jester_s1

It was a big swing and a miss, for sure. And I agree that pushing for the government to require AMA membership for all RC pilots was the big misstep that cost them much of the goodwill they had early on. It's not like it was a bad suggestion though. It just didn't gain the support it needed to become law.
However, if it had worked, it would have solved most of the problems that we are talking about. We are talking about the AMA going broke, which they wouldn't be now had all RC pilots (drone and otherwise) been required to buy AMA membership. And I think the AMA could have done for drones what it did for planes and helicopters 40 years ago- organized the hobby, developed competitions, and established safety procedures that work. Interestingly enough, drone pilots wound up creating their own organizations that did that anyway. That plan honestly could have worked out pretty well for everybody involved had the FAA and congress been willing to require that extra financial investment to be a hobby pilot.

jester_s1

There are results that one can reasonably be expected to have foreseen, and there are results that only become clear in hindsight. Sometimes a guy makes the best decision he can with the information he has and turns out to be wrong. That doesn't mean he's a bad guy who needs to be replaced, just that the world isn't perfect.
I've grown tired of this slash and burn mentality of wanting to replace people for the smallest misstep based on results. Sometimes, the results are outside of a person's control. Sometimes, it's someone else that does the wrong thing. I think the FAA made the wrong decision multiple times during this. That's not Hanson or the EC's fault. Imperfect as they are, our current leadership is probably still our best advocate with the government. The other option is to replace them with a critical self-promoter who runs on negative sentiment. I think we need look no further than the White House to see what that gets us.

jcmors

To me, just my opinion mind you, trying to mandate membership through government regulation was more than a misstep, it was highly unethical, unconstitutional, and contrary to how an organization of people in any hobby should operate. Imagine if the ARRL tried to make it mandatory for Ham radio operators to join their organization to be allowed to operate on Ham frequencies. Or the NRA said you had to be a member to own a gun. You can't drive a motorcycle unless you belong to the American Motorcycle Association (another "AMA"). Imagine needing to be a member of a boating organization in order to take your boat out on the water?

So what should a hobby organization do to attract members? There should be some value add in membership that makes it worth becoming a member in order to join. For many of us there is value. I enjoy flying at the local club I belong to with a great group of guys, so for me there is value. But to attempt to force membership through regulation is just not right. Then to further advocate that anyone not joining our hobby association should be prosecuted as a criminal by the government, well that was just way out of line. Again, all just my opinion.

ECHO24

Sure. What could possibly go wrong?

"A guy (Hanson) who had not been a government relations guy before took on the role and figured it out as he went."

Hanson had a solid backround in government relations before he became director of Government and Regulatory Affairs.

"Rich ... is a Vietnam veteran, having served 27 years in the US Army and the Army Guard and Reserve components.
During his military career and as a commission officer Rich served in numerous military aviation leadership positions
and is a graduate of the Army Aviation Safety Officer Course.

Rich also worked 26 years as an air rescue helicopter pilot, a commissioned peace office and a public safety administrator
for the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Rich managed Arizona’s Governor’s Office for Highway Safety for two years
and served one year under special assignment to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assisting in the
development of NHTSA/IACPs Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program.

In his last seven years at the Department of Public Safety Rich served as the Aviation Division Commander over
Arizona’s statewide fleet of fixed and rotary wing aircraft."

Jester should write political ads.

fliers1

To be fair to the AMA top brass, what they were trying to do was essentially out of desperation. They had no other way to bring in the member numbers they so desperately need for their ever declining revenue. There just was no other place to go.

jcmors

I agree that it was out of desperation in an attempt to bring in more money due to declining revenue. Therein lies some of the problem, it was all about the money and very little about the hobby. Yes having more members and more money is a good thing, but many use the declining membership and lack of funds as an excuse for the failure in dealing with the FAA on our behalf. On the surface this sounds logical, and then I look at what a 12,000 member organization (10% of what the AMA has), MAAC, has accomplished with their regulating body in Canada having gotten an exemption for their members, without trying to compel membership through the law and without calling non members rogues and criminals and calling for their prosecution by the government!

init4fun

If there was a like button around here somewhere I'd give both of these post a like ... Very VERY well said and something I've agreed with since the first time the ugly forced membership ploy was pushed .

