Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

We had a similar problem when I was president. One member trying to get our insurance pulled for safety reasons because we enforced the rules on a 3d kid flying over the runway and standing on the runway. I DID get a call in the evening by our dist VP, we all work during the day. We talked it over, I gave my side and tried to explain, to the best of my ablity, the opposing side. Fortunately the problem member had emailed a bunch of threats and I saved all of them. I created a package for our defense and submitted it to the dist VP and the AMA ins person. We were cleared eventually. All was documented and took several months to play out. Later we modified our club rules for grievence proceedures. Then I kicked that club member out of the club. I put a line item in that "If a club member does anything to the detriment of the future of the club, the EC may take imediate and appropriate actions". Normally its the AMA recomended three strkes and you're out provision. I eventually left that club to fly giant scale someplace else. That same year the problem member joined again and started his problems all over. So the current club president reminded him of his past actions and told him to "straighten up and fly right, or go someplace else". He left on his own. That was a real stressfull time for me and I wouldnt wish that on anyone.
Edwin

chashint

I agree with Nequalizer, not a single piece of real information has been shared.

Longbaskt, you said this earlier .....
This issue did not go through our board and was not sanctioned by our board... it was a small number of individuals that "took it upon themselves" to bring this down on us. The club heard the concerns, voted, and moved on.. some could not. You have no idea (or maybe in your club you've seen this type of behavior) how vindictive people can be.
*******************************
What were the concerns of the club members that were voted down ??

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

The club I fly at is very safety concious. I have flown at fields all over the country. 450' of clearance to a freeway is scarey. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt on takeoffs giant scale warbirds and jets fly well over 1,000' feet away at the fields I have flown at. I am sure your better pilots could keep inside your boundry but I can't believe that you have never had someone scare the pants off of a driver on the freeway. I have parked myself at our fields eastern boundry which is 1/4 mile away from the end of our runway and is bounded by high tension power lines and watch plane after plane fly over and under the lines with no idea they were that far away. Perhaps AMA has the same concerns.

Larry

raptorflyr

My Feedback: (20)

I just thought I would chime in to this discussion. I really feel for these guys at SFDRCM. I am not a member and do not live in California, however I have had had the opportunity to visit the site as a guest recently.

I have personally seen the turmoil caused by the few select members during my short visit. They didn't know me and I didn't know them. I can easily see the folks that have been described in the original message would take every step to prove themselves right. When I was there, the issues they raised were settled by a test of their own design. Apparently since then, they have continued their quest. In my brief visit, I felt a few individuals simply did not care for big "giant scale" planes and folks who flew then seemed to be the focal point of their destruction.

I do not know the person who posted the original message, but wanted to throw my support behind him. Although many comments suggest that he hasn't provided detailed information, I think it is fair to say that he is trying to act in a socially responsible manner. We have all seen what happens when someone starts on a rant here on RCU and slanders another individual.

I think everyone is missing the original point which is to make sure your club's internal affairs are in order first. Try to work through those internal issues before they get out of hand. Heck, we loose enough flying sites because of someone else... It is horrible to think we can loose them due to the club members! In this case, SFDRCM probably would have gone on for another 35 years if the folks involved in trying to prove their points were under control early. Based on what I've seen and heard, I think the club's board is acting in a prudent manner to close the field before they receive a formal closure document. This sincerity will go a long way when appealing or discussing the issue with AMA, in my opinion.

For what its worth, I have flown at this site and would have no problems whipping out my 37% ultimate or 36% edge. Even if you were flying the IMAC pattern in a large box, you wouldn't come close to the freeway or the dam. Actually the site is very wide open. Unfortunatley, it is hard to be anywhere in Southern Cal where you can't see a freeway.

Good luck friends at SFDRCM. If you are ever up in Oregon, please come fly at my club where our rules are #1 Have Fun, #2 Make sure others are having fun. That's it.

sscherin

My Feedback: (1)

Not be be a pest but looking at the maps those power lines you talk about are 980' from the point your main and cross wind runways meet.

This almost the same distance from the flightline at SFDRCM to the highway..
Yeah the Highways is 410' from the end of the runway but it's a 900' runway!
It's another 490' to the flight line.

The Denver RC Eagles have a no fly zone 900' to the south of center on their runway.

Yeas it's tight but if other clubs can live with those limits they should be able to also.

Longbaskt

My Feedback: (5)

Hey Guys, Your need to know is running into the regulations of RC Universe. The issue has been correctly guessed as "big plane" vs. small plane. The complaints started as sound... that was addressed, voted on and we moved on. Then the issue became safety... that's when a few members went "off reservation" and took it upon themselves to "sell" their theory to anyone, and I mean everyone and anyone who would listen. Folks that didn't even know we existed were contacted and given great cause for concern! AMA was contacted (We know not when and how frequently) and came out during the Ontario show. Some of our board members were there at the field visit... but the board wasn't contacted first by AMA or any arrangements made in advance with them. I'd have been there if I knew.

Raptorflyr is correct... it really is a huge field and the freeway doesn't come into play except for an occasional landing from that direction. And, no-one wants to put their plane at risk by pushing the limits when the runway is so long. Most cut well short of the end for their final and can land prior to the turn-off to the pits... we don't see many that can't do that. We only have one usable runway. We have the paved runway and pure crap for EVERYTHING ELSE. You land on the runway or replace props and covering. It's not a plane-friendly kind of place. I wish I had some inside shots to show, but the entire place is off limits now. AMA has "recommended" site specs that are not mandatory according to their document 706. Apparently recommended and non-mandatory mean something to AMA that we are not aware of (a little frustration here).

We may not make the standard size but why wait that long and then call for an immediate ceasing of operations?

Hope that helps guys.... Not more I can (or will) say at this point.

My recommendation to all is "lay low and stay off radar"...

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

My reply to your problem was not intended to be a knock on your field, I have flown at many with much tighter flight envelopes, it was intended to give one possible reason that the AMA withdrew your insurance. Without knowing the exact details of the AMA's reasoning we are all just second guessing. My guess is that there are many fields that do not meet minimum specs, just no one has complained to the AMA about them. Having gone through a situation with internal club friction I have sympathy for you and your members. It takes just one malcontent with a personal problem to cause all kinds of trouble. Our club came within a whisker of losing our field about 20 years ago from one or two of these types. It got so bad we had one member who complained to the city health dept about our potty!
The trouble was taken care of when the complaining members were politely shown the door! Sorry you don't have that option.

Larry

highflyer740

My Feedback: (3)

I just finished reading all the comments and as a past president of SFDRCM i would like to thank those that support our cause. the comments about not having enough information bother us also. the same comments voiced here at RC Universe are the same comments made by club members at the last meeting. i'm so frustrated with the hole thing i could sh**. But as previousley stated we dont have enough good information to properly evailuate the problem. the comments made by longbasket are not exagerated. since i was not at the meeting that the disgrunted member brought the AMA reps from the ontario show i cant say what was said, but at that time all was reported as ok. both of the crybabies are reteired and have a lot of time to write letters. We have a new area VP and he responded to the situation without due process. we all hope to have our current Board respond and react in the professional manner they have demonstrated thus far. And that the area VP will listen tp our side.

The best thing we can ask for at this time is everyones support. i have to hope we will get our field back. I will also ask the current board to post updates on RCU, if they dont then Longbasket and I will.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

I understand this is an emotionally charged issue for you guys however what people here are curious about has nothing to do with the two troublemakers or RCU regs. The big question hanging out there is .....has your club pres. called Jay Mealy or one of the other helpful people at AMA HQ who could shed some light on the subject?

So far we have been told about an unnamed caller from the AMA saying our insurance was "yanked". No follow up, just that the field was shut down (we havn't been told if your club locked the gates or if it was the park service).

I really hope you guys work out the problems with the troublemakers and get to keep flying at the field but if you are going to bring this subject up expect people to question what is being presented. I'm sure many here in our area would lend support in any way that would help but right now the whole story is rather vague.

Who called from AMA on Sunday night?
Who locked the gates to your field (no names)?
Did someone make a follow up call to the AMA in the five days since this started?

None of those answers will violate any rules here on RCU.

Longbaskt

My Feedback: (5)

We received a call (caller ID agreed with the business card of the AMA official) from one of our VP's of our area.
The current board locked the gate.... best judgment is to comply until resolved. the club affirmed the decision at our meeting
Yes, the current board is attempting to contact and work through the channels at AMA...

We are now waiting for responses from the AMA.... phone, in writing (preferred) or some indication of exactly what the problem is.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

You only have ONE VP in your area, that is Jim Griffin. He was the one that visited your field and found it unsafe. Or did you mean one of his AVPs of which there are eight in California? See your latest Model Aviation for the listing.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (2)

Good evening Mr. Scholefield, Jim Griffin was the VP that showed up at the Santa Fe Dam Club Field on Saturday, January 10 at approximately 2pm along with Mike Brown (safety officer district X). My wife Jill Thomas and I (Mark Thomas) were both present and listened intently to what Mr.Griffin had to say. When Mr.Griffin first arrived, he told us that there were concerns brought to his attention by Mr.Bob Hadlock and Mr.Roger Pike (both of whom are Santa Fe Dam club members) about the hazards of flying big gas planes at this site.

The following is a condensed version of what occurred.


Mr. Griffin was misinformed (by Pike and Hadlock) about the size of the runway (500ft incorrect) and its proximaty to the freeway (200ft also incorrect)... Mr.Griffin had asked us if these distances were correct because now that he was standing at our field looking at the runway and its relationship to the freeway, it was obvious that those numbers were incorrect. Although I have to admit the satellite photo really looks bad from outer space. He appolized to both of the disgruntled club members, (Roger Pike) being one of which had chauffeured the AMA reps to our field because (on that day) Mr.Griffin and Mr.Brown did not agree with Hadlock or Pike''s safety concerns. Mr.Griffin and Mr.Brown said safety issues are not only with big airplanes but with the rc enthusiast who do not maintain their aircraft or are not capable of demonstrating controlled flight of any size aircraft (common sense.) Mr.Griffin said he would not hesitate to fly any of his big planes at our site and Mr!
.Brown agreed with that, stating he also had no issues with flying at our site. Both AMA reps believed we could actually host IMAC contests here. Mr.Brown and Mr.Griffin suggested that we could do this by relocating and reconfiguring our pit area into a horse shoe shape, altering our flight path, (which would mean flying parallel to and with our backs towards the 605 freeway) as well as applying for a ceiling altitude waver from the local airport, for the week of the contest, in order to hold such events. I overheard Roger Pike tell Mr.Griffin that he disagreed with his observation and would contact his superiors. Mr.Griffin and Mike Brown also mentioned it was obvious that this was an internal club issue and hoped we could resolve our differences with Mr.Bob Hadlock and Mr.Roger Pike. I told both Mr.Griffin and Mr.Brown that these individuals have been long time members, whom I believed, were on a witch hunt, did not like change and continually harassed club members that w!
ould not validate their way of thought and I would have no part of the
m. Upon leaving, Mr.Griffin said AMA was not mandating any changes to the field but, did suggest that we take off away from the 605 freeway and land towards it.

Hope that helps. I am willing to take a lie detector test or what ever else necessary to verify the truth in this matter. It just seems if there was an immediate reason for field closure the AMA reps would have done so back in January. Why now and why by an after hours phone call. I am personally at a loss. I have three young boys two of which are avid modelers and we really enjoyed the hobby with a great group of modelers at the Santa Fe Dam Club. I am more fortunate than others (in that immediate area) because of my being centrally located to other flying sites. Most in the club however, are dependent on that field and its social offerings.

