Are you an AMA member?

[BillParker]

Okay so...

"on super bowl sunday, everybuddy in Dallas/Ft Worth turn on your transmitters and wiggle your sticks!"

Prolly won't fit on a bumper sticker, but it has a ring to it...

Sign me

Anti-Government-Wacko

bp

[dbcisco]

Kittyfritters wrote:
"We've lost many flying sites simply because some of the people who go out and buy "toy" airplanes (Air Hogs and other R/C airplanes commonly sold in toy stores.) and who are not aware that there are safety rules for these things, operate so stupidly that gotten municipalities and property owners so scared over the liability aspect that they simply ban all model flying."
The major incidents in the past year were a young girl mutilated by an RC helicopter and mid aircollision between a huge RC airplane and a full size aircraft at an airport runway and both RCers were AMA members.
I would like you to cite a single incident with a "toy" airplane causing any significant damage.

It is only the AMA clubs using scare tactics to allow their clubs to have exclusive use of public property that does nothing but lock out non-AMA members from using public sites in far too many publicly owned locations. Just another AMA related money grab. "Want to fly here? pay the AMA and club dues." If I thought something was that dangerous I would ban it outright, not allow some private club the sole right to do it.

[BillParker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs&feature=related

[Phugoid]

Ooooops....

The guy that lost his model plane was seemingly (I can't make it out too well so Icould be wrong) more concerened about his 8 grand model than the potential human cost of the accident....

I think that some of these models require strict regulation (by government not by a club though) ..........they could be lethal. I know a 40g Guillows rubber powered model might give somebody a poke in the eye if the were very unlucky, but the weight and structural strength of the huge models as shown makes them pretty dangerous in the wrong hands doesn't it?

[BillParker]

Hard to tell what actually happened, but it looked to me like this was an airshow environment, and one or the other of the aircraft was where it wasn't supposed to be.

I imply that both had permission to do what they were doing, just not at the same time. This may be why the guy was angry, rather than concerned. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that I don't assume that the R/C guy was automatically at fault.

prolly never know...

[Phugoid]

I understand what you are saying........It was probably just a mix up, if anything the pilot was at fault from what I could tell, but what was the biggest impact was literally that, ie it obviously did some serious damage to the real plane.....

[kittyfritters]

Yes, it was at an air show, at an uncontrolled airfield (no tower), where flying demonstrations of both real and model airplanes were scheduled. The final FAA finding has not been published on this one, but the last I heard was that the preliminary finding was mis-coordination on the part of the people running the air show, and not the fault of either pilot. It could have been worse since, apparently, there was no NOTAM filed for the event, which could have allowed some transient pilot to blunder into it.

[BillParker]

ahhhhh...

also known as a cluster ----...

if you get my drift...

[dbcisco]

National Transportation Safety Board - Aircraft Accident/Incident Database
Accident Rpt# CEN10LA487B 08/14/2010 1100 MDT Regis#
Brighton, CO
Acft Mk/Mdl AJ SLICK RADIO CONTROL Acft Dmg: SUBSTANTIAL Rpt Status: Prelim Prob Caus: Pending
Flt Conducted Under: FAR 091
Aircraft Fire: NONE
Fatal 0 Ser Inj 0
Opr Name: Opr dba:
Narrative
On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, N28KT, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport, Brighton, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The flight departed Centennial Airport, Denver, Colorado, approximately 1030 and was en route to Brighton, Colorado.
According to a video of the accident and multiple witnesses, the radio controlled airplane was maneuvering over runway 12. The bi-plane is seen flying from the north to south in straight and level flight when the radio controlled airplane climbs directly into the bi-planes flight path. The bi-plane was able to land without further incident. An examination of the airplane revealed that the left lower wing spar was crushed aft.

[kittyfritters]

That is the initial accident report as initially entered. There is considerable investigation ongoing on this one. You've seen the video. Do you think that the report, as entered, really describes what was going on at the time? The FAA typically takes a year to announce their findings on an incident. Let's see what they are.

[dbcisco]

I have heard so many different explanations and opinions about this video that, since I wasn't there, I have no opinion on it.
It does prove that the big RC planes can take out a passenger carrying aircraft though.
All I posted is the official NTSB preliminary report and that is the only official word on the matter. Correct or not, it is all that really matters and possibly the least biased.
I do agree that doing anything beside flying full size airplanes at an airfield is like playing marbles on the Highway.
If they can't find a better place to fly then maybe they need a different hobby.

[MickeyB49]

Just imagine if the Wright brother's had to contend with the AMA or the FAA. We may have never developed flight at all?

I have not had the courage to fly any of my models because I lack the initial knowledge to fly them. At this time I am not willing to learn by putting a model I spent 30 some hours working on at risk of crashing and destroying my work.

I did purchase an RC Piper Cub with a 24 inch wingspan to learn to fly on. It is a HobbyZone and I had it out once. I ended up crashing it (even with anti-crash technology) before I got it high enough in the air to even play with the controls. The crash resulted in the stabilzer servo freezing up. I have not got around to repairing it yet.

I guess the point I wish to make is that if it comes down to having to join the AMA to fly a model plane, then something is drastically wrong with our government and our society. Our government for imposing such restrictions, and our society for allowing them to do it. Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom or security."

[skywarp]

My only beef with the AMA'ers is simply they tend to act like they own the flying sites. A very public and city owned RC park near my house (posted on the city website for parks and recreation as a public flying site) is gated and chained w/o access except by those in the two RC clubs that use the field. The average joe not in a club can even go fly there w/o contacting a club member who procedes to interrogate you about your AMA membership. The city declares it a public park, public being open to ANYONE, so what's it to them if I want to fly there with or w/o AMA membership or insurance? I am still responsible one way or the other for an incident involving my plane. I suppose it's not the AMA itself, but it seems that the very fact of membership alone gives those with it the feeling that they own, control, and govern any flying site. Unless AMA money is used to purchase the property and build the facilities, I feel that any and all PUBLIC rc fields irregardless of AMA sanctioning, should be open to any and all fliers. Just my humble two cents.

[simpleflyer]

Hi, I've been reading with interest the comments about finding places to fly models. Mine are flown in the back yard - for several years, now. The most successful method that we use is 'swing control'. It is easy to do and can be done virtually anytime, anywhere. The only factors that curtail our flying activity are heavy rain, wind, extreme cold, and honey-dos. Other than that we are out flying almost every day. All of our current fleet of Guillow's models except for the Wright 1903 are flight capable. Also, many of our non-G models are flight capable. To see how we do this, check it out at:
http://www.smallflyingartsforum.com/YaBB.pl?num=1223680930/0
Imbedded in the thread are suggestions of some very simple and easy ways to get started. Enjoy.

BTW, I was an AMA member about 50 years ago, when model flying was much simpler and easier to find places to fly and much cheaper. But those days are long gone. And Yoda is right: DO IT! Keep 'em flyin,

Al

[dbcisco]

In many cases it the AMA club and AMA that convinces the officials that flying is dangerous and requires insurance to protect the "public" BTA only AMA insurance is any good they tell them.
Just another land and money grab. Yo9u have to pay the AMA and the club to use "public property".
Very common. Of course most politians are morons and let this stuff happen all the time. Those that aren't idiots are probably getting a kickback. At least our county's parks are open to the public. The AMA clubs would have to pay $180 per day if they want exculsive use. Too bad other communitites don't have those laws.