and well-timed effort to overturn this rule.
I’m receiving a significant number of Emails
from “concerned” modelers who want
to see this rule abandoned. How effective the
campaign has been will be seen at the EC
meeting, but I think it’s important for the
membership to understand the reasoning
behind the rule.
Those who are affected by this rule are
involved in 3-D flying, particularly those
who want to demonstrate their skills by
touching the rudder to the ground while
hovering a fixed-wing model.
This isn’t primarily a safety issue. Many
will find this surprising, but I do not think
there is a significant safety concern with
hovering. To understand the reasoning
behind the rule, let’s consider the idea of
liability control (reduction). Perhaps it might
be called risk management, but it involves
more than simply safety.
Safety is certainly a large part of risk
management but there are other aspects
which expand the concept of liability
control. Generally safety tends to
concentrate on reduction of accidents
involving people getting hurt, with lesser
focus on property damage.
As the saying used by some corporations
goes, “Safety is no accident.” The best
accident is the one that never happens. We
need to work hard to minimize the number
of them; however, accidents are going to
happen in spite of our best efforts.
Risk management doesn’t stop when the
accident occurs. It involves additional
factors. Foremost is to minimize the damage.
A bruise is much easier to deal with than a
broken bone; a broken arm is less of a
problem than a broken neck, etc. This is
generally accepted as a part of safety.
Limits on model weights address this
need. Another aspect not obvious to most
people is putting yourself into a defensible
position if the incident becomes a legal
SPRING IS HERE and with it comes the
opening of the flying season in most parts of
the United States. How can I tell? The Weak
Signals’ Toledo Show is over and that marks
the beginning of the season for many
modelers.
This year was the 50th anniversary for
the Toledo Show. That’s not a misprint; it’s
been 50 years since the show began! I have
been to 34 of them and it has been a
privilege to see the evolution of this fine
show.
During the show’s awards ceremony, I
was honored to present a National
Aeronautic Association (NAA) award to the
club. At an earlier club banquet, I awarded
the Weak Signals with an AMA award.
If you have never been to the Toledo
Show, it’s one of those “must dos” in a
modeler’s lifetime. It’s as close to Mecca as I
can think of in the aeromodeling world—
well, perhaps just behind the International
Aeromodeling Center in Muncie, Indiana.
The two places are not far apart, so a trip to
both is not impossible.
This show presents many new goodies
for the modeling public to ogle, and this year
was no exception. Probably most evident
was the quality and the number of ARFs.
Most of these tended to be large models, but
there were offerings in all categories and
sizes, and the quality is astounding. I heard
more than one person comment that you
couldn’t build one for the difference in price
between the kit and the ARF. This will upset
many of the purist aeromodelers in our
midst, but this is reality; we must accept it
and use it to grow the activity.
It’s interesting to watch the pattern of Email
each time a difficult and usually
controversial subject is presented within the
AMA community. Sometimes members start
writing wildly, while other times the
“campaign” is organized and orderly.
The latter is the case for those opposed to
the new Rule 9 in the AMA Safety Code
which prohibits the intentional contact with
the ground of any part of a model except the
landing gear. This rule was passed by the
Executive Council in the spring of 2003 but
became effective at the beginning of this
year.
The rule received little attention until
modelers received the 2004 Safety Code.
The subject will be discussed at the EC
meeting on April 24-25, 2004. (I am writing
this in early April and have no idea what the
outcome will be.)
I am impressed with the well-planned
Dave Brown AMA president
President’s Perspective
July 2004 5
The key word here is
intentional.
issue. Notice that I used the term incident
here. When you go to court, the idea that this
was an accident can become an issue. While
it may be obvious to you that this was an
accident, it may not be to opposing legal
counsel and this could become a big deal.
If an opposing legal team can show that
this incident was the result of an intentional
act, the lawsuit takes on an entirely different
flavor. Suddenly punitive damages and
perhaps even criminal charges can become a
problem. The key word here is intentional.
How does this impact Rule 9? It would be
difficult to convince a judge, jury, or
survivors of the accident that intentionally
banging the rudder onto the ground is
reasonable behavior. If this action results in a
broken control cable or a loose rudder, it
would be hard to claim that it was an accident
since you were intentionally pounding this
vital control surface into the ground.
Argue that this control surface is not vital,
and the opposition will march a number of
“experts” in 3-D flying in to answer the
question of whether they can hover a model
without a rudder. They would be told to
simply answer “yes” or “no”; there would be
no explanation of how you might gun the
throttle to escape.
If you intentionally bang the rudder into
the ground and later have an “accident,” that
planned activity may become a factor in the
case—even if the rudder wasn’t the cause of
the accident. You might find yourself trying
to prove that the rudder wasn’t the cause.
Hovering is a way to demonstrate a high
degree of control over a model. It involves a
superior level of skill. The problem here isn’t
hovering; it’s the intentional act of touching a
control surface to the ground which causes the
trouble.
If you must show off and touch the ground
while hovering, then build a model for that
purpose and extend the tail wheel back behind
the rudder. Under those circumstances, you
could bang that tail wheel into the ground to
your heart’s content. You would be in
compliance with Rule 9 and reduce the
likelihood of an accident being considered as
anything but an accident.
I don’t know how the EC will handle this
subject two weeks from now (it will be over
well before you read this), and I can’t predict
if a vote will be taken. I can say that those
who are wise will avoid putting themselves
into a vulnerable position by intentionally
touching the rudder to the ground—or trying
to! The solution of an extended tail wheel is
too simple to ignore, whether or not AMA
rules require it.
How do we address those who say AMA
should outlaw hovering because it interferes
with the safe operation of normal flying?
Ironically, I’ve received as many of those
requests as I have from those opposed to Rule
9, but they are not as well coordinated. MA
07sig1.QXD 4/26/04 9:18 am Page 5
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/07
Page Numbers: 5