mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

In reading the new President's Column in MA, it sure seems that Dave is testing the waters for a new tiered insurance system. Seems to me he is listening to the modelers that want the AMA to support he changing technology in the sport.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Can't say as I have read the column.... is Dave's current proposal any more in touch with reality than his last proposal to create a tiered system ? The one where he decided that fast or large aircraft were twice the insurance risk of any other model, and therefore members flying those models should pay twice the membership fee (totally ignoring the fact that that meant they were paying about eight times the insurance premium for only twice the assumed risk, since the majority of the membership fee had nothing to do with insurance).

Gordon

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

It will be interesting to see where this goes, and what effect is has.

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

How do you ensure that you have the proper coverage with a tier system?

smokingcrater

somewhat simplistic, but use weight tiers... under 10 pounds, 10-20, 20+ (arbitrary numbers, make up your own...) You choose which coverage you want, with full knowledge that if you own & fly something other than that, it is your full responsibility and no insurance...

ProfLooney

well i look at it this way. if the insurance is only 15% of our dues and the rag they put out is 22% why not offer the option not to take the rag and to add that 22% to cover double the insurance cost. there are those that read the mag and those that dont why not have a tiered type membership too. take the rag pay th current rate, dont take the rag subtract 22% from the cost, those with larger aircraft wanting to pay the double insurance and not take the rag pay current price, those that want extra insurance and the rag add 15% makes it so much simpler

Joe

J_R

The last paragraph of Dave Brown's column:

"In automobile racing, they have been wise enough to change the rules, as technology allows higher and higher performance with the "old" rules, to contain the performance to a reasonable level. Shouldn't we be doing the same thing? Are racecars of today less "advanced" than those of years past, because the rules are more restrictive?"

I think those of you that stopped reading halfway through the column had best take another look.

Then, of course, maybe I am misreading his intent.

JR

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i was hoping that reading "that" intent was just me.

guess not.

sad days ahead, if ya ask me.

ProfLooney

What I read in there is Dave trying to placate those who are wanting the higher limits by saying how much the AMA says that the charter calls for us to promote "advancement" of the arts and sciences of model aircraft but then at the end after doing all this "concern" for ways to help out those wanting faster bigger whatever planes and saying that these types of models are safe when operated by a modeller of adequate experience then turns around and says they are in that instance, probably safer than that "normal" model all that BS then turns around at the end and suggests that they should keep the restrictions. it is all a bunch of hot air to try and quell those who are upset with him not doing anything abt it. in others words more talk and no action.

Joe

J_R

I am not sure 'no action' is the right term. He also referenced the abolition of turbochargers on racecars at Indy.

Some of you Jet Jockeys should write to Dave and get a clarification and let him know you will post his response here. If you ask in a reasonable and above board manner, he will probably reply. If not, expect to be ignored.

JR

ProfLooney

I dunno J-R I read it to say he wants to either keep the current restrictions or add more restrictions just like in the race industry. as far as no action well the reason i say that is he is talking about all this but does not mention anything he is actively doing about it just sounds like he was reminiscing and saying someone probably aught to do something but then never mentions anything he is doing or thinking of doing. I still think it is just saying something about it to placate his critics, but we shall see what happens if anything. If nothing more is mentioned about it we know what his real intent was and if he mentions it again and actually shows he is doing something abt it then that would be a good sign until then its still up in the air.

Joe

J_R

Your assuming that Dave can do anything he wants. He does not even vote on the EC, although he can. I guess when I see something like he wrote, it screams for clarification. He certainly is not afraid to voice his opinion or to clarify it. If you chose to guess as to his meaning, it makes for long threads of opinion after opinion. I have given mine. If no one is interested in his true position, this thread will go on and on. I am not going to write him.


JR

ProfLooney

I emailed dave earlier asking him to explain his meaning a little better. I know he cant do it all by himself but he can get the ball rolling on the issues and make reccommendations. Below is what I wrote Dave. it may not be pretty but at 2 in the morning at least maybe he can understand what I am asking

Hi Dave i was reading your article in the August MA and was wondering if you could clarify your meaning with reguards to the race car restrictions. Are you saying that we should keep the current restrictions or add more restrictions as the race world is doing? I was also wondering if when you mentioned the tiered insurance if you were meaning like someone mentioned that was brought up before abt doubling the membership fees? I think that if you are doubling the cost of insurance it should only be 30% to cover double the cost of insurance. I also think that the membership should have an option abt the magazine. I am a scale guy and into the giants also and almost never see anything relating to them. I would rather take the 22% of my membership that covers the magazine and put that towards the extra insurance which in the end would keep the membership dues the same. I for one rarely read the mag i check out your column then usually pitch it as theres nothing for me in it just sport and funfly type stuff. what is your opinion on the offering of the choice of no mag and the money going to cover the extra insurance with a raised weight limit.