ECHO24

I'm have to to disagree. I don't think AMA was desperate or it was all about money. AMA was at it's peak with a claimed
200,000 members with affiliates when Hanson came out publicly for forced membership. I think AMA having their way
for so long under 336 went to Hanson's head. He believed he was right. He brought it up again the following month in
his column in Model Aviation. It was like Hanson talking to himself and wondering why the FAA didn't agree with him.

franklin_m

They "desperately" needed revenue ONLY because they DECIDED not to slash spending.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Why can't you guys get over the $$ over anything else thing??????
You simply can't value a non-profit, by the members, FOR the members association such as the AMA by looking at their bank account. Realistically, the AMA could be wildly successful with little to no $$ in the bank from year-to-year.
Take a look at where the AMA's $$ go. The lions' share goes to a magazine and salaries and expenses at Muncie. HOW, pray tell, do those things bring back value to the membership, ESPECIALLY when the salaried folks cannot carve out any exemptions, when our hobby so desperately needs them. Look at the paltry sum of members' dollars that were spent to help other members retain their flying fields. Healthy flying fields are what stimulate the hobby and will attract new members, not trying to force members to justify out-of-control, do-nothing-for-the-members budgets. Anybody remember the EC trying to spend $1M on an indoor flying sit in Muncie? Don't you think that they could develop a world-class, flying site ANYWHERE in the country that could accommodate ALL types of R/C flying AND be ANOTHER venue for contests and a potential NATS site (other than Muncie)?

Astro

jester_s1

They didn't go quite that far. What they pushed for is the whole CBO required thing, which would have put them into a good position to be the default CBO. That's only 1 step down from directly asking the government to make people be members, but wasn't quite as bad.
I do have to wonder what would have happened though. Certainly a competitor would have arisen, probably at a cheaper price, to offer nothing but insurance and a set of rules to follow. For all we know, that might have spurred the kind of streamlining in the AMA that many have called for. I guess we'll never know.

jester_s1

Traditionally, the salaried guys were organizing contests and helping flying sites get established along with curating and producing information for members to use. I don't see as much of that anymore, as the contest circuit is pretty established, and people go to the internet for information.
Honestly, I enjoy the magazine. I like to hold what I'm reading instead of using a screen. I don't mind paying for it though if that's what it comes to. I also would be ok losing it; maybe I'd subscribe to something else.
I agree that the AMA has to provide perceived value to its membership. I think they have been trying with government advocacy. Every non-profit has to have a newsletter, which the magazine serves as. I think the flying site and museum, while neat, doesn't actually impact many members. They will have to make cuts somewhere. I hope they keep the flying site assistance and a fairly priced insurance policy.

Hydro Junkie

Echo, I do believe it was about money, but more so it was about power. The AMA, driven by Hanson, wanted to be THE "authority" on R/C aviation. You have to remember, they did circumvent the FAA to get 336 into law in 2012 so they weren't trying to work with the FAA, they were trying to show the FAA that the AMA was a force to be afraid of. When it came time to have the next round of dealings with the FAA, the playing field had changed with the AMA trying to force membership of pilots flying anything R/C and make the FAA and Congress the organizations to make it happen. Needless to say, it backfired. The FAA refused to play the AMA's game and slapped the AMA down hard, something the AMA had coming.
Franklin, I think it was more than just the about being desperate over capital. The AMA (i.e. Hanson) wanted the funds to keep everything they were already spending funds on as well as the funding to build their indoor flying facility and any other "pet project" they came up with. The fact that they weren't willing to "cut the fat" shows that it wasn't a matter of how to spend in a "fiscally sound" manner as much as it was a matter of greed

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I believe that at the first whisper of drones causing future issues with our hobby, i.e. the first sign that the general public showed concerns over drones, their personal space, safety and privacy, that the AMA WAS THE authority on R/C aviation and was well-respected amongst the Federal ranks. It was at THAT very moment that the AMA should have ACTED like THE authority and been proactive in creating separation from the drones. I also believe that at that point, the AMA COULD have established a different set of rules by which to operate drones within the folds of the AMA that would have been well-received by the Feds and the general public. Of course this new set of rules would have had to have been somewhat restrictive, and would likely have alienated (and created clear separation from) the vast majority of droners who didn't want to comply, but that would have sent the message to the Feds that they wanted to hear at the time, also allowing them to clearly identify the "outlaw" droners from the AMA-complying ones.

