President's Perspective
"Advancing technology, friend or foe?"
Since the dawn of time, advancing technology has driven us higher, faster, and farther. When man learned how to start and control a fire, a new danger arrived on the scene—burned fingers. I don't think it took too awfully long after the wheel was invented for someone to run over someone else's toes. Sticks gave way to the bow and arrow, which then gave way to the gun. Sails replaced oars, only to be later replaced by steam, diesel, and then nuclear. Time and technology march on, each in its own inevitable way.
With each advancement in technology comes different problems and new risks. Sometimes dealing with the risks is a much greater challenge than the development of the new technology. Another problem is those situations where the risks are not recognized until a significant amount of time has passed. In today's society, those are the ones which create the biggest settlements; just think of asbestos, silicone implants, and cigarettes, to name a few. It is a delicate balance between the desire to take advantage of the latest in technology and the desire to ensure the safety of its use.
On one side of that balance are people promoting the use of this new breakthrough; on the other side are those responsible for ensuring its safety. Nothing is completely safe, so the safety side is many times a matter of being convinced that the new technology is reasonably safe, and that all of the risks are known. That part creates most of the problems; it is rare that a risk that is properly assessed and found to be acceptable causes a great problem. More commonly, it is the risk that is unknown or covered up that creates the huge problem later.
I am reminded of the period shortly after WWII when the Atomic Age was the latest breakthrough and promised virtually unlimited energy that was clean, safe, and most importantly, cheap. The U.S. Government created the Atomic Energy Commission to promote and regulate the newest advancement in technology and probably doomed nuclear energy in the process.
The problem was that in having the responsibility for both promotion and regulation of nuclear energy, the AEC was a slave to two masters, and it let its task of promoting nuclear energy dominate its task of regulating it. It was easy to do; the public was clamoring for this new source of "unlimited" energy. The cart got way out in front of the horse, and the inevitable crash cost many billions of dollars and set back nuclear power more than half a century, if not forever.
What does this have to do with the AMA, you ask? If you think about it, the AMA is tasked with both the promotion and the regulation of aeromodeling. If you don't understand the implications of this, reread the last paragraph. We are facing many advancements in the technology available to the aeromodeler, and our "public" is clamoring to take advantage of them. Higher, faster, farther is part of our heritage. The advancement of aeromodeling technology is a major purpose of the existence of the AMA. We are, after all, the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
We must, however, recognize that if we allow the clamor to use new technology to outrun our knowledge of the risks, we might do to aeromodeling what the AEC did to nuclear energy. It is this last fear that makes it difficult to embrace all of that new technology without reservation.
Compounding the problem is the insurance situation. In addition to promoting and regulating aeromodeling, a major AMA function has become providing insurance to modelers, chartered clubs, and site owners. Insurance is a benefit of membership and is applied equally to all members. Not all members are into this higher, faster, farther scene, yet under the current system they share equally in the cost of the increased risk. It's obvious to most that the solution is easy: just separate the insurance from membership, and charge more for higher risks. It sounds easy, but it comes with a lot of costs which would drive the price higher and higher. Insurance as a universal benefit of membership is an entirely different matter in a regulatory sense than selling insurance.
We might be able to provide a base insurance policy restricted to "normal" activities (whatever that might be defined as), and various "riders" to extend that policy to cover higher risk activities. All we would have to do would be to figure out how to cover the clubs and site owners without making them a more vulnerable target for lawsuits. Hmmm.
With apologies to the Bard, "To embrace the latest in technology, or not to embrace the latest technology, that is the question." Or is it? The real question isn't whether to embrace the latest technology, but how it will be handled. New technology is an integral part of aeromodeling; without it, the hobby will wither up and die. It's up to us to figure out how to regulate its use, ensure its safety, and pay for any increase in risk.
Till next month,
Dave
Dave Brown AMA President dbrown@dbproducts.com
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
