franklin_m

Please cite proof for the allegation above that's highlighted in bold italics?


Please cite proof. And note that the rules governing use of this proposed site (access limited to those with DoD ID card or escorted by someone with DoD ID card) would have been no different than other AMA sites ALREADY in existence.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Go away little boy ya bother me. Best said by someone many years ago.

There are some things like fungus and bacteria, a nuisance, but we learn to live with it.

franklin_m

Since you can't back up your claim, it's NOT credible.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Well, it's clear to me that both Paul and prop are the intolerant ones here. They don't like the narrative, so they think Franklin should just go away. It would seem that they are so full of themselves and their narrative that they are threatened that the truth will come out and expose the weaknesses and inequities of their beloved organization.

Anybody that questions transparency should be suspect themselves.

Keep on ranting, guys, your true colors are showing more and more.

Instead of attacking the messenger and trying to discredit, shout down and cancel him with your baseless words, don't you think it is in the best interest that all AMA members take heed and assure that the AMA is operating in an equitable manner? What is to fear about that? What are you afraid of? If there is nothing to Franklin's claims, why are you reacting as you are?

Astro

Hydro Junkie

I think they are afraid that Franklin's little "fishing trip" will show that there are problems that need to be addressed and Muncie is acting like the mainstream media, trying to hide anything they or the political organizations they are covering for doesn't want us to know.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Perhaps a few of Franklin’s “claims “should be put to the test as well.

His claim that the FAA knowledge test ( according to one of his FAA insiders ) would include needing to read sectional charts.

His claim that the FAA will never allow AMA to administer the knowledge test.

His claim that RCU account Mach5nchimchim was me.

His claim that my prediction of FAA registration renewals being much lower then initial registrations was baseless.

Least we mention his attempt at sneaking back onto a different site and outright lied about his career in retail.

Hydro, are you certain about your claim of Franklin’s high ethical standards?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Or just annoyed that Franklin has this set of documents and is cherry picking the bits of information that best suits his “ long game “. I thought I was fairly specific when I had asked him for the date of the last agreement the AMA helped broker with the FAA. I thought it would have been pretty clear that meant within the documents he had in possession. He of course replied with more of his word games. Transparency of course works both ways.

Hydro Junkie

Not beyond a certain point since I don't know him personally. With that said, I do know he does his homework before posting while others tend to let their feelings dictate their posts. In this case, however, it's hard to argue with the results of a FOIA response since it's based on documents provided by the FAA and not on anything the AMA has put out from Muncie

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, agreed. He does do his homework. So far he has shown us a very small percentage of that FOIA. It stands to reason he has only shown bits of information that supports his points. His word play on the question I asked him yesterday could be evidence to support my theory here.

Hydro Junkie

Then again, it could also be that he hasn't had the time to go through all of the documents he's received. How about we give him some time to see what all he's got ?

franklin_m

So what exactly do you expect?

Post the entire FOIA? It's four files, over 230MB of data mostly in two files that contain EVERY agreement signed by the FAA with clubs. Can't really post them here due to size. So over to you ... what will be enough to convince you that the set of info posted so far (28 data points) is actually VERY representative of the entire set of agreements?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I had only asked for one single data point right?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i don't think he wants representation of all the agreements, just the effective date of the most recent one.

worst case, send the package(s) direct to his email, and let him peruse them at his leisure.

myself, i would like to know how many have been rejected.

franklin_m

I was responding to the most recent comment, the one where you accused me of cherry picking data:And it's hardly word games. I'm using precise language lest someone come in and try to say I said something I did not. For example, I think above you asked about "the date of the last agreement the AMA helped broker with the FAA." Well, I don't know what meets your criteria to say the agreement was one the "AMA helped broker." Are those documents were AMA HQ was a direct participant in negotiations? Or AMA was a signatory? Or merely a representative of the AMA? Or simply the club? Nobody knows because you don't use precise language. So I use precise language.

To answer what I believe you to mean by that statement above, I provide the following precise language response:

As you also accused me of cherry picking, I'm going through and methodically recording the club name and the altitudes approved. I think you're going to find that based on the documents provided by the FAA, the 28 examples above are a fairly representative group when it comes to actual approved altitudes as reflected in the documents. If anything, they likely overstate how often clubs get above 400 (as a percent of all agreements).

