Something unexpected from the AMA
08-01-2008 | 04:05 PM
#27
My Feedback: (61)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
On page 55 in the inset article Peter says: <<<This piece of paper (the waiver) seems to be the most daunting thing for many people. Its not a big deal !!!>>>
Really Pete?? have youi ever tried to go and get one ?? i guess not. I agree with you Harley, not even a AMA member let alone a waiver holder, what was the ama thinking. This ia a slap in the face for all of us waivered ama members and the reason why we are so "touchy" is that our little corner of the hobby is the ONLY part that is regulated by the ama !!!
V..
Really Pete?? have youi ever tried to go and get one ?? i guess not. I agree with you Harley, not even a AMA member let alone a waiver holder, what was the ama thinking. This ia a slap in the face for all of us waivered ama members and the reason why we are so "touchy" is that our little corner of the hobby is the ONLY part that is regulated by the ama !!!
V..
08-01-2008 | 04:06 PM
#28
My Feedback: (28)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Heath,
TX
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Woketman
I know what you are saying Ronnie, I just feel they should have gotten a AMA waivered dude to write it.
I know what you are saying Ronnie, I just feel they should have gotten a AMA waivered dude to write it.
I'm with you, but I'm guessing they are short on contributions.
Maybe some of us should step up and maybe put some stuff together for the Model Aviation instead of just a short jet column that appears once every other month.
08-01-2008 | 04:10 PM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Shok
He does apparently have an AMA membership, just not the waiver which is fine in his case.
He does apparently have an AMA membership, just not the waiver which is fine in his case.
(1) The AMA told Harley this guy is NOT a member
(2) Per the AMA bigwigs, if you are an AMA member you are required to follow all AMA rules at ALL times, not just when you feel like it – in which case an AMA member flying a turbine without a waiver is not "fine" just because he's flying from a private field. (I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD be – just that that's how they ARE according to the AMA).
08-01-2008 | 04:15 PM
#30
My Feedback: (27)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Gordon,
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
According to the AMA, that's wrong on both counts.
(1) The AMA told Harley this guy is NOT a member
(2) Per the AMA bigwigs, if you are an AMA member you are required to follow all AMA rules at ALL times, not just when you feel like it – in which case an AMA member flying a turbine without a waiver is not "fine" just because he's flying from a private field. (I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD be – just that that's how they ARE according to the AMA).
ORIGINAL: Shok
He does apparently have an AMA membership, just not the waiver which is fine in his case.
He does apparently have an AMA membership, just not the waiver which is fine in his case.
(1) The AMA told Harley this guy is NOT a member
(2) Per the AMA bigwigs, if you are an AMA member you are required to follow all AMA rules at ALL times, not just when you feel like it – in which case an AMA member flying a turbine without a waiver is not "fine" just because he's flying from a private field. (I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD be – just that that's how they ARE according to the AMA).
08-01-2008 | 04:16 PM
#31
My Feedback: (28)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Heath,
TX
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
(2) Per the AMA bigwigs, if you are an AMA member you are required to follow all AMA rules at ALL times, not just when you feel like it – in which case an AMA member flying a turbine without a waiver is not "fine" just because he's flying from a private field. (I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD be – just that that's how they ARE according to the AMA).
(2) Per the AMA bigwigs, if you are an AMA member you are required to follow all AMA rules at ALL times, not just when you feel like it – in which case an AMA member flying a turbine without a waiver is not "fine" just because he's flying from a private field. (I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD be – just that that's how they ARE according to the AMA).
So even if you are an AMA member and have your own private airfield, the AMA will not allow you to fly a turbine?
I thought you needed a waiver only if you planned on flying on AMA sanctioned fields?
08-01-2008 | 04:21 PM
#32
My Feedback: (28)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Heath,
TX
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Technicality or not, it was a good job on the issue apparently.
A few posts from the AMA section..............................
A few posts from the AMA section..............................
