RE: Scale Combat Wingspan rules?
[b]ddemu[/b], AMA, per se., does not impose anything on the modeler referenced organized competition rules. That is done by the Contest Boards, volunteer groups of modelers involved in any specific event. The Contest Boards are generally composed of individuals involved with the Significant Interest Group (SIG) that promotes that specific event and/or interest. Whatever is "imposed" is done by the SIG in conjunction with the Contest Boards that establish the official Competition Rules. There is where you need to go if you decide you wish to make a change. http://www.rccombat.com/ for a start. Check current rules for Scale Combat. It doesn't take much effort to add some wing span or reduce same. Enjoy!
Posted on: 11/20/2009 11:55 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9267583

Check this out.
You may like to look these items over. http://americanjuniorclassics.com/frank_macy_collection-index.html Estate collection of the late Frank Macy. Lots of old-time goodies. IMO not cheap! However there are many items.
Posted on: 11/19/2009 2:18 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9265427

History is available:
For all that wish to really be informed, I suggest you spend more time at the following link than in this forum. This link provides over 10 years of the Academy of Model Aeronautics' true business (or lack thereof) planning and actual directions. Here you can find just what has transpired, however some conceptual skill is required to put it all together. [b]Great Winter Fireside Reading.[/b] [sm=49_49.gif] [b][size=3]http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/organization/ec/news.aspx[/size][/b]
Posted on: 11/18/2009 11:00 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9262642

RE: How to handle a difficult pilot!
[quote]ORIGINAL: 2PUPS I am an ama member . I have my good views and bad views on it . But this is one I have to take a stand on . Why does a county give the authority to an ama club , to set and regulate rules at a PUBLIC PARK which is meant for all to use at their own discretion , within the laws of said county . Do these clubs maintain the park , do they pay to use the land , or is it , they just think its their right , to have it as their club flying field . I believe if an AMA club wants to have thier own field , to set thier own rules , either lease private land or buy it outright , if you cant do that join the nearest charterd club to you . Let the average family guy have a relaxing time flying at the local PUBLIC PARK , without anyone telling him , its thier rules or else be gone . Thats my beliefs on this subject , if you dont agree with it I dont care . [/quote] 2PUPS, I came into this thread somewhat earlier, injecting what I thought was some tongue-in-cheek humor. Whether it was or not makes no diff. Now check out CP's post right after yours and he says it all in a short post. I have to talk a lot more, and probably say less. [&o] There are many facilities where the local county/city government does just that: Some club is charged with maintaining some semblance of order. The Cook County Forest preserves, Chicago, IL does, or definitely did, when I lived in that area and the fields are still active. Harris County here in the Houston area does so and it seems to work. May I ask you to consider just what do you think might happen if some young college student that loves animals and is working part time for the county parks dept. is given the job of determining the worth of model airplanes? She reports that they only disturb the animals and should be banned. Don't laugh, it has happened. Would you prefer a Parks Dept. making rules that they are in no way familiar with the sport, or would you prefer an established club providing the rules and trying to enforce them and the Parks Dept. going along? Think on it because in this day and age, anyone should know that money and "friends" go together and when the low-money crowd is not providing either to a governing body, it is no secret just who gets the short end of the stick. One club, one situation cannot be the trend setter. What is happening in many local areas can be used as evidence for any club to show that local governing authorities that designate an AMA (national organization) and a recognized local organization (AMA Chartered Club) will operate in a fashion for the best interest of all as their objective. Property already in the public domain is not private property except to the agency that has control. It will be used for something, so why should an organized local group [b]not[/b] go for it. RC modelers are their own worst enemy. They want everything for nothing. Great idea, however this world does not work that way. IMO, I have no problem with AB County/city/whatever, providing a flying site, designating "Y" AMA Chartered Club to oversee it, and requiring AMA membership to use it. [i]Notice I did not say Club membership.[/i] One more point is that a club can be blamed for those irritating things that do happen, and the politician that voted for the site to be there, can say all kinds of things as it dies down. The fliers still have their field, and the politician still gets elected. WIN -WIN. [:D]
Posted on: 11/15/2009 4:40 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9255675

