BTW when you post here you are making remarks for all of us... otherwise use the PM function[X(]

Horrace

Since you obviously have lost track of the way that the AMA is currently structured and works, let me lay out some of this for you. Normally (not always) when the EC perceives a problem, they solicit input from the special interest group(s) (SIG) involved and from the Safety Committee. Again, normally, there is a protracted period of time for such input and many discussions take place between the SIG(s) and the Safety Committee. In most cases, the SIG and the Safety Committee both make a presentation of any proposed action to the EC. In many cases, they are sent back with new issues and make additional presentations. Ultimately, the EC makes a decision. That decision is normally submitted to the attorneys. When the “due process� has taken place, the rule is changed.

As I have posted here before, the list of committees, and their members, that is posted in the Members Only section of the AMA web site lists ONLY EC members and AMA staff. Additional members of committees do not appear on the list. You are absolutely correct in your statement that Carl Maroney is not an active flyer. He is the in house expert on the AMA’s insurance. He is a member of the Safety Committee. He is not it’s chairman. He is not it’s only member.

Where Pylon has gone is an issue worth looking at. Initially, cages were required for safety. They were penetrated. Stronger cages were built by the AMA and they were also penetrated. The SIGs involved, along with the Safety Committee and the EC came to an agreement that kept pylon from being banned. It could have been, but, that is not what anyone wanted. The result is that in the last two years, since the implementation of the new rules, no one has been hurt. IMHO, someone did something right. We have one of the top pylon flyers in our club. He does not love the new rules, but, he is happy that rules were put in place that allowed the continuation of the sport. You may be willing to risk the health of participants and spectators, but, apparently, the SIGs, Safety Committee and the EC are not.

Horrace, you nor anyone else has to answer my questions. You have become so far removed from the AMA that you have little idea of what is going on, IMHO. A good case was your recent attack on me for “blasting� information that corrected your opinion about frequency conflicts and the AMA insurance coverage. I posted that e-mail with Carl Maroney’s one word reply in exactly three forums. You went out and posted your attack on me in many more than that. I let it lie. I have received many e-mails wanting to know when I was going to blast you. I was not at SWAC. I only know what I was told. Carl’s presentation was on PROPERTY DAMAGE at an AMA sanctioned event with an controlled impound area. You claim that you asked many questions and took copious notes. Carl came back with a reply to your inquiry that he did not make it clear that it did not involve personal injury. A very policically correct move giving you an out. The fact is that he did not say it did cover personal injury, nor did he tell you that there are whales in the ocean. It was your screw up, your error in logic, yet you tried to imply that it was his error. If you do not know the difference between bodily injury and property damage, you should not have undertaken making a report on the presentation he made, in my opinion.

Horrace, where I have many detractors because I choose fact over opinion, you have dropped to a point where, in my opinion, your tools have become personal attacks, misinformation, and unfounded conspiracy theories. You constantly try to inspire others by fear. Your attacks on me, or those you know are one thing and of no consequence. The foul mouthed attacks on anyone posting anything that vaguely disputes your opinion are another. I choose to challenge facts or opinions and make myself something of a target. You, on the other hand, immediately proceed to name calling and worse.

Of course, this is all just my opinon.

JR

[quote}Since you obviously have lost track of the way that the AMA is currently structured and works, let me lay out some of this for you. Normally (not always) when the EC perceives a problem, they solicit input from the special interest group(s) (SIG) involved and from the Safety Committee. Again, normally, there is a protracted period of time for such input and many discussions take place between the SIG(s) and the Safety Committee. In most cases, the SIG and the Safety Committee both make a presentation of any proposed action to the EC. In many cases, they are sent back with new issues and make additional presentations. Ultimately, the EC makes a decision. That decision is normally submitted to the attorneys. When the “due process� has taken place, the rule is changed. [/quote]

or....Jay Mealy, an employee of AMA that nobody ever voted for or even knows what he does, flits into the EC meeting and springs an unannounced motion that becomes agenda item #1 and the EC immediately votes unanamously to change the Safety Code and bar models from carrying devices that could allow for autonomous flight, though none of them know what that means.

Anyway, good description of how it should work.

