Conference vmszoo::rc

Al,

I don't agree with you (totally) on the ARF issue. If it weren't for Randy 
helping (read: doing all the hard parts) on my kits, I would never be able to
get an airplane off of the ground. I just don't seem to have those skills.

But I do (no comments from those that have watched me :^)) have the skills to
fly a model. They are just not related. And I enjoy it, and do fly in a
responsible manner. 

I do concede your point about someone grabbing a plane, hauling it out to the 
local park and putting it up without instruction, I just see it as a different
problem not related to modeling skills.

BTW, if you ban ARF's for that reason you also have to kill the resale market on
already built planes.

Steve

    Well, I gone 'n went 'n done it agin'!  I failed to observe my own
    count-to-ten rule before responding to an emotional issue and blasted
    away at ARF's.  I guess it was pretty naive of me to think I might not
    offend someone who flies ARF's and for that I sincerely apologize.
    
    I received an off-line response to my thoughts about ARF's that
    exceeded my initial note in emotion, if not venom.  This provoked me to
    think (for a change) that it'd probably be a good idee' if I expanded
    and clarified my objections to ARF's so as to take it off a personal
    and/or emotional plane.  I've removed all reference to who wrote the
    letter out of consideration for him but should note that he is not a
    regular noter and few if any would recognize the name...I didn't.
    
    While I think the writer undermined his good points by the tone of the
    letter, I still feel obliged to apologize to him for provoking him in
    the first place.  So, with that done, here's my response and a further
    explanation of my position regarding ARF's:
    
    _______________________________________________________________________ 
    
Mornin', Xxxx,  

Never for a moment did I expect my response regarding ARF airplanes to be 
universally embraced.  Fact is, I fully expected, perhaps hoped, to stir things 
up a bit and provoke a discussion on the subject.  The _last_ thing I expected, 
however, was a personal attack sprinkled with insults and afronts to my 
character.  My intention was never to offend you or anyone else.

Believe it or not, Xxxx, I'm not a bad guy, let alone a snob; I freely help
beginners develop their building and flying skills, am never too busy to talk
to interested beginners and spectators and do my best to help the novice avoid
the mistakes I've either made personally or observed over my 40+ years as a
model aircraft enthusiast. I also have a wife who thinks I'm a pretty nice guy
and two puppies whom I never beat or mistreat in any way.  My words were an
expression of personal opinion, to which we are all entitled and, quite
honestly, I was more than a little surprised at the venom of your response.  If
I was guilty of not choosing my words as wisely as I might have, I believe we
share the guilt. 

What do you say we call a truce and discuss this with a little less emotion?  
You made some very good points which I acknowledge freely but I'd like to 
expand a bit on my position in hopes that, whether or not you ever agree with 
me, you'll at least understand and, hopefully, appreciate where I'm coming 
from..., fair enough?

>   As basically a read-only noter and a new person to this hobby, I
>   find this statement totally outrageous.  How many automobiles did
>   you craft before you got behind the wheel for the first time?  How
>   many firearms did you smith before you first fired one?  These 
>   are not exaggerations to the point.  They are the point.  

* These analogies don't quite wash, Xxxx.  I, for one, was not allowed behind 
  the wheel until I'd undergone some minimum amount of indoctrination and 
  training, culminating in a written and behind the wheel examination resulting 
  in a drivers license.  This process was intended to prepare me for the rigors
  of driving, inform me of the rules, regulations and safety considerations 
  inherent with the operation of a motor vehicle in such a manner as presents 
  minimum hazard to me and, more importantly, the lives and property of others.
  A similar process is available through the NRA and numerous shooting, hunting
  clubs for the safe handling and operation of firearms, though not required by 
  law.

  Whenever someone shortcuts these procedures and operates the car or firearm 
  without proper instruction/indoctrination, accidents, many times grievous 
  ones in terms of personal injury and even loss of life, are the result.  And, 
  when this happens, the entire population of safe, responsible operators takes
  a severe eye-blacking.  If you don't believe this, just ask the NRA how tough 
  it is to fight the negative public image created by criminals and whackos who
  do NOT represent the majority of gun owners.

>						..........How can you
>   stand up on your soap box and preach that one has to "pay his dues"
>   before they have a sense of what's right or wrong?  If you don't think
>   that is a snobbish statement, it's time to wake up and smell the 
>   coffee.   Who say's you have to be a "modeler" to fly a RC aircraft?
>   You?  Who do you think you are passing judgement on a whole segment
>   of enthusiasts?  'Me thinks you  ought to change your last name
>   from Casey to God.

* Xxxx, being a modeler, i.e. building one's own models, is NOT the point here!
  What's vitally important is the on-the-job-learning process that takes place 
  as a novice works his way towards that flying model.  Even if he remains 
  aloof from the modeling world and builds his creation in the closet, as it 
  were, he simply can't help but begin to appreciate the demands of flying it.
  Ideally, this newcomer will be hanging around the hobby shop and the flying 
  field, observing, learning, seeking advice.  Hopefully, he joins a club and 
  becomes the student of an experienced hand.  Bottom line, he has _some_ 
  chance of being cognizant of the dangers of improper operation BEFORE he 
  arrives at the field to attempt that first flight.

  My bone of contention with the ARF is that a totally "unaware" person can 
  simply pay the dollars, spend a week in the garage assembling, then go out
  to attempt to fly his new "toy" (his word, not mine) and be totally *UN* 
  AWARE of the consequences of irresponsible operation, whether deliberate or 
  not.  I've seen _many_ occasions where someone with an ARF, his very first
  model, goes out to the first vacant patch of ground he finds, turns on his 
  transmitter and shoots down another plane being flown at an organized field
  a mile away.  (This exact incident occurred at the 1987 Scale Masters and two
  Masters quality models were lost before the source of the problem was 
  located.)  Now, this guy didn't do this maliciously, he did it because he
  was totally ignorant of frequencies, transmitter impounding, etc.  I blame 
  the ARF more than the purchaser for making this scenario possible.  

  Incidentally, I just have to say that your last statement ("change your name 
  from Casey to God")was totally uncalled for and I resent the implication!

>    I have great admiration for someone with the A) skill,  B) patience,
>    and c) time   to build a scratch plane.  They are works of art that
>    happen to be able to fly.  Should they be the only things in the air?
>    No.  Should ARF's be the only things in the air? No.

* Right on, Xxxx!  I couldn't agree more with this statement.

>    I see two hobbies here, then.  Modeling and RC flying.  Why don't you
>    and all of your worshipers go and start a seperate note where you
>    can be smug in your little world and know that noone can invade
>    without *your* approval, and the rest of us can enjoy something
>    that interests us without having to be belittled by some narrow
>    minded modeler.

* Pretty low blow, Xxxx!  Now, you not only take a shot at me, you also malign
  others in the notesfile.  Again, uncalled for and it makes it difficult to
  read and acknowledge the good points you make when you resort to name calling.
  If this is an emotional issue (and it obviously is to you), I have to suggest 
  that we must take the emotion out of discussing it...otherwise, neither side 
  will ever hear the other's position and there'll never be resolution.  I 
  remain more than willing to discuss the issue intelligently and civily but 
  will not respond further to insult laden attacks.

>    Xxxx, who is breaking in the engine for my Hobbico Avistar ARF.
>    And I *will* fly it with help from an instructor at a club field.
>    So your theory that I will be flying unsafely is bull.  Pure and simple.

* Xxxx, I hope you'll believe me when I say I honestly, most sincerely, wish 
  you the best of luck with your new airplane and I welcome you to the great
  hobby/sport/recreation of RC flying.  The approach (club, instructor, etc.)
  you're taking is the proper one and, if it were feasible to expect that every
  purchaser of an ARF would follow your example, we wouldn't be having this 
  conversation since I would have no issue whatever with ARF's in that event.

  But human nature assures us that it will not be so, any more than no one will
  ever drive a car without being trained and licensed or handle a firearm 
  safely and legally.  Therein lies my dislike of the ARF, in the potential 
  threat it poses on the right of responsible fliers like you and me to be able
  to freely pursue our chosen recreation...nothing more, nothing less.  No 
  smugness, no snobbishness, just the fear that our freedon to fly could be 
  impinged by the too easy access to flying that ARF's provide to the 
  uninformed, the irresponsible, even the malevolent element.

I truly hope this better explains my position and removes some of the bad-guy 
image you ascribed to me.  I'm sincere when I say I hope we can be friends as
I'm never comfortable in the knowledge that someone is upset with me and I'd 
really like to think we can iron this out to the extent that I could even be of 
some help to you someday.  
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

I guess I have to partially disagree with John Chadd and Al Casey. I don't
think ARFs will take over 100% of the market because there's too many of us
who just plain like to build! I enjoy the craft part of that, the opportunity
to put something of yourself into the plane (how often do you look at a model
and simply KNOW who built it?). Not to mention knowing every detail of the
model, inside and out. I think kits may lose some ground to ARFs, but I predict
they will remain a fair part of the market. Time will tell who is right.

As for banning the ARFs, I don't agree with that either. The scenario that Al
describes probably does occur, but I don't consider it a good reason to
eliminate ARFs. There will ALWAYS be "renegade" flyers, like there will always
be bad drivers and unsafe hunters. But we don't ban cars and guns. We can,
however, continue to promote clubs, educate the public (mall shows, etc), and
when you see a renegade, talk to him about joining a club, flying at designated
fields, and he'll learn the rest by osmosis. 

ARFs aren't the problem. Ignorance is the problem.

Dave

>fields, and he'll learn the rest by osmosis. 

"The Rest" by Osmosis

Available at book stores everywhere.

Sorry - I couldn't resist.

Along with my other predictions I further predict
that ARF's will advance to the state that it no
longer takes a few evenings to assemble - they
will come "Basically Almost Ready to Fly".

Of course they will then be called BARFs :-)

And the little bag inside the box with the Transmitter, ni-starter,
chicken stick, etc. will be called the BARF Bag :-)

And the pilots will be called BARFers and BARFettes
depending on their sex - except in California where
they will be called 

"Wicked totally awsome and far out BAR-Flys - for sure".

Scale ARF's will be called SCARF's for which we will
expect Al Casey to be wearing a white one.

This is fun - but I hope I don't get any hate mail.
I have nothing against ARF's and you could argue that
buying planes at Auctions is ARFing.  But I do share
Al's concerns.  

Can we please have some more predictions about the
future of RC Flying?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    My club back home in Germany has around 50 active members, the DECRCM
    club back east I counted around 20 people when I was there but I
    haven't seen anyone flying an ARF. The only person I know flying an ARF
    was me. It was a present of a fiend, who made a sensational deal on it
    but had no interest to fly it. But I did since it was for free and
    brandnew. It flew okay until I had a little crash - resulted in
    non_repairable wings - they where thousand something little pieces
    left - fuse survived. The next accident resulted in the total loss of
    the fuse. 
    
