TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

You only get one chance to make a first impression. The grunts blew it. Time to let the Lieutenants meet . And lay off the rogue citizen theme, it don't fly in America.

SoCal GliderGuider

So when one looks over the ama's PDF publications and reads "Flying Site Safety and Operational Rules" these are really not rules.

Or when one reads "Safety Regulations for Model Aircraft Gas Turbines" these are not really regulations.

Then there is the "Required Safety Standards for Giant Scale Racing" that are really not required.

More ama double speak.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Key word...recommend...I think you may be confused some how.

Silent-AV8R

More non stop rage against the AMA for everything and anything.

afineman

Evening All

I will chose my words VERY wisely here ( and read and re-read my words before posting)

An AMA Member not only accepts the conditions and limits the FCC imposes upon them when they purchase and use their transmitter ( that part 15 thing), the AMA requires a signature to become a member.

With that signature, you now agree to a series of additional stipulations that exceed the FCC part 15 (a legal and binding contract for the term of your membership).

The Non AMA member who buys the same transmitter on that same frequency is bound only to the FCC part 15 rule.

The FCC is king here, and as long as a person operates their transmitter with in those guidelines they are granted the right to operate, and in order to alter that "Right to use" it requires federal intervention.

As a current AMA member you agree to those FCC stipulations (actually you agree to them the moment you turn on the transmitter), and you (Via AMA contract) agree to abide by more.

Because of the wording, the burden is placed upon you ( the AMA member) not to interfere with others (at least that is my interpretation).

Here is the statement that may raise the blood pressure, I'm using this as an example, and understand it as such.

A park flying Slow Stick and club member's 33% edge are both shot down by each other, both cause personal injury, and both are sued.

I would want to be the attorney for the kid flying the Slow Stick, Why? I get to use the FCC rule book as my defence, and I would submit the AMA hand book to show it was the other guys fault, and heaven forbid, if I could prove your club knew he flew there.

Hopefully, this only got you to think a little, and look at this from a different angle, because that was this posters intent

Brent

KidEpoxy

Getting their field shut down is sure to make them love you... start expecting that cake the other guy was talking about. Heck, with all the money they save by not burning fuel, the would probably make a donation to the AMA....

If I were to put together a "Recruiting Rogues to AMA: Howto" , This technique wouldnt be in the DO list, getting folks shutdown is a DONT when it comes to making friends.

SoCal GliderGuider

So it's true! the ama IS responsible for the flooding of New Orleans and global warming! Get real Malvey.

jmupilot

We do have some hot heads in our club that are there almost every weekend. I'm sure they didnt take to this "invasion" lightly. I am a charter member of the club, and we have weathered some other storms in the past. I'm sure tlaking to these guys will prevail. I just hate to think of the crap that will come if we have to give up a few channels. Our area is relatively free from interference and we fly on every available Ch there is. Only one guy in the club has been having problems lately and I guess we need to see if that Channel is one of the ones these guys are using.

I guess we just don't see why they picked an area so close to us, We host a large event annualy and have done so for 22 yrs. We are known in the area and not just a sunday afternoon bunch of stick jockeys.

Its gonna take a little finess to get by this one I'm guessing.

A few years ago we had a guy flying his airplane right beside the Interstate, about 5 miles from us. His takeoff and landing pattern were at about Semi-Truck height directly across the interstate. We got the blame for that until we talked to the proper authority's and explained we were not the ones flying so close to truckers. I think the State Police nicely asked that he stop the flying, if you get my drift.

So we just have to do what have to do.

Pete

Liberator

So littlecrankshaf I am going to need to have you point out to me where I said I was a how did you put it "I always amazed that the ones that are most prominently outspoken for the AMA are the very ones doing the most damage. Chris and Liberator are great examples."

Oh yea outspoken proponent I guess you would say for the AMA...it's ok I'll wait...

Well I guess there is no point in waiting, because at no time did I say that the AMA or any of it's fellows should prevail. What is DID say is that it is rediculous that anyone can just waltz up that close to an established flying field and start turning on radio's. If you think thats a great idea, then I guess that makes you the...oh what was that word again that you used... oh yea...an idiot.

KidEpoxy

Tell that to the FCC.
If they waltz up to the gate before you guys get there, and standing on the public sidewalk start checking the throws on their plane & adjusting trims on ch19 for the next 4 hours straight, then sure you can fly on your land, just as long as you do not interfere with those other civilians having the freq in use. They have as much right to use a freq that is not in use in interference range as the civilians that have a club.

