I agree reflexes to drop over time, but remember though there is prob equal amt of jet guys liking the speed where reflexes really come into factor those of us scale guys that may want slightly bigger planes who dont fly like that that we fly in more of a scale manner not screaming around the skies thus our reflexes will act the same be it a small plane flying at scale speeds or large plane. reflexes are a factor but for the prop guys it is a minute factor. here in the midwest it is almost always windy and for me i would rather fly a bigger plane not affected by 20 mph winds over a smaller one where 20 mph winds really makes them squirrly. we get the winds picking up from running across the open plains with nothing to break them up and also runs along the mississloppy prettyy good. even though 20 mph winds arent always around i hate to goto and event and find it blowing pretty good and after driving several hours not enjoy myself due to fighting the wind. this weekend we had our scale funfly and all that showed were big planes due to the fact we had 20 mph winds. so it is more than just wanting a bigger plane to have it it is more like several reasons for it the main one being they are safer and better flying. then there are those that just get out of trainers and want to jump into a large bird. somewhere there needs to be a happy medium but decreasing size is not the answer and i dont think increasing weights by 10 lbs is going to make this sport any more dangerous that it currently is more the other way around as there will be less rougue fliers out there and will be able to be monitored better by flying at club sites etc.

Joe

When you change from 55 pounds wet to 55 pounds dry, that is a change, regardless of how you say it. It is a change without limits. Who is to say what a B-52 full of fuel for all engines would weigh? An open ended increase like that is totally unacceptable, at least in my opinion.

Well, maybe if you say it really, really fast , it's not a change

Ben, don't read too much into the changes forthcoming. They will not change the basic rules... if the change is implemented at all. That ain't cut in granite yet either.

JR

ProfLooney,

Just for thought, not intended as a flame or anything.

That's an 18% increase in weight, which translates to an 18% increase in momentum at a given speed. In the case of a scale warbird flying around at 80mph +/-, it probably doesn't matter much, but for a 200+++mph jet, it may matter.

I also don't think "rogue" flyers are all of a sudden say "hey, they increased the limits 10 lbs, let's agree and go fly at their field instead of our own!" More likely, they will just increase the weight of their planes by 20 lbs and stay put.



By the way, is that 109 done yet???

I see the AMA as a business...they want to make as much money as possible. If we stick with park flyers and trainers, as I think DB wants, I see an opportunity for the AMA to shell out less money is claims (hard to get anyway), making for more green in their pocket. As in life, it all come down to the scratch, greenbacks, los dolares, moolah, whatever you want to call it. AMA is out ated. EOS. When I went to the rally of giants in 2001, I saw 3 board members on oxygen tanks at the table. That kinda tells me how stale the AMA is. Nothing aginst those folks, but we need new blood in there. That's why I voted for Frank Tiano last election.......So tired of the AMA lack of adaptation of newer technology.

Well in my post i mentioned it would matter abt the jets at the speeds they buzz around but wouldnt so much be any more dangerous for the prop guys so ya may have just misread or i said it confusingly. as for the rogues I know quite a few guys that fly in parks etc cause their planes come in between 58 and 63 lbs dry. sure there wont be a flock of them but there will be some that come to fly with others at a reg field.

As for the 109 keep your eyes open as my replacement parts arrived this afternoon and just setting them in place they look great so I will be finishing framing the fuse and tailmembers to my test frame. i been working several nights now on my plans and looks like should have most everything worked out in the next few days and start putting them on sheets and cleaning them up and adding text. I will still have a few minor things to work out like the retract installation but i have that end of it taken care of and wont comment more on that at the moment.

Joe

Joe......all I can say is AMA

HAHAHA all i can say is rich getting richer on the backs of us poor sobs that have to work for a living. Its all politics the powerful leaders tell the little man what they will do when to do it and that there is nothing to do but sit back and like it

Joe

Lets get a couple of data points well defined. The Rally of The Giants is an I*M*A*A event and the folks you saw were IMAA Board of Directors, NOT AMA EC MEMBERS ! Please do not confuse the two because that is a misdirection and should be beneath you.

