RE: EC Conference Call
 

David,

Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. I had to drive 400 miles round trip to get ground schooled and obtain the second signature on my waiver. For the satisfaction of being able to fly turbines, it was worth it. (Not to mention getting to see all of my Mississippi Gang buddies!!!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that troubles me more than speed limiters and a 200 MPH limit is the idea of limiting turbines to 22 lbs for single turbine planes. What will I do with only 22lbs of thrust in my Euro Sport I plan on buying??? Not to mention what it would do to the larger turbine sales in the US. I see the trend in turbine planes is for them to get larger----Not faster.

Kevin

RE: EC Conference Call
 

I was informed that they did it to avoid SANTOS episode in the future.

(
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_34.../tm.htm#340039

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_25.../tm.htm#255527
)

Regards

Ben

RE: EC Conference Call
 

I agree. Not many of the top manufactures are trying to build "Bandit" type jets to try to go faster than the last. The Kingcat is a good example of what I think will be coming, bigger jets.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Guys,
There again.One guy in the history of turbine waivers allegedly falsified some docs(I remember reading about this incident last year),and now we all have to be notarized cause we can't be trusted.I don't even know if that whole deal was true,but don't they seem alittle spring loaded to notch up the red tape?I just hope reasonability and common sense prevail.
Erik

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Doesn't look like it.

Requiring a notarised signature just to avoid the issue that alledgely happened once before, is totally bogus.

There are any number of ways of handling this concern, without going through all the BS of finding a notary. A common sense example would be that when the AMA receives a waiver application, they can email the TCD who's name is on the sign-off, and ask him to confirm the sign off.

Sadly, "common" sense is often an oxymoron whwn it comes to bureaucracies.

Gordon

RE: EC Conference Call
 

But Gordon...That would be the logical thing to do!!!:eek:

I can't remember....Is the notary requirement just for a new waiver applicant or will everyone that renews their waiver every year have to get the renewal notarized??? If it is the latter instead of the former I can see where the AMA would not want to Email the TCD's over 750 waiver renewals. But, if that's what they want then the AMA should take the measures to see if the waiver was properly issued. Even having the document notarized isn't fool proof. I know of several notaries that will notarize a document on the instruction of their boss or by doing a friend a "favor". Getting in touch with the TCD directly seems to be the best way to weed out any potential problems.

Kevin

RE: EC Conference Call
 

YOU DON"T HAVE TO HAVE A TURBINE CD DO THE RECERTIFICATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S JUST ANOTHER TURBINE HOLDER>>>>>>> AND YES I KNOW THE DAMN CAPS LOCK IS ON I AM YELLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our understanding is that it was only to be the first year that it had to be notarized....this was the AMA's idea not the TRC.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

The notarized signature requirement was added onto our proposal by the EC. The requirement was to be for the 2005 renewals only. The Santos incident was not mentioned to me in relation to the reason why this requirement was written into the rules (but that does not mean that it did not play a role the in the EC's decision to add it).
I was told that it was added in hopes that people would take the renewal sign-offs more seriously and realize that they were signing a "legal document". Since the renewal sign-offs could have been done by any turbine waiver holder (not just CD's) the EC just wanted to make sure that each of the people signing their names that first year gave it some thought before simply signing anyone's renewal.
When I first heard that this requirement had been added I thought it was un-necessary but after giving it some thought I can understand the EC's thinking it does seem to make some sense.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

David,

Open up your computer and let the smoke out!!!!!!!!:)

RE: EC Conference Call
 

David,

Easy boy....EASY!!!! I already knew this but had a brain fart----Is that allowed??? Now, go back and take a few Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, Valium, or what ever you need to calm down. ;) Thaaaaaaat's it----relaaaaaaaaaax..........Don't forget to breathe.


Kevin

RE: EC Conference Call
 

LOL....... Just wondering how many times it had to be repeated! No drugs here.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

David,

I wonder how many times I'll need to read it before it sinks in.....[&:]

When will the PayPal deal be available to join JPO??? I left the hobby for a while and failed to rejoin when I jumped back in with both feet. Like Woketman, I too am ashamed for not rejoining.....AND, I really have no excuse being a former officer in JPO. I'm fully aware of what it takes to recruit new members and to keep the old ones. (I worked my *ss off in this regard as an officer) We should be asking not what JPO can do for us, but what we can do for the JPO!!! Right now, we need a larger voice so we will be heard and get what we need from the AMA.


