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 11-02-2005, 01:46 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default AMA Response was Disappointing!

Just would like to share a recent encounter our club had with the AMA. For the past couple of months our club has been having RF problems that have resulted in many crashes. Our club members did a little investigating into the problem and found that are RF problems were being caused by a couple of modelers flying in a farmers field about a mile away from our field. This group of guys are flying sport scale models and not park fliers. Our first response was to let the these modelers know that they were flying very close to our field and asked them if they would like to join our club to elevate any problems or conflicts. They agreed to join our club at the time, but never did. They did however continue to fly at their present location. Our next response was to contact the AMA and ask for their help in this matter. Got a letter back from Dave Brown stating that there was nothing that the AMA could do and advised our club not to antagonize this rouge band of modelers. Now I know that the AMA is limited in this type of situation as to what it can do to help our club. However, they could have had a letter drawn up addressed to the land owner explaining the liabilities he or she may be exposing themselves to by allowing these modelers to operate off of their land. I.E. a plane striking a person, house or car and the legal ramifications of a potential law suite. A letter like that could have been very effective in solving our problems. But no, instead we were instructed to take no action against these modelers. I guess that we are just supposed to sit back and let these guys shoot down our planes and say nothing about it. I am very disappointed in the AMA's dismissive attitude toward our problem.
Old 11-02-2005, 01:58 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
exeter_acres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 7,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

ever think that you guys are shooting down their planes too??


Always 2 sides to a story.....

Hope it works out
Old 11-02-2005, 01:58 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
 
fritzthecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

1. The AMA has no 'juristiction' over local flyers. Only if they are AMA members and make a claim against the AMA insurance can the AMA become involved.
2. A letter from the club via a lawyer to the landowner (NOT the rogue fliers) could have your desired result.
3. The easiest solution and most in keeping with the spirit of model aircraft being a fun hobby, is to approach the rogue fliers and set up a frequency sharing plan. Set aside their used freqs and mark them unuseable at your club. They have as much right to fly and use the freq at their location as you have at yours.

Fritz

Old 11-02-2005, 02:39 PM
  #4  
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Exeter Acres---good point, we might be shooting them down too and not know it.

Fritzthecat----Hey, I like your second suggestion, I will throw it out to the guys at the club and see what they think. Might be kind of hard to police the frequencies between the two groups of guys. But it would be a peaceful solution to the problem.

I just don't want to see the situation degrade to the point where someone pays a visit to this other group of guys armed with a scanner and a dial a crash TX.

Just would also like to note for clarification that our club has been in our currrent location for 15 years and we are an AMA chartered club.
Old 11-02-2005, 02:54 PM
  #5  
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 27,074
Received 361 Likes on 290 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I would try to work out a plan. Anything else will surely get ugly. Like someone said, AMA doesnt have any jurisdiction over individual modelers and while not being smart they aren't doing anything illegal.
Old 11-02-2005, 04:25 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Franklin,, NC
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Fritzy, your solution is the best.
But I disagree that the rogues aren't liable. If they do monetary damage they can be sued if you have one of those $50.00 scanners and can prove they were operating on your channel.
One question might be one of whether or not the other group are even AMA members or is this just a conjecture?
AMA has no business being a police organization and no one wants it that way and as far as I can see, there is nothing they can do for any of us in a situation like this.
So get a mouthpiece to draw up a letter to the property owner who may indeed not want to get caught up in a mess like that and kick them off.
We recently went through a problem where a splinter group broke with our club because they did not want to abide by AMA rules yet they got an AMA Charter and formed a new club.
A mower our club owned was driven off a cliff and totalled because they did not want to pay us for it. We refused to get into a battle with them. One can only wonder what goes through the minds of some folks. Just remember this: Never slap a man who chews tobacco.

3dbob
Old 11-02-2005, 04:54 PM
  #7  
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!

If they have a nicer field, go fly with them. Problem solved.
Old 11-02-2005, 05:10 PM
  #8  
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: 3dbob37n

Fritzy, your solution is the best.
But I disagree that the rogues aren't liable. If they do monetary damage they can be sued if you have one of those $50.00 scanners and can prove they were operating on your channel.
3dbob-

Who decides if they were operating on your channel or if you were operating on their channel?

Abel
Old 11-02-2005, 06:21 PM
  #9  
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 27,074
Received 361 Likes on 290 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Abel my point exactly.

Also the letter fussing about it would only work if one of the owner isn't one of the fliers. If the guy that owns it flys, I don't think he's going to be scared off.