    My personal opignion is that ARFs will always play a minor role in the
    RC modeling world. All modelers I know enjoy building, some even more than
    flying. I personally will never pay money for an ARF, but this doesn't
    mean noboddy shouldn't. It's up to everyone to do what's best for him.
    
    This NOTE is for builders AND pilots !
    
    
    Bernd, who sometimes gets emotional, too.
    
    
    

    This has obviously gone off track (off topic) but at the same time,
    is I think, something that needed to be said. It might not be a bad
    idea to have a SOAPBOX topic where people can be allowed to speak
    their mind and not worry about which topic there in. If the mods
    agree, then maybe this can be moved there.
    
    My first impression to Al's dislike of ARF'S was a little defensive.
    Of course when you consider that in the 2 years I've been involved
    in the hobby, I've had 5 airplanes only one of which was built by me.
    That being the WOT-4. My first plane (glider) was an ARF. My second
    was an already built kit, my third was an already built kit, my forth
    was an ARF, and then the WOT-4. So, as you can see, I don't really
    consider myself a builder.
    
    The other thing that struck me is that there is still alot of no longer
    valid bad feelings about ARF'S out there. Granted, when they first came
    out, they usually flew like a rock and weighed about as much. Today,
    that's not even close to the case. Most ARF'S are all balsa and ply
    built up planes that are just as good, if not better then the average
    person could do themselves. My next plane has just as much a chance
    of being an ARF as it does being built by me.
    
    BUT.......there ain't no denying it. Al has a VERY valid point. We
    don't tend to see it that much out here in the North East because
    wide open spaces are not that available like they are in the mid
    West. For the most part, if a person doesn't join a club, they don't
    have a place to fly.
    
    Yet, even out here, I hear of people, and even know one myself, that
    buy planes and go off on there own to learn to fly. This one person
    I'm thinking of DID buy a kit and build it, but he's trying to fly
    out of his backyard and is probably averaging about 30 seconds per
    flight before the crash. He's rebuilt the plane about 5 times that
    I know of. I think he even hit a house on one "flight".
    
    Unfortunately, regulating this issue becomes complicated. What about
    the beginner who is buying his first plane???? He has no flying skills
    but has every intention of joining a club and getting instruction. So
    who signs off for him???? His future instructor????? the club????? 
    Should the club or the instructor be responsible????? Who's to 
    guarantee that this guy won't go out in his backyard someday and try
    to fly. If he kills someone, is the person/club who signed off on his
    buying the ARF going to be held responsible????
    
    Anyway, I started this by saying that my first reaction was defensive.
    When I READ what was written, it made alot of sense and I can
    understand completely where Al is coming from. I also agree with what
    was said. Wether there's anything that can be done about it is another
    story. I don't think Al deserved the flame. At the very least,
    everyones entitled to their opinion. At best, we can learn from those
    more experienced.
    
    Unfortunately, this IS a hobby where one bad apple can spoil it for the
    rest of us. Rather than flaming Al, I would suggest that the author
    read what was really being said, and if his/her interest is really what
    they say, understand the concern and love of the hobby that was pouring
    out and take on those same concerns for yourself.
    
    Steve

I started on a Testor's Skyhawk rudder only .049 _RF. I put in the blank because 
all I had to do was pop in some dry cells and fuel it. It was an unrepairable 
ABS plastic fuselage and a foam wing (quite the sight with a galloping ghost
wiggling the tail.) I started building so I could repair after crashes and so I 
could have a lighter plane (since all ARFs were bricks back then) I'm impressed 
with the latest generation of ARFs because they seem to meet this criteria.

I'm concerned about the people who (as the ad says) Go out and put down their 
plastic card so they can have a hobby with their kid. And when it's lost to a 
flyaway, The cards buy protection plan will  replace it. I don't like that 
mentality pulling up to the school yard near my house on a bright saturday 
afternoon.

You won't get a unique model in an ARF but they can get you back into the air 
when a series of crashes wipes out your hanger. I enjoy scratch building too
much to go all-ARF but there's a place for them. I just think it makes the
impulse buyer think he can buy his way into the hobby.

Well, after 3 or 4 years of Al Casey in this conference, I had
concluded that it was absolutely impossible to jerk his
chain...congrats, Mystery Noter, you've come closer than anybody
yet. Now stick around a while and learn from him.

On the ARF rat hole...I was surprised that nobody pointed out
that it was a Thunder Tiger ARF that shot down the Goodyear blimp
a couple of weeks ago...exactly what Al pointed out, that any
bozo can by a plane and do damage with it.  It does occur to me
though that if I were flying that ARF, I couldn't put it into the
blimp...even by accident. Heck, I can't even hit the field,
though I do pretty good on my fellow pilots.  Anyway, trainers
nowadays are so easy to build that bozos can do it.  My PT40
practically fell together, so what's the difference?

On the other side of the ARF coin.  I subscribe to Model Builder
magazine.  About a year ago, they started an ARF column; I read
it the first time because I expected it to be ridiculous and
reading it would make me feel superior.  What I found was an
intelligent, well thought out column that has kept me going back
and learning, even though I would never buy one myself.  

Alton, when you move this to the new topic, just blow it away; I
needed to put in 2 cents about something I know about, since I
just got nailed (offline) for talking about something I didn't
know about.

Well no way did I think I would create such a controversy with my comments on 
ARF's. I tend to agree with many previous notes that while it is a valuable, 
although heated interchange it is not really in keeping with the topic of this 
note title and should be moved.

For one who hates building models, ARF would have a certain attraction to me. I
don't actually own one but if I did the "Ding Bat" looks like fun. On the down
side however the concerns Al has are real. Here in Australia we had an electric
ARF sold complete with radio and batteries for the equivalent of US$165 through
a supermarket type store. The store's staff were telling customers to go to the
local oval and fly it, as it was electric no rules applied. They were ignorant 
of the risks of flying such models.

I think therefore we have two types of ARF; Low End supermarket models and the 
Up Market ARF models as sold by the traditional RC outlets. The Low End 
models are the ones in general I feel applies to Al's comments, the other's are 
"legitimate" and while there will be exceptions with individuals they represent 
little risk to our sport.

Generalisation is dangerous as there is always exceptions but I think the
above covers the concerns expressed to date. 

John

prompted by Steve's paraphrase, 
>>  Arf's don't crash planes into houses, people crash planes into houses :^)

    The implied analogy is very good, including the split between the
    serious specialist and the casual buyer.  The moves towards regulation
    are also apt to be parallel except that modelers cannot claim
    constitutional protection and they are less numerous.  If a problem
    ever becomes serious, the public response will be to _forbid_ flying
    lawnmowers, period.  To head that off, the modelers will have to
    campaign for licensing as the lesser of the evils.  Hunter safety
    courses taught by the NRA and endorsed by law give us a pattern to
    follow.  To lay the base for a reasonable regulatory environment, our
    clubs should pay a lot of attention to public relations and to public
    service.

Alton, who has actually seen first hand the "maverick in the school yard"

     I have heard a rumor that he guy involved in the blimp accident
    faces a 250,000.00 fine. 
    
    That should put a damper on his RC budget.
    
    I also heard he tried to claim it on his AMA insurance. Ya he is/was
    an AMA member.  
    
    
    Tom

    My .02 cents worth!
    
    I understand that it would be easier for a non-modeler/flyer to go to 
    their local hobby shop and purchase an ARF and commence to go outdoors
    and try their hand at it, but I would give the majority the benefit of
    the doubt and say that they would have the common sense to attempt it
    in a remote area.
    
    I say this because..... How many incidents have we heard of where some
    "bozo" went out in the center of town with a RC plane and injured some-
    one or damaged something.  To tell you the truth, the blimp incident is
    the only one I'VE heard of (not to say there wasn't others).
    
    Think back...I too was one who purchased an ARF and taught myself how
    to fly.  But again common sense told me....HEY!  If this thing ever got
    out of control it could kill someone.  So I found a good size field in 
    a remote part of town and with the help of YOU noters, taught myself
    how to fly.  And I thank you.
    
    To sum up, I think only a hand full of "bozos" exist in our RC world
    and its those senseless "dweebs" who would try to fix an electrical
    appliance with it plugged in!  I don't think we should blame ARF's
    for their lack of intelligence or ignorance....I mean...look how easy
    it is to buy kits already built from this here notesfile! (I did that
    too, ie. my Eaglet).  But I DO agree that a person will learn so much
    more by building his own ship and enjoying the fact that he built it 
    from sticks, ie. my Super Chipmunk!
    
    Ken  (please don't flame me cause I'm sensitive :-)  )

    As a person with young and very inquesitive children, and lacking
    a room I can keep them out of, ARF's were my only way to enter the
    RC world. As stated before, getting the plane and radio was easy.
    Has anyone ever looked at how secretive fling clubs are about there
    existance. I got my plane thru Tower and learned about clubs in
    my area thru this conference. While I agree with .12 about common
    sense, we must take some of the blame for not letting people know
    we exist. Who has asked a "supermarket" toy shop to have their clubs
    literature posted next to the planes they are selling. I see it
    in " RC'er approved" model shops but not in Toy 'R' US.
   
   While we can not prevent the "Cowboys", We can reduce the problem
    with good publicity and education.
    
    Doug Burns
    
    A beginner with an ARF

RE:

>    ....look how easy
>    it is to buy kits already built from this here notesfile!


  Does this mean we need to ban the Snowman from RC??!??  

                 (BIG smile...big smile...)    8^)


                      Jim

            
    
        Let me take a different cut at what I believe Al was saying in his
    original note. Thinking of RC building and flying as a practice (not
    just a hobby) may help articulate some of the thoughts in the earlier
    replies. Stay with me guys - It may make more sense the second time you
    read it.
    
        Al, as many others in this hobby/sport regard the acts of building
    and flying RC aircraft as a practice. I am defining a practice as an
    socially estabished human activity though which internal
    accomplishments are achieved in the pursuit of achieving the standards
    of excellence of the practice.
         Internal accomplishments are things like the satisfaction you get
    internally from having achieved a certain standard of excellence in
    building your own plane, and the internal feeling of accomplishment
    of successfuly competing in a contest.
          External accomplishments are things like the trophy you recieve
    from winning the contest. In general, there are unlimited internal goods
    available, but limited external goods ie; there is only one first place
    trophy. External accomplishmants also do not tend to contribute to the
    furthering of the practice.
          The following is an exerpt from "After Virtue" by Alasdair
    Mcintyre.
          A practice involves standards of excellence and obedience to
    rules as well as the achievement of goods. To enter into a practice is
    to accept the authority of those standards, AND the inadaquacy of my
    own performance to judge by them. It is to subject my own attitudes,
    choices, preferences and tastes to the standards which currently and
    partially define the practice. Practices of course, have a history.
    Thus the standards are not themselves immune from criticism, but none
    the less we cannot be initiated into a practice without accepting
    the authority of the best standards realized so far.
    
       Sooooo, what does this all relate to RC flying and ARF's.
    
