Everyone please look at this

To discuss all things relating to flying models via remote video

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby lesterpk » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:14 am

Completely agree with you Bruce, the registration of the site should have been done long before SWMAC. Maybe when the Tokoroa MAC ceased all their fields were purged from the list and no one since has thought to check until now. Who mentioned blaming the SWMAC for 30 years uninsured? Not me above and not MFNZ in their letter.

The CAA AIP shows the model flying area at Tokoroa to be over the fence from the full size strip. If you checked that before flying full size into Tokoroa you wouldn't expect models over/on the runway.
lesterpk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:45 am

lesterpk wrote:Completely agree with you Bruce, the registration of the site should have been done long before SWMAC. Maybe when the Tokoroa MAC ceased all their fields were purged from the list and no one since has thought to check until now. Who mentioned blaming the SWMAC for 30 years uninsured? Not me above and not MFNZ in their letter.

I was told by Dave Hodges that the Tokoroa RC club still exists and has 7 members -- so their records ought not have been removed.

The CAA AIP shows the model flying area at Tokoroa to be over the fence from the full size strip. If you checked that before flying full size into Tokoroa you wouldn't expect models over/on the runway.

In which case, it becomes impossible to fly anything other than hand-launched foamies at the airfield -- since the runway extends all the way to a fence which has a horse-racing track on the other side.

If you can't use the runway -- how do you take-off and land with anything bigger than a foamie?

And CAA regulations only state that you may not fly an RC model over any *active* runway or taxi-way. Opinions amongst pilots i've spoken to as to what constitutes "active" are divided. Some say that a runway does not become *active* until an aircraft is using it -- others say that any runway which is available for use is deemed to be active. There is no definition in any of the CAA regulations as to what constitutes an "active" runway.

We have always operated on the basis that the runway becomes "active" as soon as a full sized aircraft turns onto finals. This strategy has worked perfectly well for the past 6 years with no incidents resulting from models taking off, landing from, or flying over the runway.

It is also worth noting that two CAA representatives (Rex Kenny and Don Waters) have on multiple occasions been present when models were being flown over the runway and the runway was being used for take-offs and landings. They voiced no concerns to us over this activity.

Surely this was considered when CAA gave approval for model-flying there.

So many questions unanswered. So much silence from MFNZ.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby cynr100 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:07 am

So, when all the wash has been done on this ludicrous situation are the Jet Guys still allowed to use the field as a "Special Interest Group" (sorry if I offend these blokes) if so it just smacks of elitism. One would like to think that they would go out in sympathy.
What are the requirements to be an SIG under the auspices of MFNZ, if it is not too difficult declare SWMAC a "Foamies & Fun" SIG.

You would then be SWMAFFSIG (I luv acronyms, not :!: )

It would have been an interesting bun fight if over the years MFNZ had been sanctioning Jet meets that there really was an accident resulting in a claim, would it have been honoured or would the committee have been held personally responsible. This entire situation would never have happened if the controlling body had done it's own job correctly.
What else does the controlling body offer modellers beside a collection point for liability insurance and a bunch of rules. A nice flashy web site full of SIGs and sanction days at unregistered sites without insurance.
On the matter of liability insurance for model fliers, how much is paid to the insurance companies, how much of that is paid to underwriters, how much is paid to re-insurers and THE BIGGY how many claims have been made and satisfied in the past 10 years. Does anyone know?? One of my pet hates, insurance without justification.

This situation is really, really bad I am saddened and in despair that the blokes and girls of SWMAC are being railroaded by a bunch of people who seem to have no interest in the promotion and survival of their own hobby. Time for an election of office bearers at MFNZ. :idea:
Not enough time in the day for all my crazy ideas, I'm not slow, I'm just pacing myself
User avatar
cynr100
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:37 am
Location: Cairns, Australia

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:36 am

cynr100 wrote:This situation is really, really bad I am saddened and in despair that the blokes and girls of SWMAC are being railroaded by a bunch of people who seem to have no interest in the promotion and survival of their own hobby. Time for an election of office bearers at MFNZ. :idea:

It's been my experience that nobody ever really wants to stand for election to such positions -- and if they do then they're probably the least suited to the role.

Most of us are too busy "doing stuff" to get involved in the administration of a hobby group so we gladly accept anyone who'll do the job.

Unfortunately, some of the time that means that we get what we deserve for our indifference.

Dead wood floats to the top they say.

I'm sure Gypsy is well aware of the thankless task that being in the administration of such a group can be -- everyone will be whining, nobody will be willing to help.

However, that still doesn't excuse the beviour of MFNZ over this matter.

And as for rules....

Well we could all go and fly our non-models (under 100g) from the private property right over the fence from the runway. We could fly those non-models over the runway, in the path of oncoming full-sized aircraft and to well over 400 feet.