The AMA clearly has a very large cash flow that I have been unable to understand. We clearly need a headquarters and staff, which seem to account for a lot of the extra (above magazine and insurance costs), but not all. I am fairly sure we are paying a lot for the Muncie facility and that is largely what is 'hurting' us.

Now as for the weight increase, why would you allow someone to carry a 5 galleon gas can into your home when you can limit them to one galleon? If we increase the weight by calling the limit DRY, the HOT section of the turbine just has more fuel available at the crash site. Not what we intended, but it WILL happen.

The real problem *I* see with increased weights are very serious not trivial structural issues. We have and will continue to grow in the area of the checkbook modelers do not have the understanding of forces, vibration, wing loads, and other things that make planes come a part in the air. We constantly see stupid things like the check book modelers trashing their ARF's because of failure to beef up the model when they install an engine bigger than the manufacturer recommended. Not the same you say? Wanna bet?

How we address those structural problems with our checkbook modelers is probably going to drive any weight limit decision more than your angst or my desire. More rules is one very viable way to get to higher weights. More rules will not stop crashes, but they will help insure that the planes are more sound and the general hope is that the improvement will transfer to safer flying.

The evil you know is better than the one you do not know. I do not have any problem with current AMA top guys. All we have to do is try to educate them and prove to them that what we are seeking for would not increase the insurance liability for the rest of the membership.

They have genuine concern and we have to prove it with factual facts before we could win some of them over.

About voting another person in, I rather have DB than somebody that would use his/her influence to revoke somebody else's turbine waiver because of minor misunderstanding. I wonder what people like that would do if elected AMA president.

Ben (…. in the bunker…. waiting for the incoming scuds)

Jim....I stand corrected, in that, they may not have been AMA EC members, but they did represent the AMA, and not the IMAA, from my discussions at the rally. Unless I was misinformed. I know the IMAA runs the rally, but these were AMA guys. AND IMAA is not much better. The IMAA wnats to push to have the rally held in Municie evey year. At that point, the AMA REALLY has you. AMA policing the IMAA is what would happen...in real time. Why do we see a drop in IMAA membership and attendance? Any way you cut it, we still need new AMA blood. How would people feel if the AMA cut the weight limit to 20 pounds? Then would it be OK? Would it fit peoples agenda then? I will never buy that a 75 pound plane is more dangerous than a 55 pounder, ro than a 40 pounder, or than a 30 pounder.....you get the point. Guess it depends on a person's agenda. I am ranting agin...forgive me. I find this weight limit topic to be like politics and religion.

Well Ben...I agree that Frank is not the most persoanble member we have, but at least he want s to move things forward.........oh...and I find turbine waivers to be silly as well.

Not true. Try going to some of the higher classes of races sometime. We used to routinely fly the big prop jobs faster than most people fly their jets. Just because it has a prop on it doesn't mean it's slow.

Gordon

I stand corrected I was not taking the racers into consideration I was just talking in an overall perspective of the average joe modeller out there at say a scale event or funfly or even normal weekend at the field. I would include the racers in my comments abt the jet guys. but for everyday average flier the size of the prop plane and the reflexes would be the same it is when you get into the speed issues. Now we see all the time IMAC guys going for the bigger and bigger planes and keeping the weights down but on a decked out scale plane thats hard to get an equivelent size say 27% 33% or 40% plane as the imac sizes seem to be at and get the same weights and still have a structurally safe plane thus a slight weight increase could help in this.

I guess the best way to do it is build your overlimit plane and fly it at the local park or ballfield and keep your smaller ones for competition but i dont see how that helps the hobby grow any all it does is to push people away then where they gonna get their money to build frivelous museums and HQ and HQ flying fields from

Joe

Someone else said it best- One who buys expensive jet type planes has a lot more to worry about in the liability dept than someone who buys an arf. I think he or she would be scared to death if he or she has the deep pockets. Mike Krizan

I guess with me, I will cover my planes, but if you understand what they are saying, then you should be able to join the AMA without insurance or to fly without AMA. If I have a 33% plane and I have insurance for only a 10% plane, what protection does the field and people around have compared to not having insurance at all?

