Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?
#26
My Feedback: (29)
In this case, the people running the event WENT TO THE FAA FIRST, they didn't wait for the FAA to come out and have to deal with the situation. I'd be willing to bet that, if you approach the FAA and tell them what you want to do, if it's not a danger to full sized aviation, they will approve a waiver or, as in the case above, just give the okay. It's those that just ignore the altitude limit and say nothing to the FAA that cause an issue. Then again, not all "plank" pilots follow the rules either. We know, based on the study posted above that a majority of "droners" don't follow the rules, be it due to not knowing or not caring about them. We have video footage showing conventional aircraft being flown by AMA members unsafely at AMA sanctioned air fields, meaning some AMA members don't follow the rules or comply with the AMA's vaunted Safety Code either. We all know this is reality, not fiction. If the AMA EC isn't willing to require their membership to follow the laws and rules, not to mention encouraging members to break said law and rules, as shown above with the articles published by Rich Hanson, the hobby is going to die. Those that can't see it, the "Muncie Minions", can blame themselves for this as much as they can blame the EC.
One additional note to Speed:
Have fun and bring them home in one piece
One additional note to Speed:
Have fun and bring them home in one piece
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.
#27
We've been through this before. At a club site when a rule gets broken any member can approach the party in question ( preferably when safe ) and remind them of the rule. If it's serious enough or repeat offenses the club safety officer gets involved. If need be it can be escalated to the entire club board where they can decide on a suspension or expulsion from the club. I've seen the process work multiple times, I myself have been safety officer during multiple events and have had to speak to guys. Most times they just needed a reminder or have it pointed out that they were flying on the wrong side of the dead line.
Whenever you get in a group setting regardless if it is at a flying field, a bar, concert hell even Disneyland there will be people who push the rules. Just because you can find a few bad apples don't mean you need to chop down the tree.
Whenever you get in a group setting regardless if it is at a flying field, a bar, concert hell even Disneyland there will be people who push the rules. Just because you can find a few bad apples don't mean you need to chop down the tree.
#28
My Feedback: (29)
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
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.
#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.
#30
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?
#31
Senior Member
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.
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.
#32
Below 10,000 feet (or within 2,500 feet AGL of the surface), these transponders are not required. If you're not flying with a transponder, ATC can't easily determine your speed or track, and they have no way of knowing your altitude. This is another reason why speeds are restricted below 250 knots at altitudes below 10,000 feet.
In Europe there is no general limitation to 250 knots below 10000 ft. There is no EASA airspace restrictions, every country has their own set of rules. There are airspaces that have speed restrictions below 10000 ft, others don't and sometimes aircraft are allowed to go faster than 250 knots
With all that said(via cut and paste), unless you have a "hotrod" or a turbine powered plane, the speed at altitude limit is basically a mute point. Since there aren't many single engine planes that can hit 250 knots, most private pilots don't need to worry about it. That said, I know the Glasair III Turbo CAN fly that fast and can top 30,000 feet when equipped with onboard oxygen for the pilot and passenger, as can the Lancair IV
In Europe there is no general limitation to 250 knots below 10000 ft. There is no EASA airspace restrictions, every country has their own set of rules. There are airspaces that have speed restrictions below 10000 ft, others don't and sometimes aircraft are allowed to go faster than 250 knots
With all that said(via cut and paste), unless you have a "hotrod" or a turbine powered plane, the speed at altitude limit is basically a mute point. Since there aren't many single engine planes that can hit 250 knots, most private pilots don't need to worry about it. That said, I know the Glasair III Turbo CAN fly that fast and can top 30,000 feet when equipped with onboard oxygen for the pilot and passenger, as can the Lancair IV
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
#33
My Feedback: (1)
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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?
Astro
#34
My Feedback: (29)
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
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
#36
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?
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-23-2020 at 08:13 PM.
#37
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
#38
My Feedback: (29)
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
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.
#40
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.
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.
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
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
R_Strowe
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-23-2020 at 09:58 PM.
#41
Senior Member
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?
And you're being persecuted for being a competitive flyer? What's up with that?
#42
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.
#43
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.
#44
I'm sorry Franklin , but with all due respect , I think your reaching a bit too far here . You don't have to read all that much of the AMA safety code to find verbiage specifically relating to following all local and federal laws while flying as an AMA member . Sure , it uses the same kind of language as was found back in AC 91-57 where the FAA themselves used "should" where most would think they should have used "must" , but make no mistake the language is there , you should* be following all applicable laws while flying as an AMA member .
* "Should" being a word that I believe is being used by both the AMA and FAA in a manner of "You should , or else face the consequences of non compliance" .....
* "Should" being a word that I believe is being used by both the AMA and FAA in a manner of "You should , or else face the consequences of non compliance" .....
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 ?
#46
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 ?
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 ?
R_Strowe
#47
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 ?
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 ?
#48
Thread Starter
Last edited by franklin_m; 05-24-2020 at 07:19 AM.
#50
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.