Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
 AMA Response was Disappointing! >

AMA Response was Disappointing!

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

AMA Response was Disappointing!

Old 11-04-2005, 09:24 PM
  #51  
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: nyc, NY
Posts: 7,676
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

No. What we needs, my man, is a crew of pipe-hitting homies to head on over there and get Medeival on them rogues. The only thing the bootlegger flyer understands is brute force.
Old 11-04-2005, 09:37 PM
  #52  
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I don't get it, you guys that are so quick to defend the rights of the rouges to turn on any time they want....

If this is correct view, then why did John Kim get in trouble for shooting down planes at Madera several years ago? I mean he had every right to sit in his car, shoot down 240 mph planes at a major event and just "enjoy the show", right ???

Old 11-04-2005, 09:52 PM
  #53  
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: nyc, NY
Posts: 7,676
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

One is unintentional interference, one is willfully and purposefully shooting someone's model down.


Sounds like a good story, tell us about Madiera...
Old 11-04-2005, 10:03 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: mr_matt

I don't get it, you guys that are so quick to defend the rights of the rouges to turn on any time they want....

If this is correct view, then why did John Kim get in trouble for shooting down planes at Madera several years ago? I mean he had every right to sit in his car, shoot down 240 mph planes at a major event and just "enjoy the show", right ???
Matt-

Speaking only for myself, it's not 'defending' but rather just stating the way it is, as I understand it. The rights are granted by the Fed and AMA doesn't have any authority to change that.

Interesting, your mention of Mr. Kim. He did not get in trouble with the law, despite getting caught red handed with a transmitter and box of crystals in the parking lot at Madera, and had a history of shooting down models at Sepulveda Basin and elsewhere. The fuzz just didn't want any part of prosecuting him for his actions. Whether it's because it was dissed as only involving toy airplanes, or because they didn't think the DA could make a case, it does illustrate the problems in taking a case against a 'rogue' flyer to court. If you can't win against somebody with malicious intent, how in the world can you expect to win a suit against somebody that shot you down because he had poor manners, or just plain screwed up? It's just not going to fly as a legal issue, so better to try for a gentlemen's agreement.
Oh......... and BTW, Mr. Kim was spotted by several persons at the AMA Convention in Pasadena a couple of months after the incident at Madera. Why did AMA let him in?

Abel
Old 11-05-2005, 04:00 AM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
Loubud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 7,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Hi All,
I just finished reading all of this and it seems to me that a discussion between the club and the farm flyers is all it should take. A little rememberence that neither group owns the airwaves regardless of how much money they paid someone to fly at a club will go a long way. A common AMA myth is that rule book. It only applies to those that bought it. Send a check to the AMA and ya got some rules. Fly in a farm like I do, and I have my own rules. I'd fly at the club close to me but they don't want new guys. I'd fly at the second closest club but they are over twenty miles from here. The farm is 30 feet from my back gate. The only thing I knew about the AMA was what was printed in the front of my 8 channel TX instruction book. Something about checking them out. I wasn't aproached by anyone for over a year about joining. I did join and promptly quit. The AMA does little. They don't like electrics and I'm undecided about whether they like the members. Settle you club dispute like the gentlemen you are and all will be well. Fly with those guys at the farm. Enjoy flying for a while.
Abel, JR. Good job.
Lou
Old 11-05-2005, 09:55 AM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
bhole74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Anderson, MO
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I agree talking to them would be the reasonable thing to go before going off on a tangent.

The AMA does little. They don't like electrics...
There's that damn phrase again.[:@]
Old 11-05-2005, 09:56 AM
  #57  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Loubud

Please do not misunderstand. Although you are equally entitled to use the frequencies, you are also equally covered under the regulations… the laws, if you will… that the FCC set. If you could have or should have known you might be causing interference, you are subject to the penalties set forth in those laws. You might find it to your advantage to contact the club and work out some arrangement.

The AMA has rules, it does not have penalties. The FCC’s penalties can be quite substantial, and they cover all users... AMA member or not.

The question for each side becomes, "how much are you willing to risk?" in order to violate the regulations, instead of working out some kind of deal. The odds of the FCC taking action at not real high, but, in my case, I know they would be there in a heartbeat. Things just work like that.

*******

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 5, Parts 80 to End]
[Revised as of October 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR95.218]

[Page 531-532]

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service

Sec. 95.218 (R/C Rule 18) What are the penalties for violating these rules?

