Thongs, a contrary opinion

Surprise, I return to stunt twenty years later and the do-gooders have put the ##### thing back into the rule book again. I really hate it when someone decides that I need to be forced to conform to their concept of a necessary safety rule for the good of the community. From this type of thinking we get endless new taxes, pharmaceuticals and doctors we can't afford, seat belts, hard hats, crash helmets, safety goggles, and a cost of living we can't keep up with. Safety is an individual responsibility, not to be taken lightly. Safety should not be the object of ill considered and unnecessary legislation.

In spite of a very few incidents of stunt ships getting loose, mostly by beginners, in my opinion, there isn't enough statistical justification to force the use of the thong or any other bazaar device someone thinks I need.

If they are life-saving and necessary for safe control line operation, then everybody should use them, no exceptions, for all control line flying. I clearly use them when I must. What I do when I fly alone is no one else's business. Two years ago, I almost lost the BBQB Bearcat while trying to avoid an inverted landing with a failing engine. I began an outside loop, from level flight, with a sputtering engine, lost tension, ran like the dickens, fell and broke my arm. The airplane flew over me as I lay on the ground and hit the end of the lines a tremendous jerk. The engine quit completely and the Bearcat landed safely. I will say that, on that occasion, I was not using a thong and, demonstrably, did not need one to safely recover the airplane. I don't know about guys flying Ringmasters on grass, but when I invest a year and near a thousand bucks in an airplane, it strains the imagination to visualize a hazardous situation where I would fly when or where I shouldn't, or turn loose of a handle.

I tire of excuses for letting go of a handle. I cannot imagine launching one of my airplanes in grass tall enough to touch the lines. We have all been shocked by static electricity while flying. On every occasion that I have experienced this I was able to avoid further shocks by simply flying low until the flight was over. Given a shock or two, one soon learns not to try to fly when the weather is threatening. It would be possible to electrically insulate or ground the handle but that would eliminate mild shocks which would warn of possibly more serious consequences.

Again, do what you like, but don't make any more rules that force me to conform to your opinion.

See Ya

I resent being called irresponsible by you or anyone else. We disagree but this doesn't give you the right to make personal accusations. Having spent my professional life as an airline pilot, responsible for hundreds of passengers at a time, my judgment and sense of responsibility have never been questioned. It is my reasoned judgment that the use of the thong may, possibly should, be encouraged, but not required.

If the thong was so obviously necessary, why were we able to get rid of it the first time? Safety, as an issue, was certainly reexamined before the rule was repealed. If safety is so dependent on its use, why should it be omitted for some multi-flyer events. Maybe we should eliminate those events if flying them without thongs would be a hazard.

There is enough room here for differences of opinion without name calling.

Welcome to my world. This is what passes for thoughtful debate in some quarters...

Is "irresponsibility" a "name"?

I can't argue your position on personal freedom, I share that view.
So far, knock on wood, I have never lost the handle from my hand.

As to the "thong", I believe it all boils down to an "insurance" consideration with the AMA. In today's law suit conscious soiety, I guess all precautions need to be spelled out, and any "possible" scenarios need to be covered.

Bill <><

I am curious, though - on the other thread there were a lot of comments about using thongs in combat. I always thought Combat was excused from thongs because of the line tangle issue. It seemed like a reasonable alternative to slicing the lines in half with who-knows-what result. I often switched handles with opponents to undo a tangle.

Maybe things aren't that friendly these days.

Nope, Combat is not exempt.

I've heard of people switching hands to get out of tangles, but I've never heard of anyone switching handles with opponents. This might have been possible in the old days, but not when speeds are up in the 120s, like today. The proper way to get out of a tangle is to get the handles together and fly out of it.

Bigiron

>As to rules like
>this, it is a matter of some one didn't "kill all the
>lawyers first". Then the "do gooders", next.

John Thompson

In actual practice, I'm a contest flier. The last thing I want to have happen at a contest is to forget to use a thong, or have one tosssed into service at the spur of the moment cause me problems while flying.

Thus I use them constantly, to the point where it feels a little uncomfortable to fly without one, have even used them to improve the safety of stooge use.

Thongs in CL is kinda like seat belts in cars. Don't force me to use them. But I was raised on a farm. The Jeep had a full roll cage and a six-point harness. You ain't lived until struggling into one of these things! Current seat belts are a snap to use, even if compromised due to primary system being those stupid air bags.

And like the thong, I feel almost ready to fall out of any car which does not have belts.

