Dave Brown's Latest Editorial

[jpv11]

Anyone seen Dave Brown's latest editorial in Model Aviation? Looks like he's responding to some of the feedback he received from here (and elsewhere, I'm sure). I must admit I had a good laugh when he was defending his use of the word "explode" vs. "vents with flame" (apparently he received a lot of feedback on this choice of words) with regards to lipo failures. If you haven't seen it yet, he says perhaps some would be happier if he said the Hindenburg didn't explode, but "vented with flames" :). But seriously, just wondering what the general feeling was on his new editorial as there was so much stirred up by the original ed and safety notice.

[SharksTooth]

Actually I try to avoid that column so it doesn't cloud my mind. :)

Can't wait for the next election. ;)

[echassin]

Lipo safety is definately a must, but Dave Brown has some other choice editorials.

There's one in which he refers to tail touching as "banging", and "showing off" which I found a little alienating. Even though his suggestion of extending the tailwheel back so the actual rudder doesn't hit makes good sense, his general tone is that 3ders are a bunch of reckless showoffs.

A more recent one accuses high altitude record seekers of being unreasonable and "bragging" (maybe true), but it's OK for him to fly a plane unseen across the Atlantic, then brag about it in the mag! Some of the planes didn't make it, and who knows where they crashed (who CARES, I'm the President!)

Bottom line there are those who view what they do as safe, regardless, and what others do as dangerous, regardless. Difference is, he's in a position to enforce his will, We are not.

Only reason I belong to AMA is to join good friends at fly-ins, where a card is mandatory.

Just my opinion. I'm sure there are oposing viewpoints and that's OK,

Eric

[jpv11]

Eric,

I agree that lipo safety is a must, that's for sure. A quick check of the Batteries and Chargers forum leaves little doubt about that. I know that (whatever the technical merits... which I'll leave to others to discuss and determine) the notice and editorial certainly caused the guys I know to give the issue of lipo safety some serious thought, which was one good result, in any case. I'll bet a great many more pilots on RC Groups are now carrying their batteries in/charging in fireproof boxes etc, and are improving their safety practices with the wealth of other good information that is provided by Dave Hederich (and many others) on the Batteries and Chargers forum. I realize the safety info was available on the batteries forum well before the editorial, but I for one read it with more attention and interest afterwords, as I sought clarification on the technical matters here on RC Groups. As for the AMA, well I'm a member because we're lucky to have several good AMA clubs in this area (it seems many areas of the country don't even have one) and being involved with them makes the AMA membership worthwhile.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[Dereck]

As someone who's put a fair number of words into print in model magazines, I have to chip in here with a couple of small units of currency worth.

Any mention of safety in magazine is about as popular as suggesting that folk quieten down IC engines to avoid losing flying fields.

However, someone has to take a stand on safety and if our national body doesn't, no-one else is likely to.

And if batteries bursting into, or even leaking, flames doesn't require a little looking at, I can't think what does. Even if the guy who burned out his Lexus Landcruiser was so inconvenienced that he had to wait until the end of the week to buy another :rolleyes:

Eric - full sized aviation spends a lot of time teaching pilots to touch the ground with their aircraft in such a fashion that the pilot carries on living and the aircraft can be used again. That we don't have such constraints allows us to sometimes have to buy another aircraft rather than be the central figure at the burial of a coffin full of sandbags.

While there are undoubtably some amongst us who think banging bits of aircraft - besides the wheels - on the ground demonstrates a high level of skill, a surprising number regard this kind of thing as ranging from childish showing off to levels that would, in all probability, bring the wrath of the moderators down on their heads.

Regards

Dereck

[SharksTooth]

Hi Derek,
Basically this issue really has nothing to do with the fact that there are issues that need to be addressed concerning safety practices when using Lithium Polymer Batteries. It has more to do with the false statements made by the AMA and Dave Browns personal vendettas toward modelers due to the fact that he is now working for insurance company and not the modelers who elected him.

Brown has singlehandedly gone on a warpath that has PO'd the JPO, 3D Flyer's, IMAC, Pylon, and Electric Flyer's alike. He makes grossly exaggerated statements and alienates folks in darn near every facet of model aviation.

It's just like that rudder touching fiasco he started (which has now been overturned)...How many people do you know who would willfully bang their plane into the ground? I don't know of any, and every single one I've ever seen the rudder barely brushed the surface. Just because someone may not like a particular type of flying does not mean they should go after it and ruin it for those that do. You won't win many friends like that, and that's pretty apparent when it comes to Brown.

