President’s Perspective
Dave Brown, AMA President
I ask you, where should that "line in the sand" be drawn?
This column marks the completion of my 24th year on the AMA Executive Council (EC), and in that time I have seen your EC make many decisions. A number of those decisions were spurred on by one of AMA’s Special Interest Groups (SIGs). We rely on those SIGs to help us regulate and support the activities represented by those groups.
SIGs vary in size from ones with a few dozen members to those with memberships that number in the thousands. These groups do a good job of representing the interests of their members to AMA. They are an invaluable asset to AMA and to the people involved in those activities within the aeromodeling community. Relying on SIGs for recommendations has resulted in better decisions than would have been derived from the EC without their help.
On the other hand, it is important that it is understood that these are special interest groups and that it is still up to the EC to assess the impact the proposals those groups bring to the table will have on the sport, AMA, and on the members as a whole.
By definition, a SIG is a group dedicated to a small constituency and is expected to fight for the desires of that small group and not excessively worry about the effect on the rest of the AMA membership. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those activities where the limits of technology are being advanced and bigger, higher, and faster becomes the standard by which advancement is measured.
The EC needs to make its decisions based upon the whole picture and not just the inputs of any SIG. They are the "experts" in each of their disciplines, but in their enthusiastic representation of those special interests, SIGs cannot be counted on to be "objective" in terms of what is reasonable for the membership as a whole to accept as a risk in which it shares equally.
Arguments that these activities are what drive the availability of better "stuff" for all modelers are usually made, as well as arguments that this is the AMA purpose: advancement in the arts and sciences of model aviation. In the end, it’s always a difficult decision.
Taken individually, each step we have approved in the evolution of high-performance and/or big models has been small and has not increased the danger level by an appreciable amount. At some point, though, when all of these changes are looked at and the technological advancement is factored in, I wonder if we have crossed the line of acceptable risk. Where is that line? That is a good question, and I don’t have an answer.
Safety, as ex-AMA president Don Lowe is prone to say, is a "squirmy" issue. It is one that is full of opinions and perspective. There are very few absolutes. My concern is not so much for safety in the sense of "is this safe?" The Safety Committee looks at that area and I think it does a good job. My concern isn’t primarily the economic cost of claims we might incur, although those could drive the cost of insurance out of sight or make it unobtainable. My concern, rather, is centered on those "noneconomic" costs associated with an incident. It isn’t just the dollars. If a spectacular accident occurs, the media attention will probably result in new regulations—probably not of our making—limiting your right to fly model airplanes. It could effectively result in an outright ban on radio-control modeling. I don’t like the odds of that happening, and I do not think it is reasonable for AMA to allow your right to enjoy the sport at the level at which it is flown by 98% of the membership to be put in jeopardy in order to accommodate the desires of the 2%. I am aware that the cost of liability insurance will be driven in part by that 2%, yet will be paid for by the entire membership.
Writing this column, I have realized that I don’t have a great deal of concern over the safety of most "high-performance" models we allow. I think we have good safety rules in place for most classes. What I do have serious concerns about is expressed in terms of "risk management." While the lines between those two areas may be slightly blurred, a definite line exists.
Safety is concentrated on avoiding the accident with a particular emphasis on human injuries. Risk management adds in the factors of absorbing the economic and noneconomic costs of an accident if it does happen, including property damage.
Property damage has never before been a significant concern to me as the vast majority of models—including the larger ones—are not likely to create enough property damage to be a real threat to our insurance program. But with the latest round of advancements, the fire dangers have me realizing the risks to our activity. Absorbing the economic and noneconomic costs of an accident—including property damage—are becoming a real concern.
I ask you, where should that "line in the sand" be drawn? What speed, what weight, what thrust, and what quantity of fuel (thus fire hazard) results in an acceptable level of risk?
I have been quite comfortable with the rules in the past, but I am becoming less comfortable with them as the performance level increases. A recent change to the turbine rules made me look at the risk management aspect, but this concern is more widespread than just turbines.
Many will point out that the typical beginner at the flying field creates the biggest safety concern—a concept with which I can’t disagree—but those risks are spread out over many members. Each of us went through that period, and we all imparted our piece of this risk when we were learning. It’s those types of risks that justify us sharing in the cost.
Please give this some thought. Really think about it. Don’t just fire off your first thoughts to your AMA vice president (VP). Once you have really thought about it, let your VP know where you think the line should be.
We are all in this together, and we will either live by the policy we create together and we will all pay for the privilege.
Dave Brown AMA President dbrown@dbproducts.com
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
