The first line of the 2004 Safety code reads:

I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage.

If what? Maroney didn't have a good BM this morning?

And your point is??? [:-]

In modern English the terms "may" and "can" are used more interchangeably than some years ago when 'may' was more permissive and 'can' was more for ability.

The only other words 'will' and 'shall' are a bit too commanding here because if one violates the Safety Code, nothing happens if one does not get caught. You know, somewhat like speeding and DWI.

If the above quote is all a potential VP of the AMA has to offer, well there really goes the neighborhood.

Hossfly,

Every time I think maybe I've misjudged you, you go and make a dumb comment like this!!!

(I read your campagin platform in MA last night and thought maybe some of my comments here might have been out of line... Then I read this post and realize first impression are indeed usually correct...

I have one question are you really such a jerk in person??? Or do these forms just bring out that side of your personnality??

Hmm. And once again, the lack of ability to comprehend raises it's head.

From a prior AMA Safety Code:
Model Flying MUST be in accordance with this Code in order for AMA Liability Protection to apply.

From the 2004 Safety Code:
I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage.

JR

Yeah!!! It sounds like the wording now more closely matches reality.

Jim, were you making some point? I'm not sure I understand why you posted a single line from the Safety code without any comment.

Hoss-
While I agree that this change in wording amounts to something less than a handful of chicken manure, it ain't fair to shoot the messenger. JB made a direct cite, without comment - perhaps simply to solicit reaction from other AMA members before stating his own slant on it.
Keep yer paws off the goldanged trigger until you know what yer shootin' at! [>:]

Abe

To late! Hoss gets to much enjoyment out of shooting himself in the foot after he shoots off his mouth.


And he wants to lead D-8?

JB-
No need to reply, I think I've answered my own question (#2 in this thread).
The answer is yes.
FWIW, courts have been known to invalidate rules that are not uniformly applied. Little doubt our dues paid the exorbitant fee of some legal weasel to point that out to the insurance guru. This appears intended to closes a loophole that might have allowed anyone denied coverage for liability incurred because his action was not in compliance with the SC to argue that the rule was void because there had been other instances where it wasn't enforced.
The wording change allows claims to be paid or denied at their pleasure, as before, but now they 'may' do that without concern that the validity of the rule might be challenged. AMA is just reinforcing their defenses.....against us.
Disclaimer: IANAL, thank Zeus! This is my opinion. I am not privy to what anyone else is thinking.

Abel

"I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage."

Much more realistic wording IMO.

Good points Hoss.

I am not sure what points the others are trying to make tho. Maybe just to sling a little skit.[:'(]

Thank you Abe, I do agree that shooting the messenger is not a good thing.

However my target is a potential elected official that can not stand on his own and has to refer to the "Polls" in order to come out with a popular opinion. I have no problem with one that will change his course after he states his initial objective, yet can finally accept that objective will not be for the most good. (Most GOOD, NOT most POPULAR).

Now to the others in the thread:
My statements were directed to JB because he cannot provide one original thought to better the present. JB has coat-tailed on other stated objectives after he saw some popular opinion for those objectives. In the subject thread he throws out a troll without any question and/or his own thoughts.

Throwing out something to gain the popular opinion before stating one's own, simply says to me that one doesn't understand and/or know much about the subject so one can say what the responders want to hear, get elected, then do whatever provides the least resistance.

JB, on this very forum, started a thread titled, "Apology to Horrace Cain" yet it only called me a LIAR. Once JB found himself to be that which he accused me of, he edited the article, yet he NEVER APOLOGIZED or even directed attention to his mistake. Yet, JB says that I am the one without morals. You can trust whomever you wish.

Call me incompetent, insensitive, full-of-s_it, a whatever of your choice, but when you say I am intentionally lying, and you find differently and you cannot publicly admit with direct emphasis to your mistake, then you have placed yourself in that position of not being allowed into my neighborhood, whatever that neighborhood may consist of. Good or bad, it remains so.

To be an AMA VP, as I see an AMA VP, will take a lot of work and work is not my natural thing, so even greater personal emphasis will be required for me.
I will do this for the enhancement of the SPORT of model aviation. My stated objectives are rather clearly stated. I am NOT running a POPULARITY contest.
I have faith that there are more responsible AMA members that recognize such rather than those that prefer the ones that live in the 'just-be-nice-and-quiet' and say only what they want to hear crowd.
Of course that never happened last year however maybe it will this year. If it doesn't, well, nothing ventured -- nothing gained, and the sun will again rise in the east.

So be it.

My sentiments exactly...So there JR [:'(]
[:'(][:'(][:'(][:@]

Hossfly,

Not everything here has to be a precursor to a political attack just because you are running for office.[:'(]

Maybe JB was justing letting the rest of know of a change we may not have seen yet. Frankly, I appreciate the heads up.

You already have 3 or 4 threads to bicker endlessly in, why try to make this another?? Again, just because it was put in this forum doesn't mean you need to attack it. [:'(]

Hoss-
Agreed that elected officials in RARE instances have to opt for what is good when it doesn't gybe with what is popular. By and large in an organization that is governed by representation, it must be acknowledged that what is 'popular' is the will of the people, and it is the duty of leaders to represent that will. Opinion polls are (more accurately, can be) a legitimate means of learning what the will of the governed is regarding issues that may impact on them.

Besides, 'most popular' is the ONLY thing that counts when one contends to become an elected representative. You ought to know that as well as anybody........

