RE: what 2.4 article
 

You should never drop names

(Tom Selleck told me that)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

+1. My thoughts exactly. What is sad is that it appears that Greg Hahn has accepted this article as more than that. Of course, he does not make AMA policy either, the EC does.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

That (EC...policy) is about the most scary thing I know of. :D

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Can you provide any actually factual basis for this remark? You seem long on opinion and mysterious knowledge that you are sworn to secrecy over (but apparently are not sworn to keep from saying you have) but short on actual facts.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

But didn't the EC allow Greg to be the TD? I guess as long as he doesn't mow the grass, for an event at Muncie on his day off, everything else is okey dokey...;)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

To be honest I am not clear on how involved the EC is in hiring for paid positions beyond the ED. The EC hires the Executive Director and that person is generally in charge of hiring and firing their staff. So I cannot say for certain if the EC "approved" of Greg, or anyone else for that matter.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Well, what do you recall about it
from when you were posting in the DVP Stillman(ec) hiring the paid staffer TonyStillman ethics thread?
We certainly discussed the HOWS of paid staff hiring over that matter, I believe across more than one internet board




(just referring to the location of information, not dredging up old OT debate)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Allow me to refine my statement. I do not know to what degree the EC was involved in hiring Greg Hahn.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Back on topic...

Don't worry guys, 2.4 is here to stay. It has issues, but they are minor - Extremely minor, compared to 72MHz. But simply because it is not perfect (nothing is), some people prefer to stand on the sidelines and complain rather than (shudder) spend money on a new radio, or worse (major shudder) learn to do something differently.

If some people prefer to stick with last century's technology, that is their prerogative. They will be viewed in the future right along with those who told early auto owners to "Get a horse".

RE: what 2.4 article
 

What? You mean to say that you do not have a horse?

Gerry

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I would think that the AMA has plenty of statistics from competitions and insurance claims to know that there is a problem. It would not take a Master degree in electronics to know that there is a problem, but it would help in solving the problem.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

You can read Warren Plohr's credentials here: https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/PlohrWarren.pdf

The statement that should stand out to us is: Following World War II, Warren enrolled at the Carnegie Institute of Technology to complete his degree in aeronautical engineering. He also taught himself radio electronics from the Radio Amateur’s Handbook.

He was also very concerned with Lithium technology being applied in our hobby when that issue was being discussed by the ETC.
He has been retired from NASA government service for over 30 years and may be just a bit behind the technology curve.

As for the "next" radio systems I have a couple of friends now flying on 430 MHz spread spectrum. Something readily available in the ham circles for experimental uses.

For every new techology there will be some expert to worry us about it. See the lead in to my November column in Model Aviation Magazine regarding an expert's comments on firearm development.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

In 2010 (last year available) AMA received 44 reports of incidents (37 property damage + 7 personal injury) and had 27 liability claims field (23 property damage + 4 personal injury). Over that time frame I do not recall hearing or reading about any incidents associated with a loss of control at an event or otherwise. Not saying it did not happen, but I do not recall any being reported on the forums. I am betting that if there were any they would have made the news as it were.

Not having seen the Hahn article yet, for those that have, does Greg cite actual accident statistics to back up the rumor that AMA sees issues with 2.4?

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Not to be accused of "ageism" but can't the AMA find somebody younger the 90 to be on the "Technology Committee"?

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I suspect most interference will not result in a crash, and most that do will only damage the plane, thus no claim and not much posting in the forums. I suspected that there would not be many insurance claims, that is why Imentioned competitions. Someone could have data on reported glich's compared to 72 Mhz. Not necessarily resulting in a crash mind you.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I recall there WAS a lot of problem with lithium batteries. Still is I suppose but not like it was. This guy was on the AMA frequency committie and responsible for the gold sticker program. I would say he is more qualified than most. Just heard of a 2.4 interference problem the other day. The plane was on its own for about 3 seconds. He thinks it was caused by someone crossing in front of him. That is not a problem with 72 Mhz. What we need is a much lower frequency band that we can use for spread spectrum. Seems obvious to me. That doesn't mean the 2.4 Mhz radios should be banned.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

So how long are you guys going to continue to use or buy 2.4 radio's, until more and more get a "Wow I could have had a V8" moment? Or when more and more lose $10,000 aircraft mysteriously?

So many warning signs out there but people still "Darwin" their planes in the end because they didn't listen. Remember when Ford used Firestone tires on the explorers? Ford denied the problem until more and more got killed, then they said there might be a small problem and that they will look into it. A year later as I recall they told everyone down south to bring in there Ford Explorers to have the tires changed. A massive call back was issued to remove and replace all Firestone tires.

