RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field  
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: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/27/2008 5:56:33 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2112
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

Two would have to wonder.

I speculate you are right...for once.

I guess there are indeed two that can't figure it out. They can't even get the simplest things correct. Their emotions run so high it makes other’s actions appear as emotional to them. Due the incessant crying from those two I can only speculate and wish I could give the big babies a boboz to suck to keep them happy.

Fortunately the number incidence is low…maybe just two as you say…are there more? Speak up and be counted.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 26

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/27/2008 8:23:38 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3265
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
<Edit:
Looks like Abel reminded me
what not to respond to.>




< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 6/28/2008 5:39:35 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 27

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/27/2008 10:31:17 PM   
abel_pranger


 

Posts: 2300
Joined: 5/7/2003
From: St Augustine, FL,
Status: offline
Hey Kid-

Now I'm disappointed in you. Please don't feed the troll.

Abel

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 28

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/28/2008 12:31:30 AM   
Richard39


 

Posts: 448
Joined: 12/17/2002
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Status: offline
Either stay on subject or say nothing..... close the thread if it is being used by a few for personal gripes...etc... Thanks to all that have contributed to the subject matter...

(in reply to abel_pranger)
       Post #: 29

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/28/2008 5:35:19 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3265
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
Abel-
Yeah, you're right.
When you're right you're right, and you're right.

Good thing we got each others back for when we slip

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Richard39)
       Post #: 30

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 6/28/2008 1:28:34 PM   
RCKen



Posts: 14457
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Status: offline
Ok guys, let's either get this thread back on subject or I will lock it down. Thanks

Ken

_____________________________

The take off is optional, but the landing is MANDATORY!!
AMA # 712539 www.gettingairborne.com
Moderator- Beginner's, Sport Flying, Off-Topic, & AMA Discussions
RCU Community Moderator

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 31

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 5:50:55 AM   
skylark-flier


 

Posts: 111
Joined: 9/25/2002
From: Luray, VA, USA
Status: offline
Alright, I've been following this thread (and a few others that are semi-related) for awhile so I guess I'd like to finally chime in here with a bit of "IMHO". PLEASE! Nobody take this personal - it isn't intended to be anything other than my own opinion as relates to our own local situation.

First, SAFETY: I'm going to agree that there are places in the rules that are a bit confusing, maybe even approaching impossible, but those safety rules are there with the sole intention of keeping everybody (fliers and spectators) alive and in one piece. The biggest rule I've learned in my 53 years of flying (CL & RC) is simple common sense - "if it might be dangerous to ANYONE or ANYTHING, you don't do it". As far as the occasional field bully goes, security in numbers always works - he/she is one, the rest of the fliers are many. Enforce the local rules!!!!!!!!! That's how we keep our flying fields.

Living out here in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, there aren't a whole lot of fliers around our local area. Hence, there aren't very many "official" flying fields around either, the closest being more than 40 miles away. We've got (here in Luray) about a dozen guys who fly - half fly electric (park-type), half fly glow (mostly .35-.45 planes). Our field consists of a fenced-in PUBLIC RECREATION PARK, with baseball, football & soccer fields, picnic areas, an exercise trail and a rather large (about 25 acres) open area - all surrounded by local farm fields. We fly in the open area. Because the park is owned by the town there's no way we can permanently set up any of the recommended (required) fencing, pits areas, etc - shoot, we're just now working with the town to have a section of the large field allocated to us officially as a "runway area" (about 150 feet square), and they're leaning in our direction rather nicely at the moment. We want to have it actually leveled and smoothed this fall, will actually pay for the work ourselves so we don't put any financial burden on the town - even though it's their territory in the first place.

Now, how does that relate to the thread? We're not even an AMA club, although we're working on it. We've adopted AND WE ENFORCE STRINGENTLY the general AMA safety codes in every way that we can, most especially in where the planes are parked, WHERE and HOW they can be flown, and the like. With the set-up of the park, our flying area is completely on one side of it. We fly with our backs to all the other activities areas and no plane is ever allowed to pass behind us (over the "populated" area). This is the UNBREAKABLE rule - no plane is ever to even approach the other side, for any reason.

Our set-up isn't "legal" as far as AMA is concerned, I'm sure, but it's what we have to work with. The town "fathers" are happy with the way we operate, they've actually seen us enforcing the rules as we have them posted. We've had our share of visiting "know it all's" who did as they pleased (for one flight) and were invited to fly elsewhere.

I'm sure our situation isn't unique, it's probably common to about 90% of fliers. The point is, we do everything we can to keep it as safe and fun as we can, on land we don't own - and I don't think AMA would criticize us for the effort.

I may be wrong.

Dave W.

_____________________________

Dave W. - - "Old-school" R/C & C/L Flier & Instructor
AMA 767985 (originally 94881)

(in reply to RCKen)
       Post #: 32

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 3:22:24 PM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3777
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline
Dave W.

