[hillmanr2]

This electric thing makes me wonder if something was left out. The rise of electric park flyers available to all is well known. The fact MAAC would like to bring in the uninformed park flyers is also a reality. If it came from the big cheese I would surmise there is more going on .

Plus we all know electric planes simply don't work :P :P :P
( the following statements made by hillmanr2 are not necessarily those of hillmanr2 or it's affiliates)

[Drexus]

Eric.

I wouldn't count on anyone chiming in. Understand that here isn't where the MAAC gears turn, and to spill out all the raisins before the cake is made would bias the delivery at the AGM. The final material will have all considerations painted heavily on it. It wouldn't make sense to set judgement on a proposal in it's infancy. I also do not think the wording in what you have read was engineered to set a tone. Wait until the AGM, you may find that Snape wasn't the bad guy after all. (did I just spoil something?)

Speculate we may, but I seriously doubt you will see anyone offer the script of the movie until it's out.

[eajohnson]

Originally Posted by hillmanr2

This electric thing makes me wonder if something was left out. The rise of electric park flyers available to all is well known. The fact MAAC would like to bring in the uninformed park flyers is also a reality. If it came from the big cheese I would surmise there is more going on .

Plus we all know electric planes simply don't work :P :P :P
( the following statements made by hillmanr2 are not necessarily those of hillmanr2 or it's affiliates)

There's a big difference between 'park flyer' and 'electric flyer'. I'm sensitive to the needs to bring park flyers into the fold and to not drive them out with excessive attitude. On the other hand, we've got people being trained on electric trainers of various sizes (some park fliers and some not) who aspire from day 1 to not just fly park fliers but bigger and better things, and are are being trained accordingly (not that we train any other way, regardless of what the trainee shows up to the field with). It still makes no sense to me that it might be OK to go from a Parkzone Super Cub to a 1/3 scale 13000kw electric aerobat, but not OK to go from a Super Cub to a 1/2A glow plane. That's just weird. The type of power source either shouldn't enter into the equation, or the difference between all types ought to be acknowledged equally.

Love the comment that electric planes simply don't work, I'll need to inform the guys at our club meeting tomorrow, maybe it's time for us to stop beating our heads against the wall!

[eajohnson]

Originally Posted by Drexus

Eric.

I wouldn't count on anyone chiming in. Understand that here isn't where the MAAC gears turn, and to spill out all the raisins before the cake is made would bias the delivery at the AGM. The final material will have all considerations painted heavily on it. It wouldn't make sense to set judgement on a proposal in it's infancy. I also do not think the wording in what you have read was engineered to set a tone. Wait until the AGM, you may find that Snape wasn't the bad guy after all. (did I just spoil something?)

Speculate we may, but I seriously doubt you will see anyone offer the script of the movie until it's out.

Well, you may be right, but I hope you aren't. If the recipe isn't ready to be published, then rather than publish half the ingredient list they should have kept it in committee until it's mature enough to expose to the membership, IMO.

Good guys should not skulk around in the secrecy and otherwise act like bad guys. Keep secrets, say bad things, people will think ill of you. I do give the MAAC executive the benefit of the doubt, but the proposal seems bad at face value and fully deserves the reaction it's getting. This is not about bad people, it's about a bad (or badly worded, or incomplete) proposal, full stop. So Good Guys, speak up.

[Rod]

I can't belive what I am reading here. A power endorsement that applies to Electric models used for achieving your MAAC wings!!!When will people start thinking of Electric Power as simply another means of turning a propeller that drives an aeroplane?
Yes there are differant skills required to use Electric motors than to use Glow / Gas engines but this kind of argument would lead you to develope classes within a specific catagory for a Wings endorsement.
An Electric flier needs to develope differant skills to fly a Glow/Gas engine powered model, as does a Gas/Glow engine flier to fly an electirc model.
I would argue that a person who has earned his wings using a typical 0.46 cu.in. Glow motor is not qualified to attempt to build/fly a 1/3 rd. scale Gas model, nor is the modeller qualified to build/fly a 400 watt electric model. I won't even dip into the issue of Turbine engined models, but I would venture to say that someone who has earned his wings with the typical OS 0.46 powered model is NOT qualified to attempt a Turbine powered model.The whole issue to me is to have adequate information and training in the use of all power sources required by a given modeller.
Segregating a particular Wings classification of MAAC licence by power source is not the way to go!