(a) If the FCC finds that you have willfully or repeatedly violated
the Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may have to pay as much as
$10,000 for each violation, up to a total of $75,000. (See Section
503(b) of the Communications Act.)
(b) If the FCC finds that you have violated any section of the
Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may be ordered to stop whatever
action caused the violation. (See section 312(b) of the Communications
Act.)
(c) If a federal court finds that you have willfully and knowingly
violated any FCC Rule, you may be fined up to $500 for each day you
committed the violation. (See section 502 of the Communications Act.)

[[Page 532]]

(d) If a Federal court finds that you have willfully and knowingly
violated any provision of the Communications Act, you may be fined up to
$10,000, or you may be imprisoned for one year, or both. (See section
501 of the Communications Act.)

[48 FR 24890, June 3, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 40343, Sept. 3, 1992]
Old 11-05-2005, 10:49 AM
  #58  
My Feedback: (7)
 
iflyj3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Paris, KY
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

JR,

What you have sited is true as far as the FCC is concerned. However, turning on a legal transmitter even though someone else is on somewhere else is not an FCC violation. Read on the the regs and it states you must accept interference.

If you knowingly turn on in a willful and intentionally manner, it may be a civil case but I don't believe it would be a criminal case.
Old 11-05-2005, 11:03 AM
  #59  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

The regs require two things, relative to this issue. One, that you accept interference and two, that you do not intentionally interfere with another stations as evidenced below. The point in the regs is that YOU are responsible, not the other guy. Of course, it applies to him in the same way. Kinda stops finger pointing by aiming all the fingers back at YOU.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 5, Parts 80 to End]
[Revised as of October 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR95.212]

[Page 530-531]

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service

Sec. 95.212 (R/C Rule 12) What communications are prohibited?

You must not use an R/C station--
(a) In connection with any activity which is against federal, state
or local law;
(b) To transmit any message other than for operation of devices at
remote locations (no voice, telegraphy, etc.);
(c) To intentionally interfere with another station's transmissions;

[[Page 531]]

(d) To operate another R/C transmitter by remote control (See R/C
Rule 17, Sec. 95.217); or
(e) To transmit two-way communications.
(f) To transmit data. Tone or other signal encoding, however, is not
considered to be data when only used either for the purpose of
identifying the specific device among multiple devices that the operator
intends to turn on/off, or the specific sensor among multiple sensors
intended to turn on/off indicating device for the operator.

[48 FR 24890, June 3, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 8336, Feb. 28, 1989; 54
FR 20476, May 11, 1989]


Old 11-05-2005, 02:38 PM
  #60  
My Feedback: (7)
 
iflyj3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Paris, KY
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Thanks JR, I had missed that rule ( 95.212 (R/C Rule 12) item C). I stand corrected in that it is against regs if intended.
Old 11-05-2005, 05:37 PM
  #61  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

There are two discussions going on that are clouding the issue. The first is regarding the FCC Rules. First, the rules do not grant a "right "to the frequency. Rights are granted by the Constitution and subsequent court judgment that may infer other rights. Regulations on the other hand, establish rules that define how the government or citizens may conduct certain activities within the bounds of established law. In essence, use of the public airways is a privilege (licensed or otherwise) that may be removed without action by the courts or congress. The FCC regulations establish a privilege to use the designated airways. Misuse may constitute a criminal offense.

The other discussion has to do with reasonable conduct and liability for personal or property damage that may result from negligent actions. Anyone has the privilege to turn their radio on. If they do so negligently and cause damage, they may be held liable in a civil action. (I have a right to own a gun, but if I shoot someone with it accidentally, its still manslaughter)

The plaintiff (AMA club) has established a procedure that constitutes a reasonable approach to assure that they will not damage another's person or property. That is the frequency sharing procedure that we are all familiar with. An outside party being aware of the presence of the field (read the first post - they know the field is there) that chooses ignore the frequency procedure by operating their radios without checking first, could and should be judged to be negligent in their behavior (see my previous post on duty to protect, breach of duty, causation, and damages). No one in this forum can say they would or wouldn't be held liable. It would be up to a judge in the civil action to determine. Assuming no personal injuries, the damages would probably be less that $5000 (I realize not always), and could be taken to small claims court. No lawyers, no lawyers fees.

