Whats wrong with this picture?
10-04-2011 | 02:28 PM
#51
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
10-04-2011 | 03:04 PM
#53
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lakeside, CA
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
Chill pmerrit!! It's not a ''NO TRESPASSING'' sign. It is a flying field and not a field. It's not private it is city. City signs have
a responsible office to contact.
and I agree with you on the private property. Mdl700bdl GameKing 180 gr. SBT.
a responsible office to contact.
and I agree with you on the private property. Mdl700bdl GameKing 180 gr. SBT.
ORIGINAL: pmerritt
Here in Texas we put out ''NO TRESPASSING'' signs on our pasture fences for a reason. We don't have to post our name, phone number, social security numbe,r or BVD size on that sign stating who the hell we are. It's perfectly legal to shoot,/kill/mame/decapitate, anyone that crosses that boundary. The next thing you get introduced to is the feeling of a scoped 30 06 vacating that ignorant gap between your ears. Sure, you just march right out there and fly all you want to on a posted NO FLY site and see how that voided cavity between your ears feels!
Here in Texas we put out ''NO TRESPASSING'' signs on our pasture fences for a reason. We don't have to post our name, phone number, social security numbe,r or BVD size on that sign stating who the hell we are. It's perfectly legal to shoot,/kill/mame/decapitate, anyone that crosses that boundary. The next thing you get introduced to is the feeling of a scoped 30 06 vacating that ignorant gap between your ears. Sure, you just march right out there and fly all you want to on a posted NO FLY site and see how that voided cavity between your ears feels!
ORIGINAL: mtnmnstr
The first thing is, There is no citing who put it up. If it were city. county or sheriff . It looks like a disgruntled neighbor or busybody is screwing with you.
Go fly and see who comes out and wags their finger at you.
Gene
The first thing is, There is no citing who put it up. If it were city. county or sheriff . It looks like a disgruntled neighbor or busybody is screwing with you.
Go fly and see who comes out and wags their finger at you.
Gene
10-04-2011 | 04:11 PM
#55
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Orlando, FL
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Airplanes400
So let's recap ...
Items 1, 2 & 3. - The City researched and designed the new runway while taking I-40 into consideration and consulting with the AMA as well as the users of the field. Then, the City paid for, and built the runway as part of a "Capital Improvements Program."
Item 4. - About 30 days after the runway was opened for use, someone on the City Counsel gets a bug up their ***** and closes the runway that the city probably just spent $300,000.00 on??!!
Item 5 & 6. The City reverts back to Item 1 & 2?
Is it just me, or does this whole thing sound stupid to others too?
It sounds stupid to me too, but comming from the goverment I am not surprised
10-04-2011 | 05:40 PM
#56
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello
You are very nearly accurate in all details. Your briefer left out an important, and vital part - the ''AMA Official'' **MET** with the City Officials/Owners, reviewed plans, discussed everything and THEN gave the thumbs up/go ahead. Your research and briefer is very good.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
10-04-2011 | 06:13 PM
#57
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Reno,
OK
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello
You are very nearly accurate in all details. Your briefer left out an important, and vital part - the ''AMA Official'' **MET** with the City Officials/Owners, reviewed plans, discussed everything and THEN gave the thumbs up/go ahead. Your research and briefer is very good.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
Well put Hoss.
Thanks Bob, I also think that its important that "they" actually "MET" with city folks. That really adds the Hmmmmm factor as to why we are in this situation at all.
Here is what Jim Rice said about it:
"I think the issue is should we expend a lot of city money and our sweat equity to build a field that is likely not as safe as any of the three of us would prefer and that may well not satisfy the new FAA rules when they are published. We do not know what those might be exactly but have heard the verbiage of 1,500 feet lateral distance of clear overflight, Remains to be seen if that is an accurate figure but if it is this field and others will be outside of those parameters.
Extending the current runway encourages the use of bigger/faster aircraft which only increases the likelihood of overflight of a major interstate highway. I have visited with one of the modelers who flies there on a regular basis and he says they routinely have concerns over the proximity of the freeway to their runway when flying airplanes that either traverse the 1,000 feet quickly or that are so large that one doesn't realize they are beyond the boundaries of the field.
