I understand a new set of jet rules were recently approved by the ec. apparently there is a change of heart by db since these rules don't reference thrust to weight. can he kill these rules on his own after they have been approved?

Hi Pat,


What do you really know about the details? Did they keep max thrust the same (35 pounds installed single, 70 pounds installed twin) and just drop the thrust to weight ratio?


Thanks

Hey J_R,
What do you have to say about this? You're a big Dave Brown supporter; the EC passes some new rules, which they've worked on for months with the JPO, DB doesn't like them and demands the EC rescind the rules. Go to the jet thread under "turbine operation and safety" for full details. Guess it's not "my" AMA after all, it's DB's.
Be interesting to see who on the EC has the balls to stand up to him. I'll bet not many.
Good luck to the 3D guys trying to "work within the system" to get the tail touch rule changed. DB is the system.
Regards,
Jon

So what are the new rule changes? Somebody please post them for all to see. If the EC passed them they are public knowledge and now in effect. Doesn't matter what DB thinks!

Hi Jon,

Do you know anything specific? I think we need to keep things cool unitl we know what is going on.

matt, not sure on the total thrust. just heard that the new rules are a holistic approach. does away with thrust to weight, depends on manufacturers to determine engines for aircraft, no more turbine cds, rewrote the whole thing to something more enforceable, and more realistic to deal with. i would love to see the whole thing. I am just hearing bits and pieces from the rumour mill. supposed to be announced tomorrow on the ama website, or was supposed to be. from what I have heard this is a real move in the right direction. just hope it sees the light of day.

In other words, you don't know, and are just passing rumors and/or wishful thinking on in lieu of fact...how about hard data before jumping the gun?
I heard a rumor that the CIA and FBI useCommercial aircraft to spray us with biological agents. You can actually SEE the spray...

Come on guys, let's keep this civil.

dont have to trust me. contact your rep and ask them what they think/know

I thought I had a valid comment. If it isn't written down, it isn't real. If it is written down, and you have read it, then post it. There is enough rumor and false information out there. I want to see facts.

FYI

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_12...tm.htm#1267891

Jon

Seems to me what I have said all along is that the EC members are all different and not a group of good 'ol boys. Seems like you know more than I do about the situation. Why not pick up the phone and call DB or your VP tomorrow?

Matt

I think your right, wiating for facts, or calling to verify the rumors makes a lot more sense than "going off" in threads on RCU without knowing what is truth and what is rumor.

JR

Be patient, the new rules will be well accepted by the jet community I am sure. The EC were very receptive to the new rules and the AMA safety committee I believe were unanimous in their supprot of the new rules. Dave Brown seems to be opposed to the rules for some reason. The EC should be commended for being open minded and looking at this proposal throughly. There was a great deal of effort that went into it.

from sandy frank....
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>
Dear Fernandez, Patrick \(US\):


there will be an emergency EC meeting called by Dave Brown
to reconsider the new rules and go back even more.
I am AGAINST THIS..
Please pass the word,,

<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<<<

I suggest you touch base with your district reps

J_R,
I did just that. Here's my e-mail to Dave Mathewson:
Good morning Dave,
As I'm sure you're aware, there is a big discussion on RCU about the new turbine rules and Dave Brown's efforts to block them
I have no idea what the rules are, but, according to the people "in the know", they're a good step forward.
You've always been an honest and stand up guy and you, as the liaison between the AMA and JPO, would know better than the rest of the EC if in fact they are a step forward for turbine modelers. I hope that, if this is the case, you rally the other members of the EC and stand up to DB's power play to usurp the will of the EC.
Regards,
Jon Van Skiver

If Dave can't get it done, I don't think there's much hope on these new regs.

Pasted below is the emails I've sent and received from Rich Hansen, District 10 VP.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cronkhite, Douglas M. [mailto[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Turbine Operating Rules


Hi Rich,

There is a great deal of rumor floating about concerning the adoption of new turbine operating rules by the EC. In addition to these rumors are those that state Dave Brown is trying to overturn those newly adopted rules which were worked out and presented to the EC by the Jet Pilots Organization (JPO).

Can you clarify what's going on for me on this?

Doug Cronkhite


Rich responded:
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hanson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:27 AM
To: Cronkhite, Douglas M.
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Turbine Operating Rules


Hi Doug,

The rumor is true, at least in part...

The EC did consider and voted on the revised turbine operating rules as presented by the AMA Safety Committee at the November 1st Executive Council meeting. However, based on asserted legal and risk management concerns, Dave Brown has asked that there be further discussion on some aspects of the new rules.

There is a tentative EC conference call scheduled for tonight or tomorrow night regarding this issue. As the call does not constitute an official meeting of the EC, I can only speculate on the outcome of the call. I personally would support delaying the implementation of ANY rule change where there is uncertainty regarding the impact on the safety of lives, property and the overall well being of the hobby. It is my guess the topic of conversation will be: 1) Are there any legal or risk management concerns left unresolved? If so, is a delay in the implementation of the new rules warranted? And, 2) If a delay IS warranted, what is the appropriate mechanism for doing so?

I know this may not be the best news possible, but I hope it at least clarifies the issue.