Abel

Hang in there guys, the election is almost over. Hoss can/will or may/shall go by his previous title-unelected. Mike Krizan

I started this thread because a rather significant change had been made to the Safety Code. It never occurred to me that you would not know what is in the Safety Code and fish in and troll.

Now that we have that cleared up, lets discuss the problem.

I don't think your incorrect words are lies as that requires original thinking and the intent deceive. However, I have seen enough of your AMA damaging remarks to take exception and attempt to correct the misleading drivel you have spewed forth all over the internet. This is not to the best interests of the hobby, the AMA, or you.

You have made certain representations about the AMA insurance that appear to be in error. You cross posted them in many venues. There are threads all over the place discussing the ramifications of what you have claimed as fact. Your misrepresentation is even quoted in the Clubhouse on a No-Fault Liability thread. I have seen you make absolutely no effort to set the record straight, but, then, I do not know every place you posted.

Horrace, this goes well beyond the politics and the mutual dislike between us. I don't think you intended to do damage to the image of the AMA and to the image of the AMA’s insurance coverage. If you have some problem with what Carl Maroney says the coverage is, resolve it. I feel certain that you must have seen the letter that JR wrote to him and Carl’s answer. On the off chance you have not, here is the link to it: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...066&tostyle=tm

Horrace,
Are you saying a VP should vote what he decides himself??
Are you saying a VP shouldn't take a poll of his MEMBERS??
Not pointing fingers just asking questions.
I feel that is the way OUR district is ran now, by one persons opinion......
Thanks,
Julius Miller

i would rather they look at our opinions before they vote on things that effect us! ask a poll and i will answer it. how else you going to know what i think till you ask? unless you have ESP like some people think they have

john

Jim, it's still not clear to me why you started this thread. Are you saying what looks to me like a slight change in wording is indeed very significant? If so, could you explain? It may have seemed obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me, and I suspect, many of the other readers, who, frankly, aren't all that interested in your relationship with Horrace Cain. In your opinion, is it a change for the better, or for the worse? Why?

Personally, the new wording seems like an improvement to me, because it more closely matches reality, plus Abel Pranger's theory on the change (post #9) makes a lot of sense to me.

Mike

The EC is very much aware of the concerns that Abel has expressed for years, about rule #3 of the Saftey Code. That rule has caused many clubs to purge club safety rules in an effort to keep the AMA coverage at maximum strength, and not create exclusions to the AMA coverage. That is not in the best interest of safety at the field. This step is significent in the goal of making fields safer. It is a continuing effort on the part of the AMA. All of the pieces are not in place, nor even agreed to. Although Able has a point in his post in this thread, it is the move to a safer environment that makes it a major step.

This step alone will not achieve the goals the EC is committed to. Watch for more in the forseeable future.

JR

why bother with may, can, shall, will statement tuning, when the real problem can be solved with the simple droping of #3.

talk about yer tangled webs..............

I wonder if any members have ever broken any rules or better yet been informed of rules after they were broken.[:'(]

Lets all be perfect!! Ha Ha

Jay manion

Jayman618,

I ain't nvr broke no rule no mater wot it mite be an i got a shirt to pruv it.
it sez in sparkly words "MR.PERFECT" AN IT WER GIVE TU ME TO.

HAV TU GO
SEA YA

The AMA has finely done done it to us this time. Take a look at the new AMA rules that will take affect on 01-01-2004 on page 163 of MA.

Look under the general part in paragraph 7 in the bold type.

What I like is the part where it states that. The operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain unenhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight operation.

I know that this was put in to prevent guys from flying from a video screen. But if you take the unenhanced visual contact part literally and if you require eye glasses then you will not be aloud to fly models under the new rules.

Then there is the part about. No aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight.

Now read rule #4 it states The maximum takeoff weight of a model with fuel is 55 pounds, except models flown under Experimental Aircraft rules, Document Number 549*.

Now read the rules for free flights (there are only 3 rules for free flight)
FREE FLIGHT
1) I will not launch my model aircraft unless at least 100 feet downwind of spectators and automobile parking.
2) I will not fly my model unless the launch area is clear of all persons except my mechanic and officials.
3) I will employ the use of an adequate device in flight to extinguish any fuses on the model after it has completed its function.

Now read read rule #5
5) I will not fly my model unless it is identified with my name and address or AMA number, on or in the model. Note: This does not apply to models while being flown indoors.

So if I comply with rules # 4 and 5 then I can build a 55 lb Free flight model and if I put my name and address or AMA number, on or in the model I can then fly it under the new AMA rules and I will be covered by there insurance.
Now this 55 lb model can go where ever the wind takes it and that is ok, and if it hits someone or something it is still covered by my AMA insurance.
But if I install a GPS in a 3 lb model and program it to orbit the model field then I will not be covered by the AMA insurance.
Can you please tell me where the HELL the logic is in that?

And how about this part
8) I will not consume alcoholic beverages prior to, nor during, participation in any model operations.

It says prior to, but it does not how long prior to, so it if you go by there rules it could be that if at any time in your life you have ever consume an alcoholic beverage prior to the operation of a model then you are in violation of the rule #8.
If you have ever consume an alcoholic even if it was 20 years ago then you can not operate a model under the described AMA rules.

Dave Jones

davy:
no one ever said that inteligence was a requirement for election to high office at the ama.
a solid reading of the safety code proves the general lack of inteligence on the part of the rule writers<G>.