RE: My visit to AMA museum.
Yes, S. Sammy, the museum is one fine unit of AMA. IMO I think almost everyone would enjoy seeing the museum, especially if they truly love the sport of model aviation. One of the great things about the History of Model Aviation is that, to best of my knowledge, all the progress in the Sport has been accomplished by those that do love the sport and they have never had to beg for governmental assistance. Ain't it GRAND? [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
Posted on: 11/14/2009 10:33 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254326

RE: Am I the first? Will I be the last or only?
[quote]ORIGINAL: mongo hey hoss, have i permission to quote verbatim any of your posts i feel need to be seen on other sites? [/quote] Sure, Mongo. However, do please quote me correctly. Please don't allow red to train you differently. [:D]
Posted on: 11/13/2009 9:09 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9252137

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mode One When I joined AMA there were slightly less the 60,000 members. The organization was strong then, I don't see a reduction in membership being a killer for the organization. [/quote] Yep, no vision there, and if President Bush had stood before Congress on Sep 10, 2001, and stated that there would be a [b]fighter net[/b] over the NYC area tomorrow, because some rather unsociable persons were going to fly civil airliners loaded with passengers, into buildings in NYC on the 11th, next day, the entire Media would be out demanding for the white-coated fellows with butterfly nets to come and take Bush away. Vision is very difficult to have when one closes both his eyes and his mind.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 9:55 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223835

RE: Membership Numbers 2009 closeout, ETC>
Thank You Rufcut. I was not aware of that fact. I spend little, almost no time, thinking about USAF. My politics are devoted mainly to the Washington crowd. However I checked the link, and I liked it. Unfortunately, I place these ideas to those GREAT TACTICAL MINDS, that after WW I determined that there would never be a need for fighters as there would never be another time when dog-fighting would happen. They repeated it after WW II and again after Korea, and after Viet Nam. They stated that aircraft could never sink a battleship. They stated that aircraft would forever be only to support infantry. I still see movies, documentaries, fanciful forecasts, and all the great reviews of the U.S. great military systems. OTOH the U.S. has NOT WON A WAR SINCE WW II, when the WILL-TO-WIN prevailed. The U.S. Leadership lost that will a long time ago. Fighting with toys when the winning weapons sit only to rust away does not make me feel very secure. Some say that winning is not everything, it's how you play the game. I say if you're not going to win, why keep score. [>:] Of course, the USAF program may provide more folks playing with our kind of toys, however a 1000 per year is no great number the way AMA is going down hill. You see, I really have this thought back in my brain that there is an ulterior motive designed to gradually phase out a membership-type AMA. I have spoken about that in earlier times.
Posted on: 10/31/2009 11:53 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9219008

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy Hoss, Is AMA restricted, as a nfp, as to selling its MA asset only to other nfp's? Or because MA is a wholey owned sub not organized as nfp itself, AMA selling off that non-nfp Sub is unrestricted ? because if it is the latter, that opens up a whole lot more bidders at the fire sale [/quote] To the best of my knowledge, considering I have not performed any extensive research these past couple years, the latter is correct. A NFP can buy and sell in the markets as well as anyone. The difference is when the NFP becomes insolvent, and has to close operations.
Posted on: 10/30/2009 11:01 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214874

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy Robo- [quote]Why would want an ''empire'' that looses $1mil a year? Maybe a company that's making money and wants to be a NFP? Right. An I have a unicorn that eats colored marshmallows and poots a rainbow.[/quote] Answering your question: Because not all owners of the magazine will run it the way AMA has, some might run it [i]goaled[/i] to be a profitable part of their overall NFP. We've already covered the $ and # details so I wont/cant rehash them. . [/quote] One thing that should not be overlooked; AMA is a NFP 501 (c) (3). [i]Model Aviation[/i] is a wholly owned subsidery corporation, "non-related business" of AMA. [i]MA[/i] itself is NOT a NFP. If AMA was thinking about going "belly-up" there is nothing to stop AMA from selling off the subsidary corporation [b]PRIOR[/b] to going into bankruptcy. Now just who might purchase [i]MA [/i]and who might turn it into a profitable business, well, WHO KNOWS??? "Only the SHADOW knows!" [>:] Someone explain that to the youngsters! [:D]
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:06 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214136

