Patrick

I guess I have lost all perspective on this entire issue. It's my position that technology can overcome the weight limitations, just as has been the case with cars. Airframes can be lighter and stronger. Engines can weigh less and put out more power. All with existing technology that has not been applied to models.

I will be the first to admit that as planes grew in size, they flew in a more scale like manner. Heck, the Reynolds numbers are closer full size and they have to fly better. BUT, let's face the real issue, the technology is there right now to fly virtually any full size plane by remote control. The fighters, the bombers, the UAV's, the airliners, each and every full size aircraft.

At the same time, our models exceed the performance of the full size planes in many cases. Example: have you ever seen a full sized helicopter do a reverse loop? Have you ever seen a full size Edge doing a flat spin up?

Somewhere a line between models and their full size counterparts must be drawn. I do not think it is the province of the manufacturer's to draw that line.

The reference to forbidden products had to do more with cars than models, at least at this point. Porsche, for one, built some cars that were so fast that they did not import them to the US. A grey market grew around them. The same is true of some of the Ferrari's. Porsche and Ferrari stopped producing the cars when they figured out that without the US market they were going to lose money on the models. There is and always will be some who will pay big bucks for "something special", whether it's cars, toy airplanes, or anything else.

I guess what I really do not understand is why the sharper manufacturer's are not building engines that weigh less and have more power, at the upper end of the market, not the lower or middle of it. I do not understand why someone is not building lighter, stronger airframes.

IF the AMA hold the weight limit, those are the ways that modelers may build bigger planes. Technology that exists now needs to be applied. As I see it, the manufacturer's are taking the easy way out. Leave technology where it is and just scale it up. Maybe I am wrong, but, if the AMA holds the limit and does not budge, I would bet we see the implementation of technology at an increased pace.

If, on the other had, the AMA increases the weight factor, it will slow technological progress, in my opinion.

Modelers have three choices. Live with the rules. Beat on the AMA to change the rules. Beat on the manufacturer's for technologically superior offerings.

JR

That is the point i keep trying to get through to you JR where IS the statistics? like in court it is up to the prosecution to prove their point not the defense. Same thing here if the AMA wants to increase rates etc and claim jets and giants are the greater liability it is up to THEM not people like me to justify the need for the increase with published statistics. If they do not have the information available then they should not be increasing the rates until it is as there is no justification for it.

Jim I cant agree more that there is a possible viable solution. Fix or adjust the current waiver program for the giants to allow them to compete or fly at events. You will then get those wanting to do that with their planes to get more involved in the waiver program thus reducing the liability because of the current waiver conditions to get waivered. Currently i believe there is only around 9 waivered planes and many more flying that arent waivered. If there was more of an offering or possibilities for people to waiver their planes you might get more (though prob not all) to waiver their planes thus instituting better regulation. What I see in my perspective and by talking to others that feel as I do is that all we are really wanting to do is to be able to fly at events and competitions after our planes and flying skills are inspected and the waiver issued. if we cant why should we go through the hassle of waivering. its the old addage whats in it for me. ya know whats in it for the guys that go through the hassle of waivering their big birds what the option to fly at their local field once in a while? he we can fly them anytime without the waiver maybe not at a stricktly envorced chartered field though i would guess there are smaller clubs that wouldnt care. but there is no reason for them waivering their plane thus less control and more chance of something bad happening by an unprepared pilot flying rogue that would affect the AMA not that it would be liable but public opinion would hurt it.

I have turned down requests to enlarge plans for people you could tell just by their emails were not near ready for say a 150% ziroli dauntless but you know what will happen if they cant get them from me they will get them another way thus another un prepared pilot flying rogue with a large plane he is not ready to handle.

JR think on what I just said its not unfounded when you think about it. you from your posts i gather dont care for the larger planes and think ppl should be happy with what they currently have. Dave brown wants to decrease teh weights wich will cause even more rogue pilots out there or cause them to start another organization thus the AMA you are so vehemently defending on this issue with deteriorate thus what was the gain? who will benefit? on the other hand I am wanting the AMA to go forward and increase weights and grow I have no problem with some regulation but give the people something for their complying.