ORIGINAL: Robotech
Is it just me or has MA gotten better with each coming issue. [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
I like the theme approach they're using now. Last month's float fly theme and this month's jet theme were very interesting and contained allot of good, informative articles.
I used to just skim over the articles but lately have found myself spending more time with the magazine.
I'm not knowledgable on the MA staff and internal workings but whoever is responsible for the change get s my kudos.
Is it just me or has MA gotten better with each coming issue. [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
I like the theme approach they're using now. Last month's float fly theme and this month's jet theme were very interesting and contained allot of good, informative articles.
I used to just skim over the articles but lately have found myself spending more time with the magazine.
I'm not knowledgable on the MA staff and internal workings but whoever is responsible for the change get s my kudos.
ORIGINAL: Jim Messer
This is one issue that I will keep for a long time. The article on getting into jets is well written and answers many questions that I have about these fantastic models. I can't for the life of me see where anyone interested in modeling would trash the magazine before giving it a read, but some persons do just that. It's their loss.
This is one issue that I will keep for a long time. The article on getting into jets is well written and answers many questions that I have about these fantastic models. I can't for the life of me see where anyone interested in modeling would trash the magazine before giving it a read, but some persons do just that. It's their loss.
08-01-2008 | 04:36 PM
#33
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
I do not think you have to have an AMA waiver if you are in AMA and want to fly turbines. The waiver is just that. It waives the usual restriction on AMA insurance from applying to turbines. There is no rule that I am aware of that says you have to have one to fly turbines. If that were the case then no one would be able to fly a turbine to learn how to fly one before getting his or her AMA waiver.
08-01-2008 | 05:16 PM
#34
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Longwood ,
FL
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
I just don't like the slap in the face friom the MA editorial staff.
When I brought this up to the editorial staff, their reply was indicative that they do not have much respect for the waiver holders. Since they chose to accept an article from someone unwaivered (read untrained to the AMA standard) they should step up to the plate and take whatever criticism they receive.
I took up this crusade to see if they would recognize this judgemental error and make the appropriate correction. One of the two replies (from the MA Editor) was, in my judgement, slightly arrogant and somewhat offensive.
I understand that many of you guys like the issue and the articles, and do not see anything wrong with the AMA flagship publication, (That we are paying for) using NON-AMA MEMBER, NON-TURBINE WAIVERED authors to introduce turbine modeling to the membership at large. I do, and that is my major complaint.
I liked the articles too, and will not criticize the authors' communicative abilities. I am only flaming the the AMA's arrogance and their contributor selection criteria.
When I brought this up to the editorial staff, their reply was indicative that they do not have much respect for the waiver holders. Since they chose to accept an article from someone unwaivered (read untrained to the AMA standard) they should step up to the plate and take whatever criticism they receive.
I took up this crusade to see if they would recognize this judgemental error and make the appropriate correction. One of the two replies (from the MA Editor) was, in my judgement, slightly arrogant and somewhat offensive.
I understand that many of you guys like the issue and the articles, and do not see anything wrong with the AMA flagship publication, (That we are paying for) using NON-AMA MEMBER, NON-TURBINE WAIVERED authors to introduce turbine modeling to the membership at large. I do, and that is my major complaint.
I liked the articles too, and will not criticize the authors' communicative abilities. I am only flaming the the AMA's arrogance and their contributor selection criteria.
08-01-2008 | 06:20 PM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: bevar
Gordon,
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
Gordon,
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
Ultra-brief overview follows ; if you want more details, I suggest you look up the old threads or give the AMA a call… I don't want to re-type everything (plus there are plenty of clueless goons who can't separate the message from the messenger and assume I'm backing the dumb AMA policies just because I explain what the AMA has told me, so why invite more of their nonsense..
) AMA covers you everywhere you fly, not just at AMA chartered clubs or AMA sanctioned events. This is basically because many AMA members don't fly in organized clubs. As a result, you are always covered by the AMA, and the AMA would supposedly always get dragged into any lawsuit regardless of whether you actually wanted to use your AMA insurance that day or not.
