Discussion New Safety, Field & Conduct rule proposal!!!!

[techspy]

Ok, so what rule or exclusion of a rule would you guys like to be changed? I am having a bit of a hard time figuring out what parts need to be changed? Can you give specifics?

For example, would it be a good idea to have an exception such as;

As long as no other planes are in the air, a pilot may fly from the runway itself and perform any type of 3d maneuvers at any distance to him/herself?

[CStick Rick]

Richard,

Can you give a specifice example of a rule that has changed as you mention. I am not aware of such a situation. We have not had any rule changes in quite some time. Thanks for your input.

[goliathman]

The rules look fine. One minor change in rule 13:

13. Any member has the right/responsibility to point out violations of these rules to the person committing the violation.

My suggestion:

13. Any member has the right/responsibility to point out violations of these rules to the person committing the violation AFTER the offending pilot has landed safely unless the infraction poses an immediate danger to the other pilots or spectators.

My idea here is that screaming at the pilot while he is still in the air ,or walking up to the offending pilot and chewing him out while he is still flying after a non threatening infraction, is a safety infraction in and of itself.


I like the idea of not impounding 2.4 gig.

P.S. Joe Nall will be 2.4 gig only starting next year.

[techspy]

Originally Posted by goliathman

The rules look fine. One minor change in rule 13:

13. Any member has the right/responsibility to point out violations of these rules to the person committing the violation.

My suggestion:

13. Any member has the right/responsibility to point out violations of these rules to the person committing the violation AFTER the offending pilot has landed safely unless the infraction poses an immediate danger to the other pilots or spectators.

My idea here is that screaming at the pilot while he is still in the air ,or walking up to the offending pilot and chewing him out while he is still flying after a non threatening infraction, is a safety infraction in and of itself.


I like the idea of not impounding 2.4 gig.

P.S. Joe Nall will be 2.4 gig only starting next year.

Very good point. I will make the suggestion to specify doing so after the pilot has landed safely.

Speaking of 2.4, I just finished converting all my models to 2.4 and just put all my 72mhz stuff up for sale. So much better using 2.4.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Pilotdale]

John 3:16 Never Changes...

[Chernoble]

Let's add:

3c. No Smoking in the pit area.

With the growth of gasoline powered aircraft, smoking in the pits is dangerous...

[techspy]

Originally Posted by Chernoble

Let's add:

3c. No Smoking in the pit area.

With the growth of gasoline powered aircraft, smoking in the pits is dangerous...

I will make the suggestion. Thanks!

[Chernoble]

6a & i should be renumbered 7. By adopting these as written don't we ban running engines in the pits? I propose we have a limit of 1/4 throttle or less in the pit area to allow work to be performed on engines without having to move the aircraft to the run-up area.

Run-up Areas:

Define these as areas where all types of aircraft can be run at full throttle or less. These should be established on the "Taxi Area" on the runway side of the barrier or fence. This will provide a measure of protection for the pit and spectator areas. This will not apply to engine test stands.

[HOLLYWOOD III]

Originally Posted by CStick Rick

Richard,

Can you give a specifice example of a rule that has changed as you mention. I am not aware of such a situation. We have not had any rule changes in quite some time. Thanks for your input.

RICK

NOT RULE CHANGES, BUT WE ADD RULES REGULARLY.
I THINK IT IS MORE OF A PERSONAL PROBLEMS THAN WE NEED A NEW RULE.
IF THE PEOPLE WOULD JUST ASK, THEY WOULD GET WHAT THEY WANT,
IN MOST CASES.

EVERYONE IN MOST CASES ARE REASONABLE!

RICHARD

[techspy]

Originally Posted by Chernoble

6a & i should be renumbered 7. By adopting these as written don't we ban running engines in the pits? I propose we have a limit of 1/4 throttle or less in the pit area to allow work to be performed on engines without having to move the aircraft to the run-up area.

Run-up Areas:

Define these as areas where all types of aircraft can be run at full throttle or less. These should be established on the "Taxi Area" on the runway side of the barrier or fence. This will provide a measure of protection for the pit and spectator areas. This will not apply to engine test stands.

Thanks for the feedback!

Here is what thinking went into this....

First a re-cap of operations at the Little Field. There were many times that planes were started, with or without following good safety rules, that were pointed at the backs of many people at the fence. Some of these were pilots that were flying and would not be able to turn around to see the situation.

Also, even though there were plenty of signs saying AMA members only beyond The fence (in the pits), there are many times that spectators, family members etc went into that area. If you were at the Cub Scouts Day, you would have seen hundreds of people in the pits that were in violation of that rule/sign.

The thought was that the pits should be open to adults and supervised children. This way they can get a close up look at the planes etc. and family members and friends can be involved with your activities if you like. But then you have the safety issue. So, the thinking was that the pits be more open, but we specify places that are off limits to everyone but AMA members, such as the start up area where you would have your plane in the taxi way and ready to go to the runway to fly, or on a run-up bench where you would be testing, troubleshooting etc. This was conceived with a somewhat vague idea of what the field layout will look like. See attached photo.

