AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Reply
Old 02-03-2012, 06:57 AM
  #176
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

This.

The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
Silent, I think he was referring to the sUAS Advisory Circular. We all do typos occasionally.

Harvey

Most likely. But the conclusion is still incorrect. The FAA does not see models as apart from sUAS, they see them as a type of sUAS. The term sUAS did not exist at the time of AC 91-57 so to refer to it in that sense has no real meaning.

Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:04 AM
  #177
AugerDawger
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

This.

The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenmodel aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
Silent, I think he was referring to the sUAS Advisory Circular. We all do typos occasionally.

Harvey

Most likely. But the conclusion is still incorrect. The FAA does not see models as apart from sUAS, they see them as a type of sUAS. The term sUAS did not exist at the time of AC 91-57 so to refer to it in that sense has no real meaning.
Yes the advisory circular creates distinctinion between sUAS and has a section which deals with and terms"model aircraft" specifically.....the remainder fo the advisory speaks to sUAS.
AugerDawger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:07 AM
  #178
AugerDawger
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

Every RC pilot should be forced to attend RC ground school and required to pass an exam on the appropriate FARs in order to fly. Then we will talk about flight testing and competency. The AMA guidelines are a bunch of maybe you should possibly think about doing this suggestions.
This is called"Elmer Fuddism" in my other hobby.

The smart, safeHSLDguys willsave the others, who are idiots, from themselves.


AugerDawger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:12 AM
  #179
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.



I presently fly a UAV on the side doing R&D for a local company , and seperately am researching a start-up UAV business doing photography.

In the former, the company is well aware of the coming regs and already has a relationship with the gov't. My services for them are voluntary, so not commercial. With the latter, it will be a commercial op and as such will fall under the new regs.

In both cases, one of the acid tests is liability in the case of an accident. UAV ops are still in their infancy, and I fully expect there will be training and certification of pilot/operators down the road. Sounds to me like the NYC guys headed the law off at the pass by getting someone to approve their op. It also seems to be a commercial operation.

For anyone flying RC for hire, I wonder what happens to the AMA insurance should anything happen. Good luck with that.

eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:16 AM
  #180
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: eddieC
For anyone flying RC for hire, I wonder what happens to the AMA insurance should anything happen. Good luck with that.

AMA has made it clear that their insurance is not in effect when flying RC for hire/commercial reasons.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:33 AM
  #181
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
Most likely. But the conclusion is still incorrect. The FAA does not see models as apart from sUAS, they see them as a type of sUAS. The term sUAS did not exist at the time of AC 91-57 so to refer to it in that sense has no real meaning.
yup
For years Models have been getting specifically excluded from FAA rules
(ASF400/G0801, Policy07, Policy10) that govern UA/UAS,
because those rules acknowledge models are UA/UAS but a special sub type of sUAS.

Folks are mistakenly bashing different FAA texts and time periods together.
30years ago there was a Model Aircraft AC, ac91-57.
Years later came ASF400, and then later came its new version, Guidance0801.
and to put all these hard rules into plain english the FAA put out Policy07 for easy understanding.
THEN, after all the existing stuff is considered, comes requests from the public to the FAA in the sUAS ARC, which the FAA may use all/some/none of in upcoming rules.

Yet folks want to pretend ASF400/G0801 never existed.
They want to pretend that any FAA requirement dictating conforming to AC91-57 dont matter cause AC91-57 in itself is voluntary (that 'voluntary' part of the AC coming 20-25years prior to the current non-voluntary FAA docs).
And folks want to grab quotes from the sUAS ARC and throw them about like they are already codified in the CFRs
One example here is folks using the term 'commercial' to test FAA ruling, when that term is from AMA not G0801/Policy07. Policy07 is very clear over Public-Civil-Model authorizations, yet folks want to use AMA definitions(commercial) to resolve FAA rules.

