Seems to me
11-02-2016 | 01:58 PM
#101
My Feedback: (1)
I know BarracudaHockey says he's looking in to it(and yes, I'm taking him at his word on this) but, for what that is worth, I doubt anything will be done by the AMA. To actually take action is to admit there is a problem. To admit there is a problem means that the self-policing policy the AMA and it's minions(yes, I'm finger pointing at some people in the forums, though not naming names since we all know who they are) are so proud of is not working and essentially admitting as much. To admit that self policing isn't working means "loss of face" and credibility as an organization when dealing with the FAA and Congress which basically negates the need for the AMA as a CBO. Lastly, since most people's home owners insurance will cover what might happen if someone does crash while flying, would we really need to pay for additional insurance through the AMA?
Does this bring the situation into focus for anyone other than me? My statement is based on a logical progression of what taking any kind of action means to the AMA's "White House" in Indiana. I would now challenge the AMA "cheerstaff" into providing a rebuttal statement that address's this with verifiable information that can prove me wrong. Any of the usual "spinning" and double talk will not be accepted as verifiable proof, so don't even bother to try that worn out tactic. Verifiable proof MUST INCLUDE A WORKING LINK to show where the information comes from, not just a "he said she said" line of bull we've seen so often
Does this bring the situation into focus for anyone other than me? My statement is based on a logical progression of what taking any kind of action means to the AMA's "White House" in Indiana. I would now challenge the AMA "cheerstaff" into providing a rebuttal statement that address's this with verifiable information that can prove me wrong. Any of the usual "spinning" and double talk will not be accepted as verifiable proof, so don't even bother to try that worn out tactic. Verifiable proof MUST INCLUDE A WORKING LINK to show where the information comes from, not just a "he said she said" line of bull we've seen so often
Regards,
Astro
11-02-2016 | 02:05 PM
#103
My Feedback: (1)
Objection! 
Facts not in evidence! 
I guess I just like factual evidence Hydro, not supposition, rumor, generalizations, fear mongering, and agenda driven narratives. And thought it's categorized here in these fora as sheeple/fanboy/cheerleader/rosecoloredlenses kinda thing, I give people the benefit of the doubt where possible, and try not to jump on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon when possible. Different strokes 'n all.
Facts not in evidence! I guess I just like factual evidence Hydro, not supposition, rumor, generalizations, fear mongering, and agenda driven narratives. And thought it's categorized here in these fora as sheeple/fanboy/cheerleader/rosecoloredlenses kinda thing, I give people the benefit of the doubt where possible, and try not to jump on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon when possible. Different strokes 'n all.
Pot...........kettle.............black
Astro
11-02-2016 | 02:09 PM
#105
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And so you apply this same standard to all pilots, not just MR/Drone, because that distinction hasn't really been made in the past....its seems it's usually coupled with MR/Drone folks. I would agree though that all AMA members should be held to the same standards.
11-02-2016 | 02:17 PM
#107
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Now the 12 Angry Men (old school movie reference) have spoken....what's the verdict? Hang 'em high, or off to the gallows?
11-02-2016 | 02:31 PM
#108
My Feedback: (1)
I've ALWAYS maintained that our STELLAR safety record has been due to each of us holding one another accountable to the safety guidelines at our fields. What we witnessed in the video is almost more alarming (as franklin and hydrp pointed out) as it shows (the Feds, the media, the general public) that the AMA is not really equipped to monitor adherance at established fields, let alone in the general public arena where the droners have proven disregard for safety time and time again. As someone here already mentioned, it's kinda hard to say, "they're not us" when, ummm, oops....yes, they are!
(BTW, I have NEVER singled out MR (as you allege in your post)
Astro
11-02-2016 | 03:01 PM
#109
And again ,
11-02-2016 | 03:05 PM
#110
I'm pretty sure you know what I've said, you just choose to play ostrich and spin-doctor as you see fit. (Or maybe it is the reading comprehension thing that continues to surface)
I've ALWAYS maintained that our STELLAR safety record has been due to each of us holding one another accountable to the safety guidelines at our fields. What we witnessed in the video is almost more alarming (as franklin and hydrp pointed out) as it shows (the Feds, the media, the general public) that the AMA is not really equipped to monitor adherance at established fields, let alone in the general public arena where the droners have proven disregard for safety time and time again. As someone here already mentioned, it's kinda hard to say, "they're not us" when, ummm, oops....yes, they are!
(BTW, I have NEVER singled out MR (as you allege in your post)
Astro
I've ALWAYS maintained that our STELLAR safety record has been due to each of us holding one another accountable to the safety guidelines at our fields. What we witnessed in the video is almost more alarming (as franklin and hydrp pointed out) as it shows (the Feds, the media, the general public) that the AMA is not really equipped to monitor adherance at established fields, let alone in the general public arena where the droners have proven disregard for safety time and time again. As someone here already mentioned, it's kinda hard to say, "they're not us" when, ummm, oops....yes, they are!