Really, cooler heads should prevail, work out something with them and everyone will be better in the long run. Shooting down planes will only escalate to a story on the 11 oclock news when somoene gets hurt and that will only be bad for everyone.
Old 11-02-2005, 07:03 PM
  #10  
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!

Get the frequency sharing plan in place. Get the property owner to sign it. Buy a frequency monitor. If one of them violates the frequency sharing agreement and shoots down a plane, take the property owner to small claims. Make sure you get witnesses, and prove that they are operating on the wrong frequency in violation of the agreement.

You may not prevail, but the property owner may be ticked off enough to either enforce the agreement or kick them off. If the club has been there for 15 years, theres probably something working in your favor.

Good Luck.
Brad
Old 11-02-2005, 10:04 PM
  #11  
My Feedback: (22)
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I agree with Fritz on this one. Everyone has a right to fly whether at an AMA field or on private property. I don't think the law recognizes the fact that you were established first.

I believe that you should invite the other gang to a meeting or at least have representatives from the two fields meet and work out a frequency sharing plan. They don't want their planes shot down either. It would be a win win agreement. There are plenty of frequencies to go around. You might want to take a poll of the frequencies your club members use . This way you can enter negotiations better prepared and knowing which frequencies are best for your club. You might find that the frequency conflict is very limited and easily resolved.

Make an effort to be kind and respectful. After all, we are all brothers sharing this great hobby. A professional demeanor and level headed approach will leave a lasting impression and might encourage the group to join your club some day. Any animosity at this point might perpetuate THE belief about AMA fields and the attitudes that prevail among them. This could result in affirming the groups' reasons for flying where they do. You catch more flies with honey.

Old 11-03-2005, 08:08 AM
  #12  
My Feedback: (21)
 
Matt Kirsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 7,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I'd advise against legal threats against the landowner, myself. The problem with that is, the guys who get kicked off that land will know without a doubt who got them kicked off. Do you think that will promote cooperation between the two groups? Do you think that will cause them to "see the light" and join your club? Keep dreaming.

The problem here is that nobody is really in the wrong in this situation, and that's going to cause some SERIOUS animosity if you get them kicked off their flying field. A "grevious injustice" will demand retribution, without a doubt. They could take the high road and fire a legal threat right back at your landowner to get you kicked off your field. They could just get down 'n' dirty and show up on the side of the road with that scanner and dial-a-crash. Regardless, it's likely that they will feel the need to get even, and act on it.

They have just as much right to fly and use the frequencies as you do. Being in the AMA does not give you special privileges or priority over non-AMA members. The AMA was wise in its advice to you, and once you calm down, you will see that.
Old 11-03-2005, 09:54 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: 3dbob37n

Fritzy, your solution is the best.
But I disagree that the rogues aren't liable. If they do monetary damage they can be sued if you have one of those $50.00 scanners and can prove they were operating on your channel.

3dbob
I wasn't aware anyone owned the channels.


Actually, one of my clubs recently had this same situation. We had a number of pilots lose a number of planes (myself included), several that were 33% and up due to some foamy flyers nearby. They were aware of the club field near by and were aware they were shooting people down. We got the same response from AMA, which we expected since there really isn't anything they can do. Our officers approached the land owner, explained the situation, and the potential liability factors. He also happened to be one of the flyers. In his case, he got worried about the full scale aircraft located at his flying area, so they agreed to a frequency sharing agreement. We now have four frequencies we cannot use at our field.
Old 11-03-2005, 12:45 PM
  #14  
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!

I agree that threatening legal action would generate animosity, and wouldn't help either group.

I think its worth discussion to consider the legal ramifications and alternatives. Irresponsible actions by either group could expose the pilots and the landowners to additional liability. It therefore becomes in both parties interests to establish and abide by a frequency sharing agreement. That agreement might be considered a contract between the two groups, and could be a means to recover damages should either party violate the agreement. I think the rules in small claims court are less stringent in terms of establishing that a legal agreement between the parties exists. Should the rogue group decide not to enter into a frequency sharing agreement, the AMA sanctioned club could probably argue that the rogue flyers are not operating in accordance with generally accepted standards, and that their actions are negligent, and might be held liable for damages. This argument would be strengthened by the fact that nearly all, if not all, models, transmitters, engines, etc. come packaged with instructions endorsing the AMA safety code. I would hope that the rogue flyers would be agreeable to establishing guidelines, but there are individuals who will not "play by the rules" no matter what.

