rcmiket

I also noted that cop said they needed a "permit"( easily obtained I guess) to fly there which apparently they did not have. I have no clue what may or may not have happened prior to her picking up the drone but IMO her credibility faded as the story changed.
Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup..the more agitated she became the more bizarre her claims became.

I-fly-any-and-all

My Feedback: (1)

sounds like she
"loves the terrorists".

br549-2

Good one !!!!! Thanks for the footage Rob2160. I about soiled my dundies as the whites of her lies got larger BAAAHHAAAA, SILLY RABBIT TRICKKS ARE FOR KIDS. I took it as it came within 4'-5' upon crashing next to her, and you can hear in her voice the disstress of dishonesty . When i sell a customer a phantom , the first thing they inquire about is the FAA. I send them home with an AMA PAMPLET instructing them to join AMA first, so when they do the registration with FAA to use the prefix bubble to enter their AMA#. The ones under 2 sticks I try to sell as an intro tool.

flyoz

My Feedback: (7)

What a stupid B.... "nearly took me out" where does she think she is Afganistan? maybe if her "husband "took her out" somewhere she wouldnt be such a bitter moron.
The annoying things are she grabbed anothers property, and then lied her head off to the cops.

The Quad owner should file charges of theft against her.She had a right to complain but never the right to steal the Quad.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Why should she have the right to complain. The D-B had no right to walk about 100 feet and pick up someones property then Lie to an Investigating Police officer nor does shd to have the right to make a 911 call and lie about every thing she said. She should be ticketed for at least making false statements to the Officer in the processes of an investigation much else making false statements to a 911 operator. Maybe she should spend a little time in the pokey.

flyoz

My Feedback: (7)

You always have a right to lodge a complaint wether its legitimate or not is another issue.

If she got some Pokey time from said husband she wouldnt be such a frustrated, mean spirited cow. hahaha
e

Charlie P.

Lose/lose here.

How far away from the drone was he when he lost control? He might have taken something out if not crazy lady & dog.

Obviously he was out of control and a long distance away. Though that can happen to a glider as well. Still, he's not fully blamemess.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

+1000
At this point the only recourse is to NOT give those who seek to get certain threads closed an audience.
We can continue to make our statements but let's exercise some self control and DO NOT ENGAGE the AMA THREAD ABORTIONISTS with ANY "chit chat" what so ever.
BTW, I was PM'd June 1st by someone who created a new [shill] account on June 1st.
At the time, he had not made ANY forum posts yet. I think he just wanted to demonstrate that no matter how much I choose to shun him at RCU, he will always find ways to harass me if he wants to.
What sort of a "Toadstool of a Man" operates in this sort of a way...?

wahoo

My Feedback: (59)

Did you watch the video at all ??

Hydro Junkie

Did you submit that information to the admins? They can only take action if they know about it.

Hydro Junkie

I'd like to know if the story goes any further. Obviously, the lady was trying to make the pilot look bad and, not knowing about the camera being on, it would look bad on her if it went to court

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I suspect it's the same new member (he/she) that sent a "friend" request to both you and I. No evidence it's a shill of any kind, nor does it appear they are anything other than a new member. Presume admin can look into the account if needed. I didn't report it because what am I going to report, a new member sent me a friend request? I just deleted it. Simple.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I suspect both parties went on their way, with the cop never seeing the video. Both parties appeared to share some fault here. The woman for being deceptive then irrational, and according to the police, the pilot for flying in that area without a permit. It does appear that the aircraft was well out of visual line of site, and it took the pilot a while to find it. If he was closer it's not clear why he couldn't see the woman go and pick it up. It's also not clear from that video if the pilot had buzzed her earlier (unintended) or not. Regardless, she never should have attempted to take then hide the quad. The best thing that happened was the cop showing up.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

That "LADY" if U discount her Language is Very Lucky that the Fail Safe was working else the 4 Props might have done considerable damage to her Female anatomy. I'd like to see her explain that to the emergency room technician? LOL Where exactly where and when did this take place anyway? I missed that part.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Hey Doggy, Hope all is well and you're getting some flying in.

