as a hobby/sport also lays a good
foundation for many careers, not only in
aviation but in many fields. As in the
space program, what we learn through our
activities in aeromodeling will enrich our
lives in areas unrelated to model airplanes.
Just as quitting aeromodeling would
leave a giant hole in our ability to grow
individually in a technological sense,
abandoning the space program would
affect our ability to grow as people. I hope
the space program survives, and that it
will continue to enrich our lives as
humans, as virtually each of the fallen
astronauts related in interviews before
their journey.
We need to allow NASA to find what
caused the problem, fix it, and continue
the quest for knowledge. Let’s not allow
those astronauts to have died in vain.
They would have wanted the program to
continue.
In the last couple of months, I have
written about problems traveling and
transporting models by commercial
airliner, which have been exacerbated by
the increase in security since September
11, 2001. I asked for information from
those who traveled this way, and I’m
pleased to say that most of the reports I’ve
received have been of successful journeys.
In the process of getting input from
concerned modelers, many “theories” of
how to get models onboard have been
mentioned—usually by people who have
never actually traveled by airline with a
model, but all are appreciated.
Several people theorized about what
the “sniffers” were reacting to, and most
of the ideas had already been considered
and dismissed; most of them center on
the fuel residue. One idea triggered a
thought, which might just explain the
AS I WRITE THIS, the official period of
mourning has ended for those lost on the
space shuttle Columbia, and the
investigation to discover the cause of the
accident is just beginning. The seven
astronauts who lost their lives in the
tragedy are heroes. They gave their lives in
the pursuit of scientific knowledge that
will enrich our lives for many generations
to come.
Unfortunately, this tragedy is giving
more impetus to those who would cancel
the space program despite the positive
effect it has had on the quality of life for
all people. I still remember the day, as a
high school student, that I watched as
Allan Shepard became the first United
States astronaut. Heck, I remember
watching Sputnik fly overhead in awe.
To think of the developments that have
resulted from the space program is
overwhelming. I doubt if anything in the
history of man has resulted in more
technological advancements than the space
program. Admittedly, the cost of the space
program is astronomical, and that cost is
not restricted to dollars alone. Lives are
put on the line, and occasionally lost, as
lessons are learned.
When a tragedy of this magnitude
occurs, it is bound to bring out the
naysayers—those who are just waiting for
a tragedy of this sort to capitalize on it and
put a halt to the program. Thinking of the
space program in the short term, and
concentrating on the immediate goals, is
shortsighted.
Most of the benefits of the space
program are the result of the journey rather
than of reaching the destination. Landing
on the moon has actually brought about
little change in our lives, but the journey to
the moon and the development of the “Trip
Tik” have enriched our lives in more ways
than we can count.
In many ways, this program is like our
involvement in aeromodeling. It isn’t
winning a trophy or completing a model
that brings joy and pride, but the one-stepat-
a-time process through the unknown as
we advance toward that goal.
I watched interviews conducted with
several crew members of Columbia. Two
of the astronauts specifically mentioned
flying model airplanes as a part of their
early background in aviation. What we do
Dave Brown AMA president
President’s Perspective
randomness of the alarms.
One member mentioned that he was
told that the sniffers were sensitive to
nitrates. He theorized that it was the
nitromethane in the fuel residue that
caused the problem. Admittedly, the words
nitrate and nitro sound similar, but I don’t
believe there is any technical connection
that would explain the problem. The
nitromethane in the fuel is all burned up or
has evaporated long before you get to the
check-in line, and this wouldn’t explain
the randomness of hits—or would it?
What contains nitrates? Fertilizer does,
but what does fertilizer have to do with our
models? Let’s suppose that our models
were to pick up traces of fertilizer from a
grass field, a lawn, or a farmer’s field in an
off-site landing. Is it possible that would
be enough to trigger the sensors? It’s
possible, and that would explain the
“randomness” of our problems.
Is this the problem? Who knows, but it
certainly could be. If it is, then these
factors should be included in any report of
trouble in transporting models.
I’d like to hear from anyone who has
had, or does encounter, a hit at the sniffer
check for air travel. Please let me know if
this has any possibility of being a culprit.
One sure indication that this is a possibility
would be if a glider triggers the sniffer.
Does anyone out there have any
expertise in the nitrates in fertilizer? I’d
like to know if they dissipate with time,
and what length of time they could be
expected to linger on a model or in a field.
Perhaps there is a period of time after
which the fertilizer is absorbed into the
ground, and nitrates no longer present a
problem in terms of transfer to a model.
Please bear in mind that all of this is
just a theory, and may not prove to be a
factor at all. However, I do not know of
any way to prove or disprove it without
input from the membership.
As president, I’m kind of used to being
told I’m full of “fertilizer,” but I would
never have thought I would have to
consider fertilizer as a potential
transportation problem for modelers! MA
’Til next month …
Dave Brown
AMA president
[email protected]
May 2003 5
Let’s not allow
those astronauts to
have died in vain.
Edition: Model Aviation - 2003/05
Page Numbers: 5
