franklin_m

So I finally got around to reading the April 2020 Model Aviation. Given that content within it was written 3-4 months earlier, that means that back in January the CFO said that : "... we still ended with a deficit.... (emphasis added)".

And then the multiple reasons why:
I've been warning about AMA financial trends for quite a while. If an organization is failing financially, how in the world can they hope to have the resources necessary to do the advocacy they say they need to do?

init4fun

Well , , , , since we aren't the US government who can just print more money anytime we run low , perhaps some belt tightening is in order .....

As to one obvious suggestion , it wouldn't bother me in the least to see the magazine* go online only , bet that'd save some serious coin

PS , Thank You for bringing this up , despite the flak we know will be coming from the faithful , but "Ended with a deficit" is no way to run a business anywhere , except into the ground

* I need the AMA for advocacy and insurance WAY more than I need it for a paper magazine whose contents I can very well read online .

jcmors

There already is an online version of the magazine so no extra effort or expense to set that up. I agree that doing away with the print version would have to save a good amount of money.

I was disappointed to see your statement regarding only the government being able to print money. I was about to "institute a program of deficit spending" but your reminder caused me to check my options and indeed it would seem that I am going to have to work on my budgeting instead!

franklin_m

Two biggest single expenses are people and the magazines. If they ran a deficit, then only other source of money is selling investments, which means even less interest and dividend income this year ... and that's BEFORE the COVID induced market drops.

Your points are well taken. The magazines are a money sump. They loose money year after year after year. I totalled it up and have attached the graphic. Adding up magazine losses from 2001 to 2017, all that red, over $29,000,000 dollars of members' money that could have gone toward scholarships, lobbying*, field grants, was spent keeping magazines afloat.

* on lobbying. There is a misconception that 501(c)(3) groups cannot lobby. That is false. They can. In fact the AMA's IRS 990's even show their calculation to show their spending was below the allowable limit. And AMA's lobbying expenses - every year - has been WELL below what they could have spent had they not wasted that money on the magazines!

Hydro Junkie

Maybe now, with any luck, the powers that be MIGHT start thinking fiscally rather than looking at how to justify how they see the need to spend funds on pet projects(such as the indoor flying facility)

jester_s1

The AMA is an 80's organization trying to survive in a 2020 world. It still operates with the baby boomer culture of producing a newsletter and owning property. Through no fault of the AMA, the hobby is declining. It's time for the leadership to face the reality that this isn't a temporary slump.
I like the printed magazine. I'm even willing to pay for it. But the number of us who would are probably so low that it wouldn't be profitable. I have no use for the flying site in Muncie. It's nice that so many different NATS can be held in the same place and located where AMA officials are based, but it's a huge expense to maintain. It's a similar situation to churches that spend most of their income on a building that most members only use once a week.Of course, airfare for AMA staff to attend events all over the country might be just as expensive. I can't begin to run the numbers on that.
If it is to avoid declaring bankruptcy in a few more years, the AMA has to become leaner. And in order to effectively lead the hobby, it has to become less centralized as younger people mostly couldn't care less about the glories of AMA headquarters and its world class flying site.

fliers1

Fact still remains that no matter how lean they get, they still have no way to increase revenue. Their main revenue source is member dues. That is or will be declining for several reasons.

ECHO24

Rich Hanson said 200,000 people fly under AMA's "programming" (2018). AMA has 180,000 members.
Who are those other 20,000 people?,

franklin_m

Actually, it's even lower. In April MA, CFO puts the actual paying members at about 110,000. Rich's numbers are pure fantasy. As if saying it makes it true. Unfortunately, those at FAA can figure out for themselves that AMA is not putting out correct info. Which only does more to undermine what limited credibility they do have.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The AMA has been negligent to see the writing on the wall for decades. By not understanding their membership, the AMA became largely irrelevant except for the (pretty much) required insurance to fly under the previous rules/regulations. They failed to understand and support the fact that in order for them to survive, they had to support the clubs (i.e. MEMBERS), who spent a much larger amount of $$ to build and maintain their flying sites, than they had ever sent to the AMA in the form of dues and donations. The AMA failed to recognize that if the clubs and fields failed, they too would fail. That is exactly where we are today.

In their lust for more $$ and ever-expanding budgets, indoor flying sites, Muncie, etc, they romanced the drones instead of making sure that the flying sites remained untouched by the impending FAA regulations.

By not implementing and advocating a much more robust safety/reporting structure, I believe they lost a lot of their pull and respect where the Feds are concerned. As Franklin mentioned, the AMA fell woefully short when it came to lobbying and working with the Feds early on (YEARS ago). This can be witnessed by their own admission that Government Affairs efforts cost more than they expected, yet they were still relatively ineffective at protecting the freedoms we have enjoyed for 80 years (with relatively few incidents of adversely affecting the general public and the National Airspace).