So this appears to have been in the lovely state of California, Costa Mesa specifically. I thought all those folks in CA were laid back and chill?

Here is a link to the park info:

http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=253

This is the club that flies there:

http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/s...ocumentid=9511

Incidentally there is a Yelp page set up for the park, as well as Google review.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/fairview-park-costa-mesa

Folks seem to love the park and the comments about RC are more in favor than not. One reviewer notes some of them crash (really, you don't say?), and one notes some of the guys are creepy gawkers (at planes I'm sure).

Back in 2014 the club had about 100 members and at some point there was a possibility of them losing the field, however city approved a measure keeping them there through 2019. Clearly, they are doing something right to be able to use that tract of land smack dab in the middle of a park.

As for the incident, as you know there are two sides to every story, and then the truth. The pilot was immediately in the wrong for flying at this location without a permit ($25.00 per year). Not sure what the cop could have done in terms of enforcement action, but the pilot should not have been flying, period. Doesn't matter that someone else told him he could, he shouldn't have been there. "but not for his actions...." As for the video, it only shows the end of the story so to speak, only part of the flight and then the landing, and then "confiscation". She started off with ill intent, and it got worse from there. They are both lucky it ended the way it did.

At the end of the day, this jury finds the MR pilot guilty of not flying with a permit, and not flying within line of sight. The attempted absconder of the MR is guilty of lying, hiding of a toy not hers, hysteria, and poor taste in shirts.

Sentence...hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Chill out.

I rest my case.

Hydro Junkie

I can agree with you when it comes to the pilot, though being told by the club to come fly mitigates that a bit. The club should have known better than just invite him to come out and fly.
As far as the "lady's actions", she should have been taken in for theft, filing a false 911 report and threatening the pilot's life. Granted, we don't know what was happening prior to the video shown but, in the video, she went out of her way to walk over, take a picture of and pick up the quad. To me, that shows intent to commit a crime. The fact she had her husband(?) try to deter the pilot from recovering the quad only confirms her intent.
Had this case gone to court, I'm pretty confident that she would have come out on the losing end

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Her intent was to conceal the item, but it didn't appear to be for personal gain or benefit. She mentioned something about showing it to the park or park rangers, then called them as well as the police pretty quick. Her explanation for taking and concealing the item wouldn't be hard to follow...ie it almost hit her (of course out of camera view ) and she wanted to preserve the evidence for the police. If she had jumped in her car and sped off, I think that would be a different story. IMO, this never would have done anywhere with charges. And, given the sensitivity to this issue of late, and the fact that the pilot had no business flying there without a permit, I suspect any findings would be in her favor. Not saying that's right or wrong, just how I think it would end up.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eryone-thinks/

Just more of the AMA not getting it's message out in the media.

Hydro Junkie

Sounds to me like the AMA is trying to take credit for what the local news shows are doing. Every time a story aired, the word got out that Congress and the FAA were looking at taking action to stop the "reckless drone pilots". The AMA had absolutely nothing to do with that

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL...I can't seem to keep all the AMA complaints straight. First, they embraced drones and were vocal about it and promoted the safety function of the AMA, yet nobody read that (despite the stories in the media to the contrary). Then, then continued to publicize this in national media, ie USA Today, but that was dismissed as not effective (it's only the most circulated newspaper in the USA). Then, folks complained AMA wasn't fighting the issue, but then on the next hand complaints are levied because they spent to much on this. Next up, more complaints that the AMA didn't get the message out to us, it's members, despite constant updates via e-mail and their website. Then released a report last year disputing the intitial "drone sightinng" reports but again, the folks than can find nothing right about that dismissed that immediately. Now, another analysis, and another story in a National newpaper (not some small town rag mind you), and they are again dismissed as "taking credit from local news". Tell me, what other "local news" company has been covering this story?

Why does it seem almost impossible for some to consider that stories like this might have some legitimacy, or that the efforts of lobbyists and marketing specialists may be at play here.