Kevin

PS....I'm just wondering----Is Ralph Bailey still in the hobby??? I haven't kept in touch w/him since I left the hobby and returned.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Is that Bailey the pulse jet guy?

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Kevin,

I was planning on having it set up by now but I had a death in the family Saturday. I am going to Triple Tree this weekend and will try to get it setup before that.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

No---Ralph is a former (the 2nd) president of JPO. The first president (I can't remember his name) had a little trouble getting JPO off of the ground. Ralph took the reins and the JPO membership exploded. Ralph had an excellent way with people....He kinda reminds me of Joe Gibbs.

Kevin

RE: EC Conference Call
 

David,

Sorry to hear about the death in your family. I recently went through the same thing.....Take your time---I can always mail it in.

Kevin

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Ralph is still around, still in south carolina. Not as active as he used to be, but he does read contrails and supports the organization still.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Kevin,

The first president was Dave Tyson, I believe from somewhere in FL. He was in charge when I joined. You're right, Ralph & Dewise were the folks who really got the ball rolling.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

I sent my $25 to the JPO on Thursday, we really need our voices to be heard by the AMA. All of the other types of flyers do too, they just don't know it yet.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

See Motion III at : http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...3ecmotions.asp for update from AMA.

Also pay attention to the VP's that voted originally against the new turbine rules:
Dist V: Jim McNeill
Dist VII: Bill Oberdieck
Dist IX: Russ Miller.

RE: EC Conference Call
 

I just finished reading the minutes of the ec [link=http://modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/1103ecmotions.asp]meeting motions[/link]. I know that the AMA was formed to to promote the interests of the model aircraft community. I can understand why 'sigs' are formed to help direct and promote the interests of each group. What gets me is that many people say that without the sigs the ama, which is supposed to be looking out for our interests (that is 1 reason we pay dues right as the ama isn't just an insurance agency right), would impose extreme regulations in each aspect of the sport. Is it just me or is something wrong here. So now we have to pay more money and join another group, jpo, to look out for our interests like the ama was supposed to do!! (that's why we joined the ama right?)

Anyway, back to the EC meeting. After reading it, I thought of it like this. Say the ama (compared to the dmv) wants to regulate turbines (cars) so the ama (dmv-department of motor vehicles) wants everyone to have a speed limiter (govenor on a car) set to 200 (55) and another waiver holder (licensed driver) to swear (notary) that you drive safely and have driven at least 20 times in the last year or they wont give you the waiver (your drivers license). Never mind that you have NEVER had any TICKETS in the past. If you don't yet have your waiver (drivers license) you have to come to a jet event (car show) or arrange to meet a turbine qualified cd (an official at the dmv) and demonstrate that you can fly a high performance aircraft, (a hopped up bicycle) not turbine (car) (as the event obtained waiver doc expires at the end of 2003) thru certain maneuvers safely.

So unless you put a govenor on your car set to a maximum speed of 55, get another licensed driver to come to a notary to swear that you can drive safely and have driven your car at least 20 times in the last year the dmv wont issue you a drivers license. If you don't have your drivers license, you have to go to a car show or to the dmv to meet an official and demonstrate on your bicycle that you can drive safely. Hey, maybe the dmv should start operating like that, lol.


Jon

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Please Note;

Russ Miller had talked to turbine pilots in his district prior to the meeting and they asked him to vote against the proposal until they saw it, so he did what the turbine guys in his district asked him to do. I wish the Dist IX turbine guys would have asked what the details where so they could have supported this effort.

Steven

RE: EC Conference Call
 

This letter from DB to someone else was forwarded to me by Jim McNeil in response to my e-mail. I think that Mr. Brown makes his feelings very clear. DB has not responded to my e-mail.

RGDS, Bill



Your letter wasn't addressed to anyone specific, so I thought I might take a shot at answering it, as it's obvious, that I'm the "target".

Yes, the EC decided to hold off on the new regulations,,,,,why?

I suspect the principal reason was the very mixed information which the turbine committee provided, which is full of conflicting messages.

The Turbine community has not done a, particularly good job of, actually, policing itself, particularly in the area of performance control, and pilot proficiency. The proposed regulations substitute more rigid paperwork, and pilot proficiency requirements as a substitute for the old system, which relied upon the community to be self-policing. In all of the time the program has been in place, We have heard a lot of talk about inadequate, and dangerous, pilots, yet, I don't know of a SINGLE case where anyone in the community has stepped up, and recommended that AMA withdraw a waiver for this reason. The program depended on this happening, and it didn't. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the community, seem to fall short of the words they use in terms of safety. Admittedly, 90% of the community is, probably doing a good job of regulating itself, but it's that other 10% which cause all of the problems.