There is widespread misconception about the ability to 'opt out" of AMA insurance, but the big-wigs repeatedly tell us that the common notions such as "I'm flying on private property, so the rules don't apply", or "I'm in the middle of a gazillion acres of desert, so the rules don't apply", or "I have my own insurance, so I'm not relying on AMA insurance today" are all bogus. This is one of the reasons why e.g. we can't curently have a jet speed event such as the one Eddie Weeks was trying to organize.
The AMA has stated several times that they may revoke the membership of anyone who willfully flies outside of the AMA safety code even if that person didn't 'want to be covered by the AMA' at the time they were busting the rules.
Quite why the AMA is so against us being able to sign a doc to allow us to opt-out of AMA insurance for a given period / event, I'm not sure. Maybe they think that if they make it easy for us to choose to ignore the rules on a given day, we'll all become a bunch of totally out of control loonies ?
Personally, I am all for an opt-out policy but sadly wishing it were so doesn't make it happen.
Gordon
08-01-2008 | 06:23 PM
#37
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
What it shows is that they, AMA, are starting to recognize the popularity of turbine jets reluctantly at best. This is a good thing. I think their dis-association or aloofness so to speak is endemic of this fact that they just are not or haven't been very comfortable with turbines in the past. Otherwise they would have been close enough to this community to actually ask someone who is in it to offer their knowledge in an article. There are several long winded guys that post here every day on the subject who could have contributed.
But you have to give them credit for trying. That coverage will undoubtedly add new interests toward this end of the hobby. It can only help more than it hurts. Lets give them some space to make the right decisions. I think this is a HUGE leap toward our hobby with AMA. Hell, even the editor stated that he was saving up for a future turbine project.
I think your comments were correct and on target. I wouldn't turn it into a war though. It's just doesn't gain anything from bringing the editors mistake to the mat like that. They will defend their jobs to the tilt and only become bitter over it if they have to eat to much crow over this. I think we should try to make them MORE comfortable with us than less.
Andy
guys that post here every day on the subject who could have contributed. But you have to give them credit for trying. That coverage will undoubtedly add new interests toward this end of the hobby. It can only help more than it hurts. Lets give them some space to make the right decisions. I think this is a HUGE leap toward our hobby with AMA. Hell, even the editor stated that he was saving up for a future turbine project.
I think your comments were correct and on target. I wouldn't turn it into a war though. It's just doesn't gain anything from bringing the editors mistake to the mat like that. They will defend their jobs to the tilt and only become bitter over it if they have to eat to much crow over this. I think we should try to make them MORE comfortable with us than less.
Andy
08-01-2008 | 06:28 PM
#38
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
BTW, I have just started reading the article. Haven't got very far yet, but I must admit the opening paragraph made me cringe. Maybe I'm the only one reading it that way, but when he starts the article off suggesting that you want to get into turbines because you are jealous of the jet guys.... ummmm... sounded just a tad elitist to me, and I wonderd how many people might stop reading right there. Am I just overly sensitive to p'ing off 'the masses' ?
Still, no article will be perfect, and at least htis guy has tried, which is more than I have done. (I've done turbine-intro articles for club mag's, but not something as far reaching as this one)
Gordon
Still, no article will be perfect, and at least htis guy has tried, which is more than I have done. (I've done turbine-intro articles for club mag's, but not something as far reaching as this one)
Gordon
08-01-2008 | 06:32 PM
#39
My Feedback: (27)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Gordon,
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
08-01-2008 | 06:39 PM
#40
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bemis,
NM
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
" What it shows is that they, AMA, are starting to recognize the popularity of turbine jets reluctantly at best. "
Well after Condra blasting AMA Leadership, and the publication, you may not see another jet article in Model Aviation for a good while. [
] That means back to rubber band wind-up's, and profile ukies. [>:] Great job. [>:]
... zak
Well after Condra blasting AMA Leadership, and the publication, you may not see another jet article in Model Aviation for a good while. [
] That means back to rubber band wind-up's, and profile ukies. [>:] Great job. [>:]... zak
08-01-2008 | 06:43 PM
#41
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
The article should be judged solely on it's own merits.
