Included in my clubs election ballot was a proposed amendment to our clubs by-laws. This 11th hour proposal has some scary resemblence to past political stuff I dealt with during the Deland reign of terror. I am the last person to want to get invold in club politics, my last bout was not pretty [] (many of you probably know that story quite well). My fear is this is just the tip of the iceberg for "Jet Regulations" within this club and I am looking to you guys for your thoughts.
The Ocala club, one of the nicest fields in the state of florida (and a great group of guys) is located on a 200 acre plot of land with a 600x48' runway. as you can see from the photo, this is a perfect field! Our only restriction is off the east end of the runway approx 1000-1100 ft is a no fly zone due to residential housing. Two aircraft (sport planes) have crashed in this yard and has caused legitimate concearn by the lands owner. We now have pole markers and must remain inside of this airspace.
Please read the boards proposed amendment, I understand the boards concearns and dont want anything to jepordize the loss of the field. I do howerver believe that this is not thoroughly thought out and is more of a "Knee Jerk" reaction. I'm curious what your reactions would be and your suggestions.

Rationale for the Proposed Amendment to the Club By-Laws
The following is proposed to be added to Section 6 -Flying Rules and Regulations, a section of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Ocala Flying Model Club, Revision XVII-December 2000.
"The number of turbine powered aircraft at all scheduled flying contests, events, or gatherings, open to non-member pilots, held at the OFMC field, shall be limited to twenty percent of the total number of model planes participating, each day, When non-OFMC member pilots participate, OFMC member pilots shall receive priority over non-member pilots. "Amendments to the By-Laws require an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the voting members.
This proposed bylaw change would NOT prevent any OFMC member pilot from flying jets at our field or change the presently scheduled flying events held at the field including the participation of a limited number of jet aircraft.

THE 2003 BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A "YES" VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.

History and rationale for this addition follows: but will not be made part of the By-Laws document A few members expressed an interest, at our July Membership Meeting, in OFMC sponsoring an all jet event at our field. The 2003 Board of Directors studied the field environment, with it's neighbors, boundary restraints, and surrounding woodlands. They also discussed the subject with some experts in turbine engines, turbine engine modes
of failure and RC turbine powered planes. ' Among them are engineers who understand that a plane traveling at 200mph has an impact of four times that of a similar plane traveling at half the speed, i.e., a glow or gas powered plane.
If the engine fuel source is not closed off before an operating turbine powered plane crashes, the fuel often continues to burn.
The Greenway woods and heavy underbrush to the west and north of the OFMC field could be ignited and burn as the result of a jet crash in those areas. Model jet aircraft normally carry a significant kerosene fuel load and their turbine engines operate by continuous open flame burning, making them a potent ignition source. A major brush fire caused by flight operations at the field could cause the Greenway to seriously reconsider the OFMC property lease.
A jet crash on the Franks Farm property to the south could cause the same fire problems and the addition of expensive horses in the fields raises the stakes of such an accident.
The 2003 Board decided unanimously, after considering the risks and benefIts, that our field is not adequate for an all jet event. This amendment is intended to make this a permanent decision. The Board does not intend to prohibit the use of turbine powered models by its members, merely to minimize the risk potential by discouraging high performance aircraft operated by a large number of visitors over whom the Club has little control and no real knowledge of the their skills or experience. The Board is convinced that adding a jet event and encouraging more jet activity at this field could pose a threat to OFMC's continued use of our leased property. The OFMC membership does not want to lose their outstanding recreational facility for any reason. The most likely cause of the loss of our facility is the abuse or perceived abuse of our neighbors, their property, the property that we
lease from the Office of Greenways and Trails, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or the surrounding property, also belonging to the Department of Environmental Protection. Our neighbors' concern for their safety and property is obvious. The main concern of our lessor is, their basic function, the protection of Florida's trails and woodlands and to protect their public image.
The Hope families, who live close to the field east boundary , have spoken at least three times to Club Officers during the last six months about their concerns of R/C aircraft flying over and also crashing on their property. Any thoughts that the Hope's would simply put up with whatever over-flying that bothers or potentially threatens them have already
been proven false.
The 2003 Board of Directors recommends a "YES" vote on this amendment.


Thoughts?
Thanks...
Todd and OFMC Members

This seems to be the trend locally as well as nationally. Although the liabilities of turbine powered aircraft and their pilots seem to be lower than that of the casual sport flier, governing bodies "feel" the need to be perceived as doing something. By limiting the operation of our so-called high risk aircraft operations, these bodies can point to these regulations as their pro-activeness. They can say that they are doing something that will temporarily placate whomever needs to be placated (neighbors, insurance providers, etc.), while affecting the fewest overall members. We are a small percentage of pilots, but the highest in visibility. All the sport fliers see their slow trainers and can't believe that they could be at all dangerous, while our high-powered, heavily loaded, kerosene toting monsters are WMD's just waiting to be set off. The skills of the pilots are never taken into account. I have feared for my safety and those around me frequently at one of the clubs I fly at (you know those "flying" the U-CAN-DO 3D who can't)...but never at a jet rally. These bodies get warm fuzzies restricting the "dangerous" aircraft but would never dream of restriction the dangerous pilot.

