JIMHI

Lose the magazine, lose my membership!

init4fun

Your only a member for the magazine ???????

And a member since October 2008 and this is your first post ???? Talk about the ultimate "Sleeper cell"

While I'll freely admit to the insurance being a pretty big attraction to the AMA , as it allows one to be a member of a flying club , I have always hoped mine and all the other AMA member's memberships have also been contributing to the advancement of the hobby in some way or other (Despite the depressing future outlook , what we built with our memberships was pretty good while it lasted) . In and around all this , now the AMA is gonna see hard times ahead . Yes of course I'd like to see a whole bunch of "belt tightening" within the AMA and if the outdated dinosaur of a glossy printed magazine we get each month really needs to go on the chopping block to save the AMA's financial butt I'd expect all supposedly loyal AMA members to accept it as the future proofing it is , and just read the magazine's content online like a good techie should . You obviously have a computer , your here *****ing about the magazine after all , why in the Hell NOT read the magazine on line to save the AMA a bundle .

And , if all your really here for IS a magazine , a one year subscription to Model Airplane News is only $40 a year , far less than the cost of an AMA membership ......

ECHO24

Seems obvious. If it was fly fishing you wouldn't go after river rafters to boost numbers.

The 400' issue was the first I knew something was seriously wrong with AMA. Exceptions to the the 400' limit were no problem
until AMA came out and said it was just a suggestion and didn't have to be followed. So the FAA banned it. Problem solved.

It took a while. But there was never any doubt AMA was going to lose that battle with the FAA. And every other one. It's not clear
if they even cared if they lose. The war with the FAA is to create the illusion that RC hobbyists are lost without the AMA: We need
more members/money to keep up the fight for FPV to protect rights of traditional modelers. It would be funny if wasn't true.

AMA thought they could have it both ways with drones. That's over with the FAA's proposed rule. Now, AMA is backtracking big
time in their NPRM comment, trying to spin it as though they are a 100% VLOS model aircraft organization. They are about as
dishonest as they come.

JIMHI

Okay here we go, the club I belong to does "not" require AMA membership. The reason I am a member is because I enjoy flying at some local funflys. A "loyal" AMA member. I would not say that describes me . For you who remember it I was once a member of the SFA as was my club. I must now tell I am not now nor never have been what you would consider a political creature. I am not one who gets involved in flame wars on line. That just seems like a waste of good flying time to me. Yes I have a computer but I in no way consider myself a techie. My computer and the internet are more of an annoyance to me. The only reason I am on here right now is because the Coronavirus has given me free time do this.

fliers1

This could be a good reason it's so difficult to get people interested in the hobby. I could be wrong.

init4fun

Yep , your wrong ....

Face it fliers1 , the majority of the general public ain't interested . In fact , if anyone here has the "magic formula" I'd sure like to hear it . How about the fact that our hobby IS seen as "Nerdy" by far more of your fellow humans than you'd ever care admit to yourself and that right there , not wanting to be seen as nerdy , is a far bigger reason than the garbage you just posted about the big bad mean ol RC instructor on a power trip .....

init4fun

PS , Fliers1 this is NOT an attack on you , I know you didn't write the article you posted that I called garbage , and I'm sure we all know way more friendly people in our clubs than we know mean people . The mean old unwelcoming curmudgeon does indeed exist* , but in such small numbers that I can not accept that as the only reason our hobby is not all that popular with the general public .

* And is not ever the type to take on the club instructor duties anyway ....

fliers1

Perception is reality. When I ran a flight school, I had literally hundreds who came from clubs explain to me that you're wrong. It was the big bad mean ol RC instructor that caused them the beginner to come to me for instruction.
Yep, Dave Scott will agree, that's how he pulls in several thousand a week. Once again, perception is reality. Your perception based on your personal experience is the opposite of mine. Apparently, nothing can change that.
I will agree with you that there are many who see getting into our hobby as being nerdy, I'll give you that, but I have no problem convincing people to get into our hobby and have been doing that for decades. My perception.