Joe

That would be all good and fine JR but who is going to pay for it? some people like myself arent very rich we are getting by so we scratch build from wood where we can buy a little at a time. When you are talking stronger lighter airframes you are talking composites and by talking composite airframes you are talking plopping down 500-1000 bucks all at once which I would bet a good portion of the members interested in the larger planes are in the same boat as me and could not afford it. not to mention that is probably a low guess on costs as there would be research and development fees added to that not to mention the costs involved in the production. Not everyone in this hobby makes 100,000 or more a year heck i bet half are lucky to hit 50 with spouses combined. The rule that if you dont have 1000 or more to plop down at one time you dont need to be building the plane is a bunch of BS which i have seen posted on these forums many times. This is a Hobby and an enjoyment for people and as such the fianances of an individual should have no bearing on whether he should be allowed to enjoy his selected hobby or not.

Joe

Joe

Once again, you are stating things that have no basis in fact. Show me one place, just one, where there is any statement from any AMA elected official about raising insurance rates. Not your interpretation, but, where it is stated. Show me one place where Dave Brown stated that he IS going to cut weights, just one. Not what you think he said, but, what he said. You may need to look up the definitions of: might, perhaps, maybe, opinion, and several other words.

You want the wieght raised. Become part of the process to provide statistics to prove it is safe. Get a waiver. If you are not willing to do that, you have no complaint coming. You are neither being prosecuted nor defended, at least not where the AMA is concerned.

As to my personal tastes: I have attended more TOC's than I have missed. I love to watch larger planes. At the same time, I have never felt quite as vulnerable as I did sitting packed in grand stands where I knew I could never avoid a plane if it impacted those stands. I certainly would not have sat in them with pilots of a lesser caliber.

JR

OK well tell me why in all your posts you are talking about raising the rates for the jets and giants because they are more of a risk, where is your statictics? you seem to be in the know abt what the AMA is doing so yes I may be wrong on the council by ASSUMING you knew something i didnt. either way there is a movement to pass on any possible insurance rate increases to the jet and giant guys as they are more of a risk. though it may not be from the coucil people like yourself seem to be pushing for it especially with all this talk about tiered rates etc which seems to focus on the jets and giants need to pay more of the share where is YOUR statistics. Just because a plane is bigger or carries more fuel and could POSSIBLY cause more damage where is the facts showing they are doing it? as I see it there is nothing to justify a rate increase for those class of people on what MIGHT happen.

As for as waivering At the moment until this issue is resolved I dont have anything over the limit, but have a couple projects waiting but wont be super heavyweights may come in around 60 dry. For now I am abiding by the AMA's rules but sooner or later they will either change or not and i will give an appropriate time then will decide whether to just build them and fly at the school ballfield or the state park here or if a good enough reason is given and they can back up their reasoning go with the flow until a better organization comes along.

as for becoming part of the process you tell just how i am supposed to get the information from the AMA on incidents and claims by the various groups when they dont even break them down or do the research themselves. i doubt the insurance company will just hand it over or will want big bucks to do the research. the Ball is in the AMA's court they know there is a movement wanting one thing and they want something totally different it is time for them to step up to the plate and say thes is A reason theis is B reason theis is C reason we cant do it and here is the breakdown of the stats and other legalities why we cant do it or they need to act the opposite.

I think i made a reasonable case for my claims. it was well thought out with my reasonings as best can be backed up with what little info from the community that is curreny available.

Like I said i may have misread what was being stated abt the coucil and rate increases but not about the posts by those here against the increase thinking that we need to tier the rates and the jets and giants are an increased risk so they need to carry the brunt of it all without any stats from you guys either. it is a 2 way street you give your opinions and examples and i give mine. you are wanting to see me post numbers i have no acess to but i have yet to see you post any numbers either. it is basically a stalemate on the issue until the council decides to act and get the numbers.

Joe

See reasonable discussions with no bashing of each other its nice to have that once in a while

You guys do know that AMA is not the law, and you can build what ever size planes you want to, AMA can't stop you , you just won't be flying them at AMA sanctioned events , or flying fields that have chosen to follow the AMA guidelines . The fact is that almost all insurance risk is based on the "POSSIBILITY" of claims not the actual history of claims, Larger aircraft can or would cause more injury if crashed into a crowd than a smaller aircraft, lets face it if a Cessna 150 crashed into the World Trade Center, in most likelihood it would still be standing. Even at 55 lb plane has the potential to do more damage than a 20 pound , just on size alone, hurting 6 people in one incident is considered worse than hurting one or two. The extent of injury is not as important, a indoor plane could take out an EYE, but a 80 pound bomber with 120 inches of wing could take out a dozen. No matter how much you prove a bigger plane is less likely to cause an incident , you will never convince the insurance people that the potential of hurting many people in one incident is better than the hurting one or two in a incident. Same goes with faster planes, I have a prop powered plane that weighs less than 5lbs, can probably do around 140 mph, just as fast as some Turbine , IF there was an incident where my plane went into a crowd it could just as easily kill someone as a 30 pound Turbine, but 30 lbs carries more momentum , a Turbine powered plane has more of a chance of catching fire, it would probably hurt several people where mine would probably stop after the first impact. so the risk(or amount of money paid out) PER INCIDENT, is considered higher.