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

So June 15,2021 is the last agreement you have record of. The next question in my mind is what date was the first agreement implemented? Correct me if I am wrong here but I don’t think this process goes back very far. Possible that you have 50% to 60% of the actual data?

franklin_m

Final results:

• FAA forwarded 632 pages in response to my FOIA request
• 629 pages of agreements (156) w/ CBOs, clubs, AMA, etc. in response to my FOIA request
• Average agreement is 3.9 pages in length
• 11 sites forwarded to DoD for response (still pending)
• Most recent agreement forwarded by FAA was 29 Oct 2021 (less than 6 months ago)
• 10 agreements with 2021 dates
• 62 agreements with 2020 dates
• 41 of the clubs had specific agreement expiration dates
• Of 41 clubs with agreement expiration dates, 38 are expired (i.e. invalid)
• If club had multiple max altitudes based on conditions, I gave credit to the highest (best case)

The impact of AMA's "Influence"?

• 96.7% of agreements (151 clubs) limited to 400 feet or less
• 11.5 % of agreements (18) limited to 200 feet or less
• 3.2% of agreements (5) were greater than 400 (3x600, 1 ea 1000 & 2000)
• All but one site approved for >400 comes with additional requirements

(added) Of 134 dated after LAANC in effect (23 July 2019 per AMA - when AMA started working to get high altitudes):

• 96.2% (129) at or below 400 feet

One more thing:
In the entire package, there is no agreement with any entity that gives authority to operate above 400 AGL at "Taj-Muncie"

franklin_m

See above, the most recent agreement is less than six months old. There are six agreements that date back to 2016. Nothing older than that.

mach5nchimchim

fake news

Hydro Junkie

Really? And what is it, specifically, that you are basing that statement on?

franklin_m

Yeah, I'm kinda curious too. Can't help but notice that never responded!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Trolls will troll.......

They never have anything to substantiate their claims, they just shout and call names alot.

Astro

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

I would like to know more about this, what are the regulations for use of DOD facilities as pertaining to civilian groups? Not only RC but car clubs using unused runways for car driving courses on DOD property.

franklin_m

Based on personal experience from the 2006-2009 period, here's what I can say. Whatever we did had to comply with our own (base) policies, Navy Region Southwest (our boss), Commander Naval Installations Command (NRSW's boss), Department of the Navy (CNIC's boss), and DoD (ultimate authority) policies. For this type of thing, these were policies on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, physical security, access, air operations, Morale Welfare & Recreation, land use, financial (use of government funds, time, etc.), facilities, and ethics. The major considerations were ATFP, access, security, and financial. Air Ops policies were involved as well, but I had a lot of authority with respect to local operational procedures, so that one was relatively easy.

Generally speaking, if something is 100% active duty, dependents, retirees, & government civilians (hereafter referred to as authorized patrons), things get much easier. We had a dirt-bike club that used a big area in one part of the base, but that club was open only to the above group. Even then, 100% doesn't mean approvals are automatic. The further you get from 100% of the above mentioned group, the more difficult it becomes (note 1). And then you have the guiding principle that even if you navigate all the policies and find out you CAN do something, you still have one more very important decision, and that deals with setting precedent. As my Staff Judge Advocate explained to me with respect to allowing anything but 100% authorized patrons to use my facilities, "What you do for one, you must do for all similar groups." And that gets difficult really fast.

In very rare circumstances, you can get permission to do things outside these, but it takes approval way up the chain of command. And it comes with a lot of "guidance." For example, during the three years I was at the base, each year Road & Track used one of my runways (13,500 feet long) to do acceleration tests on big dollar (quarter million dollar plus) exotic cars. I've attached a YouTube link at the end (I was out on the runway observing for some of the runs in the film). Those fall into a special category of event, and there's lots of consideration given to the message sent by such events. For example, we (again, with Dept of Navy approval) allowed R&T to do this, but when the motorcycle magazine came to us asking the same, we didn't even ask higher HQ. The reason why was simple: we were having a rash of Sailors killed and injured riding motorcycles off duty (including one assigned to one of our tenant squadrons). Although the bikes they wanted to run were expensive, they were ones within the financial means of Sailors. WE didn't want to send a mixed message by facilitating that kind of event with motorcycles.

Each service, each subordinate HQ, and each base can be different based on physical configurations and such. But generally speaking, I think you'll find fewer and fewer groups that aren't 100% authorized patrons being permitted use of DoD facilities. Not saying there are none, but it's highly dependent on situational issues.

Note 1: There are two exceptions to this, BSA & GSA. And both of those are spelled out in law. They're the only ones

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...8/speed-kings/

Charlie P.

400 ft? Above the pilot? Below the model? If I am at the base of a 200 ft slope, then there is 600 ft in altitude separation when the model may be 400 ft AOL.

What was used to establish 400 ft? Sounds capricious. Have there been dozens of collisions at 600 ft or 700 ft?

My Lentus 2.4M weighs the same as a turkey vulture (3.3 lbs w/battery) and stands out better. Have they been notified? They fly a lot higher than 400 ft.