fliers1

I don't know if it can be called a "magic formula", but what I've been doing for decades is being readily available, 7 days a week to give anybody and everybody at least 30 minutes of RC flying experience on my LT-40 for FREE. Just contact me, show up and I give about 5 minutes of "ground school" and have them have mostly complete control for the 20-30 minutes solid of stick time. This has worked extremely well for many years. No crashes in all that time. I have a standing invitation for anyone to learn or even just witness this method. I've given a couple of my fellow club members a rudimentary http://brauersaviators.org/index.html 15 minutes of how to do this and although they didn't learn as much as I would have wanted, they did find that it's much easier, safer and more fun than the use of a buddy-box. Unfortunately, due to covid-19, I don't think I will be able to do much teaching this year.

jester_s1

I think it's important to remember that the AMA's involvement with the FAA was not what the leadership wanted. I highly doubt anybody in Muncie sat in a meeting and said, "You know what we really need? A controversy about model planes where we get to advocate our position with the FAA." Like all of us, the AMA would have rather just not been noticed and been left alone. But that wasn't possible.
AMA leadership had to take a crash course in dealing with the government. They did the best they could to advocate for the members' interest, and had a positive influence on the process. The fact is though that in the "safety at any cost" mindset that is so prevalent in America now, regulations were coming. There is just too much paranoia and too much demand that the government do something to make people feel safe that the FAA had to. The best the AMA could do is show the benefits of aeromodeling and ask the FAA not to slash and burn it away with regulations. It was an uphill battle all the way, and at the AMA's size and level of funding, we weren't going to get much more than a chance to ask for what we wanted.
Yes,the AMA's message with the FAA has changed over the past few years. That will happen when dealing with the government. Sometimes decisions don't go your way and you have to adapt. It's really easy to play Monday morning quarterback and analyze this failure and that one, but after watching this whole thing unfold here's how I would recall it:
step 1: AMA saw a threat and responded to protect members' interests
step 2: AMA saw that drone flying was the cause of FAA concern, and so moved to try and integrate drones into AMA flying rules. (would have been great had it worked)
step 3: FAA didn't go for requiring drone pilots to be AMA members. Big backlash from members accusing AMA of trying to profit from drones instead of attacking them.
step 4: AMA pushes for separation of drones from "traditional" models. FAA isn't having it.
step 5. FAA does what it had already decided it was going to do anyway. AMA members blame AMA leadership.

Overall, I think they did the best they could with what they had. Some would say they should have thrown drones under the bus from day 1, but if they had, we'd now see threads about how AMA missed the best financial opportunity in decades by alienating them instead of offering them a modified membership. I've actually been saying for about 10 years now that the AMA didn't embrace drones quickly enough. Back when it was tricopters with heli tail gyros, the AMA could have put together a program to encourage competition and establish safety procedures. But I guess that's another conversation.

Since the FAA thing is pretty much done, the AMA should back off of the advocacy business and get back to developing the hobby and supporting clubs to adjust to the new regulations. If they do, there is a chance of survival.

ECHO24

It wasn't to protect the hobby. Drones were the "exiting new aspect of the hobby" that AMA could not afford to pass up.
It didn't work out because AMA failed to see the danger drones posed, not the other way around.

franklin_m

The AMA could have spent considerably more on lobbying than they did ... which we have to acknowledge was a CONSCIOUS decision of the EC. The CONSCIOUSLY decided to keep losing money on the magazines that they could have spent on lobbying for example. There were other places where they CONSCIOUSLY decided to put money elsewhere in lieu of lobbying - a consistently losing money trade shows are others that come to mind. Folks, in the business world those are not called "the best they could," they're called "bad business decisions." Let's call them what they are shall we?

Did they? Or were they trying to drive toward compulsory membership? The language of 336 and the FRIA proposal would seem to indicate their true motivations. There was plenty of opportunity, but AMA refused to COMPROMISE and work WITH the FAA instead of saying "NO" to everything (and going around them to Congress - something agencies HATE - the AMA took the risk, lost in the end, AND burned the very agency that regulates their interest). Another example of bad business decision by EC. I'd argue a horrible one.

