that it is how you fly as opposed to what or
where you fly that is important. Perhaps the
time has come to reconsider this idea.
I would have a little difficulty with
flying in the street in most places, but I can
see many instances where it wouldn’t
concern me, such as near the end of a deadend
street or a cul-de-sac.
Interestingly, a situation was reported in
the newspaper here in Ohio where a
basketball hoop which has been in use on a
street for many decades was ordered
removed by a new police officer, in spite of
it having never created any problem,
complaint, or accident.
Much to the dismay of the officer, it was
allowed to remain. His opinion was that any
basketball game played on a public street
was unsafe. The city fathers eventually
yielded to the desire of the people who lived
on that street and abandoned the challenge.
What this shows is that the idea of what
is safe and what isn’t is largely a matter of
opinion. Even an activity which has been
taking place for decades can be challenged.
Flying in the street is one of those
actions which will forever be subject to
question and we need to be careful in such
activities. Perhaps it shouldn’t be
prohibited, but we do need to be extremely
careful in conducting such operations.
Flying a light model in front of your
home on a cul-de-sac, using the public
street for a runway is one thing; flying your
model in your front yard if you live on a
heavily traveled state thoroughfare is
another issue.
It’s purely a matter of using common
sense. If we cannot use common sense, then
we will have to live with many more rules
for our activities. MA
wrote about the need to make any
gates or barriers on your flying site
highly visible during the day and the
night in my March column. I used a bit
of tongue-in-cheek drama, encouraging
people to “drop everything” and go address
this threat.
I’m pleased to say that the column did
what I expected it to do: encourage people
to look at the gates on flying sites.
Ironically, I received much ridicule for the
drama, but I would do it again if getting
results hinged on it. If the cost of decreasing
risk and reducing the number of fatal
accidents is to be ridiculed for how I get it
done, I’ll take the ridicule.
Among the number of E-mails I received
on the subject, one was from a member who
questioned whether my motivation was
saving lives or reducing liability. The
inference was that I was merely trying to
reduce insurance claims. I responded as
follows:
“Does it really matter?
“I can’t even convince myself that it was
one or the other. If one attended the funeral
of the deceased and experienced the grief
shown there (I didn’t attend, but there was a
memorial service I would assume), the
motivation for writing such a column might
be to avoid the further loss of life. The same
would be true right after one viewed the
pictures of the accident site (I did do that).
“On the other hand, if one were to write
that column right after receiving word
that a big lawsuit was being filed as a
result of the accident, one’s motivation
might be liability reduction. In addition,
if one were to write that column after
realizing that the consequences of such
an accident could result in the inability to
obtain insurance coverage in the future or
a massive increase in insurance cost
which just might price liability coverage
out of reach for the average member, one
might write that column as a result of that
President’s Perspective
AMA President Dave Brown
I
level of frustration.
“Of course, the fact that a number of
years ago—after the second such death—
one had written a similar but less ‘dramatic’
column on exactly the same subject, which
had been largely ignored or forgotten, that
might have been the motivation.”
“All of these are factors in my
motivation to write such a column.
Fortunately, while I have been ridiculed for
being ‘far too dramatic’—an interesting
assertion considering there is a dead kid
involved—it appears that this time the
dramatic tone caught most people’s
attention enough to have them take steps to
reduce the likelihood of this happening for a
fourth time!
“If I can accomplish that and the only
cost is putting up with a little ridicule, I’m
not going to be too concerned about the
ridicule.
“Part of the difficulty of working to
prevent something from happening is that
one does not know when his actions have
been effective. There is no time to declare
‘victory.’ Nowhere is this more evident than
in accident prevention, unless it is in
Homeland Security. Even if one’s actions
do prevent the occurrence, those actions will
be viewed as an overreaction by those who
refuse to see the reality of the threat.”
The mailbag this month brought some
interesting comments, including one which
challenged some forms of advertising in
MA.
It is challenging to make judgments on
the acceptability of each advertisement.
They are screened to weed out the ones
which depict egregious violations of proper
safety, but many of the situations involve
matters of opinion rather than absolute
rules.
The “subject du jour” this time was the
depiction of a park flyer being flown from
the street in front of a home. It’s an
interesting topic to think about. Is such
activity safe, and should it be allowed? If
the activity is okay, should a depiction of
that activity be allowed in our magazine?
For as many years as I can remember,
the basic philosophy within AMA has been
Dave Brown
AMA president
[email protected]
“Even an activity which has been taking place
for decades can be challenged.”
May 2006 5
05sig1.QXD 3/24/06 12:47 PM Page 5
Edition: Model Aviation - 2006/05
Page Numbers: 5