It really boils down to Muncie being the same, "good ole boy network" that a vast majority of us have seen in most of our local clubs, just on a larger scale.

I've been a staunch advocate and proud to be an AMA member for decades....now, not so much......

Astro

jcmors

I belong to, what I believe is a rather unique club. It is for this reason that I continue to pay for AMA membership. Friendly bunch of guys, everyone welcome, we even have quite a few young folks in the club (mostly children of the older members but still...). You can fly anything there, planes, helis, yes even multi rotors and a few of the members have some quads in addition to their more traditional models however, multirotor flyers don't need club fields. In addition I believe that the welcome everyone receives here is not a universal thing. I have visited other club fields, some where you are practically shunned if your models aren't hand built from balsa and even foamy planes are frowned upon. Some where helis are not welcome, many where quad flyers are not welcome. I don't believe we, as an organization, had a solid plan for drawing in youth or even middle aged members. Membership and interest, as a whole, in the hobby has been declining for some time. Viable local flying fields truly were the essential and most important thing to focus on if there were to be any chance at survival.

I've seen gatherings at flite test events where there were large numbers of youth participating, so it is possible to attract and interest the younger crowd. I don't believe it is an issue with just the AMA headquarters, I think it is an issue with the way local clubs are sometimes ran. Attracting members, people interested in model aviation really and truly has to start at the local level.

The attempts to mandate membership by force using laws and regulations was a huge mistake as well in my opinion. I think that drove away more than it attracted.

I don't know what the solution is, I wish I did. Cutting costs and being more fiscally responsible could help the organization survive longer but ultimately if we can't attract the younger generation to the hobby, and provide a value to the membership beyond just the insurance benefits, eventually we will die as an organization anyhow.

init4fun

Hi Jester , I agree , downsize Muncie and eliminating the paper magazine are two prudent steps toward a leaner organization , I also agree with flyers1 that if no new blood is coming in eventually it won't matter how lean it gets ....

franklin_m

Cannot agree more. AMA has lamented their difficulty bringing in new members, yet as you noted the FiteTest group has cracked the code. And I think it boils down to your first para. Some of the loudest voices in this forum about the greatness of AMA enjoy fields like yours where folks are generally welcomed warmly. Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe those are the exception rather than the rule, and thus a large part of the problem.

Additionally, a side by side comparison is illustrative:
Not sure about you, but starting to see a pattern why FliteTest is getting youth involved, while AMA fails at same.

Concur. Nobody likes to be forced to join anything. All that means is that the organization trying to do the forcing is unable to create a compelling reason for people to WANT to join.

They have to admit what they've "always done" isn't working. FliteTest shows the most potential members could care less about paying for membership, could care less about magazines, could care less about a museum, could care less about competition, and are largely happy with easy & quick to build models that they can fly within walking distance. The difference is youth engagement between AMA and FliteTest is really the indicator of what works and what doesn't.

And then there's the intangibles like the "mine is bigger than yours" and petty politics that permiate many clubs. No shortage of stories about clubs that aren't welcoming. Heck even AMA admits it, I can think of at least one recent article in MA talking about the need to be more welcoming. Yet it hasn't turned around. If AMA can't even control its clubs from a new member welcoming standpoint, I'm not sure how in the world they can represent to FAA that they can provide oversight of model aviation.

FUTABA-RC

Can someone point me in the direction of the "FliteTest Fields" that are often within walking distance? I am not aware of any within driving distance of where I live in SOCAL.

franklin_m

I have two within 100 yards of my house. A local park and a local school. That was my whole point ... with stuff that FliteTest encourages you to fly, you don't NEED to tithe to AMA HQ nor tithe to some local field miles away.

ECHO24

Flight Test is great, but after coming back from FAA's UAS Integration Office they're now pomoting FRIAs in back yards. How would
the FAA evaluate and approve thousands of these sites? How many people can fly there, how high, fast etc.? What type of aircraft?
What about neighbors? Do they have input? What about the laws defining a CBO? The list goes on. They're in La La land.

FUTABA-RC

Ah, so if you can fly some small cardboard electric there it is now a "FliteTest field". Clever. I fly models in various open fields, etc. near me as well. I guess those are "AMA Fields" by your definition.

franklin_m

I believe that once FAA sees that the FRIA all but results on forced membership in a private organization, and OMB sees that this results on $60 million in annual costs, one or both will kill that concept. What will replace it is a LAANC-like solution (in class G) that may also include / require a 400 foot limit if you don’t have remote ID compliant equipment. Those two in combination solve the overwhelming RemoteID problems for the vast majority of recreational flyers - the 1.1 million FAA registrants that are NOT members of AMA.

franklin_m

Yet again we see why AMA is losing members - note the arrogant and pejorative use of “cardboard electric” to describe what many fly quite happily. And without need to tithe to AMA.