RE: RE:
[quote]ORIGINAL: SDCrashmaster I know a ton of RC'rs...and not one that is involved with those genres. Now, I know that there is a faction interested in that aspect of the hobby, but I have a suspicion it has been their interest since the dawn of flying models, and that interest never progressed when actual Radio Control systems became available. I'm all for history, but that's exactly what that stuff is, history. We have the ''Mecca in Muncie'' for when we need an RC history lesson. It's 2009 now. [/quote] There is a large number of folks returning to their ancient historical time right now, including me. [quote] Can you even purchase Control Line stuff at the average LHS? Why focus on it in a magazine...other than an article or two per year? [/quote] At the SMART ones you can. At least one Major Hobby Shop in North Houston area is finally getting smart. [quote] Heck, there's traditionally been more of that stuff in there than Turbine-related stuff...I mean c'mon. [/quote] Ever think that is because probably more people doing CL than turbines? [quote] Always proud to live up to my username[;)] [/quote] Then you might feel even better if you change it to "conceited bigot". [:-] For ever person you look down on, you can be assured that there are a thousand looking down on you.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 1:37 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205110

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
[quote]ORIGINAL: bogbeagle I'm interested in this subject, although I fly in the UK, under the umbrella of the BMFA. Our organisation is ''evolving'', too. But, I'm not a business-boffin, so I wonder whether you could explain what you mean by, ''re-structure to EAA standards...''? [/quote] Actually, bogbeagle, when it comes to our U.S. tax laws, NOBODY is a true expert overall, and the Oh-So-Many different sections even keep the Master Certified Public Accounts in a dither. My oldest grandchild - grand-daughter - is a CPA and an Informational Specialist, now engaged in auditing large corporate computer systems. When I start grilling her on complicated tax issues, she starts smiling and changing the subject. [:)] Back to your question and EAA standards: In our U.S. system there is a section of our [s]Infernal[/s] OOPs, I mean [i]Internal[/i] Revenue Service (IRS) which are the keepers of the tax things, and their great chunk of regulations is called the Internal Revenue Code, (IRC). Section 501 (c) has to do with the organizations that are granted preferred tax exemptions as they are a "Charity" in one way or another, with a number of different applications. Examples are IRC 501 (c) (3) and IRC 501 (c) (7). The (c) (3) is about the top of the list in that if I give money to that one, I can deduct that sum from my computed gross Taxable Income for federal income tax purposes. Often referred to as "tax deductible" although just a figure of speech, as the amount is deducted from taxable income, not the tax itself. The (C) (3) unit itself is exempt from Federal Income Tax, but can OWN other businesses which are called "Un Related Businesses" and these businesses are subject to Federal Income Tax. There are restrictions on the 501 (c) (3) activities. The (c) (7) is an organization recognized as a charitable unit and one that does good things, yet gifts to it are not deductible from the donor's income when computing federal income tax. (c) (7) gets a number of tax breaks for its own use purposes, such as no need to file an income tax report unless gross income from business OTHER than member dues, exceeds some $30,000 +/- per year. Would have to look it up, and too lazy to do so, yet I'm certain you get the idea. [b]EAA:[/b] The main portion of EAA itself is basically a "C" Corporation. Stocks, regular corporate status Directors, Officers, employees, and most of all to the overall unit, a "C" Corp. can LOBBY, LOBBY, Lobby and did I say "lobby?" As AMA, a (c) (3) unit now does, it can go into discussions with the FAA about the stuff that is happening ref. airspace. What AMA cannot do big time is mingle with the Senators, the Representatives, department heads, etc., that make the laws of the land. You see, bogbeagle, when the right sources are properly greased , lots of squeaks seem to get quiet. Know whut' ah mean?? Now EAA, at my last journey into research, had at least two units that qualify for IRC 501 (c) (3) status. Those corps however depend on the mother-lode, the C Corp which donates much in one way or another to the (c) (3) units. [b]EAA is not run by amateurs.[/b] The big boys are there to turn a dollar profit. They get about every program they want passed by Congress, which goes down through the Transportation Board, to FAA which has no choice but to accept the Congress' law of the land.
Posted on: 10/26/2009 2:32 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9203449

