Question for Horrace Cain, candidate for AMA Executive VP in 2014 re: AMA and drones
10-05-2014, 03:06 PM
#51
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know LCS but i also believe if its not broke dont try and fix it . There was no reason for the AMA to take them in and you know it was for money. I hope we can talk about this same thing in 5 years and see whos minds have changed their thoughts about it ,including me. joe
10-05-2014, 05:25 PM
#52
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: tx, TX
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a question, have you considered in the next 10-15 the number of drones/uav will far out number your "traditional" RC aircraft. Especially circle flyers who seem to be the largest anti-uav/drone segment. Ama is trying to incorporate these flyers to make sure they ARE the largest interest group so they do have a say in Washington and can protect you. I would assume this notion that the AMA could continue to represent a dwindling number of traditional flyers and somehow magically get their say in Washington comes from the idea that in this government everyone gets a say. Well they don't. The largest and most well funded groups are who gets to decided whats going to be supported. You may try to argue that the UAV/drone people will never form their own interest group such as the AMA that would eventually have a great pull in Washington because they are just toys. THAT is a very FOG view. Many of these new UAS/UAV projects are VERY well funded and backed by current aviation giants. IF they AMA does not include these commercial aspects in probably less time then you would think they will be setting the course for legislation for Models/UAV they will get what they want.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
10-05-2014, 07:05 PM
#53
Just a question, have you considered in the next 10-15 the number of drones/uav will far out number your "traditional" RC aircraft. Especially circle flyers who seem to be the largest anti-uav/drone segment. Ama is trying to incorporate these flyers to make sure they ARE the largest interest group so they do have a say in Washington and can protect you. I would assume this notion that the AMA could continue to represent a dwindling number of traditional flyers and somehow magically get their say in Washington comes from the idea that in this government everyone gets a say. Well they don't. The largest and most well funded groups are who gets to decided whats going to be supported. You may try to argue that the UAV/drone people will never form their own interest group such as the AMA that would eventually have a great pull in Washington because they are just toys. THAT is a very FOG view. Many of these new UAS/UAV projects are VERY well funded and backed by current aviation giants. IF they AMA does not include these commercial aspects in probably less time then you would think they will be setting the course for legislation for Models/UAV they will get what they want.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
10-05-2014, 07:09 PM
#54
Just a question, have you considered in the next 10-15 the number of drones/uav will far out number your "traditional" RC aircraft. Especially circle flyers who seem to be the largest anti-uav/drone segment. Ama is trying to incorporate these flyers to make sure they ARE the largest interest group so they do have a say in Washington and can protect you. I would assume this notion that the AMA could continue to represent a dwindling number of traditional flyers and somehow magically get their say in Washington comes from the idea that in this government everyone gets a say. Well they don't. The largest and most well funded groups are who gets to decided whats going to be supported. You may try to argue that the UAV/drone people will never form their own interest group such as the AMA that would eventually have a great pull in Washington because they are just toys. THAT is a very FOG view. Many of these new UAS/UAV projects are VERY well funded and backed by current aviation giants. IF they AMA does not include these commercial aspects in probably less time then you would think they will be setting the course for legislation for Models/UAV they will get what they want.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
10-05-2014, 07:29 PM
#58
Ama is trying to incorporate these flyers to make sure they ARE the largest interest group so they do have a say in Washington and can protect you.
I would assume this notion that the AMA could continue to represent a dwindling number of traditional flyers and somehow magically get their say in Washington comes from the idea that in this government everyone gets a say. Well they don't. The largest and most well funded groups are who gets to decided whats going to be supported. You may try to argue that the UAV/drone people will never form their own interest group such as the AMA that would eventually have a great pull in Washington because they are just toys. THAT is a very FOG view. Many of these new UAS/UAV projects are VERY well funded and backed by current aviation giants. IF they AMA does not include these commercial aspects in probably less time then you would think they will be setting the course for legislation for Models/UAV they will get what they want.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
Its just something to think about. AMA is not trying to get rid of traditional hobbyist, they are trying to protect them. Because this is how our Government works.
With the significant AMA in-house changes this year could bring, some new DVPs and possibly a fire-breathing EVP, well Sir wkdbuell, with 5 years modeling behind you, you just might see some changes you have not dreamed possible. My sleeves are rolled up and ready to go to work.
10-05-2014, 07:43 PM
#60
To me it is about being able to maintain our flying sites. Our clubs have a lot invested and do not want to lose our fields and ability to fly there.
I am of the opinion that FPV and UAV aircraft do not even need a flying site, in the conventional terms. Hence the reason why the AMA IMO is not as important to that aspect of the hobby as conventional models.
