Now You're Talking...
Carelessness Won't Hack It
I am writing in response to the letter by Clint Brooks that was published in the "Safety First" column of the August 1992 issue of Model Aviation.
I, too, fly at Whittier Narrows and have been victimized by careless individuals who refuse to follow the established protocol. On numerous occasions I have been made to wait for more than 40 minutes before I felt it was safe to fly, after wasting my time bothering every single person at the field with, "Hey, are you on channel 24? Channel 24. Well, how am I supposed to know what channel your radio is on; you don't have a frequency flag on it?"
To Mr. Brooks I would have to say that I hate to add insult to injury, but I would not have felt obliged to offer monetary compensation for the other fellow's damaged aircraft. The other fellow should not have switched on his radio and taken off unless his frequency pin was on the top of the board, therefore rendering himself culpable for the crash. Mr. Brooks obeyed protocol and took every reasonable precaution before removing the other selfish and inconsiderate individual's frequency pin. Perhaps some kind of karma or cosmic justice prevented Mr. Brooks's airplane from being lost.
My observation has been that consistently the worst violators of flying-field etiquette are precisely who Mr. Brooks observed: the good ol' boys. Specifically, the senior members, officers, and even instructors in the club who control the field. It seems that the same individuals who established the flying-site code of ethics feel that they are above the law. Seldom do I see beginners, low-time pilots, or newcomers to the field violating the edicts of flying-site courtesy; they are typically grateful to have a place to fly and somewhat fearful of stepping on the toes of the regulars.
In all fairness, I must say that this problem is, indeed, evident elsewhere. I fly at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley's Sepulveda Basin often enough to see who frequents the field. Two weeks ago I was there with an acquaintance helping him learn to fly. I observed two men who I recognized as regulars running up a screaming, un-muffled .60 that was in a 40-size ARF warbird in the spectator area on a picnic table under an aluminum awning. The pilot then had his accomplice hand-launch the aircraft (it had no landing gear) from behind the flight line and a row of other pilots! The real kick in the pants was when I saw these two cretins return to the pit area, open their cooler, and enjoy a nice cold beer within view of a sign forbidding alcohol consumption within the boundaries of the field.
I was amazed by the fact that there was no peer pressure from their colleagues to reform their wanton disregard for rules that were created to ensure the safety of others. AMA officials had better pray that they have not underwritten these two imbeciles, because they are a bodily-injury lawsuit waiting to happen.
I am not being too sensitive. I am simply being sensible. There are simple solutions to the problems that have been addressed here:
- Pilots should always have a frequency pin attached to their antenna, therefore making it unnecessary for the pilot to be interrupted while flying by another person asking which frequency the pilot's radio is on.
- The frequency pins that are attached to the frequency board should always have the pilot's name printed on them, so when the legitimacy of a specific pin's presence on the board is dubious, the pilot on deck can call out the name of the individual who left his pin up.
- The flying-field controllers should establish a time limit on frequency use. Twenty minutes is more than fair. Fifteen is reasonable. At least three and preferably four pilots should be able to fly in an hour.
Note: Pilots who are "in the hole" or "on deck" should be fueled up and ready to go when their turn comes. It is aggravating to have to look for the pilot who is ahead of you in the pecking order to tell him that it is his turn to fly, and then wait while he fuels up, drinks, and talks with the other pilots. Do so as soon as you return to the pit area! This time limit does not mean a fellow can spend 15 minutes trying to get a balky engine to run and making control-surface adjustments and then spend 15 more minutes in the air. Tune up your engine and airframe some time other than peak flying hours when pilots on your frequency are stacked four or five deep in the holding pattern.
- No mulligans! The only thing worse than having to track down the guy whose pin is ahead of yours is to find him flying a second airplane on a different frequency. How can anyone be so selfish as to expect others to wait for him to finish flying one plane, land, fuel up his second plane, and fly for 15 more minutes? Perhaps a (generous) 10-minute grace period should be allowed; if 10 minutes elapse between the time the preceding pilot removes his pin and the pilot on deck is located, the pilot on deck may have his pin moved to the bottom of the pecking order and the pilot in the hole gets his turn.
Of course, none of these rules can be enforced in the literal sense unless they are enacted at a private club—membership is revocable. The fields mentioned above are public parks. One need not be a club member to use them.
I feel that if an individual has no respect for the rules but is being selfish with frequency time or is flying in an unsafe manner, then the rank and file should not feel bashful about speaking up loudly and castigating the offender. How many of you guys are with me on this? It would be nice if some of the mature and respected senior officers in the local club that controls the field would act as arbiters in such disputes. But if one is to admonish another, then one's own behavior must be above reproach.
I'm confident that the sagacious ranking members of the local clubs would just as soon avoid the hassle of arbitrating a dispute between fliers. So let's hope this little diatribe will cause those who read it to examine their own habits and perhaps flying radio-controlled airplanes will continue to be a wonderful pastime that leaves its participants revitalized and contented after a Saturday morning of flying instead of leaving them frustrated and perturbed.
Dave Culver Glendale, California
More On RC Combat
I am writing this letter in response to the "Soapbox: Now You're Talking..." letter written by Fred Stelter in the August 1992 issue of Model Aviation.
As I read and reread Mr. Stelter's article, I find it difficult to organize my thoughts. As Mr. Stelter changes tack from paragraph to paragraph, it's hard to tell what his article was criticizing. RC Combat? RC planes in general? The newspaper article? Bad press in general? I guess his bottom-line concern is that RC flying is going to cause him to lose his right to fly.
Mr. Stelter seems to attempt to take the high moral ground by claiming concern for all model aviation, but he really doesn't believe anyone should be flying RC. Let's face it: whether the RC pilot is flying combat or not, accidents will happen. There will also be stupid people who fly their planes into the crowd on purpose or by accident.
I fly RC Combat in the New Hampshire–Massachusetts area. We, too, run a tight, safety-first operation. We use a powered plane that is designed (by Eric Henderson) for combat (foam does not survive midair collisions and thus does not continue to fly nor does it come down in one piece). We designate specific areas for the combat event. The judge ensures that the combat occurs within that box. So what makes RC Combat any more dangerous than Mr. Stelter's Control Line Combat?
No, the AMA has not recognized RC Combat as an event.* I honestly hope that they do and that they (along with interested parties) develop a clear set of rules that all RC Combat can be measured against.
If Mr. Stelter is concerned about safety, so am I. If Mr. Stelter is concerned about losing fields, so am I. But if his article does nothing to promote any of that, Mr. Stelter appears to have some personal reasons for being against RC in general (reference his derogatory remarks "rat race," "twiddling levers on little black boxes," etc.), and I believe that dislike biased the entire article.
Jeff Friedrichs Merrimack, New Hampshire
Editor's note: Mr. Friedrichs is in error here. The 1992–93 AMA Competition Regulations book does indeed recognize RC Combat: Event No. 704, WWII Combat (Provisional).
Now You're Talking will present, from time to time, constructive, thought-provoking ideas and criticisms of AMA rules and policies that affect members. An issue has two sides. Now You're Talking will endeavor to print viewpoints that have been submitted within the limits of available space, uniqueness, constructiveness, timeliness, and good taste. Determination of appropriateness for publication of matters must, of necessity, rest solely with the publisher. Publication of a rules-change or policy-change idea does not necessarily mean a specific proposal has been presented to the appropriate AMA authority. Thoughts presented by an author should not be construed as being those of AMA Headquarters staff or AMA officers. Model Aviation magazine is published by the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
Letters Editor
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
