RE: AMA club site separation  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: AMA club site separation
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 7:55:41 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2134
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DocYates


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

To no one in particular.

This whole line of discussion would be moot if AMA would have only recommended freq. agreements… even strongly so… to the point of arbitrator for AMA clubs instead of outright mandates. That is really the only fair way I see. It is preposterous to give divinity to another just because of age of tenure… Hmmm… that is the essences of royalty…and royalty is the reason for America’s birth…all equal…regardless!

I would image all of us here realize that typically speaking our freqs. are subject to accept interference anyway…

AMA also could follow up with recommendations to insure our clubs are inviting to other enthusiasts and never view other brethren as outlaw because they do not belong to the AMA faction as it is now.






LCS on one of these points I will have to agree, the AMA could have done a better job.

The second however referring to clubs thinking they are royalty is pretty funny. I assume you work for a living, and may be aware of seniority. How would it play up to you if someone comes in off the street and took a share of your work, no previous experience necessary, and I am assuming it would not sit well with you. Why should a club not be given some leeway due to being there beforehand? In the ideal world you describe it sounds more like socialism.


You mix analogies. Not valid for this discussion...not by a long shot. Seniority and job performance/experiance are two seperate issues. I don't understand your connection of the two.

Sorry but no cigar.

The problem with your premise is the fact that all US citizens have access to our frequencies…equally…AMA cannot simply ignore that. We cannot ignore that either.

Face it, if we were to subscribe to your philosophy there would be no reason for older clubs to do anything other than procure the largest footprint possible by simply designating every available site in their area as theirs. Under AMA’s roolze that would be very possible… if not for US law that supersedes and allows a means to prevent such divine dictatorship. Consider for a moment…A club can very well have multiple flying sites…even at all the club member’s house…wouldn’t take long for abuse to happen if left to your system.

So your argument is apparently more against US law instead of for AMA rights IMO.




_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 26

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 8:22:13 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2631
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		You think you own the airwaves...think again. Do you think any yahoo with money can go out and open a radio station and start broadcosting on 98.7 just because that signal works well in a region? It don't work that way.
I agree I don't own them any more than you do, but my premise is that when a group is already operating in a na area, doing it the way it should be done, and another group comes in to root them out, the AMA should stand behind the first. The FCC does allow the use of certain frequencies which they have set aside, but we don't own them and they can be taken away. Thankfully the AMA has been instrumental in maintaining those frequencies for our use. But go to a club with 250 members all of which share the 50 frequencies, and tell them a three person club down the road is telling them they cannot use three of those fifty channels. My guess is you would find out pretty quick what I am talking about. It should not be the right of a new group to go in and make demands on a large group who is already established. Legally you will see it differently, but ethically it is a real shame. I don't wish to continue this argument, because I pray it never happens to you nor I either one.

You can call me unAmerican all you want, if that is true, then I am sad to say I am an American. Most of us today will sit idly by while watching everything we have worked for being stripped from us by those who were never willing to jump in and get dirty when the work was being done. You are always quick to blame the local clubs for not opening their doors to the poor rebel who just wants to fly and can't get in the club cause of all those bullies waiting to ridicule him, when for the most part it is because they are either to cheap to pay what it takes to run a club and upkeep a field, or to darned lazy to particpate in the work required to do so. Now that statement is not meant to be directed at you nor anyone else, but ask the majority of people who fly in a club their opinion of those "rebel fliers" as you call them, and if they are truthful with you they will tell you just that. Are there some bad clubs out there? heck yes, and some I to would not be a part of, but before I would go out and jeopardize my plane or my assets, I would suck it up and get along with them long enough to enjoy their club and you never know, I might even find one or two of them I could get along with and make a friend.

Now having said all of that, I have said before OUR club will welcome any new PPP flier with an AMA membership who wishes to fly with us. After the first year of free membership, they will pay the same as everyone else, and be expected to work at workdays and cut grass like everyone else. When we have a flyin there will activites directed for them. They will get the same number of hotdogs as the big gassers in the club. I hold no anymosity toward them. The AMA actions will drive a wedge between some groups however, watch and see. This is a path they should tread lightly.

I have no anymosity toward you nor the way you fly, but all I ask is that you examine the other side of the coin as well. If you wish to go out in a pasture next to an established flying field, I would suggest using a little tact and not to go in there demanding frequencies because you think have the right to them. That is a dangerous precedent and will not go far in making friends.

KE and I give each other fits sometimes and as much of an a$$ as you think I may be, I do not hate PFers, nor guys that like to fly by themselves. I am just trying to give you the perspective from another angle so that if you are in this situation you can see where the other guy is coming from.
No hard feelings.
Tommy

_____________________________

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who did not".

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 27

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 8:55:47 PM   
P-51B



Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DocYates


I assume you work for a living, and may be aware of seniority. How would it play up to you if someone comes in off the street and took a share of your work, no previous experience necessary, and I am assuming it would not sit well with you. Why should a club not be given some leeway due to being there beforehand? In the ideal world you describe it sounds more like socialism.



