3d-aholic

My Feedback: (7)

I read the article twice.....whats he talking about?

He sounds like hes arguing with someone and has an existing priviledged conversation that I'm not privy to...

Anybody behind the scenes able to decipher what he was basically trying to say.
_____
How fast is too fast? How big is too big? It was like reading the philosophy of Model Aviation. He said to think about it and take action. I thought about it, and I don't know what he's talking about.

taxman232ex

He is saying "All hail der furher!!!"

Taxman

J_R

Don't feel bad, as near as I can tell the vast majority of the membership that read his article thought it was about in advances in technology, in general.

If you want opinon of some who feel it was aimed at them, read this:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Dave...1372965/tm.htm

Personally, I think they took it as personal when it should not have been.

JR

3d-aholic

My Feedback: (7)

Yes...

...advances in technology...could be.

It was a long article about advances in technology....

taxman232ex

So now DB's article was about how he is basically against advances in technology.

Guess that puts him in the same boat with that unibomber feller since he also hated the industrial revolution.

Taxman

Mike in DC

Here's my take on it, copied from the thread J_R referenced:

Here's what it seems to me that Dave is saying: "Technology now allows members to build and fly planes that are much more dangerous than those we've been used to in the past, and those for which we've designed our rules, our fields, and our insurance for. I don't think it would be responsible to simply allow anyone to fly anything. But I'm not sure where to draw the line. Where do you, as a member, think we should draw the line? Please let your VP know."

3d-aholic

My Feedback: (7)

Shoot thats very articulate. You should be writing for him... He could have put that in one paragraph and saved a lot of time. Instead I felt like he hemed and hawed for a page.

I'm with him...I think we should only have high wing trainers tied with strings to posts at the field for added safety. (said in my best sarcastic tone)

Phil Cole

Dave Brown does not state that the models in question are more dangerous. He says that they could appear to be more dangerous in they eyes of others (presumably insurance providers and legislators).

He admits that actual data will show that .40 trainers have a higher accident rate, but asserts that facts like this are not important, compared to what people may think of models that are "obviously" more dangerous.

Jim Thomerson

As a past president of my university would say, "Perception is reality." Clearly Dave Brown was still mulling things over whilst writing. If you are not clear on something, it is difficult to write clearly about il.

Jim

Sport_Pilot

Some logic to that. The several news articles about people killed by a crashed model, no larger than a .60 sized described it as a freak accident, not likely to happen again. I suppose if it were a huge 20 foot monster they would announce that they were killed by a terrorist weapon.

abel_pranger

Phil-
I think you are right, and your point is very germane.
DB's assertion is fallacious, however. Insurance companies don't operate on perceptions, but rather on hard statistical data. If an activity is shown to result in liability incidents with a frequency that is statistically significant, it is a risk. Nothing is important but accident rates.
Whatever anybody may perceive (or preconceive) about the probable outcomes of an activity sans historical data may seem significant to the clientele of the gambling parlors, but it is not to the management.

Ab

Volture

My Feedback: (1)

Dave is talking about the few who fly turbines having their insurance subsidized by the many AMA members who fly "regular" planes, the push by a special interest group for higher turbine model weight/thrust limits, and the danger it imposes to the survival of the hobby, based on our ability to find/afford insurance. As our craft move from "models" to "missiles" in some folks (government regulators) eyes, we also become a perceived danger to society, which could result in a loss of flying privileges for the many.

I'm not for or against jets (although I'll buy a turboprop someday for a giant-scale Texan II or Tucano!), but I don't like subsidizing anybody. If it is agreed that large jets present a real and greater danger, then their flyers should pay higher insurance premiums. I've seen good jet flyers fly with excellent discipline and superb flight control, still, bad things can happen fast. I'm personally more concerned that more and more "checkbook flyers" will attempt flying jets with insufficient flight instruction/experience, perhaps resulting in a massive AMA claim that may render us uninsurable. Many of the kids on RCU seem to like to gripe about having to join AMA for the "insurance". Those of us who have a home and family and a lifetime of effort to lose tend to look at the AMA insurance coverage quite differently. I've read that most of the larger AMA insurance claims actually weren't model related, but jets in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster. I'm with DB on this one!

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

Volture,

Who's to say that the "checkbook" modeller tht you just described won't do his dirty deed with a giant scale Extra, or a high performance helicopter. To single out a particaular aspect of modelling just because of the engine type is ludicrous. As a jet pilot I am not asking anybody to subsidize my hobby, if the AMA really determines that our models are more of a liability increase the costs of our membership plain and simple. Just applying the laws of probability it is more likely that a sport flier will have a catastrophic incident just because of the shear numbers.

J_R

Volture

You need to realize that the AMA is not an insurance company. It can not charge different premiums for different risk groups, any more than your employer can charge different premiums for different risk groups.

At the same time, think about your position. The rubber indoor guys probably have the biggest gripe coming. They are subsidizing almost every other group. That is the nature of our organization.

David

There is very little question in my mind that almost any group within the R/C wet modeler community is capable of some type of catastrophic accident. Turbines have the major difference of a considerable fire danger. Is this offset by the way turbine flyers conduct themselves in other areas of safety? Probably. The other things they do to reduce risk probably puts them on a par with other forms of the group. Should they be treated differently? Probably. The potential for fire has to be faced and delt with, unlike the other areas. Does this make them the downtrodden? Not in my opinion. It is just a fact that must be delt with.

