again, I'm commenting a a bunch of posters comments:
AMA's 3 mile exclusion doesn't apply here because the new group is not AMA. The 3 mile rule is an AMA thing, not an FCC thing
Yup, very very important point.
The AMA rules on seperation cannot do anything to nor require anything of the public non-member flyers, but the AMA rules do require the club to not fly with a known conflict without signed share plan and can force it with a charter pull. The club knows they dont have that and are choosing to just break the AMA rules while they try to resolv the conflict outside of the way Muncie has setup for them: Get a petetition style agreement with the non-members (something muncie added not very long ago
FOR JUST THIS THING!).
And that plan should be designed to allow both groups to continue to fly, not designed to force one group out
So the obvious first (simplest & friendliest) solution woul be to go to the Rogues to get a petition style sharing plan signed. For the ake of making a point lets assume the rogues dont wanna. THEN go to the county and tell them about the AMA system in place for dealing with seperation problems: Signed Sharing Agreements. DONT try to get them shutdown (something muncie doenst have a system in place for) with the old Doom&Gloom that ama is unfortunately renown for
<why are we know for that? cause crud like this still happens all over the place>.
If the club does go to the county, it should be to get a sharing plan as AMA has set up for these situations,
not to shut folks down (or think they can get a shutdown and try to act innocent)
Are the rogues members of the AMA? If so they are violating AMA regs
interesting point
Are the clubbers members of the AMA? Are they choosing to fly with a known freq conflict?
Does anyone really need to ask Muncie what they should do if there is a know conflict of others using a freq near the club.... no, I think we all know Muncie will just point to the
I will not fly with a known freq conflic text.... that means the club will get shutdown by Muncie till an agreement is signed.
Is what the club is doing wrong?
If it is not, lets just tell Muncie about the conflict.... or is the plan to hide what the club is doing from Muncie?
There is no need to hide if it is not wrong
Know what, maybe I should shoot an email off to Muncie about this known conflict.... I mean, unless someone thinks I shouldnt for some reason. Surely somebody could explain to us all why we shouldnt tell Muncie about a club flying with a known freq conflict.
How do you get a sharing agreement with a group that is unorganized, has no leadership, and who's make-up is an unknown from day to day?
Maybe one of us could suggest a petition style plan of
We The Undersigned Agree To Yaddayadda.
Wouldnt it be great if one of us would post about a petition style plan.
Too bad nobody is posting about a petition style plan.
yup, sure would be great if anyone here could come up with a petition style agreement
guess we will never know about using a petition style agreement, so lets just give up because we all never heard of a petition style agreement solving the problem of Muncie shutting the club down.
Oh, as for simpley instagating the county to kick the rogues off county land:
Then you will find the rogues on private land doing the same thing and live in fear of the rogues finding out how Muncie will shutdown the club over freq conflicts.