RC rule #9 to be revisited by EC at April EC meeting

[J_R]

The infamous rule #9 will be revisited by the Exectutive Council at the April 24, 2004 EC meeting.

If you have thoughts on this issue, now is the time to contact your VP and express them.

The following was placed on the D8 e-mail list by "Chief", AKA Doug Powell, D8 e-mail list moderator and Contest Coordinator. It is written by Dave Brown, AMA president:

Yo!
I have been asked to forward these comments from AMA President
Dave Brown to the D-8 Modeling List with his permission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the response I have sent to a number of people who have asked that we repeal rule #9



Gentlemen:

I understand your displeasure with rule #9, but you have not considered why it is necessary.

Tail touching is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH TAIL TOUCHING IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....

INTENTIONALLY "banging" a "vital" control surface onto the ground will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that the rudder is the "most vital" control surface. (They would be sold in the basis of a ship without a rudder is, out of control). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a rudder cable break, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the rudder isn't necessary!

Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in banging a vital control surface on the ground was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the rudder was not a "vital" control surface.....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover without the rudder....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??

Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the rudder, or even happened during a flight in which you "touched", the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY banged the rudder "a vital control surface" into the ground would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the ramp with a forklift pushing on the rudder, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the rudder caused the crash???

I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to extend the tailwheel back, behind the rudder, and you can touch the tailwheel to your hearts delight. You can bang that on the ground as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.

This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??

Dave Brown

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..........Chief

[ctdahle]

Sensible arguments. OK for a rough draft. I hope he runs it through spell check before it gets much more circulation.

[easytiger]

Ama Bad!

[Jeffery]

Hey Dave.. You need to do some MORE BANNING!!

Putting an engine larger than the manufacturers recommendation is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH EXTRA POWER IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....

INTENTIONALLY "overpowering" an airframe designed by the manufacturer for a certain sized engine will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that a larger engine was necessary. (They would be sold in the basis of the manufacturers engine recommendation due to test flights). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a firewall break free, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the extra engine is necessary!

Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in putting a larger engine in the model was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the engine recommended wasn't adequate....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover with the recommended engine....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??

Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the excessive engine, or even happened during a flight in which you "barely fluttered" due to the extra power, the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY changed the engine "from manufacturers recommendation" would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the sky with a excessively large engines on the wing, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the larger engine caused the crash???

I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to strictly follow model manufacturers engine size guidlines, and you can push the throttle to your hearts delight. You can run that engine as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.

This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??

Dave Brown


Anybody ever put an engine on their plane larger than the manufacturers recommendation??

Idiots.

[easytiger]

I doan WANNA extend my tailwheel, it's TOO MUCH WORk, waahhh waahhh wahhh! Dave Brown is PICKING on me, he HATES us 3D flyers, it's not FAIR that we have to have RULES, it's my God-given RIGHT to bang my rudder on the ground, I LOVE doing it, the chicks go NUTS when they see it, this is supposed to be AMERICA, for crying out loud, Dave Brown is probably in the tailwheel extensions business, he just want to make enough money so they can put in an Executive Jacuzzi in his Palace at Muncie.

[Jeffery]

One of your more lucid posts, Curtis.

I'm quite amused that anyone (well, almost anyone) would still think that this is about touching the tail to the ground.

[easytiger]

You are SO right. It has NOTHING to do with touching the tail to the ground at all...like WMD's, that's just a petard to distract us from the REAL issues, which is Dave Brown and the Old Boy Network in Muncie working through FEMA to control our minds using this new BPL technology.

[AustinTatious]

yay Jeffery !! I lvoe you man, you're awesome!


With attitudes like that, soon we wont even be able to fly R/C planes...

"Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in attempting to control a 30lb airplane by remote control were resonable? "

Take precaustions with due reguard to flight line distances.. then fly like hell, jsut make sure when you do crash, its in a field 100 feet from spectators. Regulate that and let people eject their ailerons if they want.

Austin

[easytiger]

An airplane that is out of control, say, from a smashed rudder and elevator, can travel that hundred feet to the spectators in HOW long? A second or two?


