Poll AMA Member? Please Raise Your Hand Poll

[aeajr]

Originally Posted by GunnyGlow

NO WAY....my dad could totally beat up your dad!!!

Well my Dad can beat up both your Dads. He swings a mean walker, so watch out.

[BillM]

mbundick
Your idea for finding interested people for forming a club should be presented to the AMA for consideration.
I've found that too many hands tend to get in the way. My suggestion about getting those people using a site to form the basic starting point for a club was to preserve a particular site. It takes five members to start the club. Expansion can come later. It's easier to work with a smaller group to get started. As the group grows new ideas can be incorporated into the mix. It is also easier to get together if travel is reuced and since the core members already use the site that shouldn't be a problem.
Spreading the word is easy when you are established.

BM

[littlecrankshaft]

Originally Posted by flieslikeabeagle

Let's review some basic physics.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 m V*V
Potential energy = m g h

Both are exactly equal whether you have 30 pounds of balsa or 30 pounds of bowling ball moving at a given speed at a given height. Density does not enter into either equation.

The only remaining factor is softness or crushability; we all know we'd rather be hit with something soft than something hard. But if you're going to drop 30 lbs on somebody from 600 feet up, there is so much energy involved that it does not matter how soft it is; balsa will crush them to pulp as surely as concrete would.

Oh, I have a few other hobbies myself.

-Flieslikeabeagle

I really have to disagree with your hypothesis on many points. First off, the terminal velocity would be quite different between a bowling ball and a model airplane with a much greater cubic size to weight ratio... Secondly, the chances of hitting the hardest elements of a model is much reduced over that of bowling ball during an impact with either.

You seem to be desperately trying to twist physics here...



Why are you doing that?

[flieslikeabeagle]

Littlecrank - have you noticed how many motor shafts on small parkfliers are broken during a crash? Ever wonder how much force it takes to break a typical 3mm , 4mm, or 5mm steel shaft? And this is with only a pound or two of weight in a low-flying and relatively slow-moving model. What do you think would happen if you scaled up the weight to 30 lbs, the height to 600 feet, and the speed to, say, 75 mph?

As GunnyGlow and aeajr have gently pointed out in posts #120 and 121, we're not going to get anywhere by continuing with this discussion. So I'll stop here, and you, as always, are free to continue to believe whatever you like; even if that includes how safe it is to drop a 30 lb RC model on someone from a few hundred feet high.

Happy and safe flying to you!

-Flieslikeabeagle

[Murocflyer]

I think FLB has us all beat when he starts talking physics. I'd listen to him.

Frank

[flieslikeabeagle]

Thanks, Frank! I'm absolutely not an authority on collision damage, and don't pretend to be. What I'm presenting here is what is called an order of magnitude calculation - a quick estimate that may well be in error by a factor of two or three. But that is still extremely useful to help us get an understanding of what to expect.

As Littlecrank says, there are certainly many variables. If the model hit the ground in a power-on dive, it would be going faster than a bowling ball dropped from the same height (the motor accelerates it), so there would be even more destructive potential than I mentioned before.

If, on the other hand, it entered a flat spin all the way to the ground, it might be moving much slower - let's say it only has as much energy when it hits the ground as two bowling balls dropped from twenty stories high, instead of sixty stories high.

Here's the point: even in this best-case scenario, there is still more than enough energy to crush and splatter a human being, crush in the roof of a car, and so on. So does it really matter exactly how much energy there was, whether it was equivalent to one bowling ball or two, whether 60 stories high, or 50, or only 30? In any event there will be more than enough destructive capability to kill or cause considerable property damage.

In the same way that it doesn't really make much difference to the end result if a person falls out of a 30th story window or a 40th story window, it doesn't make much difference to the end result of crashing a giant-scale model if my crude estimate of energy is off by 2%, or off by 50%. The bottom line is that it's still a potentially lethal amount of energy, many times over, whichever way you look at it.

