Hey Hot Shot,

For someone who has been flying since April of this year, you sure are full of advice. You seem to have all the answers, but I'll bet you haven't heard half of the questions. I would suggest that you get a little time in grade before you start trying to make the rules.
Or is this something that your pal Mark has told you to say? Keep on trying to earn your check. You'll get there.

Bill, AMA 4720

This is a hot issue. It really effects everyone. I've seen this same discussion time and time again. It's just like restrictive gun laws. It's the law abiding citizen that gets the shaft, not the criminals.

Thank goodness for 2.4. yea it sucks, but what can you do?

Frank

Wow you got me on a pronoun, at least that is one step above pointing out a spelling mistake.

Then why do you keep going on about talking to the county about liability or whatever? I guarantee talking to the county is the WORSE course of action.

Is it true you have only been flying since April??

Wasn't trying to play gotcha. I thought you might have misunderstood and that it was my club involved. That's all.

Yep.

LOL. In my 20+ years in this hobby, I see this once in a while with a new guy..... We call them "One Gallon Experts" and typically they're the 'noisiest' members of the club(s).

Going to the "County" is the WORST thing to do for both parties. They do not want to be bothered by this sort of complaining.

I'm quoting a few different guys here, so dont get upset if I dont attrib all the different posters


Reread what I said about Petition style freq sharing plan.
You say it wont cover the unkowns.... but the 'unknows' are not what will get the club shut down by Muncie, you need to deal with the Known Conflictors: the 3 random flyers at the rogue site that you get to sign the sharing plan.

Will that Petition be a bulletproof guarantee against all potential unkown future conflictors?
Heck no.
What guarantee is there that some other clowns wont turn on a TX in their dining room at any given moment near any club. But that petition style signed sharing agreement with the KNOWN conflictors will let the club have a signed sharing agreement that will prevent Muncie from shutting down the club for freq conflict. The ama rules dont say you need to guarantee against unknown future conflicts, you just have to deal with the ones you know about. And getting a handfull of signatures from the Knowns will do that.

But 2 major hurdles to overcome first:
The club has to agree to obey the fed non-interference and Muncie Conflict rules to give up those couple freqs.
The club has to want to do anything at all even similar to obeying their own(ama) rules, rather than creating more folks that hate the entire AMA for getting them kicked off their flying site.

Yes, just throwing ones hands up and declaring it imposible is a lot easier than meeting with the Rogues or doing anything at all to get the sharing plan. It is far easier to say it cant be done, than to listen to the way folks are saying to do it. It is far far far easier to make folks hate the AMA than to get them to like us.

Oh yeah, just lay the old Doom&Gloom insurance scare on the county and watch the county shut them down while we say we didnt cause it. Other than 5year olds, that aint gonna fool nobody.



Lets see where the root of the recurring problem is:
Theres the problem: Folks think that they are 'established' which make them exempt from Fed freq use rules.
It dont.
Anytime you need to use the term Established when talking about public freq rights, you just lost the arguement. The Fed says there is no establishing reserved use of the freqs, its anyone anytime as long as you dont interfere witha freq in use.... the instant the club switches off their tx the freq is not in use by them and they have to not interfere with anyone else using it. This has absoluely nothing to do with AMA, it is the Fed, and they dont make exemptions for ama clubs. If you dont want the hassle of having to not interfere with others using the free public use freqs, then dont use them.

No, the clubbers make friends with the rogues rather than ama haters
and get a sharing agreement and have their friends remind other new guys about interference.
Why is a win-win friendship & sharing with fellow aeromodelers not even an ideal for you... is it so alien for you to get along and make friends even when there is a common hobby

The best course of action would be to impress on the county officials the club's superior rights, as the preexisting entity, to the frequencies we use by pointing out the dangers and liabilities of allowing others to use the same channels. Once the county is made aware of the dangers of potential frequency conflicts it should not be a problem for them to minimize their liabilities and make needed changes. I am sure the county can come up with a sure-fire plan that will guarantee that no further problems exists.



