WHO DREW that “line in the sand,”
and on what basis did he or she decide
where that line would be?
In our lives, we deal with seemingly
arbitrary and unreasonable boundaries that
limit our activities. The 55 mph speed limit;
mandatory retirement of airline pilots at age
60; you can’t vote until you are 18; you
can’t drive until you are 16; etc.
Rules, rules, rules—all we ever see are
rules. Who decides these things? Why isn’t
it 54 mph, or age 63 for airline retirement?
Why do we need speed limits? Why should
we have any limits at all?
The Executive Council (EC) is faced
with establishing such limits. To say that
is an easy task is wrong.
Those who are not faced with actually
having to make those decisions find it
unimaginable that a group of intelligent
individuals could possibly do so; therefore,
“They must have an ulterior motive. They
must be out to destroy this event. They
didn’t even consult the members.”
I understand the frustration, and I
would even go as far as to say the
majority of activities are conducted in a
reasonable and safe manner.
The members who become vocal in their
opposition are usually the ones who have been
involved in this aspect of the sport, and the
events they have attended have been run safely
and sanely; others are simply jumping on that
bandwagon of having their “rights” trampled on.
In nearly all cases, the problem is one of
perception versus reality and potential.
Ironically, it isn’t the perceptions of the
modelers or the EC that really count in most
of these situations, but the perceptions of
our society at large.
We need to give a lot of thought to what
the public’s reaction will be if we have a
major accident.
I recently received a copy of a picture
from a Los Angeles newspaper, that showed
an aircraft dropping water onto a good-size
fire. After the summer we just had, with the
wildfires in Western part of our country, this
picture wasn’t something out of the ordinary.
At least it wasn’t unusual until you read
the caption, which stated that the fire was
started by a model airplane that had crashed!
Talk about something that gets your
attention!
I never learned or heard any more about
that incident (nor did I think it was prudent
to stir things up by asking for more info
from the media or the authorities), so I don’t
know anything beyond that caption. But the
incident shows the potential for a media
disaster for model aviation.
A freak incident? Certainly.
Could it happen again? Certainly.
The thought of having to deal with the
media attention if the major fires this
summer were connected to aeromodeling is
enough to send a chill up my spine, and it
should have the same effect on each of you.
A few years ago, a newspaper reporter went
around to various flying fields (in the Los
Angeles area) and interviewed modelers for an
article. Apparently he was a nice guy, writing an
article about this great hobby, and the modelers
gave him a lot of good information to work with.
When the article came out, it had all the
extremes of model aviation combined into a
single picture for the reader; it presented the
image of a 55-pound model, which cost as
much as $10,000, being flown at 250 mph at
altitudes up to 27,000 feet, in areas where
airliners pass through on their way into LA
International or other airports.
We all know that model doesn’t exist,
but the numbers are real and they stick in
the minds of the public.
At the time, that description didn’t fit any
single model, but I can think of some now that
are darned close to three of the four
specifications, and only miss the fourth because
no one has tried to fly it as high as it will go!
Everyone seems worried about the
liability cost of an accident. The
concerns often expressed are that we
would lose our insurance or that the
insurance costs would go up.
Although a major incident certainly could
put our insurability in question, the biggest
threat is the media blitz and ensuing legislation,
which could put our activity out of business.
If we are to ensure the future of
aeromodeling, and ensure our ability to
continue enjoying our hobby/sport, we
need to use self-restraint.
I know we might think we should be
able to do whatever we want, but the
reality is that we need to regulate
ourselves now, in order to avoid
someone else regulating us later.
If we can’t come up with reasonable
rules and limits, could you imagine
someone coming up with them for us?
An old friend called me a while back. He
is a longtime, ardent supporter of AMA. His
question was simple: “How do I get a
waiver from the weight limit for my big
event? I have a number of Europeans
coming, and their models might be over the
weight limit of 55 pounds.”
This friend knows about experimental
model specifications and the process to go
through to fly such a model, which may weigh
as much as 100 pounds, but he couldn’t impose
these specifications on the foreign participants.
After a long discussion, I told him I
was not aware of a way to waive that
rule, and he said, “Well, I guess I’ll have
to run the event unsanctioned.”
That is certainly his right; AMA doesn’t
have the power or authority to prevent anyone
from flying anything at any time. The only
authority with that power is the government.
Will the fact that models flown at that event
exceed the AMA weight limit have any effect
on the severity of the potential accident?
Probably not. Nor will that fact reduce the effect
that a serious accident will have on all of us.
If the modelers band together and
democratically elect officials to work with
committees and modelers to draw those lines
in the sand, then aeromodelers step over those
lines, it will show a level of immaturity which
begs for outside regulation.
It is up to all of us to prevent this
from happening. MA
January 2001 5
Dave Brown
AMA president
[email protected]
Talk about
something that
gets your
attention!
President’s Perspective
Dave Brown AMA president
Edition: Model Aviation - 2001/01
Page Numbers: 5