I remember lots of whining around here about the AMA not liking turbines and lots of complaining about the AMA attitude towards turbines.
Now, they devote more space than ever before to the topics that the turbine flyers in here love, introducing turbines to AMA members that may have had very little exposure to them and the AMA gets complaints for it, because the author did not have a turbine waiver.
Would you guys rather the author claim that the turbine waiver was easy to get, with some preparation, or would you rather have had him complain about how hard it is, in order to put a little more shine on some of the waiver holding heros in here?..
I just went back and reread the article in question and thought he did a pretty decent job of it. It was quite readable. Some of the style might or might not sit well with people...but you cannot make everyone happy, in any case.
Lets compare this situation to something a little similar in the full scale world.
I am sure a number of you are familiar with Budd Davidson and his excellent pilot reports on many full scale aircraft. (Lots of them at http://www.airbum.com)
Budd often writes pilot reviews on certain aircraft, particularly warbirds, that he has NO TYPE RATING for.
Does this detract from the pilot reports? I don't think so. He is a skilled writer and his first impressions are well communicated and interesting to read. Would his articles be better if he was fully rated in every aircraft he writes of? Don't think so.
Should the full scale aviation mags turn down his articles and wait for someone with the proper type rating to write them?....
I think not.
If the AMA turned down a number of well written introductory turbine articles by turbine wavier holders, you might have a point.
I predict they did not. I predict they went with the best one they had available.
The AMA has done a decent job creating an issue of Model aviation for the jet community. Give them a little credit.
I remember lots of whining around here about the AMA not liking turbines and lots of complaining about the AMA attitude towards turbines.
Now, they devote more space than ever before to the topics that the turbine flyers in here love, introducing turbines to AMA members that may have had very little exposure to them and the AMA gets complaints for it, because the author did not have a turbine waiver.
Would you guys rather the author claim that the turbine waiver was easy to get, with some preparation, or would you rather have had him complain about how hard it is, in order to put a little more shine on some of the waiver holding heros in here?..
I just went back and reread the article in question and thought he did a pretty decent job of it. It was quite readable. Some of the style might or might not sit well with people...but you cannot make everyone happy, in any case.
Lets compare this situation to something a little similar in the full scale world.
I am sure a number of you are familiar with Budd Davidson and his excellent pilot reports on many full scale aircraft. (Lots of them at http://www.airbum.com)
Budd often writes pilot reviews on certain aircraft, particularly warbirds, that he has NO TYPE RATING for.
Does this detract from the pilot reports? I don't think so. He is a skilled writer and his first impressions are well communicated and interesting to read. Would his articles be better if he was fully rated in every aircraft he writes of? Don't think so.
Should the full scale aviation mags turn down his articles and wait for someone with the proper type rating to write them?....
I think not.If the AMA turned down a number of well written introductory turbine articles by turbine wavier holders, you might have a point.
I predict they did not. I predict they went with the best one they had available.
The AMA has done a decent job creating an issue of Model aviation for the jet community. Give them a little credit.
08-01-2008 | 06:53 PM
#42
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: bevar
Gordon,
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
Gordon,
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
The waiver demo is written into the AMA rules, therefore if you do what they tell you to you are not busting the rules. ... and it's not MY logic, it's theirs (twisted though it may be).
08-01-2008 | 06:55 PM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (43)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: La Luz,
NM
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
First issue of the mag I have read in quite awhile. I usually just scan the ads and trash it. I do wish they had used a waiver holder, but the article wasn't too bad. Wonder how long ago it was writen though, since the notary requirement has been gone for a while. Bob
08-01-2008 | 07:03 PM
#44
My Feedback: (27)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jasper,
GA
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
The subject has been covered quite a few times in this forum. If you search for terms like "opt-out" you can probably find them.
