Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Old 01-30-2004, 12:16 AM
  #26  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: FHHuber

<SNIP>I wouldn't compare RPV research to evaluating a model aircraft for a magazine ad.
Well... Frank might, Don might hence... applicable operation

Keep in mind, as well, we have certain commercial activities that are specifically excluded under the AMA coverage i.e. BV pitching his planes and flying them, however he is covered if he enters a contest.

How is this for an analogy? You get a drivers license and are bound by your DMV laws. You buy a race car and take it to a race track. The DMV laws do not apply while you are on that private track.
Old 01-30-2004, 12:41 AM
  #27  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

add to jr's analogy:

the DMV has no abi;lity to punish you for not following their rules, other than denying insurance coverage for occurances outside of the rule boundrys.
Old 01-30-2004, 12:44 AM
  #28  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: mongo

add to jr's analogy:

the DMV has no abi;lity to punish you for not following their rules, other than denying insurance coverage for occurances outside of the rule boundrys.
DMV has no effect on your car insurance (except when the DMV revokes your licence... the insurance company generally revokes its spolicy)
Old 01-30-2004, 01:09 AM
  #29  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

you mised the point.

imagine a dmv without enforcement ability, that is the ama safety code.
Old 01-30-2004, 01:23 AM
  #30  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: mongo

you mised the point.

imagine a dmv without enforcement ability, that is the ama safety code.
Well... yes there is an enforecment option... its just never (or never that i have heard of) used. See my last post.
Old 01-30-2004, 01:49 AM
  #31  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

now, like jr said, the dmv has now sway over what you, a lisensed driver, do on a racetrac, so does the ama have no sway over what you do, a liseensed member, on non ama afilliated property.
no where does it say that you will only fly in accordance with the safety code.
Old 01-30-2004, 01:53 AM
  #32  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: mongo

now, like jr said, the dmv has now sway over what you, a lisensed driver, do on a racetrac, so does the ama have no sway over what you do, a liseensed member, on non ama afilliated property.
no where does it say that you will only fly in accordance with the safety code.

Well... IF that is true... you have no AMA insurance other than at an AMA sanctioned facility... and THAT I know is untrue.
Old 01-30-2004, 09:02 AM
  #33  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

"Not Business Insurance!

Based on inquiries and conversations with AMA members across the country, there is a misconception that the AMA liability insurance program Royal Surplus provides for members will cover those members when they are engaged in commercial enterprise, as well as for pleasure/hobby operation of models.

AMA insurance is not intended to, and does not, cover members while they are operating models for business reasons. What is "business"?

The policy language excludes claims "resulting from any commercial enterprise or business pursuit conducted for the livelihood of the individual member or for monetary gain, including part-time or full-time employment or self-employment."

It would be grossly unfair to all AMA members not engaged in aeromodeling business to subsidize insurance for those few who do generate income through aeromodeling and expect AMA insurance to cover those activities.

—Carl Maroney
AMA Special Services Director"
Old 01-30-2004, 03:11 PM
  #34  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

it says, that you can be covered at "off site" activitys, but not that you are definatly covered, compliance with safety code determins the outcome.
but it does not say anywhere, that you have to comply with the safety code when "off site".
Old 01-30-2004, 06:47 PM
  #35  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Well... if you take the "for business" attitude... ANy flight Frank Tiano makes is potentially business related. At a AMA sanctioned club field or not... each flight he makes has the potential to be classified as a quality control evaluation of some product he sells. (what do you want to bet he takes all his fuel cost as tax deduction? any takers against it?)

When flying a model, especially as a Leader Member... he's setting an example to other members. When writing a review, he's making CERTAIN that other modelers take note of his actions.

If those actions disparage the AMA... he should be held accountable. His notes regarding AMA's Safety Code were not good at all. He seemed to be thumbing his nose at the AMA.
Old 01-30-2004, 08:10 PM
  #36  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Fred

Carl Maroney wrote several items attempting to make clear the position of the AMA. The simple fact is that none of us are married to the AMA, and the vows are not 'till death do us part'. Some in the turbine community cringe when stuff like Frank wrote is published. Some will go buy the product. The last thing we need from the AMA is more rules and less rights. The Safety Code needs an overhaul. Every member of the EC knows it and acknowldeges it. Hopefully, they can get out of this "management by crisis" mode and turn their attention the the average member that no one seems to know. They do the best they can, but, they are just humans.

JR
Old 01-30-2004, 08:40 PM
  #37  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

We don't need more rules...

We need people that are high profile in the hobby to make an effort to DEMONSTRATE BY EXAMPLE good safety practice.
We need people that are high profile to go out of thier way to make it clear if they are doing somthing as a modeler or an RPV tester or some other SPECIAL CASE that is not under the AMA safety code.

