rcamp

The fellows at the informal field are in violation of the AMA safety regulations, flying within 3 miles of an established flying site without a frequency sharing plane. If these fellows are AMA members, then the AMA certainly can withdraw their membership for violation of the safety standard. Since the first club was operational first (I'm inferring this, if I'm wrong then they are in violation of the safety standard), it is the second group's responsibility to seek out a frequency sharing plan. I realize it may be impossible to determine if these guys are AMA members and identify their member IDs. If you could, the AMA has a responsiblilty to warn the AMA members they are in violation of the safety standard. I don't understand Brown's response unless he was saying that without further identification the AMA can do nothing. If he saying that the AMA cannot enforce the safety standard within their limited means (withdrawing membership), then the safety standard doesn't mean puke.
I would love to hear Brown's answer to the above. Either the safety standard has some meat, however thin, or throw it out and stop making such a big deal about it. BTW, I believe the safety standard is a good thing but the AMA has to either support it or drop it.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

My discussion about the rogue flyers liability for damages stems from their negligent conduct. There are 4 legal elements to negligence that must be established. They are:

1. Duty to protect: Everyone has a general duty to exercise reasonable care toward other people and their property. Model airplane pilots have a duty to operate their equipment exercising reasonable care toward other people and their property. There are no specific regulation regarding how to safely operate model airplanes, but the AMA safety code is a defacto standard accepted by a large majority of manufacturers and customers, and would meet the "reasonable" standard. This would include establishing a frequency sharing agreement between the sites.

2. Breach of duty: By knowingly operating their systems within 3 miles of an existing flying site without a frequency sharing plan, the rogue flyers are breeching that duty.

3. Causation: There must be a clear link between the behavior (either action or failure to act) and the event that causes damage (shooting down another plane). This is the hardest part to prove. Did they really shoot you down? You must have a way to prove that they were operating on the same frequency at the same time. The frequency monitor can help, but you'll also have to go to their field and see them flying. Witnesses will help.

4. Damages: Having established the other three elements, plaintiffs are entitle to be restored to his or her original position before the negligence occurred. Damages may be personal injury or property damage.

The plaintiff is also responsible for taking action to minimize damages. Therefore, it would be contingent on the existing field to try to establish when the rogue flyers are flying. Hence my suggestion for a frequency monitor. If the channel is clear, and you take off, and they subsequently shoot you down, they are negligent and can be held liable.

This argument does not in anyway imply a "right" by the existing flying field to the frequencies. It simply requires that the rogue flyers exercise reasonable care in the operation of their unsanctioned flying site. They are not doing that.

The AMA shouldn't get involved in the dispute. This is a civil dispute between two parties. The AMA is fulfilling its role by establishing standards and providing insurance to those agreeing to abide by those standards.

As flying sites get harder and harder to find and maintain, I predict that this situation will arise more often. The lawsuits will follow.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

The sad fact of the matter is that if all the adults in this world just acted like adults we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

I hope y'all get it resolved before someone gets hurt.

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

Having read with interest this thread I am struck by the attitude taken by some of the responders.
Since when does someone who knowingly endangers life and property have "the right to fly there just like you". Once upon a time many years ago our club had a similar problem with fliers who flew within 1/2 mile of our field. Most were former members who were too cheap to pay club dues, none were unaware of the danger, after talking to them with little results they were incouraged to move after it became very expensive for them to continue crashing their airplanes every time they attempted to fly. One other incident which was also caused by someone too cheap to pay dues was handled when he was informed that his actions were leading him toward a liability lawsuit if he did not change his ways. That got his attention real quick. My advice to the club with the problem is to take the lawsuit approach. Knowingly endangering other people after being warned of their actions seems like an act of extreme negligence.

abel_pranger

The only possibly relevant part of the AMA Safety Code is item 6 under the Radio Control section. It states that a frequency sharing agreement may exist between AMA clubs, between AMA members and AMA clubs, or between AMA members and other AMA members. No provision is made regarding non-AMA modelers and/or clubs. By AMA policy, you can only be interfered with by another AMA member. Ergo, the AMA SC is not relevant as it is not "reasonable." Further, "accepted by a large majority of manufacturers and customers" is an unfounded presumption. A large majority of manufacturers are offshore, as are many of their customers.

