Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2925499

Hopefully that takes you to the Electric 3D forum, and a thread entitled "FLYING IS NOT A CRIME."

The REAL parkflyer solution will not be tiered membership or any other half-baked AMA program designed to "attract" park flyers. It will be the "pure" park flyer community as a whole waking up one day to find that they're banned from every open space in the immediate area, and they have nowhere to fly.

I don't wish it on anyone, whether they embrace the AMA or spit on it. I just have this bad feeling that that is the way it's going to go down.

Crashem

Great thread.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

If the attitude displayed in post # 24 and 25 are prevelant, you can count on it.

necorc

And the folks in posts #24 and #25 will be standing there scratching their heads wondering why....

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

Everyone told me that didn't happen!

Crashem

Ever hear the phase "Consider the Source.."

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

The "Real Park fliers", the guys that are doing that as their primary R/C interest are going to need to group to some degree weather it be through the AMA or a new organization. The AMA want's to act but the membership is is all wondering who and how their going to upset. I believe the park flier group may need to make the initiative to aproach them and say this is what we want or need help with. It will have to be a 2-sided street.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Many of the people in that thread sound either very young or not very bright. I can imagine that in a few years, many of them will be grown up and either at college or getting some other activity banned in their home town. And they will likely be oblivious to the harm that they have caused. The more things change, the more they stay the same. This isn't the first generation to conflict with urban sprawl and find themselves inadvertently writing city ordinances. They are just younger. And they are operating within even denser populated areas and communities that have already had at least one round with the RC community. The horrible thing is that we can't warn them without coming across as preaching. Little do they know, we were young once ourselves. True, we didn't hover over they neighbors dog. Our crime was an annoying but persistent whining sound off in the distance. ( Just think, if these Yard Crew Swat Teams with 2 lawn mowers and 3 Weed Eaters and 6 leaf blowers had been in business 20 years ago, no one would have known we were there. )

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

The guys I saw last fall chaising cars were 30-40's range. Old enough to know better.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

They would fall in the "not very bright " category.

Over the years I have learned one very important lesson about people. Not everyone is a human being. Some are human animals. They walk among us and can easily fool you. But they lack a conscience and should be considered extremely dangerous.

Roby

The" REAL "park flyer solution ?

Waking up one day and finding out that they have been banned from
every open space available in the area ? Not likely, in many cases
depending where they go, no one will even know they are" in"the area.

It seems that some people ,for one reason or another, have an axe to
grind when it comes to PF's. If the PF's arn't breaking any local laws, then
what's the problem ? The sky isn't falling and the end is not near.

Roby

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

What city did they ban all R/C flying because of the gliders? Or was that not real?

abel_pranger

It hasn't happened for the half of AMA membership that doesn't belong to clubs, so no good basis to expect it will happen for the non-AMA members that don't belong to clubs.
BTW, based on claim history the non-club fliers have a much better safety record than club fliers.

Abel

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Roby, et al,

Flying a buzz saw over peoples' heads and hovering over the neighbor's dog is just plain dangerous. All it takes is one bad accident to get park flying banned in an entire city. Suppose a PF hits someone? Suppose a whirling prop takes someone's ear off or eye out? Can you imagine the hue and cry, not to mention the lawsuits?

If PFs fly their models irresponsibly it's inevitable that an accident involving personal injury and/or property damage will eventually happen. Then the local governments will take action to ban park flying.

CR

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

You also have to keep in mind that the people doing this are the 1% and not the 99%. Just because we point it out doesn't mean the 99% are guilty. I also think the 99% should be the worse offended by the 1%. It's the 1% that make the 99% look bad.

The advancement of our society in the last 100 years is a small spec of time Park fliers as we know it have only been around a much smaller spec in time. To hear as many things as we have about what they do in such a small period of time is troubling. There is no way around it. People just don't want the 1% to ruin it for eveyone else.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

The problem is that it's that small percentage of irresponsible fliers who can ruin it for all of us. It might be a good idea for the PF community to think about policing their branch of the RC hobby for themselves.

CR

Roby

An observation from several hours ago.

I was at opening day of little season to watch my grandson play
in his 1 ball game. This is a city park and a very nice one at that.
Perfect for a PF but not today, way too many people . With this very
thread in mind, I looked around to watch and see how much more
of a risk is a PF as compared to the activities going on.