You are correct, they cannot just start turning on radios, but they can check if ch19 was hot, and if it was not in use they can use it.... right next to some land some club owns but is not using ch19 at that instant. Technicly, they can monitor 19 and wait till the clubber lands & shuts off. Then in the time it takes to get the pin to the next clubber, the rogue could be the one using 19- it was free for those 3 minutes so he powered up. The club would be the one Just Turning On Radios after the pin was passed.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Here you go;


AND This is the statement that qualifies you;

Liberator

You bet he can, and I agree with you 100% that he has the right to do so, but my opinion is that it is pretty unethical and here is why I think that. (of course you and I have bantered this before so I really don't think this is going to solve anything...but for the record)

IF we are talking about Park Flyer type aircraft then there are literally hundreds of places 5 miles away from this existing field to fly that type of aircraft. It is a lot harder to try and find a place to fire up the old 35% Edge. Your point (cause you have made it before and I assume it has not changed) is that the park flyer guy SHOULD walk up to the gate just because he can.

I guess if your point is to piss people off, then I say go for it. Just don't expect a whole lot of fans and given the state of some folks, also don't expect to do it safely either. You know as well as I do that there are a lot of folks that can go off for no good reason. I just don't see why one would want to creat that kind of animosity. Is that what you think is fun? If so, like I said...good luck with that, I will visit you with posies while your in traction. I would like to mention at this point that no I do not condone nor defend violence to solve these issues. But if you can get someone road ragin at ya just for cutting them off, imagine the kind of anger you could create telling someone "I am going to fly my foamy right here in your back yard just becasue I can and there is not a thing you can do about it.: The foamy flyer is right, but also not very popular.

Liberator

Gosh Franklin I ask again, where does it say I am for the AMA? It just talks about an established field, not a sanctioned one.

And how does the other qualify me? If your going to use hieroglyphics, at least give me the Rosetta Stone.

NorfolkSouthern

This seems like a tough call. But, take heart. You see, there is a church involved and they follow doctrines that heavily emphasize on good will. Otherwise, they would end up making themselves poor ambasadors to their faith. Believe me, it is against the beliefs of most all Christian churches to settle differences in court, and I am very sure they would be willing to negotiate. The key here, is to get with their pastor and elders to see if something can be worked out. I think providing some incentives to join the AMA, and thus giving their members use of the field along with others in the club would not be a bad idea. Also, the church may find some potential members among the AMA sanctioned club its self, a win-win solution.

My church was launching model rockets with a group of 6th graders a couple years ago. Their program is very much like that of the Boy Scouts of America, and they were all male. There was one complaint about the rockets, and the noise they would make in the vicinity. The rockets played second fiddle to the needs and wants of the community, and thus the practice was discontinued. I am sure it would have been the same if my church was flying RC planes close to an AMA field. Go and talk with the officials at the church, I am sure you'll find them to be very cooperative. If not, then that's a church I would avoid because they would be showing bad stewardship of their resources (read the parable about the 5 talents).

NorfolkSouthern

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ok Liberator, maybe I am wrong. I guess the printed word belies true meaning sometimes, Example; There is no such thing as a sanctioned field other than maybe munchie...you see what I mean? Sometimes it is just hard to be sure what a fellow is getting at! You came off to me as someone that believes that established fields have some right that should eclipse others rights. If that is the wrong interpretation of your position I apologize but if you are indeed in error and that is what you mean, then I don’t.

Forgive me?

KidEpoxy

Ethics?
Like Sharing? The method I have promoted from the other threads about this, and here as well?

I only define the extreme of what is legal when folks claim Dibs or Established garbage of the public freqs. There is no Established in the eyse of the FCC freqs, just the ama rules, which we already have agreed dont apply to the other party.

No matter how many times I promote Sharing, I hear Established.... then after the extreme example of no establilshment, somehow you see that as My Intent..... MINE? The Sharing 5-10 channels guy (probaly just 5 for the current thread circumstance, churches arent greedy/petty... ring a bell?)

Again, Recruiting Renegades to AMA:HowTo - Explaining that ama clubbers will beat you up if they are restricted by the fed laws (even without speakers endorsement) ... Gonna have to put that in the DONT list. I cant see why the membership is falling.




Quite.
I summed it up with Not Greedy or Petty. Ofer them the Evens, and they would probably just ask for 4 or 5 channels for their smaller group.

Liberator

I guess I would if there was anything to forgive.

I don't believe that anyones rights should eclipse anyone elses.

I also don't think that it's right to create a problem where one does not exist.

Can't we all just get along?

By the way what is that picture you are using in your avatar? It's a great pic!

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Thanks. That is my dog and best friend...he is getting old now. He is a lot like me...long story but true.

Liberator

Ok Kidepoxy for once please answer this question because you have ducked it every other time I have asked it...and here it goes.

