Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

The Happy AMA Thread , What do YOU do with them ?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

The Happy AMA Thread , What do YOU do with them ?

Old 03-08-2020, 07:35 PM
  #101  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
You don't think that this comment breaks RCU posting rules? I suppose I could message Andy for his opinion about that.
No. LOL.

Dude, you are hilarious! No reason to get emotional, we are having a discussion about toy airplane regulations here

Astro
Old 03-08-2020, 07:40 PM
  #102  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Yes, we are all aware that when you can't argue the point you resort to insults.
And you to one of the many logical fallacies.

Astro
Old 03-08-2020, 07:45 PM
  #103  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
No reason to get emotional, we are having a discussion about toy airplane regulations here
I thought we were talking about robbing banks.

Do you know something about robbing banks? I bet you do...
Old 03-08-2020, 08:30 PM
  #104  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
I thought we were talking about robbing banks.

Do you know something about robbing banks? I bet you do...
Classy! Didn't YOUR acolyte that just throw that same stone at franklin and decree moral high ground?

What is it, that you know about me, that makes you think I know something about robbing banks? Or was that just a lame attempt at a baseless character assasination because you don't have a stable platform on which to have a beneficial debate?

Sure wish you guys could just stick to the facts instead of playground politics....

Astro
Old 03-09-2020, 03:32 AM
  #105  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
Whatever that means. I'm talking about your proposition to my club members. That is, if they do certain things they can keep their field open as a FRIA. But wait -- there will be no FRIAs because the concept is fundamentally flawed. So, were you lying when you made the first proposition? Or are you lying now? How can anyone possibly trust anything you say?
I'll do this in order so it's easy to follow. The FRIA concept ... AS WRITTEN ... is fundamentally flawed. IF, and I repeat IF, the proposed rule is changed to require they be open to all citizens equally without any requirement for forced association and FRIA operations are confined to the lateral limits of the land for with the organization has exclusive use, then I could support them.


Originally Posted by grognard
So to add insult to injury, you describe spoiling the harmless fun of innocent people you've never even met, and who have never harmed you in any way, as "delicious". And your acolytes call ME a psychopath?
Innocent? I think just above you freely admit that you deliberately violated explicit law so you could fly your toy like you WANTED as opposed to what the law requires. And you stated your friend at the club served as a spotter, observing the wilful violation and did not stop you. Neither act is "innocent," and as Asto pointed out is a compelling example of why self-regulation has failed.

Originally Posted by grognard
I suspect sir, you attended an instution (sic)where you were required to swear the following (emphasis added)
I did not. Remainder of your point on this is another hyperbolic emotional reaction to someone who does not agree with a policy because they belive in Constitutional concept of equal protection under the law.
Old 03-09-2020, 05:22 AM
  #106  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog

What is it, that you know about me, that makes you think I know something about robbing banks?
Oh sorry - you robbed a lemonade stand by mistake.

Old 03-09-2020, 05:43 AM
  #107  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I'll do this in order so it's easy to follow. The FRIA concept ... AS WRITTEN ... is fundamentally flawed. IF, and I repeat IF, the proposed rule is changed to require they be open to all citizens equally without any requirement for forced association and FRIA operations are confined to the lateral limits of the land for with the organization has exclusive use, then I could support them.
But that is not why you submitted comments, and not what you really expect to happen. You are on record, multiple times, as saying the real goal is to "stick a fork in the FRIA concept". To eliminate ALL FRIAs because you disagree with the probable management of SOME FRIAs. Why couldn't you just be honest about it? Take on the issue directly instead of concocting a BOGUS constitutional argument so the FAA would do your dirty work for you?

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Innocent? I think just above you freely admit that you deliberately violated explicit law so you could fly your toy like you WANTED as opposed to what the law requires.
On the contrary. I admitted to replacing a broken landing gear bungee with a #64 rubber band, but as you pointed out that was neither a regulatory nor safety code issue. Yet. I'm sure your minions are working on it.