I am by no means aginst the AMA considering ways to allow the over 55 planes at thier events , I am sure there is a way without causing a rift with the insurance people.

What you say is true David but look at it this way also. say you have 10,000 giant planes over the 55 lb limit and jets throughout the AMA and the 160,000 members with smaller planes. By shear numbers there is more of a risk that an accident will happen with the smaller planes over the 10,000 giants and jets. so because a plane is larger and can do more damage the shear numbers of the smaller ones makes them more at risk. i also think it will be a long time before you see them kind of numbers for jets and giants total so any increases would be a while in coming. As I stated before i am not in property or casualy insurance but in life and health insurance and our group rates go by the section of the group most likely to be having claims so it would go with this the group most likely is the area where you have the most members attached thus the smaller planes. so the likelyhood the insurance companies will increase their rates in the near future because of a few large planes is highly unlikely.

Joe

Hi Joe

I think it is time you understand where I am coming from. I have been one of the AMA's harshest critics. When Marc opened the AMA discussion forum, more people who have a, how should I put this?, uninformed view of the AMA became aware of AMA politics. You are one, certainly not the only one, but one of the more vocal ones.

There is a general view of the EC as a group of Good 'ol Boys who plot to eliminate the fun of our hobby. Nothing could be further from the truth. These guys can not generally agree what day of the week it is. The are all different personalities. My VP, Rich Hansen, does one heck of a job representing the left coast. Maybe too much so to suit some of the others. I have managed to meet and correspond with most of them. I assure you that they are all different and individual, to say the least. They all have one thing in common. They do what the wholeheartedly, honestly, believe is the best thing for all of us. When all of the bickering is done, they present a pretty united front. That gives the appearance of being Good 'ol Boys.

In the last election, I backed Horrace Cain against the incumbent, rather vociferously. In the prior one, I backed Frank Tiano against Dave Brown. In spite of that, I have managed to develop a relationship with Dave and the EVP. I have absolutely no political desires within the AMA. I would not take an AVP position if it was offered, and it is not likely to be.

I have found that several members of the EC monitor this group. I will often take positions that have nothing to do with my opinion to see if it fosters comments from members that the EC members may find useful.

I guess where you and I are opposed is the basic rules of debate. If you state facts, be prepared to back them up. If it's an opinion, label it so. I have never referenced statistics because I have no access to any. The best I can do is to point to the laws of physics. Simple F=MA. No one can deny that. If you are being honest with yourself, heavier planes present bigger hazards than smaller planes, at the same speed. As the speed increases, so does the hazard. Pilot ability is another issue, and certainly plays a part.

There are other ways around the issue that I have not seen anyone bring up. Separation between the flight line and the pits and spectators comes to mind.

Anyway, back at the ranch house... I have found myself debunking myths about the AMA, pointing to sources of information, and playing "information please". On other forums, I am not quite so nice. I guess what I am trying to tell you is that if you are going to take a position, be prepared to support it. Throwing opinions around as if they are facts brings me out of the woodwork every time.

JR

Nope. It's based on the liklihood of claims, which comes from an actuarial assessment of several factors - a primary one of which is history of claims involving similar cases.

If possibility was the main factor, then there would be no reason for unexperienced drivers to be charged higher premiums for the exact same car than an experienced driver is charged, because they both have a possibility of crashing and doing equal damage. A historical assesment of past claims shows that unexperienced drivers are more likely to lose control of a vehicle than an experienced driver, and consequently their premiums are higher. It's all about liklihood (aka probability) of a claim within a given period - not possibility.