-Flieslikeabeagle

[littlecrankshaft]

Originally Posted by flieslikeabeagle

Thanks, Frank! I'm absolutely not an authority on collision damage, and don't pretend to be. What I'm presenting here is what is called an order of magnitude calculation - a quick estimate that may well be in error by a factor of two or three. But that is still extremely useful to help us get an understanding of what to expect.

As Littlecrank says, there are certainly many variables. If the model hit the ground in a power-on dive, it would be going faster than a bowling ball dropped from the same height (the motor accelerates it), so there would be even more destructive potential than I mentioned before.

If, on the other hand, it entered a flat spin all the way to the ground, it might be moving much slower - let's say it only has as much energy when it hits the ground as two bowling balls dropped from twenty stories high, instead of sixty stories high.

Here's the point: even in this best-case scenario, there is still more than enough energy to crush and splatter a human being, crush in the roof of a car, and so on. So does it really matter exactly how much energy there was, whether it was equivalent to one bowling ball or two, whether 60 stories high, or 50, or only 30? In any event there will be more than enough destructive capability to kill or cause considerable property damage.

In the same way that it doesn't really make much difference to the end result if a person falls out of a 30th story window or a 40th story window, it doesn't make much difference to the end result of crashing a giant-scale model if my crude estimate of energy is off by 2%, or off by 50%. The bottom line is that it's still a potentially lethal amount of energy, many times over, whichever way you look at it.

-Flieslikeabeagle

Ok...I give...you win...hopefully you will go on to convince many others as well that model aviation is a very risky, perilous, deadly and dangerous thing that we (the manly men) do...thank goodness there are always plenty of people to point that out...

[flieslikeabeagle]

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

Ok...I give...you win...hopefully you will go on to convince many others as well that model aviation is a very risky, perilous, deadly and dangerous thing that we (the manly men) do.

Please note that this is absolutely not what I said. What we usually call the "riskiness" of an activity is the product of two things, the probability of something going wrong, and the severity of the damage when things DO go wrong.

A moving car is a deadly weapon, as thousands of law suits filed each year will attest. But driving a car isn't a particularly risky business, because the probability of killing or injuring someone with your car is low; most of us will thankfully never encounter that situation in our lives. Here the severity of the damage is very high, the probability of an event very low, and the product of the two - the riskiness - is low enough for the vast majority of us to feel comfortable participating in the activity.

Still, because the consequences of things gone wrong are so severe, we take precautions: we have to qualify for a drivers licence, we have to maintain adequate insurance coverage, we have to follow the applicable rules of the local vehicular code, we have to be alert and focussed when we drive, and so on.

It's the same story with model aviation. The consequences of something going severely wrong with a large model are very severe, so we need to be responsibly prepared for that: we need to be insured, careful, follow the safety rules, be alert, and so on. If we do our job right, the probability of having something go disastrously wrong drops way down, so the overall riskiness of the hobby is low.

What I am NOT in favour of is wearing blinders - let's not pretend that large heavy models at high speeds are inherently safe and risk-free. They are not. It's up to us to manage the risks by minimizing the chance of something going wrong. This is part of our job as RC pilots, and if we do our jobs right, the overall activity is very safe.

Littlecrank, just so we understand each other, I'm not trying to attack you or shove my opinion down your throat. Whether you choose to fly uninsured on public land or not is, as always, your decision - but I still think it is better to be fully informed and fully aware of the possible consequences first. If you had never before realized quite how much potentially destructive energy a large RC model plane carries, then you are now in a much better position than you were before, whether or not you are happy about what you now know.

Peace, and happy flying.

-Flieslikeabeagle

[littlecrankshaft]

Originally Posted by flieslikeabeagle

Please note that this is absolutely not what I said. What we usually call the "riskiness" of an activity is the product of two things, the probability of something going wrong, and the severity of the damage when things DO go wrong.

