Kevin_W
Posts: 761
Joined: 3/5/2002
From: Carrollton, TX, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kevin Greene
Jim,
I just don't agree with the entire eyeball scenario.... Frame rate updates to bad or good vision---I believe that every individual is different. Some people have phenominal reflexes and "frame rates".....Some people react with the swiftness of a sloth.  As Clint Eastwood said----"A man has to know his limitations!!!" I have never seen an individual intentionally let a plane get 6 seconds out at 200 MPH---Our jets just aren't regularly flying away and crashing. I really don't see much of a difference between 200 MPH and being six seconds out vs 150 MPH and seven seconds out....Guys just aren't pushing the planes that hard!!!
I agree that there are a few that make us run for cover. I don't put up with it anymore. The last guy that I saw that was marginal and broke a couple of mandatory safety rules at a recent jet rally I, as well as several others, reported this individual to the AMA. Whether the AMA did anything about it I do not know. As far as I know, this individual's waiver has not been revoked. If this guy does hurt someone and the AMA did not revoke his waiver after several complaints were made, then wouldn't the AMA be held liable for neglegence???....Maybe even criminally liable???
Kevin
O.K., so you disagree. Please find some facts out there to support the thesis that eyesight is good enough in the ENTIRE group to support what you want to do. I don't have a problem with facts, including that MOST of the turbine guys don't fly away at high speed for long periods of time. However that does NOT say it cannot happen nor does it address those with less than phenomenal eyesight or those who only want to go fast. One problem I think you are overlooking is that MANY will NOT accept their limitations. Ask anyone who has had to take car keys from a senior due to health conditions. That is the worst case example, but more will understand that then the possibility that they are not invincible (including me).
As for the bad actor you speak of, why didn't someone shove the problem into the CD's domain with a complaint and then call the local authorities if that did not work? AMA cannot do a thing about Joe Jetpack breaking any rule and since there is NO disciplinary procedure in place anywhere EXCEPT to throw him out of the AMA. In short, you guys involved and on site MUST take action rather than depend on someone 1000 miles and 24 hours away! Jeesh, failure to enforce the rules on the people you are flying with is a sure way to destroy the organization and close flying sites all over the country. If he had had an incident at that event AFTER you had noticed his bad actions, wouldn't you also be liable?
Let me give you another example of exactly what you have already observed. I read in the Jet Forum last night a comment from a guy who said he did his test flight at the event after 'building' his plane in a few hours (I think it was a f-15 of some sort) because he wanted to fly in the event. Why is that sort of thing being allowed all over the country? Please not this is NOT a jet problem, but an AMA problem WE are all having. The answer to the question I raised is simple. Most of the loud shouters are unwilling to make waves when Fred Flightpack breaks the rules and then insist it is an "AMA problem" rather than force the CD to take corrective action. Another example of similar folks unwilling to take responsibility for the events they are in is the guys who do 3D and the warbird folks. Some of them want a new AMA special rule excluding folks from events by plane type rather than forcing the CD to sanitize the event!
Fudrucker, the problem is that there seems to have been some misinformation presented to the EC by and advisory committee that included 5 JPO members out of its 6 members. The AMA has decided to put the new rules in abeyance while they research out the true facts. Dave Brown seems to be fading a lot of heat for discovering the bad information and insisting the EC reconsider in light of the possibility that there were other answers possible. I don't like the way it happened anymore than the rest of the gang, but I think DB took the only action that makes sense.
Jim,
No "misinformation" was knowingly presented to the EC by the TRC.
I would venture to guess that what you are refering to is the discussion about speed limiters during the EC meeting.
As I understand it (I was not there, but did get a first hand report from those that were within hours of the vote) there were questions from some of the EC members about why we had omitted the requirement for speed limiters from our proposal, they were told that the requirement for speed limiters had been discussed by our group and that we had all agreed that they were both un-neccessary and that they had proved less that completely reliable in our collective experiences with them. We presented this information based on our personal EXPERIENCE('s)!!!!!!! Dave Brown might call this misinformation, but I do not.
The members of the TRC were chosen for our long term experience and excellent safety records in flying turbine powered models, our SIG affiliations had nothing to do with it! It is absolutely unfair and wrong to attempt to "spin" this thing into a JPO vs AMA battle. Nevertheless I would suggest that you call Steven Ellzey to check your facts on the number of JPO members who were on the committee, I believe yours are wrong.
I do not know who you may have conversed with about this issue, but judging from your recent posts it sounds like Dave Brown has made the biggest impact on your opinion. You may or may not change your opinion on the issue by talking to all those involved, but at least you will have a clearer picture of where the "misinformation" is coming from.
_____________________________
Kevin Whitlow
Texas Jetcat rep
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA 
RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 