It's not like that at all. It's not there to protect others from your body flying through your windshield. Seat belts primarily help the occupants of the cars that wreck - not someone standing by the side of the road. I'll never drive a car without wearing my seatbelt - but if I didn't, it is indeed my own problem. I agree that it probably ought to be optional. Same thing with motorcycle helmets - I'll *always* wear one but it's up to me if I want to split my own skull open. But you not wearing a helmet *doesn't split somone elses head open".

Safety thongs exist to keep your accident from propagating into other people's injuries. You can decide not to wear your seatbelt and kill yourself. But I don't want you to have the option of deciding *for me* whether or not I take the chance of getting hit with your loose airplane.

I make the same argument with a U-Reely. If the latch breaks the line unwind and the airplane goes out of the circle. That doesn't injure the pilot - it injures spectators. And you don't get to decide to take the chance with *my* life.

I remember when California passed the "Mandatory Helmet Law" in the late 70s. A nurse I was dating at the time was somewhat regretful, relating a name for bike riders who went without helmets; "Organ Donors".

No one is forcing to use anything. You can go it alone all you want. Just don't do it on my dime - i.e. my insurance dime. That's what it boils down to. A simple precaution that prevents at least one imminently preventable accident. If you didn't do it, you'd be WIDE OPEN to the lawsuit to follow.

>
>I tire of excuses for letting go of a handle. I cannot
>imagine launching one of my airplanes in grass tall enough
>to touch the lines. We have all been shocked by static
>electricity while flying. On every occasion that I have
>experienced this I was able to avoid further shocks by
>simply flying low until the flight was over. Given a shock
>or two, one soon learns not to try to fly when the weather
>is threatening. It would be possible to electrically
>insulate or ground the handle but that would eliminate mild
>shocks which would warn of possibly more serious
>consequences.

I have yet to hear a single rational reason why using a safety thong costs anyone anything, in any aspect. It costs 50 cents, causes no know problems from either a safety or performance stantpoint. It's a piece of string that *does nothing* until you let go of the handle. People do let go and airplane can get loose. Accidents happen, and this accident has happened time and time again. I've probably seen it half-a-dozen times myself.

Sure, there are other, more common, accidents. That's not relevant. I'm sure that if there was a no-cost way of preventing prop cuts, it would be mandated. But there isn't - all the potential solutions are too onerous. But a safety thong is not like someone is requiring you to use a rubber propeller - there's no cost in any sense of the word.

I just don't see any counter-argument to be made. If its a philosophical "don't protect me from myself" arguement, then I submit that's not accurate. It's a "protect me from you" situation. The last place the airplane ends up is the center of the circle.

The benefit to cost ratio seems to be virtually infinity.

I'd happily debate the point.

And Brett you know I'm a small-l Libertarian; I was merely painting with a broad brush, although I hope this response results in yet another posting concerning the obvious. Where is that box of stupid smiley faces...?

"What hurts you" versus "what hurts someone else" doesn't mean a whole lot. We all pay a price with every accident and every injury - except in isolated circumstances. These days, not wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet affects all the rest of us.

The point is that liabilities today may mean that all sorts of activity could be restricted or outlawed. A helmet on a motorcycle is only the first step. When does the motorcycle become outlawed? A significant lawsuit could remove the vehicle completely. When was the last time you saw a 3-wheeler ATV (or a Corvair)?

Al is expressing an opinion at a trend. The trend begins with telling us how to fly, and ends with telling us we can't. Having said all of that, I do think a thong is prudent - but I wouldn't say that there's no premise for an argument.

That's only one aspect. Having, or paying for insurance, doesn't prevent anyone from being hurt. I simply *don't care*, to first approximation, what happens after the accident. I've had R/Cists, when I complain about them overflying, say "It's OK, we have insurance". As if waving an AMA card over a dead body makes it spring back to life.

You have a potential point about slippery slopes, but take this issue, as stated, and you really can't make a decent argument otherwise.

You need to be careful about laying down challenges, and you seem to do it quite often, although I don't know why.

You mention RC - why should they be any less restricted than us? Does the AMA require their hands to be lashed to the transmitter sticks? Do they even require a neck strap in all circumstances?

Let's take another "for instance" - your car. Everyone in this country has the freedom to drive a car with a license and certain other restrictions. Anyone can let go of a steering wheel and cause a tragedy in an instant. Yet, no one suggests that someone's hands should be lashed to the steering wheel. There are many other examples.

It becomes a point of personal responsibility versus mandated limits on freedom.

Huh? No idea what you are talking about.

>You mention RC - why should they be any less restricted than
>us? Does the AMA require their hands to be lashed to the
>transmitter sticks? Do they even require a neck strap in
>all circumstances?