When you attempted to convene an online kangaroo court (whose charges I was not bound to respond to BTW) I gave my best estimate of maximum altitude as 399 ft, with a possible excursion to 399.99 before beginning each of several spins. I most certainly did NOT admit to exceeding 400' at any time. I agreed that it was possible, but speculation is not an admission of guilt. And in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. So PROVE I exceeded 400' before beginning a spin. You can't -- and therefore I am just as innocent as you.

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Neither act is "innocent," and as Asto (who?) pointed out is a compelling example of why self-regulation has failed.
Self-regulation is working just fine. The applicable language from AMA's safety code reads:

I will not interfere with and will yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft using AMA’s See and Avoid Guidance and a spotter when appropriate.
This is what's important, and consistent with common sense and good judgement.

Putting my private pilot hat on for a moment, I'd feel a LOT safer knowing modelers are actively practicing "see and avoid" than knowing they will be head down staring at telemetry screens trying to stay just under 400'. What if I happen to be at 375?

Last edited by RCUer75345; 03-09-2020 at 06:43 AM.
Old 03-09-2020, 06:55 AM
  #108  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
But that is not why you submitted comments, and not what you really expect to happen. You are on record, multiple times, as saying the real goal is to "stick a fork in the FRIA concept". To eliminate ALL FRIAs because you disagree with the probable management of SOME FRIAs. Why couldn't you just be honest about it? Take on the issue directly instead of concocting a BOGUS constitutional argument so the FAA would do your dirty work for you?
If it's so bogus, why be so concerned about it? And yes, I want to stick a fork in FRIAs ... AS WRITTEN ... because ... as I've said multiple times ... I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace based on membership in any PRIVATE dues collecting organization.

Originally Posted by grognard
On the contrary. I admitted to replacing a broken landing gear bungee with a #64 rubber band, but as you pointed out that was neither a regulatory nor safety code issue. Yet. I'm sure your minions are working on it.

When you attempted to convene an online kangaroo court (whose charges I was not bound to respond to BTW) I gave my best estimate of maximum altitude as 399 ft, with a possible excursion to 399.99 before beginning each of several spins. I most certainly did NOT admit to exceeding 400' at any time. I agreed that it was possible, but speculation is not an admission of guilt. And in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. So PROVE I exceeded 400' before beginning a spin. You can't -- and therefore I am just as innocent as you.
I'll have to check with my Ophthalmologist friend, but I don't think the human eyeball can discern 0.99 feet in depth at a distance of 400 feet (and likely further as you were quite likely NOT operating direct overhead - slant range). But OK, you never directly admitted to going over 400 feet, but I can't help but notice your "wink wink" reference in the below, as well as EXTENSIVE rationalization of flight above that. Which leads one to wonder, if you didn't go over 400, they why work so hard to justify something you didn't do?
Originally Posted by grognard
...I don't see temporarily exceeding 400' (if I actually did) in order to SAFELY enter and recover from a spin as any different that temporarily exceeding the posted speed limit in order to SAFELY complete a passing maneuver around a semi trailer on the highway. Total flight times for this model are limited by battery capacity to 5 - 6 min. Total climb times to spin entry altitude are maybe 20 sec, with only the last 5 - 10 sec presumably over 400'. The spin itself takes another 5 - 10 sec -- again with only a portion of the maneuver presumably over 400'...
So I'll leave it to readers to decide whether they believe you remained below 400.


Originally Posted by grognard
Self-regulation is working just fine.
Hardly. A Pennsylvania Superior Court found that:

"There is substantial evidence to support the finding that the operation of these model planes poses a serious threat to persons on adjoining land," and that "The record is replete with testimony ... evidencing the Club’s inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners’] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club’s actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations (emphasis added)."

And this despite AMA's requirement at the time that:

"All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others (emphasis added).