JR

Sport_Pilot

That is totally incorrect. Of course they look at the statistical data. But if the public perception wildly opposes that data they will ignore it or juggle the numbers around to make it fit. Anything they can do to get the rates up without hurting themselves competitively they will do.

Sport_Pilot

Public perception is that Jets are high speed. They probably think you are flying supersonic. They carry more fuel than most jets. I wouldn't think a jury would rule favorably if a Jet crashed into a school house, yet even a 55 pound giant scale would probably be viewed as a freak accident. May have nothing to do with statistics, but everything to do with realality.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
Well, if Dave's idea was to stir up the troops against the turbine modelers it looks like his attempts failed. Most modelers that I've talked to didn't read it or have no idea what he's talking about. I contact several VP's and they have recieved no or very little feedback on his editorial. Guess he'll have to go to plan B, whatever that might be.
Regards,
Jon

Sport_Pilot

I don't think he has too convince anyone. All he has to do is get reelected. Then ask shall we raise rates again, or tier the dues of Turbine and Giant Scale modelers?

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Tiered rates coming up again?!?! Again I would have to ask, how would they implement that for Life Members?


By the Mike in DC...good synopsis.

airega1

My Feedback: (204)

This is really a tangled web that got woven, because on one hand I can see DB's point because I've seen the so-called checkbook modelers that just get by flying a .40 trainer and now are stockpiling thier hanger with turbines and giant scale's, just to keep up with the Jones'. Now on the other hand I've also seen the checkbook modelers that have thier stuff together, they are dilligent in thier ways, they are competent fliers, and they understand the potential of Turbines or Giant scale's. I've been CDing the Mid Atlantic Jet Rally at Fentress field in VA for the last 14 years, and to be honest I can only recall seeing 1 or 2 guys that shouldn't be flying jets, so on the average of 30 or so pilots a year, that's not bad. In my opinion, I think DB has witnessed the speed and popularity of the turbine and the skill that it takes to tailtouch and is perceiving the worst. My biggest gripe with some of the checkbook fliers, are the ones that stroke the check, then hand me the computer radio and say,"here, set it up so I can fly it".

Sport_Pilot

We went over this in another thread, but I don't think we should be calling a competent flyer a "checkbook flyer". A checkbook flyer is one who gets training by buying and crashing model after model. Doesn't even have to be expensive, on their own, just that he is comfortable with the cost of buying replacement models.

airega1

My Feedback: (204)

The emphasis on the checkbook modeler really pertains to the understanding of the potential of the model. Some checkbook modelers do and some don't. The ones that do are generally ones that know how to build and fly and take pride in the hobby, but maybe work or other matters conflics with building time. While the others can't build and can barely fly, and don't care to learn. they look at the hobby as a phalic symbol, like who can smoke the biggest cigar, even though they never smoked in thier entire life.

J_R

Jon

I agree with your assessment that the VP's have recieved very limited response to Dave's article, or to the turbine proposals themselves.

Having also talked to DB, I do not believe it was his intention to turn the membership against turbines. If he really wanted to do something like that, he could put motions on the agenda to do exactly that, without input from anyone.

There is some feeling on the EC that the speed limiter issue, or more correctly the lack of reliable speed limiters, was somewhat oversold to them during the presentation of the turbine proposal, in light of the information they have recieved since. This is where the issue will lie until it is determined if speed limiters are a viable alternative.

The article was also about high thrust to weight ratios that allow prop planes to tail touch, helicopters that button touch and to autonomous aircraft that may present their own set of problems. Technology has evolved. His question was where, if at all, should a line in the sand be drawn. How much risk of losing modeling altogehter is the membership willing to take? He stated that the turbine proposal was the trigger that set of this line of thought, in the article. He also stated that the input from a SIG is a desirable thing, but, that it can not be the only input, since the SIG is self-serving. Of course the JPO guys took this as personal. If they were to look beyond the current controversy, they would find the pattern SIG in exactly the same situation right now, along with other SIGs. SIGs ARE and should be self-serving. That is their purpose.

I find it peculiar that many of the waiver holders have expressed the opinion that tails should not be touched, and rotor heads should not be touched, while at the same time wanting all the new technology that turbines have to offer for themselves.

Could it be the case that all of us must show restraint?

JR

3d-aholic

My Feedback: (7)

No. When the world changes, you must change with it. I understand the need to be conservative as the president of an organization. But there is time to realize, their organization must change with the times....lest it be obsoleted by your inaction. These technology companies are only responding to "market demands". The market obviously wants to do these things or these planes wouldn't sell. So as an organization who represents these same people, its time to understand better how they think and move from old thinking and saying to yourself, "But thats not how we use to do it".

I can see a time where there is not one AMA, but splinter groups of modelers forming separate autonomous organizations, JMFA (Jet Model Flyers Association) and one just for helicopters, and another for 3D unless the AMA figures out a way to open its tent up to accept changing technologies. Then they will be wondering how to get those people "back"!!!!

Sport_Pilot

Easy additional payment if you fly those models.