It is such an easy task to get clear channels in the near 29 square mile area that AMA requires chartered clubs to adhere to...the county will no doubt appreciate your position if laid out correctly...



Go to the meeting and show your AMA credentials and force them rouges out! What do you have to lose?

I agree with those who say to keep the county out of it. They'll just shut the whole works down. I would convert to the high frequency radio system and be done with it.

It's nice that this thread has not devolved into name calling and off topic cheap shots. [:'(]

I can't speak for others but at least as it pertains to the post which you have quoted I was not using "established" in the context of frequencies but rather use of county/park land. One has nothing to do with the other.

Exactly. In this case they are the only controlling authority. They, and they alone, have the power to fix the problem whether by removing the rogue "site" (park area set aside for boat docks/launching) or by a set of restrictions.

It's not rocket science. Anyone with common sense can read a bit and understand this specific issue. It's a matter of conflicting use of common resources, and the basic issue is not a whole lot different than if it were softball teams trying to play two games on a county owned field at the same time. The fact that radio frequencies are involved doesn't change the facts that the basics needed to resolve the situation are similar.

Now, if the issue were how to set up a 105" Yak 54 gasser that pulls to the canopy during knife edge, you won't see me offering an opinion. Haven't been there, haven't done that.

The club has 4 reasonable options.

1. Do nothing. Not viable. (Somebody is going to get blind sided by the softball.)

2. Switch to 2.4. (Find a different ball diamond for their game) Expensive, but maybe the best solution all around

3. Attempt to negotiate a frequency agreement (Work with the other teams to reschedule one of the games) Sounds difficult to me to do with an ad hoc group of flyers, but some here seem to think it can be made to work. Perhaps worth a try.

4. Ask the county to intervene. Force a frequency agreement, or get both groups flying at the same site with standard frequency control. (Have the county draw up a schedule for the ball fields) Both of those are better than shutting the one group down. Runs the risk of the county shutting it ALL down.

The guys in the club have a far better understanding of their relationship with the county than does anyone here. Based on what the OP has said about the way their field was set up, and other activities that the county has activly encouraged in the area, it sounds as if that is what they plan to do. I hope they are successful and that both groups can continue to fly without interference.

LOL... somebody had to take an STL position here.

It sure is nice to have someone agree to my post... and miss the point entirely...this sucking up stuff could be addicting.

I think that's just the point that several others have been making here...or the opposite, rather.

Neither group has a "right" to the frequencies that supercedes the rights of the other group. AMA's 3 mile exclusion doesn't apply here because the new group is not AMA. The 3 mile rule is an AMA thing, not an FCC thing. I've read the FCC regs and they require that the frequencies be used so as to not interfere with other users. That puts the burden on both.

And that plan should be designed to allow both groups to continue to fly, not designed to force one group out.

Bob,

Of course I agree with you. My earlier post was a poor sarcastic attempt to illuminate the risk of putting the burden solely on the county. But one thing is for certain, the county could very well come up with a "sure-fire plan"...the club will not like it though... Hmmm...If the county realizes it can't control neighbor Jones' frequency use in "the process" to eliminate the rouges, the club could easily find themselves in a tail spin they can't pull out of...the rouges could just move next door on private property...contact AMA...and say by-by to the club... if provoked...not desirable IMO



Better to work with your fellow molders I would think...but what do I know?

<snip
<snip>

It has not done so yet, but it probably will (especially now). You trying to get a check from Mark too?

Bill, AMA 4720

Funny how people forget about the universal trade-off rule. As AMA members we get certain benefits at the expense of certain privileges. The frequency conflict "rights" issue is just one example...there are many others.

I missed the sarcasm. Sometimes you have to hit me with a 2X4.

How do you get a sharing agreement with a group that is unorganized, has no leadership, and who's make-up is an unknown from day to day? That's where i keep getting hung up. Obviously some think that it's a workable solution, but I don't see how. How would you go about setting it up?