So I ask, Why do the UAV and FPV crowd want or need to be associated with the AMA?
I am of the opinion that FPV and UAV aircraft do not even need a flying site, in the conventional terms. Hence the reason why the AMA IMO is not as important to that aspect of the hobby as conventional models.
So I ask, Why do the UAV and FPV crowd want or need to be associated with the AMA?
10-05-2014, 10:50 PM
#62
Well, Mr. V.G. I have seen CL Combat and flown it. I did it in high school and for many years since. I have also flown RC Combat. In fact, my Jetero RC Club (www.jetero.com) had an RC Combat event just several weeks ago. Club Pres. is an old dyed-in-the-wool combat flier. CL, RC, and International. In RC Combat there are all kinds of holes, circles, and domes. It was and is a blast. Back in my CL Combat days, the really good fliers kind of walked around all bent over, with their hands dragging muttering "Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill. 
!
Fortunately I was not so good and did not get to be one of the masters. HA!
Overall folks, I do contribute to AMA and the Museum. I try to think that if I wish to be a partner in this organization, I should contribute a few Yankee Greens. Let's all make this Academy OUR ACADEMY and assure the staff that they work for us! OK?
!Fortunately I was not so good and did not get to be one of the masters. HA!
Overall folks, I do contribute to AMA and the Museum. I try to think that if I wish to be a partner in this organization, I should contribute a few Yankee Greens. Let's all make this Academy OUR ACADEMY and assure the staff that they work for us! OK?
10-05-2014, 10:54 PM
#63
To me it is about being able to maintain our flying sites. Our clubs have a lot invested and do not want to lose our fields and ability to fly there.
I am of the opinion that FPV and UAV aircraft do not even need a flying site, in the conventional terms. Hence the reason why the AMA IMO is not as important to that aspect of the hobby as conventional models.
So I ask, Why do the UAV and FPV crowd want or need to be associated with the AMA?
I am of the opinion that FPV and UAV aircraft do not even need a flying site, in the conventional terms. Hence the reason why the AMA IMO is not as important to that aspect of the hobby as conventional models.
So I ask, Why do the UAV and FPV crowd want or need to be associated with the AMA?
for recreation should operate from AMA chartered sites. I do think that FPV operators need a safe place to operate from and as long as they follow the rules and
don't interfere with full scale have just as much right to fly as any other type of RC craft.
10-05-2014, 11:39 PM
#64
Well, Mr. V.G. I have seen CL Combat and flown it. I did it in high school and for many years since. I have also flown RC Combat. In fact, my Jetero RC Club (www.jetero.com) had an RC Combat event just several weeks ago. Club Pres. is an old dyed-in-the-wool combat flier. CL, RC, and International. In RC Combat there are all kinds of holes, circles, and domes. It was and is a blast. Back in my CL Combat days, the really good fliers kind of walked around all bent over, with their hands dragging muttering "Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill. !
Fortunately I was not so good and did not get to be one of the masters. HA!
Overall folks, I do contribute to AMA and the Museum. I try to think that if I wish to be a partner in this organization, I should contribute a few Yankee Greens. Let's all make this Academy OUR ACADEMY and assure the staff that they work for us! OK?
!Fortunately I was not so good and did not get to be one of the masters. HA!
Overall folks, I do contribute to AMA and the Museum. I try to think that if I wish to be a partner in this organization, I should contribute a few Yankee Greens. Let's all make this Academy OUR ACADEMY and assure the staff that they work for us! OK?
10-06-2014, 04:31 AM
#65
SOoo , Since there seems to be some confusion here as to what this gent means by "circle flyers" , We now have the init4fun "Urban RC Dictionary" "Circle flyers" is a disdainful term originally used by folks who fly "3D" to describe RC flyers who fly in a defined pattern . Because the 3D guys wanted to hover anywhere the mood struck , and this was usually somewhere in the way of the established pattern , arguments ensued over folks right or need to hover over an active runway . In the verbal nasties that followed , anyone flying an established pattern was dubbed an "uncool , not with it , old fart who flew around in circles and was out to kill the 3Der's fun" , and was thus abbreviated to "Circle Flyer" PS , This has NOTHING to do with C/L , which those who toss the circle flyer insult around have likely never seen !
10-06-2014, 04:56 AM
#66
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted this before, but it seems many still don't understand.
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
All our RC planes are by definition "drones", or to use the government term sUAS. Do you think the large corporate UAV interests, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. appreciate all the negative publicity from "recreational RC flyers"? Face it, at the "C" and "E" level they would not cry if recreational RC went away. They have the politicians in there pocket with campaign contributions and we are just insignificant in comparison..
