PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

Solution: Everyone Switch to 2.4ghz and the club needs to buy a $150.00 Optic 6 transmitter and a $30.00 Freq Scanner-when the OUTLAWS show up-have some fun

abel_pranger

IOW "I have nothing to offer to the discussion so I'll just try to drag it off topic."

Your act is getting rather hackneyed, Bob.

Abel

Liberator

Well thats one idea there Jim...a pretty bad one but I understand the feeling that goes into it.
Ira had the best solution..someone or everyone chip in and buy a club scanner, see if you even have a problem. Then when you know if you actually do have a problem, proceed to bunch your panties.

This is one place that Kid Epoxy and I disagree. I hate the idea of an established club having to cow tow to a group of guys that just show up and decide to fly. I know all the "It's their right to do so" garbage, but that does not mitigate all the effort that goes into a club.

KidEpoxy

PlaneJim
Perhaps you will suggest robbing banks and raping folks
to go along with your sugestions to violate AMA rules and Fed restrictions.

Why not, if your gonna break rules to have fun at the intentional expense of others,
break them all to have some cash & good times.


. . .

Robo-
Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea asking folks to obey AMA rules was being Anti-AMA.
Or is it asking folks to not break Fed freq restrictions that makes me Anti-AMA?
Perhaps you could list what Laws I am allowed to obey without becoming AnitAMA, if obeying the Feds & Muncie is so wrong in your book.

Robo, use more thought process and less emotion in your posts.
Rather than just declare you wrong with a soundbite, I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'll let AMA text speak for itself. You do keep up to date with your membership manual and PDFs, as some folks below have done last time we chatted about this here.

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6940449/anchors_6940449/mpage_1/tm.htm]Site Seperation thread:[/link]
Rather than basing you emotional outbursts on how you interpret a soundbite quote from a guy on the internet, perhaps you should read the rules of the org that you/me/he/we are suposed to be obeying. There is a reason I said they changed the rules not long ago to include non-members..... and that is because they change the rules not long ago to include non-members.
Read the membership manual, then come back and explain what all the non-member agreements are for.

Who said I wanted the club shutdown?
I have been trying for pages to have the club get a sfreq sharing plan so everyone can fly and make friends. If muncie has rules that could shut down a club, I would figure the club would want to avoid breaking those rules..... unlike the fine examples of AMA Members that promote breaking AMA rules & Fed restrictions.


. . .

Bob
You are perhaps not considering the swell acceptance a variation of Abel's "Draft Letter" got from the club fanboys last time we did this.
Post#11 from the [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6940449/anchors_6950457/mpage_1/anchor/tm.htm#6950457]Site Seperation thread[/link]. If we go back to Abels original Draft Letter, we see that the situation you describe, non-members attempting to be responsible and get a freq sharing plan with a club, was too outrageous and unbearable for some diehard fanboys of 'established' sites.

KidEpoxy

Ok, found Abels original Draft Letter in this thread on freqs & clubs: [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1486678/mpage_1/tm.htm]Park flyer frequencies [/link], his post is #49 but its good reading from the OP.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

Kid Pox-lighten up-as with email you cannot tell the difference between a threat and a little humor-where do you fly by the way??????????

And if you think RAPE is a good time you need to be in prison and kept away from society-I do not see the humor in that statement at all.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

double posted for some reason and edited

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

You.

KidEpoxy

Robo
do you read the posts here before making comments on the posters?
Nice snip job on the soundbite, but lets see that bite in context:
Shut down the club? Where, how?
I very clearly pointed out that in the case that the club is not violating any muncie rules, they have nothing to fear from Muncie.
Most folks of an Innocent Until Proven Guilty mindset would say folks shoulnt live in fear of the bosses knowing what they are doing.... cause they presuming most folks are not doing anything wrong. Are you assuming there is some reason that if Muncie knew what was going on they would shutdown the club? Hows that even possible if we assume or declare the club to be in the right?
The only way I can see the threat of telling the Muncie what is going on to be a threat to shutdown the club,
would be to assume/deduce the club is in violation of Muncie rules so direly that a shutdown is in order.

Is that your stand?
That the club is so flagrantly violating Muncies rules that they would get shutdown if we dont keep it hushhush and hidden from our own org?

I asked, you state.
There is a difference. What I said was there is also a case where they have no reason to fear a shutdown: What they are doing dont violate Muncie rules. Why are you assuming/deducing that is not the case? Why are you not thinking Muncie will give them the thumbs up on the matter and have no reason to shut them down. I said that was wholely possibleyet you doscounted the possibility of their innocence.