(BTW, I have NEVER singled out MR (as you allege in your post)
Astro
Yep , I'll agree with what Astro wrote here , right down to the very last sentence he is correct . Astro for one and myself makes two that have been saying it's the BLOS , no matter whats carrying the camera and not what the BLOS is being flown with .
11-02-2016 | 04:44 PM
#112
Are you being obtuse intentionally, or just don't want to state the obvious and correct your earlier comments? You have absolutely no idea if everyone there watching was or was not an AMA member. Your drawing a conclusion, and it's not supported factually. You and the lol'ers can have the last word, I'll cede the floor so the narrative can continue, it's clear there isn't a high standard of proof here.
Look forward to viewing additional videos and the ensuing analysis. I can't deny it won't be fun.
Look forward to viewing additional videos and the ensuing analysis. I can't deny it won't be fun.
If not, then there's a whole bunch of people, who aren't AMA members, flying at a place that requires AMA membership. Including now at least one more turbine flier (photo1). At some point, Occam's Razor must be considered, in that the simplest answer must be the right one.
Option/Answer (Porcia): The many people seen at the video flying at a field that requires AMA membership are in fact not AMA members.
or (the simpler answer)
Option/Answer (Frank): The most if not many of the people in the video are AMA members, since it's required to fly there, and they watched or stood while this knucklehead blew off a whole bunch AMA rules.
11-02-2016 | 05:33 PM
#113
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If not, then there's a whole bunch of people, who aren't AMA members, flying at a place that requires AMA membership. Including now at least one more turbine flier (photo1). At some point, Occam's Razor must be considered, in that the simplest answer must be the right one.
Option/Answer (Porcia): The many people seen at the video flying at a field that requires AMA membership are in fact not AMA members.
or (the simpler answer)
Option/Answer (Frank): The most if not many of the people in the video are AMA members, since it's required to fly there, and they watched or stood while this knucklehead blew off a whole bunch AMA rules.
Option/Answer (Porcia): The many people seen at the video flying at a field that requires AMA membership are in fact not AMA members.
or (the simpler answer)
Option/Answer (Frank): The most if not many of the people in the video are AMA members, since it's required to fly there, and they watched or stood while this knucklehead blew off a whole bunch AMA rules.
11-02-2016 | 05:57 PM
#114
My Feedback: (1)
So, you're relying on Occam's Razor. I can't help but wonder if that theory ever worked it's way into a report. No facts, no evidence, just a philosophical theory. Hardly what I would call demonstrable or scientific in terms of conclusions. It's clear you won't walk the full statement back, but I see equivocation now, (the most if not many, the many)so that's something. even a little. At least it's more accurate and probable. As is common around clubs nowadays, you'll find non AMA members and spectators.
Astro
11-02-2016 | 06:00 PM
#115
My Feedback: (1)
So, you're relying on Occam's Razor. I can't help but wonder if that theory ever worked it's way into a report. No facts, no evidence, just a philosophical theory. Hardly what I would call demonstrable or scientific in terms of conclusions. It's clear you won't walk the full statement back, but I see equivocation now, (the most if not many, the many)so that's something. even a little. At least it's more accurate and probable. As is common around clubs nowadays, you'll find non AMA members and spectators.
Astro
11-02-2016 | 06:41 PM
#116
So, you're relying on Occam's Razor. I can't help but wonder if that theory ever worked it's way into a report. No facts, no evidence, just a philosophical theory. Hardly what I would call demonstrable or scientific in terms of conclusions. It's clear you won't walk the full statement back, but I see equivocation now, (the most if not many, the many)so that's something. even a little. At least it's more accurate and probable. As is common around clubs nowadays, you'll find non AMA members and spectators.
11-02-2016 | 07:12 PM
#117
YOU REALLY NEED TO FACE THE FACTS PORCIA, THE VIDEO IS DAMNING EVERYONE SHOWN IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have one person, PUSHING his jet past the stop sign while the defendant taxis his past it without a second thought. You have a crowd of people, many of which are almost assured to be AMA members DUE TO SITE REQUIREMENTS. You have the defendant pilot bragging about flying almost 100MPH over the speed limit and putting that in writing in the video. Let's put this into a context that anyone WITHOUT KNOWING THE SAFETY CODE CAN UNDERSTAND:
1) Running a stop sign= traffic citation and fine
2) Exceeding 20MPH over the speed limit= reckless driving, punishable by jail time, fine and possible loss of license and vehicle impounding
3) Possible driving without a license= punishable by jail time, fine, loss of license or right to obtain one and vehicle impounding
4) Video evidence in court= slam dunk conviction
5) Allowing operation of a vehicle outside the law= guilty by association
These are not made up statements, they are known fact in every traffic court in the country. We know the first two are shown on video so there is no doubt they are fact and would be prosecuted accordingly. The third is an unknown but, if he doesn't have a waiver, it's then a valid argument. The fourth we all know is a fact since dash cams are now admissible as evidence in every state in the union. As for the fifth, ask any bartender what happens if someone, after drinking a beer or two, gets in an accident after leaving the bar the bartender works at. Here in Washington State, the bartender is guilty of a crime as well and faces jail time, just like the guy driving the vehicle while intoxicated. Just for the record, most states have a BAC limit of .08%, low enough that some people would be considered intoxicated after one beer or mixed drink.
