Now You're Talking...
"Now You're Talking" will present, from time to time, constructive and thought-provoking ideas or criticisms of AMA rules and policies that affect members. When the issue has two sides, "Now You're Talking" will endeavor to print all viewpoints that have been submitted within the limits of available space, uniqueness, constructiveness, timeliness, and good taste. Determination of the appropriateness of publication of any of these matters must, of necessity, rest solely with the publisher. Publication of a rules-change or policy-change idea does not necessarily mean that the specific proposal has been presented to the appropriate AMA authority. The thoughts presented are those of the author and should not be construed as being those of the AMA Headquarters staff or AMA officers. Model Aviation magazine is published by the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
More on RC Combat
I'm writing this in response to a letter you published from Fred Stetter, AMA 132031, in your August 1992 "Now You're Talking..." column.
Mr. Stetter appeared to be quite concerned about RC combat, but seemed to be basing his concern on a newspaper report rather than actual experience. He mentions the activity taking place on a military base, again in a rather negative tone. While any model aviation activity taking place on either a military air base or civilian airfield has some risk, the question is what was being done to best ensure the safety of all concerned?
I just finished four days of competition at the 1992 Nats at Westover AFB, flying Pattern while C-5A Galaxies were doing touch-and-go landings on a runway about a mile to our right. Pylon racing, free flight, helicopters, control line — all were taking place without any problems arising, to my knowledge. I felt adequate steps had been taken to minimize hazards.
He makes the statement, "Maybe it never occurred to them, but all it would take is a battery connector to become dislodged or the antenna to get cut by another plane's propeller and their 'gold-stickered' gizmo suddenly ceases to respond, and God only knows where this 'now flying bomb' will come down." I'm wondering why it hasn't occurred to Mr. Stetter that a battery connector could fail at any time, or an antenna solder joint could fail. Perhaps a transmitter could fail, or the pilot neglects to fully charge his battery pack and tries to make one more flight! Sure, things like this happen, have happened, and will continue to happen as long as we fly RC. But I do not agree that combat, when done properly, greatly magnifies this problem.
I speak from experience when I say that combat does not greatly increase the dangers of flying RC, when done properly and with common sense.
About a year ago, up here in the Northeast, we developed a foam-and-plastic flying wing powered by .25-sized engines. This plane, with a 48-in. wingspan and an average weight of 3 lb, was specifically designed for RC combat and pylon racing. It is relatively slow, lightweight, and is designed to break up in case of a midair. All of this results in a plane that comes back to earth quickly and with minimal hazard if a collision occurs.
We've had several contests in the last year, and I can honestly say I have seen more midairs in general sport flying than we have had in four official and several informal combat sessions!
Mr. Stetter talks about how his group, the Pinelands Combat Team, "runs a tight, safety-first, by-the-rule-book operation." I congratulate him for that. I had a chance to see some control line combat while at the Nats this year and walked away shaking my head in amazement that people would do that! To me, it appeared that the pilots were in extreme danger of getting hit by the models.
But since I have never flown control line combat, nor do I intend to, it never occurred to me that control line combat should be banned because someone was going to get hurt. Rather, I accepted the fact that these pilots were aware of the hazards involved and had a set of rules that would reduce the hazards and make the event as safe as possible. I will agree that we will always have renegades who have no concern for what others think or for pilot or spectator safety. However, we need to deal with these individuals, not just ban all forms of RC combat out of hand.
We also run our combat sessions by the rules, concentrating on pilot and spectator safety. All combat takes place in a box located away from pilots and spectators. Combatants are monitored and warned if they approach the limits of the box. If multiple warnings are issued, the flight is stopped. These rules are written down and distributed before the event so all pilots are aware of and understand them. I feel that we are doing what we can to minimize the risk while still being able to enjoy this particular facet of RC model aviation.
I would like to make a proposal to Mr. Stetter. I propose that if he wishes to campaign against something that he has no desire to participate in, he should at least take the time to find out more about it first. He can call or write to me and ask questions. I will be happy to answer them and send him a copy of our rules. If he is anywhere near the New England area, he is invited to come and watch one of our contests.
I was the CD (Contest Director) for an AMA-sanctioned RC combat demonstration that was held at the Hadley practice field during the 1992 Nats, in addition to serving as CD for two combat contests last year, so I feel qualified to answer any questions he may have. He should investigate the other forms of RC combat that are popular in different parts of the country and find out how the contests are run and what type of aircraft are used. After all, I don't totally agree with some of the types of RC combat I've read about, but if the group is safety conscious and using common sense, I'm not going to lobby to get that type of combat banned.
After all, if Mr. Stetter still feels inclined against RC combat, I will staunchly support his right to object.
Dan Snow Maynard, Massachusetts
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