Joe

PS will post the response I get if any

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

This just opens up the whole can of worms. If you have a 15 pound jet traveling 200 mph it will cause more damage than a 15 pound Aerobat flying 60, or performing 3d. So why would they pay the same rate in a "tiered system"

Just one example of the type things that will be showing up in the can of worms. There are many others, such as pilot experience, reflexes,...etc, etc, etc...

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
Dave is a little confused about his racing analogy. IRL was started by Tony George because he was miffed at CART. Since he owned the Indy track, he felt he could throw his weight around and started IRL. What he did was to dilute open wheel racing with two leagues, diminishing open wheel racing to a second class sport. The purpose of eliminating the turbochargers was to reduce the cost of the cars and give new teams a chance to get started in the IRL. A secondary effect, for a while, was reduction in speed.
J_R, I've never had the common courtesy of a response from DB on any e-mails I've sent him. Fortunately, I can ask Dave Matthewson, DII VP, any questions and I ALWAYS get a prompt and truthful reply.
I respectfully disagree about DB's power within the EC. He's the "leader of the band" and as such sets the tone of the meetings. I know when he wants something he comes down on the EC like a ton of bricks until he gets his way. My problem with DB is that I feel he's less than honest I keep going back to his editorial years ago when Wolfgang Khlur flew his jet after dark. DB's editorial was full of misinformation and half truths that I couldn't believe the President of a national organization was writing this. He has an obligation to get the correct info and then write his editorial. There's an old saying in HR: No employer should expect perfect employees, but employers have a right to expect honest employees. I expect the same from the EC, but IMHO, DB and several, not all, members of the EC have an agenda and are not being honest (remember Muncie) with the members.
Regards,
Jon

J_R

Sounds like you have pretty good luck with Matthewson. Maybe you should try to get him to run for President the next time.

JR

ghost_rider

My Feedback: (20)

Gentlemen

It would be unfair to second-guess DB here. I unequivocally believe that he was sincere in what he wrote.
Couple of weeks ago, someone stated here that it was a waste of time pushing the weight limits re-evaluation, but low and behold, the president of AMA addressed the issue in his newsletter.

Instead of second guessing DB's intent, let us channel our energy into lobbying for what we wanted. You might be surprised on the number of allies we have on our side. Believe you me gentlemen, changes are on the way. You will be surprised on what we are going to get hopefully before the end of this flying season.

Regards

Ben
AMA 9119

"Only those that can see the invisible can do the impossible "

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
J_R, If Dave does run, I'll certainly support him in any way I can.

Ben, Where are you getting your "inside information? I try to keep up with whats going on and I know something is going on behind the scenes but it's been kept really quiet.
"... changes are on the way". We'll see.
Reminds me of one of the three greatest lies: " Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Regards,
Jon

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Now that is the best idea I've seen here yet! So that brings up the question; what is wanted?

ghost_rider

My Feedback: (20)

Jon

Let's put it this way.."Only time will tell"

Regards

Ben
AMA 9119

("Only those that can see the invisible can do the impossible ")

ProfLooney

Well Guys no more second guessing Daves intent. He wants more restrictions and to REDUCE the weight limits for all here is his reply to the email I posted above. Sad Sad Sad is all i can say. rather than helping to grow he wants to shrink. so just like i mentioned earlier it was all a bunch of hot air to placate his opponents. These are just plain facts you can read below totally opposite of what he said through his column til the race car analogy.

