant..


Dan
Old 09-24-2013, 05:16 PM
  #8  
FenderBean
 
FenderBean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcjetsaok View Post
There is no emotion in right or wrong. It is either safe or not safe. Period. Doesn't matter who the manufacture is, who the builder is, or who the pilot is. It's black and white. It is or it isn't. It's like the old saying about being a little bit pregnant..


Dan
Maybe in a perfect world this would work. Its like saying people post on rcu without emotion. I agree if you have to think about it then its probably wrong. People do make decisions on emotional feelings instead right and wrong.

Last edited by FenderBean; 09-24-2013 at 05:21 PM.
Old 09-24-2013, 05:34 PM
  #9  
j.duncker
My Feedback: (2)
 
j.duncker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sailing in the Eastern Caribbean
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

MODS HAT OFF

In the past I was involved in several branches of motorsport some where spectators were involved. My race car or bike was ALWAYS inspected by a scrutineer before I was allowed on track. My ontrack performances were observed by stewards who could ban me from racing if I was deemed to be dangerous.

Maybe we need to have scrutineers who would vet aircraft before they were allowed to fly in front of joe public. Information could be shared world wide and a database of models and defects WITH SATISFACTORY REPAIR OPTIONS kept. A register of scrutineers with approved training might be a good idea. . They might also issue advisories on things they deemed to be a widespread repeating fault.

Internal inspections of known high risk areas could be done with borescopes and inspection ports made mandatory. The cost would not be excessive.

Pilots might come to see this as a positive thing with faults could be discovered and best repair practices used in the past made available to them.

I have been at shows where models were test flown for the first time in front of the public. To stop this happening test flights would have to be observed and signed off.

Last edited by j.duncker; 09-24-2013 at 05:37 PM.
Old 09-24-2013, 05:36 PM
  #10  
AndyAndrews
Thread Starter
 
AndyAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 6,132
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FenderBean View Post
Maybe in a perfect world this would work. Its like saying people post on rcu without emotion. I agree if you have to think about it then its probably wrong. People do make decisions on emotional feelings instead right and wrong.
Fender, that goes with anything people do. We can't prevent good measures just because a few may be emotional about it and its not a perfect world. Doing the right thing in the long run is what counts.
Old 09-24-2013, 07:43 PM
  #11  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm not a cd but I voted yes, But the question comes to who and how do you define unsafe and by what standard do you go by?
Old 09-24-2013, 07:56 PM
  #12  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,355
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

The answer to the Poll would be yes if an airplane was KNOWN to be unsafe. Here is where it gets difficult. How do you determine what is safe and what is not? ALL R/C airplanes have a certain amount of danger to them. As a CD the best you can do is have aircraft inspected by a qualified person upon registration, not allow aircraft that have not demonstrated reliable operation and above all state safety expectations at the daily pilots meeting. What you CAN'T do is ground an aircraft simply because it is of certain manufacture.
Old 09-24-2013, 08:01 PM
  #13  
David Searles
My Feedback: (49)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SANTA ANA, CA
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Following is quoted from the AMA:

AMA Competition Regulations
2013-2014 Rules Governing Model Aviation Competition in the United States

In order to effectively oversee conduct of an event, the CD is granted specific authority relating to organization, rules, and safety. In addition, the CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from using equipment which, in the CD’s opinion, is deemed unsafe.

If you're a CD and you voted no, you really should consider resigning, because you're not willing to take on the responsibility of the position.

David S
Old 09-24-2013, 08:51 PM
  #14  
bcovish
My Feedback: (8)
 
bcovish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

If a CD takes on the task of banning certain planes because they are "unsafe", he should publish a list prior to the event stating such. If NO list is published ahead of time, let's say I drive from Austin to Best in the West and unload a Hawk and then am told that I can't fly it because it is unsafe. It's gonna cause a lot of hard feelings. If a list IS published and I show up with it, shame on me.
BTW, I don't have a Hawk
Old 09-24-2013, 09:02 PM
  #15  
essyou35
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Midwest
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm on both sides the fence here. I am not a CD but whenever I go to rallies I have my children with me.
I dont like hate towards a models(s) because of a perception, and I think sometimes these types of rules are used to actually hate on a person instead. I mean any CD could make up some BS about the model I have or how it is configured without any burden of proof. Maybe he just dont like me.