Because there's a loophole in the CAA regulations that specify a "model aircraft" to be a remotely piloted vehicle that weighs between 100g and 25Kg.

Have you seen what a 90g electric powered model can do? How fast they can fly?

This is one of the reasons we have the "don't be an idiot" rule at our club.

Anyone who tried to do what I've just described would be promptly pounced on by the rest of the club -- even though it's not against MFNZ or CAA regulations -- it would be classified as "being an idiot" so they'd get their arse kicked.

Unfortunately MFNZ and the SWDC don't seem to understand the dangers of having too many rules -- and that the more rules you create, the more holes exist between them.

They think we are joking with our two rules -- but we are deadly serious -- and that's why have the safety record we do.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Gypsy » Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:04 pm

I'm sure Gypsy is well aware of the thankless task that being in the administration of such a group can be -- everyone will be whining, nobody will be willing to help.


It all depends on how you approach it and what you want to get out of it. I wasn't doing it for myself so I didn't require any thanks as such.

I did make a very real effort to be in communication with the people I was serving via email, phone, the Magazine and by personally fronting up at SIG meetings, and events such as the ANZAC meeting, MANZ meets and Trans-Tasman comps in as many disciplines within driving distance as possible. As such I met a lot of people who were working very hard at the ground level including yourself Bruce. These people don't have a public face but do put in a lot of hours for the sport/hobby in their discipline and/or club. These people are helping and their small contributions across the country make a big difference- maybe not in areas that you'd like to see Bruce but in their own areas of passion. And as I could be seen to be making a real effort and giving things a lot of thought probably beyond the scope of my position on Council as the Competition Manager I did get a lot of positive feedback which was an added bonus I was fortunate though to only be working part time during this period and my older kids were old enough for me to be able to put in the hours needed to give the job the level of respect that I required to feel I had done well- too much for a volunteer position if you ask me. I left because I was expecting child number three and knew it was impossible to do the MFNZ job and raising the kids both justice at the same time.

Yes there is whining some of it justified and some of it not. I think the general modelling community has a very real lack of knowledge of what the MFNZ Council is supposed to do and what it actually does. They don't get it right all the time- one of the down sides of being human. But they do get the job done when no one else is willing despite having their own life commitments and generally I think it's been at the expense of their own flying.

I also had the advantage of being able to compartmentalize personality from passion- and I met some cracker personalities in my time- not people I'd have chosen as friends but they did become friends because I was able to see past their quirks and idiosyncrasies to the drivers behind their actions- not everyone is willing, or even able, to do that.

I don't agree with your contention that 'Dead Wood Floats to the top' Bruce. I think a lot of the problem lies in an inability to see the sport/hobby as a whole as opposed to from a persons own corner of the modelling world. I had an advantage from that perspective as well in that I don't fly and while I guess I come from an RC Gliding background it isn't the be all and end all for me so I was better able to and very willing to see all facets. (Club vs. SIG, Sport vs. Hobby, Powered vs. not, competition vs. fun fly, 'x' discipline vs. 'y' discipline, builders vs. arf's/rtf's and so on and so on). In my opinion Bruce I think you also have your own corner in the modelling world and struggle to be able to see the world as others see it. And also to see from the perspective of others how your ideas and actions fit/don't fit with their world view. And please don't take that to read that your corner is 'not as valid/as good/ as worthy' than any others because I am not saying that at all- just that they are all different and people find it hard to walk in others shoes- especially when they are happy enough in their own.

I don't have enough information to say categorically if the MFNZ Council has handled this manner entirely appropriately, partially appropriately or not at all appropriately. There are some methods I disagree with but I don't know the thought process behind it all nor the end result they are hoping for so I'm not willing to tender my verdict at the point. My sincere hope is that when all is said and done SWMAC members have somewhere to enjoy their hobby on a regular basis.

Kind regards and apologies that I waffled,

Gypsy
Gypsy
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:50 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Shotglass » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:28 pm

RCModelReviews wrote:It's been my experience that nobody ever really wants to stand for election to such positions -- and if they do then they're probably the least suited to the role.


"One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people."

also since no one seems to have linked to the video (which apparently isnt ip blocked or at least isnt for german ips)
http://www.3news.co.nz/Model-aero-club- ... fault.aspx

that said while i agree that this was handeled incredibly poorly be the looks of it i can see their point as far as flying across a motorcross circuit with people driving on it is concerned (although i wouldnt consider that reason enough to shut down a club)
Shotglass
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:24 pm

Yes, there's a lot of hypocrisy and blinkered perspectives going on here.

We've been pilloried for flying 500g foam models over guys wearing full body armor while riding 100Kg dirtbikes and leaping several metres into the air -- yet on two occasions, RC jets flying at 200mph, weighing nearly 20Kg and laden with Jet A1 have disintegrated in mid-air, showering wreckage over people at the dirt-bike track -- riders and spectators alike. These people were not flying under the SWMAC banner -- it was the visiting jet SIG who fly with the approval of MFNZ.

