In this article you will find:-
- A copy of an email sent to the SAG by a member of MAAC.
- A copy of the response sent by the Chairman of the SAG to the member.
- The reply to that response.
- Discussion of the ramifications to MAAC of the inappropriate attitudes exhibited by the SAG chairman.
- Discussion of an example of inappropriate field rules resulting from the refusal of the SAG to even hear, let alone heed, advice from knowledgeable members.
A member of MAAC recently wrote to the Safety Advisory Group to express a concern. The SAG consists of only three people – one zone director and two appointed members. These three people cannot possibly have a comprehensive understanding of all of the categories of model aircraft operations engaged in by MAAC’s membership. Specifically, none of this tiny group has any significant knowledge of Free Flight operations (which cover a wide range of activities in themselves) or Control Line activities (having a similarly wide range of subsets). Each is active in RC – but even so, they cannot possibly cover all of the different aspects even of RC operations. The member was concerned that the group had been exposed to misleading information concerning the normal operating procedures for Free Flight model aircraft and that this could result in inappropriate safety rules being formulated. The same could also be true, of course, for the many other categories of model aircraft operations which this group has no direct experience or knowledge of, but the writer was concerned about Free Flight.
This is what the member wrote:-
I understand that the SAG has been sent a link to a YouTube video showing free flight behaviour at an event in the UK. In case this should be interpreted as indicating any kind of normal behaviour in North America I wish to set the record straight.
I was born, and grew up, in the UK. I learned to build and fly model aircraft there, before emigrating to Canada in 1965. Prior to emigrating I had not flown significantly since about 1956 – I was too busy with gaining a higher education. I did attend the British Nationals in 1955 and1956. Since then I had not flown in the UK until 2009, when I went to compete in a commemorative event for Dixielanders – my favourite FF Power aeroplane. I must say that initially I was shocked at the lack of discipline – people all over the field, flying with utter disregard for where others (competitors or spectators) might be. I very quickly, of course, recalled that it had been that way in my youth – but I was still surprised that things had not changed in over half a century.
There are a number of things that can be learned from the video, but before getting in to those I should point out that there is something of an anomaly with it. It is indicated that it was taken at a National Competition, which is rather odd because none of the aircraft shown are competition type models – they are what is classified as ‘sport’ models. Very few people in North America fly ‘sport’ models. The main difference between ‘sport’ and ‘competition’ flying is that ‘sport’ models are typically launched more-or-less horizontally. By contrast, ‘competition’ models are typically launched more-or-less vertically upwards and thus do not fly in the vicinity of persons on the ground, except at the end of the flight – which is usually a considerable distance from the launch point.
To get back to the video and what can be learned from it – and what should not be taken from it. Firstly, the sheer number of people flying models randomly all over the field, plus the number of spectators, provides an illustration of the popularity of that type of event in Britain. That is not so here. The video soundtrack does show the people gathered there are having a good time, there is much laughter and banter. Please do not take it that this is because they are ignorant of the risks involved – they have been doing this since before WWII and they are quite happy to continue doing what they are comfortable with. Several incidents of aeroplanes colliding with people are seen in the video, and many near-misses. No-one is perturbed by it – a person is seen being hit by an aircraft and he simply picks it up and hands it back to the flier with a grin. You can put this down to the well-known eccentricity of the British if you like. I am actually rather surprised by some of what I see in that video, even for Britain – the number of aircraft in this video that clearly have not been trimmed prior to the event is unusual. Perhaps people do not have the opportunities that they used to have for test flying. The main point to be taken, however, is that this video does not represent anything that is likely to be seen at a Free Flight event in North America.
For the nearly sixty years that I have been flying Free Flight in North America it has always been a well-ordered, safety-conscious, activity (which is why I was a little shocked when I flew in Britain after a hiatus of greater than fifty years). Free Flight operations on this side of the great pond have always used a flight line separating the fliers from upwind obstacles (a distance of 100′ or 30m has served well for all of those decades, as it has around the world for jurisdictions that actually have a specified distance, including our nearest neighbour – the USA). The flight line is set up transverse to the wind direction and fliers space themselves along the line, side-by-side. Nearly all set up is done at the flight line (although some may prefer to do some of it at their vehicle, 100′ upwind). Launching is more-or less vertical. Bystanders or spectators are simply not an issue. Suitable flying sites are typically far from populated areas, so very few people drop in casually to see what is going on. Anyone who does ‘drop in’ is not in any significant danger from the flying model aircraft. I suggest that if you want to know how Free Flight operations are managed in North America you view some different videos. Here is one that I can recommend – it shows an event held in Italy, but the modus operandi is the same as is used in North America.
This is a long flight line – most regional contests would only have 20 or so fliers in the flight line. The US Nationals, however, which I have competed in regularly for the last 15 years, has similar numbers to those shown in the video – reckoned in 3 digits.
The Free Flight community has developed its safety practices over nearly 100 years – using the knowledge and experience of people who actually fly the category, most of whom have done so for many decades (over 7 decades in my case). The track record of the Free Flight category speaks for itself. There has never been a case of a Free Flight model creating a dangerous incident with a full-size aircraft – not just in Canada, but throughout the world! The same cannot be said of radio-controlled model aircraft (RPAS if they are over 250g) – which have been demonstrated to have not only the potential, but a track record, of creating dangerous encounters. What can also be said of the RC category is that the size, weight, and speed of the models has grown significantly over recent years – and is likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Free Flight models have not changed to anything like the same extent, and are not likely to do so. In some cases the materials have changed (although by far the greatest majority have not – the rules don’t even allow it) but the flight characteristics have changed very little. The reason for this is that the size of the fields used to fly these models has not increased – in fact it has decreased – so the rules governing things like engine runs, weight of rubber motor used, length of towline, etc., have been changed in order to keep the performance within the same bounds that existed fifty years ago. The continued evolution of the RC model, and especially the development of the multi-rotor craft and its commercial potential, has created a situation where Aviation Regulations had to be developed for those craft in order to ensure safety. The same is not true of either Free Flight models or Control Line models – which Transport Canada have made very clear, in various ways, has led them to conclude that those categories require no regulation from them.
