rbxbear44

My Feedback: (86)

The question that baffles me more than any is, why would anyone NOT want to encourage, promoting and/or be a part of the "community" in what has been established as the means to fly turbines? The issue is responsibility, not entitilement! I don't have my AMA Card for insurance purposes. I didn't get my Waiver or CD designation because of insurance. I have it because I like the hobby and want to support and promote it! if I had my own property, I'd want to be a member of the AMA, JPO and anyone else that promotes the hobby in a positive form. I'm still trying to figure out why we have more Turbine owners than JPO members????

Rex

AndyAndrews

I have a feeling after December of this year when the FAA comes out with it's recommendations, AMA will somehow become some sort of official proctor for the FAA's regulatory concerns within the RC community.

Time will tell.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

To be "AMA legal" you would need a waiver. Not sure what you mean by this? Covered by the insurance? Otherwise, who cares. You are under no obligation to even be a member of the AMA. I have not heard of it being illegal to fly a turbine without AMA membership. They just provide you with insurance. And then it is only after what your homeowners does not cover. A waiver is an AMA document. If you take the AMA out of it then you do not.

2walla

My Feedback: (10)

The AMA turbine waiver to me is a joke.. I made a deal to buy a turbine and went 200 miles to meet up with the AMA turbine waver CD and his buddy to coordinate getting signed off.. After talking to him for about 30 seconds it was obvious that he was a complete idiot.. I watched him fly a couple times and was not impressed with his skills as a pilot either.. I declined to work with them and backed out of the deal on the plane.. Fast forward a year and here is the same CD waiversigner doing a demo at an event and proceeds to start up with 8-9 people right next to the plane and with his fire watch standing right in the shrapnel arc of the turbine.. If this is the typical quality of the turbine waiver CD's the AMA has they are in real trouble..

If your not worried about the secondary liablity insurance that AMA provides and are not flying at an AMA field- it certainlly isn't illegal.. Have fun and be safe...

KFX450

My Feedback: (30)

That is one instance, kind of hard to S*&t on the whole thing over one experience. This behavior is exactly why things like this get governed. All it takes is one idiot to go off and do his own thing, crash a turbine into a freeway, and then the media will take it to a whole new level, call it a terrorist attack. Then where are we?????Whats the big deal???? Be responsible, do it the right way and we might be able to enjoy this aspect of the hobby for a long time to come..Pretty straight forward IMO

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Well, you wouldn't be "AMA legal"...but, if lawfully on private property and not an AMA member, at least for now the AMA does not have the police-powers of government in the enforcement of its rules. The AMA would have no authority to stop you.

But let this get out of hand, the FAA for sure does and can bring a world of hurt on us with regulations and legal actions. Takes us back to Beave's spot-on point about policing ourselves.

Sluggo

readyturn

My Feedback: (9)

Airspace is public, except as designated for military use....................

Rick

PaulD

My Feedback: (39)

I said no, as long as you are not an AMA member. As others stated, I don't think you can choose to opt out whenever convenient.

This whole topic has been argued at length in Canada as I fly at a field that is on City land (not turbines - too small) and the city allows non club members to use the facility - many of which we know are not MAAC members. I also am aware as there has been a lot of debate on the requirement for a turbine waiver in Canada. Currently, we only issue them to modelers who wish to fly turbine powered aircraft in the US.

What I do believe, is that when the new NPRM comes out, those who choose to "go it on thier own" will find the FAA regs rather limiting.

PaulD

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

If that happens then it will be proof positive the AMA is worried about the AMA, and not the hobby. It will be no big surprise to me if that is the case.

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

BTW, as it stands now the FAA will be allowing UAVs in the NAS (National Airspace System) in 2013. Why, I don't know, unless they're anticipating a need...?

willig10

2 things come to mind.

1. Last time I checked this is a free Country. In regards to that statement. If you have a Jet and are flying it on your private property or someone elses property then the answer is No.

2. I think it is funny how everyone keeps talking about AMA insurance blah blah blah. Have you ever tried to claim on AMA for an insurance claim? Last time I checked the AMA required your homeowners insurance to be the first point then when that is hit for all it can be then AMA kicks in. I may be off a little but I think I am pretty much spot on.

So it becomes a decision that you as a modeler has to make. If it were me and I had the money to fly jets I think the 50 dollars or so a year to be an AMA member and then get another jet jockey to sign you off for the waiver is cheap insurance either way. I also have to ask why are you even pondering flying without a waiver? Are your skills up par? If they are I would think you would want a waiver just for the sake of having one and being in the "JET" club.

My 2 pennies worth.

Glenn Williams

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

There is a huge demand for allowing UAS in the NAS. See this article for the industry view of the recent (idiotic) terrorist plot with model airplanes (what for commercial use are refered to as sUAS) [link=http://www.auvsi.org/news/#faa%20caution]http://www.auvsi.org/news/#faa%20caution[/link]. Right now, there are hundreds of companies that make UAVs or parts for UAVs and they can only be used in wars in other countries (effectively) because of the FAA prohibition against UAS in the NAS. Once the rules come out, you will see a proliferation of UAS for a quite varied set of civilian uses.