And I'm guessing that had this story not been written, or written and not involve a comment from the AMA, they would be blamed for this as well. No good deed and all.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hydro Junkie

I look at the way it was written and what has been reported on the local nightly news. In Seattle alone, for example:
1) A drone was flown into Seattle's "Big Wheel", damaging a prop. The drone then fell over 100 feet, landing on and destroying a plastic table at a restaurant below. It was announced that SPD was looking for the owner/operator.
2) A drone was flown around Seattle's Space Needle twice and then down a busy street. It was spotted a few minutes later taking video inside a 15th floor apartment. When the resident saw it and called police, the operator flew it back to his location, packed up and left the area. The SPD was again announced to be looking for the owner/operator
3) A drone was spotted flying above a news helicopter by a second helicopter, followed back to it's operator who, upon retrieving it, ran inside a nearby house. When police arrived at the scene, the resident denied any knowledge but also refused to allow police inside the house to see if the person or drone were inside.

With these reports alone, showing that local law enforcement is taking an active stance in enforcing the FAA rules, it's hard to take the AMA's claim that they are making a difference too seriously

rcmiket

Problem Solved............................................ ......If I only knew it took mailing government officials a post card.............................................. ....I'm not to sure I want the Club Field to be a "Drone Zone" I prefer Flying Field myself.
Although I will bring it up for a vote at our next meeting.

Hello, AMA club officers!

AMA is pleased to announce a new initiative to make city and town officials aware of AMA clubs and members in their communities. The program will show community leaders how partnering with an AMA club can help resolve concerns that they might have about model aircraft and drones.
With all of the publicity about drones invading airspace and threatening air travel safety, cities and towns are looking to create local laws and ordinances that could restrict or outlaw model aircraft activity. Although local government may be trying to ensure the safety of its constituents, poorly written laws often create unintended problems for modelers.
AMA feels that a better approach is to advise local cities and towns to work with AMA clubs to create model flying sites, or "drone zones." We use the word drone because it is the buzzword that is being used by government officials.
By creating an AMA flying site, local leaders can point to a safe place for model activity, including the flying of multirotors. As most of us know, if someone is flying a model aircraft (especially a multirotor) and is asked by a police officer to stop, he or she will likely find another place to fly. It would be better if the police officer could point him or her to a flying site where the activity is allowed.
This is much like what happened with skateboarding. Skate parks were created in communities so that the activity could be done safely, in dedicated locations. Creating drone zones can be the answer to a similar concern with multirotors, especially when AMA clubs work with cities and towns to create such spaces and help teach safe flying.
AMA Headquarters will be sending information in the next few days to thousands of cities and towns across the country. In this information, municipalities will be asked to contact AMA Headquarters. AMA will assist these community officials and we may contact you about this happening in your area. We hope that you will be willing to help. If you are already working with your local city or town government officials, they might contact you directly.
Check out the postcard we are mailing below.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So what have you or your club done to educate local politicians about this issue, or better yet find additional places to fly?

More action on behalf of the AMA that will be criticized, what's new.

If they do nothing, then get criticized for doing nothing, then get blamed for whatever someone does who is caught flying a "drone" while not at a field. Do something to help promote the hobby, educate those in power than can adversely affect us, and they get criticized. Surreal.

If I'm not mistaken, some folks feel the AMA hasn't done enough to find new flying fields. Now they do it, and wait for it...it's a bad thing. Go figure.

Your vote at the club level will do nothing from having the AMA note your field as an AMA affiliated field. The nice thing about the AMA however is that they let clubs determine who/what flies there, so you can "ban" anything you want.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Just a quick observation about 2 clubs that exist just inside the 5 mile radius of two different air ports in the Milwaukee area. They are both over 4,7 miles from their respective and after being required to call a special number every day at the start of flying and let the towers they were starting and would be active all day. Well as of June First both towers resided that phone call saying that even 1 call per day was unnecessary. As a side note until these clubs contacted their respective Towers the Tower personal never even knew these fields existed and didn't care that they were even there. My guess is that even not knowing the clubs were there they had never ever had any incident with any aircraft they had been controlling, it was not anything to worry about know. A problem that was not a problem in the first place ,,,Solved.