Add in how folks have a hard time understanding that outsiders dont have to even read the AMA member rules, and we wend up with a lot of folks with strong opinions and faulty underlying knowledge, trying to have their feelings taken as fact

Perhaps AMA should put Guidence0810, Policy07, and Policy10 up in AMA docs page
next to the paintball and AC91-57 pdfs,
and maybe folks will begin to discuss the subject with less ignorance
of what is, vs what could be, vs what never was, FAA rules
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:35 AM
  #182
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
AMA has made it clear that their insurance is not in effect when flying RC for hire/commercial reasons.
yet somehow AMA has also made it clear the Muncie does not prohibit that at chartered clubs,
by Ilona's post about being sure to use your own insurance cause you might be violating AMA terms
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:53 AM
  #183
BobbyMcGee
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee
Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
You are correct... the only reason our private RC aircraft are still flying is because they are not commercial enterprises.
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
Get a grip! Where is your law degree that supports your idea as to what commercial advertising is, or is not; how it is used; and how it relates to such FAA regulation?
The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

Wow, I did not know that I needed a law degree to FOLLOW the law. Sir, you need to change the color scheme because it is offensive to women and marginalizes their brains for their busts. The other reason you need to change is because it is plain ugly. If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law. Should you fail to follow the law and someone is injured, it is willful disregard. You have already advertised here that you NOW know the rule. You would have been better off to shut up and pleaded ignorance later. Does your other shoe fit in your mouth too?
A personneeds a law degree to interpret the law.You don't have a law degree, so you are way out of line by attempting to do so. No one is going to "prosecute" these guys, or me, under this so-called law that you are trying to interpret.

Not changing the scheme. Everyone loves it. Especially the women! Lighten up. Your ignorance and pushy attitude offend me (and probably many others).

Do you really think I care about this so-called "rule" that you think is violated by me? Maybe you also want to report me to the IRS, because I don't claim it on my taxes either. Get a grip. No one cares but you. Lots of people know what I do, and we all still do it anyway. You are being rediculous about this stuff and blowing it way out of proportion. Like someone else wrote, "If if isn't an issue, we will sure as hell complain until it is an issue."

What happens at Hooters, stays at Hooters. I'll be doingmore flights (and getting paid) with this plane at anR/Csponsored event later this month in West Palm Beach. Be there! The Hooters Girls will be there too, along with their booth that will servefried chicken sandwiches.
BobbyMcGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:55 AM
  #184
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Quote:
AMA has made it clear that their insurance is not in effect when flying RC for hire/commercial reasons.
yet somehow AMA has also made it clear the Muncie does not prohibit that at chartered clubs,
by Ilona's post about being sure to use your own insurance cause you might be violating AMA terms

You are talking about the "issue" for flights by RC company sponsored pilots. That is not what we are talking about here. Let's try to stay on topic.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:00 AM
  #185
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
The term sUAS did not exist at the time of AC 91-57...
Yeah, back in 1981, what we're referring to today as UAVs were known colloquially as "military target drones" back then. Not only did the term not exist when the AC was written, civilian-owned and operated drones were almost unheard of. That all changed within the last 10 years or so as civilian companies realized the vast unexplored commercial and government potential for sophisticated automated or remotely-controlled unmanned aircraft. Due to the explosive growth of this new arena, the FAA realized that the skimpy AC91-57 was no longer adequate. Hence, the upcoming NPRM and the interim rules put in place until the new regulations are written into law.

Look everybody...
The very same thing happened 15 or so years ago in full-scale aviation when entrepeneurs discovered a way to circumvent the Part 135 Air Taxi rules by selling "shares" of small jets to corporations who couldn't otherwise afford or justify 100% investment in one AND a flight crew. Of course, we now call this "fractional ownership" and the FAA created Subpart K of Part 91 to address it. Did the FAA set out to stifle fractional ownership with the new FAR? Absolutely not. What it did was to recognize this new field of "semi-commercial" operations and differentiate (separate) it from the non-commercial segment that Part 91 was originally written for. Therefore, instead of making private/non-commercial Part 91 ops more confusing/restrictive, the FAA created separate rules for the "fractional ownership" operators.

The same thing is what is currently happening with "model" airplanes and the new UAV field. The FAA first has to define what UAVs are (and our "toys" DO fall under the definition of unmanned aircraft). That has been done and now the FAA is in the process of drawing up rules to control how UAVs operate in the national airspace system (NAS) so that all segments of aviation, big and small, are granted fair access to the NAS without creating safety issues between each other and the people on the ground. Yes, there will be some thought given to preventing the use of UAVs (again, both large and small) as terrorist weapons against our country. And the FAA will probably use the NPRM as an opportunity to update the archaic 400ft altitude restriction of the old AC91-57. The FAA will probably raise it to accommodate thermal soaring and large scale acro but will also likely establish some hard and fast rules for proximity to full-scale operations.

