speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I would have to agree with just about all of this. I personally don't think it is AMA's place to play Sheriff. Another thing that happened prior to the Soaring Nats was someone floated a rumor that the CD's were going to be checking for FAA registration. The discussions about this got quite heated. The question was thrown over to the FAA and they replied that they have no expectation of the AMA to verify FAA registration. The explanation was that AMA does not have access to the FAA registration database do a verification would be arbitrary.

From what I see by talking with fellow pattern and Soaring competitors is that there have been no events that the FAA has interfered with. This applies to events that the FAA were not alerted to ( although I agree that it could be better if they were ). This is not an oversight as we are talking literally hundreds of events. It would seem that the FAA is perfectly happy leaving us traditional LOS guys alone. IMO the only reason they care about us at all is because we got lumped in with the droners. Is that the fault of the AMA? Very possible. Again, I'm not disputing that currently 400' is a law. I'm simply stating that the law is not being enforced. Since the FAA is not enforcing their own law, how would anyone expect AMA to do so? That would be like Dad telling you it's OK to do something but your big brother telling you no, who are you going to side with?

Yes, Im expecting a whole bunch of cut and paste posts of the exact wording of the law and to be told that the FAA hasn't put out a single thing in writing that says it's OK to fly over 400' unless the site has been granted other limits. However, as the saying goes: actions speak louder than words. In this case it's the FAA's lack of action concerning altitude limits at sanctioned events that speaks loudest to me.

Hydro Junkie

And while that is how it's supposed to work, not all sites will do that or, if there's the "Good Old Boy" mentality, only the one's outside of the "in crowd" will be, as you put it, talked to. Been there seen that, been on the wrong end of the "Good Old Boys" membership many times. When you're an "outsider", standing back and quietly watching, you see things most don't. You see who's buddies with who, who calls the shots and who gets favored when decisions are made. Trust me, it happens, it's very common and, worst of all, no one will say a word about it until it affects the "in crowd" in an adverse way

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm not going to begin to argue that that doesn't happen but I will say I don't think it happens as often as you may think. I will admit that more times then not I am included in the " in crowd ", that tends to happen due to skill set and willingness to teach. So yes, there could be things that I miss but not where safety is concerned.

Hydro Junkie

Trust me, EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS AN "IN CROWD". I've never seen any organization that didn't and, if you call out one member, the entire membership of the "in crowd" works to get rid of you. They may not do it openly or obviously, they might even include those that claim to be your friends, but they can and will go after you. I've been a witness to and victim of this type of attack many times over the years so I know it is very common.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Well with all due respect, it matters how you go about " calling out " one of the in crowd. This forum is a great example of that. You complain about the " in crowd " yet you are part of one here. What happens to anyone here who dare defy the RCU AMA forum " in crowd "? How many times have I addressed Franklin and got a reply from either you, Astro, Mongo, Echo and least we not forget Appowner?

ECHO24

Whatever clubs do about the rules, the issue is that AMA rules are the standard for all of RC flying. It's that way
because AMA forced its rules on the RC world with the CBO scam. That includes drones.

AMA is solely responsible for 336. That left the FAA with only full-scale enforcement until 336 was repealed in 2018.
And through it all, AMA has fought the FAA on every front, FPV, registration, airspace, 400', commercial, while not
enforcing anything themselves. The result is an 8-year free-for-all that hasn't ended yet.

And while 400' is now a statutory law, AMA president Hanson is telling RC flyers they don't have to obey it, IN WRITING.
Why would anyone follow any rules? This culture of non-compliance is all AMA's doing. And it has destroyed the hobby.

It's no surprise that the FAA states in the NPRM that they considered not allowing FRIAs at all.

R_Strowe

That is correct. As per 91.117(a). Which does allow one to exceed 250kts below 10,000’, if the min safe speed (Vfto) is greater than 250kts. And you don’t have to notify the Administrator or ATC.

I can see this being applied as an operational need (I’ve done this myself. At 412,000#s, Vfto on the 767 is roughly 260kts). A lower speed at that weight is unsafe to do. The same argument could be made that operating giant scale/turbine/large sailplane needs greater altitude for safety of flight, ie: operational need.

Maybe it’s a stretch, but.....

R_Strowe

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You mean like what you do by making disparaging personal remarks and name-calling?

Oh no, you receive replies regarding posts you've made on a public internet forum? WHAT is this world coming to?

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yes a bit of a stretch but I can see where trying to fly the current pattern sequences below 400' could be quite dangerous if possible at all. Can you imaging being at the top of your 400' box and have to do a downward top hat with a 2 of 4 point roll on the downline?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I appreciate you driving home my point. I kinda knew you would.

Hydro Junkie

Actually, I'm not. I'm not an AMA member and that, obviously, makes me not a member of the "In Crowd". It makes me an obvious outsider, calling out the "in crowd" and the corrupt brass that rules from Muncie. That said, IF I showed up at a flying field with my 107 certificate and trainer in hand, where would I be? I'd be asked to leave until I get an AMA number, maybe before my first flight and definitely after my "allowed" flying session ended. It wouldn't matter if I had another form of insurance, it wouldn't be good enough for the powers that be and that, most definitely, makes me the one standing on the outside looking in

R_Strowe

Actually, if you showed up at our field, you would have to have at minimum a day pass/permit for the DuPage County Forest Preserve, but for that you’d need either AMA or proof of liability insurance (ie: homeowners policy). Then fly to your hearts content. Just obey the field rules (standard AMA stuff)

R_Strowe

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I beg to differ, you are a member of the in crowd here in this forum. You and the other insiders tend to push others out of this forum, especially those of us who enjoy competitive flying.