I'm not going to touch the flying in restricted airspace since Franklin already covered it but that would be looked at as trespassing. Some government sites make trespassers subject to eating lead, not just being subject to arrest and incarceration
You have one person, PUSHING his jet past the stop sign while the defendant taxis his past it without a second thought. You have a crowd of people, many of which are almost assured to be AMA members DUE TO SITE REQUIREMENTS. You have the defendant pilot bragging about flying almost 100MPH over the speed limit and putting that in writing in the video. Let's put this into a context that anyone WITHOUT KNOWING THE SAFETY CODE CAN UNDERSTAND:
1) Running a stop sign= traffic citation and fine
2) Exceeding 20MPH over the speed limit= reckless driving, punishable by jail time, fine and possible loss of license and vehicle impounding
3) Possible driving without a license= punishable by jail time, fine, loss of license or right to obtain one and vehicle impounding
4) Video evidence in court= slam dunk conviction
5) Allowing operation of a vehicle outside the law= guilty by association
These are not made up statements, they are known fact in every traffic court in the country. We know the first two are shown on video so there is no doubt they are fact and would be prosecuted accordingly. The third is an unknown but, if he doesn't have a waiver, it's then a valid argument. The fourth we all know is a fact since dash cams are now admissible as evidence in every state in the union. As for the fifth, ask any bartender what happens if someone, after drinking a beer or two, gets in an accident after leaving the bar the bartender works at. Here in Washington State, the bartender is guilty of a crime as well and faces jail time, just like the guy driving the vehicle while intoxicated. Just for the record, most states have a BAC limit of .08%, low enough that some people would be considered intoxicated after one beer or mixed drink.
I'm not going to touch the flying in restricted airspace since Franklin already covered it but that would be looked at as trespassing. Some government sites make trespassers subject to eating lead, not just being subject to arrest and incarceration
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-02-2016 at 07:21 PM.
11-03-2016 | 03:20 AM
#118
WoW! Jail time for flying a model airplane recklessly. I don't even think there is jail time for flying a full scale recklessly. Unless maybe you flew a stolen airplane. Or maybe refuse to pay your fine.
11-03-2016 | 03:23 AM
#119
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You should find out who he is, and have him hauled into AMA court as well. Cross check YouTube, snapchap, Vine, Twitter, and Facebook too. Perhaps surveillance is in order too. Whatever it takes, we've got another scofflaw that needs to be brought to justice. Chris Hanson might be available for the sting videos.
Round 'em up boys!
11-03-2016 | 03:42 AM
#121
Sport , I will say that Hydro drew a pretty interesting parallel between driving laws and aircraft operations , have you heard the several stories in the news lately where drunk pilots were removed from service , some mere minutes before flying ? They end up charged with such things as reckless endangerment due to the fact that their drinking has recklessly endangered the public and of course the usual "operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated" that a car driver would face under similar circumstances , the plane being , after all , a motor vehicle in the eyes of the law . Now , if we RC model aircraft operators ARE indeed flying "aircraft" as the FAA states , God forbid such a flight should end badly with someone injured you can bet all kinds of the same charges would be filed against the RC pilot irrespective of whether the flight was manned or not . This particular pilot , since he don't seem to follow rules no matter what he's flying , is a perfect example of the proverbial "accident waiting to happen" and as Franklin points out an indicator of the fact that "self policing" doesn't always work depending on who is or isn't at the field at any given time ....
11-03-2016 | 04:16 AM
#122
Sport , I will say that Hydro drew a pretty interesting parallel between driving laws and aircraft operations , have you heard the several stories in the news lately where drunk pilots were removed from service , some mere minutes before flying ? They end up charged with such things as reckless endangerment due to the fact that their drinking has recklessly endangered the public and of course the usual "operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated" that a car driver would face under similar circumstances , the plane being , after all , a motor vehicle in the eyes of the law . Now , if we RC model aircraft operators ARE indeed flying "aircraft" as the FAA states , God forbid such a flight should end badly with someone injured you can bet all kinds of the same charges would be filed against the RC pilot irrespective of whether the flight was manned or not . This particular pilot , since he don't seem to follow rules no matter what he's flying , is a perfect example of the proverbial "accident waiting to happen" and as Franklin points out an indicator of the fact that "self policing" doesn't always work depending on who is or isn't at the field at any given time ....