I can't BELEIVE that you MIGHT have to extend your tailwheel.
Or even stop touching your tail.
I mean, tail-touching is just about the most important aspect of this whole hobby. I cannot enjoy this hobby AT ALL unless I touch my tail, and the REAL tail, not some faux extended tailwheel, right to the ground, at least two or three times a day. And Dave Brown has ruined that for me.
And I swear by the Holy Gods of Ambroid, that I will continue to fill up the internet with post after post after post of beyatching about this subject until DB and the entire Executive Council come onto the net an apologize to me personally.
If we let them get away with this, having a "rule" for ANY reason, we open the floodgates to opression, and pretty soon, all we will be able to fly is Control-line speed gliders, like they had back in the Communist days of Russia. And the PLANES belonged to the State.
Like it or not, that's where rule number nine is taking us.

[Viper Pilot]

If it's such a big deal, just quit the AMA, start your own non-AMA club, and fly as dangerously as you want. It seems to me that the only ones concerned about this rule are the "outlaws" that fly "Flat Fuse" type of planes, if you catch my drift.

And, from several posts at a "Bro" site, it appears they will ignore the rule, anyway, or use semantics on the rule and "touch-and-go" on their tails.

I think ET summend it up best in the post above . . . . just a bunch of cry-babies.

I think Rule #9 is just fine. It is reasonable. And, Big Brother IS watching, but not at the AMA.

VP

[easytiger]

The day I stop touching my tail, time after time after time after time, over and over again, is the day they pry my cold dead hands from my non-gold-stickered Heathkit GDA-19 transmitter.
As a matter of fact, I am touching my tail right now. I did wash my hands, no worries. This hobby is ALL ABOUT touching your tail. All else is moot.
Like Jeffery said above, this whole rule about tail touching has NOTHING to do with touching the tail at all. It has everything to do with, well...
Please explain to me WHAT it is really about, Jeffrey. I thought it was about tail touching. I held rule number nine up to a mirror in my bathroom, and could still not see any hidden meaning. I doused my rulebook with lemon juice, in hope of finding something written in invisible ink. Same thing with a blacklight, nothing.
So please explain it to me...you say it's not about tail touching, so what is it about?

[Jeffery]

I see you have your doppleganger Viper Pilot in your hip pocket. Nice couple.

I have typed this reply so many times my fingers hurt, but I will type it real slow so you (two) can grasp it:

It's about one man, without consulting the EC or calling for a vote, making changes to the AMA Safety Code and then leaving it up to the members to try to get it changed back.

I'm frankly stunned that you cannot grasp this, the turbine waiver holders fought this very battle quite recently. What, a month ago?? And you have already forgotten?? That had nothing to do with tail touching or tail wheels, yet it was the EXACT SAME THING as I am talking about.

And you have already forgotten about it.

So go on with your "troubled 3D pilot" shtick. Suits you fine.

And Vipor Pilot, you go on with "If you don't like the rules, quit" line. And if you had one clue you would know that profile planes were not the impetus behind the addition to #9. But you don't, so I'm wasting time here.

You are in the camp of "Anything they shove down my throat, I'll swallow".

I'm more of the "I don't particularly care for this new rule (that was never voted on) I think I'll see about getting it changed, and getting rid of the guy who decided he could change it on his own accord without any input from the members or a vote from the EC".

And Vipor Pilot...If you want to hear Cry Babies... Just tell a few turbine pilots that you are going to douse them with a list of arbitrary rules.

[Don Sims]

You gents best follow the site guidelines or this thread will join it's other closed bretheren. Please follow our simple site rules and not snipe at each other!
Thanks,
Don

[Jeffery]

Sorry, Don. I didn't think my "Waaa Waaaa" remark was a personal attack on Viper Pilot as he does not, to the best of my knowledge, fly a turbine. It was more of a comment on a group, set in the tone of previous posts by him ("...just a bunch of cry-babies") and easytiger.

I'll refrain from further comment in this thread as I have failed on numerous occasions to get my point across to either of these gentlemen, and it would appear I have failed once again.

Thanks.

[Don Sims]

Point taken Jeffery. My issue is the tone that this thread has taken. You'll can debate and argue your issues but do it with civility. Start looking for areas you agree with each other on then attempt to comprimise on the issues of contention.

[J_R]

Hopefully, this issue will be put to bed, one way or another this weekend.

The AMA Exective Council has the responsibility for the Safety Code. They must approve changes to it. Having stated that, rule 9 was never voted on. If you ask the EC members, you will get one of two stories. 1) It was never voted on. 2) It was part of a Safety Committee report that was accepted. The problem with the second story is that the report was never voted on, yet the rule appears in the Safety Code. All involved are aware of this. All of this is evidenced in the EC minutes.