Uh... they did this, a MAJOR strategy change, on a split vote! That's generally a big flag that it may not be the best business decision. Yet the EC CONSCIOUSLY decided to do it. Another bad business decision.

The fact that AMA tried to push mandatory membership was a major strategic mistake that's worth noting. First, it shows a fundamental ignorance of law and constitutional issues like forced association. The AMA knew (or should have known) this would never work, yet the EC CONSCIOUSLY did it anyway. Second, it put on stark display for the FAA that AMA wasn't being up front about the language they pushed with Congress and with FAA (latest FRIA proposal). And when dealing with government, credibility is something you have to EARN, and this ruined credibility from FAA's perspective. Yet another bad business decision.

And all that did was show FAA that AMA is not serious and only opportunistic. Again, speaks to credibility of AMA and whether AMA will be a dependable partner or just quit something (drones) when it gets hard.

That's an easy talking point, but it's not accurate IMO. The FAA is responding to the requirements put on it by the national security agencies. Blaming FAA for this is merely going to give away more credibility. AMA would be wise to acknowledge these factors, stop whining about them, and figure out how to COMPROMISE or risk losing it all.

ECHO24

I read your post again. You must have slept through the drone years: AMA sued the FAA over drones and FPV. AMA was not
interested in enforcing any rules and has never done so. As a result, the droners hid behind 336 while illegally flying BVLOS
until it spiralled out of control.

This drone/FPV free-for-all is what brought down the hobby (read the NPRM), egged on by AMA and their defiance of the
FAA. All it would have taken to "save the hobby" was to follow the AC 91-57. Puffed up with 336, AMA thought otherwise
and went after drones and FPV.

It will soon be illegal to fly RC anywhere except at AMA fields, exactly what AMA pushed for but didn't think through. The
FAA says flat out that they plan to phase out those fields, beginning with the estimated first 10% that won't be approved.

That's 240+ fields and affiliated RC flyers out of business on day one of the proposed rule. That’s in addition to the X-hundred
thousand non-AMA RC flyers left out in the cold (AMA thinks they deserve to be punished anyway). The rule also allows the
FAA to terminate a FRIA flying field for any reason.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

They did? Please support that with some facts.
NOT UNTIL THE DRONES. Show me where one single American ever showed concern over some old guy flying their J-3 Cub at an established flying field.

Astro

jester_s1

Oh I think they saw it. They saw it well enough to propose to the FAA that drones should be required to join AMA and fly under the AMA safety code in the name of safety. It's just that the FAA didn't go for that particular solution.

jester_s1

I was referring to the drone situation in the comments you responded to. It was concern about drones, which the public can't help but associate with traditional models, that got the whole regulation thing started.
The statement you want me to support with facts was that the AMA did the best they could. That's a value judgment, not a statement of fact. I say it because the AMA was in a precarious position. It was obvious that the EC wanted to bring the drone hobby under the AMA umbrella. That would have meant considerably income, so it made sense. Besides, organizations that succeed are usually the forward thinking ones. So there was the vision of having drone pilots become AMA members, then there was the FAA who wanted proposals and feedback that would satisfy the safety demands being placed on them, and then there were the AMA members screaming that they'd only be happy if nothing at all ever changed. There was no way to please everybody. So the EC had to go the route that they thought would do the AMA the most good. I think their error was sitting the fence too much; they did a mid course change which invalidated much of the work they had started with.

ECHO24

In 2008, Rich Hanson,

" ... resigned his position [District X VP] and, during a critical time in AMA’s relationship with the FAA, accepted
the challenge to help AMA develop the position of Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative. As a result,
Rich was selected to sit on the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee as AMA’s representative to that group. Their
mission was to draft an outline for the soon-to-be-developed Federal Aviation Rule, which would integrate small
unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and Section 336 was, "a successful conclusion to the 4 year effort."
4 years dealing with the government is not exactly a "crash course". And we're talking about the 8 years since.

