Something unexpected from the AMA
08-02-2008 | 09:31 AM
#77
My Feedback: (37)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
with all that thought in the name, it must be a smart guy.
and i said it earlier, all for nothing. i knew it was a pen name from the start, it is a common practice. barry
ps and i knew who it was, after all there was a build thread on that mighty fine jetmach (often copied, but never right) model on another site sometime ago, and if memory serves me well, the model was later for sale on this very site. i didnt need hercule poirot to solve that mystery.
and i said it earlier, all for nothing. i knew it was a pen name from the start, it is a common practice. barryps and i knew who it was, after all there was a build thread on that mighty fine jetmach (often copied, but never right) model on another site sometime ago, and if memory serves me well, the model was later for sale on this very site. i didnt need hercule poirot to solve that mystery.
08-02-2008 | 10:05 AM
#78
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Seems to me if the AMA can exclude models over 55lb they can also exclude anything
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
08-02-2008 | 11:56 AM
#79
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: ira d
Seems to me if the AMA can exclude models over 55lb they can also exclude anything
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
Seems to me if the AMA can exclude models over 55lb they can also exclude anything
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
The safety code is something clubs and CDs should enforce to prevent loss. Policy exclusions are there to determine if a loss is covered by the insurance contract. Two different things, but you are not alone in thinking they are one and the same.
08-02-2008 | 02:06 PM
#80
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: pilott28
Weight and turbine waivers are different. Speed is too elusive to be a part of claims processing, as are many other aspects of the safety code.
The safety code is something clubs and CDs should enforce to prevent loss. Policy exclusions are there to determine if a loss is covered by the insurance contract. Two different things, but you are not alone in thinking they are one and the same.
ORIGINAL: ira d
Seems to me if the AMA can exclude models over 55lb they can also exclude anything
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
Seems to me if the AMA can exclude models over 55lb they can also exclude anything
else they want to, Me thinks somebody has pulled the wool over somebody.
I see no difference between flying a model over the weight limit and flying a turbine
without a waiver as far the acts being outside of the safety code.
The safety code is something clubs and CDs should enforce to prevent loss. Policy exclusions are there to determine if a loss is covered by the insurance contract. Two different things, but you are not alone in thinking they are one and the same.
But as I said before if they can make an exclusion for models over 55lb they can sure
make one for someone flying a turbine without a waiver, Also it would be simple to
change some wording if needed to make things more clear.
Also the safety code already says failure to follow the code may jeopardize your
benefits or something to that effect and that sure sounds like an exclusion to me.
08-04-2008 | 09:30 AM
#81
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Raffy wants a piece of this one! 
What's wrong with Harley expressing his opinion? I agree that the article was a little strange, maybe even misleading at times.
E.g. used turbine engines blessed by jet cat are A-Ok in my book, or my two rebuilt turbines are the two fastest and most reliable in my stable or the bikini clad pit crew, I wish....
[
]
Could Harley have been more diplomatic? Sure. We can all learn to be more graceful and elegant, especially myself.
Notice how the "new" posters are being the hardest on Harley. That maybe representative of the "new" guys. I'm new myself, I've only had my waiver for 3.5 years.
The hardest thing for me to accept was to read the part about getting the waiver as, "its not so big a deal" when the author CLEARLY does not posses one.
But can I truely argue that point??? Shoot, I did it, and I only clip a few trees when I fly my jets!!
Ergo, anyone can do it!!
Is getting into Med school a big deal? How about a top Law school or business school? Ok, a turbine waiver and med/law school, just a little different, granted.
But they all entail alot of responsibility.
I think the author (Curtis was that really you?, you dog ) really meant it as an encouragement not to down play how daunting it was for others to get their waiver, myself included.
Yes, its true ET doesn't have a turbine waiver. Its no secret, go the AMA pdf pages and try to look him up. He's not there. He knows he can't fly at jet events. If he tried to sneak in and got caught, well, he's a grown man and will face the consequences.
I'd help Curtis get his waiver in a heartbeat. Yeah, he's wierd at times but he's a great addition to this hobby.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Harley at Florida Jets. His posts are insightfull and have helped many people including myself. I applaud you for expressing your opinion.
