Joined
·
6,826 Posts
Frank wrote:
Again I am e-mailing the three of you to reiterate my disapproval of the wording of rule #9 regarding the "tail touch" maneuver. I think the rule singles out 3D pilots and is not fair.
Again, I believe that this rule, posted as a safety rule, is 100% about liability. I believe that there should be a set of true safety rules to help minimize the most common safety oversights, and also a set of "liability eliminators." A pilot not following the "liability eliminators" part of the rules will render their liability policy null for any damages as caused by the non-covered behaviors. Perhaps a pilot preparing for, or participating in, a contest or demonstration could waive their liability policy at that time as well, or pay a reasonable fee for a "non-covered maneuver" policy for a short time. Perhaps $10 for 90 days or so. This way, the excitement of 3D flight can be demonstrated to the public to draw the public to learn about our hobby.
I do not believe that the AMA is right in the way it is now micro managing it's members. I believe that if a club, with a majority vote, says that certain flight behaviors, type of aircraft, sound levels, or speeds are not allowable, then fine. Majority rules, and so be it. I do not believe that it is the place of the AMA to set up any rules like this.
Please do bring this issue to a vote, and remove the wording that eliminates the tail touch, and singles out a small group of pilots for no apparent reason.
Response from DB
Gentlemen:
I understand your displeasure with rule #9, but you have not considered why it is necessary.
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 an aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a rudder cable break, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail oun, 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
Frank wrote:
Dave, I'm sorry this is such an issue for us all. I've heard dozens of "what ifs", and still feel like we are cutting off our nose despite our face.
Personally, especially after reading your response, feel like a Safety Code should be about safety, and not about liability. I'm sure that I'm not alone. I recently read that the most common accident was still prop injuries during, or immediately following, engine start up. Where are the rules regulating start up procedure? There are none, of course. The most common safety issue, and there are no rules regarding hand starts, aircraft restraints, or kill switches. We try to govern this by informing and educating pilots. Perhaps a column in Model Aviation could be devoted, monthly, to keeping safe and non-liable. That would be a more acceptable, in my opinion, approach to stopping these liability infractions than just making safety rule changes.
Could I convince any number folks that a rudder isn't necessary? Maybe, but who cares. Is there a rule saying that all aircraft must be complete with the ability to be controlled independently in all three axis of rotation? Nope. Some aircraft are built and flown with no accommodations for various controls, even throttle. Could I convince a jury that building and flying a model aircraft with no ability to control it's flight path or speed was a reasonable and safe practice? Maybe not, so good bye free flight. The "what ifs" won't sell. You can't single out 3D pilots about the possibility of loss of control (causing suit), when a great number of modelers create models with the sole intent on not having any control to begin with.
So, I guess I'm not disputing that the issue needs a resolution, but just popping a rule into the safety code every time someone "discovers" a liability issue is not the answer. I look forward to a better solution from my EC.
Thanks for your time,
More later...
Again I am e-mailing the three of you to reiterate my disapproval of the wording of rule #9 regarding the "tail touch" maneuver. I think the rule singles out 3D pilots and is not fair.
Again, I believe that this rule, posted as a safety rule, is 100% about liability. I believe that there should be a set of true safety rules to help minimize the most common safety oversights, and also a set of "liability eliminators." A pilot not following the "liability eliminators" part of the rules will render their liability policy null for any damages as caused by the non-covered behaviors. Perhaps a pilot preparing for, or participating in, a contest or demonstration could waive their liability policy at that time as well, or pay a reasonable fee for a "non-covered maneuver" policy for a short time. Perhaps $10 for 90 days or so. This way, the excitement of 3D flight can be demonstrated to the public to draw the public to learn about our hobby.
I do not believe that the AMA is right in the way it is now micro managing it's members. I believe that if a club, with a majority vote, says that certain flight behaviors, type of aircraft, sound levels, or speeds are not allowable, then fine. Majority rules, and so be it. I do not believe that it is the place of the AMA to set up any rules like this.
Please do bring this issue to a vote, and remove the wording that eliminates the tail touch, and singles out a small group of pilots for no apparent reason.
Response from DB
Gentlemen:
I understand your displeasure with rule #9, but you have not considered why it is necessary.
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 an aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a rudder cable break, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail oun, 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
Frank wrote:
Dave, I'm sorry this is such an issue for us all. I've heard dozens of "what ifs", and still feel like we are cutting off our nose despite our face.
Personally, especially after reading your response, feel like a Safety Code should be about safety, and not about liability. I'm sure that I'm not alone. I recently read that the most common accident was still prop injuries during, or immediately following, engine start up. Where are the rules regulating start up procedure? There are none, of course. The most common safety issue, and there are no rules regarding hand starts, aircraft restraints, or kill switches. We try to govern this by informing and educating pilots. Perhaps a column in Model Aviation could be devoted, monthly, to keeping safe and non-liable. That would be a more acceptable, in my opinion, approach to stopping these liability infractions than just making safety rule changes.
Could I convince any number folks that a rudder isn't necessary? Maybe, but who cares. Is there a rule saying that all aircraft must be complete with the ability to be controlled independently in all three axis of rotation? Nope. Some aircraft are built and flown with no accommodations for various controls, even throttle. Could I convince a jury that building and flying a model aircraft with no ability to control it's flight path or speed was a reasonable and safe practice? Maybe not, so good bye free flight. The "what ifs" won't sell. You can't single out 3D pilots about the possibility of loss of control (causing suit), when a great number of modelers create models with the sole intent on not having any control to begin with.
So, I guess I'm not disputing that the issue needs a resolution, but just popping a rule into the safety code every time someone "discovers" a liability issue is not the answer. I look forward to a better solution from my EC.
Thanks for your time,
More later...
