Other than flying at that same place a few weekends and talking with the guys there?
Gathering a petition style freq sharing plan for that RogueSite that is inclusive of all the undersigned Rogues?

Lets hear about all the attempts the club made at getting a freq sharing plan that didnt work.
What happened when some AMAers showed up with donuts and flew with the Rogues,
to determined what channels those pilots are using so a concept of sharing could be developed?
Dd the club even try that,
or just sit in their ivory tower planning actions to make more folks hate the AMA?


Howdy, what channel you on?
Uh, I'm on 23, Bill is 45, and Jimbo is on 33.
Great, our club can agree to stay off those channels so you can safely use them
if you three guys just sign here saying you will not use any channel other than those three without contacting us.

If you fly on a public freq that the Fed says you have to share,
dont get bent out of shape when you have to share.

I'm familiar with what the AMA's position is on frequency agreements. I've read the information.

How do you negotiate a frequency sharing agreement with a random group, that has no organization? The club has no way to know who may or may not be flying at the other site on any given day, nor does anyone else since they aren't a club. The club can't develop or enforce an agreement with random members of the public who may show up to fly.

What is the club to do?

Do the individuals who are flying at the other site have any responsibilities? What would you suggest that they do?

The only viable option I see for the club is to work with the county (on whose land both groups are flying) and negotiate a frequency agreement with THEM. Hopefully this would invlove at least a few of the group flying at the second site. Then the county posts signs at BOTH flying sites indicating which channels may be used. If individuals flying at either choose to ignore those notices or the agreement, then THEY get shut down. Or, they confine flying to one site, which is open to the public, with standard frequency control pins

IMO the most likely scenario is that the county throws up their hands, says "We don't need this" and shuts down BOTH sites rather than get involved any further.

If that happens, who is to blame? The club or the idiot members of the "flying public" that KE is so concerned about who have come in and disrupted an already existing flying site?

If you have a better suggestion, then I'm all ears.

Better suggestion: get over the "idiot members of the "flying public" crap. Fact is only a very tiny percentage of Americans that fly model airplanes are AMA members, and of AMA members, only about half belong to AMA chartered clubs. Forking over $58/yr to AMA and dues to a club does not confer responsibility and good judgment on anyone.

Who's to blame if the club loses their flying site and kills the public flying too? People with attitudes like you and Robocop.

Abel

I think "idiot members of the flying public" is an apt description of those that have chosen to fly their own planes within range of an existing club, and who apprarently have no desire to work with the existing club to come up with some sort of frequency sharing agreement. I'm certainly not talking about non-AMA (or non-club) flyers in general. Rather, just those that are putting their own equipment in jeopardy, not to mention that of the existing club, and don't seem to care. The description fits for THEM. What they are doing is stupid, and I'm not going to back off of that characterization. My guess is that if such happened to a club to which you belonged you would have even stronger words for those that shot down your aircraft or that of a fellow club member.

I've offered a couple of suggestions as to what the club should do, and what the possible outcomes might be. Do you have any alternatives or suggestions of your own or do you just prefer to pontificate about what you THINK I meant?

Again, if you've got ideas then I'm all ears. What should be done to resolve the situation? The guy came here looking for suggestions as to what his club could do. I offered one. Approaching the county to work out some sort of frequency agreement does NOT put the club in a position of having tried to "shut down" the non-club flyers. That way, if the second site does get shut down it's beause the county decided to do so, not as a result of a request by the club. Due to the potential liability, the county has a vested interest in making sure that planes aren't randomly going out of control as a result of interference.

Do you have anything to offer them beyond that?

Where did you get those statistics?

I seriously doubt that "a very tiny percentage of Americans that fly model airplanes are AMA members", unless you're including all the kids flying Airhogs and Estes stuff on infrared and 27MHz, and maybe the cheap RTF park flyers on 27MHz, and those aren't an interference problem for the clubs.

From what I've seen, I'd say vast majority of people flying on 72MHz and 2.4GHz are AMA members flying at AMA chartered clubs/airfields.

No, wrong again bucko. It would be the irresponsible, inconsiderate, rogue flyers buzzing around the boat docks with full knowledge that they are within range of an organized RC club. What kind of self absorbed goober would behave in that manner?

Again, the county is on the hook here and should, being forwarned of the potential liabilities, shut down the rogues. Do they have verifiable insurance? Are they themselves AMA members knowingly violating AMA frequency rules? Does their "site" (the boat docks) meet safety regs? Or are they just a bunch of clowns with no regard for safety or protcol?