[/quote]
Hmmm...If the county realizes it can't control neighbor Jones' frequency use in "the process" to eliminate the rouges, the club could easily find themselves in a tail spin they can't pull out of...the rouges could just move next door on private property...contact AMA...and say by-by to the club... if provoked...not desirable IMO

Better to work with your fellow molders I would think...but what do I know?

[/quote]

Sure they can.

Park Rules:

RC flying at the designated site only.

I can't fathom how so many folks are reluctant to bring the landowner into the picture. Why operate from a standpoint of fear? A well maintained and operated flying site is an asset to any park with very little if any draw on their limited budgets. What are they going to do when some group of rogue 4 wheeler enthusiasts want to use their site for a race course. Live with the ruts? Slink up to the ringleader and hammer out a plan where they only rut the place up on odd days? C'mon. There comes a time when you must stand up.

Only the OP knows their particular relationship with the county. There are too many unknowns to come up a with a solid plan and the OP hasn't been back to fill in the blanks.

Have the rogues been approached with a frequency sharing plan? Is there a rogue that could enforce a frequency plan? Are they organized rogues? [sm=71_71.gif]
Are the rogues members of the AMA? If so they are violating AMA regs.
Do flyers have to be a member of the club to fly at their site? If so this would explain the desire for the rogues to fly off-site. We have several people that fly at our site that are not members of our club. We all get along great with them and they've been invited to join but for some reason don't. They sit on our tables or sit in our chairs on Thursdays and wait for us to get done mowing and cleaning the place up so they can fly. There are just people like that I guess. More parasite than rogue. We don't push it or hassle them because we'd rather have them at our site than off in another part of the park shooting us down.

again, I'm commenting a a bunch of posters comments:


Yup, very very important point.
The AMA rules on seperation cannot do anything to nor require anything of the public non-member flyers, but the AMA rules do require the club to not fly with a known conflict without signed share plan and can force it with a charter pull. The club knows they dont have that and are choosing to just break the AMA rules while they try to resolv the conflict outside of the way Muncie has setup for them: Get a petetition style agreement with the non-members (something muncie added not very long ago FOR JUST THIS THING!).

So the obvious first (simplest & friendliest) solution woul be to go to the Rogues to get a petition style sharing plan signed. For the ake of making a point lets assume the rogues dont wanna. THEN go to the county and tell them about the AMA system in place for dealing with seperation problems: Signed Sharing Agreements. DONT try to get them shutdown (something muncie doenst have a system in place for) with the old Doom&Gloom that ama is unfortunately renown for <why are we know for that? cause crud like this still happens all over the place>.

If the club does go to the county, it should be to get a sharing plan as AMA has set up for these situations,
not to shut folks down (or think they can get a shutdown and try to act innocent)


interesting point
Are the clubbers members of the AMA? Are they choosing to fly with a known freq conflict?
Does anyone really need to ask Muncie what they should do if there is a know conflict of others using a freq near the club.... no, I think we all know Muncie will just point to the I will not fly with a known freq conflic text.... that means the club will get shutdown by Muncie till an agreement is signed.

Is what the club is doing wrong?
If it is not, lets just tell Muncie about the conflict.... or is the plan to hide what the club is doing from Muncie?
There is no need to hide if it is not wrong
Know what, maybe I should shoot an email off to Muncie about this known conflict.... I mean, unless someone thinks I shouldnt for some reason. Surely somebody could explain to us all why we shouldnt tell Muncie about a club flying with a known freq conflict.


Maybe one of us could suggest a petition style plan of We The Undersigned Agree To Yaddayadda.
Wouldnt it be great if one of us would post about a petition style plan.
Too bad nobody is posting about a petition style plan.
yup, sure would be great if anyone here could come up with a petition style agreement
guess we will never know about using a petition style agreement, so lets just give up because we all never heard of a petition style agreement solving the problem of Muncie shutting the club down.




Oh, as for simpley instagating the county to kick the rogues off county land:
Then you will find the rogues on private land doing the same thing and live in fear of the rogues finding out how Muncie will shutdown the club over freq conflicts.

