COORDINATOR: Al Sorensen

PILOT MEETING: 10:00 AM

LOCATION: Sod Farm

Only 4 contestants made it to the sod farm on a clear blue-sky morning, which promised to deliver a warming day and the possibility of good lift for the pilots.

CD Phil Rieger announced that the tasks would be 5, 6 and 7 minutes, in that order, with a 100 point landing tape.

Al Sorensen led off the first round and found the lift to be light and elusive and struggled to a time of 4:03 and made a 51 point landing for a round score of 294. Samir Patel followed and was able to work weak lift for a 4:33 flight however; he landed out and scored only 273 points. Ken Shaw struggled with fickle air, which resulted in a 3:10 flight, but his 68 point landing kept him in contention with 258 points for the round.

Phil also encountered bad air and was on the ground and out of the landing zone for a round 1 total of 183 points.

Al again led off the second round and found conditions improving to the point that he managed 5:54 and found the landing zone for 68 points. Samir also found good air and went 12 seconds over the task time but this round he hit the landing tape for 74 points.

Ken then put up the worst flight of the day as he managed only 2:40 but saved some face with a 71 point landing. Phil found some light bubbles that he worked for 4:42 and hit 33 landing points to end the second round.

At the end of 2 rounds Al was leading the pack with 716 total points while Samir was securely in second with 695. Phil held third with 498 and Ken languished in third with 489.

Al found sufficient lift to work out a 6:53 with an 81 point landing to start off the third round while Samir was unable to hook any air and was on the ground, out of the landing area, at 3:19. Ken then launched and at about two and a half minutes was circling desperately about fifty feet high on a tiny light bubble of rising air. Ken held tough as the bubble began to build and kept with it as it drifted down wind and continued to increase in buoyancy. By skillfully working this breath of air Ken saved a disastrous flight and turned it into a 7:04 jewel capped by an 84 point landing. Phil had no luck in the third round and could only manage a 3:19 with a 31 point landing.

The final scores showed Al increasing his lead to capture first place with 1210 total points. Ken by dint of his third round performance leap frogged both Phil and Samir to capture second place while Samir took third with Phil bringing up the rear in fourth place.

The final scores were:

Al Sorensen 1210

Ken Shaw 989

Samir Patel 893

Phil Rieger 728

When I look at modeling safety from this point of view, it seems clear to me that we all have a responsibility to try to provide conditions that will prevent ourselves and others from being hurt, injured, or killed. In addition, we should all endeavor to eliminate the loss of equipment and property damage.

What does this mean? I think it means that just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. How many times have you thought, said, or heard the following: "I'm only going to start the engine once. I'm not going to set up the plane restraint."

"Pull tests are silly. I've never had a line fail."

"This propeller should be good for one more flight."

"This battery should be okay. I'm going to make it a short flight."

Do the actions associated with these statements help to establish a condition that would prevent hurt, injury, or loss? I think not. Who would say these things? I must admit that I've said a couple of them, and I'm reasonably sure that you have too.

Someone once said, "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but not many old, bold pilots." Simply stated, pilots whose actions repeatedly establish unsafe conditions are more likely to have some sort of mishap.

Unsafe conditions don't only exist while airborne either. Take a look around your flying site. I'd be willing to bet that you can find a number of things that could be done better.

How about that chair with the almost broken leg? Or the fence with just a couple of nails sticking out to gouge someone? Or the hole that someone dug and then abandoned?

Many people genuinely concerned with safety have either been injured themselves or had someone close to them injured. Wouldn't it be better to be able to learn a lesson from someone who has already been hurt than to be wounded yourself?

Years ago, my wife's finger was cut by a propeller. It struck her finger with such force that it not only cut her to the bone, but it broke the bone. It took a long time to heal, and it still bothers her to this day. While I'm sorry that this happened, it doesn't make her finger any better.

Fingers don't grow back, eyes don't repair easily, and accidents cost much more than money. It may seem cool to be able to tell your friends about how many stitches it took to sew your hand up, how much blood you lost, or how long it will take to heal; however, that cool factor quickly diminishes if you lost any fingers or any use of your hand.

Let's face it, serious injuries change us physically and emotionally, but most importantly, they change us permanently.

Build straight, fly as often as you can, have fun, and be safe!

As the population and land value rise, all AMA chartered clubs are faced with the possibility of losing the use of their current flying site. Regardless of the type of use arrangement the club may have with the landowner, and even if the club owns the site, there is no guarantee that the site will not disappear.