Ultra-brief overview follows ; if you want more details, I suggest you look up the old threads or give the AMA a call… I don't want to re-type everything (plus there are plenty of clueless goons who can't separate the message from the messenger and assume I'm backing the dumb AMA policies just because I explain what the AMA has told me, so why invite more of their nonsense.. )
AMA covers you everywhere you fly, not just at AMA chartered clubs or AMA sanctioned events. This is basically because many AMA members don't fly in organized clubs. As a result, you are always covered by the AMA, and the AMA would supposedly always get dragged into any lawsuit regardless of whether you actually wanted to use your AMA insurance that day or not.
There is widespread misconception about the ability to 'opt out" of AMA insurance, but the big-wigs repeatedly tell us that the common notions such as "I'm flying on private property, so the rules don't apply", or "I'm in the middle of a gazillion acres of desert, so the rules don't apply", or "I have my own insurance, so I'm not relying on AMA insurance today" are all bogus. This is one of the reasons why e.g. we can't curently have a jet speed event such as the one Eddie Weeks was trying to organize.
The AMA has stated several times that they may revoke the membership of anyone who willfully flies outside of the AMA safety code even if that person didn't 'want to be covered by the AMA' at the time they were busting the rules.
Quite why the AMA is so against us being able to sign a doc to allow us to opt-out of AMA insurance for a given period / event, I'm not sure. Maybe they think that if they make it easy for us to choose to ignore the rules on a given day, we'll all become a bunch of totally out of control loonies ?
Personally, I am all for an opt-out policy but sadly wishing it were so doesn't make it happen.
Gordon
ORIGINAL: bevar
Gordon,
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
Gordon,
Where does it say you have to have a waiver to fly on private property? I thought you only needed the waiver to fly at AMA fields (for the insurance coverage).
Thanks,
Beave
Ultra-brief overview follows ; if you want more details, I suggest you look up the old threads or give the AMA a call… I don't want to re-type everything (plus there are plenty of clueless goons who can't separate the message from the messenger and assume I'm backing the dumb AMA policies just because I explain what the AMA has told me, so why invite more of their nonsense..
) AMA covers you everywhere you fly, not just at AMA chartered clubs or AMA sanctioned events. This is basically because many AMA members don't fly in organized clubs. As a result, you are always covered by the AMA, and the AMA would supposedly always get dragged into any lawsuit regardless of whether you actually wanted to use your AMA insurance that day or not.
There is widespread misconception about the ability to 'opt out" of AMA insurance, but the big-wigs repeatedly tell us that the common notions such as "I'm flying on private property, so the rules don't apply", or "I'm in the middle of a gazillion acres of desert, so the rules don't apply", or "I have my own insurance, so I'm not relying on AMA insurance today" are all bogus. This is one of the reasons why e.g. we can't curently have a jet speed event such as the one Eddie Weeks was trying to organize.
The AMA has stated several times that they may revoke the membership of anyone who willfully flies outside of the AMA safety code even if that person didn't 'want to be covered by the AMA' at the time they were busting the rules.
Quite why the AMA is so against us being able to sign a doc to allow us to opt-out of AMA insurance for a given period / event, I'm not sure. Maybe they think that if they make it easy for us to choose to ignore the rules on a given day, we'll all become a bunch of totally out of control loonies ?
Personally, I am all for an opt-out policy but sadly wishing it were so doesn't make it happen.
Gordon
The reason there is no "opt out" is that the insurance policy is a contract that has a definition of "member". To allow "opt out", the AMA would need to approach the insurer, modify the contract to put an administrative process in place to allow people to legally "opt out" and make sure it would stand up in the event of a claim. Difficult to do, and as a company exec, I can tell you it would be highly unusual and not very positively received by the insurer. Also, it is unlikely that there would be any premium reduction for it. There are a myriad of smaller issues, but basically in today's insurance world it would be an administrative burden, highly unusual and not viewed as practical.