But at the same time, I dont want a large hawk crashing on my kids when the tail comes off. I admit I'd be nervous if someone had one of those.

I think in the recent cases there is enough merit to ban certain aircraft built with a certain material, but not all of them from years past. I do not think its ok to ban a model because it uses a UP3 instead of the latest electronic valves or because it uses futaba etc..

Last edited by essyou35; 09-24-2013 at 09:06 PM.
Old 09-24-2013, 09:49 PM
  #16  
invertmast
My Feedback: (22)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North Port, Fl
Posts: 7,808
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Why can't we change what we voted on.. my stupid @$$ read the question wrong and chose the wrong option..ugh
Old 09-25-2013, 02:04 AM
  #17  
grbaker
My Feedback: (29)
 
grbaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: La Porte TX
Posts: 3,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

.. my stupid @$$ read the question wrong and chose the wrong option..ugh
Must've been all the epoxy fumes you've been breathing!
Old 09-25-2013, 03:03 AM
  #18  
Clavin01
My Feedback: (193)
 
Clavin01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have read all the comments, so far as a CD , I would ground a model proved to be unsafe. In another comment it was mentioned that someone shows up for an event
with a model that has not been test flown prior. I would ground it. I believe that a model must be test flown prior to flying at any event. And if it was a large event that would attract
Fliers from far a way there should be a list of models that could not fly along with the reason and if there is a fix available. Safety is number one at any event, both Pilots and spectators
never budge an inch on safety, also if a Pilot starts breaking rules he would be grounded. Also one very important rule that should be let known is if the event is 2.4 only or both 2.4 and 72
Old 09-25-2013, 03:27 AM
  #19  
rbxbear44
My Feedback: (86)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Talking Rock, GA
Posts: 1,655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Several of you have asked for my thoughts on things as they are now with FEJ and further airframe losses and very bad customer service in the recent 8-10 months. I am answering this as a jet modeler, CD and a consumer too…first and foremost a jet modeler.

I have seen a shift in customer service and I am saddened by it for sure. James Chen has been incredible to order from and work with and has become a friend of mine. I am sad to see that he is being put into positions where he is not able to do what he does so good…take care of people right away. So, I too have been hurt by their “new business plan” and wish them well and hope they can turn it around for the sake of their future and the jet community.

Safety is paramount…no safety, no fun. Do I believe FEJ HC airframes ought to be banned from sanctioned events? My answer is, “possibly”. As a CD, there is much more to it than the airframe…in the jet community, pilot/builder and peer pressure seem to “operate” the atmosphere of event safety and the flight line in particular. In one of the other threads, it was mentioned that if a particular airframe were to be banned, it would need to be publicized ahead of time so all would know and plan/not plan accordingly. If I were to ban an airframe, it needs to be well planned and understood by all that might be attending the event.

When CD’ing warbird events, it is AMAZING what will show up to be flown at these events…there is always some crazy and “unique” airframe showing up that makes everyone (but the owner) want to go eat while this bird flies. I get pro-active and simply ask, how many times has this airframe been flown before? How much does it weigh? Are you the builder? Is there anyone here that has seen this plane fly? I will ask them to stand down until I decide if and how to proceed with a flight, and include other pilots in the process that are well established in the hobby as pilots and builders too.

Likewise, on the FEJ Hawk or any other airframe that has seen the kind of failures in recent months, I would ask the same questions to the pilot. I don’t know all airframes but I do know the Hawk…I’ve assembled probably 10-11 of them myself. At this point I would ask if they had done any mods to the Stab area and ask them to open up the tail bay where the servos are for inspection. Also, I have a pretty good knowledge of what it takes to keep these under 55 lbs. wet, so I would probably ask for verification of weight too…unless of course, they already had self inspection paperwork. I know this doesn’t include X-raying what’s under the skin and that, to be honest, is just not what I want to do as a CD of a busy event…X-Ray airframes! If it takes that to get something flying…then I do need to keep it out of the air….because THAT is questionable enough to do so.