In some instances, no matter what the club may attempt in order to save its site it ends in disappointment. Usually attempts to salvage a site occur after the fact, and fall into the "too little, too late" category. That is why it is important for a club to begin working diligently at keeping its site from its very beginning—or as soon as possible.

There are many suggestions I share with clubs to accomplish such a challenging task. I will share them in future editions of the AMA INSIDER, but the one concept that has proven to be worthwhile in saving flying sites is community involvement in a non-modeling activity.

You may be asking "Why?" Well, to be blunt, not everyone perceives model airplanes and their operation as the greatest

thing since sliced bread, to use an old cliché.

I have been involved in site situations where a non-modeling neighbor has a complaint about a club's presence. He/She then takes that complaint to non-modeling city officials, other neighbors, zoning commissions, etc. When that person succeeds in his or her attempts to shut down the clubs' operations, the club is left wondering what happened.

Almost every club I have contact with describes its community involvement as presenting the benefits of model aviation to senior groups, scouting organizations, having an annual open house, etc.—all aviation activities. We all agree that these events only attract those who have some level of interest in aviation to begin with. This is not to say that those are not good activities, but if that is all the club is doing, it is missing a larger portion of their community's citizens. This is the portion that could pose potential threat to the club's existence. These are the people who have to be shown the benefits the club offers its community in non-modeling ways.

The truth is that it is easier to do away with a club that is just a group of people flying their model airplanes. It is much more difficult to evict a club that has the reputation of supporting its community in other ways.

Here are some ideas about how to support your whole community:

• Find the community's favorite charity and contribute to it annually either financially or through volunteer efforts.

• Whatever the contribution ends up being, make sure the local newspaper has photos, captions, and stories. This is often done best by the club and then presented to the paper. If you do the reporters' work for them they will usually run the story. The importance of this activity is not based on how much you are giving but that you are giving.

• Adopt a section of highway to maintain as part of the nation's Adopt-A-Highway program. This is a good way to get your name posted and in front of a large number of your neighbors who will tend to associate your club with that program.

• Become involved at some level with organizations such as the Ronald McDonald House, Meals on Wheels, hospital volunteer opportunities, etc. Again, make sure, through the club's public relations director, the local media knows about these activities.

The few ideas shared here have been proven successful and I am hopeful that you are already thinking of ways you might accomplish this in your own community. It only takes a little effort on the club's part and they can go a long way in preserving your flying privileges.

by C. Scholefield

First, let's define fast charge. The industry standard is any charge rate that will charge the cells in one hour or less. This fast charge capability thing is very interesting.

Almost all Ni-Cds manufactured today for RC systems can accept fast charge (up to C rate, that's the rate at which you can charge the cells in approximately one hour).

Cells that are specifically sold as fast chargeable go through another step in the process. This step involves charging a sample from the production lot, and then measuring the end of charge voltage. Cells with the highest end of charge voltage are then analyzed for internal pressure. If the internal pressure is acceptable—that is not above a preset limit-the whole production lot is blessed as being fast chargeable. Of course this adds a finite amount of cost to the cell as they must be "formed" prior to being shipped in order to be fast chargeable.

Cells not destined for fast charge applications are shipped "unformed" by some manufacturers. The first charge after the assembly is what "forms" the cell. When you charge your RC system packs for the first time you are "forming" them. That is why the instructions tell you to charge the packs for 16 to 24 hours before you first use the system.

So in most instances you are safe fast charging the RC packs (transmitter or receiver) on the market if you first make sure they get a good first cycle formation charge—24 hours at a slow rate.

Where the problems arise is that some of the fast charge systems available are a little sloppy when it comes to terminating the fast charge, or they are pushing the cells

too hard (higher than the C rate charge) and then damage occurs.

As a rule of thumb if your packs are not getting hot (slightly warm is okay) you are not damaging them in the fast-charge

process. When pushing too much current into cells not designed to accept it there is the risk of driving the cells above 1.6 volts (the hydrogen-over-voltage point) and electrolyzing

the water in the electrolyte and generating hydrogen. This is a cumulative event and repeated fast charge at these rates will result in sufficient accumulation of hydrogen to cause the cells to vent. When they do vent, there is a chance that the chemical balance will be disturbed and the cell capacity will fade.

Understand that the pack may not be fully charged when the fast charge terminates. It is a good practice, if you are going to fast charge frequently, to top off the packs using the slow charger. This will bring all cells to the same state of charge and "balance" the pack. Otherwise the cell that is not fully charged will be the limiting cell on the next discharge.

This continues until there is a major unbalance in the pack and one cell can be driven into reverse (if you don't crash first).