Joe

What that column was intended to do was to get people thinking about ways we MIGHT exercise some control over our sport. I think we all agree that the performance level of model airplanes is increasing, and, with that increase in performance, comes an increase in liability potential. Right now, there is a movement afoot which would increase the weight limits, in order to allow more fuel in the big turbine airplanes. I, personally, think this is the wrong thing to do, and I even suggest that, PERHAPS we should, in fact, go the other way, and REDUCE the weight limits. The main thrust of those wanting to increase the weight seems to be that if we do not increase the weight limit, it will be against the AMA charter which calls for AMA to "advance the art of" flying model airplanes. My comment regarding the Race Cars, was made to make people realize that adding more restrictions, doesn't reduce the advancement of the technology, but, rather, keeps the performance in check, and thus, the attendant liability. If INDY uised 1960's rules, and todays technology, the cars would be going 300+, and they would be killing a lot of people when an accident occurred. Did the additional rules restrictions inhibit technological advancement? Certainly not, and I do not buy the argument that additional restrictions on aeromodeling will, either. Much less, our failing to allow heavier models. Personally, I favor more restrictions, in order to reduce the risk of our being shut down by an incident, but that's just MY opinion. In reality, it's up to the Executive Council, and, ultimately, the members.

Dave Brown

J_R

That is exactly the way I read Dave's his article. I also think he makes it pretty obvious in his reply that nothing is yet set in granite. If nothing else, he did a pretty good job of dispelling the notion that he does not respond to communications with the membership.

If I were thinking about a jet, I would make sure it comes in under the 55 pound limit.... with all the fuel I want to carry.

The FAI has recently led the way with a 34 pound limit, if I recall correctly. It would not be too much of a reach to expect the AMA to fall in line.

Two years ago, the EVP expressed to me the concern that just one accident with a large PROP plane could be an absolute disaster for the AMA and it's insurance program, at the CURRENT weight limits. This is not an issue of jets vs. prop driven planes. It is an issue of mass and velocity. Many other issues also come into play, not the least of which is sound. I also would not be surprised to see anything that makes a UAV possible prohibited.

Before anyone jumps off a cliff over this, sit back and think about it a while first. It's possible that the alternative is to not have a hobby. It's a good topic for discussion, not for rants.

By the way Ben, if what I have heard takes place, it will have no bearing on this.

JR

ProfLooney

Will I read this into Daves comments. He wants the AMA to restrict and govern what they think is in the best interest. I also see where he is going with the "advancement of model Aircraft" arguement and that is to restrict the planes and use the evolving "technology" ie radios and engines stuff that has no bearing to the modellers as a counterarguement that the AMA is not advaning the hobby. an example the race cars it is the mechanical technologies as in engines and such that has increased that sport but that is like comparing dirt to water. a race car and a radio control plane are 2 totally different beasts and that theory and comparison doesnt cut water. if anything it goes to show increasing technologies are making our hobby safer thus larger faster etc should be just as safe as what our limits now are. using a 1 accident could blah blah blah is rediculous. if you were to for example raise the weight limits to say 65 lbs that would take care of the jet guys and give just enough for the prop guys to be content. now you take a 55 lb jet or prop plane and for an example lose it into a crowd of spectators and then take a 65 lb plane and do the same thing, you tell me are the spectators or lawyers etc going to react any differently? I think not!! so the 1 accident could destroy the hobby theory just doesnt wash as if the plane is 35-55 lbs that same accident can ruin the hobby just as bad as the 65 lb plane cane. It is just an excuse to dance around the issue.

Joe

PS and i said all that with out ranting just stating facts

ghost_rider

My Feedback: (20)

As I stated in my previous post, something positive is on the way. Just mark my words. Let you hearts not be troubled.

FWIW, nobody is advocating to change the weight limit. We only wanted the stipulation to read 55lb dry .

Regards

Ben
9119

"Each dawn is a new beginning "

J_R

Dance around the issue? LOL. His approach appears to me to be a frontal assault on the issue.

Until very recently, the reasoning of those that wanted higher limits was that the rest of the world (FAI) had higher limits, and what was good for the rest of the world was good for the AMA. If that reasoning was correct, it must be true that if the rest of the world (FAI) has seen fit to decrease the weight limit, it must also be good for the AMA.

Velocities are continuing to increase. Mass is being held constant. As the technology moves forward, so do the force that our models fly with. You tell me, what is the effect on force if the mass is decreased? As I see it, there will be continued improvements in velocity and the force will reach the same level it is now at some point in the future. The comparison with cars is not off base.

How much improvement has there been in the last 20 years in your reflex's?

JR