You promote sharing, which is a grand and noble ideal and one with which I agree with under the right circumstances. The difference is this. You DEMAND sharing where it need not occur.

Example: There is a field that has a paved runway, has been set aside by the city fathers and has been in use by lets say a few local clubs for about 20 years. A group of guys with you in the lead decide they want to fly in a parking lot that is 200 yards from the field in question, again just because you can. There happens to be an exact count of no less than 200 parking lots, schools, vacant lots etc, that would fit the bill of the type of field you and your park flyer guys need that are located 5 miles away from the field in question. But you decide that no, I want to fly in THIS parking lot and you HAVE to share the frequencys you have no choice.
My question is simple...why should they have to share with you? It is obvious that it is not a needed situation, you just want them to share so you can say you made them...is that about right?

On the other hand, here is a situation in which sharing has my vote. (I heard about this as a real life situation)

These folks live on an island that is roughly flat and about 3 miles tip to tip and side to side.
There was an established field pretty much in the middle of the Island that they flew power off of. At some point a glider club formed because one of the ocean fronts had a good spot to slope soar. The two groups got together and worked out a way to share some frequencys.
THat was a great thing and something I am all for.

So to summarize, why does the group in the first example need to share?

Liberator

Its a beautiful pic. My dog is a little girl named Sadie. She makes it to the front of all my planes as Sexy Sadie and was on the nose of my P-40 before it met its demise.
Dogs are the best

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Liberator, I know you didn't ask me but the answer is, whether we like it or not, it is the LAW. Simply and absolutely an iron clad, inescapable fact of law.

Perhaps an option that clubs in your scenario might peruse would be to petition the city to sell the land since it must be worth a great deal, as evidenced by being so encroached and move out a bit further. Heck, even petition the city to ban RC flying city wide by ordinance except at that field. The latter idea will surely be a bad move but one that only an idiot would pursue.

KidEpoxy

wow, lets see
A PF area 200yards from ama club. PF areas 5 miles from that. Train leaves Chicago traveling 45mph....
Where is my house? Why would I chose to fly next to the club if it was farther than the others? Seems you gave me some real intent to fly at that site, what is it? We know I would get shot down if I fly near the club, or have to listen to 27 folks try to sell me insurance, or have the cops show up at the PF site just for no reason. Seems if the city set this land aside, the rest of the land is a no-fly, is that the case & I have to fly commando? I'll let you fill in the blanks so far as to why I chose that site by the club over the compelling reasons not to fly there, such as your physical assault by the clubbers premonition.

Your entire premiss is flawed: In no twist of fate will I be in charge of a bunch of guys

As for a hypothetical church 1.5 hypothetical miles from a hypothetical club that has a member called... oh, lets call him XX%plane to protect the innocent..... We can only guess they are 1.5m for a reason other than Just Because They Can. Who has more dibs, the civilians or the civilians. They fly on their land and they fly on their land... clearly They have more Public Use than they. Maybe they should sell their land and move away from them. Just who has the rights to fly on their land? Wouldnt be a problem it you just talked to them and shared the open sky.

I do PF, with a .40 sport (Texas you know), and I am at least 8 miles(crow) from the local club. So in the non-hypothetical set of circumsance know as the real world, I havent gone over to the public park & forced the ama club to yeild to my terrible prowess for no reason whatsoever. I ParkFly way over yonder where they aint. I talk to them and have had no problems.

anyhoo, fill in them missing datums about me in situation 1

Liberator

Yes, it is the law. But let's forget about that for a minute.
Can you imagine wanting to open that can of worms just because you can?
Thats the part I just don't get and honestly if I get angry about this at all it's because to me, if someone is so petty as to force their will on someone just becasue they can? I find that amazingly pathetic.

I agree that it is the law, I agree that it can be forced on a person or group to share. I just think that forcing someone to share when there is no reason to create that situation is pretty darn goofy.

KidEpoxy

yet forcing your will to not have to share over some folks that just want to fly is ok?

Forcing them to drive a farther distance, just for your will not to share?
Forcing them not fly at their own land, just for your will not to share?

Imposing will is ok if You are the one doing it?

You are right, doing it for no other reason than because you can is pathetic.
The No-Dibbs example of the law I gave would be of some pathetic losers outside the gate.

Liberator

Classic Kidepoxy. Did the question at hand confuse you? Nope you just refuse...again to answer it. Sigh....

Again we come up against the definition of insanity...get into a discussion with KidEpoxy and expect a different outcome.

"Your entire premiss is flawed: In no twist of fate will I be in charge of a bunch of guys "

Thank God!!!

So what is it, just antisocial? I suspect that might be the case. Hey I don't want you to have to do anything you don't want to, just afford me the same respect and fly elsewhere, then everyone is happy.

Have a good night.