It's great to want to put a positive spin on the AMA, but a lot of this is out of left field.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

This is just plain incorrect. Many references to showing the general public a picture of a drone and a model aircraft and having them identify them correctly. This is also where it would have been SIMPLE for the AMA to launch a campaign to differentiate the two.
Not in the context you posted it.
The AMA put themselves in that position BECAUSE of their lust for $$ and control
And that was one of their major missteps.
Only if $$ is your only goal. A great many of us saw the consequences of that, why not the AMA/EC?
No, the successful ones do what is best for their membership/constituents/customers. Forward thinking....if they would have been forward thinking, they would have realized they had no chance of successfully incorporating a group that had no interest in joining, nor had anything in common with the current members. Forward thinking.....LAUGHABLE!
Nope, they just had to please their membership. By NOT romancing the droners, they would have satisfied the, "keep it the same" crowd AND those of us that saw that creating separation from the drones would be prudent for our future.
NO, they OBVIOUSLY went the way that they thought would do THEIR existence and their bank account the most good, and they were WRONG!
sitting on the fence? They were involved with the FAA from the very beginning! They were involved before ANY of the other entities were involved!
They did no such thing! They maintained the same stance that they began with and it was a very short-sighted (not a forward thinking!) one at that! The PROOF is in the pudding, how did their plan work out? for them? for us? for ANYONE?

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. The AMA EC knew full well that their safety code was not a good fit for droners, and that they have no way of being capable of enforcing the safety code to the satisfaction of the FAA, so yes, in the NAME of safety ONLY, not REALLY safe.

Because they know that the AMA safety code only works on the honor system, there is absolutely NO WAY for the AMA to enforce the safety code in any kind of meaningful way.

Astro

ECHO24

The AMA did not "propose" that to the FAA. AMA unilaterally decided that anyone flying under 336 had to join the AMA
and announced it in a national online newspaper, and "told" the FAA and Congress that the FAA had to take enforcemnt
action against those non-AMA members for being in violation of Part 107.

That ended AMA's relationship with both the FAA and Conrgress. Section 336 was repealed 9 months later.

ECHO24

Here is hobby-killing piece:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technolo...rule-followers

jester_s1

I didn't say they were all newbies now. I said when this started the AMA was in a position to have to figure it out. A guy (Hanson) who had not been a government relations guy before took on the role and figured it out as he went. Compared to organizations that have been lobbying and advocating to the government for years, like say the NRA, the AMA was very green when the whole regulation push started. So sure, they made mistakes. It's easy to see that now, but it's not fair to evaluate them based on that hindsight or by comparison to much better funded organizations with a lot more experience.

jcmors

Not only did it do damage to the relationship with the FAA but it alienated and pushed away the people who were not AMA members already. All of the people who paid for the FAA registration and did not join the AMA were not drone fliers, though the majority of them likely were. Here's a strategy, call the crowd of folks that you want to "welcome" into your organization but who are not yet members rogues and criminals and call for their prosecution! *sarcasm* That's bound to endear them to us yes?*/sarcasm*

I am an AMA member but I personally know people who fly traditional model airplanes and helicopters in rural areas over their farm fields or their neighbors (with permission) who fly safely and are not AMA members. Calling them criminals for not joining the AMA and advocating for their prosecution under 107 is no way to get them to say... gee sounds like a fun group...

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. I say that is the ONLY way to evaluate one's performance.....on the results. Anything else is just, well, purely feel-good posturing.....

Sooo….two kids have an upcoming test, one studies, the other doesn't. Should the one who doesn't study be given a pass because they weren't prepared?

Astro

jester_s1

The AMA enforces the safety code by making compliance a term in the insurance policy. Many other industries do the same, and it works. If a pilot breaks the code and has a claim as a result, that claim gets denied. We probably all know of other industries that enforce their rules similarly such as a labor union that won't defend a worker who breaks their rules.
And yes, I know that there are some who wouldn't care and would just do as they pleased anyway. that's true of pretty much any other rule too, regardless of the consequences. It doesn't make the rule invalid though, and it doesn't stop most people from following them.