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
Kid, the membership drop has been 10% in the last 10 years, yet the peak was 2002, which makes the percentage since 2002 to be 18% drop using the 2002 high as the base figure. The total paid distribution has dropped consistently with those membership figures. What gets me is that only 486 copies of the magazine were sold through hobby shops, etc. for 2009 (10-08 /10-09.) [i]MAN[/i] and [i]FM[/i] are still out there on the newsstands, [i]MAN[/i] with a LOT of advertising, in head to head with [i]FLY RC[/i], or it was some time ago, while FM just keeps providing all discipline information with a small amount of advertising. Of course that may change big time since the ever popular leader, Hal Carstens, has moved onto that great model railroad and flying site in the Western Sky. So I would not rate MA to be like it is, but with the digital scheme all set up and paid for by AMA members, with a fair relationship instilled with some of the big advertisers, I think those established and in the know, could well do some real business with some 80,000 distribution. Since one would be buying only a name and such, I'm thinking at an IRS fire-sale the entire business could be had for well less that $200,000.00 Then with proper management, that $1,000,000.00 annual loss could be turned into at least $500,000.00 net + per year. Not bad! For years I have been predicting AMA would have to restructure to EAA standards or someone would wind up holding a captive insurance company and/or a publication business. I'm now leaning far to the latter. Membership will no longer be a factor.
Posted on: 10/26/2009 1:57 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9202397

RE: If ama ever goes belly up
[quote] Thats where MA come's out making a profit[;)] You can bet there are ways that these people in high offices are covering their BUTTS. They say they are working for nothing , but I bet they have some print in the contract some where they have a hand in things some where. HEEEY HOSS what do you think[:D] Larry k What are Expense Accounts[8|] [/quote] Like Mongo said Non profits, IRC 501 C units, if disolved, overages can only be distributed to other 501 C units already operating. Of course in that distribution the IRS usually has a fire sale and stuff goes cheap to bidders. Then those monies will go to the other 501 units. Now just who would bid on land and facilities? WHO WOULD BID on a publications corporation already established in the business? Model Aviation is a separate wholly owned corporation, called, IRC 501 C, an "Unrelated Business", and could be a very good buy, as it is almost twice the distribution ( 128,538 copies as of 9-16-09 ) of MAN and 3 times that of FM. Who would bid on a Captive Insurance Company funded and hiding somewhere on a back burner? Who could turn these non-profits into profitable business since as of now they have no established competition? Beats 'L' outa' me who would do that kind of thing! [sm=greedy.gif] Take a look at page 176 of this Nov. issue of MA. Slowly read the 2nd essay/topic starting with"Your Academy.... and continue to last sentence of 3rd column "...is always our goal. [b]What is your take on that message?[/b] My take is big dues increase coming 2011 with a strong currently declining membership, and you are to be ".....patient and understanding...." [sm=wink_smile.gif] Hey, the real answers to "belly up" may well be coming sooner than you think!!
Posted on: 10/25/2009 9:48 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9201839

RE: RE:
[quote]ORIGINAL: SDCrashmaster So there's no ''control line'' or peanut stuff in there? Sounds like things are lookin' up. [/quote] Did you really look at the magazine? I really wonder if you did, as I ask you what do you think the feature article, "Stearman 4E" by Mr. Frank Beatty, page 28, was? Hand Launch Glider, balloon, or Park Flier or what? [8|] Mr. beatty has been a fantastic craftsman for many years. Most everything I have ever seen of his has a bellcrank and wires, plus being a thing of beauty. Yep, good buddy, you have again earned your rating as you CRASH again. [:D]
Posted on: 10/25/2009 9:15 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9201739

"Model Aviation" AMA mag. Nov. GOOD!
Debated among myself [:D] whether this should be in AMA forum or here. However I think as many as possible should have a chance to see it. The Nov. '09 issue of AMA's [b][i]Model Aviation[/i][/b] magazine is just full of good information. Many folks say they don't read it, and if you are one of those, may I suggest this time just for fun, you take a good look. [:-] There is a slight change in format. In my unlearned-opinion, that could be a step before MA goes digital as is now planned. There are far too many good articles in this issue to even try to mention them, however Mr. Don Apostolico's article, "[i]Crashing is NOT an Option"[/i] is well worth the price of the magazine at a hobby shop for those of you that are not members of AMA. I just wish I was not so lazy as to take advantage of each and all of his methods. There is a too-short but good report on the "NATs", as well as a number of very informational columns. Kudos to the editorial crew on this issue. Good Show, Ol' Chaps.
Posted on: 10/25/2009 11:31 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9200510