Given the few facts we have and only one side of the story It looks like "the county guy" gave them permission to fly there without knowing the full ramifications of two RC entities in such close proximity. Now that he is better informed he should rescind that permission. If he doesn't, the club should start with his next higher supervisor and onward from there.

$2K plane hits the dirt due to interference at the club field.
Um, Dude, Bill, Jimbo. I thought you were only using 23,45,and 33.
Yea, well, Bubba started coming out and he's on 53. Oh yea, his cousin/wife tulip drive her nitro truck with an acro xmitter on 34.
Gee, guys, you shot down my new plane.
Sorry ol' fella, wees just havin' fun. We're fixin to head over and do some target shooting behind the baseball field tomorrow so ya'll should be OK.

You have offered one suggestion which you characterized as "The only viable option I see for the club," and then went to say it would most likely in the county shutting down BOTH sites, proving that it is not a viable option at all.

I, KE, others in this discussion, and AMA policy suggested working out an agreement between the two groups to avoid conflict. Bob Mitchell has decreed it won't work. I stand by it as a solution that has worked in similar scenerios, and see nothing in what you have argued re it won't work that any has basis in fact, but rather is just a restatement of your prejudices.

Prove your point, and then come back and demand that I offer the club something beyond that. Rereading the opening post, it appears that poster may share your prejudice, per this indication: "We have a group of rogues flying within 3 miles and I'm gathering ammo." If that is representative of the club mindset, then you are probably right.

Abel

Yes that is what it means

Abel, how can the club negotiate a workable frequency control agreement with an ad hoc group that consists of whoever may show up to fly, on whatever channel they happen to have on their transmitter? Such an agreement cannot be enforced without some sort of structure, and that structure doesn't exist. As others have said, next Saturday Joe Profile may show up with his new 3D plane never having been there before. Who's gonna tell him he can't fly on channel X? Some other guy who flys there randomly and talked to the club the week before and supposedly made such an agreement? What if no one else is there? It's NOT a workable solution, particularly if you're a club member and have just spent $2K on a giant scale P51. You gonna trust that this ad hoc flying group is gonna understand and follow some frequency agreement? I wouldn't. Abel, the group itself doesn't know who's going to fly on any given day, including someone they never heard of or met.

Is someone from the group going to make a sign and put it up? It's not their property, and who are they to tell someone else what they can and can't fly?

It's unworkable, unenforcable and untrustworthy to anyone who has some money tied up in their aircraft.

I see no other option than to get the county involved....and again, they should have liability concerns should aircraft randomly go out of control on property they own, and have given their permission for others to fly on.

The county may work with the club and the group, or they may just decide it's not worth it. Who knows? On the other hand, with no enforceable and controlled agreement in place, the situation is untenable for the club and for anyone in the ad hoc group who has any sense. Of course if they had any sense they wouldn't be doing what they are doing, would they?

And of course his characterization may be spot-on, too. If you were in a club and another group set up to fly within your 3 mile radius, knew you were there but went ahead anyway, what would you you call 'em?

And I'm NOT prejudiced. I explained my characterization and stand by it. This isn't about AMA vs non-AMA or club vs non-club. It's about a goup of flyers doing something that they know is wrong (and if they really don't know, then my characterization is REALLY spot on) and doing it anyway. Their actions are making it essentially impossible for the club, who was there first, to continue operations.

The more that I think about it, "rogue" is rather mild.

Now, if you think I'm wrong, then please tell us just exactly how a workable frequency sharing agreement could be developed in this specific case. Again....I'm all ears.

Right again on both counts

I do.

DO NOT under any circumstances push this FCC/County park/liability angle. More likely than not, you will get RC use banned on ALL of the land.

Try for a freq sharing agreement, short of that go 2.4 and be glad you did not have this problem 5 years ago when there was no 2.4

I have made it quite clear that I think you are wrong, and offering bad advice to the club out of ignorance and prejudice (which are much the same qualities, IMHO).

The topic has been discussed ad infinitum over the course of years in this forum, with case examples. You have repeatedly told us how intelligent you are - would that be smart enough use the search function?

Abel

I didn't think you had anything to offer.

It's not me who's really looking for the information, but the OP. If you were interested in helping, rather than blowing off, you'd post your suggestions.