      -   When building an ARF, you are denying yourself the internal goods
        or accomplishments realized from participating in the practice of
        building. The mear process of building  a kit helps highlight the fact
        that the person is a beginner, and presents a catalyst to start
        asking question of others.  Building of an ARF can falsely
        portray a sense of expertize in the building practice which may
        follow over to overconfidence in the flying aspect of the practice.
         
    
      -   It may be a false assumption that the standards of excellence
        achievable in the flying aspect of the hobby can be realized in
        full without also pursuing the complementary practice of building
        since they are somewhat intertwined.
    
      -   The existance of ARF's and their easy accessability to people
        who are interested in only the idea of RC flying vs. entering the
        practice of RC flying presents an inherent danger to society, and
        the continuation of the practice of that has evolved through a 
        history, ie; The type of person who isn't intersted in asking for
        help, finding out about the safety aspects, joining a club etc. 
    
    
       -  People like Al Casey currently represent the best authority 
        regarding the standards of excellence of the practice, and have
        a great deal of knowledge the rest of us can learn from. To deny
        yourself this knowledge is acknowledging the fact that one is not
        ready to take a beginners entry position into the practice, and it
        seriously questions if the person is actually interested in
        achieving any level of excellence in the practice. Example: If on
        starting to learn take offs and landings, I do not accept my own
        incapacity to judge correctly, and the fact that others know how to
        take off and land better than I do, I will never learn how to do a
        good landing, or even realize or appreciate what a good landing
        looks like. I attribute the great success of people like Ajai to
        the fact that he is willing to position himself as a beginner into
        a practice so effectively.
    
         Summary (finally)
    
           RC flying can be an inherantly dangerous practice. To enter
         into the practice lightheartedly greatly expands the danger
         potential from several aspects. People who purchase an ARF to
         start in the practice are already taking shortcuts in the building
         practice (and that may be ok), the real danger is the attitude of
         the purchaser towards the next practice of flying the aircraft. If
         they take the time, and put themseves in a beginner position, and
         acknowledge the knowledge of others already in the practice, it
         should turn out fine. If not ...........
           SO the real question is not about the ARF itself, but rather the
         overly easy entry point they create into a complex practice for some
         unknowlegable individuals who may be unaware of the potential
         consequences.

re: .15

I agree with your summary, but I lost some of the connection between it and your
previous bullets.

I still can't see the two talents (building and flying) as that closely linked.
I suspect that anyone that is good at video games would probably be fairly adept
at controlling an RC plane, both involve the hands controlling an object seen
in the 'third person' perspective. This does not, however, mean that the same
person would be able to master what appear to me to be essentially different
skills required for building.

Flying is more of a feedback loop, you see the plane, add some control input, 
see the plane respond to that, modify your input, etc. For building, you need
the ability to visualize what a finished piece will look like, and how the 
various parts will go into that piece. This is where I have problems. (I always
failed those tests that ask what the unfolded flat cardboard would look like 
when folded into a box on the dotted lines). It also requires motor coordination
for small hand movements on a fairly precise level, far more precise than those
required on the sticks when flying at normal skill levels. Also, I have made 
mistakes on the sticks without causing any real problems on the airplane. If I
had made the same order of magnitude mistakes when cutting a rib, for instance,
the rib would have been useless.

I do agree that the sport is dangerous, and some sort of supervised learning
experience should be required. I just don't tie it into the building of a model.

Another way to look at it is, if I had to build my first model by myself, it 
would not have been safe no matter who tried to fly it, and doubly dangerous if
I did!

Steve

    Having entered the hobby of RC flying several years ago via gliders
    I have made several observations.  First and foremost, everyone thinks
    that what they are doing is the best and right thing.  I fly gliders
    from slope, highstart, and also have an electric glider.  I enjoy
    watching power planes fly and regularly attend power fun flys and have
    enjoyed the Flying Aces rubber powered events.  I respect superior
    building skills regardless of what type of aircraft results(glider,
    ducted fan jet, rubber powered plane,etc).  To some degree I feel my
    attitude is rare in our hobby.  I first experienced this feeling when
    I showed up at the local RC Club with my first glider, and was treated
    like a leper!  OK so I got the message first informally, then formally-
    Gliders and power planes don't mix!  Now I know that there are
    exceptions, but generally speaking power plane flyers have no
    time/respect for glider flyers, and I have found that Glider flyers
    by and large feel the same about power flyers.  The rubber flyers I
    have met at meets have been the friendliest and think that glider
    pilots might be ok(notice I said might) and that power flyers, like
    their equipment are loud jerks.  Now many noters talk about how
    friendly fellow modelers are, I find this to be more true if you are
    pursuing the same aspect of the hobby as the person you are talking to.
    A lot of lip service is given to how much everyone likes all aspects of
    modeling but I have not met many power flyers at glider meets, or many
    glider flyers at power meets.   To all noters(myself) included- your
    prejudices show!  I would like to think that  a well built electric
    model would be of interest to a dyed in the wool power flyer and a 
    beautiful P-51 would be of interest to gliders flyers.  This, however 
    is not the case.
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim

After reading the initial note by Al, and the many interesting replies, most
of which raised valid points, I sent home the following telegram.

*****

Fueding breaks  out  among  ranks  of  rich  American  spoilt  brats whether
building  aeromodels  or  bying  them better STOP Locals unaware poor Injuns
much  grateful  if  building materials readily available and most willing to
supply   cheap   Third   World  labour  in  copious  quantities  to  achieve
aeromodelling  goals STOP

Locals also unaware that ARFs, barring some cheap, icky control line models,
unavailable in India, obviating need for such discussions STOP Being land of
opportunity,  seeing  first  hand the problems of wealthy citizens facing so
many  staggering  choices  adding great value to my great American adventure
STOP  

Still learning  to  deal  with  fact  that  possible  to  get  all  supplies
imaginable  by  calling toll-free and giving number printed on plastic card,
all  delivered  to  doorstep within a week STOP Am used to planning material
needs  few  years  in advance, and awaiting return of friends/relatives from
abroad  with  items  requested STOP More often than not, they returned empty
handed  as  unable  to  relate  to  hobby STOP Learnt to fix my broken heart
besides  broken  planes  in  20  yr tenure as modeller STOP 

Currently have  a 3"x3"x30" block of balsa in my workshop delivered UPS from
Tower Hobbies for $4.89 STOP Sole purpose of wood is to be constant reminder
of  [aeromodelling]  possibilities  open  to  common  man, who earns minimum
$4.25/hour  in  this Great nation STOP Such options unthinkable elsewhere in
the world STOP When will people learn STOP

:-) :-)

Seriously, I wasn't joking about that "log" of balsawood - it certainly is a
sight for sore Injun eyes!!

Getting back  to  the  topic  on hand - and going over my experiences in the
hobby  over  the  past  2 decades - I have to say that I learnt a great deal
from  the  chuck-gliders  (hand launch), tow-line gliders, CL and FF models,
before  I  graduated to RC. That, in fact, was the usual path, with no short
cuts  to  building/flying RC models directly. I find it hard to believe that
one  can  just  be  a pilot, and a good/safe one, without knowing your plane
inside and out. How would you perform maintenance (due to a crash, or due to
long  hours of flying) otherwise? How would you be in a position to judge if
a plane is flyable or not? Or if something went wrong on that bad landing?

When Al  usually  says  Nooo  to ARFs, I knew what he meant, perhaps because
neither  of us had ARFs available when we got started (me 20 yrs ago in poor
ole' India,  and  he  40 yrs ago in _rich_'n'young 'merica :-) ), and learnt
lessons  along  the  way  that  can't  be  duplicated by any other means. Of
course,  Monsieur  le  Mystery writer could have, unwittingly, misunderstood
the  stand  being  taken, for lack of knowing the complete context, which Al
later clarified.

Let me  jump  over  to Amateur Radio for a quick analogy. There used to be a
time when every radio had to be built/modified. Now you can buy them off the
shelf. The only salvation to all this is the licence exam, which does _some_
filtering. Besides theory, there is morse code, that some want taken out, as
it is  archaic,  and/or  irrelevant  to  those  who  want  to  hook up their
computers  to  their radios. There are major arguments for and against doing
away  with  code  published  in magazines. One key point is that these tests
gives  pause  for  an  aspiring  Ham to learn the band etiquette well, so he
doesn't pollute a resource - the RF spectrum. And one of the golden rules in
Ham radio is LISTEN, THEN LISTEN SOME MORE!

Regarding guns  -  you  have  to bend over backwards to posses one in India,
unlike the ease with which you can purchase one here. The statistics clearly
speak for  themselves. Most of the deaths related to gunshots in America are
done by  family members with family owned weapons, usually in a fit of rage,
or accidentally  (poor  training).  In  India,  the numbers are near zero in
households  (not talking of mafia/terrorist attacks or gang wars) Of course,
people improvise  using  hammers, sickles, or cricket bats, but that takes a
lot  of  work  and  your  victim is unlikely to oblige after the first blow,
which  means  deaths  with such instruments is less likely to be accidental,
and more pre-mediated.

Incidentally, I  am  reminded  of  the  happenings  a windy summer day, some
months  back.  One  guy  showed up at the field with an ARF, and took off by
himself  even  though he had NEVER done so before. Furthermore, he had never
attempted  landing  with an instructor, leave alone without! And yes, he did
have  some  kind  of instructor, who wasn't around that day/that place. This
guy saw me flying, and figured he would go up. Despite my warnings. Luckily,
I  landed  before he took off. No, he did not check what frequency I was on,
before  turning  on  his  radio!  He  attempted to land in super windy/gusty
conditions  using  DOWN  elevator  and FULL throttle, and after a miraculous
save,  crashed  his  plane.  He  had  minimal  control of his plane. Told me
proudly  he was majoring in Aerospace engg. Later, he marvelled at how my FS
was coming down sooo gently, and soo slowly for a landing!!

Do I   think   if   he  had  built  his  plane,  he  would  have  been  more
careful/responsible? You bet.

ajai

ps. I  was reading that wierd note by that WEIER guy a coupl'a replies back,
when I  broke  out in sweat over figuring out all that heavy stuff he wrote.
Naah!  I'm  not  reading this a second time - my brain is hurting already, I
said, when I spotted a four letter word towards the end I recognised - Ajai!
Whoa!  Hol'jer  hosses! This is *REEEAL* important stuff. I promptly re-read
the post. :-)

Made sense. Thanks for your kind words, Dan.

    I'll agree with Jims' assesment of external appearances, keeping
    in mind that many modelers have tried various aspects of the hobby
    and then settled on the one(s) they like best. These types are
    generally more tolerant of others' interests. On the other hand
    "showing an interest in"...etc., does not necessarily equate to
    "wow..I've got to try that for myself right now".
    
    This can relate to the ARF issue in that it's possible/probable
    that many ARF enthusiasts are newcomers to the hobby and have no
    idea of the full range of modeling possibilities open to them.
    