The proposal was presented to us, with the statement that the speed controllers CREATE a "dangerous" situation, rather than eliminate one. While this is certainly possible, the fact that these have been REQUIRED under the old regulations for a long time, for certain models, and we have heard NOTHING questioning this in that entire time,. is of some concern. If they weren't working, or, especially, if they were creating a safety concern, wouldn't you think it would have been reasonable for the community to come fwd to AMA, and discuss the problem??

Perhaps speed limiters are not the answer, just as the thrust to weight limit is not the answer to speed containment, BUT, the "instant" elimination of them will surely not encourage anyone to try to make something which WILL work. The turbine category has grown, and flourished under the previous set of rules, and I do not think returning to them for sufficient time to allow further study of ways to make them work, or come up with an alternative, will have any, substantial effect on the activity. On the other hand, rushing into a new set of rules, COULD push many people into investing into the very type of equipment which the new rules allow, only to find the rug pulled out from under them at a later date.....a much worse situation.

Speed limiters are controversial....no doubt about that....but so is allowing, virtually, unlimited speed. This is particularly true, in the absence of any "stepping block" method of determining who is allowed to go how fast. As it is, any person, with a thick checkbook, can go from never having flown an R/C model, to 200MPH, in a very short time, without gaining the necessary skills, and, more importantly, judgement, necessary to be safe with a VERY fast model. Do you think HE is capable of judging when he is flying in excess of 200? Do you think HE will throttle back? I've taught a lot of people to fly, and throttle management is the hardest thing to get people to do. The tendancy is to push it forward, and leave it there.

Relying on the pilot to judge whether he is exceeding the 200mph speed is not reasonable, yet, right now, it would appear we have no speed limiter which is accepted as working by the community, and all of the hysteria of the "bad things" the speed limiters do is causing a frenzy out there, in which ANY solution is not easy. Removing the speed limiter requirement, at this time, would, almost certainly, put a stop to any further development of something which WOULD work. The best way to drive the development of working devices, is to create a demand, and the best way to create that demand, is to leave the requirement in place, and, perhaps, even start to enforce it.....a novel concept, I'm sure.

IF, in the end, it proves that speed limiters are not the answer, then we will have to become more creative in coming up with ways to contain the speed, to keep the risks to a level which is acceptable to those who provide the insulation from that risk, called insurance, as well as keeping it within the cost, acceptable to the people (all 170,000 of them), who pay for that insurance.

Please understand that I am NOT "anti turbine". What I am is somewhat conservative in terms of risk taking, and, as President, I have to do what I think is best for all 170,000 members, and best for the aeromodeling sport, as a whole. A few years ago, I got branded "anti pylon" for a while, but, as you can see, Pylon is still flourishing, and nothing I did put them out of business. Likewise, nothing I will do will put Turbines out of business. The community still has the capability of doing that all by themselves and. they don't need my help to accomplish it.

As to getting another hobby....I love the one I'm involved in, and I don't want to think back to a time when it was permitted, but I sat on my ......hands...., and let a very small group of people, threaten my right, and the rights of the entire AMA membership, to enjoy it., by making it illegal, or, prohibitively expensive.

EVERYONE suffers??? Unless they sold a hell of a lot of turbines, in the last 24 hours, I find this comment a little exagerated. Last time I checked, we had issued less that 1000 turbine waivers. The only way "everyone" suffers, is if the AMA EC does something, in haste, which causes a substancial increase in insurance cost.......or, worse yet, puts the entire sport in jeopardy, THEN, "everyone" suffers.

FYI.....the EC members, I can guarantee you, have put in FAR more hours of work on behalf of aeromodelers, than the turbine committees, and they don't get any paycheck, either.

Dave Brown

RE: EC Conference Call
 

DMV - laws, police, fines, prison terms

AMA - regulations, us ..........

Steven

RE: EC Conference Call
 

Until I read that diatribe from DB above, I thought a little more of him and was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He is laying this squarely on the heads of the turbine fliers, and reading through the lines, he don't give a rat@&* if we just faded into oblivion. I don't care if Dudley Dewright runs against him the time around, he (DB) ain't getting my vote, and I actually send mine in.
Tommy