Look at it this way, if you post what you claim to know, then you kill two birds with one stone. You show me somthing that I don't think will work, and you help the OP.

Your call.

It's not my club.

I also am of the opinion that going to the county might just shut it all down, but can't see how a freq agreement could work with an open flying site, and no structure at all on one side of the agreement.

The 2.4 GHz is probably the better alternative than getting the county involved. Good idea, although it will cost the members, for sure. The more I think about it, that's the best alternative, unless the club has another field in it's pocket somewhere.

Actually, what I've done is tell those that question how someone with less than a year in AMA understand things as I do, that I have a decent head on my shoulders. I've certainly not gone around touting my intelligence as you indicate.

I suspect that difference is probably lost on you.

What in that post has anything to do with the topic of discussion? Ken?

Abel

I disagree. Why should the club members, some of whom may not be able to afford it, bend over for a few jerks?


Bob, do the search.

You’ll find page after page of the same anti-club drivel.

Here’s a quick synopsis for you:

Long time established club. Years of sweat and money invested in a flying site. Johnny Reb and his buds flip them the bird and start flying their Wal-Mart planes across the street. The club should try to negotiate a frequency agreement with a non-entity with no organization or chain of command. If that fails the members should wet their pants and the club should fold up their tent. Then the threads fall into a couple of pages of anti-club, anti-AMA diversion and fades into the pages of history.

You’re right in that this is not an AMA issue other than the leverage (thanks HC) the AMA club has in insuring the landowner(county).

A frequency agreement with who? The entire population of the county minus the club members? Who’s going to enforce this on the rogue’s end? Who will take responsibility. Ooo. The bad word. Responsibility. How un-roguish of me. This is a matter for the controlling authority of the land which in this case is the county. Is there a reason the county has boat docks and launches. Why shouldn’t you just be able to back your boat over the nearest garden and curb and launch wherever you want. Is it because there needs to be some structure to how a park is used and maintained? If they have allotted land to be used as a RC flying site then that is where RC flying should occur. How about they let people play softball in the boat launch parking lot. Should the folks that park there negotiate an agreement with the players or suffer dents and broken windshields? Where’s the logic in the anti-club mentality stance here?

If the club maintains the site and provides a viable attraction to the park with no revenue from the county they are a valuable asset to the county. With the budgets of most of the Park systems stretched to the max they love it. Our local park system brags on their website and it’s promotional material that the park contains the only RC flying field on municipal grounds in the state. They give us nothing but the little piece of land that is unusable for anything else.We, the members of the club, provide the upkeep and monetary investment to make it a first class, beautiful flying facility. You don’t even have to be a member of our club to use our facilities.(Got to have AMA to fly though.) What value does a pack of rogue flyers whizzing around the boat docks give to the park? In these liberal, wet noodle, PC times it is not fashionable to stand your ground but that does not mean it cannot be effective.

The club has little alternative other than going back to the “county guy” or if need be start going up the food chain. If they do nothing they end up with an empty flying field with a few members that are afraid to put a plane in the air. The situation is no different than if it were a private landowner who let rogues fly on the same property. Where would you start? With the yahoos or the landlord?

I suppose the pro-rogue type could suggest that the club members go and sit on the boat docks and play with the mixes on their multi-frequency xmitters while the rogues are flying. Using their logic the rogues shouldn’t have a thing to say about someone doing whatever the he11 they want , when they want, no matter who it effects.

Just bring donuts cuz that makes everything A-OK.

Exactly how close is the boat ramp flying field?How often do you suspect that you are getting interference?These are the first things that need answered.I cant see anyone risking their own plane knowing they could be interfered with( as the "rogue" guys would be).Is it possible you just crashed your plane?
Now,its been said over and over,but the AMA has no authority here.An AMA card doesnt entitle you to anything.Why should someone that may not be able to afford AMA and club dues not be able to fly?Wait, it doesnt keep them from flying does it?Not saying it doesnt suck,but thats the way it is.If I owned land next to an AMA club field and I want to fly,then guess what,I can.If my aunts uncles cousins second wife has land next to a field and she says I can fly there,then again I can.Doesnt make me an idiot( I saved 58 bucks plus club dues),other than I would be risking my own plane.The boat ramp pilots are breaking no laws,at least not now.The county could pass something that states the need for insurance to fly from public property.Then say they produce a homeowners policy that is basically equal to what you have with the AMA or worse yet,find private land even closer to the club field.It may even be possible for them to form a small non-ama club and force the county to lease them land(Im not clear if the club field is on county land or not) like they have for others.Working with the group that doesnt belong to the club makes the most sense.I highly doubt they would want to lose a plane to interference either.