However, in bringing up examples of how "unsafe" the SWMAC is we are constantly being told that we fly our AXN's unsafely by flying over gokarts and dirt-bikes.

Excuse me? 500g of EPO that has never crashed over a crowd of third party innocents is somehow far more dangerous than two jets that have???

Then there's the A10 that caught fire on take-off. That model was allowed to fly a full circult instead of being immediately dumped in an open field. That circut required a turn which involved pointing it directly at the flight-line and about 100 members of the public. I shudder to think what would have happened if the fire had disabled the RC gear or some other problem resulted in a loss of control at that point. Yet apparently -- that's acceptable flying -- and yet our activities with 500g foamies is not.

But when we fly a 500g foamie over a bunch of people dressed in full-face helmets and leathers -- we're castigated for being unsafe?

It seems that the guys from the jet SIG can do no wrong with their very lethal models but we can do no right with 500g of foam.

The other thing is that there have been no complaints from the gokarts or the dirtbikes. They don't consider our flying to be a risk to them -- so why are busy-body third-parties taking it upon themselves to declare that it is?

I should point out also that the dirtbike track is right at the end of the runway. Every time a full-sized plane takes off and lands there is a risk that it could suffer an engine failure that would see it crash into that track -- something that would almost certainly cause a fatality.

That's an acceptable risk (despite three full-size crashes at the airfield I'm aware of) -- yet a 500g foamie isn't.

Something smells here.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Shotglass » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:59 am

RCModelReviews wrote:We've been pilloried for flying 500g foam models over guys wearing full body armor while riding 100Kg dirtbikes and leaping several metres into the air


as you said yourself both sports are quite inherently dangerous and while youre correct in saying that their safety gear means your foamy wont do any direct damage to the rider or driver, distracting either by eg hitting them mid jump or forcing them to avoid your wreckage on track has some real dangers associated with it

I shudder to think what would have happened if the fire had disabled the RC gear or some other problem resulted in a loss of control at that point. Yet apparently -- that's acceptable flying


well clearly it isnt but from the looks of it logic seems to have failed in several of the involved parties

The other thing is that there have been no complaints from the gokarts or the dirtbikes. They don't consider our flying to be a risk to them


then you should see if you can convince them to put that in writing
Shotglass
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:42 am

Things are pretty rocky when it becomes necessary to get written proof that a party hasn't complained rather than the onus being on the accusing party to prove they have.

And this points to the root of the problem -- all we have are vague, unspecified and anonymous allegations of wrongdoing.

Our requests for details have been ignored.

Either they don't have any facts to back up those allegations or they don't want anyone checking the veracity of their alleged facts.

That simply is not fair or reasonable. When you refuse tell someone what they did wrong, can't present evidence to support your allegations and give them no right to refute your claims -- something is very, very wrong.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Hallmark » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:23 am

RCModelReviews wrote:That simply is not fair or reasonable. When you refuse tell someone what they did wrong, can't present evidence to support your allegations and give them no right to refute your claims -- something is very, very wrong.


Please allow me to compare this situation to one here in South Australia recently:

The State Government wrote and enforced laws designed to control the associations of outlaw motorcycle gang members (organised criminals) and these laws held that the accused could be sanctioned (upon application by the police commissioner), without any notice or any allegations (such as police intelligence information) being afforded to the affected party at any time until and after the control order(s) were issued.

The idea of these 'anti-association' laws was to prevent these parties from being in each other's company, supposedly then disrupting the network and breaking down the gang culture. I think the Government missed the anti-social aspect of these people and that this would only allow future prosecutions if the laws stood, it would not stop the culture.The bikies rightfully challenged these laws and won. The State Government held that they had to right to legislate against such behaviour and appealed the decision. The matter made it all the way to the High Court of Australia and the laws were held out to be unconstitutional, as such all control orders were declared invalid and the bikies are all matey blokey again.

MFNZ has done exactly this without the protection of legislation to afford them arbitrary decision making abilities, which if introduced in the same form would certainly be found unlawful in any country operating under the Westminster system.

So there is a very short but succinct resolution to be had here. MFNZ and any other body who actually has dated and signed complaints (that pre-date the time where decisions were made), must produce these documents and afford the SWMAC an opportunity to answer/defend any allegations made. This is the process of natural justice being afforded in an adversarial system.

If they fail, neglect or refuse to do this, the members of SWMAC could readily ignore the trespass notice based on the fact that the reasons under which it was issued are erroneous and although police might well act on the council's behalf if called, I doubt any court would convict given the history of the matter. If I were able to travel to NZ this week I'd be more than happy to take to the air with my AXN (after joining SWMAC) and have fun without being an idiot!

Shame shame shame...
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." Winston Churchill
User avatar
Hallmark
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to FPV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest