Speed, I do not in the least disagree that safety should be first and foremost in any RC flying endeavor. I also will agree that some of what I see from FT is certainly not the kind of behavior that should be advertised to the world at large, presenting our hobby as being populated by a bunch of barnstorming yahoos will do us no good whether it's FT or AMA members in the spotlight. Not only the flight of the FT 10 foot model, but also the Hodges B29 crash, clearly illustrate the flying of models big enough to do some serious harm way too close to spectators, in my opinion. Other opinions may vary, and that's fine too, but I do give us (the AMA) credit for not posting stuff like the 10 foot plane flight on any official AMA website, I gotta admit I was half expecting at least one of those guys to be falling off of the golf cart they used to launch it :eek:

I agree that within any group you will have the occasional safety issue. I will gladly call out a safety issue regardless of CBO affiliation. The Mac Hodges B-29 incident was a result of multiple failures. Not to diminish from the seriousness of the event but because this one is mentioned along with the Apollo field jet over the freeway IMO means these things at AMA chartered field don’t happen as frequently as some would indicate.

You must also consider that part of the reason we don't know of more frequent events is that most are not on film. Also, it's more the behavior of AMA members (as seen below) rather than the physical field.

NOT on film: The pylon racer circling the spectator area at a chartered field and the "large" (so we don't quibble over details) plane rocket directly at the flight line (and spectators) and then pull up just feet in front of us. Also NOT on film any number of AMA members I've seen lose control of their planes and fly - dangerously - directly at, over, and behind spectators.

Also NOT on film:
The YEARS of overflights of people occupied buildings that ultimately resulted in a lawsuit, shutting down Fairview Flyers.
The crash at Florida Jets that sent one individual to the hospital with second degree burns.
The vice President of AMA club that killed himself with his helicopter.
The AMA member who lost control of his plane and killed a woman in Taiwan
The 'non-compliance' events that resulted in JPO being called to speak to AMA EC
And how many others?

ON film:
Markham Park flyer flying turbine over heavily traveled highways, occupied recreation areas, and even diving at high speed directly at cars
Hodges B29, performing very aggressive maneuver in close proximity to spectators
Fairview Flyer turbine flyer, bragging about his altitude - while flying in Victor Airway, yet low passes show no spotter looking for manned aircraft on that airway
Maiden turbine F8 Crusader, where operator loses control and flies behind spectators
Turbine flyers at Titusville flying at over heads of people on the ground in front of safety line, while they film story for local media
Heli maneuvering aggressively toward unprotected spectators, only to go into crowd (this happened at Taj-Muncie)

Point is that FT is a very YT focused put it on film group. That point has been well established in many discussions in these pages talking about their media presence vs. AMAs. That tells me that a lot of what happens at AMA fields never makes it to film. Just because there's not video in no way supports a concluding that dangerous actions don't happen as frequently.

Franklin, the issue here is that FT safety issues are public record via YT and I could if I wanted spend the day posting them. Your assumption that AMA members are just as bad is just that, an assumption. In order to express how unsafe you feel AMA members are you cite at least a 10 year history. Secondly, how are you gathering your information if you do not frequent club flying sites?

No different than your ASSUMPTION that AMA members are NOTjust as bad - simply because there's no YT of it...

And what has AMA done to hold even one of those individuals accountable over that 10 year history. "And the survey says..." ... NOTHING

Easy ...
ADDED: I forgot the AMA club members admitting (on RCG when discussing their FRIA application) that they fly despite non-participants being in front of the AMA required safety line, in fact flying over their heads

My assumption as you call it is derived from 44 years of being an AMA member and flying at 20+ chartered club flying fields all over the west coast. Real world experience that is the basis of my conclusion that AMA members are safety oriented.

How do you know that no action was taken? Just because it didn’t happen while the person was flying or on the video does not mean action was not taken. I’ve been involved in a few “ safety reports “ that were reported to the club board and discussed if action was required or not. Typically a talk with the offender was all that it took. Occasionally a suspension of privileges. Keep in mind that these happened OVER A 40 YEAR PERIOD. At club meetings each month the first topic is always safety.

5 incidents over a time frame of how many years. While I agree that they shouldn’t have happened in the first place, still a very small percentage and I’m certain that there were talks and action taken to prevent them happening again.

Once again I will remind you that the Navy has had issues with sexual offenders. Using your logic I should assume all Naval officers sex offenders? Of course you claim that all these are held accountable, well at least those whom got reported, maybe.

Still not answering the thread topic question though.

Best example this is likely NOT a good assumption is the case of Fairview Flyers. If such actions were taken, they were clearly ineffective - so much so the judge put some pretty scathing remarks in the record - a record that is searchable by anyone looking for other examples in an effort to shut down fields. You'd think AMA would have a pretty big interest in that, but they either did nothing (simplest explanation) or what they did was wholly ineffective at changing behavior of their members - for it kept happening (per court record).