Gordon

Well as you just stated you have no access to some stats just like the rest of us. If your EC (not mine) browses through these threads then why are they not acting upon some of the discussion ie start posting some of these stats people are wanting to see to justify their positions. I mean if they post the stats and facts that back up their positions we wouldnt be having a lot of these debates. Some facts are common sense without needing any statistics to back them up one of these facts is what I posted and know as an insurance agent and that is the fact that the higher risk would not be with the jets and giants due to the lack of numbers of them in reguards to the overall picture ie 160,000 members with smaller models vs a miniscule amt of flyers with jets and the larger giants. common sense facts dictate the majority of claims and dangers presented is greater with the smaller models than the larger ones thus the risk factor for insurance purposes would not be put upon having a larger plane until such time as the quantity of them is more dominant on the group. If we were talking individual insurance then of course they would charge a higher risk rate but what you dont get is we are under a GROUP plan thus your risk logic (and it is correct) does not come into play. say you get on a group plan for insurance at work. now say there are 100 employees and out of them employees there are 10 ppl with heart problems thus they have a higher risk of heart attacks. those people do not pay higher rates for their insurance due to the fact the majority of the group is healthy. It works the same way here the potential damage risk caused by the smaller planes which is in the majority sets the insurance rates thus there is no reason to think the rates are going to increase and all the discussions on tiered rates, or the giant scale and jets guys paying more and others less is all bogus. we are talking GROUP insurance here and that is just the way insurance works the majority in this case the small planes set the rates. Now if we look at the facts (without need for any stats as it is common sense logic) small planes are the risk factor here and not the large scale or jets thus no need to be talking tiered insurance rates etc. All that the EC needs to do is to figure out some kind of program to bring the larger heavier plane and jet segment into the current membership fairly and safely. Like i said the best thing to do would be to adjust the waiver program and figure a way to make it safe to be able to allow them into more events.

Joe

JR,

Does this mean I am the difficult one? Just kidding, but seriously I am not trying to attack or flame you in any way but I do believe in a free and open market where the limits are not set by the manufacturers but at the same time I do not want an even smaller group (EC) with very little or no experience in a given area setting the limits either.
It has already been done as far as I can tell. Some of the highest performance (normally aspirated) engines on the planet can be found on the modern day Indy car. They are able to obtain around 5 HP per cubic inch! That is very impressive by anyone’s standards. Before the slowing of the DF era in the late 90’s, BVM’s search for higher speeds and more power brought about the BVM .91 R. This engine has an astonishing 4.95 HP! So yes the technology is or was here.

Cost. Period. Again using the products from BVM as an example lets take a look at a very highly composite, strong, lightweight airframe such as his F 100. This type of model is not simple or cheap to manufacture. It sells to a very limited market when compared to the rest of RC. If for example you wanted to sell1/3 scale warbirds of this type of construction so that we can “squeeze” into the existing weight limit the market will suffer. Here is how. A 1/3 scale Mustang (man this is huge) designed and constructed using the latest and greatest technology could probably be produced to come in under the 55-pound weight limit.
And the technology is here now; my company is very capable of doing this. But at what price? I would spend about a year of time an untold amount of money (actually I have a good idea as to the cost) and since I am in business it would be wise to determine if I could recoup the initial investment. The cost of such a kit with gear would approach if not exceed 10,000 dollars. Now I would have to determine if I think today’s market would support such a product. What do you think? Seems as though the market for that model just imposed its own limit!
Same with the very high performance glow engines. Why are there not many of the BVM 91 R ducted fan set ups flying these days? Because the total cost of a high performance DF package is approaching 1,500. When compared to turbines (which is ultimately where a large portion of jet modelers want to end up) the cost is too excessive. Market limits.
O.S. Make a very high performance, fuel injected 1.60 glow engine. How many guys do you know that will pony up the 700 bucks over a big gasser? Cost drives the market. There are other limits as well. As these glow engines get bigger, they begin to consume fuel geometrically ( I have always wanted to use that word in a sentance). Considerations for fuel load are called into question not to mention cost. How many guys do you know that would pay 20 dollars for a gallon of fuel and then put that entire amount into the model for a single flight? Much less go to the hobby store and by fuel by the cases. Ten flights a week - 200 bucks. I don't think so. Modelers want cheaper, cheaper, cheaper - Thanks ARF's

You mention the following

Yes but the question is who or what draws this line? I believe that it must be up to modelers – the market. I don’t think we are going to see guys making 300 mile and hour ¼ scale F-14s capable of (favorite catastrophe here)! Guys that have never designed, built, owned and flown very heavy complex models have never seen what it takes to make and fly these models. They have self limiting devises already built in. Cost, Complexity, size, transportation and a hundred other items will keep the masses flying smaller models. I don’t see the average modeler running out to buy a 20 foot trailer to haul is 1/3 scale B-25 to field so that he can meet his “Team” that assembles and pre-flights the model.