I won't tell you it shouldn't be done. The club is violating AMA rules they signed up for and putting others at risk that could result in bad PR for our hobby, and incur liability costs that we all have to pay for. OP has said he has already been shot down by the 'rogues' so they know full well what the risk is.
As has been done in precedent instances, AMA should pull the club's site owner insurance until the situation is resolved.
An Email to Muncie is probably redundant since some EC and staff members do read this forum, and fingering the club not too hard - how many AMA chartered clubs can there be Grand Junction, CO - like one? Wouldn't hurt to put in on the record with an Email from a concerned AMA member though.

Abel

I decided not to blow the whistle on that club to Muncie,
cause I dont wanna get banned from that districts forums


I think the bigger problem is the swell martketing job these embassadors of AMA are doing with the local pilots. After they prod the county into banniing flying, what will they do next to make sure everyone everywhere hates AMA? Will they just start mailing cash to folks to not join?



Anybody else here recall the thread not too long ago
about a club that sat by as the locals banned public flying,
then found out the hard way, and too late, that they became part of the public and banned too.
Will we see a future thread about this current club in the same situation?
That is why AMA clubs should not promote/instagate bans on flying... because it can come back to bite them.

It's amazing how the Anti-club, anti-AMA sentiments come to light. Are you two licking your chops and drooling at the prospect of an established club loosing their flying site? I bet the fact they are AMA chartered is like A1 sauce. You guys smelling red meat about now? Why haven't you popped off an anonymous email turning them in? You can be crappy but not that crappy?

Good grief.

Maybe when you get over your glee over someone else’s misfortune you can enlighten us as to where in this paragraph taken verbatim from HC's quote of the AMA reg. an AMA club can enter into a frequency agreement with the "rogue" (read idiot) flyers. Emphasized text added.

"A frequency-management agreement may exist between two or more AMA chartered clubs, (No, not this one. The "rogues" are not chartered) AMA clubs and individual AMA members, (Nope, not here. They aren't AMA members as far as I can gather from the OP) or individual AMA members. (Darn, not this one either.) Frequency-management agreements, including an interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA Headquarters."

Your #3 option is the first thing to try.
#1 and #4 are the things the established club will consider the last resort.

Why on earth do you think option #3 is likely NOT to work??? You are GUARANTEED not to get a compromise in this situation if you don't try it... Geezz [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

Only fair, Robo. The club (at least as represented by the OP) is out to kill the public flyers flying privilege, and do that by whining and sniveling to mommy. The public fliers have mommies too..........even AMA for a benevolent foster mommy in this instance (now then, was that 'anti-AMA sentiment?').

Maybe you should read the sacred scriptures yourself rather than bending over for what gets posted on the internet.

Abel

Actually, based on what the OP said they are going ahead with #4. Apparently they have a good working relationship with the county, at least that's what he said.

I've commented several times on why I'm less than enthusiastic about that option. They second group of flyers is not a club, has no organization or leader, no telling who and their brother's cousin's neighbor's aunt may show up on any given day to fly. Let's say Joe the Plumber shows up to fly on Thursday afternoon for te first time. Who is going to tell him that he can't fly using channel X? What if no one else is there? Is someone going to post some signs? There is no mechanism I see that is available to enforce or insure compliance. Don't lose sight of the fact that if this group was interested in frequency control/frequency sharing they wouldn't have just shown up and started flying, knowing that the other club existed.

That said, given that the OP indicates the club is going to the county about the situation, I hope the aim is to allow both groups to continue to fly. Responsibly.

There has been all this talk about the club should do this, or the club should do that, and how they are the villians in this.....somehow. Remember that the situation is a result of an ad hoc group of flyers acting in a very irresponsible manner. Essentially they have put the club in a position of having to sort out the mess. I've heard very little criticism of that group, just a bunch of arrows being slung at the club. If this group was responsible, the situation wouldn't exist to begin with. That lack of responsibility is an indicator to me of the likely success of a frequency agreement that no one can enforce.

Are you indicating that Horrace either doesn't know what he's talking about or in min-informed?