Robo, your presumption of guilt in the matter kinda indicates you think they are breaking the rules you have presumed them guilty of.... how else could Muncie knowing what is going on cause a shutdown. Interesting how you are now so Anti-AMA Anti-Club that you presume such greivous violations of the poor club. I notice threads recently have you making slights and anti-ama biased posts... maybe your DVP shoud give you a talking to about dis'ing the org in public like that.



Robo, again, have you read this thread before searching for soundbites?
Who said I wanted the club shut down?
I very obviously said what I percieved the Perfect world solution would be to not have the club shutdown:
seems you totally missed where I described what I would like to see-
I paint a picture of sharing freqs with friends and everyone being happy,
and you spin that into me wanting clubs shutdown.
Please stop painting your hate and assumption of club guilt onto my posts.[8D]

If you are done attacking the posters, can we get back to discussing the topic.





Jim
You forgot to tell Liberator he was way off base by taking your post seriously too.
<That is kinda tounge in cheek, incase you couldnt tell by text,
..of course, I ended the joke with a smiley so folks wouldnt take it too seriously.
We can do that, if you didnt you know.>

Bob Mitchell

I've read the draft letter, and yeah, there are some problems with it, IMO. The draft letter, as written, isn't a "sharing agreement" it's a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em, and if we decide later to use some more, we'll let you know so you don't use them, either". It actually sounds as if it's meant to be a response to having been told "you can't fly here" or the equivalent.

IMO, part of the problem is that we really don't know what communications have transpired between the club and the "rogues", other than that they don't want to join the club.....and that may be a response to "join or we'll get you run off". We just don't know.....although from some of the responses here it seems to me that some are assuming that such may have happened.

But even if we assume for a minute that such a letter would be a "good faith" attempt to share frequencies, we still run into the same issue of the "rogues" being an unorganized group, no leadership, no method of communication, and no way of knowing from day to day who may show up to fly on what channel. How is the list of channels to be communicated? Word of mouth? Some sort of sign that Joe Random posts on county property? Who is going to tell Joe Newbie that he cant use channel X? Who is going to enforce it if Joe Newbie says "Well, I've got channel X, and I'm going to fly anyway. Just who do you think YOU are"? With no structure/organization or teeth behind it, it's going to fail and one or both groups are going to continue to lose planes. If that is what happens, and were I in the club I would fell like I really had no choice but to switch to 2.4 to protect my own equipment.

The "rogues" have set up shop within the interference area of a club that's been in existence for 20 some years. There is no question that they HAVE that right, (assuming that they have permission from the county to fly there) but the question that should be asked is IS it right? IMO the answer to that is NO.

Hossfly

Early on I made a couple posts in this thread to try to get the original poster to rid himself of the "we were here first" syndrome.

Much more has been said. Able brought up the;

AMA Membership Manual: emphasis added.
Important:
Once a Frequency Management Agreement is in place it does not
have to be renewed on a yearly basis. It is valid until one or both
parties (if AMA chartered club) disband, relocate, or sell the
property. The agreement is only valid for the specific parties named,
which means if a club disbands and another AMA chartered
club/individual member uses the flying site, a new Frequency
Management Agreement will have to be created, signed by all parties
involved, and copies sent to AMA HQ.
Participants in the Frequency Management Agreement are
responsible for informing any guest flying at the site about the
agreement and enforcing that only frequencies assigned for that
particular site are used!

First, IMO, the frequency-management tool is a good one for responsible people in flying-restricted areas. Like most tools, it cannot do EVERY job to the utmost.
Now I still refer to those non-club groups that just go out somewhere and fly without regard for others as "OUTLAW fliers." Simply my term for using simple language for description.

Outlaw groups come and go. They have as clubs do individuals that come and go. A frequency agreement cannot be valid for such a group as said group does not have recognized officers (as an AMA Chartered Club does) therefore as BM has said and/or alluded to several times, a frequency management agreement with such a group is (now my description again) more worthless than used toliet paper, good when unused, but quickly becomes just so much poop!

AMA provides for such situations that may arise. There have been, and I'm sure still do, model airplane clubs that are NOT AMA Chartered, yet are well disciplined clubs and will work to keep the RC portion safe.

First, meet with the group's main persons. Find out their needs. Set up a fly-in with the group as guests at your field. Serve up some burgers and trimmings. This has worked before and can again.

If you're in the Chicago-Land area, don't fly a model on park-land unless you are at the established flying sites. Same for Harris County here in TX. The rangers are nice but they perform as directed.

In that respect, if all common attempts to get together fail, then I do suggest you have an audience with the County Parks Department, not to blame, not to fault, but simply to present the advantages of having designated flying site/s, where all fliers meet and fly. Of course present and explain the advantages of the AMA insurance (especially being always in force for current members) and IMO, things will get worked out. Do not expect overnight results.