Do you remember Rule #3 in the safety code? That is the one where AMA hands your club officers a stick along with a workload that is backed up by the predefined risk and threat of the uninsured club (and its officers) for failure to enforce all rules. You know, all club rules are extensions of AMA rules and by inference if you are in violation you and your club with its officers are uninsured.

I think this is a major stumbling block to any concept of tiered membership. It gets worse when you recall that the club and it's officers are required to enforce the AMA rules by Rule #3 in the safety code. That means that any attempt at tiered membership will BY DEFINITION pass off much more work on to the backs of our club officers in the form of figuring out HOW to enforce the stupid break out without getting punched out for raising questions. Not all club members are as reasonable as the folks found on this forum.

I have been a club officer for around 10 years and I am not happy with the additional work the AMA has already foisted off on the club leadership with the 'temporary membership' thing they recently enacted. In fact, I am sure that it will wind up with hostile non members (takers) who feel they have rights to MY (club's) site and efforts. Those hostile people can make keeping a field a serious task and the AMA has not helped us with that. I am very concerned that this is another fine and wonderful idea with very serious and dangerous (locally) unintended consequences.

But in the words of my district AMA VP and his friendly AMA Fellow, I am probably just paranoid.

Food for thought.

I have been following this thread as well, and I must say, what a buncha horse crap. The AMA insurance program, as I know it, is about as useless as **** on a boar hog. If the AMA "leadership" expects to introduce a new, more expensive, insurance premium structure, it had best be ready with statistics to back it up. I would like to see how a blanket increase on aircraft weighing more than 25 pounds would be justified. I would expect to see numbers on claims paid out, total claims, paid or not paid out on, and what the alleged increase in risk liability boils down to on the bottom line. I think the numbers will more likely result in larger aircraft having a LOWER claims rate, and Lower cash payout than typical, sport flying planes under 15 pounds.

First, Large scale planes are not a numerous. The exposure to liability from a small group of operators obviously would not justify a premium increase. Second, large scale aircraft are normally equipped with redundant control and power systems. Loss of control incidents are expectedly lower than sport fliers under 15 pounds. Third, large aircraft generally use gasoline powered engines. While this does generate an increased fire hazard liability, I think it's offset by their reliability. This results in fewer dead stick landings, which can result in off-airfield landings resulting in damage to neighboring properties. Finally, large scale aircraft are expensive. Most people embarking on such a project police themselves on taking more diligent practices in building, setting up, and operating these aircraft, simply to protect their own investment.

Sport flying under 15 pounds. How many times per year are claims paid out for prop cuts, destroyed car windshields, etc, from this segment of the hobby? Two fatalities last year, both were members of this segment.

I'm not trying to say that sport fliers under 15 pounds need to pay more for their insurance. My point is that NO ONE needs to pay more for insurance. You take the total risk and divide by the number of members. Period. Adding to the bureaucracy of all this only adds expense, reduces membership (in itself raising insurance premiums per member), and resulting in some people altogether operating without any protection at all. AMA thinks it's got the corner on regulation here, which it does not. It's insurance is SECONDARY. Therefore, its requirements become secondary. If anything were to happen as a result of my operating a model, my own home insurance would pay the claim anyways, NOT the AMA. I wouldn't even make a claim to the AMA insurance, just to avoid it's hassles. As the current catch-all rules exist these days, it's hard to imagine any claim that would be paid by the AMA insurance.

Well, so anyways...I guess liberals will be liberals, and screw things up anywhere. Whether it's in the government, or in our own modeling associations. Some people have to make rules for rule making sake, just to justify and maintain their control over the masses trying to live their lives and have a little fun in the process. How are things in your home owner's association these days?

Erich

Ditto Erich you got some excellent points and facts there i totally agree with everything you said, but we all know that there will be those that are too blind to see that just to get more of our money. like you said the AMA insurance is secondary but for some reasons all their decisions are supposedly based on insurance rates that dont make one bit of sense. Just like other insurances springing up they say you have to have their insurance to fly at AMA sanctioned events or chartered clubs? if all these issues are over insurance let people get it where they want and those that dont want AMA insurance have lower dues and must show an insurance card from where they get their insurance. the whole thing is so rediculous since the insurance is only 15% of your dues cut corners other places to offset any changes. Also POST Insurance quotes and figures like you said to prove why they needed a dues increase. its just an excuse and a way for them to get more money for themselves and blame it on insurance. but as Dave replied to my email he wants to lower weights anyways not increase them.