I for one am not looking for the AMA to open up the weight limit to the sky. But why not give a little room and see where things go. IF things take a turn for the worse, then lets pull back and re-examine the situation BUT to stifle a fraction of modeling based upon a big “WHAT IF” is just wrong. Even though the horse is dead I am going to give it another whack here. What evidence is there that suggest that larger models will cause any disturbance in the system. We have already seen where the majority of claims are “Slip and Fall” types of accidents. Why in the hell do we want to bury or heads in the sand and or look the other way?

The comment about the "walking Waiver" (very funny by the way) was more than just poking fun at the way the AMA works. For those that have never read the requirments and test questions for a turbine waiver that is a very accurate comparison. I getting long here so I'll go away for a while.

Regards.

I don't understand why everyone insists on arguing about tiers and insurance and risk and whatnot. Any change from the way the AMA handles insurance now (i.e. a group plan where everyone pays the same), will be more expensive for EVERYONE than it is now. It can't help but be more expensive. Right now, you have a few people cashing checks and issuing cards. With any sort of system based on "risk," however you define risk, you have now made administering the program that much more complicated. Do you honestly believe that administering a more complicated system will not require additional staff? How do you think the AMA plans to pay for the additional staff? Hmm?

Sometimes arguments can be better understood if we consider the extremes of each point of view, so let's consider that for a moment. The various weights I throw out here are not based on any specific measurements, and are for example only - so don't bother arguing over a lb here or there...

If someone wants to have RC models weighing as much as a full-scale C5, then I'm sure it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the AMA would be justified in saying "we want no part in this".

Conversely, if the AMA had said that there was a maximum permissible weight limit of 1/2 oz - well, you wouldn't have gotten much in the way of advanced development in our RC prodycts going on there !

Raise the limit to 3 lb, and now it becomes possible to have certain model types, so kits and ARFs for little trainers powered by 15 sized engines might start developing. At this weight, developments such as supercharged engines, radials, turbine engines etc are basically gonna be stifled due to them being impractical.

Raise the limit to 7 lb - now your supercharged engine might start becoming feasible. The turbine is still basically impractical, and multi-cylinder radials probably are too.

... etc...

As the weight limit increases certain things become practical that were not practical before. Thus, any simplistic claim that the existence of a weight limit does not affect development of technology is absurd. Now, if a weight limit exists, but is extremly high, then the amount of technological advance that gets stifled will be minimal. If a weight limit exists, and is low, it clearly can and will stifle advance. Thus, it seems to me that instead of saying that the enforcement a weight limit will not stifle technological advance, we should be saying that the enforcement of a weight limit can stifle such development, but that if a suitable value for that limit is determined, then any advances that are stifled by the limit are minimal and are considered acceptable.

BTW - bear in mind that for some technology to be developed in miniaturised form, it often first has to be developed in "normal form". The example of smaller turbine engines was bandied around earlier. The smaller the diameter of a turbine becomes, the less efficient it is, and the higher RPM it has to run at in order to be effective. The smaller MW44 style engines that we see now quite probably would not exist if the initial development, deployment & advances had not bee made in their larger forefathers such as the KJ66.

Note that if we had always a limit such as the 3lb limit mentioned above, and you asked someone to give you a detailed list of the technological advances that had not been possible because of the limit - he probably couldn't even think of many of the advances that we have had - because it's much easier to look back and see what would have been affected, than to look forward and anticipate what advanes you have not yet thought of could be stifled.

Allowing a separate "experimental" category (with attendant higher insurance costs, or a rider in the AMA policy that allows you to simply buy a PUP and use that) could additionally allow the "pioneers" to go beyond the normal limits and develop new technology, and then further possibilities arise : (a) allow the weights to be intelligently adjusted upwards as the new technology is proven, or (b) subsequent miniaturization of the technology could later bring it to the mainstream - as long as there is suitable provision for the non-mainstream products to begin with.


So in summary - a weight limit most definitely can stifle development, but a suitable compromise can be reached if the limits are not made too restrictive, and some flexibility exists.

