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 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
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 of 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
Dave Brown AMA president
President’s Perspective
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.
I ask you to 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 limits should be.
We are all in this together, and we will
either live together or die together and we
will all pay for the privilege. MA
Dave Brown
AMA president
dbrown@dbproducts.com
February 2004 5
I ask you, where should
that “line in the sand”
be drawn?
02sig1.QXD 11/25/03 1:40 pm Page 5