I don't think they should be less restricted than us. R/C scares the heck out of me. But lashing their thumbs to the sticks is not anything remotely akin to a safety thong. A safety thong is much more like a force field would be in R/C. It keeps the dangerous parts away from non-participants, and if you had such a thing, the only way anyone gets hit with an airplane is if they make a concerted effort. Lots of R/C airplanes crash into uncontrolled areas with the pilots in full control.

>Let's take another "for instance" - your car. Everyone in
>this country has the freedom to drive a car with a license
>and certain other restrictions. Anyone can let go of a
>steering wheel and cause a tragedy in an instant. Yet, no
>one suggests that someone's hands should be lashed to the
>steering wheel. There are many other examples.

I think this is another false analogy. A safety thong is like a guardrail/fence between the specators and the racetrack. If you let go of the wheel, the fence keeps you out of the crowd. Used to happen all the time, now it virtually never happens and then it's equipment failure - like the fence got puncture (safety thong broke).

The idea of the safety thong has nothing at all to do with retaining control of the airplane. It has everything to do with preventing the airplane from going into areas that are not clear of people.

This is not a personal responsibility issue. If you let go of the handle accidentally, and the airplane hits me, your responsibility for that is irrelevant, because I'm still injured. Being willing to take the blame for it is beside the point, and I don't want to trust my life to your actions if I don't have to, and it costs you and me virtually nothing to preclude the possibility completely.

Other safety issues *do* have significant costs in various costs, and, say, mandating 1/4" diameter lines and a 400 lb pull test is a different tradeoff. It's negligibly safer than .018 and a 40 lb pull test, and has incredible costs in terms of performance.

So I'm not arguing "safety at all costs", but I am arguing for significant improvement in safety for negligible cost.

Unless you can posit a "cost" to using a safety thong, I can't see how you can argue against it. By all means, point it out to me if I am missing something.

I'm not surprised, but why don't you re-read your language:
"... you really can't make a decent argument otherwise."

That's not stating an opinion and moving on. It's telling everyone else that their's doesn't matter.

>
>>You mention RC - why should they be any less restricted than
>>us? Does the AMA require their hands to be lashed to the
>>transmitter sticks? Do they even require a neck strap in
>>all circumstances?
>
> I don't think they should be less restricted than
>us. R/C scares the heck out of me. But lashing their thumbs
>to the sticks is not anything remotely akin to a safety
>thong. A safety thong is much more like a force field would
>be in R/C.

It's perfectly analagous. You lose your grip, you lose control. That's the only thing separating that plane from disaster. Whether there are any people around is a totally separate issue. Keep wishing for that force-field, though - "Earth to Brett ..."

>>Let's take another "for instance" - your car. Everyone in
>>this country has the freedom to drive a car with a license
>>and certain other restrictions. Anyone can let go of a
>>steering wheel and cause a tragedy in an instant. Yet, no
>>one suggests that someone's hands should be lashed to the
>>steering wheel. There are many other examples.
>
> I think this is another false analogy. A safety thong is
>like a guardrail/fence between the specators and the
>racetrack. If you let go of the wheel, the fence keeps you
>out of the crowd. Used to happen all the time, now it
>virtually never happens and then it's equipment failure -
>like the fence got puncture (safety thong broke).

You're assuming that the CL pilot never moves out of his circle. Are you seriously suggesting that we create a guard rail around the pilot? Stepping out of the circle takes less of a conscious/unconscious action than letting go of the handle.

>
> The idea of the safety thong has nothing at all to do
>with retaining control of the airplane. It has everything to
>do with preventing the airplane from going into areas that
>are not clear of people.

See the several statements above. The only thing that guarantees people aren't within striking distance is that someone's already policed the area. As I said above, the thong has nothing to do with the pilot wandering, or anyone else that may make an encursion into the circle. Both are conscious decisions that require the same responsbility (or lack of) as letting go of the handle.

The Combat cutoff is probably the only device that actually addresses the problem. It would work in RC and Free Flight, too, but at a significant cost.

Let's go one further, though. If you're really stating that the thong has no effect with whether you keep control of the plane, or even whether you can regain control of a plane once lost, then maybe we need a better device.

For instance, some Walkmans let you slip your hand into a belted strap, allowing you to hold onto the device even if you lose your grip. Camcorders have a similar grip system. This is because there's a real cost if you drop it. Yet, it doesn't seem to hamper operation. Our models deserve the same attention at least.

> This is not a personal responsibility issue. If you let
>go of the handle accidentally, and the airplane hits me,
>your responsibility for that is irrelevant, because I'm
>still injured. Being willing to take the blame for it is
>beside the point, and I don't want to trust my life to your
>actions if I don't have to, and it costs you and me
>virtually nothing to preclude the possibility completely.
>
> Other safety issues *do* have significant costs in
>various costs, and, say, mandating 1/4" diameter lines and a
>400 lb pull test is a different tradeoff. It's negligibly
>safer than .018 and a 40 lb pull test, and has incredible
>costs in terms of performance.