Sincerest regards, Mark Thomas Burbank Ca.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

There seems to be a significant difference between Mark Thomas's account and the account I received from Jim Griffin via phone when this was first posted.

I have copied both Mr. Griffin and Mr. Brown with Mark's account and asked for comments.
In case anyone else would like to contact them to get to the bottom of this mystery their e-mails are:
Jim Griffin [email protected]
Mike Brown [email protected]


Red Scholefield
District V Safety Coordinator

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

3. Has anyone else run into this with the AMA?

Yes, we had a local club not get renewed because of the site and the closeness of an 'interstate' - so I think the club might be disbanded (I sure hope not)....but the runway and the 'interstate' WAS very close and a lot of local modelers did not want to fly there for that reason. How they were notified, etc. I do not know.

marquisvns

I have no problem trusting and bet my life on Mark's account. Not only he puts his name behind what he said, he depicted the visit and conversations in transparent detail. So far that's been consistent to the information I have also gathered.

But now after more than one month and according to Red Schofield, in my opinion, the responsibility of inconsistency to the matter lies on Griffin and Brown.

I personally fly many of the warbirds and 3Ds up to 150 size as well as some high speed sport planes and I have never ever require to pattern anywhere near 200 feet from the 605 freeway. I occasionally see guys with giant scale 3d's, not only they displayed excellent airmen ship, they patterned with discipline that were tighter than mine.

I believe Santa Fe Dam field should resume its status and I trust Griffin and Brown will reconsider.

Sincerely,
Barry Hou
289 S. Santa Anita Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91107
626-793-4567

AMA 511831

highflyer740

My Feedback: (3)

In order to get the facts here. the person that started all this and brought the AMA out to the field is Mr Roger Pike he can be emailed at" [email protected]" it would be nice if someone could get him to respond as he is the most knoledgable in this and how it all came to be. When Roger joined the board he said it was to give back to the club that he has been a part of for so long and now it time to give something back. He gave something, the loss of our field that we have been flying at safely for over twenty years.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

I'd suggest removing Mr. Pike's e-mail address. I think that's bad form, for a couple of reasons. For one, it invites anyone to inflame or complicate the situation. It's also, IMO, wrong to post a person's address on a website without their consent. It makes them vulnerable to vast amounts of spam.

This whole situation appears to come down to a few people not caring so much about their fellow modelers. How about we do better than that?

nyflyer56

I have been reading this thread with great interest, and have a few thoughts and comments.

I sincerely hope that this club can come to some plan where the field can be kept open.
Think about this: AMA has an entire program and staff devoted to both feild aquisition, and keeping existing fields. They would not want to see the loss of a field, especially in SoCal.

You have a freeway, not only 400 feet from your takeoff/landing path. but 50 feet above the runway. Bad enough if they were on the same level, but now a plane 50 feet in the air is at freeway level. This is a legitimate concern. Despite your enviable safety record, there is a scenario for disaster here.

Big plane vs small plane.. This argument does not hold water. if you can fly the average 40 size plane there, the bigger stuff should not be a problem. Even less so with a 3d type that can make very short/ slow approaches, as well as ballistic takeoffs.

As someone mentioned earlier, a relocated runway and flight path could save this site. Yes it will cost some $$ and require new proceedures and vigilance by all club members, but it seems to me that it is better to do so than lose a long established flying site.

AMA has a responsibility, not just to your club/ field, but to ALL clubs and fields. An accident could cause repercussions that might also affect other fields and field aquisition.
AMA, did not create the obstacles and situation surrounding your field, and I am sure that if level heads prevail, and your club works with them, and impliments changes they reccomend, (assuming that possibility) I am sure that you will be reporting on flying from your field years from now.

Best of luck to all concerned, and I hope you can work this out.

One last thing. I think it is great that other area clubs are commenting here, and supporting you, and inviting you to their sites as well. We all need to stick together and support each other.

esl721

Dear RC community

At this point the club officers are working diligently to resolve the situation. All avenues are being explored. At this point your best wishes are appreciated but no action is requested. Latest information will be posted on the website.
Our 160 members thank your for your support and concern.