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field"
How does somone NOT understand that?
10-04-2011 | 06:46 PM
#60
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Reno,
OK
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
Some field facts:
The 250' runway has been in place for over 20 years and I'm pretty sure Bob mixed the asphalt for the runway in a wheel barrow.
There is NO club and hasn't been in the 10 years that i've been flying there.
There are only 4, that"s right 4 people that regularly fly there.
And win, lose or draw It has been a absolute pleasure to fly here. Sure would be a shame to see this plowed up.
Here's a short video of the field taken from a electric foam plane. It was taken on 9/25/11 (the date on the camera is not set)
http://youtu.be/o-EoUHizd7U
If AMA give's the ok to fly then I'm good with that. If not someone has some explaining to do to the city and the taxpayers here.
The 250' runway has been in place for over 20 years and I'm pretty sure Bob mixed the asphalt for the runway in a wheel barrow.
There is NO club and hasn't been in the 10 years that i've been flying there.
There are only 4, that"s right 4 people that regularly fly there.
And win, lose or draw It has been a absolute pleasure to fly here. Sure would be a shame to see this plowed up.
Here's a short video of the field taken from a electric foam plane. It was taken on 9/25/11 (the date on the camera is not set)
http://youtu.be/o-EoUHizd7U
If AMA give's the ok to fly then I'm good with that. If not someone has some explaining to do to the city and the taxpayers here.
10-04-2011 | 07:12 PM
#61
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
...
...
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field"
...
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field"
How on earth did this thing get built
if there was an AMA DVP saying he CAN and WILL kill the insurance for it?
This had better get resolved fast.
Cause if this is still an issue after Rice wins the AMA presidency..... anybody thinking heads aint gonna roll? Cause I'm thinking they will
10-04-2011 | 07:53 PM
#62
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Reno,
OK
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
It would be interesting to hear our State Safety Coordinators take on this. How about our new District VIII AVP ? You guys feel free to jump in at any time.
10-04-2011 | 08:26 PM
#63
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
The plane taking the videowas flying over the freeway IMO the freeway is too close if a model was tocause a major accdent on the freeway whoever allowed
this site to operateI think could be in big trouble. If the runway ran parallel to the freeway then it may have been ok for smaller models.
this site to operateI think could be in big trouble. If the runway ran parallel to the freeway then it may have been ok for smaller models.
10-05-2011 | 06:14 AM
#64
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
At the end of a long evening, and a trying day, it's difficult to be ''proper''. Oh, well.
Since the field is CLOSED, and won't reopen until AMA issues a ''blessing'' to the City.....Who can the City folks believe if the same ''AMA'' Official gave them the thumbs up in April of 2010, and now sends a recommendation to the same people to CLOSE and suspend flying???????
If anyone on this forum can offer a reasonable and intelligent factual reply, I'd be really interested to hear it.
Did the AMA Flying Site ''recommendations'' that were used for approval in 2010 suddenly get modified, rescinded, or revoked in mid-2011? Does anyone know?
For our flying site to be ''saved'', some AMA big-dogs with genuine credibility are going to have to overcome this spit-in-your-face reversal of opinion to the City dudes. Just guessing here, but I'm reasonably-sure that the City folks who authorized the bids, approved the contracts, then signed the checks, *based on the go-ahead in 2010*, are probably, maybe, just a teensy-bit-pissed at the moment.....
I'd sure like to have someone with THE clout give me a shout.... I'll hook 'em up with the City folks in a heartbeat. I think this is called ''service recovery'' in the industry......
Somebody pass the popcorn; this is gonna be better than an oil-debate....
In the meantime, couldn't the old runway still be used for the 4 people who fly there? Since there are only 4 people who fly there, and I'm sure they will be using the same planes the did before, can't they still fly there? After all, they will be using the same airspace regardless that the new runway was added. Don't wait for the AMA people, they can't seem to get their act together. Just don't hold functions for big planes/jets. Another thing, (and maybe I'm missing something), since there is no club at the field, why bother with the AMA?
10-05-2011 | 06:20 AM
#65
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
8 Seconds
The vid showed the plane taking off to the north, circling back, and doing a flyby over the runway.