A high profile modeler does some extreme stunt... and you can "bet your booties" someone is going to say: "Look what XXXXX did. let me try it." at the local field. If its doing the tail touches (TOC champions started it..) or going out and touching a hovering 1/3 scale IMAC (or TOC) model... or... thumbing your nose at a safety code rule.

That Kit and turbine combo review. some jet jocks are going to say... "Frank Tiano flew that combo... Why can't I?" CD: "It violates the T:W rule. Not at my contest." Jet Jock: "WAAAH!... its unfair!" (He's RIGHT!)
Old 01-30-2004, 08:56 PM
  #38  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

The image of the stereotypical role model is gone. Not just in modeling, but, in ever facet of life. It’s gone in sports, politicians, attorneys, doctors,musicians, and even the police and firemen. I am not sure they every really existed. I think they were a creation of the media. The only one you can be responsible for is yourself.
Old 01-30-2004, 09:02 PM
  #39  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Again... that just leaves the uneducated beginner with a bad example up there... and no one to warn the poor beginner... "HEY THATS STUPID DON'T DO IT."

One of the core reasons for the AMA is to promote SAFETY in aeromodeling.
Old 01-30-2004, 09:46 PM
  #40  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

The AMA is us. Not just the few guys that fly the best.
Old 01-30-2004, 10:03 PM
  #41  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Yes... and we need to stand up to the ones who fly the best... when they do something that is inherantly stupid.

Just being a marvelous stick-pusher doesn't mean you will always be smart in thinking of the consequences of your AMAZING feat at some contest.

You have some S*** H** guy do something that makes the crowd go WOW! and at first it ALWAYS seems like a WONDERFUL thing.... then you get someone not so perfect at controlling his plane thinking its "OK to try it at home" Even though some guy in the back of the crowd had, right from the start of the maneuver, started hollering "UNSAFE!" everyone says... "Its OK... Mr S H knows what he's doing." A few weeks later... 1/2 the guys at the local flying field start egging thier club's best of the best to try it... Maybe he gets lucky and succeeeds, more often... balsa splinters. Then the lesser pilots try it... closer in "so I can see better." and eventually someone manages to whack off a finger... or an arm or his neck.

Safety lines always get pushed. You don't enforce em... they fall and someone ALWAYS gets hurt. Then the [:'(]Lawyers[:'(] get to have a party.
Old 01-30-2004, 11:39 PM
  #42  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: J_R

"Not Business Insurance!

Based on inquiries and conversations with AMA members across the country, there is a misconception that the AMA liability insurance program Royal Surplus provides for members will cover those members when they are engaged in commercial enterprise, as well as for pleasure/hobby operation of models.

//SNIP//

—Carl Maroney
AMA Special Services Director"


And the point is???

Royal is not the current Insurance Provider for AMA' general liability policy. Therefore the above statement is archive.
Old 01-30-2004, 11:59 PM
  #43  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Heck... they're too busy trying to defend the indefensible to care about details such as which is the current insurance company... and what is or isn't covered, what should or shouldn't be considered an "applicable flight" is more important than a guy thumbing his nose at the foundation of the AMA... SAFETY!
Old 01-31-2004, 12:13 AM
  #44  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

there is nothing "indefensable" about flying outside the bounds of the safety code.

i will wager that there is more out of the bounds flying done each year, than there is in the bounds.
and a lot of it is done by members.
Old 01-31-2004, 01:18 AM
  #45  
Jim Branaum
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Fred,
It is ironic that NOW you come out and say what I have been saying for a while. I managed to get the PB guys bent out of shape and the turbine guys all wound up over my approach to Safety Rules which seems to be similar to yours. Take heed because it seems those guys DO NOT LIKE TO BE TOLD THEY ARE NOT AS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW!

ORIGINAL: FHHuber

SNIP

That Kit and turbine combo review. some jet jocks are going to say... "Frank Tiano flew that combo... Why can't I?" CD: "It violates the T:W rule. Not at my contest." Jet Jock: "WAAAH!... its unfair!" (He's RIGHT!)
Your points about high profile people are important because those are the actions that get attention and generate the perceived need for more stringent rules. I disagree very strongly with your analysis about it being "unfair" that some CD insists that the flyer follows the AMA rules. There is NOTHING unfair about it except that the big name guys who do things outside the SC and the AMA are getting to tell us all that their's is bigger than our is IN PRINT. I don't know about you, but THAT is what I find offensive and unfair.

Maybe a letter to FT would help, but it will not change the perceptions the community has to deal with. Especially when there are those in that community who insist on NOT following the T/W regulation for one reason or another. What seems to me to be worse is that there IS the segment of the community that is sure FT is right on target with his flying OUTSIDE the rules. The problem is that it has not been made clear that he WAS.