ECHO24

Few will want to report themselves to the FAA (and police) every time they fly. It also isn't clear if this would require a
subscription like non-eqipped participant. It's only LAANC-like in concept and undefined at the moment and would be
run by for-profit companies. In any case, the FAA rejected voluntary declared intent.

I once though a straight LOS exemption was the answer. That's not possible with jets and 50lb. gas models. It would
take some work to get it down to something acceptable but it's too late now. AMA only pitched a straight exemption,
which the FAA also rejected.

AMA has killed off the non-AMA RC flyer if FRIAs are all that's left. That's what I see. It's also a dead end for AMA.
Without those outsiders AMA will wither with no new members. That might be sooner than later with the coronavirus.
On HobbyKing's website 9 out of the first 10 aircraft are out of stock or backordered. As remote ID gets closer these
manufactures and retailers will sell what they have and not replace inventory, and lay off all non-essential workers.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I respectfully disagree with this statement. The AMA is a by the members, for the members organization (hypothetically, anyway!). Unlike the popular American vision, it does not need to become increasingly larger, rather, simply suit its membership. While there are still members whose primary focus is "traditional" modeling, the AMA can remain relevant. As long as the AMA leaderships focus is on growing the membership at any cost and filling its coffers to cover its bloated budget, it's membership ranks will continue to decline and eventually dissolve. If it were to aggresively re-structure and truly understand and focus on it's "core" membership, I believe there is a chance that they could regain the respect they once had in our communities and with the Feds.

Astro

franklin_m

I think there’s room for intelligent people to disagree on this. I “self report” every time I fly, as I live in the corner of a 400 foot class D surface area. It costs me zero (ap is free) and takes 30 - 45 seconds to do. The longest it’s taken to get approval has been, at most, a minute. I personally think that I’d they make it easy, and I think it is, many will do it. More over time.

As to your future of AMA if It becomes FRIA only, I completely agree. I believe, though admit I cannot prove, that AMA pitches the FRIA idea to the FAA as yet another attempt at forced membership. I think it’s plausible. AMA actively said for a long time that 336 required membership - and AMA pushed for that too - so I’m not naive enough to think they didn’t try it again.

Now, what happened was AMA didn’t get what they thought they were getting. The whole timeout thing & fade out over time threw a wrench in their plans. I also don’t think they considered that OMB will likely take issue with $60 million in annual costs to use FRIA (just in AMA dues - more if club cost included). I also think it’s entirely possible that FAA carefully crafted the FRIA concept to “throw AMA a bone” knowing that forced membership and the costs would get it killed. Makes it way easier to degrade to 400 AGL everywhere in class G and LAANC limit in controlled airspace ... unless you have active individual remote ID.

ECHO24

FRIAs don't have to fail for that. The NPRM is a total rebuke of the AMA with the FAA saying (we've put up with your
crap long enough) here's how and where you're going to operate until you're out of business.

You don't have a problem calling in your flights, but the FAA rejected self-declare because of voluntrily compliance.

vii. Grandfathering of Legacy UAS

"The FAA considered allowing UAS that would not be able to retrofit to continue operating
in the airspace of the United States using software-based flight notification with telemetry."

"The FAA did not pursue this option because it would not meet the mission needs of the proposed
rule for security, performance, and information quality.. it relies on the individual operator to proactively
report their location to a USS. Conversely, ... If the UAS cannot connect to the USS, the unmanned aircraft
will not take off."

This is non-equipped network participant. It includes the operator ID, location, altitude, and time and duration
of flight transmitted through a phone or tablet in real time to a USS provider. If the FAA rejected that it is hard
to believe they would now give in and accept the "give us a call and tell us where you're flying" plan.

franklin_m

Good points. I missed that in the NPRM. Since their non-compliant option depended on FRIAs, and those might run into problems based on forced association and/or OMB challenge due to cost, will they relook at the option above? Or, they just might set weight limit low enough to allow PF type stuff generally at low altitude and then everything bigger (ie sizes typically flown by AMA) to require remote ID? That would really make it tough for AMA to attract new members.

fliers1

I wonder if anyone has ever given any thought to the fact that the profit oriented industry as taken advantage of the club volunteer flight instructors for decades. By definition, volunteers are supposed to do for free to financially benefit the industry. Maybe many club members finally caught on. If the industry wants a hands-on promotional sales force, let them hire people to do that. All other types of the industry has paid salesmen, why not the profit making RC aeromodeling industry? That's precisely why the hobby is and has been on a downward spiral for decades. Maybe many members are tired of being suckers for the industry.