A moving car is a deadly weapon, as thousands of law suits filed each year will attest. But driving a car isn't a particularly risky business, because the probability of killing or injuring someone with your car is low; most of us will thankfully never encounter that situation in our lives. Here the severity of the damage is very high, the probability of an event very low, and the product of the two - the riskiness - is low enough for the vast majority of us to feel comfortable participating in the activity.

Still, because the consequences of things gone wrong are so severe, we take precautions: we have to qualify for a drivers licence, we have to maintain adequate insurance coverage, we have to follow the applicable rules of the local vehicular code, we have to be alert and focussed when we drive, and so on.

It's the same story with model aviation. The consequences of something going severely wrong with a large model are very severe, so we need to be responsibly prepared for that: we need to be insured, careful, follow the safety rules, be alert, and so on. If we do our job right, the probability of having something go disastrously wrong drops way down, so the overall riskiness of the hobby is low.

What I am NOT in favour of is wearing blinders - let's not pretend that large heavy models at high speeds are inherently safe and risk-free. They are not. It's up to us to manage the risks by minimizing the chance of something going wrong. This is part of our job as RC pilots, and if we do our jobs right, the overall activity is very safe.

Littlecrank, just so we understand each other, I'm not trying to attack you or shove my opinion down your throat. Whether you choose to fly uninsured on public land or not is, as always, your decision - but I still think it is better to be fully informed and fully aware of the possible consequences first. If you had never before realized quite how much potentially destructive energy a large RC model plane carries, then you are now in a much better position than you were before, whether or not you are happy about what you now know.

Peace, and happy flying.

-Flieslikeabeagle

I am not sure why you think you need to teach me physics 101 or make me understand the "The consequences of something going severely wrong with a large model".

Had I asked I would have surely given you thanks...I didn't ask.

Whether you wish to believe it or not I have a good grasp of the potential ramifications of mass put into motion, long before this exercise.


Either way, I think consistently stating worse case scenarios is harmful in the long run.


The hobby's outstanding safety record, as a whole, has proven those that participate do understand the potential risks very well. Since AMA membership provides no proficiancy qualifications to join, that contention can be furthered evidenced in the inexpensive insurance AMA makes available to us.

I truly believe most of us make good choices as it relates to safety. Of course it is an easy argument to make the assertion "it would be more safe if"...unplug all electrical devices in your shop and assume the embryonic position in the corner.

Hey let's try something new...Let's find more ways to put model aviation in the best light possible. Hmmm...Let's just say...err... I would rather be hit by a falling #15 model airplane than a bowling ball...Dang, that bowling stuff is just plain dangerous I tell ya Before long we might have some abandoned bowling alleys to fly our indoor models.

[Marcinb]

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

Hey let's try something new...Let's find more ways to put model aviation in the best light possible. Hmmm...Let's just say...err... I would rather be hit by a falling #15 model airplane than a bowling ball...Dang, that bowling stuff is just plain dangerous I tell ya Before long we might have some abandoned bowling alleys to fly our indoor models.

Nah..... Let's say the government is releasing mind control devices into the air. Obviously most people would believe us, causing them to stay inside without ever going out. Think of all the space we would have to fly!
No crowded parks! Nothing!
Let's do it!

[k5lwq]

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

I am not sure why you think you need to teach me physics 101 or make me understand the "The consequences of something going severely wrong with a large model".

Had I asked I would have surely given you thanks...I didn't ask.

Whether you wish to believe it or not I have a good grasp of the potential ramifications of mass put into motion, long before this exercise.


Either way, I think consistently stating worse case scenarios is harmful in the long run.


The hobby's outstanding safety record, as a whole, has proven those that participate do understand the potential risks very well. Since AMA membership provides no proficiancy qualifications to join, that contention can be furthered evidenced in the inexpensive insurance AMA makes available to us.

I truly believe most of us make good choices as it relates to safety. Of course it is an easy argument to make the assertion "it would be more safe if"...unplug all electrical devices in your shop and assume the embryonic position in the corner.