How many people were injured or killed before Ford did anything about it? The 2.4 warnings isn't a life or death issue, but you get the point. Many folks could not believe that a major manufacturer would make mistakes like that, and more deaths ensued. The same goes in the pharmaceutical trade. How many drugs were yanked this past year due to problems that were not previously known to exist, e.g. Avandia, Baycol, Seroquel (which is still on the market as is Avandia, IIRC, but there are many lawsuits arising from the damages from these drugs). - Sure, the 2.4 isn't a life and death matter.... unless you happen to lose control or a brownout or total system failure and it hits someone in the crowd and kills them or puts them in the hospital. I prefer to stick to the 72 because of the long history it has of reliability and the strict guidelines that the AMA imposes on them with the impound. I prefer old and safe over new and shiny any day. It's why I drive a '99 Escort.

The 2.4 isn't here to stay, it's a matter of time that it will be replaced and the better technology is already being tested. All I know is I won't ever buy a 2.4- something that has glitches doesn't go in my $1,000-$2,000 aircraft. Common Sense!


Oh by the way, I DO own a horse, way more dependable and costs way less than a automobile, not to mention they get way better gas mileage for what you put in them, AND you can use the "exhaust" to grow your veggies. Greenest vehicle out there (The Amish are on to something)!

Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Until they pry it from my cold, dead hands

I knew it :D

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I think that's a bad analogy for the point you're trying to make. That analogy would be better suited to trying to convince somebody that they should switch from one brand of 2.4 to another. I'm guessing Ford didn't address the problem of faulty tires by replacing them with the old wood spoke tires because "that's what we used to use and it worked just fine." They replaced them with a different brand of tire that didn't kill people (i.e. same technology, but better performance)

And the companies developing 2.4 systems will do what needs to be done to fix the problems with this relatively new technology. Sweet Jesus! Where would our society be if we scrapped every new technology at the first hiccup in its development. You wouldn't have a choice about whether you were going to take the car or the horse to work.

It's a fad, just like the internet. I think too many of the big name companies have too much money sunk into 2.4 to let it go away anytime soon. Barring a government ban, I don't see it going anywhere for a while. I do, however, agree with the second part of your sentence. If there is indeed some sort of "better technology," it will inevitably replace 2.4, because for the most part that's how the evolution of technology works.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

 Green Mountain R/C Club have so many unexplained crashes on 2.4GHz band that they named their flying field   BERMUDA TRIANGLE !

RE: what 2.4 article
 

If the EC DOES NOT LIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE ED'S HIRED HELP, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE EC TO EITHER PERSUADE THE ED TO FIRE/NOT HIRE THAT PERSON, OR FIRE THE ED, OR CUT HIS APPROPRATIONS SO HE CANNOT HIRE ANYONE, or a dozen other reasons to convince the ED to fall in line to the requests of the elected Directors, Pres., ExVP, and DVPs

THE Buck stops with the EC. They are totally responsible for whatever happens within the AMA with one exception, that exception is the membership that remains sitting on their behinders, not making any noise, and allowing the EC to do as they darn well please. The lazy, uninformed, self serving membership of the AMA holds the main responsibility for whatever the AMA does, or does NOT do. [:-]

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Trying to dissect what I wrote doesn't dispel the 2.4 issue, it only enhances my point. Historically, companies produced new technologies and didn't mass market the technology until all the bugs were solved. The 2.4 radio doesn't fall into that class because it was mass produced and sold on the market before the issues were solved. It all falls on corporate greed more than enhancing a hobby.

There used to be a time when the suppliers and developers enjoyed the hobby themselves and only wanted to improve and expand it. Now unfortunately they care more about the almighty dollar and turn it into a business than really caring about this hobby as a whole out of personal enjoyment. Very sad.

So far I haven't read anything in this thread to dispel what Dave Horvath has written, nor has it solved the issues that the 2.4 radio is having. If the 2.4 radio has no problems, then why am I reading everywhere that people are having issues with them? Why are there so many warnings about them? Why are 2.4 radios suffering from brown and blackouts? Why don't people heed the warnings?

It's just plain dumb in my opinion to buy a product that has so many issues. It's like people buying a Toyota car right in the middle of when they had all those call backs last year. Many bought the new cars, while knowing all the problems so they could join up in the massive lawsuit payout. Is this the reason why most of you people buy the 2.4 knowing the issues is because you're hoping to start a lawsuit down the road?

The reason why why Futaba, JR, Hiteh, and Airtronics don't want to admit that there's a problem is because they are afraid of a massive lawsuit, and they have damage control working overtime to cover up the issue. Believe me, the manufacturers will be the last to admit there's a problem.

When I look at the big picture it all starts makes sense.


Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

PAYED by.......................................SPEC!! there the ones to blame!



Here we go again !!LOL

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Just browsing this thread and have come to the conclusion that nobody ever crashed other than me before 2.4G became availible.

Harry

RE: what 2.4 article
 

[/quote]

If the money is right I'm told that can be arranged. :D