I think Doc got it about right, although alienate might be a bit stout . . .

Anyone who paid attention to the hideous prohibitions enacted against turbine models, and specifically the development thereof, surely understands that the EC has only very recently rescinded a large number of heretofore severe restrictions on turbines. The pandemic fear of turbines hit its high when the EC mandated speed limiters when no manufacturer had a viable device. Pure and simple knee-jerk rule-making was at work during the heyday of the anti-turbine mindset. The only reason many of the restrictions were rescinded had a great deal to do with pressure from JPO and the manufacturers to back off or else.

Ditto for giant models in general. For models which exceed the CIAM limit of 55 pounds, AMA's Experimental Class rule set is a joke, and until very recently had some truly nonsense requirements (e.g., for models with more than 12 servos, a _smaller_ battery was required than for models with less than 12 servos - I pointed that tidbit out to Steve Kaluf and it got fixed) and/or requirements which are just plain onerous - mandating a range check before every flight, for example. Similarly, the requirement for an "annual" by a certified experimental class inspector smacks of FAA-dom.

In the age when IMAA had essentially dumped the safety inspection back on the builder/flyer, and when AMA doesn't scrutinize models weighing 54 pounds 15 ounces, the inspection requirements for models 55 pounds or over is overly severe.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that 100 pound bombers be allowed to fly under AMA auspices without any scrutiny at all, but I am advocating that the rules need to make sense (try figuring out what the rules mean regarding connecting servos to large wires, for example) and that the rules need to be based on a modicum of logic and a bit of common sense - the folks who are capable of building, and have the capacity to build, 55+ pound models is a pretty small percentage of the membership. You're not going to build one of those on the kitchen table between meals.

Then there is the prohibition against giant jets, period. We won't be seeing any giant B-52s, or Vulcans, or anything along those lines. Exit AMA's leadership role in model development, stage left.

I particularly like the thrust restrictions. The total thrust limit for multi-turbine models is a mere 5 pounds more than for a single-turbine model. So, single-engine ops on twin-turbine models is a real iffy thing - not a sound idea.

Worse even yet, unlike any other AMA program, e.g. Leader Member and Contest Director, if a turbine waiver holder has their waiver pulled, appeal is _after the fact_. Turbine waivers can be revoked by the President or the Special Services Director (Carl Maroney), but appeals are the province of the technical guy, Steve Kaluf.

Oh, yeah. If you're going for your waiver, you have to fly a turbine model capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Kinda hard to do that for a control line turbine model, which have an absolute speed limit of . . . 100 MPH. Of course that's not what I think the rules intend to state, but state it they do.

The Experimental Class and Turbine rules are replete with nonsensical and self-conflicting requirements. IMHO the Experimental Class rules came to life as scribbled notes on a paper dinner napkin, and after transalation by the folks in word processing, became 'law'. IMHO the turbine rules came to life at the EC meeting table and were passed without anyone at that table knowing more than two-bits about turbines. Many of the newly-written rule(s) were a surprise to JPO, and the only SIG devoted specifically to turbine models had to work extra hard to get the rules modified or rescinded. And it took them a long time to get the dumb rules removed.

ALL of these restrictions came to exist under Dave Brown's leadership.

How can you have any doubt about which class of model Dave Brown sees as suitable to subject to the highest rates for his tiered membership scheme ? Or, please tell me you're not kidding yourself by thinking that the largest risk group, the .40 to 1.2 glow model drivers who generate the largest segment of non-trip-and-fall claims, are going to be the high-rate group ?

We've had more folks killed by errant .60 helicopters than by giant gassers and turbines combined. Any bets the heli guys aren't going to pay the high rates if enacted ?

BTW - I'd put a bit more faith in Brown's notions if he were to come out on the warpath against carbon fiber props. AMA prohibits metal props for good and sufficient reason, but not CF props, and I don't understand why . . . then again, maybe the Rowe claim will force a wake-up call about CF props.

As I said, alienate might be a bit strong, but stifle sure seems to fit the bill.

My absolutely positively unofficial $0.02, anyway.