The people who take a stand on safety is ourselves! Nobody else can or ever will be able to enforce safety but the modelers themselves. I have found this hobby to be one of the safest around, and that is because the people in police themselves.

Batteries don't "burst into flames"...that's the rhetoric that the AMA has spread. These batteries are like any other. If you don't treat them properly they will vent, and that's is nothing new- it happens with ANY battery, and some like NiMh's do it in a MUCH bigger way. Are they going out making ridiculous claims and issuing scare tactics in spam to people's inboxes who use NiMh's? I haven't seen any such spam.

As for touching parts of the plane on the ground, that's only the business of the pilot who is behind the sticks. If you don't like it, don't do it, but there is not going to be any 'wrath of the moderators' or any such thing for those who do choose to do it. All you have to do is do a search for videos on here and that will become abundantly clear.

Again, can't wait until the election when we can vote in a new president that will make changes with the *modelers* in mind...what they are supposed to be elected for in the first place. If this guy were left to rule out everything that had any risk to it he would effectively rule out RC planes completely. Airplane by their very nature are dangerous. The only individual that has any control to make them safe is the pilot. No amount of alienating, making unenforceable rules, or making false claims will ever replace that.

[Dereck]

Yes, you're probably right.

What we need is someone in charge at Muncie who can't spell, writes 'internet' instead, panders to huge models and industry and fills MA with reviews of BARFs

Trouble is, that kind of individual would rather freeload on the back of AMA rather than join.

Now, explain to me what is so way cool about whacking a control surface - usually the rudder, but I'm sure some demigod of 3D can do it with an aileron - into the ground?

Am I missing something?

D

[Tim Jonas]

Only reason I belong to AMA is to join good friends at fly-ins, where a card is mandatory.


Same here....and I've been a member since 1974. Model Aviation is a brutal read, and the Electrics Column is a day late and a dollar short, in my estimation. I wish they had a no magazine option to it, frankly.

[headless]

It requires practice and doing so displays that one has mastered control of their plane. I would figure that regardless of everything else involved that this, at least, would be fairly obvious.

I guess i should open MA and see what Dave has to ramble on about this time. Maybe he'll start saying that electricity is dangerous and should be outlawed because it can shock you. Ow.

[Andy W]

I'm with Tim.. I wish I didn't have to pay for that magazine, I don't think I've even opened one in a couple of years (or any other RC magazine, for that matter). I hold membership only so I can fly at club fields and events.
..a

[whanderson]

However, someone has to take a stand on safety and if our national body doesn't, no-one else is likely to.

Dereck

Derek,

SharksTooth nailed it in a most eloquent manner. The real issue here is liberty. I am responsible for my actions, the AMA is not. It does not matter what your views are with regard to my "tail touching" or Lipo safety. I have the liberty to conduct my affairs as I see fit. With that liberty comes the resbonsiblity to see to it that I don't inflict damage on others or their proerty. You and the AMA have every right to express your views. You and the AMA do not have the right to stop me from participating in an activity the doesn't meet with your approval. The AMA has every right to kick me out of the membership. After all it is just a hobby.

[Steve H.]

While there are undoubtably some amongst us who think banging bits of aircraft - besides the wheels - on the ground demonstrates a high level of skill, a surprising number regard this kind of thing as ranging from childish showing off to levels that would, in all probability, bring the wrath of the moderators down on their heads.

Regards

Dereck
And flyig in circles requires skill LOL. Tail touching DOES require lots of skill and the ones who are against it and don't like it are the ones who can't do it and probably never will, so they say it should be against the rules. :rolleyes:

[headless]

cue nailed it... man, it's rough flying in circles. Just yesterday i almost crashed because i cut the 3rd turn a little tight at 150'... oh man, the adrenaline...

[SharksTooth]

Yes, you're probably right.


Now, explain to me what is so way cool about whacking a control surface - usually the rudder, but I'm sure some demigod of 3D can do it with an aileron - into the ground?

Am I missing something?

D

Yes, you're missing something. I nor anybody I know that does 3D "whacks" a control in the ground- not even with a foamie. If you cannot control the plane better than that, you need to get the plane up higher, and practice until you have control over it. *Touching* the rudder is entirely different. If you do not have the skill to touch the rudder, and you attempt it, and fail by banging the rudder into the ground, you should not have attempted it in the first place...just like beginners should not attempt takeoffs and landings until they have mastered the necessary skills. It's pretty common sense stuff to me.