Hey let's try something new...Let's find more ways to put model aviation in the best light possible. Hmmm...Let's just say...err... I would rather be hit by a falling #15 model airplane than a bowling ball...Dang, that bowling stuff is just plain dangerous I tell ya Before long we might have some abandoned bowling alleys to fly our indoor models.

Let's build a canon to fire a 30 pound bowling ball at 80 mph into one side of the bowling alley and fly a 30 pound model at 80 mph into the other side and compare the two! What fun!

[flieslikeabeagle]

You guys are funny.

-Flieslikeabeagle

[Murocflyer]

Checking the numbers.

Frank

[dag214]

Originally Posted by cavier

i don't think AMA is worth the paper it is printed on.
they are a manopoly and a rip off.
if you want to join a model airplane club and fly model airplanes .
you MUST join AMA other wise you can't join that club.
i had my first ama card in 1960 swo i have been around a while.
few ywars back the dues went from 48.00 a year to 58.00 a year.
the powers to be never gave us any warning just upped the dues with no say so from the members at all.
the pres Dave Brown said increase was due ti ins premium going up.
now at that time there was 180000 members.
now that is 1.8 million nomatter what way you look at it.
i realy don't believe the ins jumped 1.8 million
never again.
Cavier

Sorry for not looking at the dates, I thought this was new. Thanks Frank for everything you are trying to do with the hobby and AMA.

I love people that hate the AMA, but what I love is that it is such a very small group.

I am sure you voted "NO". But what I really find funny is no matter what you say about the AMA good or bad I have never had a bad time at a AMA club event. Those that I have met that joined the AMA and is a member has at least has crowd of friends that fly with them, and they all seem to get a long. The only person I know that hates the AMA personally has no friends, and seems that no one can stand the guy. The AMA is not perfect, but today there is not that much that is. If you don't like something don't bash it, speak up and help.

I am sure you have a bunch of friends, and I am sure if they listen to you they will also hate the AMA, but what may I ask is there really to hate? It is still less money for one year than taking the whole family out to a movie and ice cream .

DAG

[littlecrankshaft]

Originally Posted by dag214

Sorry for not looking at the dates, I thought this was new. Thanks Frank for everything you are trying to do with the hobby and AMA.

I love people that hate the AMA, but what I love is that it is such a very small group.

I am sure you voted "NO". But what I really find funny is no matter what you say about the AMA good or bad I have never had a bad time at a AMA club event. Those that I have met that joined the AMA and is a member has at least has crowd of friends that fly with them, and they all seem to get a long. The only person I know that hates the AMA personally has no friends, and seems that no one can stand the guy. The AMA is not perfect, but today there is not that much that is. If you don't like something don't bash it, speak up and help.

I am sure you have a bunch of friends, and I am sure if they listen to you they will also hate the AMA, but what may I ask is there really to hate? It is still less money for one year than taking the whole family out to a movie and ice cream .

DAG

Hmmm...I don’t think it is about the money so much and it is kind of repulsive when rendered to that factor for most people. We aren't helping by saying those types of things IMO. I think more often people feel AMA is being pushed upon them and the natural reaction is to jerk and run when the AMA religious fanatics are nothing more than the church police to them…consequently many never get a chance to see inside…

FWIW I have been labeled an AMA basher by the "great....."oh well, never mind... but nothing could be further from the truth. I have brought more people to the hobby and the AMA than the average but I think it is important that it is not just some pie in the sky fluff BS to get them there... Even though AMA is a membership organization with some very good benefits we need to accept AMA is not the answer to everything model aviation related. There are real limits and as with all big organizations some adverse reactions as well (PPP is a great example). Most of the adverse conditions are brought on by AMA's own self awareness and the resultant self preservation devices, if not via greed itself ...unfortunately the results often are not in their favor.


So, let’s keep on brow beating and trying to force feed people AMA and let’s see how that works out for us.