    ARFs have been around for a long time in non-RC guises. Remember
    the A.J. Walker Firebaby u-controls of the 40's ? Not to mention
    the Cox plastic things. Now the phenomenon is repeating itself
    at a higher level of cost and sophistication with RC ARFS.
    With the added danger and public visibility that they have, peoples
    hot buttons are pressed more easily, on all sides of the issue.
    
    I think we're on the verge of a technology revolution driven, at
    least for the moment, by the manufacturers who see the possibillity
    of capturing really big pieces of the leisure time market. So far
    their efforts are found wanting by those of us who already are part
    of that market, which is small (relatively speaking) and will remain
    that way as long as it takes a multitude of fairly high level
    craftsmanship/performance skills to realize some acceptable level
    of enjoyment.
    
    As an analogy: How many golfers/tennis players/skiers/bicylists/
    bowlers/etc. do you think there would be if they all had to build
    their own equipment? If golf didn't exist and a group of eccentric
    machinists and welders got together to whip out a few sets of clubs,
    and then set about knocking balls around in vacant lots, what would
    the public think? The golfers would spend a lot of time looking
    for good sites, getting run off of many, and dreaming of a day
    when the city would actually build courses for them! Naw. Dream
    on.
    
    So....ARFs are now not worth fooling with for the majority of us.
    Someday they may provide a wedge to achieve greater public acceptance
    of modeling in general and RC in particular.
    
    Terry
    

    I had to leave in a hurry, so I forgot to post my conclusions...
    
    ... Well, given what I mentioned about Ham Radio, I suspect that once
    enough interest is generated/perceived in the public, somebody out
    there who wants to make a buck will figure out how to mass produce
    rc planes cheap. On the flip side, there may be lawsuits filed in this
    litigant society that might extinguish such ventures - Look at the
    general aviation situation today - Beechcraft, Cessna and Piper have
    2/4 seater planes that cost megabucks, simply because they have had to
    pass on the insurance premium they pay for liability coverage. The end
    result has been a boom in the used aircraft market, with few new planes
    being sold to the man on the street!
    
    Bottom line is, ARFs don't force you to ask all the right questions
    that building a plane does, which is crucial in the early stages. Once
    you know the ropes, it matters little that your plane was self-built or
    ready-made.
    
    I was just thinking, that under PARTS TO COMPLETE KIT on the ARF box,
    one could include
    
    1~2 PERSON CARRYING HELICOPTER to retrieve plane.
    
    I should know, since I needed one last year :-)
    That should be deterrent enough! But wait a minute - wasn't my plane a 
    home made jobbie? ARF ARF!
    
    :-)
    
    ajai
    
    

    The way I see it, ARFs were designed for people that 1) do not have the
    time or patience to build from kit or 2) just cannot build.   Because
    those of us who cannot build from kits should we be barred from flying?
    How about those who can scratch build but cannot fly ( I know a few in
    my club ) should they also be barred?  I'll admit, I could not even put
    an ARF kit together when I fist started 10 years ago, and to this date
    still have problems.  But I have learned to fly and respect and enjoy
    all aspects of it.  On the other hand, we have a guy in our club who
    has been building from kits and from scratch models for almost 20 years
    now and even with the help of our most experienced flyers and pilot
    trainers this poor guy cannot get one up and keep it up for longer than
    30 seconds.  I have the utmost respect for those who spend months
    building fine crafts, but please also give us less crafted guys some
    respect too!  You never know, maybe one of us will have some other
    skill that you made need one day.
    
    Robert, who had a friend build his 4 Star 40 in return for fixing a few
            radios and receivers.

Again, I don't believe that ARF's are the problem.

Perhaps what we need is some sort of liscensing procedure, perhaps through the
AMA. I'm not envisioning anything elaborate, just can the take off show control
and safely land an airplane. I don't like the idea of liscensing on general 
principles, but it does address the real problem, which isn't can you build a 
plane from scratch, but can you fly a plane safely.

Steve

    
    The EAA has 'technical councelors' that do most of the supervision of
    homebuilt construction (to the extent that supervision happens at all)
    and the FAA mostly checks paperwork and certifies the thing.  And these
    are airplanes with rather more potential for damage than R/C models.
    
    It would be a simple matter to have the AMA (or FCC?) or anyone issue a
    license to R/C fliers contingent upon some nominal training conducted
    *and controlled and designed* by and the local clubs.  AMA could pub-
    lish guidelines and all, but leave it real loose as regards content
    and length of training, etc.  Gov't needn't get involved at all beyond
    legislating the requirement.  They don't really care at all now.  We
    would be given the opportunity to police ourselves and stand or fall
    on just how well we do it - as well we should.
    
    Jim Sower
    

I don't know what licensing would prove; the folks that are doing
the damage aren't club flyers...club flyers, through the training
program, and through the routine practice of having a new member
checked out by an instructor, already have a "virtual license"
program.

We clubbies have a hard time realizing that there is a whole
world out there of RC flyers that wouldn't cross the street to
join a club.  And, that is indeed possible for one to own and fly
a model without being in a club or in the AMA for that matter.

Personally, I think its stupid and dangerous to fly a gas powered
model airplane outside of the club environment, but its done, and
done lots.

    I can't visualize any licensing scheme involving the govt. that
    wouldn't be a total disaster. But rather than going down that rathole,
    it is true that the EAA/FAA procedures for homebuilts seems to
    work pretty well. Unless I'm mistaken, the vast majority of homebuilts
    are flown from existing airports which inserts a control point in
    that no one is going to be operating from them without a
    license/inspection etc.
    
    Locally, we have one R/C power field where any modicum of control
    is exercised as to who flys there. We have 4 or 5 sites, off the
    top of my head, where anyone can show up and fly, with anything,
    with any skill level or lack of it. 
    
    Our glider club requires AMA membership but anyone can fly at our
    "official" club field, because it's a city park and no one can be
    denied usage other than the usual city ordinances.
    Our other four glider sites are totally "anything goes", and a fair
    number of glider pilots stick to those sites because they don't
    want even the slightest hint of AMA control over their activities.
    And then there's the field behind my house, which is my own "private"
    site.....
    So what I'm saying is that any licensing scheme no matter how well
    intentioned, simply can't address the realities of R/C flying in
    the late 20th century, at least not in many areas of the country.   
    
    I would guess that the noise issue will continue to be the main
    factor in who flys where with what.
    
    Terry
    

    There have been more than a few occasions when I've been at Fisher RC
    (before Bob died) and witnessed what I've always thought of as the "More
    Money Than Brains Syndrome" (hereafter referred to as MMTBS).  I'm sure
    the scenario plays itself out at countless hobby shops throughout the
    nation, every day.  What I'm talking about is someone who obviously has
    little to no experience in the hobby, walking into a store with a few
    hundred dollars in cash, who then leaves almost immediately without the
    cash, but with an ARF.  You know they don't know how to fly it.  You
    know they don't have anyone to teach them.  You know they're just going
    to go someplace they seems big enough, get it into the air (maybe), and
    then screw it into the ground, a car, a building, or a person.

    This class of "Hobbyist" is the kind that Al is concerned about.  It's
    the kind I'm concerned about.  They don't have any particular interest
    in a lasting involvment with the hobby, they're just looking for some
    fast entertainment, and they don't particularly care if they've got to
    burn some cash to get it.  They're, undeniably, DANGEROUS.

    There are others who buy ARFs because they're interested in getting
    involved, but are incapable of, or unwilling to invest the time in
    building, or are afraid they won't be able to do a good job building.  

    ARFs may seem to offer an attractive shortcut to those that are
    unfamiliar with the hobby, but they are really just clever marketing
    ploys on the part of the manufacturers.  The cost in material/tooling is
    often less than that for a kit, and the profit margins are much higher. 
    Since people typically consider them "throwaways" when crashed (which is
    why the manufacturers build them like they do), the manufacterers can
    anticipate a significant amount of repeat business.  So, ARFs just end
    up costing a newcomer significantly more money.  There are people who
    fly ARFs all the time.  They wreck 'em and they buy another.  Either
    they've got MMTBS, or they're costing themselves a lot more money than
    they have to.

    To almost all those potential ARFers out there, I say, build a kit
    first, learn to fly as inexpensively as you can, if you decide that kit
    building is simply not for you, THEN you can waste your money on ARFs,
    but only after you've become good enough that you stand a reasonable
    chance of getting some lasting enjoyment out of your expenditure.

    Licensing COULD be controlled if it were done as a point of sale
    arrangement.  In other words, people couldn't buy a plane without
    showing their license first.  For mail order, you would have to give
    your license number. The only way to bypass the system would be to
    buy a plane from an individual instead of a normal retailer.  The
    individual could be held responsible for selling to an unlicensed
    person.  

    [ Sort of like the sale of alcohol where your age is you "license"
    to buy it.  If you buy it and then sell it to an unlicensed
    (underage) person, you are responsible. ]

    I guess this means that balsa would become a "controlled substance".  
    :-)  :-)  :-)

    For the record - I hate all of this licensing "stuff" as much as
    anyone and hopes that NOTHING like it ever occurs.  But I fear that
    is what it may come to if there are more stupid events such as the
    Goodyear blimp incident happening in the public view...

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    Just one small nit. Although there are still plenty of them out there,
    ALL ARF'S are not junk. Of course you get what you pay for, but if I
    strip my Fiesta down, which is all balsa and ply with a built-up sheeted
    wing, I defy anyone to tell it wasn't built from a kit.
    
    Check out some of the Zimpro models. You'll pay upwards of $200 or more
    for the plane, but it's as well built as anything you'll build
    yourself.
    
    ARF'S are a paradox and it will be difficult or impossible to control.
    
    Steve 

Licensing of all RC models, not just ARF's would give the sport more
legitimaticy in the eyes of the bureaucracy and I believe a stronger voice in
the community. It would be beneficial when dealing with government
instrumentalities if the this form of control was applied and would remove
the image of "Kids with toys".

However; if you intend to licence and accordingly apply controls the policing
and enforcement of these rule has to be considered. Would you as an individual
be prepared to do it?, I suggest major legislation at a State or Federal level
giving powers to licensed RC modellers would be necessary. The local police
would have little interest, at least that would be the case in Australia, the
FAA, CAA, or what ever governing body applies the aviation rules in your
country would not have the staff to enforce them while other bigger problems of
commercial and civil air navigation problems need to be addressed. It may not
be realised that Model Aviation is the largest Sport Aviation group within the
world wide governing body, the Federation Aeronautique International (FAI),
accounting for greater than 1/3 of the membership. To licence us would require
a significant staff increase within the departments, a cost that undoubtedly 
would be passed on to us.

Licensing would have an associated cost both financially and in the flexibility
of our existing operations. Flying sites would probably have to be licensed
before they could be used which would take time and money, the instructors
would need to be licensed; more time and money; the list just goes on and on. 

While in principle it is an excellent idea, however I think it is one of those
good ideas that must be filed in the too hard basket. 