I am aware of one situation where an individual with the AMA discussed revocation of membership for violation of the saftey code, but I don't believe this would be representative of the current leadership. My personal opinion, though I do work closely with them on the insurance committee and I have been involved in a few specific conversations around this point.
08-01-2008 | 07:04 PM
#45
My Feedback: (27)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Gordon,
I found them. Actually I am glad this topic came up, because it made me re-read the rules that govern us. They can be found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/510-A.pdf
It's usually a good idea to study and review the rules we fly by once and a while, because we tend to forget some of them. I actually was able to answer a few questions I had about some other stuff I was wondering about so I am glad you enticed me to do some investigating.
One thing I discovered/un-forgot is that 200MPH is a hard limit. I wonder how many times a day that gets broken?
Anyway...the rules are at the link for all to see.
Beave
I found them. Actually I am glad this topic came up, because it made me re-read the rules that govern us. They can be found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/510-A.pdf
It's usually a good idea to study and review the rules we fly by once and a while, because we tend to forget some of them. I actually was able to answer a few questions I had about some other stuff I was wondering about so I am glad you enticed me to do some investigating.
One thing I discovered/un-forgot is that 200MPH is a hard limit. I wonder how many times a day that gets broken?
Anyway...the rules are at the link for all to see.
Beave
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
I'm not just talking about insurance either - I'm talking about the fact that the AMA says you can't opt-out of following the rules when you want to, and the AMA's stated ability to revoke your membership for busting rules even when you thought you didn't have to because "I was on private property" / "I didn't want the AMA's insurance, I was using my own that day" / any other opt-out excuse you want to consider.
The waiver demo is written into the AMA rules, therefore if you do what they tell you to you are not busting the rules. ... and it's not MY logic, it's theirs (twisted though it may be).
ORIGINAL: bevar
Gordon,
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
Gordon,
I'm really not talking about insurance...I was more curious as to where the rule was that exactly says you can not fly a jet unless you have a turbine waiver. Using your logic...how could anyone ever pass a waiver check since they are supposed to do it "solo"?
Beave
The waiver demo is written into the AMA rules, therefore if you do what they tell you to you are not busting the rules. ... and it's not MY logic, it's theirs (twisted though it may be).
barry
08-01-2008 | 07:23 PM
#47
My Feedback: (27)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jasper,
GA
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
I'll admit I was a little disappointed that the JPO was not approached for input or even given a heads up that this issue was coming. But I think some of you have indicated we have to take some accountability for that, and I agree. I believe the proper action is to thank them for the positive exposure they gave the jet community and get to know them a little better, so the next time around we are the "go to" people.
I know I am on a soap box a bit, but I think we sometimes expect too much of people and don't allow for them to be human. The intent was not malicious. It was probably just an overworked editor on a deadline who wasn't very familiar with jets and so we get what we got. I know I've probably screwed up at least one thing in the last month a lot worse.
Harley, thanks for the heads up. As a suggestion, perhaps the JPO should create a single point of contact with the publications office, much as we have with the insurance and safety committees, just to make sure we take the accountability to stay in touch. Can't hurt.
I know I am on a soap box a bit, but I think we sometimes expect too much of people and don't allow for them to be human. The intent was not malicious. It was probably just an overworked editor on a deadline who wasn't very familiar with jets and so we get what we got. I know I've probably screwed up at least one thing in the last month a lot worse.
Harley, thanks for the heads up. As a suggestion, perhaps the JPO should create a single point of contact with the publications office, much as we have with the insurance and safety committees, just to make sure we take the accountability to stay in touch. Can't hurt.
08-01-2008 | 07:24 PM
#48
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: pilott28
I am aware of one situation where an individual with the AMA discussed revocation of membership for gross violation of the saftey code, but I don't believe this would be representative of the current leadership. My personal opinion, though I do work closely with them on the insurance committee and I have been involved in a few specific conversations around this point.
I am aware of one situation where an individual with the AMA discussed revocation of membership for gross violation of the saftey code, but I don't believe this would be representative of the current leadership. My personal opinion, though I do work closely with them on the insurance committee and I have been involved in a few specific conversations around this point.
With Dave Mathewson in charge (who to me seems much more reasonable than DB, in the exchanges I've had with him), you may well be right that the threat is fairly unlikely to be turned into actual action. My intent here is simply to educate people to the AMA's stated position and the possible downside that exists … what the actual odds are of the threat being carried out is something I leave to others to guess.
A reasonable analogy here may be people driving, say, 75 mph on highway 85 here in my hometown. A gazillion people do it every day without penalty, but just because the hammer hasn't yet fallen on them, that doesn't mean that we should tell everyone that "75 mph is fine – you're allowed to that".. because once someone DOES get hammered for 75 mph in a 65 mph zone, they're entitled be p'd off that we misinformed them. Let them know what the real rules are, and if they judge that the risk vs reward is stacked in favor of busting the limit, at least they are doing so while being correctly informed.
08-01-2008 | 07:33 PM
#49
My Feedback: (27)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jasper,
GA
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
I've had the "may revoke membership for willfully flying outside the safety code" info in writing from a number of AMA officials.
With Dave Mathewson in charge (who to me seems much more reasonable than DB, in the exchanges I've had with him), you may well be right that the threat is fairly unlikely to be turned into actual action. My intent here is simply to educate people to the AMA's stated position and the possible downside that exists … what the actual odds are of the threat being carried out is something I leave to others to guess.
A reasonable analogy here may be people driving, say, 75 mph on highway 85 here in my hometown. A gazillion people do it every day without penalty, but just because the hammer hasn't yet fallen on them, that doesn't mean that we should tell everyone that "75 mph is fine – you're allowed to that".. because once someone DOES get hammered for 75 mph in a 65 mph zone, they're entitled be p'd off that we misinformed them.
ORIGINAL: pilott28
I am aware of one situation where an individual with the AMA discussed revocation of membership for gross violation of the saftey code, but I don't believe this would be representative of the current leadership. My personal opinion, though I do work closely with them on the insurance committee and I have been involved in a few specific conversations around this point.
I am aware of one situation where an individual with the AMA discussed revocation of membership for gross violation of the saftey code, but I don't believe this would be representative of the current leadership. My personal opinion, though I do work closely with them on the insurance committee and I have been involved in a few specific conversations around this point.
With Dave Mathewson in charge (who to me seems much more reasonable than DB, in the exchanges I've had with him), you may well be right that the threat is fairly unlikely to be turned into actual action. My intent here is simply to educate people to the AMA's stated position and the possible downside that exists … what the actual odds are of the threat being carried out is something I leave to others to guess.
A reasonable analogy here may be people driving, say, 75 mph on highway 85 here in my hometown. A gazillion people do it every day without penalty, but just because the hammer hasn't yet fallen on them, that doesn't mean that we should tell everyone that "75 mph is fine – you're allowed to that".. because once someone DOES get hammered for 75 mph in a 65 mph zone, they're entitled be p'd off that we misinformed them.
Your assessment of Dave is spot on ... I am impressed with his listening skills and ability to collect facts and act in a rational fashion. I would also say the EC in general is moving in that direction. There are a number of VPs now that are pretty progressive in their thinking and very open minded toward many aspects of the hobby.
08-01-2008 | 07:44 PM
#50
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ft Wayne, IN
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: u2fast
i read the article. i didnt recgonize the name, but i assumed it is a pen name. looked like a pen name, oo chrome a? many write articles under assumed names. who knows? barry
i read the article. i didnt recgonize the name, but i assumed it is a pen name. looked like a pen name, oo chrome a? many write articles under assumed names. who knows? barry