instead of worrying about what an AMA card will get you in this world,remember the things it will not do for you
1.An AMA card doesnt make you a r/c pilot (my wife has a drivers license,but I still will not ride with her)
2.An AMA card doesnt give you the right to any frequencies(anyone can buy a tx/rx regardless of age,race,religion,or gender)
3.an AMA card doesnt make you smarter than anyone else(read some of the posts on this site)

The facts are clear. The non-club flyers have every right to use the rc frequencies. Maybe they are using the county land illegally, and can be forced out. That won't prevent them from setting up later on private land nearby, and with permission. They'll know who instigated their removal, and any negotiation will then be futile.

In the short term, a freq. agreement is the best course, but personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

Nope, the club members will have to bite the bullet and go 2.4. Cost of doing business, so to speak.

I'm back, the original poster...and it's been a tough day at the office.

I'm meeting with the county Thurs...the meeting was not scheduled over this issue, but the guy we deal with wants me to bring it up; as his boss will be there, as well as that guy's boss. Our club has a lease with the county on land that was given by BLM on the stipulation that it be used for activities such as ours. We've been there for about 20 years. There's also a trap & skeet range, and a drag strip. Everything that makes noise is located in that area. The county wants us there, and if there is anything I can guess about 100%, it is that the county will not shut down our field because we're having frequency conflicts with an unorganized, and likely, uninsured group.

I will post on the outcome of the meeting.

I really don't care if these guys don't like me or anyone else in our club, and if they want to fly at an unorganized flight, that's fine too, I just want them to do it somewhere where the issue of interference with our established site is not an issue (for either group). We are in the west, and as a transplant from the east, I have to tell everyone that unless you've been here you have NO IDEA of the airspace available here...it's almost endless, which makes it that much more frustrating when someone sets up shop that close...I guess you just can't dictate common sense.

Judging from the volume of replies here, I guess this is a pretty hot issue elsewhere as well.

More like the cost of conciliation and capitulation. [:'(]

You'll have to ask yourself that, Abel. You brought up the subject as a smear.

You may want to get a scanner and try to moniter channels for a while and see
if in fact you can pick up the others guys at your field, Also try to talk to them
and let them know they could be in as much risk as you are.

As far as going to the county I would not be quick to do that if they get
kicked of the land they may be in for revenge.

Just my .02

I've read through a good bit of it. I think we are in agreement that a working frrequency agreement is pie in the sky. Not a realistic option, IMO. Perhaps Abel will enlighten us as to how such a goal can be accomplished with a group of unaffilieated flyers whose makeup is a total unknown on a day to day basis.

My initial reaction was that there was a good chance the county would just wash their hands of the whole mess if asked to resolve the situation. It may not happen, but it's a real possibility.

I think only the club folks involved are in a real position to evaluate that possibility, given that they have experience with the county administration. If they think it's a real possibility, then they have to decide if it's a risk they are willing to take, or if they are better off in the long run to move to newer equipment so no one can bother them.

In a perfect world the county would step in, be the "bad guy" and resolve the situation. But politicians are politicians are politicians and often will take the easy way out, minimizing their risk and screwing things up for others. Of course in a perfect world it wouldn't have come up to begin with. If it was only the "principle of the thing" then yeah, the second group should be held accountable. The reality, though, is that the club needs to do what is best for them, and that may NOT be forcing the other group to be responsible.

We can sit here and say what is right and what is wrong, but it's not our flying site and club that is at risk. If they believe they can work with the county, then by all means that is what they should do. If they've got concerns, then discretion may be the better part of valor.

Conciliation, yes. Capitulation, definitely not.

Mediating a truce between the two groups is best, not antagonizing one or the other. Our club had to do it, albeit with only one person, with the added benefit that the young man also became a club member. He certainly didn't have to, but he gladly did, and now is our free mower mechanic! He still flies on his own land, too.

Not knowing all the details, or the lay of the land, it is hard for us here to come up with a definitive answer. But knowing what little we do, there is no way I would take it any higher than necessary, and a little talk between the two groups is is the best first step, IMO.