Raf
What's wrong with Harley expressing his opinion? I agree that the article was a little strange, maybe even misleading at times.
E.g. used turbine engines blessed by jet cat are A-Ok in my book, or my two rebuilt turbines are the two fastest and most reliable in my stable or the bikini clad pit crew, I wish....
[]Could Harley have been more diplomatic? Sure. We can all learn to be more graceful and elegant, especially myself.
Notice how the "new" posters are being the hardest on Harley. That maybe representative of the "new" guys. I'm new myself, I've only had my waiver for 3.5 years.
The hardest thing for me to accept was to read the part about getting the waiver as, "its not so big a deal" when the author CLEARLY does not posses one.
But can I truely argue that point??? Shoot, I did it, and I only clip a few trees when I fly my jets!!
Ergo, anyone can do it!! Is getting into Med school a big deal? How about a top Law school or business school? Ok, a turbine waiver and med/law school, just a little different, granted.
But they all entail alot of responsibility.
I think the author (Curtis was that really you?, you dog
) really meant it as an encouragement not to down play how daunting it was for others to get their waiver, myself included. Yes, its true ET doesn't have a turbine waiver. Its no secret, go the AMA pdf pages and try to look him up. He's not there. He knows he can't fly at jet events. If he tried to sneak in and got caught, well, he's a grown man and will face the consequences.
I'd help Curtis get his waiver in a heartbeat. Yeah, he's wierd at times but he's a great addition to this hobby.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Harley at Florida Jets. His posts are insightfull and have helped many people including myself. I applaud you for expressing your opinion.
Raf
08-04-2008 | 09:34 AM
#82
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
Oh,
And as I understand it, if you want to fly a turbine with out an AMA waiver then you shouldn't join the AMA. There is no law that I know of that says you can't do just that.
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
Raf
And as I understand it, if you want to fly a turbine with out an AMA waiver then you shouldn't join the AMA. There is no law that I know of that says you can't do just that.
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
Raf
08-04-2008 | 09:55 AM
#83
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: ravill
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
That AMA position does mean that, regardless of the use of a pen-name, the AMA rag is still effectively showcasing someone who is busting the AMA rules ... but I'm used to that kinda stuff from them so I don't get worked up about it.
For me personally, the positives from that article considerably outweigh the relatively minor negatives. Due to this controversely though, this is also the first time I've opened that rag in about a year. Usually it goes straight to the doctor's / dentist's office just because reading it has historically been a complete & utter waste of time IMO.
Godon
08-04-2008 | 10:43 AM
#84
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
That's certainly the way the AMA sees it. (Or at least, that's how they saw it last time I checked ... it's not uncommon to get completely contradictory statements from them depending on the day of the week, so if you ask again tomorrow, who knows...)
That AMA position does mean that, regardless of the use of a pen-name, the AMA rag is still effectively showcasing someone who is busting the AMA rules ... but I'm used to that kinda stuff from them so I don't get worked up about it.
For me personally, the positives from that article considerably outweigh the relatively minor negatives. Due to this controversely though, this is also the first time I've opened that rag in about a year. Usually it goes straight to the doctor's / dentist's office just because reading it has historically been a complete & utter waste of time IMO.
Godon
ORIGINAL: ravill
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
If you want to fly a jet and are an AMA member, then, as I understand it, then you need a turbine waiver, regardless of where or when you fly. Gordon?
That AMA position does mean that, regardless of the use of a pen-name, the AMA rag is still effectively showcasing someone who is busting the AMA rules ... but I'm used to that kinda stuff from them so I don't get worked up about it.
For me personally, the positives from that article considerably outweigh the relatively minor negatives. Due to this controversely though, this is also the first time I've opened that rag in about a year. Usually it goes straight to the doctor's / dentist's office just because reading it has historically been a complete & utter waste of time IMO.
Godon
I'm not saying there isn't any but I have not seen any concrete evidence.
Andy
08-04-2008 | 11:01 AM
#86
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
I'm not an expert by any means, but I do believe in going to the source for as accurate as possible info on stuff like this. Consequently I've had numerous phone conversations, email exchanges etc with the past and present AMA officials whose job it is to know the right answers.