John 

    This business about having to get a license from the AMA or any other
    organization to fly a model airplane is ridiculous!  Let's us not
    pretend to be license carrying bigshots under the false pretense of
    trying to promote safety in this hobby.  I mean why stop at licensing
    if the ultimate goal is safety.  Why not institute a speed limit and
    max. weight limit too?  Which means all you WWII and ducted fan flyers
    can park your planes.  The point I am trying to make is how rules and
    regulations can ruin the fun of anything when taken too far.  I for one
    dislike clubs for the very reasons which are surfacing in this note.
    Namely it is a forum for guys with big egos to show off and try to 
    "run the show".  There are some bad and dangerous flyers at every
    field, but please let's not ruin a good thing for the few isolated
    incidents which might occur.  To be honest with you this is one of the
    safest hobbies I have tried(when compared with motocross,skiing,etc.).
    Should skiers be proofed at the top of an intermediate slope to see
    that they have the appropriate badge proving they have passed a battery
    of tests which entitles them to ski intermediate slopes?  Hell no!
    So why should a guy who shows up with  an ARF or any other type of
    aircraft have to prove anything to anybody.  Let's get off this silly
    notion and enjoy our great hobby.
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim

Re: Note 1251.30 by USRCV1::BLUMJ 

>    This business about having to get a license from the AMA or any other
>    organization to fly a model airplane is ridiculous!  Let's us not
>    pretend to be license carrying bigshots under the false pretense of
>    trying to promote safety in this hobby.  I mean why stop at licensing
>    if the ultimate goal is safety.  Why not institute a speed limit and
>    max. weight limit too?  Which means all you WWII and ducted fan flyers
	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jim, A weight limit does apply now. In OZ it's 15Kg the FAA would have a
similar number in the US. Your AMA insurance is void if you exceed the limit 
without the necessary approvals. With out such a number you could be flying 
a 1:1 scale Piper Cub by RC. Some one could be stupid enough to try.

John

    
    I sense from the preceeding notes that licensing is not opposed in 
    principal, but that there are serious and legitimate misgivings regard-
    ing the 'law of unintended consequences' that dogs all administrative
    decisions in bureaucraciec, most notably the gov't.  
    
    Licensing would (might?) be OK if it was sort of a one-time shot to
    ensure entry level skills and you got a tattoo to prevent ever having
    to retake the test.  A possible solution suggests itself.  It is cer-
    tainly not viable now, and perhaps this whole thing belongs in the
    'futures' note, but -    
    consider:
    
    If receivers did not respond to signals that don't pass muster in the
    attached micorprocessor.  Suppose transmitters sent data streams in-s
    tead of analog signals.  There would have to be a convention as to the
    format of such data (but there are a lot of conventions in the design
    and operation of these radios anyway.  Now suppose the header of the
    datastream contained an ID number that was discreet to the radio (read
    hobbyist) in operation.  There could be no more 'shoot downs', because
    your receiver would ignore any transmissions that did not contain your
    discreet identifier.  
    
    Besides enhancing safety and preserving valuable airplanes from acci-
    dents, I expect such a system would expand radically the number of
    simultaneous users of the limited spectrum  available to us.
    
    Suppose further, that all transmitters required a plug in chip to
    operate because said chip told the Xmtr what ID to broadcast and the
    Rcvr what ID to obey.  Such a chip would be industry standard and thus
    transferrable across all brands/models of equipment.
    
    Suppose, ALL radios (in ARFs or across counters) came at you sans the
    critical chip,but with instructions on how to join the AMA and where/
    how to find a club and obtain the proper instruction required to ob-
    tain your own ID chip.
    
    What if anyone designated by a chapter/club as an instructor (I believe
    that is pretty much in place) were known by the AMA as a designated
    instructor, and empowered to co-sign applications for ID chips which
    elegibility includes entry level competence sufficient to satisfy said
    instructor.
    
    Then, the AMA could burn chips with, say, your SSN and ship it to you
    as part of joining or at nominal cost if you choose not to join.  You
    would then be responsible to maintain your non-transferrable ID chip. 
    You don't normally include your drivers' license when you sell your
    car, and selling a radio without ID chip would be the same thing.   
    
    Students under instruction could use their instructor's ID chip.  All
    the rest of us could go on about our business secure against shoot
    downs but, unfortunately, bereft of a rational for pissing and moan-
    ing about and dumping upon ARFs.

Congrats -1, you've just invented PCM!  Actually, of course, the
PCM sets of today don't have the "key" that you described, but it
would be just one step more on the existing system.  Just for the
record, be aware that you can knock out a PCM set very nicely by
planting a carrier on top of it, just like any other radio.  So
the portion of your system that described how the radio would
reject another signal is not workable.

I like the system better than the others discussed here, but it
sure seems like Big Brother looking over my shoulder: it would be
much easier to enforce a law that requires AMA membership and
certification by an accredited instructor before flying a plane,
without all the keys.

On the scheme that requires a license before buying a plane/or
materials pertaining thereunto.  As the original noter commented,
this would make balsa a controlled substance.  But the larger
implication in my mind is that when the lawyers and insurance
companies get ahold of it, it would be a legal fiesta.

And what about us scratch builders?  I remember an incident from
my sailing days where a fellow yacht club member bought a blank
glass hull and fitted it out for world crusing.  Well this fellow
knew he would be against the elements so he joined the deck to
hull with rivets and with a lapped seam, double reenforced and
all.  He couldn't get insurance.  Not because what he did was
wrong, far from it; he couldn't get the insurance because the
hull/deck joint was not the same as commercial practice, which is
to join the two with rivets, and this is what was listed in the
insurance forms.

Because he wanted something better, he modified the practice and
paid for it.  The point being that us guys who like to tinker
with a design -- I don't think I've ever built one "stock" -- would
be in deep sushi; I would probably take up crocheting or
something unregulated.

Actually, to come to think of it, such a scheme would make ARFs
the only way to go.  What would modelling be like then?

    I'm pleased to report that the "mystery noter" (as someone called him)
    and I have continued a more rational discussion of this topic off-line
    and are much closer to at least understanding each other's position and
    concerns.  Since I feel it is germane to the discussion taking place
    herein, I copy my last reply below, again removing all reference to
    Xxxx's identity to protect his privacy.  Please don't bother trying to
    identify him since, for one thing, I will not reveal his name and, for
    another, I'm sure none of you would know him anyway. 
    
    I'm convinced Xxxx is nothing more or less than a nice guy who had a 
    personal chord twanged by my original tirade and felt the need to respond 
    out of self-defence. Also, I've RE-learned the wisdom of not responding out 
    of passion and of more carefully choosing my words so as not to inadvertant-
    ly offend someone/anyone who holds an opinion that differs from my own. 
    I eagerly leave _that_ sort of behavior to the politicians. ;b^}
    
    So, for what it's worth, here's the latest discourse between myself and
    Xxxx.
    
Buenos tardes, Xxxx,	

I was very glad to receive your reply...I was honestly afraid you might do like 
some folks would, i.e. trash my response and drop the matter.  I'd have felt 
bad at alienating a fellow flier had that happened so I thank you for allowing 
a rational discourse on the subject to continue.

Actually, we aren't that far apart on several of your points and, I think, we 
even agree on a couple.  So, now that we're on a less emotional level, let's 
talk to some of your major points.

>I know you were only reacting to something someone said (All ARF's in the 
>future, no scratch built???), and you most certainly are entitled to your
>opinions. 

* Exactly so...I admit freely that the I find the thought of an ARF-dominated 
hobby a bit frightening but it's not really the ARF that scares me.  Please 
read on....

>.........I think that condemning all RC enthusiasts who start with ARFs
>as "...those who have not paid their dues and worked their way into 
>recreation, learning as they go, are the very ones who, as you describe,
>will fly out of unsafe places, do unsafe things, injure people and property
>and black the eye of the entire hobby!", is unfair.  And I am one of them.

* Wrong!  People like YOU are doing it right, you're aligning yourself with a 
club and a proficient instructor who'll help get you going with minimum risk to 
yourself or hazard to others.  I have no problem whatever with that!  It's those
who, through ignorance or ego and, if I may use the expression, members of the 
so called "lunatic fringe" that scare me as ARF's afford these people too-easy 
access to our recreation and THEY are the ones most likely to jeopardize the 
entire hobby through irresponsible or deliberately negligent operation.

I've heard the guy who hit the Goodyear blimp was flying an ARF though that's 
just unsubstantiated heresay.  Just for the sake of discussion, though, let's 
say this nut _was_ flying an ARF and that he'd never have gone to the effort of 
building his own airplane in order to learn to fly RC.  Is the ARF to be con-
demned? Of course not, the pilot was jailed and faces some pretty serious legal 
come-uppance for his actions but I contend that the ready access to RC flying 
afforded by the ARF made this possible and THAT's what alarms me.

>I am real sorry for getting personal like that, 'cause I am sure you are
>as nice of a guy as you say :-) , but I felt that you attacked me 
>personally after all of the time I spent working on my plane.  I take back
>those things (change your name to God, narrow minded modular...), and to
>others who loathe ARFs for newcomers.  I'm sorry once again.

* Your original message _did_ call to my attention that I'd done a very poor 
job of stating clearly what my position was, who or what it was directed at and
why.  I must apologize for offending you (and others) as that was never my
intent. Please accept it in the intended spirit...I meant no personal attack at
anyone. 

>The notion that it is the model and not the person is the same argument
>that gun control advocates use to try and keep law-abiding citizens
>from owning firearms.  You know, "It's the gun, not the person, that
>killed that person".  Again, I say BULL!  People have to be responsible
>for their own actions.  Should a whole segment of society be punished 
>for the actions of a few?  I say no.  

* I agree totally.  But, as I mentioned before, just ask the National Rifle 
Association how tough it is to try to keep the gun owners' image clean when 
faced with the constant negative media assault fueled by the irresponsible and 
illegal actions of those who fail/refuse to learn the rules of proper operation
or who never intended legal use in the first place.

No, I'm no more in favor of registering ARF's than I am of registering firearms.
However, I wouldn't object to some type of screening that wouldn't prohibit the 
sincere enthusiast but would filter out those who would flaunt or ignore the 
rules of responsibly operating either.  Is this feasible/realistic?  I don't 
pretend to know...probably not.  I expect that's why I wish the ARF had never 
come onto the scene as this threat wouldn't exist to near the same extent if 
everyone had to "roll their own,' as it were.

>			............I know I will never convince you that
>ARFs have a place in recreational RC, but maybe this has sensitized you
>to the fact that we are not all bad and one should not automatically
>put people in this category.  

*  Au contraire.  As I said, even in my original, ill-worded tirade, I DO see  
some legitimate places for ARF's and some I hadn't thought of have come up in
the ARF SOAPBOX topic (1251.*) which has resulted from this subject's being
brought up.  I see ARF's as good "in-between-airplanes" airplanes so one can 
stay current on the sticks while he's building a new bird.  I also acknowledge 
the disposability/replaceability of the ARF as being a plus to the beginner who 
needs to concentrate on learning, not on how much time and effort he has 
invested.  Also, for those who are limited in space for building or those who 
will never have the necessary skills to build, the ARF provides the logical 
means for these types enjoying RC flying.  I continue to believe, however, that 
some means of restricting access to the jerks and lunatics is necessary or the 
day _will_ come when we'll be lobbying for our recreational life, right along-
side the NRA.  