FT frequently does not seem to maintain a leadership position or attitude. This is just the latest example of his approach. Now I remember why I did NOT vote for him
Old 01-31-2004, 01:18 AM
  #46  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Since 90%+ of the Safety code is... "common sense put into writing" generally if you are violating it... you are doing something STUPID.

**** I seem to have posted at same time as above.

The "WAAAH... Unfair!" (He's Right!)... he's right because... its unfair no one blew that IDIOT who set the bad example out of the water for doing the STUPID thing.

***
Edit #2...

BTW... sent an e-mail to Dave Brown... and asked my AMA President to consider having Frank Tian's Turbine waver REVOKED for encouraging violations of the 200 mph limit
Old 01-31-2004, 02:17 AM
  #47  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

ORIGINAL: FHHuber

<SNIP>
Edit #2...

BTW... sent an e-mail to Dave Brown... and asked my AMA President to consider having Frank Tian's Turbine waver REVOKED for encouraging violations of the 200 mph limit
It will be interesting to see if Dave Brown replies and, if he does, what he has to say. I know that you realize that the AMA has started requiring by-laws for each club. The root reason for the requirment is to insure that each club has due-process in dealing with the actions of the club's membership. The reason that is important is that one club took action that was not authorized, in ejecting a member. The AMA paid a large amount of money to cover the club for that unauthorized action.

Now, here you are, complaining that the rules should be followed and you write the the President of the AMA and ask him to take action that the AMA is not authorized to take. Action where there is no due process. Action that would likely lead to a very large settlement being paid by the AMA to Frank Tiano for denying him due process. No such action is described in the AMA by-laws or rules. Yes, it will be very interesting to see what Dave has to say to you.
Old 01-31-2004, 02:36 AM
  #48  
FHHuber
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: gone,
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Well... he CAN notify all trubine waver writers that Mr Tiano is not to have his waver renewed... there is no guarantee that a waiver granted one year will be renewed the next... and renewal is required.

Thus... a way to revoke it with no recourse

****

Another way to pull it... is there is a method for ejection form AMA. Not in AMA... the waver is worthless.

****

Reviewing AMA document 513 on the AMA website (the turbine waver RULES)

Read item 20.

The AMA has the right to remove a waiver at any time.

I think that there may be no problem with pulling it at all...[>:]

*** Edit # 5 (or 6...)

Looks like the turbinde waiver does not require renewal annually.... just if AMA membership lapsed for a year, gotta requal.

Its interresting to READ the rules.
Old 01-31-2004, 10:18 AM
  #49  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

Dave Brown has stated no one will be removed from the AMA on his watch.

Quoting 513 has no meaning and points to the fact that you do not know what this thread is about and should not even be posting in it.

Edited to add:

513 does not allow any defense in the waiver removal process. There is no due process. The AMA is aware of that and it is one of the areas that would be changed by the new rules.
Old 02-01-2004, 12:56 AM
  #50  
Gordon Mc
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: , CA
Posts: 7,964
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations

I keep hearing the "there are not very many planes that are capable of exceeding 200 mph claim", and suggestions that speed limiters should only be reserved for the few aircraft that are capable of exceeding 200 mph, etc. On what basis are you guys deciding that very few turbine powered aircraft are capable of exceeding 200 mph ?

At the Fresno rally a couple of years ago two BVM reps flew their models through a speed trap. One was a P120 powered Bandit. The other was a RAM 1000 powered "big fat winged" Bobcat. The Bandit went through the trap at 225 mph. The Bobcat went through it at 235 !

The determining factor in how fast a model will go is usually the pilot - not the model.

Given a little time to build up speed, and sufficiently gentle turns and wide laps, you might be surprised just how fast most of the models are capable of going if the pilot lets it. If a Bobcat can do 235 then a Roo, a Hotspot, a Rookie, etc., for sure can beat 200. Together, those very popular models make up a very substantial portion of the jet population, so there are in fact a lot of models that are very capable of exceeding 200 mph. Tony Frackowiak has pointed out in the past that his Bobcat exceeded 200 mph even with a little old RAM 500 pushing it!! That's a little over half the powerplant that most Bobcats have installed, and this is BV's "turbine trainer" that we are talking about, not his high-end slick-as-all-get-out Bandit...

Now, I agree that not many pilots tend to fly much over 200 mph for more than just a short one-pass burst ... but IMO we should argue that point - that the pilots self-impose limits to their speed and / or the duration that that speed is sustained for, rather than falsely claim that there are not many aircraft capable of busting 200 mph.

Gordon

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.