In regular violation of AMA's own rules ... clearly they were not regulating themselves, and this took place repeatedly over years as noted by the court. This despite "direct representatives of the AMA" also known as CDs, in charge of such events. And regardless, AMA knew or should have known of the problems, and they did nothing either. That is a utter failure of self-regulation.



Originally Posted by grognard
This is what's important, and consistent with common sense and good judgement.
No. Compliance with law. As we see from above example, one cannot rely on AMA members to exercise such common sense and good judgement, nor will AMA (organizationally) hold them accountable.

Last edited by franklin_m; 03-09-2020 at 07:02 AM.
Old 03-09-2020, 09:51 AM
  #109  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Hardly. A Pennsylvania Superior Court found that (blah blah blah)
So, because of the actions of ONE club, you want to shut down ALL clubs?

Isn't that a bit like fining ALL doctors because of ONE malpractice case? Or ALL automakers because of ONE faulty airbag case?

"Johnny wouldn't play nice with other kids in his sandbox. We gotta do something. I know: Let's BAN SANDBOXES!"

How childish.
Old 03-09-2020, 11:10 AM
  #110  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Well guys , since the FAA thing permeates all AMA forum threads , and understandably so since it's such a threat to the hobby , I figure while we're discussing it here in what's supposed to be the happy thread I might as well put my two cents in ;

I gotta admit to being a bit surprised by the notion put forth earlier that it's OK to break any of the new FAA directives if they interfere with an RC model airplane's flight path requirements . I would hope that especially now where the hobby is under such threat the last thing anyone would want to do would be the one who got publicly caught disobeying the present day FAA directives . Yes I know it's a one in a million (billion ? trillion ?) chance , but God forbid a small full scale (like some cute lil Cessna or Piper or similar) is brought down by an RC model airplane flying where it shouldn't be and and the literal excrement WILL be hitting the fan for the hobby (Remember guys , "Lawn Darts" were banned in the USA over one 14 year old girl's death) . And as to the inevitable question of whether I myself have been breaking any of the FAA's rules ? Since this stuff has been going on fairly strongly , for the past couple of years especially , I have only been flying my really small sized stuff (.25 and smaller glow & electric parkies) that I can deliberately keep "low & slow" because I'd be embarrassed as all Hell to end up on the 6:00 news as the guy who ruined the hobby for everyone . Meaning no , I am not knowingly breaking any FAA rules , having used a "How High" altimiter to train my eye to where 400' is for each of my presently flyable models (once I get a good feel for what 400' looks like , I shoot for about 50' less while flying) Another consideration of course is the fact that if the AMA and the coalition of RC industry leaders & other aviation interests are truly our last and only hope , I'd not want to be making their job any harder by providing any reason for the FAA to cite our unwillingness to follow their rules as the reason to nail the final nails into our hobby's coffin . "Patience is a virtue" (Or a lazy man's excuse for inaction , take your pick) and other than submitting a well written comment back when the comment period was open I'd say patience (or laziness) , and compliance are pretty much our only options right about now .....

Last edited by init4fun; 03-09-2020 at 11:13 AM.
Old 03-09-2020, 11:33 AM
  #111  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
So, because of the actions of ONE club...
One club? Yeah right. Below is maybe five minutes of internet searching. FYI, I particularly like the first one, which is almost identical to the problem that you said was "one club." In the article they even quoted the same AMA rule that should have prohibited such actions ... if self regulation existed ... or if AMA enforced their own rules. But these are too easy to find, which means there isn't sufficient self regulation nor active enforcement by the parent organization.