The intended and responsible use of the frequency monitor is to determine if the channel is clear before transmitting. It is not suitable for the evidence gathering you suggest. All it can tell you is that there is some energy detected in a given frequency slot. It may be coming from a 'rogue' flyer's transmitter, or it may be spillover from an adjacent channel in use by the guy next to you on the flight line, a TV signal, a remote controlled crane on an interstitial channel, a noisy transmission line, et al. It doesn't even tell you what direction it came from, nor how far away the source is. As a practical matter, if you had enough corroborating evidence to prove that a particular individual shot you down (as you said, it would be contingent on the existing field to try to establish when the rogue flyers are flying), you must have know enough about his location and operation to have prevented the incident. Else is he just one of a multitude of possible sources of interference that might have been within the 30 sq mile area circumscribed by a line of 3 mi radius around your AMA sanctioned flying site.

Says who? How are you going to prove they were any less reasonable in exercise of due care in their operation than those at the sanctioned site?

As far as AMA fulfilling their role, there is much more they could be doing, e.g., representing model aviation per their charter, and not just AMA. AMA's stubbornly parochial posturing refuses to acknowledge that there are model flyers outside of AMA sanctioned clubs, and so offers no substantive guidance to club members pertinent to getting along with them. Look at the "Partnering With Parkflyers" doc on the AMA web site for an example of the myopic view I am talking about. See if you can find among the god and motherhood prose any tangible guidance aside from the bottom line "get them to join AMA."

Abel

Liberator

"Says who? How are you going to prove they were any less reasonable in exercise of due care in their operation than those at the sanctioned site? "

The mere fact that they are flying close enough to a sanctioned site to cause interference proves that they are not exercising reasonable care. They would not fly if they were being reasonable.

J_R

I have been living in my house for 15 years. Every day I back out of the driveway, onto the street. The other day, I was hit by a car as I backed out. The fact that the car was near my house proves that they were not exercising reasonable care. They would not drive if they were being reasonable.

abel_pranger

Well, okay......... you and bkdavy take that legal principle to court. Good luck.

BTW, what if it isn't a "sanctioned" site, and what is the responsibility of the "rogue" to determine if it is or is not?
What is his legal, reasonable, responsibility to know that he is within 3 mi of another flying site, sanctioned or not?
Where is anything about a 3 mile separation from other users stated in the FCC Part 95 rules?
Are FCC Part 95 rules superceded by AMA Safety Code in US civil courts?

Abel

Liberator

JR,

Actually the fact that you knew that cars might be present and failed to look over your shoulder proves that YOU failed to exercise
reasonable care. In your statement you were not being reasonable.

Abel,

What if, what if, what if, you can do that to death.

The bottom line is that if these guys fly r/c it is more than likely reasonable to assume they have knowledge of the sanctioned site.

I guess its possible that they are not aware of it. But I doubt it.

My point simply is this. Do they have a right to use their equipment? Of course they do.

Can they use it that close to another KNOWN and SANCTIONED site? You betcha.

Is it in any way ethically right? Not in my opinion, unless an understanding is reached. However the understanding needs to favor the sanctioned club.

My question is this. Why would you want to do that?
The only answer I can come up with is that they simply don't care about there own stuff or anyone elses.

The other question I have is Jr, are you in favor of the "Rogue" flyers being able to mess up the "non-rogue" flyers?

J_R

On any given day, you and your club members are responsible for knowing about each and every other RC station being operated in the 28, or so, square miles surrounding your AMA chartered club field. The FCC has laid the responsibility at the feet of you and the other members of your club. The AMA has set that area at the 28 miles... not the FCC. An AMA member has a greater responsibility than does a non-AMA member.

By your reasoning, to do less than KNOW AT ALL TIMES is not showing reasonable care to carry out the mandate of the AMA *and* the FCC regulations which you and your club members have accepted by operating an RC station at an AMA charterd club field.