And HC as to a previous post you do yourself no favors by stating that electric flyers should abandon LiPo for Nimah. Do you even have an idea of how many Nimah cells it would take to replace the 5S2P 5000 mah power packs in my 1/4 scale Fokker Dr1?
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
All our RC planes are by definition "drones", or to use the government term sUAS. Do you think the large corporate UAV interests, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. appreciate all the negative publicity from "recreational RC flyers"? Face it, at the "C" and "E" level they would not cry if recreational RC went away. They have the politicians in there pocket with campaign contributions and we are just insignificant in comparison..
And HC as to a previous post you do yourself no favors by stating that electric flyers should abandon LiPo for Nimah. Do you even have an idea of how many Nimah cells it would take to replace the 5S2P 5000 mah power packs in my 1/4 scale Fokker Dr1?
10-06-2014, 07:14 AM
#68
Posted this before, but it seems many still don't understand.
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
As far as the number of actual folks out there playing with any kind of flying toy air machine, that is anyone's guess. Way back in the '70s when I owned a Hobby Shop in Mt. Prospect, IL, right on Northwest Highway, I estimated that if 1 out of every 50 kits that went out of the store (not much in way of ARFs back then) made it to a local flying field, the fields would be over-run with models. They were not over-run!
All our RC planes are by definition "drones", or to use the government term sUAS. Do you think the large corporate UAV interests, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. appreciate all the negative publicity from "recreational RC flyers"? Face it, at the "C" and "E" level they would not cry if recreational RC went away. They have the politicians in there pocket with campaign contributions and we are just insignificant in comparison..
And HC as to a previous post you do yourself no favors by stating that electric flyers should abandon LiPo for Nimah. Do you even have an idea of how many Nimah cells it would take to replace the 5S2P 5000 mah power packs in my 1/4 scale Fokker Dr1?
As far as as "circle fliers" is concerned, thanks to init4fun for setting me straight there. I do visit "Stunt Hanger" now and then. Those CL fliers get the same attention from me as do the RC folks. I still love to do CL "circles". I find many "modelers" that have no clue as to CL flying. Rather sad as a muffled .15-.45 model that one can fly in a school yard and do all kinds of circles, up down and around can teach a youngster a lot about aerodynamics.
IMO, it is very sad that so many folks think that CL flying is below their position in life. There are many craftsmen in the CL fraternity, and that is sad for the youngsters that never have a chance to learn craftsmanship.
10-06-2014, 07:35 AM
#69
SOoo , Since there seems to be some confusion here as to what this gent means by "circle flyers" , We now have the init4fun "Urban RC Dictionary" "Circle flyers" is a disdainful term originally used by folks who fly "3D" to describe RC flyers who fly in a defined pattern . Because the 3D guys wanted to hover anywhere the mood struck , and this was usually somewhere in the way of the established pattern , arguments ensued over folks right or need to hover over an active runway . In the verbal nasties that followed , anyone flying an established pattern was dubbed an "uncool , not with it , old fart who flew around in circles and was out to kill the 3Der's fun" , and was thus abbreviated to "Circle Flyer" PS , This has NOTHING to do with C/L , which those who toss the circle flyer insult around have likely never seen !I have seen this term used in other threads, and it seems to have been adopted by the FPV, UAV crowd, to separate themselves from the "Old farts" who are stuck in the stone age.
FPV and UAV is not allowed at my club, mainly because they do not need our runway. I hope a separation will be created, by the AMA not underwriting such activity.
10-06-2014, 07:47 AM
#70
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: tx, TX
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad one person gets it. The smaller AMA gets the less power they will have to protect anything. The government works, just not the way you would like it to. The most well funded interest groups have the most say when something is not called for by the majority of the public. Just as bradpaul says boeing,lockheed, northrup, etc will get what they want. IF AMA can find a way to become a part of this, such as training drone pilots or under writing smaller commercial operations then they will have a much better stance and influence in the long run.
Posted this before, but it seems many still don't understand.
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
All our RC planes are by definition "drones", or to use the government term sUAS. Do you think the large corporate UAV interests, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. appreciate all the negative publicity from "recreational RC flyers"? Face it, at the "C" and "E" level they would not cry if recreational RC went away. They have the politicians in there pocket with campaign contributions and we are just insignificant in comparison..
And HC as to a previous post you do yourself no favors by stating that electric flyers should abandon LiPo for Nimah. Do you even have an idea of how many Nimah cells it would take to replace the 5S2P 5000 mah power packs in my 1/4 scale Fokker Dr1?
