When Egos Go Awry.. Costa Mesa *almost* Lost A Field

[dangerboy]

Okay, I watched the video a couple of times, and I guess I'm in need of a bit of clarification...who the hell is "Hugh"? Is he the guy at the very end with the gnarly "I think I'm an ole' cow hand even though I'm in Cali" mustache that makes an ass out of himself? Just trying to make sure I'm on the same page...

[madmax]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Boring???? I found it scintillating

Bill, your superior intellect once again prevails. My mind cannot even begin to comprehend what that word means, but knowing you, I'm sure it's obfuscitiliating.

When is the next meeting, and what are the tasks / agenda? I'll be there, and I have recently found a new mission in life.

[madmax]

	Quote: Originally Posted by dangerboy
	Is he the guy at the very end with the gnarly "I think I'm an ole' cow hand even though I'm in Cali" mustache that makes an ass out of himself?

Yes.

[jack01]

Max, I hope all goes well for you! Hopefully the City Council will see that he is just one dumbass with a twisted agenda.

If you do need some help, I know a couple of Itallian guys who could make him go away.

[Judge]

Hugh has not given up. He is working hard to keep this from happening and has contacted several other groups that he feels he can convince to take up his cause with him. He has written letters and is working diligently to stop the agreement from becoming a reality. His ultimate goal is to deny the use of the site to the electric flyers and preserve it for the sole use of glider flying without any limits on altitude or requirements for liability insurance. Failing that he will be happy to see the field lost and then try to blame the AMA, the club, me and anyone else but himself.

Here is the latest volley from my Buddy Hugh (on RCU):

Hugh B wrote:

Billy-Bob! The fat lady has not stopped singing about Fairview Park! A couple of more arias to go before she walks off the stage!

The City/county/state has no authority to establish and/or control aircraft altitude limits. Violates Federal sovereignty. The FAA has no authority to transfer their control outside of the FAA. So the FAA is just pounding sand. When the first blowup happened the then club council and the City demanded a determination from the FAA which stated in part; "the FAA has not elected to issue specific regulations covering model aircraft..." and "to the extent that a model aircraft or ROA is operated in a careless or reckless manner, depending upon the facts, we believe an enforcement action charging a violation of 91.13(a) could be prosecuted and would be sustained." This paragraph closes with; "One can, however, make a good argument that by inference these regulations only apply to human occupied aircraft."

So the FAA is just blowing smoke -- for now.

Since the AMA worked with the power model fliers to set the rules of the ordinance, it is the AMA and the power fliers that will be blamed should Fairview Park be lost as a flying site. However I don't see it as an all or nothing situation. Most likely the type of RC flying that has gone on for over 30 years will remain and power flying will be banned.

[madmax]

Judge, what the hell is this guy's point? I swear to god I have never met anyone in my life that is as miserable, and egotistical as Hugh.

I like that statement -

"it is the AMA and the power fliers that will be blamed should Fairview Park be lost as a flying site."

Lovely. Sweet mission in life Hugh, you rock.

The good news is that I am now officially uber pissed off. Most of the club guys are passive and don't handle confrontation well and it is my new mission in life to shadow this cat every step of the way through all of the crap he tries to pull.

Please continue to keep us updated as to what he's up to, dates, meetings, etc.

[jack01]

This guy is an idiot....

BTW, while we are on the topic of the FAA and RC, here's something I found out a few months back. I called the FAA a while back to ask about model aircraft certification. There was a rumor floating around several of the local clubs that the FAA was going to start restricting the size and weight of a model aircraft.

The FAA does recognize model aircraft and currently has some rules in place. Those rules are set in advisory circular 91-57. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...AC/ac91-57.pdf

They are also preparing to draw a line between a model aircraft and a UAS (Unmanned Airial System, or UAV). The scare was that larger model aircraft were going to be classified as a UAS, or be otherwise restricted. The new legislation is being put into place due to the growing number of UAS' being used around populated areas. This will only affect model aircraft if it is being used for a commercial purpose. Basically, the FAA doesn't want some moron with a .40 sized trainer and a camera flying around a crowded area and doing something stupid. If you're not being paid directly to fly that airplane at a non-rc event, don't worry about it.


Maybe this will help you guys out.

[1bwana1]

(Also posted on RCU)

Hughs actions represent a threat to all of us!


What a sad thing this is. I also fly at a city owned park that is limited to electric planes for noise reasons. We are very careful to keep within the guidelines requested by the city. So, when I saw this thread and another at Flying Giants about this issue I read it with great interest, because in the long run it could affect not just those people at the subject field but many others. I even took the time to watch the video of the city council meeting which addressed the issue. Very scary.

I would like to say that I don't know anyone involved in this personally so I don't take sides based on a personal agenda. It sems to me that those of you who are spending time arguing the legal standing of the FAA are missing the pragmatic point here.

1.) The FAA does not what people flying above 400 ft at this field. They have informed the city of this.

2.) The members of the City Council are going to follow the request of the FAA. Think about it. If they go against the FAA and something does happen they stand to lose a lot. They have the fudiciary duty to protect the citizens of their city and their assets. They have nothing to gain by ignoring the FAA and potentialy a lot to lose. No amount of logic or legal arguments will influence the city to ignore the FAA. From listening to the council meeting it is clear that no one will ever have permission to fly over 400 ft at this field again. Done, over with, end of story. I think even Hugh (I gather that is his name from the threads and the video) understands this.