Liberator

But answer the question.

J_R

I am in favor of treating anyone with an RC station as an equal. I am not in favor of labeling them with derogatory slurs. I have yet to meet anyone flying models that I have not been able to talk to, face to face, in a reasonable manner. Pizza and a couple of pitchers of beer have managed to go a long way toward solving several problems over the years.

Liberator

Notice I used the "" just because they had been labled by others.
I don't think these guys are "bad people". I do however think that the guys at "the cornfield" (for lack of a better term that is not derogatory) have opened a can of worms. Saying that the guys at the established field are the one's that must be ever vigilant or they are the problem, is pretty silly. If they are smart they keep an eye out for any possible issues. But it only takes one radio and 20 seconds to crash a plane or to crash a plane and hurt someone. And again as I stated In my opinion, the guys at the non-sanctioned field bear the brunt of the blame in that scenario.

Giw252

My Feedback: (4)

Hey guys, don't get to excited about this situation. Our club is determined to solve this problem peacefully. My intention in my first post was bring to light how the AMA views our problem. By the looks of the posts, this type of situation does not seem to be too uncommon. Which begs the question as to why the AMA doesn't have more to say about this problem. Remember, the AMA basically said that we were on our own and not to anger this other group of guys. Maybe I am off the mark, but I just feel that the AMA could have done more in this situation. I also found out that some of these guys said that they were members of the AMA. May or may not be true, but if it is true than they knew what they were doing was wrong according to AMA regs. Or maybe these guys never broke open their AMA hand books. Ignorance is bliss!

J_R

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in this forum. The facts remain the same. An AMA chartered club has no more right to the frequencies than any other person in the United States.

There are two club within 10 miles of me. The are seperated by less than a half mile. Not small clubs. One is over 200 members. It is devoted to RC power planes. The other club is also good sized. It is devoted to sailplanes. They have co-existed for years... before I ever heard the term frequency agreement. I NEVER hear a word of complaint from anyone in either club. I wish I could say I had something to do with their agrangement. I did not. It was in existence long before I moved to this area.

There was a time when we had 7 frequencies to use. Now we have 50. Most clubs use no more than 5 at a time. The point is... if you want a deal, there is a deal to be made.

If you don't, keep picking up the pieces until someone decides to see just how much an attorney really does cost and you find out just how deep your pockets are (the AMA ain't gonna help, so it's your, or your club members pockets... or of course, it could be the other guys, in which case you then get to spend on defending yoursleves). Worse yet, at least in my estimation, is the possibility someone gets hurt or worse.

Pizza is cheap. If you do not have the personality to negotiate, send someone that does. If you do, quit typing and get 'er done.

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

I may be wrong but the last time I looked the AMA does not sanction fields. Also part 95 FCC rules says the R/C'er must accept any interference.

But I could be wrong, it has happened before!

abel_pranger

Liberator-

Why is it when you and I disagree, after some discussion it becomes clear that we are more in agreement than not?

As a question of ethics, rather than legal torts, the discussion makes vastly more sense. I don't see it as big ethical issue, but of a lesser sort, say 'etiquette.' As a corollary situation IMHO, a group of guys sets up regularly on a popular beach to play volleyball, and has done so since dirt. Most other beach goers will respect their staking out the turf for their game, and go set up their beach umbrellas elsewhere. If the turf staked out extends too far, that respect paid by other beach users will diminish. If there is little beach to go around as on a Labor Day weekend, the volley-ballers should reasonably expect their turf to be infringed on and had best be thinking about plan B, perhaps involving a reasonable apportionment of 'their' turf to the other beachniks.

Abel

Liberator

Ok Iflyj3, what term do you want me to use? THe AMA "recognized" field? Kinda nitpicky arent ya?

Abel, Yeah it always seems that way.

I tried to preface everything by saying that it is "my opinion" and not any rule written anywhere.

All I ask is for everyone defending the rights to fire the old radio up regardless of where your at, try and keep this in mind.

