I agree. And is parallel to what I've been saying regarding separation and distance from those whom the AMA are unequivocally incapable of policing/enforcing our rules with.

Regards,

Astro

I always was represented by the Prosecution and had many Defense Attorneys across the isle. Just your arguments very much remind me of some of their antics, LOL

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

Pot...........kettle.............black

Astro

Wow! that was so profound it had to be posted twice! Certainly overshadows addressing the wrong guy.

And so you apply this same standard to all pilots, not just MR/Drone, because that distinction hasn't really been made in the past....its seems it's usually coupled with MR/Drone folks. I would agree though that all AMA members should be held to the same standards.

Uh oh, thread purity/spelling/grammar finger wagging alert! Thanks for the laugh CJ, that's a good one. It is some deep profound stuff, usually better the second time around. I might even get extra for that! :)

I'd ask why you were constantly represented by the prosecution, but 'round these parts we got thread purity police, so I strive to stay on point lest the finger be wagged my way. Another day/thread perhaps. But I would offer that the defense and the prosecution should both be able to argue the same case, just from a different viewpoint. And actually that's what they do, the good ones at least. :)

Now the 12 Angry Men (old school movie reference) have spoken....what's the verdict? Hang 'em high, or off to the gallows?

:)

I'm pretty sure you know what I've said, you just choose to play ostrich and spin-doctor as you see fit. (Or maybe it is the reading comprehension thing that continues to surface)
I've ALWAYS maintained that our STELLAR safety record has been due to each of us holding one another accountable to the safety guidelines at our fields. What we witnessed in the video is almost more alarming (as franklin and hydrp pointed out) as it shows (the Feds, the media, the general public) that the AMA is not really equipped to monitor adherance at established fields, let alone in the general public arena where the droners have proven disregard for safety time and time again. As someone here already mentioned, it's kinda hard to say, "they're not us" when, ummm, oops....yes, they are!

(BTW, I have NEVER singled out MR (as you allege in your post)

Astro

:rolleyes: And again ,


LOL

:cool: Yep , I'll agree with what Astro wrote here , right down to the very last sentence he is correct . Astro for one and myself makes two that have been saying it's the BLOS , no matter whats carrying the camera and not what the BLOS is being flown with .

:rolleyes: Hmm , Name calling ? Titles ? Did someone here mention name calling and titles ?

LOL

If not, then there's a whole bunch of people, who aren't AMA members, flying at a place that requires AMA membership. Including now at least one more turbine flier (photo1). At some point, Occam's Razor must be considered, in that the simplest answer must be the right one.

Option/Answer (Porcia): The many people seen at the video flying at a field that requires AMA membership are in fact not AMA members.

or (the simpler answer)

Option/Answer (Frank): The most if not many of the people in the video are AMA members, since it's required to fly there, and they watched or stood while this knucklehead blew off a whole bunch AMA rules.

So, you're relying on Occam's Razor. I can't help but wonder if that theory ever worked it's way into a report. No facts, no evidence, just a philosophical theory. Hardly what I would call demonstrable or scientific in terms of conclusions. It's clear you won't walk the full statement back, but I see equivocation now, (the most if not many, the many)so that's something. even a little. At least it's more accurate and probable. As is common around clubs nowadays, you'll find non AMA members and spectators.

Thank goodness someone stepped up with the facts!! LOL You heard it here first, folks!

Astro

The percentage of members vs. non-members isn't really pertinent here, now is it? NO, it is up to each and every one of us (members) to step up and be the "field marshall" if need be. As franklin is trying to point out, it is imperative to our keeping our reputation AND our hobby (as we have known it for many decades anyway!).

Astro

Oh, like the guy pushing the airplane with the transmitter in his hand?

YOU REALLY NEED TO FACE THE FACTS PORCIA, THE VIDEO IS DAMNING EVERYONE SHOWN IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have one person, PUSHING his jet past the stop sign while the defendant taxis his past it without a second thought. You have a crowd of people, many of which are almost assured to be AMA members DUE TO SITE REQUIREMENTS. You have the defendant pilot bragging about flying almost 100MPH over the speed limit and putting that in writing in the video. Let's put this into a context that anyone WITHOUT KNOWING THE SAFETY CODE CAN UNDERSTAND:
1) Running a stop sign= traffic citation and fine
2) Exceeding 20MPH over the speed limit= reckless driving, punishable by jail time, fine and possible loss of license and vehicle impounding
3) Possible driving without a license= punishable by jail time, fine, loss of license or right to obtain one and vehicle impounding
4) Video evidence in court= slam dunk conviction
5) Allowing operation of a vehicle outside the law= guilty by association

These are not made up statements, they are known fact in every traffic court in the country. We know the first two are shown on video so there is no doubt they are fact and would be prosecuted accordingly. The third is an unknown but, if he doesn't have a waiver, it's then a valid argument. The fourth we all know is a fact since dash cams are now admissible as evidence in every state in the union. As for the fifth, ask any bartender what happens if someone, after drinking a beer or two, gets in an accident after leaving the bar the bartender works at. Here in Washington State, the bartender is guilty of a crime as well and faces jail time, just like the guy driving the vehicle while intoxicated. Just for the record, most states have a BAC limit of .08%, low enough that some people would be considered intoxicated after one beer or mixed drink.
I'm not going to touch the flying in restricted airspace since Franklin already covered it but that would be looked at as trespassing. Some government sites make trespassers subject to eating lead, not just being subject to arrest and incarceration

WoW! Jail time for flying a model airplane recklessly. I don't even think there is jail time for flying a full scale recklessly. Unless maybe you flew a stolen airplane. Or maybe refuse to pay your fine.

