quote:

elite jet crowd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Diss
Why do you even need AMA?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr_matt

I am a bit surpirised at his wording. I have heard that he has indicated that we should work within the current system, or it would be up to the membership to decide.

So in this article, he has said many things, but two statements stand out:


1.) Some large accident (caused by turbines is the inference) might cause the loss of ALL RC flying (pretty inflammatory to the average flyer)

2.) Contact your VP with your thoughts.


So this is a call to arms for the .40 sport pilot to call the AMA VPs. There are say 800 to 1500 of us, and 168,000 of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FentressJets

Bob brings up another very good point ...

[snip]

Steve

quote:

What makes us "Elite"???? Is it because of our skills? The cost of our planes? The engines we use? I dont get what makes us any different or "elitist" from any other segment of the hobby?
From your perspective, what makes us so different?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GJr.

What approach should we take in response to this article and associated series of events regarding turbine rules and proposals?
Do any of these ideas have merit?
1) Initiate a formal response through JPO as the only "recognized" SIG for jets to the AMA membership and especially the AMA officers.
2) Initiate a coordinated procedure to contact the "important" people that have influence and will be involved in the actual decision making process.
3) Determine how to publish a rebuttal in the AMA magazine and website posting.
4) Contact and coordinate efforts with other SIGs as this turbine issue will only be the beginning of future attacks against other SIGs, such as giant scale, aerobatics, helicopters, racers, and combat. Even the unassuming "park fliers" that have unlimited potential to create all types of "risk" due to unchecked, unauthorized, and unorganized use by AMA members and non AMA members at any or all "flying sites" that they deem fit for use, could become the next target.
5) Make known the fact that even though jet fliers are only 2%, most are also part of the "other" 98% that D.B. refers to in his attack. Apparently D.B. considers all SIG members to be "elitists" that only care about their specific SIG. Funny, most SIG members appear to be involved in other aspects of flying outside of their SIG, but that some how must eliminate them from being "just one of the regular fliers". Does anybody know how many AMA members claim to have special interests in specific areas of the hobby of R/C flying, beyond just sport flying ? It seems there are many surveys that ask that very question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: F106A
In my many conversations with Dave Mathewson, DII VP, regarding turbine issues I offered to let him fly my FACET on the buddy box, assuming the regs get changed, and he accepted. He's flown some d/f, but not a turbine and is anxious to give it a try and see what it's all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhklenke
4) YES, good idea - we should talk to the IMAA and the IMAC, they've already felt the effect of increased regs and it sounds like they'll be next - and they have ZERO pilot qual. requirements!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiggerinva

I originally posted this in the 3D forum where there is a thread with the same title. This is just an opinion take it FWIW....

The way I see it, it's an insurance and liability issue. In most other areas of life, the insurance premium that you pay is dictated by the level of risk that you impose.

Lets compare it to automotive insurance: Putting aside age, sex and driving experience, your premium is dictated by the car you drive. The person who drives that expensive Jaguar or Bentley will pay a higher premium. They could argue that they bought that car after many years of driving experience on 'lesser' cars, that they meticulously look after their car and drive it carefully. Yet these people still will impose a greater cost to the insurance company in the unlikely event that a claim is required. A claim could occur due to a momentary loss of concentration, or due to the interference of another driver driving a 'lesser' vehicle.

The AMA is trying to cover a broad spectrum of flying activities, and each give rise to its own unique set of risks. Some activities, at least in terms of insurance, are going to seem riskier than others.

One possible solution as far as AMA membership goes, may be to introduce a set of 'tick boxes' to indicate the type of flying you do. I think people who can afford to fly (glow or gas) helicopters or turbine powered aircraft can afford to pay a couple of extra $$ to ensure that they have adequate cover in case of a claim.

If/When I get to the stage of the hobby where I'd like to fly a jet, I wouldn't want some student who can barely afford the cost of his trainer to be subsidizing my insurance costs....

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcronkhite

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhklenke
4) YES, good idea - we should talk to the IMAA and the IMAC, they've already felt the effect of increased regs and it sounds like they'll be next - and they have ZERO pilot qual. requirements!

If you guys are going to get anywhere.. you need to have your facts straight. IMAC is not feeling any pressure, nor increased regulation from the AMA. IMAC is the SIG for Precision SCALE Aerobatics. Pattern with scale airplanes effectively. Our freestyle event has no issues with the new rules as we have a minimum altitude requirement. The 3d people who are most affected by Safety Code Rule 9 happen to be flying the same type of airplanes we use. This is the only connection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KevinBarr

For what it's worth, here is a EXACT copy of an email I sent to my District VP:



Mr. Oberdieck,

Greetings!! My name is Kevin Barr (AMA 110941), I am contacting you
regarding a very disturbing article I read in Dave Brown's president's
column in the February 2004 issue. In it, he is asking the Model Aviation
public "where to draw the Line in the sand" in regards to safety and the
type of models that should be flown. In his article he eludes to an
inherent "safety Problem" with the speed and fuel carried by model jets.

This disturbs me, as a current Turbine Waiver holder and AMA member of over
20 years ( the last 10 flying jet aircraft) I am appalled at a president
using such a one-way forum to view his personal views without ANY shred of
fact to back it up. Where are the insurance claims, the accident reports
and such to back his claim, these should have been placed in his article,
rather he is using fear an ignorance to stir the hobby community?

There is NO other group in AMA that is so closely regulated, yet we have the
best safety record ( as per personal conversation with Dave Brown himself).
I flew all summer at my field, here in Minnesota, and personally witnessed 7
very serious accidents involving prop driven airplanes, 2 resulting nearly
in deaths. How is a giant scale airplane hovering 5 feet in front of the
pilot and him grabbing the tail of that airplane, considered safe? Yet there
are 5 turbine pilots who routinely fly upwards of 10 flights EACH a day,
all summer, without incident. Where is the increased risk? I see far too
many regular "Joe" pilots that SHOULD NOT be flying model aircraft. They
present the biggest risk in my opinion.

I am very disappointed in Dave Brown, using such a privileged position to
voice an OPINION, with no fact in his article to support it.

I would ask, do you support Dave brown's comments? I would like to know
your feelings on the subject. I would also personally extend an invitation
to come to our field and witness us fly in person, to see that Jet Pilots
are VERY serious about safety and do our utmost to insure the safety of
others. Has Dave Brown ever visited a Jet Rally, to see how it is run and
the caliber of pilots who attend?

Thank you for your time!!

Best Regards,

Kevin Barr


AND HERE IS AN EXACT COPY OF HIS RESPONSE:

Thank you for your opinion. It will be placed on file for future discussion.


Nothing more.. How's that for representaion????

Kevin Barr

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhklenke
Technically true, I guess, but you really don't believe that some of what Dave Brown wrote was directed at non-turbine activities? When the 55 lb limit was originally written, it was meant, at least partially, to limit the size of aircraft that could be flown. Now with advanced materials, one can (and some IMAC guys do) fly 40% or 50% aircraft with massive 4-cylinder engines and 30+" carbon props and still be within the 55 lb limit. If DB succeeds in getting rules for turbines passed that ONLY HE thinks will increase safety, are you just hoping he'll be satisfied with whipping the turbine guys and won't go after the big stuff next, or do we know some how for a fact that he doesn't have a grudge against that too? As he said, we're all in this together...

Bob