Abel

I know how and when they meet, but when they are at home they must dream this stuff up.
I make generalizations about these cases b/c I honestly dont know the case number nor do I have time to see around and worry about things like that. I do know that my friend was involved in one of them where his truck received a diamond dust through the roof. The other two I know were filed but I honestly havent taken the time to look them up, Im too busy doing tail touches

Troll

I asked: “Just EXACTLY how do you draw the conclusion that "those in charge JUST SIMPLY DO NOT LIKE 3-D or whatever you want to call it."? What was your answer to that? Or, are you saying that you answered a question with a question? If not it must be that you are willing to tell us which of the EC members is interested in each category.

You state that your claims are substantiated. Specifically, which members of the EC are into rubber power? FF? C/L? Name ‘em off if they are substantiated.

You asked: “Where are the 3 D events?� The answer is…. Whereever the SIGs and AMA CD’s say they are; and take the time and effort to sanction them and hold them. Why don’t you become a CD and sanction 3D events? You can define your own contests any way you like within the confines of the Safety Code and hold them anyplace that will allow you to do so, as can any other AMA member that will take a few minutes to become a CD. It’s work, but, that is where your 3D events are. The AMA does not run events, CD’s do. Some may be sponsered by SIGs or Clubs.

MA does not give constant coverage to many areas of the hobby. I do seem to remember a major undertaking to produce a multipart article on how to build a large Extra. Is that the kind of attention you want? To support your position you made this rather obtuse statement: “MA doesn't seem to acknowledge the biggest single surge this sport/hobby has ever seen.� I would submit to you that the statement is incorrect right now, much less taking into account the history of model aviation. If you think about the number of park flyers/electrics being sold and flown, I think even you will have to admit it dwarfs the surge in the interest in 3D.

Quote the troll:

“By far the biggest polarizing agents have been JR and Jim B. here on RCU. One of the things they contend is that somehow he has tried to railroad the nominating process for this year election… Although I really don’t see how that can be. From all I can gather and from first hand info I obtained from the first party perspectives…not just hearsay… I contend that it is quite possible that some other intent is not only just possible but very probable�

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...922&tostyle=tm

The “he� referenced by you is Sandy Frank. The link to the post is above for your reference.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Confidant - one to whom secrets are confided

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: First-hand - coming from the original source

I won't attempt to tell you what that makes you, nor shall I predict what color it will cause you to be. It would seem, however, that you do your own painting. It's really not so much that I dislike you as I hate to see those 12DDD's stuck so deep in your mouth. I am sure you will try to twist my words again, and maybe even your own.


JR

southern_touch9 or any 3Der

I have been fortunate enough to attend more TOC's than I missed. I see in the posts that Chip and Jason seem to be the roll-models and that the TOC seems to be the level of ability everyone wants to attain, with good cause, IMHO. Something was sticking in my memory, so I went and looked at some tapes I made of Chip at a TOC. He never touched the tail. I recalled reading the rules for the TOC. They are still posted on the Desert Aircraft website. Had he touched the tail, he would have zeroed the round. What he did do was to hover the Ultimate a few feet off the ground and hold it imperceptibly still.. and hold it... and hold it. That is impressive. The only thing moving are the control surfaces. Much more impressive to me than seeing the tail wagging the dog, so to speak, when the local guys tail touch.

Why is it that the act of touching the tail has so much interest when it requires more ability to hold the plane absolutely still a couple of feet off the ground?

It seems to me like what was good enough for the TOC should be good enough for the AMA. Apparently, the SIGs, Safety Committee and EC of the AMA all but copied the TOC rule.

This is the TOC Rule:
SAFETY (Changed from 1999)
Considerations of safety for spectators, contest personnel and other contestants are of the utmost importance to this event. Dangerous flying of any sort or poor sportsmanship of any kind, shall be grounds for disqualification of any contestant involved. (Dangerous flying includes maneuvering extremely low to the ground or flying directly at the spectators at show center. The northern edge of the runway will be used for the zero line. Cross the zero line during the flight and the whole flight is zeroed. At no time can the pilot or his assistant be under or touch the aircraft once the aircraft is airborne. There will also be no hand launches of any form.

http://www.desertaircraft.com/toc02/rules.html

JR

I like to watch those two guys fly (Jason more than Chip), but not nearly as much as I like to watch some of the other 3D pilots. The rules at TOC have always discouraged tail touching. Who is to say that every single thing that happened at TOC is what the new 3D pilots should aim for? We like to watch those videos but we also have our own opinions about what is safe and what is not safe. I have touched my tail lots of times (smaller models b/c I cant afford a 40%) and in those times I have striped one servo and crushed one rudder. The model flew out just fine. I wont say that one day the model wont crash due to damage caused by a tail touch but if the pilot is good enough to do this then he is good enough to know when to ground his model before it gets out of hand. You would be surprised at the beating a model can take before it gets out of control. I have landed once with no horizontal or elevators and another time with no horizontal, elevators, vert., or rudder (landing means in the runway, upright) and I am by no means ready to go head to head with the big dogs.