Given the stark differences in the categories it is entirely reasonable that the government saw reason to regulate one category and that it saw no reason to do anything similar for the others. It would be wise for MAAC to follow the same rationale. It has been claimed that, by extending the restrictions on RPAS to other categories (even creating a new category – mRPAS – that Transport Canada did not see fit to describe), MAAC would impress Transport Canada that we are serious about safety and a credible partner. Quite the opposite is true of course. The Canadian government’s aviation regulatory authority is hardly likely to be favourably impressed by a group of amateur volunteers second-guessing their considered opinion on what needs to be more strictly regulated and what does not.
I hope that you will find these musings to be useful.
*** *. ***** #7759L CM
To clarify the situation – the video under discussion was recorded at a Free Flight event in the UK and depicted flying behaviour that, to a North American eye, would appear to be in flagrant disregard of safety. It is clear from the text that the member who wrote about this hoped that a dialogue could lead to realistic rules being created – rules that were created from the extraordinary wealth of experience contained within MAAC’s membership. That was not to be. Here is the response that this dues-paying member of the association received from the appointed chairman of the Safety Advisory Group:-
Mr. *****
I am unsure why you were included in a video link shared with the board, mostly to lighten the mood during a busy week with the SAG/TCAG travel, 3 day work shop meetings and followed up with the MAAC AGM.
Your participation was not and is not required in this matter.
Thank you
SAG
This response is curious in a number of ways. Firstly, the member’s email didn’t suggest that the video link had been shared with him – simply that he was aware of the SAG having been sent it. Secondly, no mention was made of the Board having been sent it – only the SAG – why the Board needed to watch a video of certain Free Flight practices in the UK is rather a puzzle. The real crux of this response, however, comes in that last sentence. Valuable information, pertinent to the SAG’s deliberations and backed up by many decades of experience, was offered to the SAG by the member. Rather than recognizing the value of the contributory remarks and information received, the SAG’s response was to inform the member that his participation was unwelcome.
We could go on to describe the inappropriateness of this response, but we doubt whether many of our readers need our explanations in order to understand it. The member who wrote the original email provided the following response to this curt dismissal:-
Thank you Mr. ********. I wrote to you in an effort to be helpful – I do have 75 years of experience, exclusively with the flying of Free Flight model aircraft. I was concerned that the video that was shared with you could have a detrimental effect upon your perception of Free Flight. I am most interested to hear that participation of a long-standing and expert MAAC member is not required by the SAG.
A short while after this correspondence took place the SAG issued a set of field rules for a flying site that was to be used solely for Free Flight operations. The only fair description for most of what that set of rules contained is that it was ludicrous. For anyone who has even witnessed how free Flight operations are safely conducted it would have been clear that the rules being imposed were impractical and written by someone who had absolutely no idea of the issues involved. The wife of one Free Flight enthusiast, who has never flown the category herself, but has been present on many such occasions over decades, laughed out loud when she read them.
MAAC’s leadership is out of control. The ship has no rudder and is being blown towards the rocks. This association is being led by people who have very little grasp of their position or their function. It is quite clear that the majority of the current Board of Directors believe that, having been elected to the position of Zone Director, they were then miraculously endowed with infinite knowledge of all things model aircraft. That is a very dangerous and mistaken position to take. In truth, anyone who is elected to such a position should immediately take the stance that any prior knowledge that they had is minimal. As the volunteer director of a NFP Corporation, especially one who has been elected to represent a geographic zone and not because of broad and elevated knowledge of all things aeromodelling, the incumbent should recognize that his or her own knowledge is miniscule compared with that required to perform the task. The job of such a director is to gather as much truly expert opinion as they can, about each subject that they are to make a decision upon, to ask pertinent questions, then to weigh those opinions and use their best judgment to make decisions that are justifiable and fair, and above all, do not harm one segment of the membership in order to benefit another. The job of the director is to make wise and justifiable decisions based on as much expert opinion as he/she can get access to – it is extremely important to disregard as much as possible their own ideas and prejudices, unless these are demonstrably supported by other expert opinion. This is a very different set of circumstances than for the person who is chosen to become a director for a For-Profit Corporation. Those directors are not volunteers, and they are not elected, they are chosen – usually by some or all of the directors already on that Board. They are chosen specifically for the expertise that they bring to the Boardroom, they are expected to apply that expertise for the good of the corporation, and they are usually paid well for it. They may still sometimes seek expert advice, if a decision requires knowledge or skills that the Board does not have, but those occasions will be rare. For the NFP Board those occasions are the norm.
The same argument goes for the Advisory Groups that MAAC has seen fit to create over the years – populated largely by people who were not elected to such positions. They should see their appointment as giving them the responsibility to seek out expert opinion on all the subjects they are asked to consider and then provide fulsome and well-informed advice – they should not see it as an anointment of themselves as the sole and final arbiters of all things in their purview.