Originally Posted by
porcia83
Folks that fly at that level (turbine specifically) should be able to self regulate. If not, then something more formal needs to happen.
Turbine operator self regulation must be enough of an issue that it came up at the last EC meeting. Not to mention, the language directed at RK seemed rather pointed. So unless the EC makes such an issue of trivial matters, then by your own admission it does appear that “...something more formal needs to happen.” The question is will the EC take action?
Originally Posted by
porcia83
It's a matter of personal choice. I've driven 4 hours to get to an event in Maine. If you want to be part of a process you can be, it's a simple as that.
If you have the time to drive four hours (presumably one way) to get to an event, great. Good for you. Glad you have that kind of time. I don’t. Doesn’t make me less of a member. Not sure it’s a good long term plan to assume that everyone has that kind of time. Hence my push for better facilities closer to where members actually live..
Originally Posted by
porcia83
You chose to disengage from the club process because of money and personality issues with others (club politics I guess).
Not once have I said there were personality issues at the local club, so please don’t intimate that I did. What I have repeatedly told you is that it was an issue of cost / benefit with respect to facilities.
Originally Posted by
porcia83
Don't know how many different ways to say it, but I'll say it again...join a club. If you don't like the current dynamic, change it. If I could do it, you can do it. Become a CD or safety officer and make your mark there. I think once you are actually involved in a process rather than reading about it second hand, I think you will be more aware of what goes on at the local level.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how many times do I need to remind you that it was the combination of cost vs. facilities that influenced my decision. If neither has changed, why would I suddenly join?
Originally Posted by
porcia83
Again, stigmatizing someone for past issues doesn't seem fair to me.
Wow! I guess we better put out a news flash to the whole insurance industry - who knew that they’ve been doing it wrong all these years! Stigmatizing of people who have history of moving violations (in the form of higher rates). And while we’re at it, we better let DMV’s around the country that they too have been doing it wrong, stigmatizing people by keeping moving violations on their records for years after fines paid and/or driving privileges restored.
Your point is of course redicululous. Both insurance and DMVs “stigmatize” by keeping records because it works. People tend to be less likely to commit new offenses if they know that their prior record could weigh on how new issues are handled. AMA would be wise to adopt this – but then there’s that reluctance to hold accountable again.
Originally Posted by
porcia83
The guy flying the $15,000 turbine, and the guy flying the dreaded foamy arf go through the same process.
One represents a much larger risk to people on the ground than does the other (due to energy if nothing else), and treating them the same - as you say you do - completely ignores the concept of risk management. One is markedly higher and thus the whole reason for the waiver process.
Originally Posted by
porcia83
When was the last time you flew at an event that had a CD? If you decide to fly in a field by yourself and not participate in actual events, I understand why you would wonder what goes on. I can tell you what happens because I'm a CD, and also a participant in other events. The CD does have the ability to ground someone, and I can tell you through actual experience it happens.
Since I’m not a CD, I guess I’ll just have to kneel at the alter of the all-knowledgeable experts of experts like you. I'm sure you know much more about what makes safety management systems effective than do us lowly non-CDs.
Originally Posted by
porcia83
You offer no realistic solution other than to "brand" someone so they are "watched" more closely. You don't even note how this would happen procedurally. Should the wear a scarlet letter too? As if "watching" someone closely is going to stop them from crashing?
Again, I guess the insurance industry, DMVs, court system, and parole system have been doing it wrong all these years. By your logic, parole makes no sense, “as if watching someone closely is going to stop them from….” ___________ (fill in the blank). Insurance companies, DMVs, the courts, and other industries weigh past behavior when considering current actions for a simple reason – it works. For some, it deters future bad acts. But you’re saying there’s something magical about model aviation that prevents that same concept from working? Wow.