One down, "many" to go.

You should find out who he is, and have him hauled into AMA court as well. Cross check YouTube, snapchap, Vine, Twitter, and Facebook too. Perhaps surveillance is in order too. Whatever it takes, we've got another scofflaw that needs to be brought to justice. Chris Hanson might be available for the sting videos.

Round 'em up boys!

YOU REALLY NEED TO FACE FACTS SPORT......just watch the video. It's all there. If the infraction doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Sport , I will say that Hydro drew a pretty interesting parallel between driving laws and aircraft operations , have you heard the several stories in the news lately where drunk pilots were removed from service , some mere minutes before flying ? They end up charged with such things as reckless endangerment due to the fact that their drinking has recklessly endangered the public and of course the usual "operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated" that a car driver would face under similar circumstances , the plane being , after all , a motor vehicle in the eyes of the law . Now , if we RC model aircraft operators ARE indeed flying "aircraft" as the FAA states , God forbid such a flight should end badly with someone injured you can bet all kinds of the same charges would be filed against the RC pilot irrespective of whether the flight was manned or not . This particular pilot , since he don't seem to follow rules no matter what he's flying , is a perfect example of the proverbial "accident waiting to happen" and as Franklin points out an indicator of the fact that "self policing" doesn't always work depending on who is or isn't at the field at any given time ....

The local authorities can do that, but the FAA can only suspend license and issue fines. And there are likely no local laws broken here. Relooking at the video there is no incontrovertible proof there was any FAA rules broken. Was this outside 5 miles from and airport, if so then he did not break any altitude rule. How fast was he going. His video may have lied about the speed. Was it flying over traffic? Hard to be certain because the canopy may have distorted the view, but it looked like he was trying to turn before going over the highway. So looks like the only rule you could prove is taxing in the pits. But if he didn't have a waiver then that and his boosting about the speed is enough to pull his waiver. That and flying the drone beyond LOS is enough to suspend his AMA membership IMO.

But jail? Give me a break! Just extreme hyperbole that only hurts your case. Obvious hyperbole can help to highlight the issue but when it goes that far It doesn't help.

Geez Porcia, TAKE OFF YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The guy has several videos on Youtube showing the same disregard for the rules. He has his jet vids where he's claiming almost 300MPH and FPV control 3 miles from the flying field, quad vids where he's bragging about altitude violations, and who knows how many other FAA or local laws and ordinances he's breaking, not to mention thumbing his nose at the AMA and FAA, daring them to stop him by posting his violations on public media. If he was driving a car in these videos, he'd be in jail, his license revoked and his car impounded, just based on the videos he's posted on line. Since the AMA and FAA can't do anything but pull his waiver, if he even has one, drop him as a member and fine him, according to you, what does he have to fear, other than losing a little cash? This tells me the system is broken and needs to be fixed, regardless what you think. Going back to my comparison to driving a car, this guy would be driving a Corvette through LA during rushhour at 120MPH, both on and off the sidewalk, and the local LEOs would be powerless, other than giving him a citation through the mail, to stop him until he injures or kills someone. When he does that, and it is coming with the way he flies, it will be everyone else in the hobby that will pay the price for his arrogance and stupidity

You can choose to focus on the minutia if you like, but it really does lead this thread off-topic. More than what punishment should be awarded to this person, franklin was simply using this video as evidence that it may be time for the AMA to bolster its safety protocol since there is way more riding on it being effective, now that the Feds are relying on it to grant exemptions to its members as an upstanding CBO.

Keep on spinning and deflecting if you wish, it just doesn't add to the threads, or the facts, as you so vehemently say is your thing..

Regards,

Astro

Astro, I just had a thought. I think we're lucky to live about as far away from Porcia and D5 as we can get without leaving the lower 48. If he is willing to defend someone with a history of breaking rules as he did in this response to me,
The local authorities can do that, but the FAA can only suspend license and issue fines. And there are likely no local laws broken here. Relooking at the video there is no incontrovertible proof there was any FAA rules broken. Was this outside 5 miles from and airport, if so then he did not break any altitude rule. How fast was he going. His video may have lied about the speed. Was it flying over traffic? Hard to be certain because the canopy may have distorted the view, but it looked like he was trying to turn before going over the highway. So looks like the only rule you could prove is taxing in the pits. But if he didn't have a waiver then that and his boosting about the speed is enough to pull his waiver. That and flying the drone beyond LOS is enough to suspend his AMA membership IMO.
and claiming the canopy distorted the view show in the camera while the pictures below show that it didn't
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...119311&thumb=1http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...119312&thumb=1