I agree that it may actually be a reasonable precaution. I just disagree to your challenges and the supposition that no one should be able to pose a rational argument against it.

>
> So I'm not arguing "safety at all costs", but I am
>arguing for significant improvement in safety for negligible
>cost.
>
> Unless you can posit a "cost" to using a safety thong,
>I can't see how you can argue against it. By all means,
>point it out to me if I am missing something.
>
> Brett

There goes another challenge. Now you've dared me to develop a cost. In addition, "I can't see how you can argue against it." and especially, "... point it out to me if I am missing something." Those are all challenges. The last one can also be described with a common word starting in "a", having a couple of "r"'s, and ending in "t."

That's OK, though, I'll bite just on principle: The cost is my lack of freedom to exert a personal preference - exactly what Al Rabe did in starting this thread.

<< willful ignorance snipped>>

>> Unless you can posit a "cost" to using a safety thong,
>>I can't see how you can argue against it. By all means,
>>point it out to me if I am missing something.
>>
>> Brett
>
>There goes another challenge. Now you've dared me to
>develop a cost. In addition, "I can't see how you can argue
>against it." and especially, "... point it out to me if I am
>missing something." Those are all challenges.

Absolutely, Of course I am challenging you- to prove your point. That's the basic idea behind rhetorical argument. I made my point. If you can't prove your point, then I conclude you don't know what you are talking about, and you lose the argument.

>That's OK, though, I'll bite just on principle: The cost is
>my lack of freedom to exert a personal preference - exactly
>what Al Rabe did in starting this thread.

I fully support your right to choose, when your decision is to take a risk with your own life. I contend that your rights does not extend to taking a risk with someone else's life.

I've treated you as a serious person, but based on the portion I snipped, I have to conclude that you are once again playing the "bait" game and I don't care to play.

That's another issue altogether, and should be addressed, at least in competition, by requiring the pilot to remain in the pilot's circle. But, as I recall from earlier threads, there is quite a bit of resistance to such a rule.

It's a rule in Combat. There is also a rule to keep pitmen out of the flying circle. Don't know why it can't be a rule in Stunt as well, but that's for the Stunt fliers to figure out.

Mr. Nader was way off base when he attacked the Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed". It's swing axle did not result in the VW "Bug's: roll-overs. Shoddy research by Mr. Nader, or perhaps his own opportunism, set back the U.S. Auto Industry at a time when they were finally showing some guts and spirit.

SK

BWahahahhahahaha, hope you didn't just catch on to that, knew it for years. As a couple of radio guys always say, follow the money trail if you want to really know whats up.

Could it happen? Yes. Could it be prevented? I don't know about the heart attack (I have got to get back to a stricter diet) but letting go of the airplane even if I fell down dead could be prevented.

Oh, I know the above is an extreme case, but there are lots of examples that have been cited here of people letting go. And since this does not hurt any or us, even without the "rule" it is good practice to do so.

Jim:

I swore I was going to stay out of this but all you're doing with that arguement is comparing apples and turnips! At least try to get a little closer, like apples and oranges.......

Somewhere back a few responses somebody implied that loose handles might be more folklore than fact. I've been at this since the 50's and I have seen at least one handle type fly away. Seen, son, as in witnessed live. I know the handle was attached because IT hit, slightly damaged, and got caught on one of the modelers cars, causing the model to crash.

Al does have a legitimate gripe about being told what to do. He's entitled to that. BUT, when you look at the whole picture, in my opinion Brett and Leonard are right on the money. None of us are perfect! Mistakes happen and cause accidents. Thongs are ridiculously cheap and easy prevention.

Jeff W

P.S.--this is from somebody so conservative he thinks Barry Goldwater was a raving LIBERAL!

No one, Not even Mr. Responsibility, would hang on to a handle if one of these happened.

Because I do not like the "posted speed limit" does that mean I should go as fast as I want?? No, As not only am I jeopardizing my insurance rates (if I get a ticket or have an accident) I am endangering OTHERS. Same as using the thong. It is a rule that in event of an accident, it may negate ones insurance or worse yet, injure someone.
We should wear them .

Bigiron

As to the "thong", I believe it all boils down to an "insurance" consideration with the AMA. In today's law suit conscious soiety, I guess all precautions need to be spelled out, and any "possible" scenarios need to be covered.

Bill <><

Sure there are situations like team race where it could be a problem, but our first need is to protect bystanders.

