I
wrote about the need to make any
gates or barriers on your flying site highly visible during
the day and the night in my March column. I used a bit of
tongue-in-cheek drama, encouraging people to "drop
everything" and go address this threat.
I'm pleased to say
that the column did what I expected it to do: encourage
people to look at the gates on flying sites. Ironically, I
received much ridicule for the drama, but I would do it
again if getting results hinged on it. If the cost of
decreasing risk and reducing the number of fatal accidents
is to be ridiculed for how I get it done, I'll take the
ridicule.
Among the number of E-mails I received on the
subject, one was from a member who questioned whether my
motivation was saving lives or reducing liability. The
inference was that I was merely trying to reduce insurance
claims. I responded as follows:
"Does it really matter?
"I
can't even convince myself that it was one or the other. If
one attended the funeral of the deceased and experienced the
grief shown there (I didn't attend, but there was a memorial
service I would assume), the motivation for writing such a
column might be to avoid the further loss of life. The same
would be true right after one viewed the pictures of the
accident site (I did do that).
"On the other hand, if one
were to write that column right after receiving word that a
big lawsuit was being filed as a result of the accident,
one's motivation might be liability reduction. In addition,
if one were to write that column after realizing that the
consequences of such an accident could result in the
inability to obtain insurance coverage in the future or a
massive increase in insurance cost which just might price
liability coverage out of reach for the average member, one
might write that column as a result of that level of
frustration.
"Of course, the fact that a number of years agoafter the
second such deathone had written a similar but less
"dramatic" column on exactly the same subject, which
had been largely ignored or forgotten, that might
have been the motivation.
"All of these are factors in my
motivation to write such a column. Fortunately, while I have
been ridiculed for being "far too dramatic"—an interesting
assertion considering there is a dead kid involved—it
appears that this time the dramatic tone caught most people's attention enough to have them take steps to reduce
the likelihood of this happening for a fourth time!
"If I
can accomplish that and the only cost is putting up with a
little ridicule, I'm not going to be too concerned about the
ridicule.
"Part of the difficulty of working to prevent
something from happening is that one does not know when his
actions have been effective. There is no time to declare
"victory." Nowhere is this more evident than in accident
prevention, unless it is in Homeland Security. Even if one's
actions do prevent the occurrence, those actions will be
viewed as an overreaction by those who refuse to see the
reality of the threat."
The mailbag this month brought some
interesting comments, including one which challenged some
forms of advertising in MA.
It is challenging to make
judgments on the acceptability of each advertisement. They
are screened to weed out the ones which depict egregious
violations of proper safety, but many of the situations
involve matters of opinion rather than absolute rules.
The "subject du jour" this time was the depiction of a park
flyer being flown from the street in front of a home. It's
an interesting topic to think about. Is such activity safe,
and should it be allowed? If the activity is okay, should a
depiction of that activity be allowed in our magazine?
For
as many years as I can remember, the basic philosophy within
AMA has been that it is how you fly as opposed to what or
where you fly that is important. Perhaps the time has come
to reconsider this idea.
I would have a little difficulty
with flying in the street in most places, but I can see many
instances where it wouldn't concern me, such as near the end
of a dead-end street or a cul-de-sac.
Interestingly, a
situation was reported in the newspaper here in Ohio where a
basketball hoop which has been in use on a street for many
decades was ordered removed by a new police officer, in
spite of it having never created any problem, complaint, or
accident.
Much to the dismay of the officer, it was allowed
to remain. His opinion was that any basketball game played
on a public street was unsafe. The city fathers eventually
yielded to the desire of the people who lived on that street
and abandoned the challenge.
What this shows is that the
idea of what is safe and what isn't is largely a matter of
opinion. Even an activity which has been taking place for
decades can be challenged. Flying in the street is one of
those actions which will forever be subject to question and
we need to be careful in such activities. Perhaps it
shouldn't be prohibited, but we do need to be extremely
careful in conducting such operations.
Flying a light model
in front of your home on a cul-de-sac, using the public
street for a runway is one thing; flying your model in your
front yard if you live on a heavily traveled state
thoroughfare is another issue.
It's purely a matter of using common sense. If we cannot use
common sense, then we will have to live with many more rules
for our activities.
MA
Til next month ...
Dave Brown, AMA president
|
