STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

I think it's best KE if you start taking responsibility for your own decisions. The AMA provided a you with an optional life tool and a choice for you to decide which way you can utilize that tool to your benefit.

There are 150,000 AMA members and this is the number one channel on the Internet to discuss how you feel about the AMA. How many people are letting us know that the PPP is actually effecting their lives ... not enough that is matters. And if you want to be the one to make a real difference in this org, well seems to me there are not a whole bunch of contenders for DVP or even AMA President. If you feel so strongly about your beliefs ... well then make a difference, otherwise you and a handful of your buddies are just yelling into a shallow hole.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

The PPP is supposed to be a safer and low cost alternative to higher speed and risk flying. As the rules stand, 2 pounds and 60 mph is ridiculously liberal. If these 2 very simple limits can't be 100% enforced and maintained, then scrap the program. If the purpose of the program is this easily defeated and even mocked by their publication, then take away the keys and make them stand in the corner for awhile.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

That's what I get for posting at one in the morning.

Monte was correct and I apologize to him for mis-reading his entry. Now my post may make more sense to self ordained protectors.
I aplogize to you now. I had no idea the AMA thugs put a gun to your head and forced you to give up your full membership. That was just wrong.

Lord, you are really reaching now. Are you implying that PPPers are drooling idiots that cannot read or comprehend a simple weight/speed limit for AMA/PPP insurance coverage?



The topic of the thread was and is whether the MA featured PPP club was violating the AMA rules because one of the people in the picture was holding an allegedly PPP rule breaking aircraft. Was he flying it? Did he fly it? Does he have PPP or Open AMA membership? Maybe he flies PPP legal planes at the PPP club and flies the Stryker outlaw in another location. Who the H*11 knows. Who really cares? I've seen pictures in MA of small children posing with large jets in AMA chartered club pictures. Now that is a crime. How can the people at AMA headquarters sleep at night knowing an AMA chartered club is letting a six year old fly jets. Oh. hmmm, maybe it was just fluff for a picture.

Surely there are plenty of other windmills around for the omnipresent Quixotic crowd.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

There is no point in having a program that is based entirely on unenforceable rules. Calling the photo "fluff" emphsizes my point. I hope no one is really stupid enough to believe that advertising a 80 mph Stryker will not inspire some PPP members to break their most fundamental rule.

KidEpoxy

Robo
What crowd are we talking about? Who are these PPP people besides me?
Well, lets just look at the cover of the Winter 2008 ParkPilot (AMA PPP mag)
and count how many of the 6 folks on that cover should be in $1 Youth AMA, allowed to fly the full spectrum of models at pretty much any club, rather than chooseing to pay an aditional $28 on top of that to get restricted to electric only.

Looks like there are at least 5 of those $29 folks that should have paid just $1,
but you say they can determin what is & isnt PPP beter than they can figure out if they are $1 Youth or not.

Page 25:
"Seventeen-year-old Devin Troy, the AMA's very first Park Pilot member, is a high school junior....<snip>"

Good thing Muncie came up with a way to charge her $29 instead of $1,
and even better that she chooses to pay $29 to fly PFs that she would otherwise be able to fly for $1 along with nonPFs.

You are asking me if I think these folks are drooling idiots.
That is a good question.
I think some of the PPP folks take the time to look into what the rules are, and intend to obey those rules,
and the PPP stuff that dont make sense finds them at RCU AMA asking questions,
and I think some of the PPP folks cant figure out that $1 For Everything is a better deal than $29 for just a small part of the $1 set.

So, basicly, yes.
I think there are plenty of PPP inclined folks that might see that picture of a club with PPP planes & a Stryker beglamored by MA as a PPP Chartered Club, and not know that 1+1=Violation.

Folks like Devin Troy paid an additional $28 to not be allowed to fly that Stryker.
Had those kids paid $1 instead of $29 they could fly that Stryker
(but not at PPP Only Clubs <but apparently at PPP Chartered clubs /except the PPP Only ones/>)

804

My Feedback: (1)

Like the 400 foot rule? The no alcohol rule? The 25 foot rule? The range-check rule? How about the night-flying rule?