If mods have been done, many flights have been made to prove the quality and sufficiency of the mod or the manufacturer has taken proven and corrective action, then the airframe ought to be able to fly. But, I am counting on the AMA and the jet community within itself to operate safely and to keep self policing pressure on itself too. Rest assured, I won't be concerned about which manufacturer or even which pilot might cause unsafe possibilities at an event I CD...I will do whatever is necessary to run a safe event.
Old 09-25-2013, 04:30 AM
  #20  
invertmast
My Feedback: (22)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North Port, Fl
Posts: 7,808
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grbaker View Post
Must've been all the epoxy fumes you've been breathing!

Lol, probably so!
Old 09-25-2013, 04:39 AM
  #21  
Skybouncer
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calhoun , GA
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Dan, its not just black and white....its GREEN and WHITE, now take into account the manufacturer was a sponser of the event, (most are) and made green and white donations,paid expenses,ect,ect.
Can you tell him he cant fly, after spending 1000's of $ to be there? Or not allow any of his kits to fly?
Most bad decisions come back to the Green and white of it or they wont be back next year.
Ronnie
Old 09-25-2013, 05:03 AM
  #22  
Art ARRO
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Holland Patent, NY
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Skybouncer,
Are you stating that it is OK for a manufacturer to fly their jets at an AMA-sanctioned event if the manufacturer's models has known structural issues, but is a "green and white" sponsor? That has exactly occurred, just this year, at one of the largest jet events in the couintry. BTW, an inflight structural failure and crash of that manufacturer's jet occured at this event.
Is it better to be safe or sorry?

Art ARRO
Old 09-25-2013, 05:42 AM
  #23  
AndyAndrews
Thread Starter
 
AndyAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 6,132
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The 10 votes for no (two have replied they accidentally checked no) goes to show the problem we have here. We can't even rationally talk about reasonable restrictions on UNSAFE air frames without having people complain. Really? So are we to believe that there are folks out there that feel like no matter what, people should be able to fly their UNSAFE airplanes in jet rallys.

I'm all ears, please do opine.
Old 09-25-2013, 05:47 AM
  #24  
David Searles
My Feedback: (49)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SANTA ANA, CA
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AndyAndrews View Post
The 10 votes for no (two have replied they accidentally checked no) goes to show the problem we have here. We can't even rationally talk about reasonable restrictions on UNSAFE air frames without having people complain. Really? So are we to believe that there are folks out there that feel like no matter what, people should be able to fly their UNSAFE airplanes in jet rallys.

I'm all ears, please do opine.




David S
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	ch130924.gif
Views:	262
Size:	84.5 KB
ID:	1924718  
Old 09-25-2013, 05:59 AM
  #25  
Chris Smith
My Feedback: (2)
 
Chris Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Adams TN
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I vote yes but would have voted yes with conditions.

So you're a CD. Do you ban Ali's hawk or F-16?

Let's use a realistic scenario. I don't mean to pick on Ali, but he has one of the hawks in question. By using Ali, in this example, we can eliminate the flying skill variable. After all, flying skills (or lack) can impact safety as much as bad airframes.

In Ali's case I don't recall mention that his Hawk stabs were of the questionable honeycomb or modified. But, they haven't failed so far. How does the CD verify this? And how many inspections or interviews does the CD do or have time for at an event with 150 pilots?

Even if the stabs were modified or "fixed", who determines if it was a safe fix or another hack job? Say another pilot shows up with a hawk that has been extensively modified. Or an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Who determines that the extensive modifications are sound, appropriate, and don't actually make things worse?

So we ask the CD to make a banning decision of a known version of certain models by a manufacturer. The only way I see this works is the ban is in place prior to the event, at the risk of that manufacturers sponsorship, and universal to that model or models regardless of what modification "fixes" were applied. They don't fly.

Maybe this works, but keep this in mind: Let's not go the TSA route using "safety" as an excuse to reduce the hobby to frisking old ladies and shokjets due to media frenzy and other such politics. In my opinion almost anyone can be given an AMA CD. Personalities will be involved.

Last edited by Chris Smith; 09-25-2013 at 06:53 AM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.