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote] How can we put the onus of responsibility on the CD to use his own determination on impairedness, without giving him the method & policy to make that determination. The CD gets it from both ends, het gets blamed for negligence / incompetence if he doesnt catch every drunk, and then even Muncie can stap back and say the CD was supposed to stop that drunk before he killed the bus full of nuns with his PF. [/quote] Great Post Kid. Very nice new style and format for you. Excellent humor injection. koastrc injects some detailed information. From his words, I suspect he is an officer of the law, and has BTDT. Very good. [b]Now to all:[/b] It seems that so many keep referring to a CD (Contest Director). Well, friends and foe, the AMA Safety Code is ongoing 24-7, 52 weeks each year. That is not all CD time. It is just ALL the time. When no event is in progress, just who gets the liability. [i]Some say the topic will never happen[/i]. Ingrained within our physic is that we will live forever, but that really doesn't happen. The two are not compatible. Are you prepared for either experience? The suggestion of a time limit rule in an event "flyer" is good and I will do so if I do any more events. OTOH, as a club rule it will only be workable at that specific club. That is rather limiting in scope, yet it beats no scope at all. Well, I have argued my case. I am signing off this thread - or at least that is the current plan. [;)] The big boys know all about it, and they are in no hurry to take it up again. Rice says maybe late next year, so as far as I am concerned it is a dead horse and this horse will let it be buried. [>:] Got to load the truck and go flying. Ya'll have a great day, or whatever your choice may be. Bye Now. [:)]
Posted on: 10/25/2009 11:09 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9200474

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul Perhaps it as an age difference thing, but everybody seems to be focused on alcohol. I'll put my flame suit on now, but I suspect in the ''younger'' age group, weed, meth, and pills would be the bigger ''impairment factor'' concern. Not sure where any ''8 hour rule'' applies there. [/quote] No, BradPaul, if you could read while focusing on the message rather than the prospect of argument, maybe you could comprehend that I am NOT focusing on alcohol. I am focusing on the the removal of one rule that all other fliers, be just a flier, club officer, contestant or whatever could use to keep himself out of civil court in such case where some flier was OBSERVED using alcohol. I do not profess to speak about drugs as I have a couple prescribed drugs myself. Lipitor and Altace have brought me out of some dangerous levels, and my cardiologist now accuses me in jest of trying to put him out of business. [:D] For the last time, just maybe this will assist others, besides KE who picked it up from the git-go, to comprehend the thesis of my posts. Copied from regular emails: >>>>>>>>>> [quote] //snip// In my opinion, it's not worth the chance of an accident, allowing folks to fly a model airplane after they drink. Mike XXXX [/quote] Mike you are right. I agree with that thought. However I have had significant experience in the court room and what happens there is nothing like wishful thinking and/or being nice or even protecting property. Right now up in New Mexico several officers are under state indictment because they used tasers to stop a drugged drunk while the suspect was destroying private property and swirling a chain trying to beat off the officers. When you see someone drink under the hour rule, you can stop his flying because the hour rule can be determined by a CLOCK. When you accuse someone of being, "under the influence" you have no definite evidence of that fact. Therefore, you could very well wind up in civil court, or in criminal court as described above. I've been in the criminal courts, civil courts, divorce court, been a witness, been on a jury, and in the past 3 years WON 2 cases in civil court representing myself, one against a very spunky attorney. In addition I have been fairly well briefed on the FBI's program 5K1 Rule 35. May I suggest you stay away from that program. How many events do you attend these days? How many EXPERIENCED CDs do you see having safety Checks? Some years ago, IMAA stopped safety checks, except that the checker reads a checklist, the pilot makes the inspection and the pilot, himself, is responsible for whether the airplane is airworthy. Have you noticed some years ago, AMA started having event pilots sign a sheet stating the model and the pilot are both qualified to perform the maneuvers? Now here AMA comes with a totally unenforceable drinking rule. Wonder WHY? It's pretty simple in that the Tort system in this country strongly favors the wronged person in the civil courts. If I wanted to start rumors, I would say it is because the insurance company wants more escape routes. If YOU accuse me of being "under the influence " because I am flying badly and YOU demand I quit or be restricted from flying, thus [b]embarrassing me in front of others, then I will win another court case[/b]. YOU are not qualified to make that judgment, unless you are a qualified medical person. Under the 2-4-6-8-10-12 hour or whatever hour rule, and I am observed drinking within that time frame, then as a person involved in the activity you can demand that I be stopped because you are witness to my PERFORMING AN infraction. Therefore I have tried to explain this thing from the legalities involved, based on my EXPERIENCEs. I am not an attorney, nor am I a medical person. Fortunately, one does not have to be professionally schooled to learn things. As Albert Einstein stated: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school. The only source of knowledge is experience." Horrace Cain AMA L-93
Posted on: 10/24/2009 7:49 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9199206

