Jim_McIntyre

The spins here are making me dizzy.

The arguments on either side haven't convinced me, I was at the AGM presentation by Transport Canada and, although it was friendly enough I couldn't help but feel we had "woken the sleeping giant". The speach seemed too tailored to the audience....

My personal take (has to be said) is that this whole process began as a personal Agenda (not mine) to involve Transport Canada with a goal of opening the doors to much larger models. I got the impression that Transport Canada was a bit shell shocked with the numbers (size, weight, horsepower) of a certain individuals presentation of their large aircraft ( including some spectacular crashes ).

I also got the impression that Transport Canada was hoping we would be able to continue as self managed ... providing we were to continue to work with them on definitions and restrictions... this latter seemed more reactionary.[X(]

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

I believe there were two incidents that "woke the sleeping giant"; One member making approaches over a large number of spectators with his turbine and another where a large Aerobat doing doing 3-D type flying dumped it in front of spectators. Neither produced injuries, but each produced separate complaints to transport Can. by non-modelers.

I think Jim's take is pretty close, but I don't know what you mean about "personal agenda" part? Apparently, as they investigated, they did get a bit "shell-shocked" by what we were now flying. (ie; sizes, motors, speeds) As noted earlier, the administration at the time had no knowledge of MAAC, but were pleased to learn we were there and willing to let us handle modelling issues, but needed to come up with a modern Definition of what a "model aircraft" was. I was on my way out at the time and don't know if they have managed to clear that hurdle yet as they were scrappin about the definion. ..go figure . Transport Can. wanted us to keep it simple, with a generic description and a limiting weight. The Natural suggested weight would be the same as our insurance restriction, but then the personalities started banging heads and I'm not sure if or where it ended.

I'm the last one to want more government micro-management in any area of our lives, but TC does hold all the cards in relation to aircraft (big and small) and we need to keep close to those who play those cards lest we be blindsided. The fact that TC didn't even know we existed showed how we were neglectful in that department.

IMO, one of MAAC prime functions is government liason.

Jim_McIntyre

Let's let that one go, I shouldn't have mentioned it as I'm not about to discuss the matter without that person being here to defend their motivation. Suffice to say, I got the impression they were pushing to increase size restrictions by chaging the current definition in our insurance coverage by having a government body recognize some larger definition.

Old Scottish saying (loosely translated to be more politically correct):
"Never 'have relations' with someone who can turn (toss) the Caber(100 lb log) further than you".

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

LOL......not bad Jim.

For the record, I wouldn't be in favour of larger models being covered by MAAC. Not to say, I wouldn't like seeing them, but I think if you're going into models into the hundreds of pounds, you are on your own.

I think the current limit is around 77lbs. (not certain on that)

britbrat

The really big fellas are super cool -- they also scare the snot out of me.

Jim_McIntyre

You're scaring me britbrat ... I think we have more in common than not.

We probably differ in opinion on turbines though ... they scare me more than wood chippers in a playground! [X(]

britbrat

I'm reluctant to agree, considering that I've already offended Andrew enough -- but yes, while they are stunning works of technology & the birds are shatteringly beautifull & exciting (I really would like one) --- they are absolutely terrifying as well.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Oh....I think there have been numerous times when your facts were slightly (I use that term loosely) skewed. Intentional or not only you can say....

With the first part of your comment I certainly hope you are not referring to me as being young and naive....

can773

My Feedback: (1)

The most dangerous part of the hobby at the moment is charging large Li-Po batteries

Nothing like a good pile of highly flammable material being charged at high rates (400W) :-)

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

What kind of an engineer uses terms like "slightly", "loosely" & "skewed"? Must be some kind of industry rule you are fracturing? Is there some governing body of Engineers I can bring this to their attention?

.............you are silly and young to suspect such skewed meaning in my loose scribblings. [8D]

can773

My Feedback: (1)

MarK....did you not know that engineering is the science of "close enough"?

Although if you feel I have been incompetent and unethical as a professional engineer please speak to Regulatory Affairs within APEGGA (http://www.apegga.com/Regulatory/Complaints/toc.html) and lodge a complaint.

Prior to that though, please read the 9 lessons to comprehending engineers first....you may possibly understand us a bit better after that.

http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/download.php?id=15240

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Holy crap.............i'm an engineer too!

can773

My Feedback: (1)

To think...I went to school for 4 years to be one.......[:@]

Oh wait, but you dont have that cool ring on your little finger like me though LOL

jhelps

I've played with both Horseshoes and Hand Grenades ... both significant examples of close enough !!! Where can I pick up my ring

JH

britbrat

Hmmmmmm --- me too [8D]. That's why we'll never be "right on" with each other -- just "close enough"

Jason Holdaway

Chad,

the 9 lessons to comprehending engineers was a riot. I will be taking that one in to work. I'm not an engineer, but I am in the engineering department.

Jabba

and do you think it is any different with the AMA!!!