[ronnieo]

I think we can all miss the point here....and knowing Richard, this is what I perceive as well.

95% of the current members within MAAC have obtained their wings on glow power. and have turned to electrics as an alternative once they got the skills. Do we continue this tradition or due to the dramatic advancement of electrics in the past few years, and now allow electrics to obtain wings?

I also agree that a park flyer is not capable of performing the required maneuvers that the wings program requires, but 'some' electric trainers are, and if they do, there shouldn't be a problem. Yet, from a safety standpoint, I have yet heard of an electric plane killing anyone, but I have heard of powered planes killing someone, thus the stance that maintaining wings under glow power to realize the capabilities that the planes have of injury.

If MAAC decides to allow electrics, that member should use a plane that meets the standards that allow the equivalent of glow power ratings, and be able to do all the required maneuvers that a glow plane can provide, and I see no problem with that.

.providing the battery lasts long enuff...LOL ( that's been my problem)

[eajohnson]

As far as I am aware, there is no prohibition today against granting WINGS using electric power. There'd better not be, as 100% of our WINGS graduates fly under electric power as our club is electric ONLY.

If the issue is whether the student is able to fly maneuvers that require ailerons on an aileron-equipped aircraft, then this is exactly what should be differentiated in the wings program, rather than power source. (an "I've got ailerons and I know how to use them" endorsement?)

If there's misperception that park flyers are not capable of flying an aerobatic sequence, you need to get out and see some modern park flyers in the air. Most are not nearly as precise as a proper pattern ship, but they can certainly fly all the maneuvers in the WINGs program and then some. Sure there are some very basic park flyer trainers that can't, but honestly we just haven't been experiencing a problem with this, and if there's any place you'd see a problem it would be at an electric-friendly club like ours where many 1st time pilots start on something like a Super Cub (which is rudder/elevator/throttle) then graduate to an aerobatic-capable park flyer with ailerons. Few of the pilots at our club flies anything but aileron-equipped aircraft after their 1st plane, whether the aircraft are park flyer class or bigger. Managing the transition from rudder/elevator/throttle to full house is something that is as old as R/C, and has nothing to do with today's increasing prevalence of electric flight.

- Eric

[Richard Lyle Barlow]

I make a point of not contributing to forums because what I say is often interpreted as the "Official Position Of MAAC".
In this case, some clearing of the air is necessary:
I was asked to present the power endorsement proposal by someone who phoned to say that they could not attend the Ottawa Valley AZM. I agreed because having a question of this type discussed at an AZM and later at the AGM is healthy. Some great, and some hare-brained, ideas reach the floor of the AGM. When they do, they have already been analyzed in depth by the constitution committee and at the preceding Board meetings. The subjects are again discussed by the delegates at the AGM. By the time the vote is taken, some pretty wise heads have had the opportunity to give input. Although there have been exceptions, it is rare for any motion to pass the AGM that is later regretted. Statistically, at least two-thirds of all motions are tossed out!
Right now, this motion has got people thinking. This is good. Nothing is cast in stone. Keep giving input. Be sure that many of the Board read what you contribute.
Richard Barlow

[eajohnson]

Hi Richard, thanks for the clarification! I had found it so hard to believe this was really being put forth by our pres, and it is really a relief to find out that you were in this case a messenger acting in good faith on behalf of others.

I would still like to understand what problem the originator of this idea was trying to solve, as if there is a real issue with electric flyers moving to nitro/gas I'd like to understand that issue and at the very least act locally to address it (for instance in the flight training we provide electric flyers at our club).

- Eric

[JimMcIntyre]

Originally Posted by Rod

Segregating a particular Wings classification of MAAC licence by power source is not the way to go!

If we do end up going this route, I would hope we take a page from full scale practice and consider endorsements (e.g. multi-engine, floats etc.).

That said, I do hope we do not have to be that regulated.