3 mile rule

Starting with next year's charter (I believe), the AMA will require club field position coordinates, I assume either by manual survey or GPS. I also assume this is to better enforce the "3 mile rule".

The independent OR AMA-licensed "backyard flyer" is ALWAYS a danger to legitimate R/C fields, and always will be. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

We are the AMA, and as such we are supposed to police ourselves, to give due diligence to identifying and locating possible conflicts and resolving them.

The point of the rule is not to force you to do something, or face the consequences. It's meant to get you to THINK before you fly. Without that rule, many many many people wouldn't even consider the possibility of another flying field within range of their own.

We had a situation about 10-15 years ago with two nearby clubs that were well within 3 miles of each other. While I was not affected since it was in the Port Angles area and I lived on Whidbey Island. But the long and short of it was the AMA cannot force anyone to do something they don't want to do. They suggested a odd at one field and even at the other field frequency plan but they weren't even willing to do that comprimise. Lots of ego's in conflict, one club was a spinoff from the other club. A guy with money built the second field because they wern't serious about flying pattern. I think that's when the SFA was in existance and they muddied the water. The bottom line is if the groups are not willing to work together you are screwed. Find another field. Sparky

I guess I should have used the word _recommend_ instead of enforce. I guess they cant enforce anything, but can deny you charter. They certainly dont know who is flying when and where. Having an up to date list of chartered clubs would be a little assuring plus alerting when areas of operation conflict.

Elmshoot wrote:

Perhaps you should correspond directly with the AMA on this issue.

So far as I know (or believe, anyway), the AMA hasn't gone to this level of "enforcement." Neither does the FCC in dealing with HAM radio conflicts, I believe.

At least on the surface, it makes sense to me that the AMA should try to keep a new field from interfering with an established field.

Marty

Legitimate R/C fields????

You implying something about the back yarder and renegades?

I don't post here often. I am a regular reader. If I've misread the tone of your post, I'll apologize in advance. But after a couple of days, it still kind of grates on me. Otherwise, I enjoy your posts.

You seem to think that AMA membership or charter makes one legitimate.

I'm one of those dangerous independent flyers who flys from a backyard field.

My neighbor and I (both with more than 25 years in RC) have about a hundred acres between us to fly over. We have a nice mowed and rolled field with windsocks. Thresh holds and fences are marked. We have a pond we can fly floats if we want. We also run boats and cars. We have two hangars within a hundred yards. How many "legitimate" fields can boast that.

If an AMA chartered club built across the road, we would consider them the encroacher. And for sure we would not stop flying. AMA has no regulatory authority. They can only deny insurance. I have insurance so they have nothing for me. My neighbor is a member because he flies competitively at other fields.

Just a view from the other side of the fence.

I dont believe anyone would ask you to stop flying if a field was to pop up across from you, however I and others would think you would at least have the courtesy to let the club know what channel(s) you flew on. Maybe you consider your planes disposable, I do not. I invest a lot of money and time into my AC and we have a club member that lives and flies across from our field in his backyard, however we do know what channels he uses and fly accordingly.

As the interlopers I would expect the club to make the first move. But who would ask who to do what is not the issue. The question of the so called "legitimate" field is.

And for the record, I've seen AMA clubs try to move in and impose their will in such a manner as described. And judging from what I have read here, I have no doubt there are some here who would do the same. One of the reasons why I own my own field and refuse to let any AMA club claim it as their club site. In spite of the insurance they offer!

I think this discussion has good possibilities for undertanding.

It would impress me if the AMA would either keep maps (paper or software) for their charterd clubs locations and red flag a conflict before a lot of money and entrenchment got too far.

A lot of it is common sense and courtesy.

A group of R/Cers would be stupid to start a "formal" club close to KNOWN flying site, whether it be another AMA club, or a group of park flyers.

Conversly, the park flyers should be couteous themselves, and NOT fly close to a KNOWN R/C field. If there's frequency sharing, that's cool.

My planes are NOT disposable, but many consider their park flyers to be just that. And many think it's their right to fly anywhere, regardless of whom it may hurt.