Lets forget what all of the rules are and get down to facts. How many cases involve an out of control airplane smashing into the pit area due to a failure after a tail touch? Plus, would you rather run from a model going 65mph or one going 0-5 mph?? I think we can all come to the conclusion that there are far more dangerous things out there than a tail touch. COMBAT, a Newbie doing touch and goes, Helicopters, Turbines, Super fast prop jobs, Warbirds that are way too heavy to fly. I am by NO MEANS saying that they should add more rules to these things but I am saying that they have no right to single out 3D flight when there are more important issues at hand.

I would also like to know how many of the rule makers can fly 3D? And I dont mean hovering for 10 sec. at 100' high. How many of them can get on the deck and put on a show utilizing 3D flight?

southern_touch9

You make some fair points. There are a lot of us that have built planes equipped with only ailerons and elevator. Ain't no question they fly.

If you back off and try to look at the situation objectively, you would realize that no one is trying to take 3D away. The question is, how do you make it safe? Sandy Frank replied to Gord that there had been a claim and liability. I do not know what it was, only that something had happened to bring on a look at the situation. Gord has said that he will call Carl. I doubt that he will reach him this week. I believe that Carl canceled his vacation this week to be in Texas to represent the AMA at Ron's funeral. Carl may be able to give an explanation of the incident, as Sandy Frank said he would in his e-mail to Gord.

Personally, I think the rule is the wrong answer. The problem is, I think, what happens when the pilot tries to fly out of a bad situation after tapping his tail. If that is the problem, it would seem that the right answer would be to create separation between the people and the model. How much separation? I don't even have an educated opinon. I do think it needs to be more for larger planes than smaller ones.

As to how many of the EC can fly 3D proficiently, I don't know. I would probably put a bet on three, without asking them. Of course, I almost went into shock when I found out Charlie Bauer holds a jet waiver, so there may be more. There is at least one that you can bet the farm can not fly RC, much less than 3D.

It's just a thought, but, rather than going off the deep edge, write to the members of the EC, or call them, and ask what their reasoning was. Gord has had great luck doing that so far. You may not like what they have to say, but, most of them will give you a reason for the action. It would not be the first time that they realized the rule that was written was a bad one. They do make mistakes, and they do correct them. They are just modelers donating their time and effort for all of us.

You may find that the SIG was the driving force for the rule change, and not the EC at all. I don't know.

JR

Put aside the tail touching for a minute and look at how the AMA is "working for the modellers". Rule gets made to eliminate tail touching because it's dangerous, next issue, rule gets made that helicopters are dangerous and should only be flown 200' away from anything. Next rule Turbine jets need to be flown only during the hours of 3 and 4 in the afternoon. All of these are made up examples but could become rules if someone at the AMA headquarters decides to make them such.

The problem is that the AMA is not working for the modellers anymore. The people making the rules at the AMA are not actively persuing the areas of the hobby that they are regulating, and they are not seeking the experience of the guys that ARE active in those areas. I fly turbines like Mr. Matt and have seen the same things as he has over the last 5 years. The only difference with the tail touching and the Turbine regulations is that they are starting to regulate what affects you guys! It's time to put the modellers back into control of the AMA!

David

Do you support your SIG's (JPO) efforts to change the rules?

JR

I agree!

I can't speak for David, but I look at the situation with the AMA, and I figure ways to work within the system.

With turbines, they (the AMA) could have just rejected them outright. IMHO by and large, we have had reevaluation and relaxation of the turbine rules almost from the beginning. This is in no small measure due to the efforts of David and the JPO. We might all not like the rate, but we are making progress.

My original intent of the post was to tell the GS guys that the whining about other parts of the sport will backfire. It is hard to resist I know. In the beginning all we (turbine) guys could talk about was giant scale racing, helis etc and how dangerous they were.