Fortunately I do not subscribe to the (soviet) Union mentallity. In my work experience I prefer to pay more to an employee based on productivity and merit rather than how long they have been around. If the new guy can do the same job in half the time I find him more valuable than the guy who was productive 15 years ago but does nothing now.

In the case of the frequencies, if I bought 300 acres of land in an area I liked and wanted to fly RC on my private property, but then found out that there is a club 3 miles away...I surely wouldn't turn around and sell the land. The club doesn't own the frequencies, I have just as much right to them regardless of how long they have been there.

One of my clubs actually had this happen. It all worked out in the end with a frequency agreement between us and the new flyers.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 28

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:01:23 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2134
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:


DocYates




You think you own the airwaves...think again. Do you think any yahoo with money can go out and open a radio station and start broadcosting on 98.7 just because that signal works well in a region? It don't work that way.




Where did that come from? BTW rhetorical...not relavent




quote:

DocYates

I agree I don't own them any more than you do, but my premise is that when a group is already operating in a na area, doing it the way it should be done, and another group comes in to root them out, the AMA should stand behind the first.

Doing it the way it should be done??????????????? Hmmm...maybe this is essentially the difference in perception we have. In my mind the ways are endless.

quote:


DocYates


You can call me unAmerican all you want, if that is true, then I am sad to say I am an American.


I have done no such thing but IMO you are so strongly pro AMA sometimes so much so you overlook there are those in this hobby that choose not to be AMA members and they have just as much rights as you do as an AMA member...maybe more since they have not signed any rights away to belong to the AMA. i.e. they can fly models greater than 55 pounds faster than 250 mph… just for one.


quote:


DocYates


If you wish to go out in a pasture next to an established flying field, I would suggest using a little tact and not to go in there demanding frequencies because you think have the right to them.



Just as long as you realize AMA hasn't any more right to them as well.


Doc, just FYI many of my friends are AMA members but many of my friends aren't AMA as well. I truly understand the need to protect use of their property as well...public or private. AMA truly has to accept the fact they are secondary in the chain.


_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 29

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:02:14 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2631
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		P-51,
If I were you and bought 300 acres, I would feel the same way. BUT I think I would go and buy a 2.4 Ghz radio rather than start some junk with the club next door.
BTW I feel the same way you do about the employee thing, but if I had an employee who I had for many years I would think pretty hard before I kicked them to the curb and filled their shoes with someone else for half their price just to save myself a few pennies.
Sometimes you have to think about the other guy, and sometimes you have to think about yourself, and sometimes those ideas conflict. When that happens you just have to trust that what you do is the right thing. Of course you are never going to please everyone all the time.
Tommy

_____________________________

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who did not".

(in reply to P-51B)
       Post #: 30

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:11:07 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2631
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


quote:


DocYates




You think you own the airwaves...think again. Do you think any yahoo with money can go out and open a radio station and start broadcosting on 98.7 just because that signal works well in a region? It don't work that way.




Where did that come from? BTW rhetorical...not relavent




quote:

DocYates

I agree I don't own them any more than you do, but my premise is that when a group is already operating in a na area, doing it the way it should be done, and another group comes in to root them out, the AMA should stand behind the first.

Doing it the way it should be done??????????????? Hmmm...maybe this is essentially the difference in perception we have. In my mind the ways are endless.

quote:


DocYates


You can call me unAmerican all you want, if that is true, then I am sad to say I am an American.


I have done no such thing but IMO you are so strongly pro AMA sometimes so much so you overlook there are those in this hobby that choose not to be AMA members and they have just as much rights as you do as an AMA member...maybe more since they have not signed any rights away to belong to the AMA. i.e. they can fly models greater than 55 pounds faster than 250 mph… just for one.


quote:


DocYates


If you wish to go out in a pasture next to an established flying field, I would suggest using a little tact and not to go in there demanding frequencies because you think have the right to them.



Just as long as you realize AMA hasn't any more right to them as well.


Doc, just FYI many of my friends are AMA members but many of my friends aren't AMA as well. I truly understand the need to protect use of their property as well...public or private. AMA truly has to accept the fact they are secondary in the chain.


Agreed. Being a member of the AMA does not make me any better than you, nor vse versa. When I referred to doing it the right way, I was using my own methodlogy where I see it being responsible to fly with liability coverage and providing some for the landowner. Like you said there are more than one way to skin the cat, point taken.
BTW don't get the wrong impression that I am a big time pro AMA radical.... ...far from it. We have had many items in the past upon which we did not agree, and at one time I even had a membership with that other group (SFA)...sshhhhh. But they are the only ones around right now which provide what most of us need, a secondary insurance plan for landowners which gives them a warm fuzzy feeling so they will allow us to use their property.
I have been involved in international groups and contests with which the AMA provided no help whatsoever other than a "fair thee well and good luck, let us know how it comes out" attitude. I think they are top heavy and could do a better job of the magazine structure, there are even times in which I agree with KE and Hoss....sssshhhh
Does it make me better than you?? nope I don't think so. Does it make me inferior to you???? nope I don't think so either. The AMA is not a perfect organization, but there are alot of members right now who are really frustrated with this new PPP and think that the genie has beem let out of the bottle. I hope for our sakes they are wrong.