Your own statement makes the case for thongs: You've seen two handle flyaways yourself and one found a church. That alone makes the case!

Around a Church Spire???

Please tell us about this one!

Static testing is fine. But limited. The only real test is to loose the model and see what happens.

What would you do?

Ah, ah, ah. Not so fast there! The device must be proven reliable in order to be safe. In order to be safe it must be known to work.

Again, what would you do?

Bill

Let's not use false analogies to prove a "point"

You may still have control of a control line plane if you don't have a death grip, either. But you're mixing up the advantage of control line with something that doesn't exist with RC or with a car. You can't let it continue straight - even assuming it has stability. You can fly a control line plane blindfolded - once you've taken it off, and before you land it.

Remind me not to be around when you're driving.

Tomb: Many years ago it seems a true gentleman by the name of Bob Palmer did indeed fly a control line plane blindfolded under controled conditions. It fact it was written up in all the magazines. Now also maybe he had the real answer to our problem of the safety thong. His lines are bolted to a glove he has to wear. He has to unbolt lines when he is done. -DOC

I wasn't going to post anymore to this thread since Bradley is asking Len to shut it down!? However, just for the record, I was never suggesting that someone maneuver blindfolded. In fact, I made certain to make the exception for takeoffs and landings as well in my supposition.

It is a fact, though, that Combat flyers do this on a regular basis - having your own plane, cocked and out of sight (as if it were), while lining up and giving your opponent's plane the target eye.

It's only a point of digression, though, and no value whatsoever to the rest of this discussion.

Not nearly as onerous as the seat belt debacle which needs to be taken historically. (1) the do gooders and those anointed decide everyone should wear seat belts as "it saves money treating the uninsured, keeps widows and orphans off welfare, etc." All this assumes that those being led have no adequate health or life insurance or savings, etc. (2) the feds buy into the deal seeing an opportunity to create another beauracracy(sp)-always a good deal for them. (3) Many states say no way as this is one of the worst infringements on personal liberty that anyone has ever heard of and is totally unconstitutional-10th ammendment, etc. (4)The feds say "pretty please" we might give you some goodies(confiscated from taxpayers)-responsible states still say "no way". (5) Nut cutting. The feds say"were cutting off your highway funds unless you roll over" the states howl at the moon, grovel in the dirt and finally passs a bill that provides a maximun fine of $5, can only be stopped for seat belt violation in conjunction with another offense, and does not apply to pickups. (6) States see revenue source, the pickup and no stops for seat belts only go out the window, the fine limit goes also and fines reportedly exceed $100 in some locales. (6) State and local governments get wealthty and are happy the feds talked them into it, the taxpayer pays through the nose, and does not know what happened to him. (7)The local gendarmes just got a federal grant(your money)to purchase an unmarked car specifically to cruse around looking for seat belt violations only.

The cycle is now complete- a lost freedom and groveling thankful(but poorer) sheeple who think the feds have done them a favor.

Like I say, thongs are small potatos.

Python scenes and Nitro Fumes!......Hib

I've always felt that seat belt use is a modern method of Natural Selection.

The safety thong is not so cut and dry. It's probably the responsible thing to do, but only because of the circumstances of our times. That doesn't mean it had to be mandated for every case.

There are things with this hobby that will not last unless the trend reverses. The cables can slice off fingers or maybe even limbs. The props can take fingers - not to mention there's almost no other aspect in our lives that would accept an open, unguarded rotating instrument like a prop. Then there's the fuel - poison, potentially explosive if you distilled certain parts, and even dangerous if just soaked into the skin. The whole plane could be considered a flying bomb suspended on a set of slicing blades. Then there's the noise if nothing else.

It's a wonder any self-respecting lawyer lets us get away with any of it.

Talk about an oxymoron . . .

Oops - you're absolutely right!

Jim:
That's nice and that was your choice to wear them. I resent being told, in fact required by law, to wear them. It's a loss of freedom thing-our freedoms have not been lost and will not be lost all at once, just a little at a time by someone offering "security"

If we just attach the thong to your bellcrank pivot bolt, all will be right with the world!

Jeff

Edit: The Jim this is addressed to is Jim I.

Oh, I think you were being pithy, my bad.

I was going to agree with you that I was getting a little "pithy", but after seeing the next several posts I'd say none of us had even gotten past the starting line on getting "pithy".

Normally I'd say some of this is crossing the infamous "line" we all try to avoid...Normally. BUT, this is a legitimate safety issue and I think that stretches the line of what's allowable a lot farther.

Think about this: does anyone out there think that Al put his opinion up expecting anything less than a firestorm? Strip away the nonsense on some of the posts and you see a thorough discussion of the issue. While I disagree with Al on this one, he is entitled to his opinion and I think posting it has served a valid purpose in generating an in depth discussion.