Bob

ira d

While I'm sure one could be kicked out of the AMA for violating the safety code its not very likelyto happen IMO unless there
isa major incident at a AMA site with lots of property damage and or injurys that the AMA is on the hook for.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

What the AMA has been lobbying the FAA for, is a provision that modelers can access the NAS after the rules are passed by adhering to a set of FAA-approved "community-based safety standards." AMA is also drafting what they hope will be the first "approved" set of those standards. If another organization wants to develop an alternate set of rules (Sport Flyers anyone? ) they will be free to do so. In addition, the AMA is considering ways that non-AMA members might be able to "access" the AMA-developed rules - probably for some type of fee.

Seems a proactive and fair policy on the part of the AMA to me. Nobody else is stepping up to the plate to help insure that model airplanes can still fly after the new rules are passed.

BTW, I don't think that the effort to get legislative relief from FAA regulation of model airplanes is totally dead - the FAA authorization bill that contains that amendment is still stuck in Congress...

Bob

radiisteve

My Feedback: (24)

I agree, if their not there then who knows, but if anything ever went wrong injury wise you'd be on your own.

FILE IFR

Off topic for this thought... You said 'Free Country', yes, it is to a point. Remember when those FPV turds come to New York City from Austria to "prove a point" by flying around a foamie up and around the Statue Of Liberty and area attractions? The AMA blew a gasket and so did most of the AMA's clear-thinking, rule following members that fly FPV by the AMA's FPV rules..... Those Austrian 'pirate' FPV'rs knew they were gonna raise some hackles with their stunt.
It is against the rules, but they were "free" to do what they wanted.

Back on topic.... The unwaivered AMA pilot in question is letting his heart over-rule his head (I hope to think this is the case) in attemping to fly his jet, sans an AMA Turbine waiver.

He knows the rules the AMA has about turbine flying and should conduct himself as such, being an AMA member and all.

He's attempting to make his first flight ever on a turbine without the saftey of a buddy cord.... regardless of where the flight takes place. .... He's not really a 'Team Player' IMHO.


... That's my take on the subject, I hope some are OK with it.[8D]

KC36330

Unfortunately when you post your intentions of such activities on the WWW, everyone knows and it drags many people into the hole with you........... when you're in a hole, put the shovel down.

FenderBean

Just amazing, well I contacted AMA to get a real answer and should hear from them tomorrow. I have been flying a long time and have never seen such nonsense. [:-]

pmerritt

My Feedback: (118)

Has anyone read the insurance in the same interpretation I have? Does not the wording state that we are ONLYcovered if we fly at a sanctioned/AMA approved field that distinctly describes the precise requirements of that field? Whether ANYONE is an AMA member or NOT, if they are flying at a non-sanctioned AMA site, then they forfeit AMA insurance due to violation of policy agreement set forth in the first few paragraphs of the policy. It's black and white to me.
AMA insurance is SECONDARY to one's homeowners, considering the pilot IS indeed a homeowner. The apartment dwellers will probably rely on the AMA insurance as primary since they aren't shelling out annual premiums. I'm surprised most homeowners insurance would even cover remote controlled aircraft. I would have never considered that to be a covered liability of myhomeowneror at least have some fine print to void said coverage. I'm not an insurance underwriter nor adjuster and Ihope like hell that Inever have to find out if it does apply or not.
To put my two cents worth in, flying anything at a NONAMA field wouldn't require waivers, elementary school education, common sense, or even a pulse.


In answer to the original question, yes, you need a turbine waiver to be "AMA legal" to fly at a non AMA field. But, your non AMA field set up must comply with the AMA guidelines, set forth in the AMA rules as to how the field / flightline is established .( For insurance purposes ) My understanding is the insurance is supplemental to your personal insurance, if AMA is complied with.
[/quote]

Warbirdguy

I find this whole thread loaded with what ifs and speculation. The simple answer is yes, IF, you want to fly at a turbine event or at an ama sanctioned field that is locked and AMA card holding is policed.

If you fly on non ama sanctioned property, or on private property, there is no law out there at this time that can stop you.

First off, you guys seem to think that anyone that does not have an AMA waiver is an idiot and will destroy this hobby for you.
Ive been to alot of the turbine events, and believe me, you guys have enough "idiots" in your own ranks.

I take offence to you labeling anyone not "wavierized" an idiot. Were you an idiot before you got your waiver? Uh huh, now that stings a little, dont it?

Ive been flying for 30 Plus years, and I have owned a turbine but never got to fly it. I knew how to start, and maintain it. I knew the safety factors involved in case of a problem. Our field is just not set up for turbines so I didnt pursue it. We allow turbines to fly. Ive flown "heavy metal" airplanes for many years. Thats not an issue. Ive flown DF jets for maybe 20 of those 30 years. So handling a jet is not an issue. So I can say with certainty, IM NOT AN IDIOT.