Common sense. Remember, it may be YOU who gets hurt. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

| >I dont believe anyone would ask you to stop flying if a field was | >to pop up across from you,

I'm sure some would certainly ask. Judging from what I've seen here, some would even *demand* it ...

| however I and others would think you would at least have the | courtesy to let the club know what channel(s) you flew on.

Sounds reasonable ...

| A lot of it is common sense and courtesy.

I'd say most of it.

| A group of R/Cers would be stupid to start a "formal" club close to KNOWN | flying site, whether it be another AMA club, or a group of park flyers.

Well, to be fair, many formal club sites are very close to public parks, and unless local law prohibits R/C flying entirely, you'll often find park fliers flying at local parks. So in many cases, there's really little other choice.

| Conversly, the park flyers should be couteous themselves, and NOT | fly close to a KNOWN R/C field. If there's frequency sharing, | that's cool.

Absolutely. But people tend to get hostile when somebody tells them what they can and cannot do, and this is best avoided.

Ultimately, merely being in an AMA club at an AMA field does not give you any special priviledges with regards to the R/C frequencies. If a park flier wants to fly at the park next door, you really can't legally stop him, unless local law prohibits it.

What you can do is go talk to him, point out the danger, not only to your planes but to his plane and to people in the area, and hopefully he'll realize that he really should either fly somewhere else, or at least work out some sort of frequency sharing arrangement. | My planes are NOT disposable,

I generally consider my planes disposable. Not that I want to dispose of them, but I'm fully aware that any flight may be their last. The plane may crash, or fly away, or I may even have to crash it intentionally to keep it away from people if something goes wrong. Or it may end up in a tree so tall that I can't safely retrieve it. If I can't handle such a loss, then I fly a cheaper plane. Certainly, I won't be making any $20k B-52 models ...

I think it's just a matter of perception though. I imagine you feel generally the same way :)

| but many consider their park flyers to | be just that. And many think it's their right to fly anywhere, | regardless of whom it may hurt.

Well, it generally would be their right (legally), though it might not be right (morally). If somebody was hurt, then the courts might try to find out who was to blame, but even then, it's hard to tell how it would turn out. If the park flier tried to work out a frequency sharing arrangement, and the AMA club members refused, the courts could very well find in favor of the park flier if it did get that far (like it might after a serious accident.)

What we really need is spread spectrum R/C equipment to make this all a moot point, but of course that thread is over there ---->.

| Common sense. Remember, it may be YOU who gets hurt.

Well, common sense and `catch more flies with honey than vinegar.'. If a park flier does appear nearby, you may run him off by being a jerk, but you may also run him off just long enough to buy a synthesized transmitter and use it to crash several planes intentionally in the name of revenge.

I've always said: if you fly, you WILL crash. You have to be philosophical about it or you will never pick up a transmitter again. However, it sounds like both of us do our best to not let crashes occur.

It may be, and it may not be. Many cities and counties have an all-encompassing law called "reckless endangerment".

If somebody was hurt, then the courts might try

Even if they never found out, that would probably end flying at that site, especially if it's "public", like a park. Cities love their money, and the smell of a lawsuit, looking for deep pockets, would scare them into banning R/C flying. but even then, it's hard to tell how it

Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

Or you might use the honey approach and show him all the reasons why it is better to fly at the club that's so close to the park. Then you've got a new club member.

UnderStanding too! :)

Seriously, I think there's too much concern about this. I by no means have seen every situation but, I have yet to see two or more flying sites within

3 miles of each other. And I've looked in some pretty heavily populated areas. Maybe in some areas it's a concern but I suspect that for most of the nation it's not an issue. Except maybe in the minds of the fringe radicals of the AMA!

Yep! Yep! Yep! Fully agree. Except for the common sense part. I prefer good sense. I've noticed that with increasing regularity that which is common is not necessarily good!

I thought I had you filtered. I'll have to take care of that... Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

Depends if the person likes or hates honey...........

Mike

Maybe he wants to avoid your venom even more?