RE: US Aero-Modelers Association - Any News??
Hope it's a long drop into a hot furnace! [sm=angry_smile.gif]
Posted on: 10/24/2009 1:46 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9198591

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg //snip// Like I said earlier, at all the events I've ever attended where your reputation as a competitor and as a man is on the line...drugs and alcohol has never needed to be addressed. [/quote] Not exactly an event that you attended, but there was a time when then AMA President Don Lowe removed a well known Pattern Flier from the US FAI Pattern Team because of drug use.
Posted on: 10/24/2009 1:43 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9198586

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul Hoss actually asked this question on the AMA forum and got an answer from Jim Rice VP and Chair of the Safety Committee. That was back on August 8th.......... I guess he just want's act as if he never heard the answer and try again here. Oh well...................... http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=248 [/quote] The removal of the 8 hour rule is not mentioned in the questions asked in the forum/thread that you present. Neither are any words evidencing the removal of the 8 hour rule mentioned in Rice's answer, which is close to a true bureaucrat's style. Why is it so necessary in your mind that you have to lie, and then even present evidence that you did so? Hope you read better in your other readings. OTOH, maybe you just have some personal vendetta that you prefer to unleash.
Posted on: 10/24/2009 1:38 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9198578

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf [quote]ORIGINAL: Hossfly Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? [b]BTDT[/b] many a time. [:)] [/quote] BTW I find this statement very telling...it is always the other guy?... huh [/quote] Where do you come by ",,,it is always the other guy?" Hey
Posted on: 10/23/2009 8:42 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9197123

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: AERORICH73 //snip// Believe the rule could be written differently as the following: ''I will not operate my model aircraft if I am physically, or mentally unable to operate it safely''. Believe that this is what you had in mind Hoss, so that CD's are no longer required to challenge someone about their condition to operate a model aircraft. //snip//. AERORICH73@GMAIL.COM [/quote] NOPE; [b]the time restriction is what is needed[/b]. It gets violated also, however the CD can have some leverage under AMA if the TIME restriction is there. Then if a guy is having a beer with lunch and flying sometimes later, the CD, club officer, safety officer or anyone can make a call. The caller is NOT MAKING A JUDGMENT CALL, JUST A RULE VIOLATION, CALL. In the real world no one is pronounced dead except by a proper medical examiner. Heck, a few weeks ago I tried to fly in an IMAC contest. If "under the influence" was a valid call, then I should have been called. With that performance, there was an "influence" all right, like lack of ability, and no practice with a formal sequence. Any type of call requiring medical determination is simply going to be ignored or create big trouble. Replace the 8 hours.
Posted on: 10/23/2009 2:21 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9196312

RE: New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
[quote]ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf [quote]ORIGINAL: Hossfly [u]Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing?[/u] [b]For whom! Who or What defines, ''....under the influence...''?[/b] [/quote] I think it is a move in the right direction since it puts the definition of “under the influence� squarely on the individual...as it should be…which has its benefits in more ways
Posted on: 10/23/2009 2:02 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9196279