You work all winter on a project. To some folks this may mean putting an ARF trainer together, for others it might mean building an elaborate warbird from plans. Just slip in whatever plane would cause your heart to skip a beat when you get it off the runway on the maiden flight at the same field you have been flying at for years with out any problems. You make the first turn and the turn becomes a death roll into the ground destroying all your work in seconds.

Now, how do you feel about the guy that just excercised his "right" to fire the old radio up even though he knew there was a field close by.

J_R

Liberator

It is becoming apparent that you do not have any idea what the real issue is.

Take a look at these to sites, and see if you can understand the fallout if the citizens are not to have access to radio waves.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/usnrf.htm
http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/pub...6&cat_id=73052

You can thank the Hams for where we are and what we have. As model aviation hobbiests we could never have done it on our own.

Liberator

Actually you are trying to cloud this situation with a completely different issue.

In this situation we have individuals that apparently are being inconsiderate of established users. You are talking about the very right to radio-waves or rather your opinion that no one has the right to regulate radio wave usage.

I am even on your side in the latter fight. But that is not at all what is being discussed. Frankly to try and draw parallels is goofy.

I fully appreciate where your coming from in terms of citizens rights pertaining to this. In fact I probably agree. But let's keep our eye on the ball here.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Damn right to be dissapointed with AMA's response. In the GOOD old days, AMA would have sent a veep with a couple of pipe-hitting homies and taught these rebel flyers a LESSON.

abel_pranger

Nay, nay! Dan...........tsk, tsk-

AMA has made several abortive attempts to define what "sanction" means in the official AMA lexicon. Most recent died several moons ago when the Sanctions and Liabilities Committee arrived at their recommendation that a safety video be produced(???). As JR pointed out recently, AMA sanction of a field means one of the disciples has proclaimed "this field has come unto to our notice, and verily it is Good," or words to that effect.

To redeem yourself, kneel toward Muncie at sunrise and repeat "Hail David" forty times.

Abel

J_R

Well, I disagree. I guess that is obvious by now.

The way I see it is that you have a group of established users that want to ignore established FCC regulations.

If you figure out how to have unfettered access to the frequencies, and at the same time restrict access, please apply the principle and explain how to be a little bit pregnant.

WingShot

My Feedback: (3)

The AMA really has no authority to do anything about the situation--and really, thank God for that!! Some of the decisions the AMA makes and the old cronies who run it, good grief, we don't want them with any real authority anyway. That'd be even more distastrous, if the AMA had the authority to solve problems like this. Wow, haha, I can't even imagine the AMA with any kind of real policing authority...ack-em, sorry I digress.

You don't need the AMA for this. You can solve this problem yourself, assuming it hasn't needlessly escellated. Just to go them and ask what frequencies they fly on. Tell them you're not going to let your club fly on those frequencies so as not to bother them. Ask them to let you know if they plan on changing frequencies and gauge their reaction/response. If they're overly cooperative, a more detailed frequency sharing agreement can be worked out about days and times. But, the surest way is simply not to fly on the frequencies they fly on.

Now, I know in a perfect world, they would be more cooperative and join the club. But the fact is, to keep carnage to a minimum,you may have to go that extra mile over and beyond what you SHOULD have to do...just to keep the peace. That's life sometimes.

Josh

Liberator

Once again we need to keep things firmly based in this situation. You made a statement that I don't understand.

"The way I see it is that you have a group of established users that want to ignore established FCC regulations."

How are they ignoring established FCC regs?
If they are "established" users (your words here) then anyone else attempting to use the frequencies would be in violation. Not of any law, but certainly of etiquette at the very least.

We all recognize the rights of the radio owners to turn them on, whether or not it is prudent or ethically correct to do so is what is at question here...at least for me it is.

To put the onus on the established club to watch out for non-established entities that can and will turn on their radios when ever they please is placing the responsibility on the wrong party.
To me essentially what your saying is that I could turn on all my radios, plop them into my car and drive up to the flying field and be in the right. Thats not really what your saying is it?