As a simple, traditional flyer, it was very clear to me at the advent of drones, that the vast majority of the droners did not fit the demographic of the average AMA member, therefore belonging to a completely different hobby (albeit seemingly similar, there were clear signs that it was distinctly different from the traditional hobby). I have to believe that our fearless leaders at the time were savvy enough to spot these differences as well, but they saw an opportunity to gain membership (and the subsequent $$) that they so badly felt they needed, that they missed their opportunity to take the reigns.

Astro

ECHO24

Yes to all the above. No one in their right mind at AMA would have allowed that Hill article to be published, but Hanson is
I'm sure a hard person to say no to. My take reading Hanson is that he's a meglomaniac caught up in his own propaganda.

jcmors

jester... they went exactly that far. If you red the Hill article it is titled: Punish rogue recreational drone pilots - not the rule followers.

In the article Hanson made it clear that the position of the AMA was, you are a member or you fly under a part 107 license. Anyone without the 107 who is not an AMA member (you know, those "rogues" who fly safely over their own property and such) needs to be prosecuted under part 107 rules for flying without a license.

ECHO24

In case jester missed Hanson's op-ed,

"about 200,000 people fly under Section 336 and the remaining 700,000 are required to operate
under Part 107. Those that aren’t flying under Part 107 are in violation 14 CFR § 107.12"

"Congress should also task the FAA with increasing enforcement so that those [700,000] who
violate Part 107 are held accountable for their actions."

"Task", i.e., pass a law to force all RC flyers to either join AMA or face being fined by the FAA.

That was on January 2, 2018. The following week, Earl Lawrence, the Executive Director of the
FAA’s (UAS) Integration Office, set the matter straight at the CES in Las Vegas (with the same
language Franklin received from the FAA 2 years earlier),

"you do not have to be a member of a specific organization in order to be operating
under their safety guidelines"

The latest 2019 advisory circular, AC 91-57B, makes it even more clear with a link to the FAA wedsite
with a list of the basic rules that comply. The same rules RC flyers have been following for decades.

rcplane-RCU

My Feedback: (7)

Do something about it.
Before any of you complain about the AMA what it does or doesn't do for the hobby, or best of all how the money its spent you need to go to an AMA EC meeting and get, hear, see the truth.
Most EC members there do everything they can to make the AMA and Hobby better, cost less etc... grow membership.
But most clubs are a joke. They don't even have real officers and or hold real meetings.
When was the last time YOU or YOUR club had an event and INVITED the public. Tried to grow your membership.

There are also tons of AMA programs and nobody takes advantage of most They offer money to help clubs better their fields, runways, fencing whatever and they can
They cant even get enough clubs to put in for it because the club officer that gets ALL of this information offered to clubs, doesn't read it and throws it away.
Most is in the magazine but most dont really READ it.

Sorry I used to try and teach all this and did to many clubs for many years and many gained from it. But the majority just complain.. My AMA number is 5784 by the way. Been here a while.

ECHO24

Too late.

In case you missed it, all RC flying outside AMA fields will soon be illegal. Let's see how long AMA hangs on without
those RC flyers. In addition, over 240 AMA fields will be shut down on day one of the new rule, with others to be
slowly phased out by the FAA. All those wonderful programs are meaninless when there's no hobby left.

Do you know why AOPA advocates for all of general aviation and not just their members? They're smart.

jester_s1

AMA did not ask Congress to require model pilots to join the AMA. I'm sure they would have liked to, but they knew better than to get that greedy.
From the AMA blog October, 2012:

"AMA asserted its position that PL 112-95 is very specific in its approach to managing model aviation and it expressly exempts MA from regulation provided the activity is conducted within the auspices of a community-based safety program. The AMA provided the FAA with a copy of the AMA Safety Program, asked that it be acknowledged as meeting the congressional intent and that AMA be recognized as a community-based organization as described in the law. The FAA leadership agreed to review AMA’s Safety Program, to take AMA’s position under advisement and to respond back in 30 days"

They asked that pilots be required to fly "within the auspices of a community-based safety program." That's open to interpretation in a few different ways, one of which could be no flying without an AMA card. It could also mean joining any organization similar to the AMA, or it could mean simply following AMA safety regulations and using your own personal liability insurance with no membership of any kind.
What gets me is that Congress chickened out on this. It would have been a good solution. They could have sharpened up the language to make the last interpretation clear, thereby making it illegal to fly over people, BLOS, etc. It wouldn't have bothered anybody, wouldn't have cost much money, and would have let us carry on as we always have. I imagine they chose not to because it would sound like they were requiring goons to actually take some responsibility, which Congress never wants to do.

jester_s1

Thank you for your post, rcplane-RCU. When one serves the public, they work hard on projects they genuinely care about just to have some neck bearded jackwagon with a third grade education get on the internet and tear it all apart. There are 100 critics for every helpful person, and amateur critics are rarely informed enough to make valid judgments.

