deleted
#101
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
LCS
forget about him
he done run outta discussion a long time ago,
all he' doing now is attacking folks anonymocity and for using the word "dont"
pure RA
forget about him
he done run outta discussion a long time ago,
all he' doing now is attacking folks anonymocity and for using the word "dont"
pure RA
#102
Thread Starter

My Feedback: (40)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Alexandria, MN
Now, that thar is funny.
The op had anticipated some interjected humor, along with a moderate expectation that thethread would be hijacked.
Thanks for following through.
The op had anticipated some interjected humor, along with a moderate expectation that thethread would be hijacked.
Thanks for following through.
#104

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
ORIGINAL: CottcoRC
Now, that thar is funny.
The op had anticipated some interjected humor, along with a moderate expectation that the thread would be hijacked.
Thanks for following through.
Now, that thar is funny.
The op had anticipated some interjected humor, along with a moderate expectation that the thread would be hijacked.
Thanks for following through.
You're expectation was on track, but even even so you are doing better than par at keeping the thread on topic. Heck, I was mildly anticipating that the latest tangent would lead to answering the question of the current value of 30 Shekels.
#109
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
yes I was paid for my time to testify (equal to my lost wages at work) and none of that changes anything I have written about the case. And none of this has anything to do with the topic.
yes I was paid for my time to testify (equal to my lost wages at work) and none of that changes anything I have written about the case. And none of this has anything to do with the topic.
Now, see there guys...only profess to abiding by the rules...otherwise you could be on the short end of the stick... Yep,
"Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance" because some peoples reality is truly subjective...
#110

My Feedback: (4)
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Thank you Bill. Now I hope everyone understands your priorities a little better. Apparently you would rather miss work, from your chosen profession, to see that a severely injured AMA member could not cover his medical expenses... just to save the AMA a few dollars...
Now, see there guys...only profess to abiding by the rules...otherwise you could be on the short end of the stick... Yep,
''Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance'' because some peoples reality is truly subjective...
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
yes I was paid for my time to testify (equal to my lost wages at work) and none of that changes anything I have written about the case. And none of this has anything to do with the topic.
yes I was paid for my time to testify (equal to my lost wages at work) and none of that changes anything I have written about the case. And none of this has anything to do with the topic.
Now, see there guys...only profess to abiding by the rules...otherwise you could be on the short end of the stick... Yep,
''Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance'' because some peoples reality is truly subjective...
Speaking of spin as you accused Bill of a few posts back...I think your reply to him above is spinning at about the speed of a gyroscope....

If you fell the need to continue to battle over this side topic and to continue berating Bill, wouldn't it make more sense to start another thread instead of taking this one on such a large diversion?
(Yes, I voted!)
#113
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Or in the real world one in possession of the facts would see that my involvement saved the defendant's insurance company from paying a claim to a person whose injuries were a direct result of their own willful negligence and dangerous actions. But at any rate, you've crossed a line so I am pretty much done with you. Perhaps that was your intent to provoke me, who knows. But I'm done here.
Or in the real world one in possession of the facts would see that my involvement saved the defendant's insurance company from paying a claim to a person whose injuries were a direct result of their own willful negligence and dangerous actions. But at any rate, you've crossed a line so I am pretty much done with you. Perhaps that was your intent to provoke me, who knows. But I'm done here.
#116

My Feedback: (14)
My experience with two local clubs would indicate that everyone will continue to fly as they wish and no one in the club with authority will stop them..... Everyone here flys by the good old boy rules.... no AMA or other agency rules will be inforced if the members wish to fly high, wide and fast.... One big problem with the AMA Rules is that they are not rules... only recommendations....
#117

My Feedback: (55)
ORIGINAL: CottcoRC
Did you vote yet?
Did you vote yet?
EDIT: Corrected the speed part of my original post, and amplifying remarks about the 400 ft ceiling.
#118

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
Yes, I voted...care to guess yea or nay? (HINT: as a condition to use the field, my club is already required to abide by the 400 ft / 100 mph AMA advisory)
ORIGINAL: CottcoRC
Did you vote yet?
Did you vote yet?
#119

My Feedback: (55)
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
What AMA advisory is that?
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
Yes, I voted...care to guess yea or nay? (HINT: as a condition to use the field, my club is already required to abide by the 400 ft / 100 mph AMA advisory)
ORIGINAL: CottcoRC
Did you vote yet?
Did you vote yet?
This said, I have no desire to start another raging back-and-forth about 'advisories', 'rules', 'regulations' that may or may not exist, that have been debated lately ad nauseum in numerous threads.
#120

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
Tnx, Sluggo. Makes sense now. Had me scratching my head, as AMA has taken a strong position against altitude and speed limits recommended by the FAA sUAS ARC (the same limits you cited).
#121

My Feedback: (55)
Glad you pointed it out...had 100 mph on the brain, and I WILL say that part will not be fun if it gets imposed.
The whole point of my post is that the part of the answer that says "...I surrender" is misleading. Some of us already, albeit theoretically, operate under some restriction. The rationale at "our" field is that on weekends civil flight training airplanes sometimes use this field when practicing engine-out procedures, and may not be aware that RC flying is going on.
The whole point of my post is that the part of the answer that says "...I surrender" is misleading. Some of us already, albeit theoretically, operate under some restriction. The rationale at "our" field is that on weekends civil flight training airplanes sometimes use this field when practicing engine-out procedures, and may not be aware that RC flying is going on.
#122
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
Sluggo,
I dont get it,
you say you are required to follow the AMA advisory (aka Safety Code) 400' to use the field,
but that safety code simply has you make a call before going maybe thousands of feet above 400
so, to be clear on what you guys do,
are you staying below 400' per some field mandate
or are you obeying the AMA code that allows you to fly as many thousands up as you can see
I dont get it,
you say you are required to follow the AMA advisory (aka Safety Code) 400' to use the field,
but that safety code simply has you make a call before going maybe thousands of feet above 400
so, to be clear on what you guys do,
are you staying below 400' per some field mandate
or are you obeying the AMA code that allows you to fly as many thousands up as you can see
#125
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
ok, thanx for clearing that up
The way you said it earlier made it sound like you were only required by the field to obey the AMA,
not that the field had its own 400 ceiling regardless of what the AMA said you can do
So you will obey new rules at that field cause that field will make you,
how about in the big picture, will you do so at other fields
that follow the AMA 'voluntary compliance' guideline (aka just not volunteering to comply) of upcoming regs?
(like if you go fly with Richard39 above)
The way you said it earlier made it sound like you were only required by the field to obey the AMA,
not that the field had its own 400 ceiling regardless of what the AMA said you can do
So you will obey new rules at that field cause that field will make you,
how about in the big picture, will you do so at other fields
that follow the AMA 'voluntary compliance' guideline (aka just not volunteering to comply) of upcoming regs?
(like if you go fly with Richard39 above)