Earle Levine
AMA 42924

mightypilot

Likewise, the Whittier Narrows field is just down the road and open to all displaced SFDRCM members. It'd be nice to see some new aircraft at our field!

Mark Melvin
2009 SGVRCL President


You can count on the San Fernando Valley Flyers for any support you may need.
please don't hesitate to contact me any time.

Jason Pakfar
Club President
www.valleyflyers.com
Charter 152
[/quote]

tbgiambruno

We should install tall telephone poles along the freeway with netting in between them, kind of like the one's you see next to golf courses. That way if you get to close.....WHAP! Your plane get's it but the cars on the freeway are safe.

BTW full size aircraft from El Monte , Bracket and Cable airports, both fixed and rotary wing all use the grounds to the East of our field as training airspace for pilot's. I know this because I was one of the pilot's hoaning my stalls and S-turns above the area. As a distraction to the drivers on the freeway our small craft pose no issue, you can barely see them flying and thats if you know what to look for. On the other hand the full size aircraft are very visible and do draw the attention of freeway travelers. I think that if it was a distraction concern the FAA would have made the full size aircraft stop. Drivers on the freeway don't even notice us because they are to busy texting on their cell phones.

As for accidents, well they happen all over all the time, that's why we have insurance. There are no giant farm land area's around here, only homes buildings, tree's, roads etc. Yes there is always the possibilty of a pilot losing control or a malfunction on the airplane. Is that any different for any other airfield, you could crash into the pit area and kill a small child that is watching, or your plane catches fire on impact igniting thousands of acre's on fire and burning down home's with people in them. Shoot, they let teenagers drive 2000 lb cars around the roads and hwy's, what's the difference.

Regardless only time will tell.

Sorry for my rant, I have a big mouth and usually ramble on and on and on and on, just had to vent.

tbgiambruno

Ok I'm done, I'll just read other post's now.

highflyer740

My Feedback: (3)

Gent's I have had a long conversation with Jim Griffin our district VP. and surprising enough there are two sides to every story. Jim was very sincere that he did not want to close the field, but, there are issues that need to be resolved. The most promising part of the conversation is that the door of opportunity for the field is not locked shut. There is work to be done, and no guarantees, but its not a done deal yet. The board will need to do some research and the the way we use to fly will need to change, but nothing that was discussed is insurmountable. What we do need now is time for the current board to work with Jim on the problems. The support that the club has gotten in this siuatiion is great but now is the time to set back and let the process begin of restoring the field. It will not help the current situation to send emails or phone calls etc. Jim wants to work with us, we want to work with the AMA so somewhere in all this mess, we all want the same thing, to fly safely and have fun.

We will endever to keep our web page updated with current and relavant information. sfdrcm.com
P.S. Is there a way to spell check this??? i cant figure it out?

tbgiambruno

Highflyer 740, You spoke with him and we still don't know what the reason is, I'm getting tired of this, people need answers. Don't tell me to be patient.......! We were shut down in a hurry and there is a reason, I would like to know and not be kept in the dark.

Two side's to every story, what is the AMA's side??????

After 25+ years what is their story, anyone know?

Just tired of being left in the dark as if we are too insignifigant to get a reason while the high up self important people keep it quiet.

nyflyer56

tbgiambruno
Go back a few posts to my post #66 then read Highflyers post again. Isn't it obvious? You have a runway a mere 400 feet from and 50 feet below a busy freeway, in your takeoff and landing path.
I would have to guess the changes Highflyer was referring too would be to get around this situation. I am sure once they have an official statement, both the problem and the solutions will be spelled out, and changes can be made to continue safe flying at the field, while eliminating an obvious safety/ liability concern.

The good news here is that the field will hopefully stay active, something your club, and the AMA both want. You are really both looking to achieve the same goal.

I think that taking an adversarial position with the organization is counter productive.