By the way, abiding by AMA rules is not just for contests as some have indicated. Even if you're an AMA member flying in your own back yard, AMA and its insurance carrier are involved if an accident occurs, just like any place else. If somebody sues you, they'll also go after every other party including AMA's insurer. That is not your choice.

Let's all look for the valid points in this thread and move ahead.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't AMA insurance good only at an AMA aproved flying site?

When I was told acouple of years ago when I started flying control line again that I needed to use a thong I thought this really sucks! Now that I am use to the thong it really doesn't bother me, therefore I don't care one way or another about the rule. I do know that if I was to get zapped by a bolt of lightning the last thing I would want is that handle to be permanantly tied to me, grounded or not. I to have experienced minor shock in the past and flew low enough to end the flight without incident.

I think that Al makes some very good points and its ashamed that he is getting attacks of bieng irresponsible. Obviously if he retired as an airline captain after many years he is very responsible. I've always looked up to him as one of my favorites in the stunt arena.

I also enjoy a good Lawyer joke myself. I do my best trying to avoid them at all cost. I have learned by experience a couple of times that when they become neccessary then just be prepaired to pucker up and make a temporary change to your life style.

Some where I read they are rated at about the same level as a used car salesman when it comes to getting the bone.

Ciya,

Mike}>

Snip>>>>

Several people have brought up the question of when AMA insurance coverage applies. Very legitimate question. I gave an opinion earlier but had not had time to confirm it.

On the back of the sheet to which your AMA card was attached is a summary of coverage. It state's:
"AMA coverage applies anytime, anywhere-it is not limited to model flying at contests or on the club field. It even applies to flying at public demonstrations and air shows. Failure to comply with the safety code may endanger insurance coverage."

The point for this discussion is that anytime we pick up a handle, our actions potentially affect every other flier, at least to the point of insurance rate's and coverages. Somebody said something like "I'll just go out and sport fly". Doesn't matter, AMA is still insuring you. Like it or not, we don't exist in an isolated vacuum. If we don't "play nice" together, we may not get to play at all.

Al is entitled to dislike the rule, to voice his opinion, and to try to have it changed. Until and unless that occurs, thongs are part of our life. Period!

Jeff Welliver

Bigiron

Anyone remember the SFA?

With all due respect for your accomplishments, your post is one of the most self centered, self serving, ill informed pieces of diatribe I have come across in the very few years I have been flying.

I count the use of the word "I" thirty times in your post.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU !!!!! THE WORLD WAS NOT BUILT FOR YOUR PERSONAL PLEASURE!!! GROW UP!!! (and fasten your seatbelt while you are at it so you can maintain some control of your out of control car and miss that highway worker before you meet your most untimely demise.)

What credibility you had and what accomplishments you were responsible for are only diminished by pig headed comments like this.

I suppose saftey wired nuts and clipped pins in the planes you flew or fly are an imposition on your personal freedom. Heck, few if any of the bolts or parts they locate ever come loose! To hell with the passengers, the pilot demands his freedom!

This IS about the little eight year old boy or girl that is enamoured with your not so limited flying abilities that is standing five feet from the edge of the circle. (the one that wants to be an airline pilot when they grow up)

This IS about the other people in the park that do not have a clue as to how potentially lethal a model could be if it was let go.

This IS about all of the rest of US who want to have a place to fly tomorrow and the next day.

This IS about the newbies on this board that are now questioning whether they really need a safety thong. (yes, you need one if you wish to fly under the AMA or MAAC umbrella and no you can not hold on to a three and a half pound model going 88 fps in a straight line away from you)

This is not a subject for discussion. If you think it is, you are not a fully functioning responsible adult.

Your new plane looks great,

Kim Doherty.

I would keep the 8 year old boy and girl further away than 5 feet, though - thong or not.

The people I hear beefing about lawyers every day are the very same people I see fighting tooth, nail and claw to get OFF OF THE JURY POOL. You want your freedom, but you are simply too busy to mess with protecting anyone's but your own.

If you have a beef with a lawyer, I understand. If you want to make a JOKE, I will usually laugh and pass it on. BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ACROSS THE BOARD CALL AND JUDGE US ALL, COME TAKE A SWING AT ME.

(editing done by Forum host at Mitch's request.)

Right on Mitch!!!

I over heard an idiot once say "I trust used car salesmen more than lawyers!"
I told him if he ever found himself in court I hope he remembers to hire a good used car salesmen.

I know sometimes I've ribbed you very hard about your profession, but please know you do have my respect.