The suggestion of extending the landing gear seems to have more than a few flaws. Most small electrics doing 3 D have no landing gear. Many profile planes designed for 3D are built without landing gear. This leads to a logical question. Since the average juror knows that any plane without landing gear is in trouble, how can we justify allowing any model that does not have landing gear? Carrying the logic just a step further, the average juror knows that a car without brakes is unsafe. It would appear that logic alone carries us to the conclusion, if we are worried about being represented by an attorney that is incapable of making a jury understand that an aircraft is not a boat, we must mandate landing gear, with brakes, on every model aircraft, or we would most certainly be in an indefensible position.

Back in the land of reality, we see that, in fact, there IS a difference between a 15 oz electric, a 40 sized profile, and a 40% model. If we are going to be honest, we have to admit that each has it’s own safety concerns. Personally, I do not want a 40% bird hovering in my face on the flight line when I am flying, unless, of course, it is mine. On the other hand, if it is done at some distance, I have considerably less concern. If that bird is a 15 oz electric, it would seem that less separation would be acceptable. Within the EC, there are also some that believe that some separation between pilots and aircraft is a better solution to the issue. The distances for different model sizes is open for discussion this weekend.

One solution being considered is a change in the existing rule that requires aircraft to be 25 ft from the flight line, except for pilot and helpers. The exclusion of the pilot and helpers exception is being looked at.

Of course, the EC could vote to approve the rule as written, as well.

[Jeffery]

The "tail touching" clause in #9 has been removed by a EC vote.

[Viper Pilot]

Jeffery,

That's interesting. Can you link me up to the site that states this. I've been at the AMA site, and found nothing yet regarding the meeting.

Viper

[Viper Pilot]

Here (http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/0404ecagenda.asp) is the link to the AMA EC meeting agenda for this weekend.

Nothing updated yet.

VP

[J_R]

You won't see anything official for about 10 days. Then, the motions in the Executive Council will be posted on the AMA site. In 30-40 days, the minutes of the meeting will be posted in the same area.

There are reports that some of the EC members have been contacted and that the rule has been changed, as Chuck stated.

[Jeffery]

I see no reason to expound on my last post. I was not even going to post again in this thread due to the demeanor of the other posters regarding this issue, but the news seemed at least relevant to the topic. I'm positive if I posted what I really felt, Don Sims would feel it necessary to once again edit my post, and I don't wish to impose any more work on the fine moderators of this site. Thanks any way.

[gordo-plast]

Problem solved, rule changed, 3D flyers win.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

[Viper Pilot]

Congratulations to those of you who worked so hard on this matter (if, in fact the wording HAS been changed).

BTW, I still think it was a reasonable rule!!

Viper

[Viper Pilot]

I see no reason to expound on my last post. I was not even going to post again in this thread due to the demeanor of the other posters regarding this issue . . .

I'm confused :confused: :confused: :confused: .

Exactly what demeaner would that be for you to post this thread??

Methinks some people have a "chip" on their shoulders. It seems to me that we have been fairly kind in our posts since Dons' warning.

JMHO ;) ;) ;)

Viper

[Stano]

My gosh after lurking and lurking thru the endless #9 threads ain't it great!!.... time for a new avatar for some of us :D

[Jim T. Graham]

Congrats to the folks that did the hard work to get the point across. You know who you are. GREAT!!

[J_R]

The EC motions are now posted with the offical results

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/0404ecmotions.asp

[Stano]

Man that CROW was tastey!!!! ::::::snickerGrinsnicker:::::

[J_R]

Stano

I would not gloat too much. The initial concern was over big birds. The foamies and profiles got caught in the unintended consequences. There could be more to come.

[Stano]

How do ya know I don't fly big birds?

Gloat naw not really I just read back thru all of the crap on the #9 rule.. I find it funny that theres lot of people having a little crow sam-mich. But I don't think im the one you need to tell not to gloat jeeezzzssss!!!! :rolleyes:

[J_R]

Stano

I should not have singled you out, and for that I apologize.

The big bird guys have hardly been heard from about rule 9, either positive or negative. I ran into one the CD's of the Joe Nall one day at my club. He was very much for the way it was written, when it prohibitied tail touching, and felt it was long overdue. I am not looking to restart the debate, but, all should be aware that there are still concerns.