Rich Hanson

My followup response is this:
Rich,

Thanks for the quick response. I emailed Dave Brown directly on this as well and have heard no reply as yet.

I agree safety must be of a high concern, but at the same time I question if Dave Brown should have the power to simply demand the entire issue be put on hold following a vote which was not a highly contested issue. The vote was 8 to 3 if I remember correctly. Being a turbine pilot myself, I also question whether Dave truly understands the issues, or if he is reacting to inaccurate data or just personal impressions from those not involved actively within the jet community. The JPO put a lot of work into these new operating rules and took input from a wide scope of people. For Dave to invalidate all of this hard work simply based upon his own opinion is not serving the AMA membership.

Please pass my feelings along that the JPO recommendations should be implemented as per the EC's original vote.

Doug Cronkhite

According to the VOTE that the EC had the new rules passed, and they became effective as of that point in time. I have spoken directly with my VP who was opposed to the rules from the start and voted nay to the rules. He stated his reasoning to me and for one small point that "he" wants adjusted the rules could pass "again". It seems to me that the rules have already passed and that the "adjustment" that they want could be done during the December 7th EC meeting. It appears that Dave Brown has a personal opinon in this and while he does not have a vote on the EC he effectively does by coercing an "emergency" vote. Contact your VP's and let them know we are out here. Even if you are not a Turbine guy your area of interest in the hobby could be next.

Just some thoughts for those that are not familiar with the process.

Dave Brown was at the EC meeting and presided over it. He has a vote on the EC, but, traditionally, does not cast it.
Dave Brown is empowered to call an emergency meeting.
Dave Brown does not have the power to stop implementation of actions taken by the EC.
The EC can reconsider an action that it has taken, and affirm it, modify it, rescind it, or table it for further action in the future.

I would be surprised if anyone gets an e-mail response from Dave Brown. From the looks of the posts on RCU and elsewhere, I would bet his e-mail box is stuffed with the opinions of people upset with the new rule #9. Telephone might be a better option right now.

An 8-3 vote with the President against, shows something of a split that I believe is the norm. Once it is all decided, don't be to surprised to see a unanimous vote in a show of unity.

It also appears that the EC members do respond to communications. Rich Hansen has, Sandy Frank has, as evidenced by posting of e-mails from them. Of course, there may be others whose correspondence has not been posted.

The process appears to be working as it is supposed to. JPO and the Safety Committee have made recommendations to the EC and the EC is considering them. Sounds more like a heated debate is going on. Sure does appear that the EC members are not a group of good 'ol boys that sit around so that they can all agree on how to take the fun out of the hobby.

J_R,
What debate? The EC is not considering the proposals, they've all ready considered the proposals and voted to affirm them.
Why is it so hard for you to see that DB is playing politics with this whole thing? Are you really that much of a Pollyanna that you can't understand his agenda?
As DavidR said, and the 3D guys are finding out, if other modelers don't get behind this he can put their activity in his sights and wreak just as much havoc as he has done to the turbine sector.
Anyone want to bet he gets his way, just like he has for the last 12 years?
Regards,
Jon

JR,

I can't fathom how you could come to the conclusion that the process is working when the President can just decide he doesn't like something and put the passed initiative on hold?

another note from sandy

>>>>
Dear Fernandez, Patrick \(US\):


I suggest that YOU write all other members of the ama EC
soon

======== At 2003-11-11, 06:38:00 you wrote: ========

<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<

All of this is not meant as bashing, just to question the process that seems awkward at this juncture. I have seen too many times the rules which at going in to the ama safety council make sense, ultimately approved by the ec and come out not making any sense whatsoever. I would hope that if more discussion on the rules is mandated, they allow the group that presented the rule modifications to participate so the focus is not lost.

Hi,
The confrence call will be tomorrow night, so there's still time to get behind this and contact your VP.
Jon

Jon, Jon,

First you characterize me as a "big Dave Brown" supporter. Then you claim he has been getting his way for the past 12 years.

David stated that Dave Brown does not get a vote because he is President.

I use the term reconsider and you want to change it to considered.

Now, here are the facts. I openly and actively campaigned for Frank Tiano for President two years ago.
Dave Brown has been AMA President since 1996.. That is closer to 7 years than 12.
Dave Brown does have a vote as AMA President, on the EC. It has been traditional for the President not to cast his vote. You might see an exception over this issue.
The fact is that if there is a emergency meeting the EC will reconsider their action.

Lastly, I have already made my displeasure with Dave Brown's action known to some on the EC and suggested they hold their ground.

If you lose your cool, how do you expect to prevail? The fact that I supported Frank Tiano has never stopped me from talking to Dave Brown. That would be somewhat childish and foolish if I wish for him to consider my opinon, don't you think?

JR

Were the 8 who voted for the proposal unqualified to vote for the change of rules? Of course I don't know what the proposal was, but if the new rules create a large enough safety risk to call an emergency meeting, I wonder how the 8 ec members could have missed it. Just sounds a little strange...

Jon

Get behind what? I have seen what I think are the proposed rules, and I cannot in good conscious say i am in support of all of them. I am in support of the changes to the waiver system, but not all of the technical changes (T/W, total thrust, speed limiter, etc..)