Mathewson VP Dist II reports on turbine regs

Telling tall tales is your forte, not mine.

F*ck off, dimwit. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust

Why don't you really thrill them all then and follow my lead? I dare you!

Chuck

So much for YOUR word . . . Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust

You are a most pathetic creature.

Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust

Never gave my word Fred. You should really brush up on your English. They are a lot of words with more than four letters!

This from Fred and he calls me pathetic?

"Seen any model airplane traffic cops lately ? The Magnificent Eleven Just another blowhard Now, f*ck off you simpering ass. Self-serving blowhard I gave no "word" twit. anal arrogant smart-ass comments Kiss my ass, j****ff.

horseshit artists More horseshit facetious prick You are without a doubt this august pack of lunatics You and your fictitious attorney can kiss my ass Got a problem with harsh language ? Too damn bad. F*ck off, dimwit."

Now pardon me while I go to the barn, get some exercise and shovel some Fred!

Chuck

I agree Six. It's obvious we're dealing with someone who's lost touch with reality.

Chuck

You are talking about abberations that would not be covered by the AMA under past and current rules. Under what scenario would ANY of these be averted by a new set of unenforceable restrictions? Remembe, any time you set limits, you need to also consider how to verify compliance. Where is that in the new rules?

Well, if you quit responding, maybe the thread would diw.

On the flip side, show me a time the AMA has denied payment because someone DID violate the rules?

Not to sound flippant but, to quote Fred:

"It's a public forum, you are not in charge, no one is forcing you to participate."

But that's Fred! :)

Other than that, I agree with you. But one question, what's a "diw"?

Chuck

The reason that the new rules were passed, and then put into abeyance, is to allow time for further input on speed limiters. THAT is THE issue confronting the EC and the waiver holders.

You are BOTH sounding like little kids on the playground saying "I know you are but what am I"

No one is going to rescue their "good name" on this forum by continuing to "prove" each other right or wrong. Quite the contrary.

I don't have access to the inside information, do YOU?

extraordinary

SPEED LIMITERS? That is COMPLETELY absurd! If this rule is to cover all fixed wing aircraft, how will you use a speed limiter on a sloper?

extraordinary

Read the rest of the thread... carefully. It was NEVER a proposal to include all aircraft, just turbines.

incorporate

Of course not! And someone on the group may know of one. But my point is, it's been stated before that the AMA has never denied coverage when the rules were violated. Not sure who but I think it was DB and it's been reported here. If true, it sets a precedence which could be argued in court in the event the AMA decided to ever play "by the rules". As a result, even the current rules are un-enforceable simply because the AMA has never denied the main thing everyone joins for. Insurance!

So who cares what it weighs or how fast it can go! The AMA will pay because they always have in the past. Regardless of adherence to the rules!

Chuck

incorporate

And like I said Paul, that's Fred! i.e., it's not me!

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. But oh well!

Your words : "I'm outa here".

Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust