Mathewson VP Dist II reports on turbine regs

$2.5 million. Assuming of course, that is model related.

Not if the week before I have run my aircraft through a school yard during a no score soccer game. The mothers then sue me, and my insurance company. As my coverage fell short AMA picks up $2,499,999.00 for my stupidity, covering the remainder of the suit.

That would leave $1.00 for you and all the rest of the AMA members to share until policy renewal time.

Wrong. Do you have any idea of the aggregate value of the policy?

The last time I read it, it was not per occurance. My insurance agent told me it was an aggregate policy. Would you care to enlighten me as to the aggregate total?

It is also the reason I upped my homeowners and made sure it covered me putting my slowstick through my neighbors windshield.

I would be happy to. The aggregate is $15,000,000. You can confirm that on the AMA webpage, Membership Manual, Page 2.

Since the highest claims the AMA has ever actually paid out were .9 mil for a FF caused fire for property damage, and 1.3 million to a CL flyer for personal injury, it should be sufficient.

Yea, just WHAT did he advise them?

Oh well. Probably won't be seeing C.O. around for a while.

When has the AMA ever published who was paid what for which claim?

Are you ABSOLUTELY sure of that amount? How much was the family paid for the pylon judge who was killed in Arizona in 1990s? I understand that the settelement amount was kept confidential. I was the CD for the event.

There must be some perceived problem or why go through the trouble of making new requirements?

Any selected number is arbitrary unless there is scientific proof of the effect. Why 200mph? Why not 180mph? That is safer, isn't it? Why not

220mph? That isn't all that much faster.

Cheap shots? Personal insults? Does your comment, " f*ck off you simpering ass." ring any bells?

If that is not cheap and personal, I don't know what is. But maybe in your pathetic life it isn't. I'll give you that benefit of the doubt.

Chuck

Glad to see you guys caught it. Not that you'll believe it was intentional. But I don't care!

Now I'd like to apologize to the rest of you. Politics is a subject I get wound up about. And I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in it here. But I did and I am sorry. I will try to do better in the future.

Enough of this! Chuck

There's where you're wrong Fred. You have never provided one shred of evidence! Except maybe in your mind!

Gee Fred, you said, (Sorry for the long quote but, I didn't want any of the context to be misunderstood!)

"Just another example of un-enforceable "rules" from Muncie. Seen any model airplane traffic cops lately ? How the Magnificent Eleven propose to _enforce_ that nonsense rule should make for interesting reading.

It does, however, go right along with the present mind-set of the EC in terms of inventing new ways to brow-beat the members into being politically correct right-thinking sheep.

the brown-shirts now running the country could give a rat's ass about the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, or anything else except insuring that the general population is convinced that they, TSA and FAA, are doing a good job of keeping terrorists at bay.

In fact TSA and FAA have done nothing to thwart terrorist threats, they've simply driven the cost of commercial aviation through the roof while providing nothing more than pure and simple harassment of the fare-paying (and tax-paying) public.

It's as if Mr. Brown & Co. would like to limit model aviating in the US to indoor rubber so they could point out that our models bear no semblance to the sort of UAV terrorists might employ.

I'd much rather Mr. Brown & Co. attempt to educate the TSA and FAA folks regarding the difference between modelers and terrorists.

If you look at a couple of my giant scale gassers absent any other considerations, they could possibly be construed as a threat by the uninformed. TSA and FAA are supposed to be informed agencies, and they need to learn how to tell the difference between me and a suspected terrorist. It's up to AMA to properly inform TSA and FAA regarding how to deal with model airplanes and model airplane lunatics.

I rarely agree with Jim McNeill, but one thing he says over and over is that the AMA isn't about models, it's about people, and in this decidedly narrow context he is quite correct.

The way TSA and FAA can tell the difference between me and a suspected terrorist is by looking at _me_, not my models. Mr. Brown & Co. have failed to realize that fine point, and are busily making sure TSA and FAA won't find anything wrong when they look at our _models_,

TSA and FAA are looking in the wrong direction, just as federal agencies are prone to look. AMA bears the responsibility of pointing TSA and FAA in the proper direction, that is, the _users_ of RPVs and UAVs, not the aircraft themselves.

If we want to preserve our hobby, whether we're in AMA or not, we need to educate The Feds. The only organization capable of being recognized as competent to do that educating is AMA.

If anyone knows of another organization in the US capable of being accredited by TSA and FAA I'd sure like to know about it, but AFAIK AMA is the only such entity."

Now explain to me where this isn't personal, insulting and just plain rude? Potty mouth is my preferred description for it! But again, where's the evidence you claim to have provided?

Chuck

The AMA does not publish amounts covered by non-disclosure agreements. They do publish the "lump" settlement for the year, after all claims for a year have been closed, which may occur years after the claim is filed. They have an average of 4 years of open claims at any given time. The amounts have been verified on the two cases involved, although the details on the property damage claim have not been disclosed. The personal injury claims are disclosed by the attorney for the plaintiff and are a matter of public record now. I have no idea as to what as to what the settlement was on the case you mention, but, it is less than the cases that I cited.

message

Awww, so now your interested in the logic. As I said, you may feel it is flawed. I have drawn no conclusion, personally.

There is general agreement that a large model, in the 55 pound range can be seen out to a distance of about 1400 ft, well enough to control it. At 200 mph the aircraft is traveling at about 300 ft sec. That gives a time of about 10 seconds to "lead" the model within the eyesight of a modeler. At

300 mph, that drops to about 6 seconds... considered not enough time. Turbines, unlike other aircraft, have the potential to reach such speeds and exceed them.

The speed is airspeed and not ground speed, which means that the aircraft may exceed 200 ground speed by a considerable margin. Most other types of models that fly in excess of 200 ground speed are being flown on a closed course, such as pylon or extreme soaring, where the basic nature of the event dictates the inputs to the model.

In addition, separation is not an acceptable substitute for turbines. Giant Scale Pylon, for instance, is required to take place 700 ft from spectators. (Of course, no such rule exists for practice). The issue with turbines, which is acknowledged by the waiver holders, is the potential for fire when a crash takes place. The change in fuel has reduced that risk, but still exists to a greater degree than other aircraft, by several orders of magnitude.

Should have read the amounts have been verified as the largest in their class. The line about the attorney disclosing the claims should read claim, singular.

Hey Fred-

How many times do you have see Kevie's signature mantra before you realize you're engaged in discussion with a turnip?

Abel

Just one observation JR. You're assuming a 55 pound model falls within a certain dimensional size. As that is what really determines how far away it can be seen. Not the weight. But your basic point about speed and acreage covered is valid. The jets have the potential to eat up the distance mush faster than the prop jobs. With the resultant greater potential for loss of control.

Chuck