It exited the runway at about the 27 sec mark of the vid,
it then cruised south, intentionall towards the i40 and got to the freeway at about the 35sec mark.
well, if you intentionally refuse to turn second after second after second after second after second after second after second after second,
yeah you will tend to go outta bounds [&:]
How many of our fields can we do a flyby and then cruise turn-free for a full 8sec and stay in the flight area?
I will be first to confess my field fails and passes that test:
I have a plane that will cross our NoFly in about 5 sec, meaning our field should be shut down?
But I also have a lil parkie plane that might take 13 sec to get to the boundry... so our field can stay open???
As I have said over and over here,
that runway is perfectly safe FOR SOME TYPES OF CRAFT,
while being absolutely insanely unsafe FOR OTHER TYPES.
A simple restriction similar to the PPP would end this discussion:
60mph / 200' / 55lb with a NoFly line 500' from the freeway
heck,
folks are always complaining how 3D pilots are always hogging the runway,
here we have a runway that can support like 15 or more 3D on the runway
which is cool cause there is nowhere else to fly them with that small overflight area [8D]
.... its almost a perfect dream 3D (plus Parkie plus heli plus CL) setup so why shut it down?
Telling 20" foamies they cant hover at the north end because turbines cant take off to the south
is dumb.
"No Fast Planes" doesnt have to mean 'No Anyone'
The vid showed the plane taking off to the north, circling back, and doing a flyby over the runway.
It exited the runway at about the 27 sec mark of the vid,
it then cruised south, intentionall towards the i40 and got to the freeway at about the 35sec mark.
well, if you intentionally refuse to turn second after second after second after second after second after second after second after second,
yeah you will tend to go outta bounds [&:]
How many of our fields can we do a flyby and then cruise turn-free for a full 8sec and stay in the flight area?
I will be first to confess my field fails and passes that test:
I have a plane that will cross our NoFly in about 5 sec, meaning our field should be shut down?
But I also have a lil parkie plane that might take 13 sec to get to the boundry... so our field can stay open???
As I have said over and over here,
that runway is perfectly safe FOR SOME TYPES OF CRAFT,
while being absolutely insanely unsafe FOR OTHER TYPES.
A simple restriction similar to the PPP would end this discussion:
60mph / 200' / 55lb with a NoFly line 500' from the freeway
heck,
folks are always complaining how 3D pilots are always hogging the runway,
here we have a runway that can support like 15 or more 3D on the runway
which is cool cause there is nowhere else to fly them with that small overflight area [8D]
.... its almost a perfect dream 3D (plus Parkie plus heli plus CL) setup so why shut it down?
Telling 20" foamies they cant hover at the north end because turbines cant take off to the south
is dumb.
"No Fast Planes" doesnt have to mean 'No Anyone'
10-05-2011 | 07:15 AM
#67
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
d. If AMA cannot sanction events, that has NOTHING to do with individual AMA members and their insurance coverage which protects the site owners - as long as those AMA members follow the AMA safety code.
however
Muncie can and will say certain sites are unsafe and not charter clubs to fly there (or 'pull insurance' of existing club).
While that dont effect the pilots Member Insurance,
all members are required to fly within the SafetyCode or risk loss of insurance.
When the SC says you cant fly unsafe, and relys on the pilot to figure what is safe or reckless,
your district Safetyguy, DVP, and muncie can explicitly identify to the membership a particular unsafe or uninsured activity. (sales demos ring a bell?)
Such as wanting to use the I40 median as a grass strip for non-club AMA member flying with member insurance,
or right next to the I40 as an equally unsuited, unsafe, and uninsured by ama-member-insurance , site for non-club flying
What leg would those 4 pilots have to stand on
if their ama sent each of them a registered letter
informing them that site was unsafe and will not be covered by AMA Member Insurance?
A letter sighned by both the muncie AMA Safety Committee Chair, as well as the AMA District VP (potentailly the president of AMA)
we have identified by quotation the AMA guy that said in future tense Dont Build It (a person of 'clout' in the matter)
just what 'ama guy' gave this thing the green light to the city?
We need to hold that person accountable for their actions.