_____________________________

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who did not".

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 31

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:26:42 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2134
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DocYates



Agreed. Being a member of the AMA does not make me any better than you, nor vse versa. When I referred to doing it the right way, I was using my own methodlogy where I see it being responsible to fly with liability coverage and providing some for the landowner. Like you said there are more than one way to skin the cat, point taken.



Great discussion!

Just to be clear though. I am an AMA member and do support the AMA. I have had some great success inducting many new AMA members as well...oh without PPP...it is not needed...just a change of perception of the typical AMAer would do wonders. I guess you can relegate all my posts to that goal.


< Message edited by littlecrankshaf -- 1/23/2008 9:27:08 PM >

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 32

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:35:23 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 2631
Joined: 1/2/2002
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		That statement was not directed at you in particular LCS. I applaud your dedication to the AMA, sometimes I think some of you guys who are labeled as "AMA haters" may have a stronger dedication to it than some of us who are not.

I agree with you as well on the point about the PPP, but I am going to give it the benefit of a doubt and see if I am wrong. I will not hestitate to renew my $58 (currently... ) membership, as I have done for many years. At least this year I don't have to jump thru hoops to get my turbine waiver renewed, so someone up there must be listening.

Take care
Tommy

< Message edited by DocYates -- 1/23/2008 9:36:18 PM >

_____________________________

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who did not".

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 33

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/23/2008 9:49:45 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2134
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DocYates

... who are labeled as "AMA haters" ...


Yes, that is unfortunate.

Thanks Tommy, Take care as well.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 34

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/24/2008 1:19:54 AM   
ira d


 

Posts: 811
Joined: 5/29/2003
From: Rancho Belago, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I think freq shareing can and does work but there is no way to enforce such
agreements so you take your chances when you fly at such fields.

_____________________________

Ira d

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 35

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/24/2008 8:10:20 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3384
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Doc-
you point about 2.4 was just demonstrated by P51 in forum,
He knows a club that is 2.4 only, even with a known flying site within 3mile they dont have to worry about the Seperation can of worms because they cannot get freq conflicts.

But along those terms, the club voluntarily yeilded all 50 freqs to all outsiders,
the Anti-Twix Split: "50 for you, None for me"
showing that just because a club is AMA or that it gets Established doesnt mean it has to gets dibs on all 50 freqs in seperation cases.

AMA clubs ruled 2.4 works wonders for seperation at the local level,
but is yeilding freqs to non-members, so I dont know how well that can get applied to the big seperation picture. Lots of folks hate to give stuff up, including freqs, and will keep fighting for the 50 freqs rather than admit defeat to outsiders(locals) & give up all their freqs by going 2.4only to solve seperation.

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 1/24/2008 8:11:15 PM >

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 36

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/24/2008 8:17:42 PM   
P-51B



Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DocYates

P-51,
If I were you and bought 300 acres, I would feel the same way. BUT I think I would go and buy a 2.4 Ghz radio rather than start some junk with the club next door.
BTW I feel the same way you do about the employee thing, but if I had an employee who I had for many years I would think pretty hard before I kicked them to the curb and filled their shoes with someone else for half their price just to save myself a few pennies.
Sometimes you have to think about the other guy, and sometimes you have to think about yourself, and sometimes those ideas conflict. When that happens you just have to trust that what you do is the right thing. Of course you are never going to please everyone all the time.
Tommy



I think were on the same page.

I don't know that I would get rid of 72 stuff just yet though.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 37

RE: AMA club site separation - 1/24/2008 8:29:19 PM   
P-51B



Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Doc-
you point about 2.4 was just demonstrated by P51 in forum,
He knows a club that is 2.4 only, even with a known flying site within 3mile they dont have to worry about the Seperation can of worms because they cannot get freq conflicts.

But along those terms, the club voluntarily yeilded all 50 freqs to all outsiders,
the Anti-Twix Split: "50 for you, None for me"
showing that just because a club is AMA or that it gets Established doesnt mean it has to gets dibs on all 50 freqs in seperation cases.

AMA clubs ruled 2.4 works wonders for seperation at the local level,
but is yeilding freqs to non-members, so I dont know how well that can get applied to the big seperation picture. Lots of folks hate to give stuff up, including freqs, and will keep fighting for the 50 freqs rather than admit defeat to outsiders(locals) & give up all their freqs by going 2.4only to solve seperation.



Kid, be careful on this. The other known flying site is only occasionally used by members of an area club, but it is not a listed club field. Had the 2.4 club wanted to, they could have (actually still could) chosen to use all frequencies. The glider guys being AMA members would have lost the use of their location, or left AMA.

It was simply a choice they made based on being polite to the other guys and the comfort zone of the landowner where the 2.4 guys will be flying.

On the other side of it, one of my clubs had some RC guys start flying on a site near our field, knowing full well we were there. Several aircraft were lost on our field. When approached about setting up a frequency agreement they said no. We (the club, not me personally) then approached the landowner, explained the situation and talked about potential liablilities should something happen. A frequency agreement was put in place very quickly. Our club lost use of 3 or 4 frequencies.



_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to KidEpoxy)