> ..............Outright banning them? No.

* That was admittedly an example of a poorly thought out emotional outburst.  I 
think it was borne of the frustration resultant from the knowledge that, just 
as you've said of cars and guns, any controls can be sidetracked, shortcutted 
or ignored entirely.  But, you should see that THAT's the root of my frustration
with the ARF...you see I well realize that licensing, registering, qualifying 
buyers of ARF's would serve only to handicap the legitimate users, such as 
yourself, while the goofball element still has access.  We're damned if we do, 
damned if we don't...which, again, is why I wish the ARF simply didn't exist 
to pose the very real threat it unfortunately does.  It wouldn't take very 
many "Goodyear blimp" type accidents, especially if loss of life results, and 
we RC'ers will be fighting for our very existence!

>I agree that some will abuse ARFs out of ignorance of their actions.
>But do you really think that I should be barred from ever holding a
>Tx in my hand and flying my plane because I haven't designed and built
>my on plane?  

* No, Xxxx, I hope by now you'll believe that it's not you or folks like you 
who arouse the dread in me. It's those who would, through ignorance, ego or
criminal intent, abuse any endeavor they were involved with that set off my
internal alarms.  And the existence of ARF's grants them access that they
wouldnt' otherwise have to RC flying if it suits their whims or malevolent
purpose. 

>If I hadn't read many notes in the file before your reply that I responded
>to, I may have deleted RC from my notes listing.  As it is, I plan on 
>continuing to read and get info and ideas from those who have been there.
>I certainly appreciate help from any source.

* That's good.  I'd hate to think you'd have foresaken RC-notes altogether just 
because you were upset with just one noter.  Take a look at 1251.* and you'll 
quickly see that not everyone agrees with my opinion on this subject (or many 
others for that matter).  :B^)

>Yes, we can be friends.  Sorry we got off to such a bad start, but
>sometimes lasting friendships start out roughly.  Thanks for the offer of
>help.  I can't wait to have my instructor put the plane up "3 mistakes high"
>and give me the controls.  It should be quite the learning experience.

* I too regret that we got off to such a shaky start but am cognizant that I
carry a measure of the blame and, again, I apologize for that.  I was most
sincere when I said I hoped I could be of some help to you sometime/anytime and
I repeat my wish that you have the best of luck with your upcoming entry into
the world of RC flying.  Maybe I can even convince ya' to "roll one of yer' own"
someday. ;b^}
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    The last time I flew a model, R/C had tubes (transistors weren't inven-
    ted, much less adapted) and rubber-band escapements powering controls
    and *one* control surface (acorbatics accomplished, as I recall, with
    large rudder and dihedral).  U-Control was the big deal, and FF.  The
    WHOLE hobby (rubber band, UC, FF, Payload, etc) was covered quite ad-
    equately in 1 or 2 publications that each dealt w/everything.  
    
    Am currently helping my youngest build his kit.  Knew I was behind, but 
    not how far.  I am daily being reminded of the leaps & bounds of tech-
    nology in my absence.  Not sure I understandhow a carrier steps on a
    digital signal, but this is not the time or the place for that.
    
    Jim

    As has already been stated numerous times in past replies, any
    regulation will ultimately hurt more than it helps. But, Al's fear
    is totally justified and there ARE steps we can take for ourselves.
    
    For example, how many clubs can you join without first proving
    membership in the AMA???? None that I know of. Why??? because the
    AMA took steps to say that they would not support any club, in various
    way including insurance, that allowed non AMA members to fly. So, no
    club will take the chance on loosing everything because of a screw up
    by a non AMA flyer.
    
    How about hobbyshops and yes, even the catalog outlets, require proof
    of "club" and AMA membership before selling an ARF. In the case of a local
    hobby shop, you would have to show your membership cards. For catalog
    sales, you would have to sign a statement identifying your club and
    AMA number.
    
    What would this accomplish???? Well, allowing that you can only do your
    best to control things, and your not going to be able to get to
    everyone, then the hope would be that as long as the person already put
    out the bucks for the AMA membership and local club membership, he/she
    might as well use it. That hopefully would mean getting an instructor
    and learning how to fly along with all the rules. Again, you wouldn't
    get everyone, but it is a way to police OURSELVES.
    
    As a unit, we've done it before and I see no reason why we couldn't do
    this. It may take awhile, and you'll get some initial resistance from
    the hobby shops (who wants to turn down a sale), but when they find
    out no body is buying from them, they'll fall in line.

    re. .36
    
    What do the hobby shops who do not have a club in the area do?  Not
    sell planes or cars at all and tell buyers they can't buy because there
    is not a club around that they might shoot someone down.  Kinda of
    stepping on the person's individual right.
    
    Robert

    re. .37
    
    Well, I don't know about "cars" or who's talking bout them. If
    there's no club around, why does this person want a plane????
    
    This is exactly the type situation to try and avoid. This is exactly
    the type individual that will go off half cocked and kill someone.
    
    As far as stepping on a person's individual rights, what about your
    right to NOT join the AMA. You don't have that right if you want to
    fly with an established club. The difference is, we don't consider it
    a violation of a right, but rather good common sense.
    
    Like I said, your not going to be able to cover all the bases and one
    of the nice things about governing ourselves, is the ability to
    understand "special" situations and not peanalize a hobby shop under
    the circumstances you describe.
    
    Steve

    While more regulation and liscensing, et al, would seem to be the bane
    of our existence, let me point out that higher levels of regulation
    ALWAYS follows the mass popularizing of any pursuit.
    
    A good example is the car.  We all have the need and desire for
    mobility, and the car gives it to us.  But this freedom comes with a
    price, namely, that we have to get instruction, then take a test, than
    get liscensed, and finally we can begin to enjoy the use of a car.  But
    the idea of regulation doesn't end there, because each of us is not the
    ONLY driver on the planet, and hence must also obey a large body of
    traffic regulations and safety requirements.  Think of the utter chaos
    that would exist if someone who had never driven a car was able to walk
    into a showroom, plunk down hard cash, and drive out in a vehicle for
    which he/she had NO training, NO preparation, NO idea of how to operate
    it safely, TOTALLY ignorant of traffic regulations and safety
    precautions.....  I dare say none of us in this hobby would think of
    this as a good situation.  No, rather I think we would all agree that
    since the car is mass produced and made available to the general
    public, there is definitely a need for strong controls for the
    betterment of all.
    
    Why then, in this note, do I keep hearing people say that regulation is
    not good for us.  We are now seeing the popularizing of our hobby to
    greater masses of participants.  That trend will continue, and probably
    even accelerate, bringing into the hobby increasing numbers of people like
    my ficticious car buyer who have absolutely NO idea of what they are
    doing.  I can't see how we can bury our heads in the sand on this! 
    These newcomers have every right to participate, but as I said earlier,
    the mass popularizing of any endeavor requires more regulation in
    order to allow all to participate safely and to avoid the anarchy that
    comes about when everyone wants to "do their own thing".
    
    There have been a lot of good ideas presented in the previous replies,
    and perhaps we should draft a set of alternative proposals the can be
    sent off to AMA for their consideration.  After all, the participants
    in this notes file represent a very broad cross section of our hobby
    from both a geographic and numerical standpoint.
    
    Any other thoughts on this?
    
    -Joe

Re: .30

I don't believe that the motivation for the various suggestions around 
liscensing in this note is to be a "liscence carrying bigshot"; at least I know
mine wasn't.

Actually, my goal also wasn't the "false pretense of trying to promote safety in
this hobby". 

What I was attempting to address was your last line, ie. "enjoy our great hobby".

I do not think that liscensing is the answer, either.

What I was trying fix is the scenario where someone loses control of their model,
crashes it into someones backyard and kills someone. The unfortunate reaction
of the general public in such a case (and I have NO trouble envisioning this
scenario) could very well be to BAN RC planes in that town (city, state, country)
as dangerous (ie. firecrackers are illegal in most places). If a liscense was
required it creates a different focus for the public response, as in this is
already regulated, punish the perpetrator, rather than there are no controls on
this, stop it now!

I've checked the constitution, and there is no guarentee of the right to fly 
model airplanes. Having it banned COULD happen.

Steve

    
    I think "flying model airplanes" is covered under the declaration
    of independence as "persuit of happiness".
    
    
    
    1) I hate to ask anyone outside an activity to control such activity
    [Big Brother]. They can't control what they say they understand
    [budget]
    
    2) I don't think it's acceptable to ask a merchant to control who
    he sells to.
    
    3) If there is a modeling hobby store around common sence dictates
    that there are individuals around who are partaking in the hobby.
    Or the store doesn't stay open very long.
    
    	I think it's important for the local clubs to keep a high level
    of exposure within the store and do everything they can to direct
    newcommers to the club.
    
    	ARF's play a key role in todays modeling activity.  One sure
    fire way to take the ARF pilot and make him/her a modeler is to
    get the ARF pilot involved with other modelers.  I often times suggest
    that the student buy an ARF as their first plane. In 99% of the
    cases the plane comes out more airworthy than a first model.  They
    I suggest that once the pilot gets his/her feet wet they indulge
    in a kit. By this time they have picked up a few pointer they need
    to build straight and a few connections with other modelers.
    
    
    Tom

    Since

    Re: Ajai's tale in 239.2269,
    
    I certainly agree that, wherever, possible, government control/
    registration/meddling/interference/etc./ad nauseum is to be avoided
    like the plague!  Whether enough concern exists to self-police the
    situation is the question but I'm just cynical enough to believe that
    apathy will prevail stifling any action until a serious incident causes 
    a real and visible threat to our existence.  I'd really prefer to be
    wrong about this but, historically, that's how things like this always
    work.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re; .43
    
    Al,
    
     Does this mean you support licensing?  If so please outline
    what criteria you would like to see for one to obtain a license.
    
    Regards,
    
    JIM

    Re: .44, Jim,
    
    No, I don't support licensing as I feel quite strongly that, just as is
    (or would be ) the case in gun licensing, the only people inconvenienced
    and hampered/hassled by any licensing scheme would be the legitimate
    users...those who would not likely have caused any problem in the first
    place.
    
    Those who are determined to thwart rules, regulations and just plain
    ol' horse sense are GOING to find a way to do so, regardless of the
    hobbling of the legitimate user.  THEREIN lies the source of my
    irritation/frustration; the very fact that the ARF exists means that,
    despite _anyone's_ best efforts, someone, someday, somehow, somewhere
    *WILL* cause a serious incident, hopefully not but possibly involving
    loss of human life throught ignorant, irresponsible or just plain
    unlawful operation of an RC model.
    