Brad
Old 11-03-2005, 01:15 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: bkdavy

I would hope that the rogue flyers would be agreeable to establishing guidelines, but there are individuals who will not "play by the rules" no matter what.

Brad

Good post, until the quoted line above. Unless you consider AMA rules established guidelines, the guidelines don't exist until the two groups agree on them.

Personnally, I don't agree with the premis that AMA rules are "established guidelines", but would consider them rules of a private organization.
Old 11-03-2005, 01:38 PM
  #16  
Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Foster City , CA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I'm impressed with the wisdom of modellers! You have, in the replies, many dollars worth of advice.. These guys {and/or gals} are terrific...
Old 11-03-2005, 01:57 PM
  #17  
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!

Unless you consider AMA rules established guidelines, the guidelines don't exist until the two groups agree on them.
In the absence of any regulations, and the fact that manufacturers almost universally endorse the AMA guidelines by inclusion in their products, the argument could be made in small claims that failure to abide by those guidlelines and causing damage to someone that was would constitute negligence. Whether you personally accept the AMA guidelines or not, a large majority of flyers and product manufacturers do, making it a defacto standard.

A final point - I may not have been clear. When I stated that I would hope the rogue flyers would be agreeable to establishing guidelines, I was referring to a written frequency sharing agreement, not the AMA standards.

Brad
Old 11-03-2005, 03:21 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: bkdavy

Unless you consider AMA rules established guidelines, the guidelines don't exist until the two groups agree on them.

A final point - I may not have been clear. When I stated that I would hope the rogue flyers would be agreeable to establishing guidelines, I was referring to a written frequency sharing agreement, not the AMA standards.

Brad
Thanks for clearing that up. I would also hope they are agreeable to that.

I'm no lawyer (and I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night), but I would guess that in the event of some sort of accident, refusal to enter into a frequency sharing agreement would be viewed as negligence much quicker than not recognizing AMA rules about 3 miles of separation.

Of course, that agreement could end up relieving the established club of a great deal of usable frequencies.

I hope they can work this out.
Old 11-03-2005, 03:40 PM
  #19  
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!

ORIGINAL: Matt Kirsch
They could just get down 'n' dirty and show up on the side of the road with that scanner and dial-a-crash. Regardless, it's likely that they will feel the need to get even, and act on it.
Geez all this talk of shooting people down, do you guys really think someone would do that? I mean all I hear is that this is not a problem, or overblown, then on one thread a guy talks about several planes getting shot down from park flyers, and a couple of other guys expect someone to come out and actually maliciously shoot people down??? Crazy!

So what would stop someone from flying off the end of a AMA club runway with a park flyer and watching the planes crash? I guess nothing but love for their fellow man?
Old 11-03-2005, 03:42 PM
  #20  
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!

ORIGINAL: bkdavy

Unless you consider AMA rules established guidelines, the guidelines don't exist until the two groups agree on them.
In the absence of any regulations, and the fact that manufacturers almost universally endorse the AMA guidelines by inclusion in their products, the argument could be made in small claims that failure to abide by those guidlelines and causing damage to someone that was would constitute negligence. Whether you personally accept the AMA guidelines or not, a large majority of flyers and product manufacturers do, making it a defacto standard.

A final point - I may not have been clear. When I stated that I would hope the rogue flyers would be agreeable to establishing guidelines, I was referring to a written frequency sharing agreement, not the AMA standards.

Brad
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I once had a physics teacher whose favorite phrase was "all things being equal", when we all know all things are never equal. Your phrase "In the absence of any regulations" is a similar phrase. The frequencies we use are under the contol and regulation of the FCC. The FCR (Federal Code of Regulations), Title 47, including, but not limited to part 95, are regulations that Radio Control in the U.S. fall under.

There was a time, not so long ago, that each individual that used an RC system needed an FCC license and needed to keep a copy of part 95 with the system when it was being operated.

Part 95 can be found here, but, remember, it is only part of Title 47 and there are more regulations that apply to RC as well, that are not in part 95: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr95_00.html

If you read the portions that are marked R/C, you will find that YOU are prohibited from operating a system that causes interference. Of course it applies to "him/her" as well, but the wording is aimed directly at "YOU". I think that is what Abel was trying to get all of you to realize. No one has rights to the frequencies that are better than the rights another has to those frequencies when it comes to RC... AMA, clubs, and 15 years, notwithstanding.
Old 11-03-2005, 03:55 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Your exactly right in my opinion Mr. Matt. I recognize everyone's right to exist and do what they will. It just galls me that someone can just decide to start flying close enough to an established field to cause problems and the guys playing by all the rules are the one's to have to make concessions.