Take my occupation for example. I teach middle school. In the past year, I've probably read posts and shared articles on Facebook about what's wrong with public education from at least a dozen different people. A couple were from other teachers, but most were from people who have no idea about what I do. I could tell that was the case by the way they described it. The worst was a home school mom who I know fairly well who has never lived on her own and never worked outside of her home or church. She knew it all, of course, and was extremely confident that she could do a better job herself than the team or professionals can. It sounded much like some of the people I see in threads like this one.

The AMA is not, and never has been perfect. Our hobby is declining. The AMA can't do anything about that. And new technology has put us in a difficult position. Those guys are still working for our good though, and deserve at least that much appreciation.

Hydro Junkie

Careful, Jester. There are some in the forum that will take your second sentence as a personal attack and respond accordingly. I personally don't fall into any part of your characterization as I'm not a neck bearded jackwagon as I don't have a beard, I am definitely a high school graduate(honor society if that means anything), am roughly seven credits short of an AA degree, am former military with technical training in avionics as well as commercial aircraft experience that, when combined, add up to over a decade in aviation as well as almost four decades in R/C modeling. I don't see myself as an uninformed person as stated in your third sentence, either. I know enough to keep track with what's going on with the AMA and FAA and have seen enough to know the AMA is poorly managed and needs to do some serious retooling before it's dead and gone. I also know people like rcplane-RCU are the few that see the problems and try to help correct them. I do the same in my other hobbies and see the exact same results. People, in general, don't want to be bothered with anything that takes work and commitment. They want it all, they want it now and they want it for free with no strings attached. With that kind of public mindset, it's easy to see why the efforts of those that want to make an organization grow are doomed to fail, be it model aviation or any other activity.

franklin_m

Are we now tolerating stereotyping in these forums? "neck bearded jackwagon with a third grade eduction" is downright offensive. My grandfather never got past the third grade, and you've just insulted him. And yet he has much more common sense than many "intellectuals" I've met. And more value too, since he spent a lifetime growing what "intellectuals" needed to eat. It is unfathomable that this is coming from a "moderator". Even worse because it's coming from a self admitted public school teacher - the intellectual arrogance of your statement is astonishing offensive.

And nothing says that she cannot. The public school system is hardly something to hold up as an example, as our student performance has declined compared to the rest of the world, despite it being managed by "experts" and "intellectuals." So again, I put more faith in someone OUTSIDE the system than I do in the people who've spent their entire careers working inside it, surround by thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are almost totally homogeneous.

"The AMA is not, and never has been perfect..." but .... "they're trying really hard," or "they're the only ones," or fill in the blank. The point is there's been any number of folks who've offered to help them fix what's keeping them from being perfect (or at least better than they are now), but AMA has CONSISTENTLY REFUSED. So sorry, I will not broad brush overlook their DECADES of incompetent leadership and strategic failures under the oversimplified guise of "...never been perfect." I really think people would be better served if we stop making excuses for them and start holding them accountable for the awful decisions they've made (and continue to make).

init4fun

Yep , heard it all before ,

When your a teacher , your better than everyone else because you teach

When your a police officer , your better than everyone else because you enforce the law

When your an aircraft mechanic , your better than everyone else because you keep air travel safely moving

So hows about knocking off the elitist crap about whose "better" because of the occupation they chose for themselves and finally come to the realization that without teachers there would be no education , with no police there would be lawlessness , and without aircraft mechanics there would be no air travel , we are ALL just as important to society as anyone else in any other occupation and have NO right whatsoever to look down on any other person because WE feel their position in society is somehow lower than our own ?

And , at the end of the day , all of the egotistic posturing in the world won't fix either the AMA's past mistakes or the continuing decline of our hobby ....

Hydro Junkie

I hope you're not referring to me on this one