DAVE MATHEWSON more info please

From Frank:

Hello Dave, I just wanted to contact you, and hear your opinions about one or two things.

Many AMA pilots are unhappy with one or the other of the newer rules. The turbine pilots dislike the speed rules, the giant scale guys don't want to worry about weight limits, and 3D pilots are up in arms about the additional wording added to rule #9 banning tail touching. Many of us, from various interest groups, have been asking for less restriction in the rulings, or simply the elimination of the rule in contestation.

I am specifically interested in hearing your thoughts on the Rule #9. First off, the rule was changed in the spring or summer of last year, I believe, and many pilots were not aware of the change until the new membership information was being delivered. As a matter of fact, I renewed my membership this January, via Internet, and the safety code I had to agree to did not include the rule change. It was not a good implementation at all.

This safety rule in actuality isn't even about safety. The Rule #9 is, as many of our rules are, actually about liability. It's not about keeping anyone safe from an airplane at all, only safe from a lawyer. The "reasoning" that I'm hearing from Dave Brown includes lots of, "Could you convince a jury that your actions were reasonable," "testifying in front of someone's widow," and all sorts of fantastic and terrifying fiction of the like. This is a ridiculous attempt to defend a rule that simply does not belong. Dave Brown even agreed with me that adding "Safety Rules" everytime a liability issue came up was a poor way of handling it, but he was not able to, or willing to, come up with any other solution. Dave even told me that all I had to do was extend the tail wheel beyond the rudder and touch the wheel all I wanted. To me, that sounds like Dave is giving me advice on how to use semantics to circumvent the intention of the rule. Maybe it would just be OK for me to call a touch and go, then tail touch? After all, a touch and go does include a landing, so calling touch and go renders the rule moot, right? Sure, there are lots of ways to find loop holes, but really now. How important of an issue is it, if Dave Brown himself is telling me how to "get around it".

Simply put, here it is. There are several groups getting organized to support the 3D pilots. I'm a member of three of them. We have been going back and forth with Dave about this rule, and it's like talking to a brick wall. We are now looking for a candidate that will run against Dave in the coming year that we can back 100%. Many of us are already campaigning against Dave, with no suggestion of whom to put in his place. Please let me know what you think about the whole rule #9 issue, so that I can forward your thoughts to our groups. At present, that would account for over 1000 AMA voters. I cannot promise you any votes, of course, but I can put your words in front of many very unhappy pilots.

Are you the guy that we are looking for to help us with this?
Frank Brumbeloe

Well, I got a very positive reply from Dave M. I won't bother to post the whole thing. Here are the main points.

First, he said all kinds of BAD stuff about Billy. (OK, just kidding.) He did say right after he got back from Toledo where he met our fearless leader, he joined the ProBros to see what we are up to and what we are all about.

He said he doen't generaly participate in forums except the Dist 2 forum. We all can understand that, just go look at the AMA forum on RCU!! BUT.....he said he would be willing to talk to us here if we keep it "professional", meaning of course we can't call names and make stupid charges. I think if he was kind enough to come on here, we should give him extra respect as we will never see annother VP do that!!!!

He also said he wasn't decided on running. All I can hope is that if he is in our corner, he will decide to run knowing we are behind him.

Lastly, he made this statement: "...if you're looking for someone who endorses throwing all safety concerns out the window at the expense of all of our 170,000 members then I'm probably not the person you're looking for. What I will do is be open-minded and will listen and try to work together with you to find a solution we can all live with ..." Now that's a fair staement if I ever heard one. WE are forever being acused of wanting "no rules" but we all know that's BS. We just don't want the AMA making rules that have no safety basis, and just affect 3D. I noticed at all the ProBro events I've been at that there actually were rules, just not complicated ones, and many not even spoken.

Well, here's what I suggest. dave152 is his screen name here, and he said he would be checking the forums. Why don't we start a thread (after this weekends EC meeting) to ask some questions. We could carry on a short dialouge (Hey, he's a busy guy, let's not expect him to be here every day for 6 months) where we can learn his stand on 3D and AMA rules in general.

Way to go Gordo! I got a very similar letter from him. I read into it this way. I do not see him pushing really hard to remove all of the rules regulating flight that are liability rules, and not actual safety rules. I do see him in support of a better decision regarding rule #9, that might include rewording the rule to allow tail touching under certain conditions. Distances might be an option, I guess we need to decide just how far is too far. Do I want to see a 40% Cap hovering as close as I like to see a 10 ounce foamy, no. Are there some polits that can safely hover that close, yes. My point to him is to let a majority rule handle this kind of issue.

Frank wrote:
Dave, thanks for the reply. I'd have to say that I'm not a person who looks forward to a day where anarchy rules anything. I believe in safety and in rules. I have always policed my club field for pilots who put others, or property at risk. Most pilots think as I do.

What we (Pro Bros, Save3D, and International 3D) want is to make certain that a very small group of people can't simply "outlaw" a maneuver or flying style. There are far worse dangers in model aviation than a tail touch, but because someone made a hypothetical case for the dangers and liabilities surrounding the tail touch, it is now considered a safety (liability) hazard. We want is a President that will not try to "guilt trip" us into supporting the rule with hypothetical situations that read like an old Perry Mason cross examination. The rule is without merit as a safety rule. Perhaps a better solution is to do like other insurance policies do, and have a listing of exclusions that are simply not covered, and a list of behaviors that can cause denial of benefit. Beyond that, perhaps we need some attempt at educating pilots about the possible dangers of losing a lawsuit in court.

I believe that if a pilot is demonstrating unsafe behavior that someone should put a stop to it. I do not care if it is something as simple as reaching around the prop to remove a glow driver, or as blatant as landing in the pit area, issues must be responded to, but it should be done locally. If a club says no 3D, due to safety concerns, then so be it. If a club says no two strokes, because of noise issues, so be it. If a club says only hand launch scale gliders from the 1930s, made only from drinking straws and paper bags, then I'm OK with that too, as long as the majority rules, and the AMA stays out of it. The AMA has no place micro managing a member's every maneuver.

If you can come up with a workable solution, that does not include over regulating the fun right out of flying, then you are the guy, and we would like to see you run against Dave Brown. Some Pro Bros already have "Down with Dave Brown, Vote Dave Mathewson for AMA President" in their post signatures.

You already sound more open minded than Dave Brown. Drop into the Pro Bro forums (dave152) and answer a few questions for us. You may find the support you need to decide to run.