[Mike Sebastien]

Originally Posted by Propworn

Can you possibly be that ignorant of a whole group of modelers who fly old time engines?????????????????????????????????????????

I going to yell this out so you can hear this in Ont. As I said before I'm hoping this gets passed at the AGM and then goes to the safety committee to sort out the details.

[YoungestPiperCub]

Mike why did you ask us if you are just going to do it anyway???

The poll shows a majority of modelers DO NOT want this...

This is why people are posting ways to try to avoid MAAC. Someone makes a suggestion asks for input. Belittles all the input, and does it anyway.

If you really want to find a solution listen to what everyone is saying.... and then act on that... I offered to help find a middle but your still going for the jugular so forget it.

[1THEPALMER]

Big gassers are that dangerous!!!!!!!!
Lets just limit model/engine size. Say 2 pounds all up flying weight and .35CC displacement???
And teach me how a range check on 2.4 will make me "safe"

[Mike Sebastien]

Originally Posted by reo

Absolutely, go for it....there are only a narrow minded 60% not in favor.....Ron

You are right Ron this may not get approved at the AGM. But as Chad Northeast said in a earlier post

"Its only a matter of time before engine kills are mandatory on all aircraft. Someone will lose a finger, or hand or worse, and insurance claim will be made, and voila! Except it won't come from MAAC, but probably the insurer"

Hopefully the MAAC executive will see through all the rhetoric on this thread and take the information and make a informed decision. Sometimes management and governments have to make decisions that aren't popular but in the end do benefit the greater good.

This thread did accomplish something. It brought out good discussion on the merits of a engine kill system and did lots of educating. I learnt some things during this discussion.

[Mike Sebastien]

Originally Posted by YoungestPiperCUb

Mike why did you ask us if you are just going to do it anyway???

The poll shows a majority of modelers DO NOT want this...

This is why people are posting ways to try to avoid MAAC. Someone makes a suggestion asks for input. Belittles all the input, and does it anyway.

If you really want to find a solution listen to what everyone is saying.... and then act on that... I offered to help find a middle but your still going for the jugular so forget it.

Lets be very clear about this, this isn't my decision so I can't force it done anybodies throat. There is a process within MAAC that has to be follewed and I respect that process. I can only make the recommendation and then it goes to a vote at the AGM. The MAAC executive makes the decision through a democratic process.

You offered to help educate and I applauded you for that. Not many people will step up to the plate and do something like that in MAAC. You may want to look for another reason not to do write a article as the reasons you gave aren't legitimate.

[mjws]

I hope you propose that they make mandatory servo rules, and mandatory battery rules. Perhaps a mandatory 2 week course on how to program a radio. While you're at it ensure everything older than a couple years is discarded as unsafe.

This is a very thin line you are treading requiring inspections and enforcement on model aircraft. How about a licensing body to fly and a personal physical and visual requirement as well. This can only end badly, and most of us do not want to see inspections and waiver requirements on what may be simple gasoline, glow, or electric planes. To differentiate based on fuel is meaningless.

I run optical kills. I can deal with insurance requirements. However this type of motion proposed from within is ludicrous. We are certain to have more than enough rules to be imposed on us in the future. Why on earth should we bring it on ourselves. I sincerely hope there are enough people in attendance to oppose this vigorously.

Mike

[AJCoholic]

Originally Posted by Mike Sebastien

Now you are using some remote examples of why this won't work. Do you actually still fly with this engine?

And is it possible to get a letter of exemption from the local flying club for the remote situations you have mentioned.

Mike, there are plenty of guys, including myself who love to run and fly old time ignition engines. The boys down in SWOOT are going to love this...

You see, in my opinion, you dont make a huge statement like you have done, then go and say "the guys in the safety committee can hammer out the details AFTER this passes" or " cant you get an exemption from your local club for that"... thats doing it backwords, but I am getting the impression you are not going to admit this is not as simple as you might have liked it to be.

ANyhow, I dont know what else to say, or how differently I can say the same thing. You dont want to understand, thats the problem I think.

Regards,
AJC

[mjws]

Heh. See Mike you got me worked up enough to post after years around here lurking.

[Mike Sebastien]

Originally Posted by AJCoholic

Mike, there are plenty of guys, including myself who love to run and fly old time ignition engines. The boys down in SWOOT are going to love this...

You see, in my opinion, you dont make a huge statement like you have done, then go and say "the guys in the safety committee can hammer out the details AFTER this passes" or " cant you get an exemption from your local club for that"... thats doing it backwords, but I am getting the impression you are not going to admit this is not as simple as you might have liked it to be.

ANyhow, I dont know what else to say, or how differently I can say the same thing. You dont want to understand, thats the problem I think.

Regards,
AJC

But I have offered compromises, just not the ones you want.

[ISGUNN]

I'm a bit confused now Mike by your efforts to ADD to the rules.I remember a few years ago at an AZM that you felt a vast majority of RULES in MAAC and the safety code were designed by grey haired little old ladies.You felt most of the rules should be thrown out.Your proposal is good for a recommendation.
I find it interesting that you have done an about face in such a short time on rules.
Andrew is also correct in that you should not pass the buck to the safety committee to do the work trying to make a vaige suggestion work.I wish you luck on this one.
Ian Gunn
MAAC 25307