I dont know who it is, I dont care, whoever should be held accountable
... If it was DVP Rice, then point the finger at him, if it was someone else then point that guy out: it aint politics its accountability
10-05-2011 | 07:35 AM
#68
My Feedback: (158)
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: extra-nut
It would be interesting to hear our State Safety Coordinators take on this. How about our new District VIII AVP ? You guys feel free to jump in at any time.
It would be interesting to hear our State Safety Coordinators take on this. How about our new District VIII AVP ? You guys feel free to jump in at any time.
10-05-2011 | 07:55 AM
#69
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: fairfield,
OH
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
I noticed that, too. banked it pretty hard to keep it away from the highway.
ORIGINAL: ira d
The plane taking the videowas flying over the freeway IMO the freeway is too close if a model was tocause a major accdent on the freeway whoever allowed
this site to operateI think could be in big trouble. If the runway ran parallel to the freeway then it may have been ok for smaller models.
The plane taking the videowas flying over the freeway IMO the freeway is too close if a model was tocause a major accdent on the freeway whoever allowed
this site to operateI think could be in big trouble. If the runway ran parallel to the freeway then it may have been ok for smaller models.
10-05-2011 | 07:59 AM
#70
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello
There is so much more to this story, that to fill this forum would take (and waste) far too much time and effort, particularly for those not directly (or even indirectly) involved.
Here's some ''FACTS'', for those curious.
1. The expanded runway layout was designed by the City with input from AMA officials and users of the site.
2. Proximity to I-40, and overfly considerations were discussed.
3. The new 650' x 50' runway was built, completed and opened for use in late August. It is part of the city's overall ''Capital Improvements Projects'' management.
4. The field was posted as ''Closed'' this last Tuesday by the City officials responsible for the City park that the airfield is located within.
5. The City is engaging in conversations with AMA officials to obtain recommendations for site restrictions which will mitigate the risks, if possible.
6. When those recommendations are acted upon, and written into the City codes/statutes defining use of the facility, the field will either be re-opened with restrictions, or permanently closed.
Unless you are directly involved in this project, STFU.
There is so much more to this story, that to fill this forum would take (and waste) far too much time and effort, particularly for those not directly (or even indirectly) involved.
Here's some ''FACTS'', for those curious.
1. The expanded runway layout was designed by the City with input from AMA officials and users of the site.
2. Proximity to I-40, and overfly considerations were discussed.
3. The new 650' x 50' runway was built, completed and opened for use in late August. It is part of the city's overall ''Capital Improvements Projects'' management.
4. The field was posted as ''Closed'' this last Tuesday by the City officials responsible for the City park that the airfield is located within.
5. The City is engaging in conversations with AMA officials to obtain recommendations for site restrictions which will mitigate the risks, if possible.
6. When those recommendations are acted upon, and written into the City codes/statutes defining use of the facility, the field will either be re-opened with restrictions, or permanently closed.
Unless you are directly involved in this project, STFU.
10-05-2011 | 08:02 AM
#71
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: extra-nut
Well put Hoss.
Thanks Bob, I also think that its important that ''they'' actually ''MET'' with city folks. That really adds the Hmmmmm factor as to why we are in this situation at all.
Here is what Jim Rice said about it:
''I think the issue is should we expend a lot of city money and our sweat equity to build a field that is likely not as safe as any of the three of us would prefer and that may well not satisfy the new FAA rules when they are published. We do not know what those might be exactly but have heard the verbiage of 1,500 feet lateral distance of clear overflight, Remains to be seen if that is an accurate figure but if it is this field and others will be outside of those parameters.
Extending the current runway encourages the use of bigger/faster aircraft which only increases the likelihood of overflight of a major interstate highway. I have visited with one of the modelers who flies there on a regular basis and he says they routinely have concerns over the proximity of the freeway to their runway when flying airplanes that either traverse the 1,000 feet quickly or that are so large that one doesn't realize they are beyond the boundaries of the field.
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field''
How does somone NOT understand that?
ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello
You are very nearly accurate in all details. Your briefer left out an important, and vital part - the ''AMA Official'' **MET** with the City Officials/Owners, reviewed plans, discussed everything and THEN gave the thumbs up/go ahead. Your research and briefer is very good.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
Well put Hoss.