When we got our act together at our events and demonstrated a very high level of self policing, we started to see results in the AMA.

Hi Matt

I am not sure I view the complaints of the 3D guys as whining. I think they are in shock. I am pretty sure that most of them have paid very little attention to the AMA. It is only when some event causes changes that directly affect the AMA members that they become aware of the running of the organization. Some of them will chose to find out how the system works and try to work within it. Others will stick their head in the sand and let someone else do it. I can’t see that their asking questions and being educated to the system is a bad thing. I do understand what you mean, though.

I know that trying to see the Safety Code as something attempting to avoid injuries and promote safety is the least likely view for them right now. There is a similar fear developing in the heli community over the recent tragedy. It is only going to be through the counsel of people like yourself that may lead them to the conclusion that the AMA is us and what it does is for us.

JR

I actually regret using the word whining...I do not mean to give that characterization.


An approach that emphasizes the safety and self policing goes a long way. Pointing out apparent unfairness with regard to other segments of the hobby gets one little.

I have said my peace on the matter, good luck tail touchers.

So easy to bash the AMA. I just wish I knew the internal workings to understand it more. But lately all I hear about is negative statements about the ama from the locals I fly with. Personally I think the fee's are a joke. But other than that I think some of the rules they come up with are exactly like or government. Rules just to make rules. Makes them look busy. We are slowly becoming a socialist society. Amerika. Home of the heavily governed and where you don't own you only lease.

S

J_R,

Actually I am the JPO website manager so you figure if I support the JPO. I have been heavily involved in several of the Turbine waiver proposals that have been sent to the AMA. If you don't believe me just wait to see what's around the corner for any of us. The AMA would love to only insure the guys that are building static models. It is high time that EVERY active modeller gets involved and votes for a change in the leadership. It is time that we have real representation on the EC and at Headquarters. There needs to be term limits so that we don't have VP's that don't even build models. Also for what it is worth I think you will find that a considerable number of jet modellers are already carrying more insurance to cover themselves. I know everyone that flies with me carries an excess umbrealla policy of at least $4 million dollars.

You also mention in one of your posts that the 3D'ers are in shock, well join the club the jet guys have been appaulled at how many of our "rules" have been made without anyone actually consulting the people that actually know what the important safety issues are. The current turbine rules include several knee jerk reactions to percieved problems that may or may not exist.

Hi David

I am getting a sense that there is a split within the waiver holders. It would seem that with about 750 waivers having been issued that there would be some unanimity within the community.

While I am aware of some of the issues that turbines are facing, I can not pretend to know all of them. I know that there are speed limiters that do not work reliably, that there is a desire to raise the amount of fuel that can be carried, above and beyond the 55 pound limit. That a 40 pound thrust limit was being sought, and that changes in the waiver process have been sought, as was inclusion in the experimental class. I know that you have fought for buddy box training, although I understand that issue has pretty well been resolved. I know that you are fighting the perception that every jet crash results in a fire.

My personal perception is that jet jockeys, on the whole, pay more attention to safety than any other segment of the modeling community. This is a relatively new set of technologies that are continuing to develop rapidly. I know the AMA has taken an attitude of “show me it’s safe, then we will talk�. The waiver process has been cumbersome and burdensome… and expensive. Again, personally, I think the AMA has taken the correct approach. I see the restrictions easing, but, a concern for safety that will continue. You are the elite of modeling, in more ways than one. I think you are always going to be held to a higher standard.

There seems to be unhappiness everywhere. Every segment is pointing at the other saying “they need more rules, but, not us�. The AMA is looked at by many members as a huge $10 million organization. The simple fact is that one catastrophic accident can destroy it, and, that is not limited to jets by any means. As you point out, you see the need for additional personal insurance coverage of $4 million. Where does that leave the club and/or the landowner? The AMA has an aggregate insurance limit of $15 million, with the rest of the AMA behind that. It is pretty obvious that the total $25 million may not be enough in the event of a catastrophe. What do you suggest the AMA do to insure that it continues as a viable organization? Is there any other choice than to take a relatively conservative approach to safety? Not just with reference to turbines, but in it’s overall approach to safety.

JR

>>>>>>>>>
"I am getting a sense that there is a split within the waiver holders. It would seem that with about 750 waivers having been issued that there would be some unanimity within the community.
JR
<<<

Where is that documented. How do you sense that? [>:] unanimity among 750? A lot less posters here and there ain't no unanimity critters crawling around here!