I suspect (me, personally) that the matter will largely turn out to be a non-issue to routine "recreational" modeling much like Subpart K had little effect on recreational full-scale flying. Yes we will likely soon see the FAA issue defining criteria as to where model UAVs end and public/civil UAVs begin and that dividing line will likely be based on the UAV's intended use (this is where commercial vs hobby will be defined) and possibly weight and/or speed factors. However, before the FAA can enact new measures, it first has to go through a mandatory regulatory process in which it proposes the new rules to the public, and the public has an opportunity to comment on the FAA's proposal.

Hopefully, this explanation will calm some of the passion that has come up in this thread (and I'm just as guilty as some others).

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:03 AM
  #186
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: eddieC
For anyone flying RC for hire, I wonder what happens to the AMA insurance should anything happen. Good luck with that.
SilentAV8R:
AMA has made it clear that their insurance is not in effect when flying RC for hire/commercial reasons.
 
Lol. Just my point. Too facetious/ironic/acerbic I guess!
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:14 AM
  #187
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.



Harvey, great post!
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:14 AM
  #188
BobbyMcGee
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Harvey, you gave me a great idea!!

I'd like to buy a BVM F-100 jet, but don't want to lay out nearly $15,000.00 for it.

I'd like to offer 15 fractional shares to anyone who wants to get in on this with me.
Lets start with just $1,000 per share.
This offer is open to anyone who can fly jets at a profecient level.
Think of it, you can own a fractional share of this beautiful jet AND get to fly it on a regular basis WITHOUT a big investment.
BobbyMcGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:24 AM
  #189
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee

Harvey, you gave me a great idea!!

I'd like to buy a BVM F-100 jet, but don't want to lay out nearly $15,000.00 for it.

I'd like to offer 15 fractional shares to anyone who wants to get in on this with me.
Lets start with just $1,000 per share.
This offer is open to anyone who can fly jets at a profecient level.
Think of it, you can own a fractional share of this beautiful jet AND get to fly it on a regular basis WITHOUT a big investment.
And as long as you continue to operate your fractionally-owned jet as a model for recreational use, there's nothing to stop you. (Or should be.) The problem that you'll have, though is how the rest of the owners will be reimbursed when one of the members crashes the $15K dumpling. The same issue comes up in full-scale aircraft partnerships but there's already a vast insurance industry in place for them. I don't think the insurance industry is ready for fractional ownership in very expensive model jets. Interesting idea, though.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:29 AM
  #190
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: eddieC

[img][/img] [img][/img]

Harvey, great post!
Thanks Ed. It took a long time to compose this morning because I was cautious to choose my words carefully in order to be correct and accurate but without saying anything in such a way that it could be accidently misinterpreted. Hopefully it'll throw a little castor oil on the waters.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:32 AM
  #191
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Quote:
Most likely. But the conclusion is still incorrect. The FAA does not see models as apart from sUAS, they see them as a type of sUAS. The term sUAS did not exist at the time of AC 91-57 so to refer to it in that sense has no real meaning.
yup
For years Models have been getting specifically excluded from FAA rules
(ASF400/G0801, Policy07, Policy10) that govern UA/UAS,
because those rules acknowledge models are UA/UAS but a special sub type of sUAS.

Folks are mistakenly bashing different FAA texts and time periods together.
30years ago there was a Model Aircraft AC, ac91-57.
Years later came ASF400, and then later came its new version, Guidance0801.
and to put all these hard rules into plain english the FAA put out Policy07 for easy understanding.
THEN, after all the existing stuff is considered, comes requests from the public to the FAA in the sUAS ARC, which the FAA may use all/some/none of in upcoming rules.

Yet folks want to pretend ASF400/G0801 never existed.
They want to pretend that any FAA requirement dictating conforming to AC91-57 dont matter cause AC91-57 in itself is voluntary (that 'voluntary' part of the AC coming 20-25years prior to the current non-voluntary FAA docs).
And folks want to grab quotes from the sUAS ARC and throw them about like they are already codified in the CFRs
One example here is folks using the term 'commercial' to test FAA ruling, when that term is from AMA not G0801/Policy07. Policy07 is very clear over Public-Civil-Model authorizations, yet folks want to use AMA definitions(commercial) to resolve FAA rules.

Add in how folks have a hard time understanding that outsiders dont have to even read the AMA member rules, and we wend up with a lot of folks with strong opinions and faulty underlying knowledge, trying to have their feelings taken as fact

Perhaps AMA should put Guidence0810, Policy07, and Policy10 up in AMA docs page
next to the paintball and AC91-57 pdfs,
and maybe folks will begin to discuss the subject with less ignorance
of what is, vs what could be, vs what never was, FAA rules
And I ALSO have some kudos for a great post to pass on to The Kid. [sm=thumbs_up.gif][sm=thumbs_up.gif]

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:39 AM
  #192
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee

Harvey, you gave me a great idea!!

