Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
First off, Rocketman thank you for the update and letting us know that with some effort we can continue our hobby. Your post brought something to my attention that I had missed before and that is why I have quoted Franklin here.
In his post that I quoted he seems to imply that having an AMA chartered club on a military installation is quite problematic. It is also my understanding that one of his foundation gripes with the AMA is that they refused to help fund a flying site on a military installation in Central California when he asked them. Seems to me that on one hand he tells us that it's not feasible yet on the other hand bashes the AMA for not funding a field on his base.
Not entirely true. I used the Central California experience as an example not as justification for any particular feelings for or against AMA, but rather as an example of their short-sightedness. Specifically, after making the land available (most expensive part of example above), I sought AMA funding for the improvements. They denied on the basis that the club would only be open to DoD affiliated. Ok. Not happy, but that's what they said. Fast forward a few years, and then when membership is flagging, now AMA is actually approaching DoD trying to establish clubs what would operate under exactly the same limits. I guess declining membership got their attention. And hence my use of this case as example of their short sightedness.
Another MAJOR difference was the location and what was already happening on the land. In an area where we were already allowing private entities to farm as part of an agricultural outlease program AND we had an existing DoD only offroad motorcycle club operating in the same general area. So allowing a DoD ONLY rc club was pretty similar to another club already in operation. So in that sense, I was using the DoD policy to my advantage. Also it helped that the surrounding land use was compatible (farming). Those conditions will no be in place at all locations. So just because there are some places where this might happen, does not mean there can be a blanket policy.
I would note that the above example is NOT on the military installation, that's why he used the phrase "private full scale airstrip..." So it's NOT on government land. Proof that yes indeed, there are challenges with establishing RC clubs on military land ... hence this club's move to PRIVATE land. And even then, the NOTAM specifically limits them to 400 AGL, within a specific radius, and for a fixed duration - note ending date:
"M0209/20 (Issued for KOZR KHEY KFHK KSXS KLOR) - AO HAWK (VIC NOE ROUTE 170) - CAUTION - RADIO CONTROLLED MODEL AIRCRAFT/UAS CLUB AT 16R FV 6283379395 - MODEL AIRCRAFT/UAS OPERATING WITHIN 600 METERS OF COORDINATES, SURFACE TO 400' AGL, AREA IS AVAILABLE/SUBJECT TO FLIGHTS 24/7. 04 MAR 19:43 2020 UNTIL 29 MAY 23:59 2020 (emphasis added)."
And finally, even if off installation, it does appear close enough to Rucker Nape of the Ear (NOE) flight patterns that a change in leadership can just as quickly bring challenges. Just because the existing Rucker leadership is ok with it does not mean the next leader will not be. Installation commanders have a lot of pull when it comes to these issues.