Mathewson VP Dist II reports on turbine regs

REad Gregs post about three down this thread!

conversation

Yes, it IS you if you keep responding to every post.

snip

from the >>DII and AMA sites, I have to wonder where it stands now?

snip

I was going from the original post that included these links;

I understand the reasoning behind the Turbine ruling especially in the fire context. I just hope that some lawyer doesn't look at this restriction and question why it doesn't all apply to all. To many years examining FAA reg's and docs combined with a vested interest in pylon racing led to my question about the wording. I hope I'm totally wrong.

Greg

Paul, did you see the e-mail from Mathewson explaining the questionnaire which follows? A quick follow-up on the Turbine Regulations Questionnaire discussed in my previous email (copied below).

1. Two members emailed and said they had trouble submitting their completed form. Doug Crawford, District 2 Webmaster, speculates this may be due to some browsers or email programs that are incompatible with the software used to create the questionnaire. He has recreated the questionnaire using another program. If you tried to submit your comments and they bounced back to you, try again. If you're not sure, go ahead and send them again anyhow and we can purge duplicates.

1. Apparently, there is some minor ambiguity in the questionnaire. The questions are word for word from the document passed out at the turbine seminar held in California during the AMA Convention. The questionnaire titled "Turbine Questionnaire" pertains to turbine powered models only. To help clear up any confusion the word "turbine" has been added to question 3 to now read, "...........would set an overall maximum velocity for RC fixed wing "TURBINE" aircraft at 200 mph.

Dave

Dave Mathewson

AMA Vice President, District 2

Baldwinsville, NY 13027

315.635.1039 (Fax)

-----Original Message-----

From: AMA District 2 Discussion [mailto:AMA snipped-for-privacy@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM]On

Behalf Of Dave Mathewson

Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 10:24 AM

To: AMA snipped-for-privacy@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Subject: Turbine Regulations Questionnaire

Dave Brown, in his column in the most recent issue of Model Aviation, raised issues concerning modeling, risk management, and defining a "line in the sand" relative to modeling activities. The impetuous behind Dave's column is the new regulations for turbine models passed at the November EC meeting. After the meeting, in a conference call, Dave Brown asked that we hold these new regulations in abeyance until additional information, that was made known to us the week following the meeting, could be reviewed. A majority of the Council agreed.

At the AMA Convention in California last week a seminar on these new turbine regulations was conducted. At that seminar a questionnaire was passed out to gather input from members attending and addresses three basic changes in the revised regulations. An online version of that questionnaire is available on our AMA District 2 website at

Please take a minute to review documents and then complete the questionnaire. The results will be included in a follow-up discussion to be held at the February EC meeting. If you have any specific questions, fire away and I'll do my best to answer them. When you hit "Submit" to send your completed form it will be sent by email directly to me. Thanks for your help, Dave

Dave Mathewson

AMA Vice President, District 2

Baldwinsville, NY 13027

315.635.1039 (Fax)

Even better! However, not being a member of the AMA I tend to ignore what they print and follow the rules of good sense. Not common sense mind you. Because I have found that which is common is not always good!

Chcuk

And where did I say I wouldn't be back? You assume too much!

And as for posting an address. Is my not posting a valid address any different than you using a filter on everything? Accomplishes much the same thing and probably for much the same reasons. Of course you don't filter everything! Just as I don't deny my address to everyone. This place however, does not get my address as do some other places. And I have gone over a year with zero span in my inbox!

Chuck

You mean like you're doing?

Yes, Just like I am doing.

Then I rest my case!

(Gee! How long do you think we can keep this line going?)

Good Kevie, then the rest of us can rest!

Let me see now! Fred made derogatory statements about the government (thought the way it was written one could easily assume he meant the President directly and not the AG as he claims).

Now I don't mind someone disagreeing with the government or the President for that matter. But comments like "Brown Shirts" is simply not called for. Especially considering what the Brown Shirts did and represented. That's like using the 'N' word on some people.

So I challenged him on it to which he responded with profanities! And you and Red obviously are siding with Fred!

Why am I not surprised the two of you would side with a vulgarity as opposed to doing what is right? Maybe you simply don't care anymore? Maybe you're just grumpy old men? Maybe the only things you can get up anymore are your planes and you do that poorly?

Maybe you're just so blinded by your own hate of anything decent!

I have a case. You simply have no clue!

Chuck

Those times are rather meaningless for general flight routines as they only pertain to the model flying directly away from you.

My question still stands, why an arbitrary speed limit that will be impossible to ascertain and enforce?

Maybe it's a number the insurance suggested!

That would make sense. Then they could always use the old advertising ploy of making it 199mph!

snip

Like I said, I HOPE I'm totally wrong...but I seriously doubt it. Knee-jerk reactions to patch a perceived safety issue is the norm anymore. The conversation I overheard had nothing to do with turbines but showed DB (and AMA) is looking at the racing venues too. IF you jet pilots want this, go for it just don't expect us recip pilots to lie down too.

One point that must've been lost somewhere was that as long as an all inclusive statement is included under a subtitled section, it's only exclusive to that section...at least in the world according to the AMA it would seem.

I wrote that section you referred to because I was leaving on a trip and wanted to make an attempt to settle this. It doesn't mean we aren't watching and waiting.

Greg

So where is this darn questionaire?!&%!%@!

Every time I have clicked on the direct link in the last 8 hours I only got a "document not available", and I have changed cybercafes. And on the amadistrictii homepage there is no hint as to where this questionaire might be!

Does anybody here have the same problem as I do?

Peter

The adjective usually goes before the noun. :o)

It's possible the questionnaire got taken down by the webmaster. Dave Mathewson has already come home from the meeting that the form was to help him prepare for.

He said that there was a modification of some kind in the proposed fuel rule and that the rest of the proposals were enacted (again). Some jet guys apparently participated in the discussion and had a chance to air their concerns.

Marty

Here is the report from Dave Mathewson verbatim. In it, you'll see that the "jet guys" I mentioned are complimented for their presentation on the issues.

Marty

No, that is a revelation! Many times rules are passed in a knee-jerk response to some veiled or perceived problem. The fact that experts (people who DO rather than WATCH) were involved is a GOOD thing.