Todd, it's an uphill battle. I hope you can convince them of the truth. Maybe BV could help with some expert testimony........just a thought. Keep the faith.

Sounds like they REALLY want is: visiting turbine pilots to join the club and pay dues.

My first thought also but go back and read the 20% part.

Well Todd my Vote is for a sure big NO, and so is my fathers. So the more No's we get will will help, and anyone else on RCU that is a member of Ocala Flying model Club, please vote NO to protect our jet flying intrest. Please send the board of DIRECTORS your thoughts about this new amendment and maybe they will get alittle educated on the facts of jet pilots skill level. www.ocalaflyingmodelclub.com

Thank you,
David Rivera

FYI - Interesting Fact

According to DB. The largest claim the AMA has paid to date was for what type of modeling activity??


FREE FLIGHT Tha's correct. A free flight plane got tangled in power lines and caused a short and a fire. That's right - experience shows clearly that FREE FLIGHT experience is much worse that ANY other type of R/C modeling activity. I believe that OCFC encourages sail plane and free flight activity. OFMC even has a segment of their property dedicated to sail plane and free-flight activity.

I find it interesting that no one finds "The 2003 Board of Directors recommends a "YES" vote on this amendment" to be a persuation ballot and innapropriate??
Seems to me whatever the outcome of this ballot, the fact that it has been combined with the electorial process and the answer is being coached should void the proposition?

Am I wrong?
Todd

Todd,

I'd have to see the bylaws, but I don't think that the board "recommending" a vote would automatically make it null and void. Unless its specifically prohibited, its probably OK. I know our board typically makes a first recommendation on a great deal of the club's business matters because most of the other members are not willing to do the research required to form an opinion (i.e., they're too lazy to get off their butts to find out which way is up).

That being said, I think the stance they are taking and their method of doing it are bogus. If they don't want to hold an all-jet event, why don't they just say so?!?!?

One of the things that strikes me as funny is the comment "Among them are engineers who understand that a plane traveling at 200mph has an impact of four times that of a similar plane traveling at half the speed, i.e., a glow or gas powered plane." This technically is true, but any GOOD engineer would also point out that four times the impact at twice the speed doesn't mean four times as deadly or four times as likely to crash. I.e., speed is not the overriding factor in model aircraft safety. Are these guys related to DB? God I hate it when people too stupid to understand science and technology use it to justify their wrong-headed positions!

Bob

Maybe that is not a good rule and maybe the folks thinking it up don't know what they are talking about but...
If your main interest is to fly turbines at your field and there are homes nearby that could be impacted by a crash thus possibly loosing the right to fly turbines or worse yet the loss of the field ,maybe having more turbines being flown by people who are not faniliar with your field isn't in your best interest.

While I agree with the previous post that I feel more danger from inexperienced pilots with trainers than the usual turbine pilot, that danger is on the flightline. The speed of the turbines makes them more of a threat to the nearby homes and the increased chance of fire compounds that danger.

So is hosting a turbine event really in your best interest or would you rather keep turbine traffic to a minimum and enjoy being able to continue to fly them at your field? I have similar thoughts when I hear of the desire to buddy box turbines or seeing someone who has never flown a fast piston powered plane being coached on flying turbines. It all seems to me that some folks are not aware that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

It sounds to me like they do not want a jet event and that they are trying to ensure that a jet event is never held at your field no matter who takes office in the club. This 20% rule seems very excessive and like you said more of a knee jerk reaction. Maybe they would relate it better if you put it into other terms. It is the same as saying- If you have 20 guys at the field only 4 of them can have a wing span larger the 60". Unless it can be proven that one subset of flyers in a danger then it is nothing more then plain and simple discrimination IMO
I have seen the same thing in the past at my club. Member don't want to get involved in running the club so you have only a few people setting all the rules and sometimes based on nothing more then personal feeling and bias. That's why I got involved in running my club. I got tired of some of the stupid rules people were coming up with.


Todd - good luck with this and you have my support.

I don't like to see jets singled out for special treatment in any case. But, I think we need to think objectively about a potential site for a jet event, even if it gives you an answer you weren't looking for.

On the other hand, if residential housing is this close:

Quote:

Our only restriction is off the east end of the runway approx 1000-1100 ft is a no fly zone due to residential housing.

I personally would simply rule out the use of your field for a jet event. I have been to many jet rallies, and conducted two of my own, and one thing I always observe is pilots who fly out to near the limit of their vision! The last thing you, as a jet pilot, need is to have flight after flight going over those houses and causing the rest of the club trouble. It is extremely difficult to police all of the pilots, all of the time, during a jet event in order to prevent overflights.

On another note, I don't think there are very many pilots flying turbines who are going to "dumb thumb" their jets into the ground, potentially in the residential area or an area of heightened fire hazard. But, we have to be realistic. Crashes do occur and they are almost never at places of our choosing. Whether it be radio failure, midair, structural failure, or whatever else, a crash is still a crash and you don't need the added risk of overflying that residential area.

I hate to say it but I agree with the board that perhaps it would be best to avoid an all jet event due to the higher risk factor of non members not abiding to the no fly zones. As I mentioned in the begining of this thread, this is one of the nicest fields in the state of florida, I would hate for them to loose it under any circumstance! What concearns me is how they went about the process and the passing on of innacurate information to it's members that are unfamilliar with todays safety measures and skillset required by turbine pilots. We could just as easily put the field at risk by hosting IMAC meets which they do regularly. Perhaps what I am looking for is a good way to explain to the board that although I agree with their concearns, there must be better ways to control the risk?
Todd

Todd, I do not know how you could agree with the board when the fact of the matter is not the jets but the very nature of trainer pilots at the field. The two crashes that went in over into neighbors yard were those of pilot rookies and both were trainers. Todd you should come to the some of the meetings this way you can acknowledge your concerns. There are too few of us jet pilots that come to these meetings and our voices are not heard. I have made many attempts and many times I have defended our interest at these meetings but my voice is not enough, we need more participants from this group to join in our meetings to help educate the board. Most of our current board knows nothing of turbines so IMO it makes it very easy for them to come up with concerns that may be blown way out of apportion like this amendment.

Now just think of the 20% rule if only 10 pilots come to an event only 2 jet pilots may fly and of the 2 jet pilots only members will get first pick so think about it. How does this promote or ever advance the hobby of jets. Also look at it if they do pass this amendment this could give the board insight of banding jets altogether at a later time since they are able to pass this amendment. So this could lead away into Pandora’s Box, now do you want that, for sure I don’t. We need more jet pilots at the meetings so that we can come up with viable rules that can govern ourselves and not stand on the side line and watch a club diminish our rights to fly jets at this magnificent field.

Enforcing rules is not difficult if we all stand behind the rules that are imposed and thus having an event, I do not see how our no fly zone would be an issue if that rule is enforced upon arrival. Which in fact it is posted when you dive right in the gate, all the way to the parking area. So it is vividly written and highly viewable.

Dave

I forgot to add that our club has discussed the matter of adding a cap to our membership, and if that ever happens and this amendment passes think about the possible results of jet existence at our club or at our events.

Dave

[][] Let me think about this for a bit David, I have taken this stance before with very negative results and I dont wish to alienate myself within the club. While I have strong opinions for both sides of this argument, I still believe it is important for all the members that we don't put this magnificent field at unneeded risk. This is where I agree with the board.....Their ideas and opinions about jets however are unfounded. The problem is the club meetings are on Saturdays which is a difficult day for me to attend. I will however be sure to attend the meeting next month to voice my opinions and concerns. I'll call you to discuss this further

Todd

"The devil is in the details"

That's what this all about. In the motion the final part refers to gatherings. Wide open for interpetation. A gathering of members????? Also the process is what many members are concerned about. The way it was brought to the membership. The leadership also provided an extensive doccument filled with facts with no references for those facts. Last but not least, the fact that the club leadership put an endorsment on the ballot is very offensive to me as a member. Even if it were permissable, it's certainly not proper or ethical. I suppose they don't believe the membership is capable of making an informed decision on their own.

John, I just read our news letter and your reply to there amendment was right on target and I could not agree more with you on that reply. This is our current board’s last attempt to diminish turbine jets from our field before they are voted out of office. They have never wanted jets here and it’s in there interest to band jets all together. The main reason we have a pave runway that long was to support a jet event and this was one of the reasons we voted for a paved runway years before and this set of board members came about. But no matter, they know who they are and they know they will not be returning.

Also is there any policy in AMA rules that state that in when voting for new amendments? There can not be any persuasion by the board to vote which way in with the ballot. I know that when I go to the poles to vote for president there will not be anything on the or with the ballots to persuade me to vote which way. So why should this be any different? But if this does get past I will make motion to abolish this amendment if it is passes in the months to come. What can be done can always be undone.

Dave

The voting issue is not an AMA issue unless it were deemed to be a very serious coruption issue, and then the AMA could step in a possibly void a charter. Very unlikely.

This is an issue that is controlled by existing club by-laws and Roberts Rules of Order. If in deed OFMC does use Roberts Rules of Order. Probably not much can be done about it now, except work very hard to defeat it.

The newsletter editor told me they had a policy preventing signed letters from being placed into the newsletter. Either he felt as you and I and many others do or he was instructed by a higher authority to print it. I certainly do not know.