YMMV,
Gordon

Gordon,

Perhaps you and I live in a sort of a bubble but to me the case is clear and simple. The more types and sizes of models available to a given market will only serve to expand and improve that market.
And your turbine analogy is right on and parralells what I said about Saito's 200 inline twin. Why did they make a big inline twin first? Because there is a learning curve that is a little like evolution. Before Ray and Albert started RAM, does anybody remember the turbine that outfitted a majority of jets that did not use the Sophia? Does Turbomin ring a bell? The Turbomin 100 was a monstrostic beast of a turbine. I think it had a diameter of about nine inches, had an installed weight of about six pounds and put out 10 pounds of real thrust (exageration of course). It preceeded the modern day turbine for a good reason. The modernday turbine was in, and still is in, an evolutionary state as is the whole of RC Modeling.


Bigger models (thus more weight) is a nature extension of the direction modeling has been heading for over fifty years. Why stop it now simply because we have run into a ceiling that was put in place by a group who honestly thought that it would never be approached. I would also ask for anyone to explain how raising the weight limit (as well as using some regulation if necessary) could HURT modeling. We have spent a lot of time here explaining how bigger models have helped modeling in general and across the board, now can anyone honestly explain how they will hurt us when looking at the path we have taken to get to where we are now. I fail to see that logic.

Regards

I will try to tackle that in a manner that makes more sense. The problem is not really the weight issue or the liability issue but something else that we all seem to ignore. These smoke screens are (have been?) thrown up to hide the real problem EVERYONE has with large models. Note I said LARGE, not over X pounds of weight.

Before we go much further we all need to understand that the AMA probably will not raise the weight limit because there is NO DEMONSTRATED need to do so as long as the waiver process works. Now the waiver process and effects may need some tinkering, but that is a different issue.

What is being hidden behind the smoke screen is pilot qualification. Think about it a moment and review the waiver issue with that in mind. The problem the AMA (and me for that matter) have with raising the weight limits is that there is NO way to insure Fred Flightpack has the skills necessary to fly at those weights. The waiver process allows for that consideration without mandating it for all folks in the hobby.

Lets take another viewpoint for a moment. We know how well the 1/3 scale Hangar 9 stuff has been accepted. How long do you think some 45 or 50 % ARF's would take to hit the market if the weight limit went up? WHO buys those? Are they ALL competent pilots? Now for the nastiest question of all, can you prove they are? That is the purpose of the waiver and as far as I can tell it seems to have worked well with the turbine folks, why can we not use the same process for the larger birds?


OBTW, who was pinging on me about the checkbook modeler? Was it the same guy talking about $10K airplanes that weight a lot?

Here is what I hear from some EC members. There is some sympathy for the jet crowd. Some of the jets that are being flown are right at the weight limit with minimal fuel and flying in what is close to a dangerous state. The concern is that those same planes, if allowed to be loaded with fuel could carry as much as 3 gallons and come in at over 70 pounds. There is virtually zero support for that type of weight. Somewhere closer to 55 pounds is possible, maybe, kinda, sorta. It is for the jet flyers, probably JPO to come up with safe solutions.

The EC is looking for additional ways to make these planes safe for people to be around. The discussion here is being watched. Legitimate, constructive ideas presented here are seen.

There appears to very little sympathy for the prop driven Giants when it comes to the weight limit. The 100 pound waiver program is there for them.

The tiered insurance was floated out by DB. As before, it has little support on the EC.

The rest of this is my personal feelings, which have some minor support on the EC. I think the AMA should have a certification program for pilots. One level should be for the newbie. One level at something around 20-25 pounds and finally one for jets. There should be a test of ability. Not something subjective, something concrete that is pass or fail in front of those who may certify. If you want to throw in a written test, fine. My own prejudices are based on the fact that we do have some members who are not capable of safe operation of larger or faster planes. I think we have all seen, at one time or another, a new pilot who should not be flying solo, or a bigger plane or a jet. When it comes to any of these certifications, I don't care if it takes the pilot 2 days, 5 years or he never learns. A buddy box seems to be the only way to insure training at any level in a truly safe manner. The pilot must pass or stay at the level he is at.

