The Profile Brotherhood RC Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
You decide:

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

This is my take on this fabulously contrived statement from Dave:

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

I just hate somebody trying to make an empirical argument regarding something that bugs him, when the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made over something a lot more common, yet equally "indefensible" in court.

I guess I just hate idiots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
The rule is moot! The argument to defend it is moot! Dave Brown is moot!

The thing that bugs me the most is the whole widow thing. What a crock of crap! Is there any behavior, other than perhaps the attempt to save the life of another, that would be considered a reasonable act in such a lawsuit? At least from the widow's point of view? Dave Brown is full of crap, and the 3D community has picked up their shovels to go clean up Muncie.

We are down to NO TIME LEFT to make ourselves heard. Everyone should E-mail or call your District VP TODAY to make it clear to them that the motion needs to return to discussion and be resolved in a manner that is fair to all. E-mail Dave Brown to tell him to pack his bags, it's only polite to warn him... 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Well done Chuck. Will you send that to Dave Brown? It would really be fun to see his reaction. Send it with a tile like "Very concerned about overpowered aircraft" and without any reference to the rule 9. He will flip!!!

It's time for change in Muncie, or time to forget about the AMA all together. Since we know the latter isn't gonna happen, we may as well fix the broke system. It's obviously NOT OUR AMA!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
Maybe we should reword this to several extents. Maybe "extreme tension" on a high start causing glider wings to fold? Is that reasonable? Is flying at full power ever reasonable, or could you have flown at a more reasonable power setting and perhaps avoided this tragedy? Too much tension on the rubberband powering your Gullows free flight plane could cause a catestrophic failure and perhaps put an eye out, why did you intentionally continue to wind that prop, knowing the risk involved? Could you convince a jury, in front of someone's widow that you were being reasonable at that time?

Is it reasonable to fly model airplanes at all, when there is so much pain and suffering in the world? People are starving in...

Oh well maybe we just need to send BD packin'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Oh, you could apply it to about any aspect of model aviation, same words, just replace the key phrases. The 2 that come to mind are kit hardware replacement and kit bashing. Something we all do to some extent (just like the engine thing), and if put to the test in a court of law would no doubt be just as much a liability.

When you read my "oversized engine" version, it makes every bit as strong a statement as Dave was attempting with his "tail touching" version..

I'll bet a nickle that sometime during his hobby career, Dave has placed a larger than recommended engine in a plane.

I want a detailed structural analysis, preferrablty Finite Element Analysis, of this mod. I want a written statement as to why it was deemed necessary.

Nah..I don't. Could not care less.

Just pointing out the path he's heading down. If you start applying "what if" to every facet of the hobby, complete with widows and lawyers, you have just doomed the hobby for anybody not able to prove their case in a court of law. If you can't prove every glue joint, every structural aspect, every point and particular about your plane, you will have to hang it up.

That is the extrapolation of the "what if" argument.

And Dave Brown started us down that path.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
I guess "what ifs" need attention, if there is sufficient or reasonable evidence that there is some fairly immediate threat.

For example, imagine you are sitting at the 50 yard line of the Super Bowl. The game is ready to begin, Janet Jackson has her shirt off, and then some bone head thinks, "What if there is a bomb in the stadium?" Does the Super Bowl just stop, or does some slightly more reasonable mind say, "Is there any reason to believe that there is?"

The AMA is being controlled by folks with no respect to the more reasonable mind. Is there any reason to believe that the airplane with it's rudder on the ground is going to kill someone and end up in court?

Nevermind reality, just get the stadium empty and tell everyone, here and at home watching TV, that the Super Bowl will only be played once all spectators are safe at home and the stadium has been dismantled. We wouldn't want to kill someone and get sued or anything, right? Who cares how many people we put out, as it's all for the greater good of the world that we impose our will on this very small percentage of the population. Don't worry that we are doing this just because someone created a fantasy of danger, and we have no proof it even exists...

Yeah, that makes loads of sense Dave Brown. Good call!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Too much tension on the rubberband powering your Gullows free flight plane could cause a catestrophic failure and perhaps put an eye out, why did you intentionally continue to wind that prop, knowing the risk involved? Could you convince a jury, in front of someone's widow that you were being reasonable at that time?
That's too funny Tailtwister.

I really resent being treated like I'm not responsible enough to decide how low I should let my model get.

They aren't exactly cheap for one thing. I don't like repairs. If I break it, I'm the one that will have to fix it.
I don't want to get hit with an airplane, that could be really painful. But I would feel even worse if I hit and hurt someone else.

I fully intend to keep practicing my hovering and tr'ing until I can touch the tail however. Safely, 1 mistake high, over a nice soft bean feild.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,109 Posts
We need to start a thread on RCU in the AMA forum with all of our thoughts. We could copy and paste what we have so far. We need to light a fire under everyones ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I think you got a point there Billy! The guys have been fighting this here and on the pro bro forum very hard. But I think we need to go strike where it matters! I'm not a great addition to the army in this but i'd love to help where I can! Numbers is gonna make the difference here and we all know this. Lets get a forum going with like 100 000 views and 2000 posts. That'll spark a fire!

I hope i'm on the right track?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
BillyHell said:
We need to start a thread on RCU in the AMA forum with all of our thoughts. .
I hate that forum. Those Commies can't have a decent conversation without crying for mamma! That's the only place I've ever blocked a poster (Kevin Greene) :roll: . If you bring this up there, all you'll hear is Jim Braunum and Horrace Cain, and JR, and Easy Tiger, all telling you why you shouldn't have to tail touch. :roll: The'll all get red faced and cry about how right Dave B is and how we are the problem with the world. You'll just stir up hate and Discontent!

:twisted: LET'S DO IT!!!!!!! :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,118 Posts
my .02. was posted
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top