Well, as you can imagine , kids of all sizes are everywhere throwing baseballs
in all directions . Mothers pushing carriages while talking on cell phones as they
run into people. Fresbees flying everywhere. kids riding bikes within the crowds.
All of this topped off with cars parked on the same side of the road as the playground.
(against Mass state law)

Almost forgot..........there is a sign that indicates " NO GOLFING ON THE PLAYING FIELD"
I guess then it's ok everywhere else.

Today would fall under the 1% rule as most of this activity isn't usually going on ,but a
PF in NO way could be compared to what I saw going on.

Talk about risk that is non-PF related at parks. When was the last time anyone reading this
was actually AT a park ? It could be an eye opener.

Leave the PF's alone , grind your axe somewhere else.

Regards
Roby

gow589

My Feedback: (1)

That's actually a pretty good example. Baseball is "Organized", they have designated areas, they have permission to be there, those are some benefits.

If people played baseball in a park where people were having picknics, walking their dog, and the balls stared bouncing through peoples picknick table, and if people started throwing baseballs at pedestrians, I bet it would be banned pretty quickly.

If it were between baseball and park fliers, well baseball is America's Pass time.

It's not an axe, an olive branch!

Roby

I stand corrected if a "organized " baseball will do less damage than a PF.

I can see it now "hey you , you hit me in the head with your baseball " !

"that's ok because I'm................." organized"

But wait...............what if it's a dad just hitting fly balls ?


The PF guys have a good thing going , I sure hope that the 1% group doesn't mess it
up for the other 99%. Maybe the 1% guys will graduate into gas or glow, then have to join
a club ,AMA and take on all the baggage. That way the PF's can shed their garbage.

To all the PF guys , do your thing safely and have a good time . I envy you.

Roby

Taildrager-inactive

My Feedback: (11)

I will fly my PF where & when I want in disreguard to your AMA rules or organised flying club field right down the road. If I get banned from flying at one site I will simply move on to another, so there.

joey_d1119

You guys seem to think you need a PF solution...its not a PF solution you need. You need to fix your perception that the PF is the only one capable of ruining RC flight. Gow, you've never said once that people exist in other aspects of that hobby that can ruin it. You say good things about PF's sometimes, but you always say there the only ones who can ruin it. Im not worried about you guys because a lot of you will never make the decision about this anyway...just talk and talk....and talk...and thats all it will ever be for you guys..

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I, for one, am well aware that there are many ways the we in the RC hobby can shoot ourselves in the foot. This is just one aspect of the many ways it can happen.

As to taking positive action: I recently became acquainted with a PF who flies with a friend of his on the local college campus. I got a rough measurement of the distance yesterday from the the place where they fly to our club field. Looks like it's a little over two miles. That should be enough separation, although IIRC, the AMA reccommends three.

What I'm going to do next is get back in contact with this guy and wangle an invite to fly my TM-400 with them. Hopefully, while chewing the fat between flights, I'll be able to steer the conversation around a brief mention of safety and frequency control. Maybe I should sign back up as an intro pilot so I can invite them out to field....... Anyhoo, that's all I can think of to do at this point.

Any suggestions?

CR

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Just thought this should be saved in case of later edits.

J_R

Hi Charley

The AMA does not recommend 3 miles.

The Safety Code, which the club agrees to enforce, states in RC rule 5: “I will not knowingly operate my model aircraft within three (3) miles of any preexisting flying site without a frequency-management agreement. A frequency-management agreement may be an allocation of frequencies for each site, a day-use agreement between sites, or testing which determines that no interference exists. A frequency-management agreement may exist between two or more AMA chartered clubs, AMA clubs and individual AMA members, or individual AMA members. Frequency-management agreements, including an interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA Headquarters.�

While the definition of "preexisting" is not clear to me (does it mean before the club was founded or before flying started today, etc.?) and there seems to be some other ambiguity in the rule, it appears the rule is required, not recommended. The real question is does the rule, in the situation you described, affect the club and individual AMA supplied insurance in the case of an accident caused by frequency conflict. I would suggest to you that an inquiry to the AMA Special Services Department is in order.

abel_pranger

Hi JR-

What if.......
Non-AMA members are using one of the sites? No provision in SC rule 5 for that.
Since no frequency-management agreement may exist in that case, it appears the AMA club must abide by the 3 mile limit.

Abel