Conventional wisdom here on RCU about the lack of growth of AMA membership has been that the best guess is that there are somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people that fly some kind of RC aircraft.
Do the math ............ say the number is 1,500,000 people and being generous there are 150,000 AMA members........ The AMA at best represents 10% of those that fly RC. Now as to AMA Club members, again it has been stated many times that Club members are less than 50% of the AMA membership. Club members are therefore less than 5% of he RC flying population.
All our RC planes are by definition "drones", or to use the government term sUAS. Do you think the large corporate UAV interests, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. appreciate all the negative publicity from "recreational RC flyers"? Face it, at the "C" and "E" level they would not cry if recreational RC went away. They have the politicians in there pocket with campaign contributions and we are just insignificant in comparison..
And HC as to a previous post you do yourself no favors by stating that electric flyers should abandon LiPo for Nimah. Do you even have an idea of how many Nimah cells it would take to replace the 5S2P 5000 mah power packs in my 1/4 scale Fokker Dr1?
10-06-2014, 07:56 AM
#71
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: tx, TX
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its only an insult if you feel like you fit the definition of circle flyer.
For me a circle flyer is a type of flyer who spends most of the day at the field complaining about one thing or another and talking about "the good old days"
They are very resistant to any type of change and fear anything outside of their chosen style of flyer. They also spend a large majority of the time talking about how dangerous some of style of flying is. Even though they crash more then anyone at the field usually because of a mix of poor electronics set ups, overweight builds, or general pilot error and lack of understanding of how to actually fly a plane. They also enjoy above all else making and enforcing rules.
For me a circle flyer is a type of flyer who spends most of the day at the field complaining about one thing or another and talking about "the good old days"
They are very resistant to any type of change and fear anything outside of their chosen style of flyer. They also spend a large majority of the time talking about how dangerous some of style of flying is. Even though they crash more then anyone at the field usually because of a mix of poor electronics set ups, overweight builds, or general pilot error and lack of understanding of how to actually fly a plane. They also enjoy above all else making and enforcing rules.
10-06-2014, 08:53 AM
#72
Witch of these clubs do U fly at?
[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD]LONE STAR RC INC
Flying Site Details
17.05 miles [/TD]
[TD] 3279 [/TD]
[TD] 20 [/TD]
[TD] MICHAEL KELSO
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281/359-3260
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: White"]
[TD] TRI-COUNTY BARNSTORMERS
21.10 miles [/TD]
[TD] 1605 [/TD]
[TD] 161 [/TD]
[TD] SAMUEL BARRETT
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281.292.1755
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD] Yes [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD] JETERO RC CLUB INC
21.76 miles [/TD]
[TD] 1218 [/TD]
[TD] 124 [/TD]
[TD] BARNEY MCILVAINE
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281-360-4960
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD] Yes [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: White"]
[TD] SPRING AREA RADIO KONTROL SOC SPARKS
Flying Site Details
21.86 miles [/TD]
[TD] 2236 [/TD]
[TD] 81 [/TD]
[TD] PAM GABEL
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 713.594.9741
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD] HOUSTON SPORT FLYERS
Flying Site Details
22.53 miles [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD]LONE STAR RC INC
Flying Site Details
17.05 miles [/TD]
[TD] 3279 [/TD]
[TD] 20 [/TD]
[TD] MICHAEL KELSO
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281/359-3260
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: White"]
[TD] TRI-COUNTY BARNSTORMERS
21.10 miles [/TD]
[TD] 1605 [/TD]
[TD] 161 [/TD]
[TD] SAMUEL BARRETT
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281.292.1755
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD] Yes [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD] JETERO RC CLUB INC
21.76 miles [/TD]
[TD] 1218 [/TD]
[TD] 124 [/TD]
[TD] BARNEY MCILVAINE
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 281-360-4960
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD] Yes [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: White"]
[TD] SPRING AREA RADIO KONTROL SOC SPARKS
Flying Site Details
21.86 miles [/TD]
[TD] 2236 [/TD]
[TD] 81 [/TD]
[TD] PAM GABEL
Email Contact [/TD]
[TD] Phone: 713.594.9741
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD] 8 [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD] HOUSTON SPORT FLYERS
Flying Site Details
22.53 miles [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
10-06-2014, 10:36 AM
#75
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: tx, TX
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does that make it a weak attempt? Control line is not rc. I was describing a subgroup of rc flyers. I think someone is mad because that describes a day at the field for them. I prefer not to limit myself to one type of flying and enjoy all types, as well as all type of aircraft. It's why I came into this hobby. To fly rc. Try to remember why you did.
