RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


Miniature Aircraft USA Ion-X - RTF
Seller:  1surfer
Details:   $5,000.00   |  10/5/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 7:48:18 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2635
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		Sport said
"Having to pay more for the hobby doesn't make it safer. But more rules and pilot certification could go a long way toward making it safer. I don't think I recall any begineers buying a brand new jet turbine, do you? "

So making the turbine pilots pay more to fly, even though they already have a documented safety record, operate under more stringent rules than any other aspect of the hobby, and represent a minority will fix this situation and reduce the risk for the AMA. You are living in a fantasy world. And the reason that no beginners are flying turbines is a testament to the fact that the certification system that the turbine guys developed in the start defines parameters that will keep them from flying at an AMA field until they have demonstrated the proper flying skills. Anybody can BUY one, but being able to fly it at an AMA field requires a little more. Go to www.modelaircraft.org and read the AMA documents related to turbines and see if anyone else is as regulated and held under the same restrictions. If they were, the AMA would not be paying out the amount of monies they have to pay each year.

Of course, litigation is the reason for all of this. Suing someone in this country is the next best form of the lottery.
Tommy

(in reply to mike feuilly)
       Post #: 26

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 7:52:32 PM   
michpittsman


 

Posts: 598
From: Muskegon, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Jon-have your fingers recovered yet from changing type face so many times for YOUR emphasis, obviously not Dave Brown's. Who's trying to change the rules (which are not yet finalized) here, the AMA president or a couple of whiners who think they are God's gift to r/c modelling just because they can afford a jet? And I have seen more than one beginner jump right into jets because thay have the bucks to do so, and wind up having someone else fly their airplanes for them, or worse yet, splatter one all over the runway and just have their assistant-builder go to the trailer and pull out another one and fire it up. An ad hominem attack (on the man rather than the issues) tells me very clearly that the attacker's argument lacks factual basis. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows-Bob Dylan

< Message edited by michpittsman -- 11/13/2003 8:06:12 PM >

(in reply to jonkoppisch)
       Post #: 27

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 7:58:51 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2635
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		"a couple of whiners who think they are God's gift to r/c modelling just because they can afford a jet?"


Ah yes, there it is in a nutshell. Is this a case of "turbine envy" or are you not afraid that your giant scale Pitts might be the next thing that falls under this scrutiny.
Tommy

(in reply to michpittsman)
       Post #: 28

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 8:04:28 PM   
F106A



Posts: 1468
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Clifton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Mitchpittman,
You're a bit confused. The regulations have been voted on and approved and, as you say, "finalized" by the EC. Dave Brown, after the fact, is pulling a power play to get them recinded.
Jon

(in reply to michpittsman)
       Post #: 29

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 8:05:30 PM   
mr_matt



Posts: 6634
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Oak Park, CA,
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michpittsman

Jon-have your fingers recovered yet from changing type face so many times for YOUR emphasis, obviously not Dave Brown's. Who's trying to change the rules (which are not yet finalized) here, the AMA president or a couple of whiners who think they are God's gift to r/c modelling just because they can afford a jet? And I have seen more than one beginner jump right into jets because thay have the bucks to do so, and wind up having someone else fly their airplanes for them, or worse yet, splatter one all over the runway and just have their assistant-builder go to the trailer and pull out another one and fire it up. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows-Bob Dylan



Hey jet guys, this guy's the attitude is exactly what we need to be afraid of.

With only about 1% (at most) of the membership (including the guys that do not have a waiver but want one) we are completely at the mercy of the majority. If you look around you at most of the club field you fly, look at those other members....and imagine if someone were to go up to them and whisper "hey I know a way we can get the primmadonna jet guys right where they live" what do you think they would say.

Pretty sobering

_____________________________

Matt
JetCat rep

(in reply to michpittsman)
       Post #: 30

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 8:18:22 PM   
ChuckAuger



Posts: 5134
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Pampa, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mr_matt

Hey jet guys, this guy's the attitude is exactly what we need to be afraid of.