I'd like to buy a BVM F-100 jet, but don't want to lay out nearly $15,000.00 for it.

I'd like to offer 15 fractional shares to anyone who wants to get in on this with me.
Lets start with just $1,000 per share.
No worries. They call it "Team Scale" so I say go for it!!
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:40 AM
  #193
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
Did Hooters initiate and commission their stunt of a hooterplane flying around,
or did you come up with the idea for recreation and never even contacted hooters?
It comes down to WHO did it to determine WHY it was done... a company for business advertising or some guy just having fun. In the case of 20thFox initiating a stunt to promote its business, that is a "business purpose".

Even AMA wont just flat out say Sales Model Flights are non-commercial and covered by AMA insurance.
If muncie cant just ay it, how on earth are you making the declaration that all promotional modeling is not business related.


Did hooters (or their advertising) company) get your advertising plane built (plus spares)
and contacted you to pilot for their stunt?


...

Silent
Quote:
You are talking about the "issue" for flights by RC company sponsored pilots. That is not what we are talking about here. Let's try to stay on topic.
How on earth can you say referring to AMA's stand on members doing promotional flying,
is not on topic of a thread discussing some AMA members that did promotional flying?
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 09:14 AM
  #194
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Silent
Quote:
You are talking about the ''issue'' for flights by RC company sponsored pilots. That is not what we are talking about here. Let's try to stay on topic.
How on earth can you say referring to AMA's stand on members doing promotional flying,
is not on topic of a thread discussing some AMA members that did promotional flying?
Because the two situations are completely different, that's why. Plus this thread allegedly is not about the AMA in any way, in fact I cannot understand why it is in the AMA forum area. The Title is "Model airplanes over NYC bad idea" not "Is flying a demo of an RC model at an RC flying site the same as flying a model airplane for the purposes of promoting a movie".
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 09:20 AM
  #195
BobbyMcGee
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487


Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee

Harvey, you gave me a great idea!!

I'd like to buy a BVM F-100 jet, but don't want to lay out nearly $15,000.00 for it.

I'd like to offer 15 fractional shares to anyone who wants to get in on this with me.
Lets start with just $1,000 per share.
This offer is open to anyone who can fly jets at a profecient level.
Think of it, you can own a fractional share of this beautiful jet AND get to fly it on a regular basis WITHOUT a big investment.
And as long as you continue to operate your fractionally-owned jet as a model for recreational use, there's nothing to stop you. (Or should be.) The problem that you'll have, though is how the rest of the owners will be reimbursed when one of the members crashes the $15K dumpling. The same issue comes up in full-scale aircraft partnerships but there's already a vast insurance industry in place for them. I don't think the insurance industry is ready for fractional ownership in very expensive model jets. Interesting idea, though.

Harvey
Yeah, I know thepossibility of someone crashingthe jet would ruin the whole deal for everyone. But if I could promote this as a venture capital whereas the jet would be flown or displayed for promotional events only, and every partner would simply profit equally from any revenue brought in by event performances,this just maybecome aviable idea. No one could fly it for personal use. It would be flown or displayed for profit only. Now, if I could figure a way to get insurance on the jet ...
BobbyMcGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 09:42 AM
  #196
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Silent,
Kid,

PLEASE bury the hatchet and play nice. It appears to me that you are both on the same side with only some MINOR (read: insignificent) differences. We've beat this issue into the ground and all we're doing now is confusing the issue and alienating other readers. DON'T MAKE ME CALL YOUR MOTHERS!

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 12:50 PM
  #197
danbartee
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 23
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

I have a trex 450 is it wrong for me to fly it in my yard, or not.
danbartee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:09 PM
  #198
danbartee
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 23
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

wish i lived in Florida would like to see the whole Hooters thing what a great idea, pretty girls, Rc planes, and food! this is fun. In the Mid 80s there were no girls at the flying field, there was food sometimes.
danbartee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:09 PM
  #199
BobbyMcGee
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

oh, oh ... now our mom's are going to get called into this. We're in big trouble now.

Quick ... Exit, stage left
<-

NO !! Stage right!
'->

No, LEFT you fool!

<-

Yeah, I think this topic has been beat to the ground. So much so, that it is now a grave.

RIP
BobbyMcGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:18 PM
  #200
danbartee
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 23
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Please dont change the hooters plane,
danbartee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:53 AM.