    Please understand, that it's THIS NUT who scares the bejesus out'a me,
    emphatically *NOT* the legitimate RC flier who, for whatever reason,
    finds it convenient to fly an ARF, whether full time or in the interim
    between self-built models.  The ARF merely affords ol' "T.N." with all
    too easy access to RC flying; sure, I concede the same scenario _could_
    happen using a kit or scratch built model but it's far less likely
    since this goof isn't likely to go to all the trouble to build his own 
    airplane just to try to fly as a lark.  And, since this guy travels
    outside the normal RC circles, it's not terribly likely he'll know
    about buying flyable airplanes at club auctions, etc. (though yard
    sales and flea-markets pose something of a concern in this area).
    
    No question that if ol' "T.N." is determined to go out on his own and
    try to fly or even knowingly commit some illegal act with an RC model,
    he _could_ do so with any model, regardless of its genre.  But the odds
    are greatest that the model used will be an ARF simply because of its
    ready accessibility.
    
    Also, let me clarify that it's not ol' "T.N." shooting down other
    airplanes that bothers me worst...it's the thought of him trying to fly 
    out of a school yard and injuring (or worse) a bunch of kids at play
    that sends chills up my spine!!  There's little we can do if some
    criminal uses a model to commit mayhem but, as a criminal, he
    exonerates the rest of us by the fact of who and what he is.  Ol' "T.N." 
    however, will be immediately identified with us and we'll have to prove 
    our innocence, rather than vice-versa as specified by law.  We'll be
    crucified by the media and could face a public outcry for banning of
    our recreation.  This scenario would start at local levels but, should
    a rash of incidents occur, it could nationalize like wildfire.
    
    So what do we do?  I'm damned if I know!  I can't think of any means of
    restricting, licensing, registering, controlling ARF's that won't
    unreasonably hamper the legitimate enthusiast.  Yet, the threat of a
    string of serious "incidents" (deliberate or ignorance based) endangering 
    our entire recreation hangs all too heavy and real in my mind.  As I
    said in an earlier reply, were damned if we do, damned if we don't.  I
    really hope I'm dead wrong but THIS is why the ARF represents such an
    instrument of dread to me personally.
						 __
 				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

Re: Note 1251.44 by USRCV1::BLUMJ 

Jim,

The only option I see workable and would support is the licensing of the flying
site, that site being controlled by a club or individual affiliated with the
AMA or the applicable National Model Aviation body for the country. The 
license would be issued jointly by the National body and the local FAA/CAA 
etc. office. 

Jim, you appear to be opposed to any sort of controls/licensing however you
must realise we are not the sole owners and users of the airspace. Full size
aircraft from ultra lights, to 747 also have rights of use of the same air
space, we cannot allow models to be flown 1 mile from the end of say the Logan
runway hence control is necessary to prohibit the belligerent minority who try
irresponsible acts. We have a member of our association who claim's that as
birds don't have any controls so neither should he and he believes it, I trust
none of our noters fall into that level of ignorance. 

Plotting of model flying sites on air navigation charts would alert other air
space users of our presence. The club could then be the single point of contact
if variations to the norm were required. eg: flying of Goodyear blimps, crop
dusting etc.. Rules are not designed to prevent us flying just make it
safer for all who use the nations skies and prevent similar accidents to the 
Goodyear blimp some months back. 

John

    Just my 2 cents worth, but , what if the manufacturers raised the price
    of the ARF's by about $200.00 and give the $200.00 back as a rebate. To
    get the rebate, the new owner would have to send his AMA I.D. number
    AND the AMA charter number of the club he belongs to. I think that this
    would discourage the casual flyer from buying an ARF to just fool
    around. The serious flyer would buy the ARF no matter what the price
    and would also belong to a club. What'ja think?
    
    		Ray...
    
    

    While I definitley believe in membership in the AMA and in the need
    for a beginner to join a club to receive proper training, neither
    should be requirements to enjoying the sport. Many people (why I
    don't know) try to learn to fly themselves. As long as they use
    a little common sense, I support their right to do so. From what
    I have read about the Goodyear blimp episode, that individual was
    a member of the AMA. Common sense and membership in the AMA do not
    have a direct link. As I have stated before, EDUCATION of the beginner
    is what is important. Another way to perform this education would
    be to submit articles to local (town) newspapers on various RC topics
    that would be informative about the sport and would communicate
    a clubs existance to the community. Responsible parents and beginners
    will try to educate themselves, especially if the info is easily
    obtained. 
    
    We will never stop all of the abuse of this hobby, but we could reduce 
    the public outrage at a major incident if the general public knew how 
    we try to operate as a group.
    
    
    Doug  

    I think that we will find some changes to the insurance that AMA
    delivers in the coming months or year. This I've heard is a direct
    result of the blimp accident. 
    
    
    To understand the insurance you need to understand the liability.
    AMA insurnace works like this. If you are an AMA member and you
    own a house they request that you see if the liability is covered
    under your home owners policy. If it is then AMA will pay the balance
    of what is not paid by your home owners.  If you don't own a house
    then AMA kicks in and pays. I'm not sure if they pay the full ammount
    of what but you're covered under AMA.  This brings me to my next
    point.
    
    If AMA insurance was only good when used at an AMA chartered club
    it would limit the liability. However it would pose a problem
    for those members who don't live near an AMA chartered club. Perhaps
    some additional coverage similar to that which a club gets could
    be purchased as a supplimentary policy through AMA. This would be
    above the normal amount and would probably only be needed by those
    modelers that did not own a home. I see the insurance working in
    this way;
    
                                           		  Coverage
    	1)AMA member and AMA chartered club           Home owners/AMA
                                                            or
    							AMA (for renters)
    
    
    	2)AMA member,private site(no extended policy) Home owners
                                                           or
    						      No coverage (renters)
    							
    	3)AMA member,private site(extended policy)    Home owners/AMA
                                                                   
    
    
    	The extended policy would work like the added liability insurance
    tha a club gets when it becomes a charter club.
    
    
    	The last item I wanted to discuss was the flying of RC aircraft
    for movies, TV shows or demonstrations that don't portray RC modeling
    in a positive light. Case in point is when Larry Jolly flew a shuttle
    chopper in a Richard Pryor movie. In the movie I think Pryor was
    chased by the chopper and the chopper finally crashes into the door
    of the house. Another example is on the TV show the Wonder Years.
    In the show the young kid a friend of one of the stars takes his
    dads RC model and flies it off of the road in front of his house
    and then crashes it into a tree.
    
    	I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO FLY THESE AIRCRAFT IN THERE
    MOVIES/SHOWS AND PORTRAY RC MODELING IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT SHOULD
    BE DEALT WITH IS THE MOST SEVERE METHOD POSSIBLE.
    
    	Perhaps their AMA membership should be revoked or suspended.
    
    Especially in the case of Larry Jolly who not only is am AMA member
    but a contributing editor to the magazine.  Where is the self policing?
    Where is the responsibility?  Is this the image we want to show
    to the community? Personally I don't think so. But then again that's
    my opinion and you know what they say about opinions...
    
    
    
    
    Tom  

  I got my AMA renewal yesterday.  The coverage has changed to $500K per
accident (liability) and has gone up to  $100K for medical (from $7.5K).
It also states that you are covered ANYWHERE as long as you are following
the AMA safety guide lines.


              Jim

    Re. -1
    
    Jim you beat me to it. No more 1 million dollar coverage. Only 500K
    now. I wonder how that will affect things. Like people who allow RC
    flying on their land because of the 1 million figure. Will they be
    as generous at 500k?????
    
    Steve

>    	I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO FLY THESE AIRCRAFT IN THERE
>    MOVIES/SHOWS AND PORTRAY RC MODELING IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT SHOULD
>    BE DEALT WITH IS THE MOST SEVERE METHOD POSSIBLE.

On occasion I have wanted to agree with you.  But consider this.
If we don't allow any non-realistic use of RC aircraft in movies
they perhaps Architects should not allow any non-realistic use
of buildings - no more catastrophic earthquakes.  Perhaps firemen
should not allow "the towering inferno".  

Unless the story is a documentary or claims to be based on fact
I don't think we should censor them.  After all fiction is fiction.

BUT...

We do have a method of control.  We can insure that our money
does not get used for the purchase of "Two Live Crew" tapes.
You could argue that the success of this group is solely based
on the "Our" generation supplying the funding.

We can (and Tom and I think we should) withdraw our support of
any use of RC aircraft in an unfavorable light.  That is we can
all write to whatever magazine Larry Jolly writes for and tell
them that starting with his next unfavorable roll in a movie
we will stop our subscription.  We can write to any advertiser
that uses "Larry Jolly" pictures and tell them that we will not
purchase their products for the following reasons.  Now - I'm
only using Larry as an example.  What we should first do is
write a letter to Larry and express our displeasure and ask him
to express his views on this moral dilemma.  And of course what
we should do even before the letter is argue the facts in this
notes file.  

This is not the most fun note to read but I did change my opinion
about ARF's in the last couple of weeks.  I had never considered
the poor guy who doesn't have a workshop.  That is a pretty good
reason to ARF.

Perhaps if I (we) hear all sides to the movie RC features we may
form a consensus - perhaps not.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    Kay, I have to agree and disagree with you on a number of point...
    
    First off let me say that my opinions like most are not ment or
    expressed as definitive answers to an issue. Like most opinions
    they will no doubt get bogged down when the details of How or Why
    get discussed...
    I'm also not one for censorship. On the contrary the only "free"
    censorship is that imposed on oneself and (again opinions get in
    the way) tht the way it should stay...
    
    I know that if Larry didn't do the job someone else would have done
    it.  It's just that in probably 90% of the cases where the sport
    is portrayed negatively a little more effort or story line could
    have been used to get the point or gag across and kept the negative
    aspect out of the picture.
    
    
    Tom

As long as everybody else is talking I may as well throw in my $0.02 worth...

As far as ARFs go I don't have any problem with them. I even have one myself
that I use as a beater. As previously stated the real problem isn't the plane,
it the nut holding the controls. It seems to me that there are two kinds of
"nuts" to worry about. The first is the random, off the street, golly wouldn't
it be nice to do that kind of guy who just flat doesn't know what he's doing.
The danger presented by this kind of flyer should usually be a single flight's
worth. The kind of nut that I really worry about are one ones out on the
"lunatic fringe". Some of these guys are actually pretty good pilots but they're
reckless. The guy who ran into the blimp seems to fit this mold. I've heard
accounts of guys who >deliberately< buzz the pitts, same type of person. At
least the guy coming in off of the street will probably only menace the public
for a limited time. The "lunatics" keep coming back and testing their luck
until it runs out. Anyway, something like showing an AMA license or even a 
flight instructor certificate (even if they are required by law) won't stop 
the "lunatics" since they really do known how to fly. One point that i'd like
to make is that "hot dogging" is not what i'm talking about. The differenece
between hot dogging and lunatic flying is the same as the difference between
a low pass over the field and a low pass over the pitts.