Anybody can bank and yank. I did that for the first 4 years I was in it. :rolleyes: Whew! I hate to look back at those days, because I know that had to be annoying to those around me running around at FAB with the throttle pegged the entire flight with flames shooting out the nitro pipe, bending the prop tips back, and popping glue joints while doing pylon style turns. Nothing wrong with pylon now, I love it, but a Kaos was never designed for pylon, and if you do that day in and day out at the local field while others are flying, it's annoying.

I found that I needed to learn to use that left thumb, and found that it actually moved! Imagine that!?! I could now actually control the plane, and have spent 16 years trying to perfect it. Looks like I'll be spending the rest of my life perfecting it too, but one thing is for sure. I can put the airplane where I want it, when I want it, and that has come from people helping me learn aerobatics, and 3D, listening to them, and practicing things the way they showed me. I've found that the better you can control your plane, in ANY attitude, at ANY airspeed, at ANY altitude, the safer pilot you will become.

[ken_keeler]

...And if batteries bursting into, or even leaking, flames doesn't require a little looking at, I can't think what does. Even if the guy who burned out his Lexus Landcruiser was so inconvenienced that he had to wait until the end of the week to buy another :rolleyes:

Regards

Dereck

Aw Derek - it was actually two weeks later. Had to ride the bus a couple of days even. Seriously thought about a bicycle too. And, I lost several grand on the whole deal. Kinda expensive, imho.

:( :( :(

Ken (the round cell guy)

[JRuggiero]

Let's keep a few things in mind:

AMA can't afford to be cavalier about safety because it provides insurance to its members and to their flying sites. Whether it's "banging the rudder into the ground) or "exploding" Lithium batteries, It's any insurer's obligation to warn its clients about good procedure. Collect a few traffic tickets or make a couple claims on your car insurance and see how quickly your rates increase.

When Dave Brown participated in the Atlantic crossing, it was a well-publicized and specially-organized task. The risk of the airplane's crashing was mitigated by the fact that the chances were extremely high that the crash would occur in the Atlantic Ocean, endangering no one and no property.

The difference between "explode," "burst into flame," or whatever term Brown or anyone else uses is linguistic linguine. They mean the same thing. Furthermore, E-Zoners have document just how violently lithium cells can behave when abused, either in charging or as the result of a crash. To dismiss the problem that lithium technology poses as being no more dangerous than NiCad or NimH is to open the door to carelessness. Many E-Zoners have described charging their packs outdoors in fireproof safes. They don't do this because they are weenies.

As to "liberty." Liberty to behave in any way one pleases is not liberty, it is license. Plenty of people are in prison because they confused the two. Liberty involves limits and responsibilities. This applies to driving a car or flying a model airplane. When you join AMA to get its insurance and to participate in its sanctioned activities, your liberty as a flyer is circumscribed by AMA's concern for safety and good order. If you think you can fly without AMA's insurance, please do so. But don't come onto my club's flying field.

And if you fly in a public park and people complain, don't be surprised if the sheriff comes and demands that you cease and desist. Neither AMA membership, other insurance, or your own sense of liberty can guarantee that you can fly anywhere, anytime, anyhow you please. And don't be surprised if that park is declared forever more off-limits to model airplane flying. It's happened many times and will happen many more.

If you want the license to fly any kind of airplane any way you want, then buy yourself 1,000 acres of desert and have at it. I won't come near you.

Jim R

[echassin]

Derek:

Your anger is palpable, and I wish it weren't so. Your point of view is unfortunately common and can be viewed as reasonable only if care is not taken to analyze what goes on in a 3Der's mind. Our basic premise is that we never know all there is to know, and we are always anxious to learn/discover more. This is a reversal of the traditional "I know how to fly" attitude, in which no further learning takes place year after year.

If one is not capable of 3D flight, one cannot fathom the complexity of the stick inputs, and probably views it as "impossible" to be safe. It probably looks as if the maneuvers are random (like "hotdogging").

The misconception is that we are "banging" the rudder, or are in general reckless. I will admit that I've broken some rudders, and have also crashed doing 3D.

Dangerous? Not at all! They key was the plane was always far away. A good analogy would be combat (which AMA permits) where planes routinely hit each other full throttle and go out of control ("they were WILLFULLY trying to BANG into each other and make their planes EXPLODE into little pieces!!!").