<golf clap>

>This is not a subject for discussion. If you think it is,
>you are not a fully functioning responsible adult.

Name caller.

This thread does bring up a good point though. If Al does not like the rule he can submit a rules change proposal and try to get it changed. In this case it is great that it is part of the AMA Rulebook so that it can be updated through rules changes in the future. I think everyone needs to understand that having procedures in the rulebook start the formal process of change for the future.

If you fly a .049 Class I Mouse racer which weigh 5 -6 ounces ready to fly you will use .010” solid lines or .012” Multi-Strand lines. These planes go about 80 – 85 MPH.

We can fly up to a .15 size plane in stunt on .008” Solid Lines or .012” Multi-Strand Lines. These planes probably weigh 20 -24 ounces and fly at 50 – 55 MPH. If we want to fly .40 size planes that weigh 40-50 ounces and fly at 50 – 55 MPH we can get by with .012 Solid Lines. Think of the difference in Force (Mass x Acceleration) on the lines when the .40 size Stunter and the .049 Mouse plane both get caught in the wind and the lines pop tight after going over the top of the circle. Just be glad you don’t have to have lines that will stand the equivalent force that the Mouse plane has to.

In Combat you have to have fuel shut-offs that work in case the line goes slack. This is of course to prevent a fly-away from hitting someone with the engine running. With the size lines we now fly on, it is certainly possible to break the lines on our stunt planes in violet wind or control related times. This would be more likely with less experienced flyers in the lower ranks who have trim problems or not enough experience. Lets be thankful we don’t have to have fuel shut-offs on our stunt planes.

Some of you may wonder how some of these rules come about. Serve on a contest board long enough and you will understand completely. Sooner or later some one (usually a lawyer) will point out to you that you have a rules proposal in front of you that COULD POSSIBLY prevent a flyaway which might injure or kill someone. The someone that is usually used is always little 5 year old Mary who was just out watching with her Dad. They of course have no idea of the dangers that our little airplanes could cause. Then you learn that as a Contest Board Member you have no indemnification from your actions on this or any other vote you make. Now, how do you vote?

The Safety Thong is a good rule. It not only stops the possibility of some potential problems which have occurred in the past, but shows that PAMPA, the Contest Board and AMA have safety in mind as we go about having fun with our airplanes. It could be much worst than it is for Stunt.

Fly as safe as you can and enjoy what you have.

Wayne Foster
AMA 959
Winston-Salem, NC

The lines got stuck on a weed, the plane came towards me, I ducked and - even though I was squeezing that handle as if I was hanging on it for my life - the jerk (no pun intended) was so hard it was pulled outa my grip and the plane hit the ground some 10 yards from the circle.

Had someone been on it's way I would have a tragic story to tell.

Ion Muniz

I will NEVER, NEVER fly without a safety thong. Period.

Regards,

I'm with you here. I never have used one, but I will now that I am getting back into the sport.
I do not liken the thong to seat belts or motorcycle helmets, but rather to the fences and walls around NASCAR tracks and construction sites, or the prohibition at FS Air shows on flying toward the crowd.
I don't really care if you want to kill or injure yourself. Let's just minimize the chances of you taking an honor guard with you.
It is a reasonable precaution. I am all for reasonable precautions.

I'm not sure just when the idea of a safety thong came about, but once defined, I adopted it with gratitude.

Really! It takes only about 6 seconds to pick up your handle and apply the safety thong! You have 8 minutes to complee your flight, so 6 seconds is not a long time!

"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:32)

I'd like to add that if you meant Al he's one of the most respected guys here at SSF!

I'm delighted with the oportunity to disagree with him, I thought it would never happen.

Oh, another good thing about thongs is that they prevent you from picking the handle the wrong way (provided you don't attach them to the middle of the handle)!

But lemme tell ya what's really going on here, I've seen this happen for years and it NEVER fails:

It gets cold in the USA, folks can't fly and after a a couple of weeks they start jumping at each other's throats.

By the end of March things get so mean that they make Mr. Laden look like Mother Thereza...

ION:

Not meaning to express a contrary opinion, But I always thought it was caused by a FULL MOON!

Anyway, what did Mother Thereza ever do for stunt?

Jeff W

P.S. Don't you dare disagree with me before spring!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Guys,Guys,Guys,I use the thong because that's the rule. I don't like it either, it chafes my butt crack,but that's the rule.

If it chafes you there, I'd like to see how you position your handle to do overheads.

If you want to fly your toy airplanes without using safety thong, go ahead. As long as you are flying on private/restricted property and are willing to take responsibility for any of the legal implications involved, this is strictly your business.

However, the day that you have an unexpected flyaway or injure a spectator who walks into your circle (This does happen!), you might find yourself in deep s#*t.