Joe

Unless I'm mistaken (and may be), I believe that the magic number of 55# is not an AMA thing. I think that it is an FAA regulation. If I'm correct, THAT insurance is probably VERY expensive. I hope that Dave is not free lancing without asking them?

Ghost Rider,

I would ask that you don’t dilute the 55-pound weight campaign by suggesting that only the jet crowd (of which I am part of) are the only modelers that are reasoning for a weight limit increase! Your revelation (post #24 this thread ) that BVM has been on a serious campaign to raise the weight limit (that’s what this is) is not the first by a long shot. There are those who have seen the logic of increasing the weight limit for many years to not only to allow jets with heavy fuel loads, but also large scale models and others that have proven their legitimacy in the RC world when built and flown at larger sizes. I assert that we all share a common goal of “dragging” the AMA into the 21st century and understanding the needs of a growing and powerful segment of the hobby. I also contend that it is this large and growing segment that represents (gonna take heat here) the fuel for the growth of our hobby!!!!!!

Each time we get into this discussion the inevitable arguments come to the surface. The “pro-lightweight crowd” points to the (potential) worst-case scenario of a super-heavy, super-fast, loaded-with-fuel (jet) model crashing into a structure or crowd causing horrific damage. With that said I would continue to point out the “pro-slightly-heavier-crowd’s” argument, which goes hand in hand with facts, reality and good common sense. F4u5 mentioned that the AMA is a business. NO the AMA is no business, if they where, they would be out of business by now or not in this situation at all. If AMA wanted to reduce it’s liability it would simply do a study to figure what segment, group, type of model or other “entity” causes the most payouts and therefore insurance premiums. Once zeroed in they could then begin to “structure” that particular segments activities to get the desired results, which would be less cause for payouts. There is no logical reason to assert that the insurance premiums increases are due to “potentialities” as opposed to “PAST RECORDS” Why then does AMA propose to increase the premiums of groups that have not caused the bulk of premium increases and future payouts? The suggestion that they want to “tier” the payment structure is typical of an unconnected bureaucracy whose sole purpose is the extension of said bureaucracy’s existence.
In any case the path of the AMA from this point on, is in my opinion, predictable and unfortunate AND completely OUT of the hands of everyday modelers. The reply that ProfLooney presented from DB says a lot about his (AMA's) intentions.

I guess I have said enough here so I will stop for now. Thanks for listening.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FalconWings10
[B]Unless I'm mistaken (and may be), I believe that the magic number of 55# is not an AMA thing. I think that it is an FAA regulation. //SNIP//]


You are mistaken. So far the FAA does NOT regulate model aircraft limits.

Erich says: "If anything were to happen as a result of my operating a model, my own home insurance would pay the claim anyways, NOT the AMA."

If you hit me, Erich, I hope you have some 3 million in HO liability and thanks for not asking for AMA's help.

OTOH if I hit YOU how do you know that I was not cancelled out yesterday for not paying my commercial insurance premiums?

to try for a 3 mil award is one thing, to actuall get it awarded in court, is something else.

and you take the uninsured risk every day of yer life.
poor folk buy 30 day policys just to get tags and inspection, then cancel em. happens every day right here in texas.

Huh??? By that logic, since I can limit them to bringing NO gas into my house...

With that analogy in mind, it is not a matter of how much gas is brought into the house, but rather, who is bringing it.

AMA insurance is secondary to our home owners, but if I remember correctly it is primary for the land owner, which is what makes most flying sites possible. In a big suit the land owner is going to get hit also, so the AMA regs can be viewed as helping to protect him.

Also, the difference between a $2 million and a $20 million settlement is the perception of the jury. If you are on top of safety and try to increase it all the time, then it was just one of those things that happen, If the jury thinks you took steps that decreased safety then you are negligent and need to be punished. Same crash, two out comes.

Steven