Since I cannot convince naysayers that I'm "safe", I try to let the old age and low turnover of my planes speak for itself.

The guys at my field who are the meanest are usually arrogant know-it-alls who won't/can't do a basic torque roll because "it's not their thing". They seem to have the most frequent and spectacular crashes and have an endless stream of new/repaired planes.

It never seems to be their fault, of course. Just "bad luck", time after time! Wires not ziptied, cracks or flutter not attended to, spars not load tested, aft CGs (how often do I see THAT one?!), lean engines, poor workmanship, or poor stick inputs. THESE are the unsafe flyers, and yet they feel free to criticize others!

Most of us are polite/sympathetic to them after a crash even though the crash was totally preventable and totally their fault. In contrast, they will be mean and LAUGH when we crash, even though we are as heartbroken/embarrassed as when they crash.

IMO, safety comes mainly from admitting one's mistakes, analyzing them, and trying not to repeat them.

Friendship starts with tolerance. Give us a chance, you'll make some 3Der friends and enter a wild new world of fun,

Eric

[Andy Steere]

I think the AMA would try to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide, if they ever learned of its evil (http://www.dhmo.org/).

There are way too many people with the “Chicken Little Syndrome”.

[Viper Pilot]

Hi Derek,
. . . . . Batteries don't "burst into flames"...that's the rhetoric that the AMA has spread. These batteries are like any other. If you don't treat them properly they will vent, and that's is nothing new- it happens with ANY battery, and some like NiMh's do it in a MUCH bigger way. Are they going out making ridiculous claims and issuing scare tactics in spam to people's inboxes who use NiMh's? I haven't seen any such spam. . . . .

Battery that "burst into flame"!! (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=248050)

So much for rhetoric!!!

VP

[SharksTooth]

OK, I forgot, you have to spell everything out for some folks. :rolleyes:

Batteries don't just burst into flames by themselves. They have to be mistreated or mishandled...then you get what was just shown in the pic.

Like I said, this is nothing new. It happens with every battery made. If you don't use things properly, read the directions, and follow them, then bad things happen.

Hmmm, maybe I should charge one of these batteries up at 3C. Those distributors don't know what they're talking about.....rrrrrrrright! :rolleyes:

[J_R]

Dave Brown's column was a defense of previous column. Coincidently, that first column got to the membership at the same time as the AMA advisory written by the "experts" he references. He put out incorrect information the first time, then defends it in his current column.

Here is a video of the overcharging of a Li battery.
http://www.helihobby.com/videos/LithiumBattery.wmv

Now, the point of all this is that it is not enough to read the warnings that accompany Li batteries. Modelers must be made aware that these things need to be treated with respect. For those of you that do treat them correctly, fine.

Last Sunday, at my field, I watched as a friend stuffed his new Li-poly battery down between his car battery and the frame of the car to charge it. When I tried to talk to him about it, he said he had read the warnings and had purchased a good charger and it was not a problem. Short of physically challenging him, there was nothing I could do to change his mind... and he is a friend.

The point is that Dave Brown, or the AMA or the manufacturers or someone has to get the information out to these guys or we are going to have incidents.

Personally, I am more concerned about DB's column with reference to altititude limits. As someone that flew sailplanes in competition for years, I can see where an entire segement of our hobby might disappear, along with free flight. 400 ft of altitude does not get it. Even most jets can't do a loop in that limited space.

[echassin]

It seems that attempts are being made to micro-legislate every aspect of every flight. Any rule has a valid place, and there will also be a place where that same rule will be absurd/useless, so great care should be taken before "forbidding" something.

My beef with people who scrutinize others all the time is that they themselves are not within the rules. None of us are, because many of the rules are impossible to reasonably follow (like the 400 foot altitude rule).

Other rules are so silly I won't follow them. Touching the rudder of my foamie cannot possibly be as dangerous as a jumble of glow-powered combat planes, yet combat is allowed (I'm fine with that), and I'm breaking the rules!!! The contrast is glaring and speaks for a leadership that is out of touch with the masses.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander: If the AMA president flies a plane across the Atlantic out of sight, it is predictable that someone will fly really high. Neither are reasonable, OR both are reasonable. Not one or the other.

Unless you follow every rule perfectly, don't criticize others and, worse, make more rules!!! It just gives the pain-in-necks at local fields more ammo to restrict my flying.