With only about 1% (at most) of the membership (including the guys that do not have a waiver but want one) we are completely at the mercy of the majority. If you look around you at most of the club field you fly, look at those other members....and imagine if someone were to go up to them and whisper "hey I know a way we can get the primmadonna jet guys right where they live" what do you think they would say.

Pretty sobering


Hey non-jet guys as well...

Matt, what you have just alluded to can happen to any facet of flying that is not the norm at your particular field.


_____________________________

Breaking the Speed of Sound, Straight Down!

(in reply to mr_matt)
       Post #: 31

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 8:21:26 PM   
mike feuilly



Posts: 89
Joined: 11/8/2003
From: Weatherford, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Hey Matt if the jet guys and 3D guys join forces, we would represent more than 1% of the voting population.

(in reply to mr_matt)
       Post #: 32

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 8:22:30 PM   
ilikeplanes


 

Posts: 1058
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: portland, OR,
Status: offline 		It seems like a lot of this argument is about the liability risk associated with the various segments in the AMA membership. The only thing that would convince me would be data. It's not just the amount of money paid out to various claims, but the way in which the carriers calculate the premiums. I'm totally ignorant about how the premiums are calculated, but I bet Dave is pretty savvy. I suppose the thinking goes something like: jests crash very infrequently compared to other segments but when they do crash, they have the POTENTIAL to case substantial property damage or injury. Is this supported by data or just a simple minded notion? Don't ask me.

One thing I do know. I bet the membership would be very interested in the how's and why's of membership cost. Not just the simple balance sheet statement that we see in the magazine, but how the insurance carriers arrive at premiums. Hmmm?

As for Dave's actions, it seems pretty normal for a president of an organization to influence the outcome of votes and participate in key decisions. Revising organization policy is on-going. A vote one day does not seal policy for eternity. Just MHO.

(in reply to michpittsman)
       Post #: 33

EC Conference Call - 11/13/2003 8:23:24 PM   
J_R


 

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline 		Hi Guys

First, I am not a turbine flyer, so asking me about details is useless. I will do the best I can to present this information as best I can.

I spent some time this morning talking to a friend on the EC. The subject was the conference call by the EC tomorrow. It will be primarily about speed limiting devices. When the issue was presented to the EC, the case was made that the units on the BV turbines work fine. Adapting them to other turbines was viewed as less than full-proof. The EC decided to drop the issue from the rules proposal. Since that time, new information was presented to the AMA and to Dave Brown, about other after market speed limiters that apparently do work. This information, and the possible inclusion of a requirement for speed limiters will be the primary focus of the discussion. The delay in having the call has been because they have been waiting for a determination that the units either work or do not work. It is due tomorrow.

Other topics that are on the agenda that may or may not be touched on are the exclusion of the 2.5 gal fuel limit from the new rules, since it has no real effect. Also, the topic of thrust may be revisited, although this seems unlikely to be revised. These issues are secondary to the speed limiters and may or may not be discussed.

Revisiting other new rules in not on the agenda, although it is procedurally possible to modify, rescind, or table the entire rules proposal.

Apparently, the general view of the council is that if working speed limiters are available, they will be required and added to the new rules.

JR

(in reply to ilikeplanes)
       Post #: 34

RE: EC Conference Call - 11/13/2003 9:04:47 PM   
ghost_rider



Posts: 4291
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: Ft Wayne, IN, USA
Status: offline 		J-R was correct in his assessment of the situation. I was on the phone with DB this morning for more than 45 minutes and believe you me gentlemen, let us wait until the final outcome before we start prosecuting DB.


Regards

Ben
AMA 9119

< Message edited by ghost_rider -- 11/13/2003 4:05:21 PM >

_____________________________

.....ghost_rider....out....
AMA 9119
“Beware of your so called friends because you know your enemies”

(in reply to J_R)
       Post #: 35

RE: EC Conference Call - 11/13/2003 9:19:02 PM   
-JC-



Posts: 1584
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Pacific Palisades, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Just to clarify... The jet that hit the roof at Top Gun did not "crash through the roof and almost hit one of the occupants"..... A few small parts penetrated the roof shingles, and a little fuel was dripping down on the bathroom ceiling (no one was in the bathroom btw.). But, in the name of professional journalism, the typical newspaper reporter blew it out of proportion in order to have a story.