>>>"I know that you are fighting the perception that every jet crash results in a fire." JR >>>>>

Now just WHO has that perception and just WHERE did they get it? Let's see now: the AMA EC makes the rules and JR always says the EC listens to the SIGs, but now David, a real-world-worker in that organization, says that may not be so, so all-seeing, all-knowing big-brother, JR, I'm so confused, however I feel sure that you will find a few chapters of historical baloney to enlighten me.


>>>>>"Actually I am the JPO website manager so you figure if I support the JPO. I have been heavily involved in several of the Turbine waiver proposals that have been sent to the AMA. If you don't believe me just wait to see what's around the corner for any of us. The AMA would love to only insure the guys that are building static models." David<<<<
>>>>"Again, personally, I think the AMA has taken the correct approach. I see the restrictions easing, but, a concern for safety that will continue." JR<<<<

Ahhh that JR. He be the MAN!! He has the vision. He knows more that the man in the work-place doing the job. [:'(]

>>>>>"Every segment is pointing at the other saying “they need more rules, but, not us�. JR<<<<

Did YOU hear that. I hear a little bit, but more of "Less Rules" for everyone. Again I hear a different Drummer than JR, but then he LISTENS to the EC.

Not asked specifically of me, but here is my concept of:

>>>>"What do you suggest the AMA do to insure that it continues as a viable organization? Is there any other choice than to take a relatively conservative approach to safety? Not just with reference to turbines, but in it’s overall approach to safety.
JR
<<<<<<

First reduce the insurance. Accident Medical Coverage -- NOT NEEDED. Fire, Vandalism, Theft -- NOT NEEDED,
All AMA needs to provide is GENERAL LIABILITY. GL will provide a safety protective liability-net for those that might be hurt by an errant model.
All other individual insurances are an individual responsibility, and not needed for those other than the operator. Drop 'em!
Liability to OTHERS is all the AMA member needs and/or requires of peers.

For those that provide their own personal primary liability, then AMA will be at a greatly reduced risk should these individuals incur a liability factor.
How conservative is conservative? Where is the end? Like the first income tax, I believe it was 1% of that over $100,000.00 which was a small tax on the then very rich. Look at the monster now. Just like RULES.
AMA might well need their OWN insurance as they legislate themselves out of business. Guess one can't get that kind of insurance!!

Well JR another tidbit for your Data-Bank. Charlie B. has been flying a turbine CL for sometime. So he has had a waiver for sometime. Read that magazine you so well support.[:-]

Ah yes,
Like Yin and Yang....there will always be Horrace and JR.


Like memories of bickering parents, or the old guys on the balcony in the Muppets.
hehehe

Your right Matt, sorry

edited to delete personal attack

JR, man stay above the fray!

Actually I jumped the gun with some of my comments and was speaking more in the past tense than the present. The Executive council has been very receptive to a new Turbine Safety Committee that was formed almost a year ago. I should have stayed out of this discussion but I could not help but see the similarities in the way that rules making has been done in the past. FWIW the new Turbine Safety committee is made up of several active turbine pilots and they met via conference call and had many discussions over the last few months. There has been an active and ongoing dialogue with the AMA Safety committee, the Turbine Safety Committee, and the Executive Council the results of which we should start seeing in the near future.

you need to change bait...
The AMA does not put on events, except for the NATS--and even there, if the SIG doesn't put forth the effort the event doesn't occur.
CD's put on events. They usually are part of a club, but the responsibility is that of the Contest Director, not the club. Aparently, no CD's feel it is worth the effort to put on a "3D" event-or no "3D" fliers are willing to go to the effort to become a CD and do it themselves.

Roger

I almost agree- but I'd think you would have used better terminology--the wing is not stalled! it is simply "out there"
with no airflow, it has no turbulent flow-or any other kind of flow. In "3d", the wing is simply parasitic weight-and a bit of counter to torque...

David,
From what I have seen the AMA process (when visible) is sometimes slow and ponderous, but as you have noted it does seem to work. I am very glad you can 'see the light at the end of the tunnel'. Maybe you can figure out a way to help the 3D guys understand that it is NOT an oncoming train.

As for the 3D guys, I don't understand why you haven't formed a SIG. THe SIG's get a bit more voice and more attention because the AMA has a contact point for your special interest group.