Eric

[headless]

Last Sunday, at my field, I watched as a friend stuffed his new Li-poly battery down between his car battery and the frame of the car to charge it. When I tried to talk to him about it, he said he had read the warnings and had purchased a good charger and it was not a problem. Short of physically challenging him, there was nothing I could do to change his mind... and he is a friend.



If the guy won't listen to you, his friend, he's not going to listen to somebody he doesn't know who breaks their own rules anyway. The guy sounds stubborn and i'm sure the only thing that would change his mind is his car burning to the ground. Then i imagine he'd come around yelling that lipo's are the devil and that the AMA is completely right and they should be banned, even though he ignored the most basic safety precautions you can take.
:rolleyes:

[echassin]

A good friend of mine does the same thing and I can't stop him. Once he left his Triton charging overnight on his car battery and in the morning found it had all been rained on! No fire thank goodness, but I think the charger got ruined.

I guess we only learn after making the mistakes ourselves...Just don't park nearby.

Eric

[headless]

lol, i've left my triton out in the rain about 4 times to no ill effect... but not while charging lipo's... only little AAA GWS batteries ;)

[J_R]

I know I am going to be sorrry for this, but, here goes.

echassin

First, what rule is it that you think you are breaking?
Second, what was it that Dave Brown did you found objectionalbe in the Atlantic crossing?

Oh, and there is no 400 ft rule for now, but, if the FAA makes one there might be. It won't be the AMA that makes such a rule.

headless

Who, in the AMA, do you feel, has suggested banning Li batteries?

[J_R]

If anyone has not seen Dave Brown's post, his column is always in the Model Aviation section on the AMA website. Here is the direct link to his August column

http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/0804/president.htm

[headless]

i don't feel anyone has suggested banning lipo's, yet.

[echassin]

JR:

I like healthy debate, so don't be sorry at all.

I don't have anything at all against ANY aspect of the hobby, including the Atlantic crossing . It was cool. That's my point. It's all cool. Touching the tail is cool (that's the rule I was breaking), combat is cool, fire breathing jets are way cool.

It can all be as safe or as dangerous as you want it to be.

I have a sore spot when it comes to rules because I feel like they are often made by the people who least understand what they're regulating.

When I started doing 3D at my field the reaction was mixed with some very nasty comments and a flurry of rules (ie: restrictions). Most seemed to center around not shaking the status-quo and were thinly disguised with a concern for safety. I admit there was a learning curve on all sides, and this has slowly gotten better as people realize 3D is here to stay, but some still tolerate it at best. To me that's appalling given the progress that has been made and the potential still yet unrealized.

Einstein said something like "Creative spirits always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds", and whether it sounds arrogant or not, that's how I feel.

This ties into Dave's Antlantic crossing: What I object to is that he is pushing the envelope, but has a tone that clearly implies the rest of us should not. That's part of the "what I do is safe, it's YOU GUYS that are ruining it" attitude.

Like I said earlier, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Foamaholic]

From reading of the danger of lipos, I don't charge them in the car and I leave them out of the car and out of the plane after flying them. I transport them in a metal box, and always monitor them while charging them.
As for rudder touches, well, guilty. I do it all the time with my 3DX. Never hurt anyone or the plane yet. I thought it was just part of 3D until I read the column in AMA. I thought maybe I should stop doing it, but haven't yet.

[J_R]

It's not clear to me that everyone is aware of this. The EC deleted the part of rule 9 which forbid tail touches. By the time DB wrote his July column, it was over. Also of interest, and I don't care what DB put in that column, the EC never passed the rule to begin with. Ask your VP if you doubt this. You will get one of two stories. It was never passed, or it was passed as part of a safety report. The second version is fine, until you ask where the vote to accept that safety report is in the EC minutes. It does not exist and never has. I will leave it to you to figure out how the change got into the safety code to begin with.

Taking the other side of the coin for a minute. Maynard Hill was responsible for the Atlantic crossing. ALL Dave Brown did was to land the plane. Maynard is about a million years old. He is mostly blind... has to put dye in the CA so he can glue things. It was his vision, his undertaking, his planes, his plans. ALL DB did was to land the thing and talk to some reporters. Even DB will state that, given the opportunity.

Just for the record, I am not aware of even one person at the AMA that has even suggested banning Li batteries. Educate the AMA membership? YOU BET! Ban 'em... NO WAY.