You jump straight to universals. I never said ALL members have issues. What I said was that when there's evidence of a systemic problem, the accountability lies at the feet of leadership for not acting strong enough. Just as when Navy (and all services) went through a period calling in question their handling of some types of cases. Not only were cases reopened for criminal prosecution, PUNITIVE actions were taken against leaders for allowing such handling to happen. I'm curious to see where even one AMA leader, CD, etc. has been held accountable for safety violations. Heck, the AMA EVP himself was at the Hodges event. With such extensive almost God-like expertise in the hobby and of the AMA rules (due to his position), how was it he ALLOWED not just standoffs well less than AMA policies, but also ALLOWED such aggressive maneuvering in close proximity to spectators? Did he resign? Did AMA sanction him? Did AMA sanction the CD? etc.? No across the board. So that's a huge difference.

I did already did:

Again you are making assumptions. Just because consequences were not made public does not mean that they weren’t imposed. Your entire perspective on AMA safety is based only on what you can find online.

As far as what FT has to offer, even according to you nothing tangible.

Uh.... not so fast. Years of membership in AMA, visits, participation, and membership in clubs in 5 regions (NW, West, SE, Mid-Atlantic, NE) as well as what's publicly available and in AMA's own documents. That's actually pretty comprehensive (multi-instance, multi-region, multi-source).

Tangible, definition, "capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind", i.e. "Her grief was tangible."

Thus the absence of a membership fee, something capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind, meets the definition of tangible.

LOL that’s sounding awfully woke. What gender do you identify as?

Can't you have ONE discussion without resorting to personal attacks and getting all emo?

Astro

I truly don't understand how you go from a Webster's dictionary definition of the word "tangible" to your comment above. Unless it's that you have nothing left except for an ad hominem attack designed to provoke a response.

Probably because as usual Franklin only selects the definition that suits his agenda. He completely skips over the primary definition of the word. And of course you come running in to save him. I suggest that after the comments you’ve made towards me, don’t continue to claim the high ground Jeff.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...12771b64a8.png

I'm sure you haven't noticed, but I haven't engaged in any of your petty, emotionally-charged games in quite some time. I guess you CAN teach an old dog new tricks, eh?

Came running to save Franklin? I simply called you out for getting personal and derailing the thread from the topic at hand....AGAIN.

Astro

I think the point that Speed was originally trying to make here is that if we are going to call out the AMA for lack of accountability with regards to safety, then we really need to call out FT too. Earlier, Franklin said that he was willing to give FT a pass on this due to the fact that they were a younger and less mature organization. But given that they have a much, much, much bigger reach than the AMA in terms influencing the general public due their much, much, much larger YouTube follower base, then giving them a pass makes no sense. At least by this metric (i.e.; the potential to influence others and desensitize them to safety risks), they are a bigger safety risk. If being concerned about safety is truly primary concern when calling out the AMA, then FT should be called too.

Whatever Jeff, Franklin and I were having a factual conversation until he started with his BS. Fact is that FT has nothing tangible to offer as a CBO according to Webster’s primary definition of the term. The topic is what FT has to offer, not another AMA bash thread, guess who was the first to derail the topic, hint it wasn’t me.

The fact is, FT is a CBO. That, in itself, has inherent value to those who value having choices, instead of being held hostage by a sinking monopoly. Fact is, you started in with personal attacks and emotional baggage, until then, it was just a civil conversation.

Astro

BS, Franklin took the first shot with his Freudian comment. I guess you missed it or just didn’t care. That’s the problem with the two of you. It’s all fair game until somebody fires back then the label’s and amateur physiological slurs start. Like I’ve said before, I doubt you have the balls to talk face to face like this.

If the shoe fits.....

FT is a CBO recognized by the FAA, which is "tangible" even under a rule that only a word's first listed definition is applicable. While that rule exists only in Speedy's mind, I'll humor him. Under that "tangible" recognition, FT also has a safety code, a "tangible" part of the "tangible" CBO package approved by the FAA. And thus FT offers a "tangible" safety code from a "tangible" CBO recognized by the FAA - and all at ZERO cost to the member. And I can say with certainty that the dollars in the pocket of the FT member instead of at "Taj-Muncie" are most definitely "tangible." So what does FT offer that's "tangible?" Simple: The dollars in the member's pocket instead of the AMA's.

Please don't say that I said something that I can prove I did not. The word "pass," when used as a noun means to either move through something (not applicable) or to successfully complete something. I've provided my exact quote below for your convenience. Notice the absence of the word "pass." And you'll note that I was content to give them "time," which does not in any way imply that they've "completed" something or "moved through" something.Again, your word choice, not mine (see above). Also, you're adding additional factors such as their social media reach. One could make a rational argument that 200mph turbines flying over people's heads is much less safe than what FT is doing. Even you say the likelihood of something hitting someone in FT's case is higher, the consequences are lower. Conversely, a turbine hitting a busy highway, a picnic table full of people, etc. is not less than the same probability but a much higher consequence.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my previous question about what, specifically, the OP deemed unsafe in those videos.

Astro

I suppose you deem this as safe?


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...9d6401e489.png

Can you explain the danger? I'm serious. Usually, when one answers questions with questions, they don't have a good answer.....

Astro

Good point. It looks to me that all the people on the golf cart are "participants," therefore ok to be in front of the flight line. As for use of vehicles, any number of videos of AMA members riding ATVs and other vehicles w/o helmets etc. So this is no different. And generally speaking safety codes apply to the operation of the sUAS, not the vehicles. Heck, even AMA has made a point of NOT enforcing vehicle codes as a way of justifying NOT enforcing sUAS regulations.