(in reply to ghost_rider)
       Post #: 36

RE: EC Conference Call - 11/13/2003 9:21:53 PM   
Steve S



Posts: 1089
Joined: 10/28/2003
From: Va Beach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Well now that I have gone thru & read this whole very interesting topic .But as usual there is always a few morons in the rc world who like to open their traps about something they have no clue about or speak before they know all the facts-no names to be mentioned in this retrospect.I have only been flying jets just over a year & a half and while I am certainly no jet expert or ever claim to know it allI am a good ducted fan pilot

Todd hit the nail on the head in his above reply-hes a good man & a very exprienced avid jet flyer who knows exactly what he is talking about.He mentioned in his post exactly what I mentioned above .I see it every weekend at our local field & the joe smoe's who talk crap in the hobby shop here.They are like jets are so dangerous,they need to govern more where they are flyable,they can easily kill someone.Well it stands to reason that a 20-25 lb gasser can be far more lethal than a jet but why arent they required to be waivered??We talked about this very subject a few weeks back at the field.A big gasser hitting the runway @ 100mph with say 24oz of gas on board is far more flameable/dangerous in my opinion & many many will agree!Then why arent they suppose to go thru the waiver process as well?A gas plane can get out of control just as easy as a turbine jet can-thats a given.I am gonna tell you something that is 100% truthful,in all my 3 years of flying rc planes so far I have seen 3 times as many prop planes crash than Jets!!That is saying whole hell of alot for the safely levels & reliabilty of the jets & their pilots!Most jets crashes occur cause of pcm lockouts(or atleast I think that in my observations of the majority I have seen lost) which is something than can happen just as easy on a big gas plane!!The bottom line is that it takes alot more skill & knowledge of the hobby to fly a jet then it does a prop plane.AMA's waiver process is strict enough that it allows only the jet pilots who are ready to fly turbines obtain their waiver!!Most Ducted fan pilots wont fly turbines on their own freewill anyways until they fell they are 100% ready & confident-I know I am one of those!I have 3 turbines jets in my hangar now but dont plan to fly them for a few more months yet.I want to feel very certain that before I take to the sky in one of my 5 grand turbines that I covered all the basics with with DF's .So many guys out there try to bash jets for one reason or the other & in essence I think when it comes down to it those guys couldnt handle one anyways.Lets also face the fact that a high percentage of rcer's cant afford a jet or the potential lost factor-you are talking atleast a grand for just for a very basic used df jet.Hopefully my points/opinions make sense & shed some additional light on this very topic

< Message edited by FentressJets -- 11/13/2003 4:26:45 PM >

(in reply to J_R)
       Post #: 37

RE: EC Conference Call - 11/13/2003 9:29:08 PM   
F106A



Posts: 1468
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Clifton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Hi,
You're right J_R, speedlimiters is what's gotten Dave's shorts all wadded up. The story I got from a reliable member of the EC was that there are two manufacturers of speed limiters, JetCat and Mini hobbies. The JPO felt that neither were reliable/accurate or could be made to work in all model/engine combinations, and therefore their use was eliminated. Remember, this was approved by the AMA safety committee, it was not just the JPO. I know of several EC members who will not vote to require speed limiters. If that information has changed from yesterday around noon, I'm not aware of it.
Tomorrow night will tell the tail of how many EC choose to stand up to him and how many will fold under the pressure.
Dave Brown is going to "what if" this hobby right out of existence.
Jon

(in reply to J_R)
       Post #: 38

RE: URGENT - Huge Battle at AMA - 11/13/2003 9:34:05 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7727
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Wrong, that was a giant scale plane that was not a jet. 'Just wanted to clear up that bit of misinformation you dropped there.


What I saw looked like a jet. Not that it makes a differance. If it weighs more than 20 lbs they should all be classified as large and dangerous aircraft. If you were to fly a full scale R/C airliner wouldn't you expect the FAA to require certification? So why not a large jet or gas aircraft.

(in reply to rhklenke)