There is plenty to rag on about the AMA, these points just are not among them.

[Foamaholic]

I like the AMA. I will stay in the AMA. I would hate to get kicked out of the AMA. I fly at an AMA club field.

[Tom Moody]

Personally, I am more concerned about DB's column with reference to altititude limits. As someone that flew sailplanes in competition for years, I can see where an entire segement of our hobby might disappear, along with free flight. 400 ft of altitude does not get it. Even most jets can't do a loop in that limited space.

I have a friend that recently retired from the FAA and he tells me they have advised modelers for years to keep below 400 feet. If more and more people insist on flying a lot higher than that the day will come when the FAA will regulate our hobby and believe me we don't want it to happen.

There seem to be a number of people in our hobby that just don't have any common sense.

Tom Moody

[ctdahle]

It's not clear to me that everyone is aware of this. The EC deleted the part of rule 9 which forbid tail touches. By the time DB wrote his July column, it was over. Also of interest, and I don't care what DB put in that column, the EC never passed the rule to begin with...

The language of rule 9 as printed in the September issue of MA, in the right hand column on page 179, and in bold print to boot is quite interesting. Clearly it's intended to indicate that a tail wheel touch is just fine, but applying the rules of statutory construction, it also tells me that I can drag my rudder on the runway all I want as long as I do it while attempting to land!

"I wasn't trying to do a tail touch your honor, it was just a high alpha landing attempt"

[SharksTooth]

Rule Number 9 has been overturned by the EC. That took place over 3 months ago. Please try to pass the word along. It was a ill conceived rule, and finally folks that were capable of rational thought voted it out. The info concerning this is on the AMA website. This is not...again I reapeat not a rumor, or I 'heard' from a freind of freind of a freind. This has indeed took place.

[J_R]

This link is to the minutes of the April 2004 EC meeting. Motion 3 rolls back the wording in rule 9, effective immediately. It might also be noted that the EC never voted the rule into place to begin with. Write your VP and ask.

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

[J_R]

I have a friend that recently retired from the FAA and he tells me they have advised modelers for years to keep below 400 feet. If more and more people insist on flying a lot higher than that the day will come when the FAA will regulate our hobby and believe me we don't want it to happen.

There seem to be a number of people in our hobby that just don't have any common sense.

Tom Moody
This is the Advisory that was issued by the FAA, clear back in 1981, and it is still an advisory, not a law, not an order.

http://av-info.faa.gov/exit_warning.asp?URL=http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FAA/008920.pdf

[Tom Moody]

That is correct, but, the FAA is concerned that to many are not following the advisory and they may have to start regulating us if they don't start. They have been nice up to now and only asked that we follow there guide lines but if we continue ignoring them then we will have no one to blame but our selves. As POGO said "We have met the enemy and it is us".

This is the Advisory that was issued by the FAA, clear back in 1981, and it is still an advisory, not a law, not an order.

http://av-info.faa.gov/exit_warning.asp?URL=http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FAA/008920.pdf

[J_R]

Hi Tom

The FAA most certainly has a legitimate complaint when models fly in the airspace of full size aircraft. There are, however, some issues the AMA and the FAA need to address, IMHO. As an example, it is very difficult for a turbine to perform a loop using a 400 ft altitude limit. Now, turbines are a very small group within the modeling fraternity. By the same token, thermal duration sailplanes are a much larger segment. The sailplanes try to come off the winch at altitudes approaching 700 ft and the object is to go up from there. It is not at all unusual to find them as a dot in the sky after a couple of minutes. While these practices may not be safe in some instances, such as near a full scale airport, they may be perfectly safe in others.

In my view, if the traditional airspace of models is going to be forfeited, the action needs to be taken by the FAA. Just my opinion here, but, I do not want large segments of the hobby being sacrificed by the AMA. If there is no choice, it would seem to me that such action should only be undertaken by the entire AMA Executive Council, and not by any individual or small group of individuals representing the AMA.

Again, the descriptions by Dave Brown in his recent column, of models flying at 10,000 ft +, is an entirely different issue, and, in my opinion the AMA must do all it can to make certain that flights of this nature are done with FAA waivers. The current definition of a model, supplied by the AMA, is (paraphrased here) an aircraft, not able to carry humans, flown in the line of unaided sight (not uncorrected, such as glasses). It would seem that somewhere in there is room for discussion and reason with the FAA.