Unfortunately they do sometimes contradict themselves or each other, so sometimes it's hard to know whether they actually do understand the stuff they're explaining to us, but what I'm reporting on RCU is the latest and most consistent answer I've had from them.
Gordon
Unfortunately they do sometimes contradict themselves or each other, so sometimes it's hard to know whether they actually do understand the stuff they're explaining to us, but what I'm reporting on RCU is the latest and most consistent answer I've had from them.
Gordon
08-04-2008 | 11:09 AM
#87
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
This has been one of the more entertaining threads (that was not summarily deleted) in a long time! I've had to unblock several contributors to get the full "color" of all the thread.
It is really unfortunate the AMA choose to let Curtis (or "Pete Balsawood" as MrMatt so aptly decoded ...) hide behind a pen name in Model Aviation. While many of us might disagree with Curtis/ET on a variety of topics, and his behavior patterns can be a bit (ummm) odd, he does have an entertaining and informative writing style; plus, most of his "facts" are correct. In our modeling press here in the USA I think he should step out from behind the cloak of a pen name.
I think I'd be (dis)inclined to help Curtis if he asked - weird or not, there seem to be some fundamental character flaws at hand. <edited 06APR08> And Harley, you rock, dude! - I'm probably more (un)tactful than you at times and I applaud the lack of tolerance you have for any fool. I'll back you up in a street fight any day, any time.
Vincent observed ...
… what was the ama thinking. This is 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 !!!
… what was the ama thinking. This is 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 !!!
raf wrote ...
I'd help Curtis get his waiver in a heartbeat. Yeah, he's weird at times but he's a great addition to this hobby.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Harley at Florida Jets. His posts are insightful and have helped many people including myself. I applaud you for expressing your opinion.
I'd help Curtis get his waiver in a heartbeat. Yeah, he's weird at times but he's a great addition to this hobby.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Harley at Florida Jets. His posts are insightful and have helped many people including myself. I applaud you for expressing your opinion.
08-04-2008 | 01:32 PM
#88
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: East Falmouth, MA,
MA
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
08-04-2008 | 07:06 PM
#89
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: Ray Davis
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
I do find it encouraging that the AMA would give so much positive press to our small corner of the hobby. I'm not sure that would have happened in the past ..... it says we are making progress.
08-04-2008 | 10:25 PM
#91
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: Synthetic
Does anyone have a picture of "EasyTiger" so I will know who he is when I see him?
Don
Does anyone have a picture of "EasyTiger" so I will know who he is when I see him?
Don
08-04-2008 | 11:17 PM
#93
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
ORIGINAL: pilott28
The JPO was not approached. As I said earlier, I don't think it was out of malice or an intentional snub. We are a small SIG and probably not very visible to the editors. We will find a way to introduce ourselves on a positive note and next time around perhaps we can be a more active contributor.
I do find it encouraging that the AMA would give so much positive press to our small corner of the hobby. I'm not sure that would have happened in the past ..... it says we are making progress.
ORIGINAL: Ray Davis
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
I do find it encouraging that the AMA would give so much positive press to our small corner of the hobby. I'm not sure that would have happened in the past ..... it says we are making progress.
Andy
08-05-2008 | 09:08 AM
#97
My Feedback: (18)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springfield,
MO
RE: Something unexpected from the AMA
It looks like he does quite a bit of flying.
He does this at a non-AMA field?
I wonder why he doesn't join the AMA..it's not all that much money compared to how much we blow on this hobby..
I think he's sold a few jets on this site.
Overall I thought his article was pretty good and for a newbie to read I think it would hit the spot. I was glad to see some jet coverage rather than wind up rubber band airplanes and control line stuff..
Don
ps...thanks for the pictures...
He does this at a non-AMA field?
I wonder why he doesn't join the AMA..it's not all that much money compared to how much we blow on this hobby..
I think he's sold a few jets on this site.
Overall I thought his article was pretty good and for a newbie to read I think it would hit the spot. I was glad to see some jet coverage rather than wind up rubber band airplanes and control line stuff..
Don
ps...thanks for the pictures...