We have a club member who has been flying for about 18 months now. He is incapable of assembling anything he flies and pays others to do so. His first plane was a 60 sized trainer. He crashed it soloing too soon. His second plane was a 33% Sukhoi. It lasted 2 or three flights. He has since gone through a 33% Aeroworks Edge and several other large models, and numerous smaller ones. He has another being built for him. He went though at least $20,000 worth of planes in his first year. The last time I saw him, he was flying the large Rascal, with a 1.60 on it. His third Rascal. He had just been to a jet rally and was hot for a jet. I am not sure whether he has ordered one or not. Thank God for the waiver process. Now.. admittedly, he is not typical, but, guys like him do exist and this story is real. Worse yet, everyone loves him... as long as he is not in the air. Actually, he is a competent pilot with the Rascal at this point.

JR

If by "waiver" you are talking about the Exprimental class for aircraft in the 55 -> 100lb range, bear in mind that that option dos not exist for all categories - turbine powered aircraft are specifically excluded, and hard-limited at 55lb wet.

Gordon

I like the idea of a pilot certification program but I very seriously doubt it will help the AMA or the hobby as the only way to implement it is to take away rights that have already been given.

It might be possible to tie tiered rates into a certification program that part of the waiver process, but I think that gets cumbersome. I also know of more than one guy with lots of $ and not much experience in flying or building. That is probably what will forever drive the limit to 55 or lower.

Jim,

When you said the following

I hope you weren't talking about me because I am all for installing safety measures that support pilot profieciency. This is my whole point in fact. Why limit all models based upon the skills or lack there of, of some modelers. In addition when the AMA has in the past tried to initiate such a program (turbine waivers) it started out as a complete failure to obatain its objectives. The original turbine waiver was more focused on you knowing how to start up and shut down a given turbin engines rather than focusing on the real issue - Pilot Ability.

In another thread some time ago I saw a poster who actually suggested that all the waiver system did was to give its holders and ego boost! As if you spend all that time, effort and money to learn to fly jets so that when you go to an event (the only time you need to pull out your waiver) you can wow people. Thats crazy. With that said I would expect to see a movement AGAINST a certification system to allow pilots to fly different (dare I say it) Levels of models.

Also, the current experimental waiver that allows heavier-than-55 pound models has been changed to exclude all competition models and the model in question must be flown alone if I am not mistaken. I got a waiver for a 75 pound model to fly in competion in 98 and even with the AMA in attendance there were protests due to all of the loop holes and unanswered questions in the waiver. Seems the waiver left out a few words that left the legitimacy of my model in question to those that choose to interpet the wording in a different way than it was meant. It was almost as if I was watching those famous words "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is"


JR,

I agree totaly with what you said here

In fact when Bob Violett wrote up his first draft of his test for pilot experience in order to fly jets I thought it was dead on. Astoundingly a majority of jet pilots thought it was excessive and it went no where.

However for those that want to fly bigger and heavier models and jets too, they would actually expect to see such a system in place if they are qualified to do so, since by the time you are capable of flying such a model you can reflect on what you have learned and what it took to get there and expect to see others who wish to get there follow in similar footsteps.

Regards,

The only way to institute a certification program is to "Grand Daddy" existing members. In the case of jets, leave it to the JPO to figure out if the existing waiver holders should be re-tested. They have a better handle on it.

The heck with tired rates, the money is not significant, administration costs may raise, and the clubs don't need the hassle either. Keeping tack of certifications at the club level would be easy enough by issuing different colored membership cards to be put on the frequency board, or some such thing. As long as we don't have 20 different certifications and tiered rates coupled up with it, it should be easy enough.

I am glad to see that the jet guys always seem to offer to pay a little more insurance, but, at least at this point, it's non-sense.

JR

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fly109
[B]Jim,

When you said the following



I hope you weren't talking about me . . .

SNIP

Gosh no! JR addressed my comments effectively. I agree with his intent but doubt there is an effective way to implement it backwards looking. IOW, those that have a ticket today cannot be denied just because we changed the rules. However, if we lower the weight limit and improve the waiver process we can 'pick' them up that way.


Sorry you had a problem with the definition of "is". I know how that feels.

Jim,

No problem. But as far as the meaning of the word "is", I think I got handle on that one;-]

Regards,

I hadn't realized it, but the subject of certifications for pilots is on the EC agenda for this weekend. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

JR

Yea will be interesting. and not trying to get anythign going jr cause i think we covered all the bases already BUT it will be interesting to see if any certification the discuss comes with an increase in weight or they just looking to add even more regulations on what we already have.

Joe