astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And, as usual, you resort to personal attacks when your narrative is questioned. Typical.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Right, in a park without a safety line. Sounds pretty close to what you do.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

One gets in return what one gives. Pathetic that at your advanced age you haven’t learned that.

franklin_m

Not what I do - I don't fly over people

However, it is EXACTLY like what your buddy over on RCG says they do, flying over equestrian activities and walking trails.
Can't help but notice your double standard -- you didn't say word one over there about it.

franklin_m

You noted there was no safety line. AMA's beloved "code" which that member signed an oath to obey, requires a safety line. There's no waiver in AMA's "code" that it only applies in the US. So despite what Randy Cameron wants to believe, that guy signed the oath. That "signature" they tout meant nothing - it clearly didn't stop him from breaking the beloved "code."

Thus another example of undermining the organization's narrative.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Again, your spin. The pilot lost control of his sailplane and it drifted to the no fly zone. Same thing could happen at your school yard.

I didn’t respond to that post because I didn’t see it. I don’t obsessively scour R/C sites to find things to add to my “ long game “. As you may recall when you brought up the equestrian incident I mistakenly thought you were referring to my club as we had a similar situation with a horse and rider coming into our flight area.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Good grief, you’re so full of it. Having been in the military you received training on different laws and customs before entering other countries. You if all people know that when in a different county, that countries laws apply.

On a side note, You do the exact same thing when you fly at a school yard. You signed the exact same thing and then proceed to fly where a safety line can’t be defined and maintained to everyone the enters that school yard.

franklin_m

Please show me where in the AMA code it says that it does not apply everywhere? Oh, that's right. It isn't there. Just like the insurance "requirement" you tout.

Yet again, please state the criteria to "define and maintain" a safety line.

Oh, just like the insurance "requirement" and the code "exclusion" for overseas, it doesn't exist. You are making up definitions out of whole cloth.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

franklin_m

That says you have to establish and maintain only. Yet AGAIN, please provide AMA definition of what's required to "establish" a safety line and what's required to "maintain" a safety line?

Repeating the words does not define them. Since you seem to have trouble grasping that concept, let me give you an example that hopefully even you can understand the concept of defining words.

At various places in my aircraft manual, the procedure will say either land "As Soon As Possible" or land "As Soon As Practicable." "Land As Soon As Possible" means "Land at the first site at which a safe landing can be made" - which for my aircraft was the first hard surface runway 5000' or longer. Meanwhile, "Land as soon as practicable" was defined as "Extended flight is not recommended. The landing site and duration of flight is at the discretion of the pilot in command."

So, you can repeat "establish and maintain" until the end of time, but without definitions of those words, they're meaningless. And thank you for helping me illustrate is the poor nature of AMA's beloved "code" - as these and many other critical terms are undefined. Undefined means they can mean anything to anyone ... as you're so amply demonstrating.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Your semantics won’t hold up in court. Why “establish “ a safety line if the intent is not control the line. The intent is to keep people out of your fly zone. I realize you only see black and white and this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. The same applies to the sanctioned event waiver. The FAA used that exact wording. It is implied that a sanction comes with insurance.

This is a prime example of why your support group here on RCU is dwindling. Looks like you’re down to one. He hasn’t contributed one shred of useful information. You are very quickly becoming irrelevant. Heck, I would even state that he’s using your posts as a tool to harass me.

franklin_m

Safety codes are all about black and white. The whole reason for definitions is to ensure consistent interpretation .. and "intent" or "implied" are nothing but ambiguity. Besides, if such a requirement was so clear, then why is an AMA club interpreting the same language to allow flight over people and allow people in front of the "established" and "maintained" safety line? If they can do it, so too can anyone else. Hence the ridiculous assertion you make that "establish" and "maintain" is so clear.

And yet the "or" remains. And 336 is still gone. And you're still required to register with FAA instead of using AMA member number ("registration is inherently governmental"). Oh and there's altitude limits that weren't there before.

So I could care less what you think about the size of my support group.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yep, and I suggest that everyone who has to buy a RID module send you a Thank You card. Very likely those items that you are so proud of would have happened anyway. I do understand how much you are fond of taking credit for things, a certain set of pictures that you supposedly took yourself and posted from Myrtle Beach but somehow come through a PA IP address.

franklin_m

I'll claim the initial statement from FAA that membership is not required. I'll also claim claim "or" and registration is "inherently governmental." RemoteID, that wasn't me, but it's a huge step forward for accountability. Same with FRIAs. For once boundaries are established, it'll be easier for neighbors who are tired of years of overflights to get FAA to act.

That's an interesting accusation. Either you're making it up, you've been given access to admin logs, or "someone" who does have access to logs is giving you info. If the latter, Gee .. I wonder who that might be?

Big picture though, with respect to IP addresses, that proves nothing. From your comment I take it you've never heard of VPNs? I can log in from just about anywhere in the world (including Kazakhstan - I've done it) and it looks like I'm coming from PA. Suggest you do a little research on "personal VPN" on YouTube. They're pretty easy to set up.

Your comment proves absolutely nothing - except perhaps that someone is providing confidential RCU Admin information to members for the purpose of making allegations against other members.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

LOL, nope. Just something I thought I would try in order to see the lengthy explanation that only a guilty person would provide. Human nature, those who have something to hide tend to “ over explain “. Of course you are free to think what you want, but I’m not the proven liar here am I SterlingD?

franklin_m

Unless of course that lengthy explanation is accurate. I use a personal VPN by default.

I'm monitoring the power reliability to our house via a Pi0 running NUT attached to a UPS. To reduce vulnerabilities, the logs are only accessible via our local network. When I was overseas for a month at a time, the only way I could look at the logs was via a VPN. In fact, here's an excerpt from one of the logs. "Network UPS Tools" is otherwise known as NUT.



So even if you had checked, the IP address would have shown PA.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Sure thing SterlingD.

franklin_m

And yet 336 is still gone. The "or" is still in place of an "and." The request to use AMA number for registration is still on the trash heap of history. And regulations that limit the ability to fly "as you always have" are still in place. Furthermore, insurance is not a "requirement," and "establish and maintain" remains undefined. And of course the lengthy explanation was is indeed true.

Meanwhile, a number of AMA members that signed the "oath of all oaths," including you, still ignore it when it suits them - thereby undermining their beloved organization's only real talking point about the value (from regulators perspective) of membership.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Eventually my flying over 400’ will be legal, you’ll still be a liar SterlingD.

franklin_m

Meanwhile, you're the one breaking the LAW.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yet the only people who care are you and your sidekick. Nothing more than a couple internet Karen’s. Are either of you the president of an HOA?

franklin_m

Resorting to name calling is pretty typical for you. That and being a law breaker who undermines the stated value of your beloved organization's "code."

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. More personal attacks? You are the first to whine when someone breaks the rules…..

kinda hypocritical, no?

Astro

franklin_m

If it weren't for double standards, he'd have no standards at all!

init4fun