IMO, you and your fellow fliers are to be commended for your interest in safety, your being able to acquire a flying site on your own, and for your interests in future AMA Charter.
That is why I replied to 'Red" with: >>>Absolutely not, in reference to pulling charters, Red. OTOH, as you suggest, IMO, there are a number of ways that suggestions for flying facilities can be worded to allow for viable means to assist clubs to use whatever facility they can buy, beg or borrow.
I am always with the "Working Man" when it comes to rules + regulations + restrictions which always equal BUREAUCRACY simply to support and grow the existing bureaucracy.
So while the multiple AMA recommendations are not rules, such definition should be firmly stated." <<<<

Now just joking really that runway you speak of, "....as a "runway area" (about 150 feet square),...", Hey Man, that takes some real skill. Is it 3' by 50' or 10' by 15' or what? WOW, even with choppers that is small.


_____________________________

Horrace Cain.
AMA Life L-93, Leader and CD for 45 years
Official Candidate: AMA Ex. Vice Pres. Vote H. Cain. Help move AMA into 21st Century
The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein

(in reply to skylark-flier)
       Post #: 33

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 3:28:32 PM   
warningshot


 

Posts: 45
Joined: 2/2/2006
From: S.E., OK, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hossfly

Dave W.

IMO, you and your fellow fliers are to be commended for your interest in safety, your being able to acquire a flying site on your own, and for your interests in future AMA Charter.
That is why I replied to 'Red" with: >>>Absolutely not, in reference to pulling charters, Red. OTOH, as you suggest, IMO, there are a number of ways that suggestions for flying facilities can be worded to allow for viable means to assist clubs to use whatever facility they can buy, beg or borrow.
I am always with the "Working Man" when it comes to rules + regulations + restrictions which always equal BUREAUCRACY simply to support and grow the existing bureaucracy.
So while the multiple AMA recommendations are not rules, such definition should be firmly stated." <<<<

Now just joking really that runway you speak of, "....as a "runway area" (about 150 feet square),...", Hey Man, that takes some real skill. Is it 3' by 50' or 10' by 15' or what? WOW, even with choppers that is small.


I think there might be a differance between Sq Ft and feet square. Might want to go back and read the post again.

_____________________________

Freedom Isn't Free
USAF (Ret) 1961-1981

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 34

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 4:04:43 PM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3777
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warningshot

I think there might be a differance between Sq Ft and feet square. Might want to go back and read the post again.


OUCH! What is that thing I'm stepping on that hurts so much? You got me big time there, warningshot. Color me Ol' DUMMY!

All these years of promoting, "Read the f-g question" and I flunk the course big time.

Thanks for the correction.

_____________________________

Horrace Cain.
AMA Life L-93, Leader and CD for 45 years
Official Candidate: AMA Ex. Vice Pres. Vote H. Cain. Help move AMA into 21st Century
The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein

(in reply to warningshot)
       Post #: 35

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 4:39:21 PM   
The Toolman


 

Posts: 709
Joined: 11/29/2005
From: Warsaw, MO, USA
Status: offline
150' long runway is still pretty tight for alot of the planes I bet.
Our runway is 575' x 65' an golf course smooooooooooooth...........

_____________________________

Ron B.
AMA-862729 PB-2718

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 36

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 7:07:58 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7652
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

150' long runway is still pretty tight for alot of the planes I bet.


But if you land on a 150 foot, square runway from corner to corner it's 212 feet long!

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to The Toolman)
       Post #: 37

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/28/2008 7:19:58 PM   
RCPAUL


 

Posts: 619
Joined: 12/15/2001
From: Gahanna, OH, USA
Status: offline
I do not know of a field in my area - and there are several - that could meet the requirements cited. At my field we fly from positions that are about 2 feet behind the zero line and most of the other clubs have the same arrangement.

Paul

_____________________________

Gosh, model airplanes are not a matter of life and death --- they're more important than that!

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 38

RE: Confusion on AMA rules for flying field - 8/29/2008 1:10:17 AM   
pilott28


 

Posts: 844
Joined: 12/24/2002
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MajorTomski

Also remember that the AMA rules are not laws. They are the conditions underwhich you are operating to obtain your insurance. If an accident occurs while a condition is willfully violated your AMA backup liabilty insurance goes away.


HTH
T


Sorry I am a little late to comment on this post ... it is back a page.

This is incorrect. Violation of the safety code does not invalidate the insurance. This is true even if the violation is intentional, unless the intention is to cause harm to persons or property.

The safety code is just that ... it is there to set guidelines that if followed, will contribute to the prevention of losses. It is not intended for governance.

< Message edited by pilott28 -- 8/29/2008 1:12:10 AM >


_____________________________

Keith Sievers

(in reply to MajorTomski)
       Post #: 39