I have a number of good transmitters, only one being 2.4, two synthesized. I have some 25 receivers, only two being 2.4 and 2 synthesized. I will not be forced into giving up on my 72 stuff. It works great. I would never expect such of anyone.

2.4 does not and will not protect the park patrons. When Super Jock, goes to the LHS, buys that RTF and goes into the park at some open spot and launches the lethal weapon which immediately joins forces with the face of some bike-riding youth, then ALL RC will be banned. If in a designated area, RC may survive. RC has survived the chopper death in a designated facility here in Harris County some 3 years ago.

Edited; add emphasis

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

Huh? Where in the heck did I ever say they were not violating AMA regs? Now you're making crap up. If they fly knowing there is a conflict they are violating the AMA regs. Period. Never been up for discussion. Way to try to make a point by just making crap up.

They are planning to resolve the issue. We're debating how that situation should be resolved. You say bring 'em donuts and kiss their arses for entroaching on an established site. I say, have the landowner boot the littel miscreants and limit all flying to the 20 year established site. The only mitigating issue left is whether they charge to fly at the site. I don't know that and neither do you. You bleat about keeping the flying public out. Not true. Just regulate where that may occur. You say that this would lead to the miscreants to hate the AMA.

Duh. Brilliant observation.

According to the OP that has been tried. The outlaw flyers, have refused to fly at the 20 year old, established club.

Wait a minute. The safety of club members, innocent bystanders, and the cost of a GSP should rest on an agreement made with an unidentifiable entity and their promise to what, stand guard 24-7 to warn new outlaw/miscreants?

What world do you live in? Would you really risk an expensive model to this agreement? Right. Say you would.

My position, if you care for accuracy, from the beginning of this thread, is for the club to go to the landowner and get the miscreants off the boat launch parking lot and on the designated site set aside for RC flying activities.

Your position in this thread, so far as I can decipher, is that enough folks hate the AMA already so arse kissing and donuts are in order. Cartoon blue birds and unicorns farting rainbows will fill the sky.




[

FILE IFR

Good post Robo.... and good points too!

I'm gonna get another bowl of popcorn and see if anybody can beat that post.[sm=punching.gif]

Let's just calm down and see Echostud how makes out with his meeting.

KidEpoxy

Bob
yeah, it sound exactly like that...
which also sounds exactly like what the club in that letter had done to them, except the club said they are taking all and the rogues get no channels. It is a very arrogant approach to just tell others that they cant use public freqs, you noticed it when the rogues do it yet dont pick up on it when the clubs do it.
The club in the letter did just that, kinda ~We own all freqs so you rogues cant fly~.
and that is different from the OP of this thread how?
The OP is right along the partyline -
isn't a "sharing agreement" it's a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em,
to the point of going to LandOwners/NationalOrgs to get sites shut down
(which it seems is not a nice thing to do... but only when its an AMA club, shutting down others is ok )

I initially mentioned the draft letter in response to your comments about what if the Rogues are not irresponsible but instead want to avoid freq interfence. Well, what happens in that case is the rogues are again wrong for wanting to have any freqs at all according to the ama fanatics. You say this is not s haring agreement, but what else could it be when it is a response to clubbers sayng they own all freqs? The obvious counter-offer is a 55:5 split, the club gets 55 and the rogues get 5 channels. Then we hear how that is heavy handed.... no, the Clubers were being heavy handed by demanding all freqs.
Say it.
The clubbers in that letter were being exactly
a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em,
when they initiated contact with the rogues.
You can see the injustice in the rogues counter-offer,
but tell me you see it in the first contact the clubber made even more so.

Which brings us back to the OP.
The op is not having a problem with planes flying over their property,
but with members of the public using public freqs.
And like clockwork, we see the same response: "60 for us, 0 for you"
and hoping the rogues dont call Muncie and get the club shut down for freq conflict.


. . .

Robo
That would be the magical world Muncie created with its new & improved sharing plans that can include non-member entities. If you dont like Muncie allowing this in conjuction with grounding clubs that have agreementless freq conflict, then take it up with Muncie. If you think the Muncieites have lost their minds smokin crack to have created the non-member type agreements, tell them, not me. I'm trying to live in the friendly world Muncie created, but you guys with your Anti-AMA solutions are harshing my chi, man. Chill out, have some donuts, embrace the friendly nonmember agreements Muncie gave us... stop walking the path of the AMA RuleBreakers and share in the Muncie Experience with me, man.