Thanks Bob, I also think that its important that ''they'' actually ''MET'' with city folks. That really adds the Hmmmmm factor as to why we are in this situation at all.
Here is what Jim Rice said about it:
''I think the issue is should we expend a lot of city money and our sweat equity to build a field that is likely not as safe as any of the three of us would prefer and that may well not satisfy the new FAA rules when they are published. We do not know what those might be exactly but have heard the verbiage of 1,500 feet lateral distance of clear overflight, Remains to be seen if that is an accurate figure but if it is this field and others will be outside of those parameters.
Extending the current runway encourages the use of bigger/faster aircraft which only increases the likelihood of overflight of a major interstate highway. I have visited with one of the modelers who flies there on a regular basis and he says they routinely have concerns over the proximity of the freeway to their runway when flying airplanes that either traverse the 1,000 feet quickly or that are so large that one doesn't realize they are beyond the boundaries of the field.
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field''
How does somone NOT understand that?
Thanks Hoss...... As for the discussion of AMA closing fields that are close to highways, from the bolded Jim Rice text it appears that there is some advance knowledge that this may be a new FAA requirement.
Brad
10-05-2011 | 08:56 AM
#73
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
Our club, the Fort Worth Thunderbirds, is in the process of preparing a new field due to similar overflight issues. We are on US Army Corps of Engineers park property that we lease. Larger models and jets, plus a few normal models were occasionally overflying parts of the park being used by non modelers, which is not a safe situation for ongoing model ops. We have 12-14 sanctioned events per year, including an IMAC event.
Jsu to review, the AMA safety Code concerning overflying people, vehicles and such:
B. RADIO CONTROL (RC)
1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.
We were able to obtain some funding to help with the new site, about 2-3 miles due south of the original site. The club is investing about 50k of it's own funds, as well. The new site has ample clearance to avoid the previous problems.
Some flying sites that cannot operate safely without overflying highways and other people and such are going to have issues. Not every existing site can modify their ops enough to meet this safety standard.
Years ago, at the old Dallas R/C club field east of Dallas, the Texas State Highway Patrol would ticket modelers flying low over Highway 80, which was about 800-1000 feet south of the field.
Jsu to review, the AMA safety Code concerning overflying people, vehicles and such:
B. RADIO CONTROL (RC)
1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.
We were able to obtain some funding to help with the new site, about 2-3 miles due south of the original site. The club is investing about 50k of it's own funds, as well. The new site has ample clearance to avoid the previous problems.
Some flying sites that cannot operate safely without overflying highways and other people and such are going to have issues. Not every existing site can modify their ops enough to meet this safety standard.
Years ago, at the old Dallas R/C club field east of Dallas, the Texas State Highway Patrol would ticket modelers flying low over Highway 80, which was about 800-1000 feet south of the field.
10-05-2011 | 09:24 AM
#74
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, Texas ,
TX
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
After reading all the complaints, I have a suggestion. Why not have the sign to mysteriously dissappear into infinity? Then, everybody can claim they don't know what happened and can get back to flying.
Roy Fredrichsen
Houston, Texas
Roy Fredrichsen
Houston, Texas
10-05-2011 | 10:05 AM
#75
RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
ORIGINAL: royf
After reading all the complaints, I have a suggestion. Why not have the sign to mysteriously dissappear into infinity? Then, everybody can claim they don't know what happened and can get back to flying.
Roy Fredrichsen
Houston, Texas
After reading all the complaints, I have a suggestion. Why not have the sign to mysteriously dissappear into infinity? Then, everybody can claim they don't know what happened and can get back to flying.
Roy Fredrichsen
Houston, Texas
Umm Roy, this is Oklahoma, THAT would get the field plowed under in a week.
Surprised that no one has mentioned that our Dist VIII VP Jim Rice is ALSO the HEAD of the AMA Safety Committee.
Seems this field is cursed. About 10 years ago there was a 1:1 Pitts pilot with more money than brains that would routinely buzz the field, when guys were practicing pattern!
Good luck to the guys in El Reno