I understand why not everyone wants to join a club. Perfect example. My brother and I fly gliders every Sunday morning (weather permitting) at a local middle school using a high start. I know where all of the established fields are and we are a minimum of 15 miles from all of them. My brother hates to hang with a bunch of people I can take it or leave it. So this is perfect for us and it does not interfere with any "established" club in our area. However, if it were near an established club, I would NEVER think it would be ok just to pop in and start flying. It is not ok to do that regardless of what anyone wants to say. I guess that technically I have a right to fly wherever I want, but who really thinks that way? Is it blind ignorance of what the effective range of the transmitters is? Possibly. Or is it to hell with the world I will do as I please?


Or am I missing something?

Tom
Old 11-03-2005, 05:05 PM
  #22  
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

I've been reading through the posts again and think I have an idea that leaves out lawyers, small claims and crashed models. Our club should try and talk with these fellows for a second time to see if they would like to join our club. If they don't want to join, maybe we could help them find a new location not so close to our field. Now I know they have a right to fly in their current location, I won't deny or argue with anyone on this point. But common sense tells us that: (A. Our club should not have to move as we have a great deal more invested in our site then they with theirs. I'm not putting down their field, but all it consists of is one small area for flite operations. No port -o- john, no tables or work stands, no tx impound, nothing. They have nothing of monetary value invested in the property. They could move to another site with little loss to no loss.) (B. A frequency sharing agreement just is not going to work for both practical and legal reasons.) If these guys want a small private club thats fine by me. But why does it have to be right next door to ours? I just don't understand why they continue to fly so close to us knowing that there is a an RF problem that exists because of the relative close range to each other. The only conclusion I can come to is that they just don't care. Their lack of respect for their fellow modelers is the saddest part of this entire story.

Tom, I completely agree and I couldn't have said it any better!
Old 11-03-2005, 05:32 PM
  #23  
My Feedback: (21)
 
Matt Kirsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 7,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!


ORIGINAL: mr_matt

Geez all this talk of shooting people down, do you guys really think someone would do that? I mean all I hear is that this is not a problem, or overblown, then on one thread a guy talks about several planes getting shot down from park flyers, and a couple of other guys expect someone to come out and actually maliciously shoot people down??? Crazy!

So what would stop someone from flying off the end of a AMA club runway with a park flyer and watching the planes crash? I guess nothing but love for their fellow man?
Do I really think someone would do that? Heck yes! Just look at this situation we're discussing right now. These "rogue" flyers are knowingly and willingly flying within range of an established field. Doesn't matter if it's AMA or not. Anyway, they're knowingly and willingly flying near this other field, knowing full well that they're getting shot down, and that they're shooting other people down in the process. This group has a whole lot of love for their fellow man, and they love to show it.

Do I really think someone would walk in with a synthesized transmitter and start shooting people down on purpose? Heck yeah! There are documented cases of this happening.
Old 11-03-2005, 06:25 PM
  #24  
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: Matt Kirsch

<snip>
Do I really think someone would do that? Heck yes! Just look at this situation we're discussing right now. These "rogue" flyers are knowingly and willingly flying within range of an established field. Doesn't matter if it's AMA or not. Anyway, they're knowingly and willingly flying near this other field, knowing full well that they're getting shot down, and that they're shooting other people down in the process. This group has a whole lot of love for their fellow man, and they love to show it.

Do I really think someone would walk in with a synthesized transmitter and start shooting people down on purpose? Heck yeah! There are documented cases of this happening.
It matters to AMA. They have issued club charters well within 3 miles of a pre-existing non-AMA club site. It's all kosher by their rules, too. They say an AMA flying site cannot be established within 3 miles of a pre-existing AMA site. The flying site location data base does not include non-AMA sites, even though some (at least one that I personally attempted to have added) have asked for inclusion.
Some might smell the rotten odor of a dual standard being applied to the human qualities you cited.
Your def of a 'rogue' flyer: anyone flying at a non-AMA chartered site (includes the 1/2 of AMA members that do not belong to a club, and some that do but have model flying interests disallowed at the club site).

Abel
Old 11-03-2005, 09:16 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: AMA Response was Disappointing!

Contact the rouge flyers and offer them free club membership for a
limited time if they agree to close there field.

also another possibilty may be supply them with an cheap walkie talkie
so both sites can be in constant contac.

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.