But jail? Give me a break! Just extreme hyperbole that only hurts your case. Obvious hyperbole can help to highlight the issue but when it goes that far It doesn't help.
11-03-2016 | 05:10 AM
#123
The local authorities can do that, but the FAA can only suspend license and issue fines. And there are likely no local laws broken here. Relooking at the video there is no incontrovertible proof there was any FAA rules broken. Was this outside 5 miles from and airport, if so then he did not break any altitude rule. How fast was he going. His video may have lied about the speed. Was it flying over traffic? Hard to be certain because the canopy may have distorted the view, but it looked like he was trying to turn before going over the highway. So looks like the only rule you could prove is taxing in the pits. But if he didn't have a waiver then that and his boosting about the speed is enough to pull his waiver. That and flying the drone beyond LOS is enough to suspend his AMA membership IMO.
But jail? Give me a break! Just extreme hyperbole that only hurts your case. Obvious hyperbole can help to highlight the issue but when it goes that far It doesn't help.
But jail? Give me a break! Just extreme hyperbole that only hurts your case. Obvious hyperbole can help to highlight the issue but when it goes that far It doesn't help.
The guy has several videos on Youtube showing the same disregard for the rules. He has his jet vids where he's claiming almost 300MPH and FPV control 3 miles from the flying field, quad vids where he's bragging about altitude violations, and who knows how many other FAA or local laws and ordinances he's breaking, not to mention thumbing his nose at the AMA and FAA, daring them to stop him by posting his violations on public media. If he was driving a car in these videos, he'd be in jail, his license revoked and his car impounded, just based on the videos he's posted on line. Since the AMA and FAA can't do anything but pull his waiver, if he even has one, drop him as a member and fine him, according to you, what does he have to fear, other than losing a little cash? This tells me the system is broken and needs to be fixed, regardless what you think. Going back to my comparison to driving a car, this guy would be driving a Corvette through LA during rushhour at 120MPH, both on and off the sidewalk, and the local LEOs would be powerless, other than giving him a citation through the mail, to stop him until he injures or kills someone. When he does that, and it is coming with the way he flies, it will be everyone else in the hobby that will pay the price for his arrogance and stupidity
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-03-2016 at 05:12 AM.
11-03-2016 | 05:15 AM
#124
My Feedback: (1)
One down, "many" to go.
You should find out who he is, and have him hauled into AMA court as well. Cross check YouTube, snapchap, Vine, Twitter, and Facebook too. Perhaps surveillance is in order too. Whatever it takes, we've got another scofflaw that needs to be brought to justice. Chris Hanson might be available for the sting videos.
Round 'em up boys!
You should find out who he is, and have him hauled into AMA court as well. Cross check YouTube, snapchap, Vine, Twitter, and Facebook too. Perhaps surveillance is in order too. Whatever it takes, we've got another scofflaw that needs to be brought to justice. Chris Hanson might be available for the sting videos.
Round 'em up boys!
Keep on spinning and deflecting if you wish, it just doesn't add to the threads, or the facts, as you so vehemently say is your thing..
Regards,
Astro
11-03-2016 | 06:00 AM
#125
Astro, I just had a thought. I think we're lucky to live about as far away from Porcia and D5 as we can get without leaving the lower 48. If he is willing to defend someone with a history of breaking rules as he did in this response to me,
The local authorities can do that, but the FAA can only suspend license and issue fines. And there are likely no local laws broken here. Relooking at the video there is no incontrovertible proof there was any FAA rules broken. Was this outside 5 miles from and airport, if so then he did not break any altitude rule. How fast was he going. His video may have lied about the speed. Was it flying over traffic? Hard to be certain because the canopy may have distorted the view, but it looked like he was trying to turn before going over the highway. So looks like the only rule you could prove is taxing in the pits. But if he didn't have a waiver then that and his boosting about the speed is enough to pull his waiver. That and flying the drone beyond LOS is enough to suspend his AMA membership IMO.
and claiming the canopy distorted the view show in the camera while the pictures below show that it didn't
The local authorities can do that, but the FAA can only suspend license and issue fines. And there are likely no local laws broken here. Relooking at the video there is no incontrovertible proof there was any FAA rules broken. Was this outside 5 miles from and airport, if so then he did not break any altitude rule. How fast was he going. His video may have lied about the speed. Was it flying over traffic? Hard to be certain because the canopy may have distorted the view, but it looked like he was trying to turn before going over the highway. So looks like the only rule you could prove is taxing in the pits. But if he didn't have a waiver then that and his boosting about the speed is enough to pull his waiver. That and flying the drone beyond LOS is enough to suspend his AMA membership IMO.
and claiming the canopy distorted the view show in the camera while the pictures below show that it didn't