As for the 1/4 throttle idea, I personally don't think that would work. For one, it is to easy for people to blip the throttle either intentionally or unintentionally. Also, the biggest threat from running motors is when the throttle does something that is not commanded to do like from radio interference, a lean out, or short with the electrics.

The attached photo is just an idea of what the field layout would look like. I think the actual layout will be decided on at the next meeting. So, having said that, we may need to re-think the whole idea of running engines in the pits, run-up tables etc. So this is definitely not set in stone and any constructive ideas of alternatives are welcome.

[Pilotdale]

Rules Rules Rules !!! When do we fly ??

[Chernoble]

Originally Posted by techspy

Thanks for the feedback!

Here is what thinking went into this....

First a re-cap of operations at the Little Field. There were many times that planes were started, with or without following good safety rules, that were pointed at the backs of many people at the fence. Some of these were pilots that were flying and would not be able to turn around to see the situation.

Also, even though there were plenty of signs saying AMA members only beyond The fence (in the pits), there are many times that spectators, family members etc went into that area. If you were at the Cub Scouts Day, you would have seen hundreds of people in the pits that were in violation of that rule/sign.

The thought was that the pits should be open to adults and supervised children. This way they can get a close up look at the planes etc. and family members and friends can be involved with your activities if you like. But then you have the safety issue. So, the thinking was that the pits be more open, but we specify places that are off limits to everyone but AMA members, such as the start up area where you would have your plane in the taxi way and ready to go to the runway to fly, or on a run-up bench where you would be testing, troubleshooting etc. This was conceived with a somewhat vague idea of what the field layout will look like. See attached photo.

As for the 1/4 throttle idea, I personally don't think that would work. For one, it is to easy for people to blip the throttle either intentionally or unintentionally. Also, the biggest threat from running motors is when the throttle does something that is not commanded to do like from radio interference, a lean out, or short with the electrics.

The attached photo is just an idea of what the field layout would look like. I think the actual layout will be decided on at the next meeting. So, having said that, we may need to re-think the whole idea of running engines in the pits, run-up tables etc. So this is definitely not set in stone and any constructive ideas of alternatives are welcome.

Your attached diagram is nowhere close to the AMA's Recommended RC Flying Site Specifications which we used to stake out our new field. This layout was presented the membership at a previous meeting. There were no objections. Here is the link to the diagram:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx document 706

It's apparent Giant scale aircraft were not considered when this section of the proposal was developed.

[techspy]

I guess I should have specified that my drawing was not to scale. Other than that I thought I was very clear that this was a loose representation of the field and that it is my understanding that the final version will be decided on at the next meeting. In other words, whatever members are at the meeting will decide the layout, not me.

The main idea I was trying to pass along was that it was possible to have a engine free pit area and have convenient places for engine run-up that are safe. When we were planning our first rules meeting I noted that we would need to have at least a rough idea of what the field layout was going to be. I wasn't able to get one so we went from what we could remember about the preliminary drawing we saw that Rick provided at the meeting in which we were first told about the lease on the new land.

As far as I can tell, the document you are referring to is a map of the actual field at the AMA. Are you saying the club voted to make our field layout like the AMA field? If so, my apologies, I missed that. The only field recommendation I know of was the one Rick brought to the meeting which was designed before the land was even prepped. I don't remember a vote on the field layout at that meeting, so I must have missed the meeting you are referring to. There will certainly be much more work and money involved in the construction and setup of the new field if the document you referred to is what the club has decided to build. In any case, please be sure to bring that up at the next meeting. There is no need for us to devote time to a field layout discussion if it has already been decided and voted on.

Anyway, if you have a recommendation for the rules that you would like to put forward, please do. If you would like to be able to run engines up to 1/4 throttle anywhere in the pits, I will be glad to forward that as an amendment to the proposed rules. Or, you are more than welcome to make that recommendation at the next meeting along with any changes that will be more conducive to giant scale.

Thanks for your input!

[Pilotdale]

All this excitment and replies.. over RULES...

ALL you have to do is USE COMMON SENSE when it comes to Flying...

Yall Babbling like a buch of Women over RULES !!!

[techspy]

Once again you provide a helpful response Dale....NOT!

Up until now I have just been ignoring your juvenile responses and posts, but it is time to comment....

Ok Dale, you are right, we will just say anything goes and have no recourse for someone doing something stupid and putting someone in danger. Have fun waiting in the emergency room.

I wish you wouldn't have resorted to name calling. In adds a whole new dimension to your useless posts.

Actually, I vote for Dale to be king of the club! he seems to have an answer for everything!

I have had it. Good luck with your new flying site guys.

Silly me for trying to do something to help the club...what was I thinking!