Are those what you're talking about?

Enforcing the rules? Kidding, right?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Which of the first 25 or so safety code rules are enforceable? Whose going to stop me from flying my 40% into the spectators? Myself and maybe god if he just so happens to look in my direction when I'm about to do it. Shut the program down???? No ... shut those who oppose it up.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

The 400 foot rule does not apply to any of the club fields that I fly at, we have ample distance from the airport.
I have never in 25 years seen anyone drinking at a club field.
I have never seen RC night flying. I hear that there is an approved way to do it, though.
Our club enforces range checks for new set ups and recently crashed ones. That kind of rule is self enforcing. There should be a rule that requires a loaded voltage check before each flight.
The entire existence of the AMA is not soley based on these rules. We know this is a dangerous sport, it was never intended to be 100% safe. This is why some opt to be fully covered members.

The entire existence of PPP is based mostly on just 3 things....silence, speed and weight. The whole idea is to distance PPP from AMA with built in safety limitations.
Basing a program entirely on an honor system to maintain it's integrity is foolish.

I am not against Strykers doing 100 mph, I love it. Come on down to my field and we'll race.
What I am against is misrepresentations, manipulations, etc., by folks who are trying to turn the PPP into a way to make more money instead of being the leaders of what is supposed to be an intrinsically safe program.

abel_pranger

OMG, Chuck-

You missed the whole point of the pee pee program. No wonder you're at odds with the merry Munchie marketeers.

Abel

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I can still remember the pro PPP propagandists who argued for this seperate branch of the AMA based on an urgent need, the huge untapped supply of aimless souls looking for a discount club that they could call their own.
How're we doin' so far?
If the program was a rip-roaring success they probably wouldn't be feeling the need to break out the 80 mph Strykers just yet. When you see them show casing a 100 mph MKIII version, you will know that things are really looking bleak overthere.

804

My Feedback: (1)

The point is, none of those rules are 100% enforceable, any more than the 60 mph or 2 lb rules. Strictly up to the club how much effort to put into that.

Its up to the members to abide by the safety code, just like always.

Like you say, we know this can be a dangerous sport.

KidEpoxy

But CP, this makes the PPP Club locator really easy:
Give me your Zipcode, and I will tell you the nearest PPP Chartered club is Vegas.
hmmmm, I guess I could do that without your zipcode as well


Since I dont get MA and dont have the contact details about the club,
has anyone actually determined whether the Vegas club has PPP only rules posted?

Has anyone even found that club to research it?

A lot of fun chat about PPP charter not meaning PPP Only has ben had,
but there is an actual spcific club in that pic, what are that clubs rules?

And for bonus points, how many folks here want to guess they are a PPP only club?
My guess about their rules? PPP only despite having Strykers.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

804, the point of this topic isn't about enforcement, it is about representation and image. If the AMA mag ran a feature article on some 290 mph turbine powered BobCat, complete with nitous oxide injection, then some of us might perceive this to be setting a bad example [no matter how cool a plane like that might seem].

KE, PPP in Nevada? That's worse than trying to sell ice cubes to an Eskimo!

804

My Feedback: (1)

Then why did you bring up rules enforcement.

You, and KE are using the MA picture and the "image" argument as a red herring to sidetrack the real issue, which is rules enforcement.

Remember who started this thread? Another PP detractor, not some confused wannabe ParkPilot.

Stickbuilder

Gee, I never felt that P-51B was a detractor of anything. I thought that he brought up an issue that was both timely, as well as relavent. The AMA announces the first sanctioned PPP Club, with a photograph of what I surmised to be the membership with their airplanes, and lo and behold there is pictured a model that does not comply with the rules of the PPP. Do you think that no one else saw it, and wondered about it?

One would think that if you were going to be the poster boy for the PPProgram, then you would want to be sure that you put on your best face for the photo. You can try, but you just can't whitewash that one. Doing so would be like finding a photo of Carrie Nation chugging a bottle of hooch.