RC Flying Field issue comes down to oversight
"They had a habit of just flying right over our tree line and coming over into our property all the time" and even goes on to quote the AMA code saying members are to avoid such acts
https://www.newstribune.com/news/loc...rsight/637819/

Homeowners dispute with airplane club over noise from planes
https://weartv.com/news/local/homeow...se-from-planes

Model airplane club grounded by park service
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20...y-park-service

Fire caused by remote control airplane near Cave Creek and Jomax Roads extinguished
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/weather...s-extinguished

Brush Fire Knockdown After Large Scale R/C Jet Crash
Search YouTube for above


Old 03-09-2020, 12:04 PM
  #112  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
I gotta admit to being a bit surprised by the notion put forth earlier that it's OK to break any of the new FAA directives...
There is nothing "new" about a 400 GENERAL altitude limit for model airplane flying. I believe that was part of the AMA Safety Code when I started flying in 1976, and I believe it was included in an FAA Advisory Circular in 1981. What's different is it being treated as a "hard" limit.

As I understand it, the idea was to help separate models from full-scale traffic by keeping most of them, most of the time, below 400'. As opposed to most full scale, most of the time operating above 500'. There is no physical fence existing in this altitude band and simply observing an altitude limit will not prevent midair collisions. As has been discussed many times, there are perfectly valid reasons for some full-scale aircraft to operate below 500'. And model aircraft have been safely operated for decades above 400', doing such things as thermal soaring and vertical aerobatic maneuvers.

Yes, 400' is now the letter of the law; and legalists among us insist it be strictly observed and enforced. But look at how that "law" was made. Congress did not debate or discuss the issue; it was simply tacked onto an FAA reauthorization bill. Did the FAA really intend this to be a "hard" limit, for everyone, forever? Where is their justification for that? Laws are living things -- they change all the time.

And no, I disagree that we should roll over and play dead. If we stay well below 400' and are afraid to even talk among ourselves about exceeding it -- here on a model plane forum, for Pete's sake -- then the airspace above 350' becomes unused and available. The FAA will take it. Then we'll dutifully stay below 300', until they take that too. Then 200', 100' -- and goodbye R/C flying.

The real test of this will occur during the new season when Soaring, Pattern and other large scale model events occur. If the FAA does not shut them down, then they are clearly not serious about enforcing this limit. In the meantime, we need to educate the FAA about what we do and how much airspace is required. We are legitimate airspace users too, and their job is to figure out how to accomodate everyone -- to the maximum extent possible.

Old 03-09-2020, 12:37 PM
  #113  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard

And no, I disagree that we should roll over and play dead. If we stay well below 400' and are afraid to even talk among ourselves about exceeding it -- here on a model plane forum, for Pete's sake --
You jump from rolling over and playing dead to downright breaking the law, as if there are no other options? Seems very unreasonable to me.

Astro
Old 03-09-2020, 01:02 PM
  #114  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
You jump from rolling over and playing dead to downright breaking the law, as if there are no other options?
Prove I broke the law.

I could see exactly where Franklin was going with this when he started it. I played along, because I think the conversation is worthwhile. Does the FAA meet our needs, or do meet theirs? Are we airspace users or are we sheep to be corralled until eaten?

Old 03-09-2020, 01:17 PM
  #115  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
....Are we airspace users or are we sheep to be corralled until eaten?
Didn't you say you hold a private pilot's rating ? As one who is presumably used to operating within the FAA's rule structure I'm surprised to hear all this rebellious talk of "playing dead" and "sheep" . What our hobby needs is proper representation and not "John Wayne" esque bravado producing negative results and creating martyrs .

When fighting "tyranny" it's best to not find one's self on the loud end of the gun , but instead to live to fight another day .....
Old 03-09-2020, 02:09 PM
  #116  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
What our hobby needs is proper representation and not "John Wayne" esque bravado producing negative results and creating martyrs .
Is this a courtroom or a Congressional hearing? Do I need to put on my suit and prepare a PowerPoint presentation to talk here? Or is this an open discussion forum where all points of view are welcome?

Or are you afraid that if you aren't a Good Boy, certain members will turn you in to the FAA?

Old 03-09-2020, 02:17 PM
  #117  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
Is this a courtroom or a Congressional hearing? Do I need to put on my suit and prepare a PowerPoint presentation to talk here? Or is this an open discussion forum where all points of view are welcome?