New/Revised AMA Safety Code item:
In the new/revised AMA Safety Code effective 2010, there are some items that I have a problem with. I will list [b]one[/b] here. As a long time modeler for many years before the Safety Code and a professional aviator for 41 years, I have a lot of experience with such rules. YOU are going to see this come alive within your clubs in the not-too-distant future as we slip backwards. Maybe you might email your DVP for his input about this item at the coming next weekend EC meeting. I have. [b]2010 AMA Safety Code. General: 9. I will not operate my model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug which could adversely affect my ability to safely control the model.[/b] [u]Is the removal of the 8 hour rule a good thing?[/u] [b]For whom! Who or What defines, "....under the influence..."?[/b] I do not question drugs as some prescription drugs, or medical "weed" is beyond my scope. OTOH, I can sit and have a good Mexican lunch, 2 beers to wash it down, and never know any influence, or be labeled a drunk driver. [i]Now, may I do the same for RC flying? [/i] Heck, back in days of old, some times I crawled into the jet, just me by myself, and I was still much under the influence of several hours ago, yet I'm still alive and never even used the ejection seat. [:D] [b]IMO, removing the 8 hours is going to open up a whole lot of snakes for Contest Directors (CD), Club Officers and Safety Officers[/b]. As a CD, I see a guy having a beer at lunch. He has some time before he flies. [i]What happens if I call him on it? He can sue me and AMA, that is what happens. [/i] [b]I do not have any legal right to determine whether he is under the influence or not[/b], and as a CD, I am the official representative of AMA, so making such a call brings AMA into the playing field. The same will happen within the Charter Clubs and Officers, as soon as the news gets around. Will we eventually get back to pre-safety-code Good-Ol'-Days when the caller/spotter's main purpose was to hold the RC pilot's beer? BTDT many a time. [:)] Seriously, this dropping of the 8 hour rule leaves a lot of room for much dissension among the ranks, and removes almost all teeth in the rule. Go ahead and play tough-guy with your answers, however come back after you have experienced a real situation and then tell us about it. I like my brew, and I have a few whenever I wish to. I no longer wish to, either reasonably before driving or flying a model aircraft. I don't care to see my club's officers start to looking the other way concerning drinkers, simply because the officers will have no real power to do anything about a drinker if he can stand up, without help. [>:]
Posted on: 10/23/2009 1:14 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9196186

RE: District X Election
Great Post, Lawrence. Not only will your district be upgraded, but the whole of AMA will also be better if you win. Wishing you the best of the draw! Men with a vision are very rare these days. Stay the course. [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
Posted on: 10/21/2009 10:34 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9192280

RE: Where to find what you want
Lots of good stuff at MBA Model Supply. Prices are very reasonable. http://mbsmodelsupply.com/
Posted on: 10/21/2009 12:12 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9189902

RE: Oct. Agenda is Posted
[quote]ORIGINAL: cj_rumley //snip// Thanks Hossfly- Good news, essentially no new business on the agenda (as much as I care about it given ''Membership renewal timeline policy'' has been resolved by near real-time confirmation of re-up via PayPal). OTOH, wonder what surprises are in store for us this time...... Odd though that the disposition/exit strategy re PPP is missing
Posted on: 10/20/2009 12:33 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9187168

RE: 6V with 4.8 wall wart
[quote]ORIGINAL: chemie Will a 6V battery charge (fully) with a standard 4.8V wall wart? [/quote] The so-called 4.8 V. wall warts will top out a 4 cell batt. at around 5.5-5.8 volts, meaning they top out somewhere around 6V. Marketing people have methods to satisfy folks to purchase stuff. If your batt. was only charged to 4.8 V, the rated voltage, you would be out of juice very quickly. I have checked some JR chargers at 17 Volt output for the Tmtr side. Labels are there to satisfy the buyer. [sm=confused.gif] OTOH there is not adequate Voltage to top off a 6V rated pack. Remember your 5 cell battery goes down faster than a 4 cell because of the pressure pushing more ma through the servos. My suggestion is to visit radio Shack and check their small batt. chargers. I have a bunch of chargers and some were absolute steals. I hardly ever use them but sometimes they come in handy. I have two that charge NMIH and NICADS from 2.4 to 12V packs. I can set the voltage, and each has adapters for either JR or other Transmitters and charge a transmitter or in-flight batteries. They are different but they do the job. On one sale I got 8 NMIH cells, an 800 mah set and a 1500 mah set plus a charger for LESS THAN $1. You just have to go see. I have adapted several chargers by soldering leads to the tin contacts and thus use them just like any charger. I also have a couple regular chargers to cycle Nicad/NMIH batteries.
Posted on: 10/19/2009 12:25 AM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9184310

RE: New design measurements - need comments, suggestions!
Some-one has a misconception concerning the term Angle-of-Attack. That angle is the difference between the wing's chord line and the relative airflow at the wing leading edge. Angle of attack is constantly changing and results from the load factor as forced by the control surface which applies that load. Angle-of-incidence is the difference between: frequently used as the difference between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and a control surface such as a wing chord-line: yet in reality, given a standard airplane, the angle of incidence is established by the horizontal stabilizer chord line being known as zero.
Posted on: 10/18/2009 11:59 PM by Author "Hossfly" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9184258