Rightous indignation won't get you anywhere with this one. What I can't believe is that someone figured that we all were so stupid that we would not know what a Stryker was, or the capabilities of that model. The other thing that I can't believe is that Muncie didn't catch it first, and at least doctor the picture or ask for another one sans the Stryker. Nothing like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Bill, AMA 4720

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

804, whatever it is that you are taking issue with, your only point seems to be that if someone......somewhere else is doing something wrong.......then it should be OK for you to do something wrong also?
My parents spanked that kind of thinking out of me by the time I turned about 7.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Well enough to know that PPP's don't need voting privliages, PPP's get their own magazine and a cover on the "regular" magazine as well. Seems to me that the AMA's MAIN focus is parkflyers and the park flyer program.

BTW how's it going in the "regular" membership base these days? Sounds like a lot of animosity towards the dominant focus group to me.

How long is the PPP debate going to continue anyway????

busted2props

My Feedback: (9)

Okay, here I come again. Why have the PPP anyway? I bet it is because the manufactures (sp) and AMA got in bed together. Couple of red light district ladies...ha! Anyway, the AMA saw a way to make a few quick bucks and split the masses...What do you think? With the splitting of the masses, they can make more money, have less votes and with that have less competition for the main offices of EC/VP and Pres...Am I off track here?

It has been said, that you can fly your small electric in your back yard, in the city streets, parking lots and just about anywhere you want...So, why have a club???Oh yeah, that 2lb and 60mph or less model won't hurt you if it hits you! RIGHT!!! C'mon, if that is the case, why have the AMA backing you? Why carry the card? Why? Why? What? It hurt you? Put out your eye you say? Cut off your finger? Of course, a Park Flyer won't hurt you if it hits you, just depends on how and where!!!!!!!
(oh yeah, this is not directed at you CP just how the system works I'm not too fond of the quick reply, should have a no reply response...maybe someone can fix that?)

Okay, I forgot to stay on topic. Dang! The picture in MA shows a poor STRYKER, mine is beat to H*ll, anyway, it is way faster than 60mph, and so are the ones we do combat with...I did not cause all the damage cause it is a hand me down and I have only flown it once...
Mean Monte[>:]

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I haven't seen much PPPesque activity anywhere around here. It just isn't happening. The junk might get sold, but it isn't getting flown much. Kind of like Cox RTF C/L planes in the 1960s, you didn't see much of them after Christmas morning.
AMA RC and C/L is alive and well. Lots of activity.
The notion that the AMA was / is losing vast amounts of money and potential members to the PFer "boom" is ridiculous. Right or wrong, PPP has very little to lose by showing a Styker off......basically nothing to lose.

busted2props

My Feedback: (9)

combatpigg,
You're right, Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music!
I hope you are right in that it will be soon be gone!
PPP joke and choke...
I admire you small plane guys. KE came to see us and he put a plane together in about 4 to 5 hours...amazing...and it flew...Yea, good...all blue foam with electric motor...amazing...Yes it would have qualified for PPP...Laters
Monte

KidEpoxy

Just to be clear, I also flew an electric-ized Ulmer DNU, a plansbuilt 1/2A balsa & doculam plane that trip

Of course, I was flying a <2lb Electic andd had better keep it under those limits.
Unlike the AMA clubs that Muncie seemingly has no teeth controlling PPP,
the park I flew with Monte at had city teeth limiting the <2lb Electrics.

Maybe if we all pitch in,
we could get Muncie some PPP Teeth for christmass this year.
Or at least get then to notice they have no teeth in this program where they bit off more than they can chew.
(by chewing I mean knowing not to put Strykers in PPP poster club pics)

Hey Monte,
if gas prices ever get reasonable again so I can visit,
mayby I'll bring a Stryker to fly at the club with my PPP card,
from what I read here, folks like 804 wont mind and they'd would be wrong to care if I break the AMA rules or not.