I'm just putting that on my list of how much you hate the AMA,
even the new Muncie freq agreements seems unaccepteble to you.
Here we have an example of a club in freq conflict with nonmembers, and you guys dont want to use the Club-Nonmember agreement that Muncie made just for the situation.
Just another example of me liking something Muncie did, which is apparently wrong... Man, I could sure use a list of what is ok to dislike about Muncie, so I can hate them like Robo and still be one of the goodguys here.[>:]

No, that is not trying to get afreq sharing plan.
That is shilling for the AMA club under threat of getting the rogue site shutdown.
How would what you decribed result in a freq sharing plan getting signed, as I described.
It hasnt been tried, the club has been All Freqs Ours from the get go.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

Ken Pricz-no I do not get it-You think rape is a joking matter?

echostud

OK, I met with the county today, along with the other users of the area (trap club & dragstrip). I explained the risks to everybody if our planes start showering down out of control, possibly caused by the non-club flyers operating within 3 miles. Everybody hates the situation we're in, but the county doesn't think they can legally kick these guys out from the boat ramp area, as it is public property. They (county) emphasized they would really like to see these guys either (1)join the club and make use of the excellent site we have, or (2) do the common sense thing and fly somewhere outside 3 miles. Realistically, nobody thinks either of these things will happen. So the county encouraged the club to approach the rogues and make an attempt to work out a frequency sharing arrangement. Interestingly, during the conversation, the county guys' boss said "Hey, isn't this the same group of guys we ran off from site XYZ a couple years ago? That turned into a real brouhaha after neighbor complaints, and almost turned violent."
The county guy also said what he would really like to do is just tear the parking lot out at the boat ramp, as I guess there are some other activities taking place they would also like to stop; however the parking area was built as a part of another very specialized activity years ago, and the asphalt there is 16" thick!! The county doesn't have the kind of budget to deal with that kind of project.
I'm not surprised at the outcome, and I'm not optimistic about a frequency sharing agreement, but it is what it is. The whole situation is just going to be a thorn in everyone's side...but I suspect that eventually, and I'm talking years down the road, this situation will just go away. It could be from near complete upgrade to 2.4, or it could be to rogue attrition, but it will go away.
At least the club's cards are on the table, ans we have the support of our neighbors.

I'm considering this a dead issue.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Be thankful that your county didn't just take the easy way out and put an end to all flying. They could post a few signs, then notify local law enforcement to emphasise the new law and then wash their hands of the whole mess.
In the eyes of the typical bureaucrat, shutting down the whole works would be the PC thing to do.....this way no one can cry "discrimination"!

FILE IFR

At least you tried echo. Encourage the club to go 2.4... it's the wave of the r/c future anyway.

Plane Jim- Move on. The joke is over now, just remember.. YOU brought up the 'off color remark', NOT KidEpoxy.

Bob Mitchell

I'm sorry that the county wouldn't step up and help resolve the situation. It also doesn't make much sense to me. The county certainly has the right to set reasonable use restrictions on the land it owns. It certainly would be reasonable for them to restrict flying to the area already designated and developed for it. It would be just as reasonable for them to require some sort of frequency agreement for the secondary area, and post notices of such so that all users would be aware. I think they are ducking responsibility here.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I have moved on but Kid which he does not want his real name (he complained to a moderator) but I guess I can use his first name which is KEN thinks that RAPE is humerous-but as far as off color jokes I am glad you are not the moderator because you are having a hard time with comprehension-reread the posts involved please.

And just for the record I would not know his name, home address, frequency or club affiliation (Canyon Lake Aeromodelers) if I had not been informed by a moderator about this information.

Muroc1

Let us know how "first contact" goes. Maybe one of you can go over and fly with them. Get to know them and then invite them over to your club's field. They might be all nice guys and want to fly with you.

Frank

KidEpoxy

So I guess they have to move on from
Plan A: Hope Muncie doesnt find out about the Known Conflict while we try to shut them down
on to
Plan B: Hope Muncie doesnt find out about the Known Conflict while we try to make friends with them.


Egad! Brilliant!
Why didnt anybody think of that before
.... uh, besides Muncie and me and a few other guys here.

I wonder if the OP mentioned to the county how our National Org rules require just such a freq sahring agreement.... that the club insurance protecting the county site is no good if they are flying with a known freq conflict. Maybe it slippped his mind.

So does that mean there are now two secrets that need to be kept,
or is it one secret that needs to be kept from Muncie and now the County?
As we say in the comics, The Plot Thicks.

804

My Feedback: (1)

The county officials probably Googled "model airplanes" and wound up here, seeking our sage advice.

I mean, surely those local yokels couldn't have trusted themselves to come up with such an audacious plan on their own, could they?

DavidAgar

My Feedback: (108)

Okay, this thread has run it's course and we have had enough name calling and insults, so it is time to lock it up. Thanks Dave