My dad was a federal judge, so I grew up around lawyers and the law. The legal counsel for any innocent party, who is injured by your actions, is going to sue EVERY participant and manufacture involved in his clients case. Therefore, the insurance coverage provided by the AMA will likely be exhausted LONG before one or more lawyers comes after your personal assets. If you are found liable for someones injuries, you could well find yourself impoverished and deservedly so.

When flying model airplanes, I take precautions "in enlightened self interest" to protect my flying buddies, spectators and myself. I really believe that ultimately I'm protecting our collective right to fly.

So Al, if you just needed to rant, fine, you got it out.

NOW, please use a safety thong!

BIGS

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

I can not believe that there has been this manny comments dealing with a dang control line handle SAFETY thong.

Mr. Rabe, you are in a small group of flyers and builders, that I personally consider to be the single greatest source of CL information on the planet. In this instance of wisdom you have failed me aswell as other flyers. The Safety thong rule is a good rule.

When the first control line handles came out with safety thongs attached, some flyers would not use them for one reason or another. I liken a safey thong to car blinkers. They both were well thought of and excellent safety ideas. The owner as always is either the variant or constant. There are drivers who will not use their car or truck blinkers and its not that they do not work, the drive can't be bothered with using them. After all the driver knows were he or she is going to turn off and it's up to the guy behind him to figure it out.

RESPECT, simple respect. I use my blinkers because I respect the driver behing me not because of some mandated rule. I'll always respect yours and other flyers SAFETY when flying by using my thong.

"Chance Favors The More Prepaired Person"
MIke Clark

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It chafes my handle too. I'm seldom able to get it overhead.

Feel free to write a rules change proposal to change the rule. That is what you are supposed to do when you feel a rule should be changed.

LEONARD, THERE IS A HEATED DISCUSSION OF THE EVENT GOING ON OVER HERE, MIGHT BE TIME TO SHUT THE THREAD DOWN!!!!

Gee whiz, Bradley - you've had worse with what's-his-na ... OOPS! Took me a minute to understand the sarcasm. Got ya.

I was flying my 56 powered Furias and the handle was pulled from my hand. The thong pulled tight and dumped the plane and the thong borke just before impact. Without the thong there is a good chance the model would have hit my nephew, 8 at the time, and my brother and Bob G and or the models waiting to fly. I was at the end of my flight and I was waiting for it to shut down. I was looking ahead. I was not staring right at the plane. I was looking ahead and getting ready for the landing when a dove thought it would be a good time to fly away from the edge of the circle. He hit my lines and it jerked plane free. I dont have a death grip when I fly so if something stikes the lines it could and did get loose.

My story can happen to anyone anywhere at anytime. The fact that Al and others cant see the possibilities of such a situation is astonishing, absolutley amazing. You can calcualte for eevrything you want but that wont change the fact that there are outside forces at play here everytime you take off and there things you have no control over. So to leave yourself and others open to danger is, as Peabody said, irresponsible. It isnt name calling just simply stating the truth about one's actions.

No I dont have a thong on all my planes and I know that I should. maybe I will revisit that....

I would put that thong on the handle, might be a little easier than the plane! Ha!

Also, I agree that there are more things at work than just the pilots good intentions when flying.

You have got to be kidding....right. A thong around your wrist affects your concentration??? How so? I think thong underwear would affect most people's concentration, but a shoe string around you wrist is a little much to believe. Do you take your watch and wedding ring off to fly also.

Sometimes when I'm flying and one shoe is a little tighter than the other it just ruins my entire flight.

To Jim...i've won several national trophys!!!...have you?...ivey,

Not really being a smart alec, and you keep off my pants thank you very much...I'll try to keep that in mind next time.

Signed,
Circle...I can fly a Lil Wizard in level flight!!!! can you?......Burner!

I tried to offer something with a different thread - a diagram of a camcorder type palm strap. It probably won't work under a big pull, but I agree that having the thong doesn't keep control of the plane.

The other thing is that all this talk about a fence or a force-field provided by a thong is not quite right, to say the least. Unless the area is policed, I will never assume that I can fly at people height. My depth perception is not that good at 60 feet. A thong does nothing for that, either.

Sorry, Col. Prescott is alleged to have made the comment about the whites of their eyes at Breeds Hill, 17 June 1775.-anybody at the alamo would more likely have been saying "this is not good", although probably a bit more profane than that.

Yep. Then in 1814, there was this:
"Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
if we didn't fire a musket til we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire til we see'd their faces well,
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave a yell."

Quite a guy, I wonder if he and Wilma are still around, he would have to be pushing 80 by now, I think.