President’s Perspective - 2004/07
Dave Brown, AMA president
The key word here is intentional.
Spring is here and with it comes the opening of the flying season in most parts of the United States. How can I tell? The Weak Signals' Toledo Show is over and that marks the beginning of the season for many modelers.
This year was the 50th anniversary for the Toledo Show. That's not a misprint; it's been 50 years since the show began! I have been to 34 of them and it has been a privilege to see the evolution of this fine show.
During the show's awards ceremony, I was honored to present a National Aeronautic Association (NAA) award to the club. At an earlier club banquet, I awarded the Weak Signals with an AMA award.
If you have never been to the Toledo Show, it's one of those "must dos" in a modeler's lifetime. It's as close to Mecca as I can think of in the aeromodeling world—well, perhaps just behind the International Aeromodeling Center in Muncie, Indiana. The two places are not far apart, so a trip to both is not impossible.
This show presents many new goodies for the modeling public to ogle, and this year was no exception. Probably most evident was the quality and the number of ARFs. Most of these tended to be large models, but there were offerings in all categories and sizes, and the quality is astounding. I heard more than one person comment that you couldn't build one for the difference in price between the kit and the ARF. This will upset many of the purist aeromodelers in our midst, but this is reality; we must accept it and use it to grow the activity.
It's interesting to watch the pattern of e-mail each time a difficult and usually controversial subject is presented within the AMA community. Sometimes members start writing wildly, while other times the "campaign" is organized and orderly.
The latter is the case for those opposed to the new Rule 9 in the AMA Safety Code, which prohibits the intentional contact with the ground of any part of a model except the landing gear. This rule was passed by the Executive Council in the spring of 2003 but became effective at the beginning of this year.
The rule received little attention until modelers received the 2004 Safety Code. The subject will be discussed at the EC meeting on April 24–25, 2004. (I am writing this in early April and have no idea what the outcome will be.)
I am impressed with the well-planned and well-timed effort to overturn this rule. I'm receiving a significant number of e-mails from "concerned" modelers who want to see this rule abandoned. How effective the campaign has been will be seen at the EC meeting, but I think it's important for the membership to understand the reasoning behind the rule.
Those who are affected by this rule are involved in 3-D flying, particularly those who want to demonstrate their skills by touching the rudder to the ground while hovering a fixed-wing model. This isn't primarily a safety issue. Many will find this surprising, but I do not think there is a significant safety concern with hovering. To understand the reasoning behind the rule, let's consider the idea of liability control (reduction). Perhaps it might be called risk management, but it involves more than simply safety.
Safety is certainly a large part of risk management, but there are other aspects which expand the concept of liability control. Generally, safety tends to concentrate on reduction of accidents involving people getting hurt, with lesser focus on property damage. As the saying used by some corporations goes, "Safety is no accident." The best accident is the one that never happens. We need to work hard to minimize the number of them; however, accidents are going to happen in spite of our best efforts.
Risk management doesn't stop when the accident occurs. It involves additional factors. Foremost is to minimize the damage. A bruise is much easier to deal with than a broken bone; a broken arm is less of a problem than a broken neck. This is generally accepted as a part of safety. Limits on model weights address this need.
Another aspect not obvious to most people is putting yourself into a defensible position if the incident becomes a legal issue. Notice that I used the term incident here. When you go to court, the idea that this was an accident can become an issue. While it may be obvious to you that this was an accident, it may not be to opposing legal counsel and this could become a big deal.
If an opposing legal team can show that this incident was the result of an intentional act, the lawsuit takes on an entirely different flavor. Suddenly punitive damages and perhaps even criminal charges can become a problem. The key word here is intentional.
How does this impact Rule 9? It would be difficult to convince a judge, jury, or survivors of the accident that intentionally banging the rudder onto the ground is reasonable behavior. If this action results in a broken control cable or a loose rudder, it would be hard to claim that it was an accident since you were intentionally pounding this vital control surface into the ground.
Argue that this control surface is not vital, and the opposition will march a number of "experts" in 3-D flying in to assert the question of whether they can hover a model without a rudder. They would be told to simply answer "yes" or "no"; there would be no explanation of how you might gun the throttle to escape.
If you intentionally bang the rudder into the ground and later have an "accident," that planned activity may become a factor in any case—even if the rudder wasn't the cause of the accident. You might find yourself trying to prove that the rudder wasn't the cause.
Hovering is a way to demonstrate a high degree of control over a model. It involves a superior level of skill. The problem here isn't hovering; it's the intentional act of touching a control surface to the ground which causes the trouble.
If you must show off and touch the ground while hovering, then build a model for that purpose and extend the tail wheel back behind the rudder. Under those circumstances, you could bang that tail wheel into the ground to your heart's content. You would be in compliance with Rule 9 and reduce the likelihood of an accident being considered an intentional act in a court.
I don't know how the EC will handle this issue. Perhaps the EC will revisit the subject two weeks from now (it will be over by the time you read this), and I can't predict what will be decided. I do know, however, that we will avoid putting ourselves into a vulnerable position by intentionally touching the rudder to the ground—or trying to! The solution of an extended tail wheel is too simple to ignore, whether or not AMA rules require it.
How do we address those who say AMA should outlaw hovering because it interferes with the safe operation of normal flying? Ironically, I've received as many of those requests as I have from those opposed to Rule 9, but they are not as well coordinated.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