Or are you afraid that if you aren't a Good Boy, certain members will turn you in to the FAA?
Naw , I'm not worried about being turned in to the FAA ..... (cause I'll bet they're already here) .

Is it still being paranoid if they really ARE out to git ya ?
Old 03-09-2020, 02:32 PM
  #118  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
Prove I broke the law.

I could see exactly where Franklin was going with this when he started it. I played along, because I think the conversation is worthwhile. Does the FAA meet our needs, or do meet theirs? Are we airspace users or are we sheep to be corralled until eaten?
Id love to have a meaningful discussion with you but it is impossible with the big chip you carry on your shoulder and the fact that you keep using logical fallacies as your weapon.

Astro
Old 03-09-2020, 02:48 PM
  #119  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,529
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Time for a little happy to come back to this thread ( well at least for me ) as of right now I have 5 pattern events and 6 Soaring events on my 2020 calendar. I would be willing to bet my RCU membership that all these events will go as planned without any interference from the FAA, just as the same events took place in 2019.
Old 03-09-2020, 04:05 PM
  #120  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
Id love to have a meaningful discussion with you...
If you did, you would not have equated a momentary altitude deviation with bank robbery. You are evidently only interested in discussions with people who agree with you.

Old 03-09-2020, 04:09 PM
  #121  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Time for a little happy to come back to this thread...
My buddy and I are working on several 1/6 scale WWI planes to take to the annual "Dawn Patrol Rendezvous" at Dayton, OH this fall. We'll be some of the smaller models there - I think the 1/4 and 1/3 scale types rarely cruise BELOW 400'. And this is on an Air Force base!

And on that happy note -- my work here is done. I intended to quit after the NPRM comment period closed, this last week reinforces that decision.
Old 03-09-2020, 04:18 PM
  #122  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,529
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
My buddy and I are working on several 1/6 scale WWI planes to take to the annual "Dawn Patrol Rendezvous" at Dayton, OH this fall. We'll be some of the smaller models there - I think the 1/4 and 1/3 scale types rarely cruise BELOW 400'. And this is on an Air Force base!

And on that happy note -- my work here is done. I intended to quit after the NPRM comment period closed, this last week reinforces that decision.

Very nice, I imagine some of the WWI airplanes can be challenging to fly due to ground handling. I do tend to gravitate towards biplanes, I have 3 of them currently in my fleet.
Old 03-09-2020, 05:08 PM
  #123  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
If you did, you would not have equated a momentary altitude deviation with bank robbery. You are evidently only interested in discussions with people who agree with you.
LOL. your, "momentary altitude deviation" is a self-admitted complete disregard and contempt for the law. oh, and you should take a quick look in the mirror!

Astro
Old 03-09-2020, 06:02 PM
  #124  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I don't have telemetry equipment on most of my models. I honestly believe that I fly well below 400 ft, but I KNOW for a fact that I have never endangered a manned aircraft as I practice see and avoid and generally have a spotter. There is NEVER a full size manned aircraft anywhere close to my models, if one become visible at all, I'm landed and on the ground before it is close enough for me to make out what kind of aircraft it is. Not to mention, since I generally fly below the treeline, if a full sized manned aircraft is in danger of being hit by my model, they have bigger problems because they are likely on the way to crashing!
Old 03-09-2020, 06:08 PM
  #125  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,524
Received 82 Likes on 72 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
My buddy and I are working on several 1/6 scale WWI planes to take to the annual "Dawn Patrol Rendezvous" at Dayton, OH this fall. We'll be some of the smaller models there - I think the 1/4 and 1/3 scale types rarely cruise BELOW 400'. And this is on an Air Force base!

And on that happy note -- my work here is done. I intended to quit after the NPRM comment period closed, this last week reinforces that decision.
and,
good riddance to ya.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.