The really big problem that I have with even trying to enact 
regulations is that common sense cannot be legislated. Any
attempt to do so will only create a set of rules are either ineffective or be
equivalent either modeling FARs (yuck) or gun laws (a hinderance only to
law abiding citizens). Who would be the "police force"?  Maybe fish &
game wardens? Or maybe put it with the DMV (shudder)? Another aspect to this is
that things that are regulated tend to be taxed. Is anybody here REALLY willing
to ante up a yearly permit fee (or whatever) for the privilige of being
regulated? How about a per gallon tax on fuel (choke)? I just can't see setting
myself up as another revenue source for a government which cannot control
it's own spending. 

I think that there is another factor that might eventually limit "casual"
participation in our sport and that is litigation. As RC equipment becomes
more available the number of accidents is going to increase. At some point the
RC industry could have the same insurance problems that the general aviation
industry now has. It wouldn't take more than a couple of big money damage
awards to make everybody in the industry start buying up liability insurance.
In the end the manufacturers (and probably store owners) will have to 
pass along the cost of liability insurance to us consumers. 
This would affect ARFs more than kits or scratch built since the manufacturer 
is more responsible for the airworthyness of the plane, which makes his 
liability risk higher. Engines, props, radios, etc would be affected about the 
same since they aren't ARF related. 

Now that i've worked myself into a state of dispair i've got to come out of it
somehow... I think that the major factor is how the sport is percieved by
the "public" when either a disaster or a nusance (such as noise) occurs. 
The news media are only interested in "newsworthy" events. Normal 
modeling operations are not "newsworthy" (this is not an assumption, 
this is based upon feedback from the media). The modeling
activity which makes it's way into the media will therefore be mostly 
negative reports. The only way that I can see to counter this is to have a
proactive grass roots PR campaign. At least then there will be something
positive going around about what we do and there will be a chance of focusing
the issue on the actions of the individuals involved rather than the
goodness/badness of the sport. A counter argument is that it is better to
lay low and not be noticed at all, the idea being that people can't object if
they don't know you're there. This is fine if either negative publicity
can be weathered without losing the site or if a backup site is available. The
first is never certain and the second is a luxary which many of us do not have.
This is still a pretty dismal picture, I hope that i'm wrong.

G. Schrader

    Re: .-1,
    
    Glenn makes some good points, some reinforcing my views and/or concerns
    regarding the ARF.  As he says (and I've tried to clarify), it's the
    operator, NOT THE ARF, that represents the threat here.  The ARF merely
    affords the "casual" operator a too easy opportunity to "try RC."  This
    operator becomes a menace only if he ventures out on his own and
    attempts to fly by himself but the potential for him selecting a
    toally unsuitable site for his "experiment" (such as a schoolyard full
    of kids) is undeniable, simply out of ignorance of the space required
    and the potential for creating great damage or injury.  As Glenn says,
    many of these types are self-eliminating but dare we ignore the risk
    that his failed experiment might seriously injure (or worse) an innocent
    bystander to the detriment of the entire RC community?
    
    I've conceded several times earlier that I don't have the answer for
    ensuring that the purchaser of an ARF _will_ be informed in some way of
    the proper/responsible course to follow in flying his airplane.  I feel
    that licensing, regulating will only serve to inhibit/prohibit the
    entire RC community and will still probably allow things to fall
    through the cracks in terms of someone acquiring a model without
    acquiring the wherewithall to operate it safely and responsibly.
    
    In the end, Glenn may well be correct in his statement that only
    building a positive public image for the RC recreation as a whole will
    serve as a buffer against the incidents that the "casual" operator or
    the reckless, irresponsible or malicious operator are almost certain to
    cause, with or without the benefit of an ARF.
    
    It's been said that we RC'ers do a magnificent job of keeping ourselves
    and our recreation a closely guarded secret.  I submit that we cannot
    afford such secrecy if we are to become publicly accepted as a
    legitimate hobby/sport.  All clubs need to hold mall shows, open to the
    public fun-flies, charity drives, contests, etc. that will convince
    John Q. Public that we are acceptable members of the community after
    all and should not be held responsible as a group for the isolated
    irresponsible actions of a few.
    
    This, above all, has been the leading goal of our 1/8 AF RC Scale
    Fly-In's and, in the Phoenix area, a degree of acceptability _has_
    indeed been attained.  Of almost equal import to the charter of these
    Fly-In's is the objective to attract beginning and closet scale fliers
    to a low/no pressure event which will hopefully light their fires about
    becoming active in scale.
    
    To this end, it may surprise some of you to hear that I argued _FOR_
    the ARF at a recent 1/8 AF meeting.  Means to reduce the attendance at
    our March Fly-In which traditionally attracts some 200 models were
    being discussed and someone proposed that maybe we should disqualify
    EZ's/ARF's as a method to that means, thereby providing more flying
    time for the "genuine" scale model.  I argued (successfully) that we
    could hardly fulfill our objective to attract newcomers to scale if we
    barred _any_ type model, provided it was to some degree a scale model.
    The matter was dropped and [scale] ARF's remain welcome at our meets.
    
    As I've tried to say, it's not the ARF itself, but the too-easy
    access to RC flying afforded by the ARF to someone who could threaten
    our entire recreation that scares the Hell out'a me! 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Have been reading this series of notes (1251.XX) with interest;
    lots of good stuff mentioned here and all very valid. But I note
    there is another type of person that can be just as deadly as those
    already discussed; the guy who no matter whether he builds or buys
    his air vehicle, just doesn't ever get any real piloting skills;
    he never learns how to "fly" his craft. To demonstrate: a true story!
    
    At Colorado Springs, at the old Black Forest Soaring Club, the Pikes
    Peak RC Club had the blessing of the flying field owners to use
    a small section off the end of the active (the only runway) for
    RC use. The only stipulation: aircraft have the right-of-way. RC
    must get out of the way of man-carrying sailplanes. We had a rather
    large percentage of fliers that did not know what DOWN ELEVATOR
    or LOW THROTTLE did, nor did they ever use those commands. Their
    aircraft lurched into the air at full throttle and full up elevator
    and round in circles, always climbing was the mission of all their
    days. Loops (insides only) and rolls were their only maneuvers and
    the airplane only descended when they had no choice (out of petrol).
    When a sailplane arrived on the premises, a few might hand off their
    transmitter to a more proficient flyer to provide safe separation
    but, usually, the owner would try to fly out farther, away from
    the strip, still maintaining or, even gaining altitude.
    
    Needless to say, about a year after I left the area, one of these
    guys put a 60 powered machine into the side of a sailplane, right
    below the canopy rail. The spinner penetrated into the cockpit.
    The pilot, though shook, landed safely. The club field was finished,
    instantly. This could easily happen to "the bleemp". No malice,
    just no skill.
    
    When we have airshows at the Moffett NAS, modelers occasionally
    participate with flying demos. I have seen guys that were members
    of the EBRC when I was, in 1958/60, that flew lousy and unsafe then,
    and they STILL DO! And in this case, with huge crowds pressed right
    up to their pit areas.
    
    Clubs can provide great facilities for their members. But this
    membership demands responsibilities and the clubs should enforce
    them. This includes safety programs, both in attitudes and flying
    skills required. Very few of us can dedicate to the demands of
    Indianapolis 500 type car driving, but all of us should be able
    to get the family sedan from here to there, safely.
    
    
    don h

    Attn: ARF fans.  The ('til now) ultimate in ARF's has been announced. 
    Yellow Aircraft has announced it will have ARF kits(?) for their F4
    Phantom-II and F-16 Fighting Falcon ready for release in the near
    future.
    
    Not ARF's in the context we recognize of balsa-ply frameworks coverec
    with vinyly/foam composite, these jets will be pre-built and finished
    from the same glass and foam kits already available from Yellow.  They
    lack only the installation of engine/fan, retracts and radio to be
    ready for flight.
    
    Price?  While not determined exactly as yet, the price of these
    pre-built jets is estimated by a Yellow Representative to be in the
    $990.00 range.  (OUUUUUCH!!)  I have little doubt the value is there;
    the glass/foam kits for these models go for around $325.00 so, once
    you've purchased everything necessary and put many hours of yer' own
    time into the construction, you'd probably be close to that $990
    figure.  But $1000.00 at one pop is pretty hard for _me_ to justify and
    Kathi'd likely  give me good cause to regret such a purchase in the
    name of a hobby!  ;b^)  She's very supportive of my hobby but I think
    that would strain the situation considerably.
    
    Anyhow, should any of us win the lottery and have a desire to try a jet
    the easy way, it's now possible courtesy of Yellow Aircraft.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    There was a firm that was building the MK (Jap) pattern kits and
    finishing them. They've just gone out of business. These were all
    wood kits covered in paper and dope. Multi colored just like the
    pictures on the boxes. They were garanteed to weight no more than
    8 lbs with engine and radio. Price for the model without engine
    and radio was 1000.00 + shipping.
    
    They were works of art. perfect in almost every respect. Straight,light
    and pretty. Oh yes, they were EXPENSIVE. A budy and I figured it
    out...
    To buy the kit,glue and finishing items it would cost app. 440.00
    This does not include the engine,retracts or radio. This does include
    the soft engine mountand finishing materials. OK so you have the
    necessary material... to make a 30% profit you would have to finish
    the plane for 360.00 dollars in labor. If you payed someone 6.00
    an hour to build the plane you are talking 60 hours of labor per
    kit. Build a plane and finish it and keep track of how many productive
    hours it takes you. I think you'd be hard pressed to finish it in
    60 hours. Now consider building a pattern or scale bird...
    
    Still, 1000.00 is a lot of money.
    
    Tom

While were talking about ARF...

This quote from a review of George Stringwell's book "Flying Radio
Control Gliders"

"The creation of the model is surely one of the most satisfying parts
of this hobby; it has to be said that there is a tendency to treat
something which has been created with one's own hands with a great deal
more care than something which has simply cost money."

Along those lines don't miss the section of the December-1990 RCM Soaring
column by Don Edberg.  In it (page 36) they talk about a new ARF glider.

R U ready for this?

1/3 scale ASW-22B 27.3 ft wing span 44-55 lbs.
Accurate to original manufacture's drawings to .04 in.

Special introductory price = $10,000.

The 9 foot fuselage takes 3 people 37 hours to lay up.

Does your wife love you now?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    re -.2:
    
    Tom has brought up the reason ARF's are usually pretty disappointing. 
    It is necessary to cut corners and come up with labor saving finishing
    techniques to be able to offer an ARF for reasonable dollars.  Most of
    us have several thousand dollars of labor in a well finished model
    even at minimum wage.  Sure, you can get more efficient if you build a
    bunch of the same kit and have all of the time saving tools at your
    disposal, but building out of balsa, foam, and fiberglass is still very
    labor intensive.  There is a reasonable alternative and that's an
    Almost Ready to Cover (ARC) model.  Some of these are pretty nice:
    Built straight, Sheeted foam wings, hinges cut, ect.  The covering is
    left up to you, but you don't need a big straight building board to get
    a straight airplane.  Modeltech makes a bunch of kits sold this way as
    does Zimpro.
    
    Charlie