As far as the other, I can't imagine you would be asked to leave. At least not at any of the clubs that aI have ever been a member of. You of course would not be allowed to participate. The same would hold true if you wanted your child to play youth soccer but refused to sign the waiver and pay the applicable fees. Participation always comes with requirements.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

What in the world are you talking about? Not a single person that I have seen, has disparaged you for being a competitive flyer and nobody has ever "pushed" another out of this forum. Just STOP, it's not very becoming for grown men to constantly whine.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Why would I attack someone who participates in an R/C based competition? Hell, I BUILD AND RACE SCALE HYDROPLANES!!!! No, I haven't got on anyone about competing. What I get on people over is their blind allegiance to an organization that is obviously corrupt and run by people that only want to make themselves more powerful and trick others into making it happen. That is exactly what Rich Hanson and part of the EC are trying to do, you join the AMA or you pay the price, be it in the form fines, jail and/or lose your equipment, courtesy of the FAA. Several have shown evidence of that, in the various threads, only to have others, you included, defend the organization and it's officers and call those calling the AMA out names. The group you named a post or two ago and called the "In Crowd" have been called haters, minions and who knows what all else for pointing out that the AMA is not what it claims to be and showing why.
As for being told to leave, If I were to go to Marymoor Park's flying field with a 107 certificate and proof of homeowners insurance, would I be allowed to fly? Probably not, I'm not an AMA member. If I were told I couldn't fly, why stay around? I'm there to fly, not watch everyone else while being told I have to stay away from the, as we call it in boating, hot pits. You tell me I can't participate, on county land, I'll be suing the city of Belllevue and King County with a better than 50/50 chance of winning. Will the mighty AMA get involved? Probably not, they're too busy covering their backsides while trying to stay in power while trying to outmaneuver the FAA and Congress into writing laws that benefit the AMA

You're the first one that's ever told me I could fly without AMA coverage, which is very sad.

ECHO24

An online forum is an open discussion. That's the whole idea.

And you're being persecuted for being a competitive flyer? What's up with that?

rgburrill

Simple solution - don't allow these types of "model aircraft" in the first place. Any model RC that REQUIRES an altitude of greater than 400 feet or s speed of greater than 260 Knots to be safe is absurd.

jcmors

I would have to respectfully disagree with that last sentence. Those types of model aircraft can, and have been flown above 400' in a safe manner without endangering manned aviation for decades. CAN they be flown in an unsafe manner? Yes, absolutely but then nearly anything we own can be used in an unsafe manner either through lack of common sense or by people who willfully use something in a malicious manner. My thought is that while 400' is the law of the land we need to obey the law while we work towards making changes. Also if event organizers have actually gone to the FAA and were told to carry on and enjoy the event, that to me is compliance. There are people who consider it "absurd" that grown men want to fly RC airplanes of any kind.

init4fun

So , getting back to Franklin's original topic , my question to all would be this ;

As per my quoted post above , it does appear that the AMA safety code promotes following all laws and regulations in our RC flying endeavors . There is also already a mechanism in place within the AMA for terminating the membership / insurance for those who fly outside the safety code and cause property damage or other physical mayhem due to their errant flying . So what more should the AMA do with regards to policing it's members ? When does a pure accident with a trainer morph into the same territory as an accident with someone flying in a deliberately unsafe manner as to which punishment should be doled out by whom , and who gets to decide where the boundary lies between the two ? For a group of people who think the AMA EC is trying to grab power any way it can , would you really want to see even more power (the power of whatever punishment is being called for here for RC flying misdeeds) put into the hands of people you already don't trust with the admittedly quite limited power they've already got ?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Apparently, that is what how the FAA feels!

Astro

R_Strowe

👍

R_Strowe

jcmors

Agreed, there really is very little the AMA can do with respect to directly controlling adherence to laws or the safety code at individual flying clubs. At some point individual clubs must decide how they are going to handle enforcement of the safety rules and beyond that we each must take personal responsibility for flying in a safe manner no matter whether we are flying at an AMA chartered club field or off in a wide open space (with permission of course) by ourselves. I believe that most clubs enjoy their flying sites and have an incentive to maintain safe practices in order not to lose them. Of course there will always be exceptions.

franklin_m

Interesting that Speedy complains about being merely disparaged herein, meanwhile on another site he actively worked to get people banned.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

It's just another play out of the left's playbook. Shut those down that don't agree. Sad.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Which is an outright LIE, here is the extent of my actively working to get you banned on RCG. The fact is that you for years created anti AMA threads in the Advocacy forum instead of the AMA forum. You were banned because of repeated off topic threads. Funny how you expect everyone else to be accountable for their actions you you want to blame me for getting you banned when all I did was point out your multiple site infractions. Then of course you make up a troll account and send me a nasty PM. Of course when that PM was shared over here Astro's comment was that he didn't care about what happens on other sites, but apparently now he does? Moving the goalpost? Notice that we had a productive conversation going until you two came in and started with the insults and lies.