President’s Perspective
Dave Brown, AMA president
A potential problem looms on the horizon ...
I want to start this column with a correction to an earlier column. Two months ago I wrote of the attempt to cross the Atlantic with a model airplane, and the column was well received by many. But many jumped up to point out that it was a Vickers Vimy that made the flight rather than the Curtiss NC-4, and a very small number pointed out that the pilots were Alcock and Brown rather than "Alcott" and Brown.
I admitted to being guilty, and many had a good laugh, including me, at your "historically challenged" president. I was surprised that I would have misidentified the airplane, but I simply figured it was one of those "senior moments" we suffer from occasionally. I even received some ribbing that at least I spelled the name of one of the pilots correctly! (That was a low blow!)
Overall, all had a good laugh, including me. Now for the rest of the story.
I have a habit of rereading what I have written for the last couple of columns before I write a new one to avoid repeating a subject, to avoid conflicting statements in those cases where I might address a subject again, and to avoid one of those aforementioned "senior moments."
This time, in reading the unedited column I sent to the magazine, I didn't find any reference to the Curtiss NC-4! I did see the misspelled pilot's name, but no reference to the aircraft that they flew. As I write this, where the NC-4 reference came from is a mystery to me. I went back and reread it, and even used a word search to look for it, but it simply wasn't there. I can only guess that someone at the magazine decided to "help" the column and insert the aircraft designation. All this time I have been pleading guilty to those who sent in e-mail, and I was innocent! I only hope whoever put that into my column has as much of a laugh as I have gotten out of this.
Another part of that column was questioned by a few who pointed out that an aerosonde named Liama, now in the Seattle Museum of Flight, crossed the Atlantic in 1998. Of course they were right that Liama accomplished that task, but it was not a model airplane. To qualify for a world record as a model airplane, the aircraft must weigh no more than 5 kilograms (11.023 pounds) at takeoff.
A potential problem looms on the horizon for those of us who occasionally transport our models as baggage on commercial airline flights. It is one for which we are going to have to gather as much data as possible before we can have any hope of overcoming the problem.
For years it has been common to build transport boxes for models and to check them as baggage when going to a contest, or even simply on vacation. This has usually worked well, with an occasional small charge being imposed. In a few cases I'm aware of it took some fancy talking, and sometimes pointing out the possibility of the airline losing the travel fare, but being unable to get the box transported was rare. I've even heard of a few times when the airline's pilot stepped in to save the day for the traveling aeromodeler.
As of January 1 that will change, and the problems may become much greater. As of then, all checked baggage will be subject to a similar level of screening as the carry-on items, including running it through the scanning machines. This may present unforeseen problems. What if the model box won't fit through the scanner? The assumption is that such items will be hand-searched, but how do the inspectors get into the box, as the passenger will in all likelihood not be present? That is one logistic problem, but there appear to be a few technical problems that are much larger.
All who travel regularly on airlines have seen, or have been the subject of, a hand search of our persons and/or our carry-on luggage. Most of us who carry a laptop have had it "sniffed" — they use a device that detects explosives that might be hidden in the item being examined. I don't know about you, but I don't mind this being done, as it is done for the safety of all.
However, when this process is applied to all of the checked baggage, we will encounter a few unforeseen problems.
I have received a number of calls concerning transporting models on commercial airlines before the 100% inspection regulations are in effect, so I envision more problems in the future. It appears that those who have had problems so far were simply chosen for a random search, and most likely those with baggage problems had model boxes randomly chosen.
The biggest problem might be that something in or on a typical model occasionally triggers the "sniffers" that are looking for explosives, and that item will not be put on the flight. We do not know what it is that triggers the sniffer, nor does it happen every time. It seems random, but when the baggage becomes subject to 100% screening, it's going to become dicey.
The biggest problem will be when someone gets to the event but is not able to get the box onto the return flight. This may affect only a few members but it will affect those members in a big way.
We do not know what will happen in this area, and we do not have enough information to make many recommendations, so we must work together to overcome this problem.
So far, all I have heard are reports of people who have encountered problems, so it's difficult to know what they are doing different from those who are able to travel with a model box. We need to gather information from everyone who travels commercially with a model box. We need to know as much as possible about the experience and the particulars of the models involved.
It could be almost anything that triggers the sniffers, for example:
- glue residue
- exhaust residue
- the smell of fuel
- other chemical traces
Any information you can provide us will help us help your fellow modelers. If there are members who work for the airlines or have professional ties to this screening process, we would appreciate your help in this matter.
I don't even want to imagine the effect this could have on getting the competitors for the 2004 Control Line World Championships (to be held in Muncie, Indiana) here and back home!
I received a call from an old friend who told me that "the airlines" had added an internal-combustion engine to the prohibited list. I can't confirm or deny that, but if this is true we need to know.
If anyone knows such information, try to be specific as you report it. If we know the particular airline, the port of origin, the particular flight, the particular airport, or even the particular flight crew, it will help us in tracking the problem and responding to it effectively.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