What I see is the same old same old. A few brainwashed people thinking that if AMA says it, it has to be the only way. This is what happens when you have a monopoly. Unfortunately, no one has the money to go up against AMA to compete. AMA will certainly launch an attack on anyone doing so. So untill that day happens, we are STUCK with what is there.

If I had my own land, I would not think twice about flying without a waiver. I could care less about what anyone thought about me or my abilities. I know I can handle it. But I dont. So I have to put up with the BS to get to fly at our field. At this time. Not going to fly turbines.

Blast me if you want. But you all know this is the way it is

WBG

Daleroger

My Feedback: (39)

I don't feel the tone of the responses indicated a non waiver holder is an idiot. It generally slants toward this;
1. If you're going to fly a turbine, AMA insurance would be a good idea.
2. Getting that insurance requires a waiver.
3. Following AMA guidelines is a responsible thing to do.
That doesn't mean you can't fly safely without it.
You seem to have animosity towards the AMA for some reason, and you only belong so you can fly at your field. You say no one can compete, AMA would launch an attack.
What would this new organization do differently ?
You state;
"If I had my own land, I would not think twice about flying without a waiver. I could care less about what anyone thought about me or my abilities"
With that attitude, I assume you could keep any incident within your property lines, and only your guests and yourself would be at risk.
Would you have your guests sign a liability waiver ? What if someone got hurt ?

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

Leave the FenderBean alone. FenderBean is right ... what he does on private property is NOYB

No one here, or in the AMA, has any authority, or the power to act under any authority, to tell FenderBean, or anyone else for that matter, what to do or not do.

FenderBean sounds very dilligent and safety minded. He also knows that 180~200 mph is much faster than other planes / jets that fly @ 100 mph. That's about the main concern for going to turbine (yet glow ducted fan jets also go 200 mph, and so do electric ducted fan jets). Second, is power management. I'm sure he is aware and prepared. He is not a reckless person. He put a lot of work into this jet.

It's illegal to run around naked in public, but not in your own home, or on your private property whether it be fenced in, or on acres and acres of land.
You can't fire a weapon on the streets, but you can fire it at a range or on your private and wooded property (just not in the direction of a road).
You need a license to drive a vehicle, but you don't need a license to drive a vehicle on private property.
Vehicles are required to be registered and have a license plate on them when driving on public roads, but neither is required (nor is insurance) when operating a vehicle on private property.
You need a carry permit (Concealed Weapons Permit) to carry a gun in public, but you don't need a CWP to carry a gun in your home or on your property.
You need three take offs and landings to a full stop within the past 90 days in order to carry passengers, plus a biannual flight review. But there are no FAA police or inspectors to enforce such a rule, or ramp check you on your private property.

Furthermore, no one needs to be a member of the AMA to fly planes or jets. Nor is a "waiver" required to fly turbine jets. The AMA membership and waiver are required when flying at AMA fields, or club fields.

The AMA has no jurisdiction, none, zilch, nada, zip, zero. The AMA is a membership organization with no governing power or authority.

What anyone does with their jet or plane on their private property has nothing to do with the AMA. No one from the AMA can stop someone from flying their turbine jet on private property. What happens on private property is not the business of the AMA or any of its members.

You can add me (and four friends of mine) to the list of people, without waivers, who are flying turbine jets safely at privately owned fields. Been doing that for years. And flying well over 200 mph! We don't need insurance. When a jet crashes, we just buy another one.

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

But really, why is a "waiver" needed? Ducted fan jets have been flying at 180~220 mph for 35+ years. Electric ducted fan jets also fly at that speed. Yet no such "waiver" is needed for either.

Could the only difference be the possibility of fire? Lipos in ejets are capable of bursting into flames upon impact, or in flight. So, if turbine jets require a 'waiver' because they can start fires when they crash, then the only real training a guy with a turbine jet needs is how to put out fires, or how to start their turbine. Yet, most of the "training" is focused on flying. Why is that, when there is no training required for electric powered jets that are actually capable of faster acceleration and flying speeds?

So, a guy can go from his 60 sized Mustang that flys @ 90 mph to an electric powered Yellow Aircraft F-16 that will fly at @ 200 mph without having to get a waiver. Yet if he went to a turbine powered Y/A F-16, he couldn't fly it until he got a waiver? And again, what would the main focus of the trainer be while training? Flying and landing? When all the while the guy could do that by himself if he got electric power!

Things that make you go, hmmmmmm...

DISCUS54

My Feedback: (211)

.......and I thought my daughters were Drama Queens.

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

Baby steps man, baby steps! I believe most of these "rules" were brought about when the JPX turbines were the "popular" turbines at the time (mid 90's?). These things ran on propane predominantly and were still new technology for the hobby, so the insurance under-writers probably had to put some pretty stiff requirements in place just to provide insurance coverage.

At the end of the day, its not about Joe Blow and his XXXX airplane. Its about what the insurance under-writer is willing to be comfortable as accepting as a possible liability/worst case scenario.