If anyone asks if it is allowed, we'll just label them a PPP Detractor,
which nullifies their questioning what they see as a violation

804

My Feedback: (1)

Nope, my point was made in post 61, and is relevent because the OP asked if the club in question is breaking the PP rules.
Maybe your folks should have spanked reading and comprehension into you at about age 7.5? JUST KIDDING, take it easy...

Robo was right. None of us know the circumstances of the MA picture; does it look bad, was it a mistake? I said so in posts 33 and 36.I also said BFD. It's trivial, mountains out of molehills, that sort of thing, IMO, of course.

To Sticks points. Timely and relevant? Well, sure, to Stickbuilder, CP, KE, P-51B, and other PP detractors. (not using that term pejoratively, simply stating a known and proveable fact, just as it can be shown by the record I am a PP proponent.)
I would argue you guys will use any opportunity to belittle the program, and those who support it, as evidenced by this, and prior threads.

That's ok! I can take it, no problem. Just wish you'd be more honest about motives, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen.

As to me being a poster boy for the PPP, Think what you want. If you want to research it, you'll find I have never predicted the program's outcome, nor have I indicated it would be the saving grace of AMA. I do wish for it to succeed, because I like the idea of having urban and suburban clubs that can co-exist with other users of parks and other small open spaces, and I think AMA has the best chance of making that happen. If one can fly in a park without AMA, then that is good too. I have clearly stated that position more than once.

Stickbuilder

I didn''t call you the poster boy for the PPP. I called those who posed for the photo that was published the poster boys for the PPP. As to me being against the PPP, you are precisely correct. I am against any issue that will cause a secondary class of people, and for any reason. If the AMA didn't intend to make second class members of the PPP group, then why didn't they allow them to have voting privilidges? That is my whole point against this kind of membership, and/or having tiered levels of membership. If you are going to belong to any organization, then you should have the same rights and privilidges as do any other members. Any problem understanding that?

Bill, AMA 4720

804

My Feedback: (1)

Well, Stick,

You addressed the post to me, and quoted me in it, so naturally...

But congratulations, at least you stepped from behind the smokescreen. I fully understand your position; don't agree with it, but I can respect your opinion.

KidEpoxy

804
the intentions and motivations as to why someone would shine a light on the faults of the program
dont change the fact thatt he program has faults.

When we see faults, we would like them adressed.
It appears your method of taking care of faults is to allow them to continue because the person detecting the fault is know for finding thoase faults.

WHO posted the thread that there is a PPP Club Poster pic that has faults is not relevant.
THAT THERE IS a PPP Club Poster pic that has faults is.

So far we have seen folks wantig to get the rules straight & maybe fix the fault,
and we have seen folks try make being faulty ok based on who finds the fault.

804, if Hoss were to visit Muncie again
and dig up a papertrail of someone embezeling AMA cash for a trip to Bermuda,
would you say that stealing is ok becuase it was Hoss that caught them.... we need to let the thief go because of the politics of who caught the theif?

You are ready to completely discount the possibilty that the evidence is not misleading- you are ready to find some possible way for the PPP club to not be wrong, and also discount the folks that say the picture doesnt lie because of their politics. Is it possible the condemning picture is wrong? Sure, there is a set of circumstance where the PPP club is not really PPP but a far more likely set is that the PPP club is PPP and the condemning pic does indeed condemn them.

The entire premiss of the group that claims the club is not wrong is that there might be local rules allowing it. Yet we havent seen anyone of that group post the local rules their entire arguement is based on.... an act that would make their theory uncontestable. They have the win, all they got to do is get the local rule that the PPP club is not really PPP & post it.

This whole thread could have been cut short by one of the supporters
simply posting the local rule their theory is solely dependant on, back on day one.

But we are still where we were back then,
still trying to determin just what the rules are, and having a bear of a time apparently just getting to see the rules.

And just trying to determine what the rules are is somehow wrong to some folks.
Because when folks break the rules we have to first see who caught them,
then let them go if we are politically alligned against the catcher.

We didnt catch them, MA did.
We just choose to not look the other way & pretend they werent caught because we support the program that is breaking rules