I make this argument as a means of providing the AMA club with a path of action to consider in the event that negotiations with the "rogue" flyers are unsuccesful, not as a first course of action. If there is an accident, and someone goes after the club, you can bet the lawyers for the insurance company will make this argument to demonstrate the rogue flyers were negligent. I'd bet they'd prevail.

Brad
Old 11-05-2005, 06:37 PM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: bkdavy

There are two discussions going on that are clouding the issue. The first is regarding the FCC Rules. First, the rules do not grant a "right "to the frequency. Rights are granted by the Constitution and subsequent court judgment that may infer other rights. Regulations on the other hand, establish rules that define how the government or citizens may conduct certain activities within the bounds of established law. In essence, use of the public airways is a privilege (licensed or otherwise) that may be removed without action by the courts or congress. The FCC regulations establish a privilege to use the designated airways. Misuse may constitute a criminal offense.

The other discussion has to do with reasonable conduct and liability for personal or property damage that may result from negligent actions. Anyone has the privilege to turn their radio on. If they do so negligently and cause damage, they may be held liable in a civil action. (I have a right to own a gun, but if I shoot someone with it accidentally, its still manslaughter)

The plaintiff (AMA club) has established a procedure that constitutes a reasonable approach to assure that they will not damage another's person or property. That is the frequency sharing procedure that we are all familiar with. An outside party being aware of the presence of the field (read the first post - they know the field is there) that chooses ignore the frequency procedure by operating their radios without checking first, could and should be judged to be negligent in their behavior (see my previous post on duty to protect, breach of duty, causation, and damages). No one in this forum can say they would or wouldn't be held liable. It would be up to a judge in the civil action to determine. Assuming no personal injuries, the damages would probably be less that $5000 (I realize not always), and could be taken to small claims court. No lawyers, no lawyers fees.

I make this argument as a means of providing the AMA club with a path of action to consider in the event that negotiations with the "rogue" flyers are unsuccesful, not as a first course of action. If there is an accident, and someone goes after the club, you can bet the lawyers for the insurance company will make this argument to demonstrate the rogue flyers were negligent. I'd bet they'd prevail.

Brad
Brad-

You are obviously aware of some of the rules that apply to playing the tort enterprise game. You must also be aware that the whole court (can't bear to call it 'justice')system is founded on the quaint, ancient, mode of rationalization known as 'causal reasoning.' What is true and just is decided based on what has been previously determined by recognized authority to be be true and just. So, cite some precedents that are pertinent to the issues being discussed and make your case.

Abel

Old 11-05-2005, 07:26 PM
  #63  
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,538
Received 85 Likes on 75 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

it kinda appears to this sane and reasonable man, that the club guys, knowing that there is the possibility of interferance from the "rogue" guys, could and should be held negligent for any operations from their field up until such time as some sort of freq share is aranged, or the "rouge" guys move to a diferent site.
Old 11-05-2005, 10:36 PM
  #64  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

it kinda appears to this sane and reasonable man, that the club guys, knowing that there is the possibility of interferance from the "rogue" guys, could and should be held negligent for any operations from their field up until such time as some sort of freq share is aranged, or the "rouge" guys move to a diferent site.
In my earlier post I mentioned the plaintiff has a duty to limit damages. The concept you argue is that of shared liabilty. That is, the AMA club, being aware of the negligent actions of the other flyers, becomes duty bound to limit the damages that may be incurred. Hence my suggestion that they use a frequency monitor to determine if a particular channel is in use. While not perfect, it would demonstrate to the court an effort to minimize damages. Should the other flyers turn on a transmitter and subsequently shoot down a plane, the AMA club could demonstrate a reasonable effort to limit damages.

So, cite some precedents that are pertinent to the issues being discussed and make your case.
I am unfortunately not a lawyer, but I have been attempting to locate a valid precedent. If I find one, I will post it. There is a wealth of information available regarding negligence and the elements of negligence.

Brad
Old 11-05-2005, 10:45 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: bkdavy

<del>
I am unfortunately not a lawyer..
Well, hey man, that's nothing to apologize for.
Congratulations!

Abel
Old 11-06-2005, 10:57 AM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
Loubud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 7,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

The AMA does little. They don't like electrics...
There's that damn phrase again.[:@]
[/quote]

If I didn't see it in the "MA" magazine myself, I wouldn't have believed it.
Lou

Edited for before coffe spelling
Old 11-06-2005, 07:13 PM
  #67  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC,
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Question for all the legal scholars here. What happens when one of the “rouge” flyers is the owner of the property next door? Is a court going to side with a club over a landowner? Just curious what the thinking here is.
Old 11-06-2005, 07:28 PM
  #68  
My Feedback: (7)
 
iflyj3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Paris, KY
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Fellows I may be a little picky, but I detest using the word "rogue" in describing these flyers. Look it up in Webster and I think you would be affended to be called a "rogue".
Old 11-06-2005, 07:46 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: djx1234

Question for all the legal scholars here. What happens when one of the “rouge” flyers is the owner of the property next door? Is a court going to side with a club over a landowner? Just curious what the thinking here is.
Trying to predict what the court would do is what this whole discussion has been about. My approach to the case has been contingent on defining the "non-club" field as the "last clear chance". In otherwords, if the club has a frequency control method in place, makes a reasonable attempt to determine that the frequencies are open prior to flying, the non-club field begins operations with the full knowledge that the club exists, and does not attempt to determine which frequencies are in use prior to flying subsequently causing damage, then they had the "last clear chance" to avoid the cause, and are subsequently liable. Being the property owner does not give one the right or privilege to cause damage to another's person or property through negligent actions.

This is a double edged sword, in that if the club-owned field doesn't make a reasonable attempt to determine if the channel is clear prior to flying, they could be considered to have the last clear chance, and could be held liable. Consequently my proposal that the club institute use of a frequency monitor to determine if the channel is in use prior to flying.

Brad
Old 11-16-2005, 04:27 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

WHAT A MESS!

What is the problem? Both has the rights to fly their airplanes. As a club why don't you not fly on their channels? Easy, I will even agree with most of 3DBOB as far as find a way to get along. Even if you do all the work.

Now, it appears to me that you do not like this small group of flyers. Why is that? Are they into trainers? profiles, large war birds or what. The AMA is right to stay out of this. Maybe you should offer a lifetime free membership to this small group.

Crash99
Old 11-16-2005, 11:21 PM
  #71  
Member
 
pcm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: bakersfield, CA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

The models that these gentlemen are flying were not free. I am sure that they do not want to crash them. I dont know how they were approached by the club members, but I have to say that in my 12 years or so experience with different "clubs" I have been victim to the perverbial holier than thou attitude that comes from being a long time member of an "established club". I would imagine the club members were a little angry when they found out about them. Maybe these pilots have been subjected to enough of the power trips from presidents , treasurers, secrectary, honorary members or "I've been appointed to police the membership" people that they can stand. I am sure that there are plenty of great clubs around that value friendship and comradary, I just havent found one yet.
My guess it that the fence mending must begin. Some agreement can be reached. Neither has more right to the 72mhz than the other!
Old 11-17-2005, 12:09 AM
  #72  
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Giw252,
You shouldn't be disappointed in AMA's response at all. In fact I think they spoke with the wisdom of Solomon and you should heed their advice and be thankful. They are not in the dispute settling business and if the other fliers are AMA members they shouldn't show favoritism to one group over another. They didn't tell you to sit back and just let your planes be shot down as you expressed, they told you to not be confrontational.

All the talk of lawsuits, liability, AMA and FCC rules is a big waste of bandwidth. Take JR's advice as well and just go talk to them with the attitude that they have as much right to their fun as do you and you need to work it out for everyone's best interest. You may be surprised at their response.
Old 11-17-2005, 09:20 AM
  #73  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

All the talk of lawsuits, liability, AMA and FCC rules is a big waste of bandwidth.
Alas, I wish that were a true statement, but in todays litigeous society, it makes sense for all of us to be aware of the possibilities. As was stated in the earlier posts in this thread, reaching an amicable agreement is always a better approach. Unfortunately, people are not always willing to cooperate.

Brad
Old 11-17-2005, 12:14 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

pcm1024

fence mending must begin you say? Ding Ding Ding Ding .... you are on the correct track. Do not even let the group that want to say lawsuits and so on.

Remember the words What ever it takes. If your a club like I belong to they will want to join. If your club has those control freaks then offer to stay off their channels.

clubs around that value friendship and comradary, I just havent found one yet. If you ever make it to Missouri drop me a line. I can help you find many many clubs of great friendship and comradary. ............................ Or pack up your things and move here.

Thanks
Crash99
Old 11-17-2005, 01:51 PM
  #75  
Member
 
pcm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: bakersfield, CA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Crash
Hope I can make it your way some time. Ca. is gettin crazy anyway!@

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.