Apparently, Hugh has been flying gliders at this field for many years, and is upset at now being resricted to 400 ft. I understand how upsetting this is for him, and probably others. It is a shame really The world and technology are changing in modeling. Electric planes are now becomming very popular for sport type models. I am sure that the mix of flyers at the Harbor field reflects this, as it does at most fields. It appears that when the city decided to impose the 400 ft limit, Hugh felt that the club should fight the council. The club, realizing that it was useless to fight the city on this, accepted rules that would protect the new majority (non glider) of its members ability to continue flying at the field. I am sure those dedicated glider pilots like Hugh felt betrayed by this action. However, it was unfortunately probably the best (maybe only) choice.

So, now Hugh can't fly his gliders the way he has for years. He is pissed off. I don't blame him. However, I think he has now clearly changed to a "scorched earth" agenda against those he feels have betrayed and conspired against him. He made that clear in his many post with the threat:

"Read my lips, either everyone flys, or no one flys."

That is a horrible attitude and reflects some of the worst behavior I have seen in this hobby. Sort of like tiping over the card table because you are losing. Keep in mind that his actions not only affect the Harbor field, but potentialy many other fields. Cities do keep their eyes on what other cities are doing. The "no one flys" could end up being all of us.

Hugh, what you are doing is harmful to the modeling hobby at large and all of your fellow flyers. I wish you would put the anger aside for a minute and think about how your actions could affect the hobby you so clearly love. Life is too short to spend your time in such a destructive way.

-STEVE-

[Judge]

Hugh has a huge bone to pick with the AMA and anyone who tries to argue with him. He has the clarity of thought of the true zealot and will not be swayed by logic, facts, or anything that contradicts his view of the world. He sees the AMA as a fraudulent organization that works against modelers and so on. He is also totally opposed to having to have any kind of insurance to fly in the City park. Oh, and BTW, I am not one of his favorite people either!! Go figure!!

WRT to altitude - It's a bit more complicated than it looks. First, Hugh refuses to recognize the FAA and their ability to impose rules. He is the worst kind of jailhouse lawyer thinking he is so much smarter than those he opposes. Of course he only voices his venom on the internet or to those that may not be up to speed, like a City Council.

He has yet to take me up on my offer of transportation and lunch to the FAA FSDO in Long Beach where he could set the FAA right and tell them just how stupid they are.

Here is the text of a post I put up on RCU explaining the altitude deal a bit better:

Judge (aka Phaedrus-MMVI) wrote:

You are making a distinction without a difference. True, you cannot be prosecuted, fined and sent to jail for not following AC 91-57 directly. But that is not the point. The FAA can still use it to CONTROL our activities as has happened at Prado Park in Chino, CA, El Dorado Park in Long Beach, CA and at Fairview Park in Costa Mesa, CA. This is accomplished through the setting of rules or ordinances that follow the guidelines set forth in the AC.

For instance, all three of these sites are under public control. Each of the Cities or agencies has determined, after discussion with the FAA, that the 400 foot limit specified in the AC should be followed. They then set rules controlling the site use.

In those cases not following the 400 foot limit jeopardizes the site use since the agency or City can simply deny use based on not following the rules they have set forth.

I am not worried about going to jail for "violating" AC 91-57, but I do worry about losing flying sites because somebody feels they will ignore it to prove how smart they are and show the FAA that they cannot regulate RC flying, even if only indirectly.

Hugh's constant insistence on this is based on his opposition to new access rules for his favorite flying site. The City of Costa Mesa has discussed this issue with the FAA. The FAA indicated that they want the 400 foot limit observed at Fairview Park (within the Class C airspace for John Wayne Airport). SO the City has specified that the AC 91-57 will be followed and the 400 foot limit observed as a condition of use of the site. Violation can result in the loss of access for an individual and repeated violation on the part of too many people will likely result in the loss of the site.

So yes, we can all go fly at 1,000 feet at Fairview Park. And then we can spend our time looking for a new place to fly after losing this one as a result of showing the City and the FAA how clever we are.

[Judge]

And another point is that the new UAS rules that the FAA will be enforcing SPECIFICALLY define that model airplanes are exempt from those rules and they CLEARLY define a model airplane as something that is operated in accordance with the AC 91-57.

No matter how you slice it the FAA believes that models are restricted to 400 feet AGL everywhere, all the time. But since we have a long history of not being a problem they give us a wink and a nod as long as we keep it that way. But when our toys begin to get their attention as they did at Prado, El Dorado, and Fairview Park, then they make it VERY clear that as far as they are concerned AC 91-57 is the law. Despite what any toy airplane pilot may want to think.

[madmax]

Well said Steve & Judge. Steve - it's important to note that this cat dosen't even fly at HSS. He's obviously has some agenda favorable to the sailplane crew (which by the way, all of them at HSS are very cool and I love that sector of the hobby), but he cannot fly at HSS because you have to have AMA to use the winch. So what does he do? He goes to the field without and models, sits in a chair, and arms himself with a camera and a notebook looking for any problem he can find.

In my book, hugh is NOT a modeler.

BTW, per public record, this guys name is Hugh Broesamle.

[Judge]

To clarify, Hugh does fly at Fairview Park, and always has for as long as I have known of him (14 years now). BUT he refuses to join the HSS club due to his hate for the AMA and refuses to have anyone tell him how or what to do when he flies.

Until the newly proposed rules came along he could fly there without belonging to HSS. He could just not enter contests or use their equipment. He sets up his own Hi-start when he wants to fly.

The tragedy is that I have been told that 1 on 1 he can be a decent fellow, is a pretty good stick, and helps new guys and so on. But his disdain for the AMA, clubs, the FAA, and the whole Gubbermint just overwhelms all that.