Dues increase coming? 1 million spent on government relations.....
08-14-2015, 10:42 AM
#651
It just isn't going to happen. There might be discontent and dismay, and even "great concern", but I would make the comment it's more prevalent here and in some other threads and sites, but not at the level of making any significant change in the actions going forward. Apathy, disinterest, the lack of overall effect this has on the average hobbyist...take your pick, there are undoubtedly more reasons why.
08-14-2015, 10:53 AM
#652
I have seen votes change on some older rules changes, so I know it can be done.
What we need is for the AMA to focus on their core business. Insurance as it relates to historically "typical" use patterns (in support of big dedicated RC fields). With the demographics as they are, the classic AMA (club flying field) user base is shrinking, we need to be ready to save some money.
The park flyers and the quad guys wont join in any numbers anyway and don't care about club fields.
And if costs have gone up so much to warrant a dues increase, why in the world don't we have more insurance coverage?? I don't know for sure but the limit has been 2.5M for as long as I can remember, if it has been 20 years then the value of that insurance has gone down by almost 1,000,000.
Did we have too much insurance back then or not enough now?
08-14-2015, 03:17 PM
#654
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You might have missed the fact that something already happened though...drones are in, so folks are just going to have to deal with it. Yup, it's doubtful there will ever be enough outcry from the membership to do anything to change that. And as noted above, there might be several reasons, I'm guessing the one that's the driver here is that the majority of members don't care....it's not been shown to be such a horrible thing, and doesn't really affect them. You say sheeple, I say content.
08-14-2015, 04:55 PM
#655
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already did we had a nice chat but the questions still remain unanswered. As far as the "over a million spent and we had to hire a PR firm" why don't you tell me why the money had to be spent? I'm not twisting anything.
I might add you said " Apparently you have no clue as to cuts that have been made already....."
Apparently you have no clue either on what cuts were made.....................................
Mike
I might add you said " Apparently you have no clue as to cuts that have been made already....."
Apparently you have no clue either on what cuts were made.....................................
Mike
08-14-2015, 05:15 PM
#657
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-14-2015, 07:36 PM
#658
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scappoose, OR
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok fellows, here is my thought on the situation. First of let us consider the direction of the hobby. Have you notice that piloting now seems more important than building a created flying model if you are satisfied with the arf/rtf, and electric power systems, then i am glad you are happy. As i see it, what is left for the faa to play with? I am a retired aircraft mechanic, and spent years working on full size transports, and the model scene i see is not a happy one. An outsider may consider the hobby is nothing more than flying premade toys.
The serious funds could have been better used in building flying sites all over the states, and developed a good legal operating hobby that the faa would have found agreeable.
I do not know how everyone defines what a quad is, but just how does one classify it is a model aircraft while it is nothing more than a spy platform.
With the ama embracing this machine, it reminds me of hugging a cobra snake. These machines do not need an ama flying site nor be a member. How many quad pilots are going to join the ama? That is really the question. So far i have received several e-mails urging me to renew my membership before the price increase. There is some teasing to sign up for 2 years. Is this a case of concern that there will be a loss in returning members?
I live in oregon, and cannot point to anything that the ama has done here. This may be my lack of knowledge; so maybe it is my fault. Some of the funds spent at the faa offices, could have been used to get the news to me by e-mail as to the programs in use. My take on the situation centers around the paychecks going out to the administration to keep their jobs.;
[email protected]
ama410664
The serious funds could have been better used in building flying sites all over the states, and developed a good legal operating hobby that the faa would have found agreeable.
I do not know how everyone defines what a quad is, but just how does one classify it is a model aircraft while it is nothing more than a spy platform.
With the ama embracing this machine, it reminds me of hugging a cobra snake. These machines do not need an ama flying site nor be a member. How many quad pilots are going to join the ama? That is really the question. So far i have received several e-mails urging me to renew my membership before the price increase. There is some teasing to sign up for 2 years. Is this a case of concern that there will be a loss in returning members?
I live in oregon, and cannot point to anything that the ama has done here. This may be my lack of knowledge; so maybe it is my fault. Some of the funds spent at the faa offices, could have been used to get the news to me by e-mail as to the programs in use. My take on the situation centers around the paychecks going out to the administration to keep their jobs.;
[email protected]
ama410664
08-15-2015, 12:09 AM
#659
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. One of the last big "public" votes on this indicates a very divided Executive Council. One vote changed could reverse this.
I have seen votes change on some older rules changes, so I know it can be done.
What we need is for the AMA to focus on their core business. Insurance as it relates to historically "typical" use patterns (in support of big dedicated RC fields). With the demographics as they are, the classic AMA (club flying field) user base is shrinking, we need to be ready to save some money.
The park flyers and the quad guys wont join in any numbers anyway and don't care about club fields.
And if costs have gone up so much to warrant a dues increase, why in the world don't we have more insurance coverage?? I don't know for sure but the limit has been 2.5M for as long as I can remember, if it has been 20 years then the value of that insurance has gone down by almost 1,000,000.
Did we have too much insurance back then or not enough now?
I have seen votes change on some older rules changes, so I know it can be done.
What we need is for the AMA to focus on their core business. Insurance as it relates to historically "typical" use patterns (in support of big dedicated RC fields). With the demographics as they are, the classic AMA (club flying field) user base is shrinking, we need to be ready to save some money.
The park flyers and the quad guys wont join in any numbers anyway and don't care about club fields.
And if costs have gone up so much to warrant a dues increase, why in the world don't we have more insurance coverage?? I don't know for sure but the limit has been 2.5M for as long as I can remember, if it has been 20 years then the value of that insurance has gone down by almost 1,000,000.
Did we have too much insurance back then or not enough now?
In the past few months, I have reached out to many of the major companies and manufacturers in our aeromodeling community, and absolutely all the ones I spoke with see AMA's embracing the drone community, spending money trying to attract them, as loosing proposition that will ultimately turn against us.
A few AMA members happen to fly drones, and it is likely they do so responsibly. The other drone operator are not members and will never be: it makes absolutely no sense to think that these independently minded people who fly wherever and however they feel like, will pay money to Join AMA and hear that they cannot fly over people, in cities, without a spotter, beyond line of sight, etc.
The drone proliferation, and the issues they create are far beyond the reach of the AMA, and will likely remain so.
We do need to keep the pressure on the elected members to reshape AMA's position on drone, publicly distancing ourselves from this "other" hobby.
Last edited by islandflyer; 08-15-2015 at 12:15 AM.
08-15-2015, 03:02 AM
#660
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ok fellows, here is my thought on the situation. First of let us consider the direction of the hobby. Have you notice that piloting now seems more important than building a created flying model if you are satisfied with the arf/rtf, and electric power systems, then i am glad you are happy. As i see it, what is left for the faa to play with? I am a retired aircraft mechanic, and spent years working on full size transports, and the model scene i see is not a happy one. An outsider may consider the hobby is nothing more than flying premade toys.
The serious funds could have been better used in building flying sites all over the states, and developed a good legal operating hobby that the faa would have found agreeable.
I do not know how everyone defines what a quad is, but just how does one classify it is a model aircraft while it is nothing more than a spy platform.
With the ama embracing this machine, it reminds me of hugging a cobra snake. These machines do not need an ama flying site nor be a member. How many quad pilots are going to join the ama? That is really the question. So far i have received several e-mails urging me to renew my membership before the price increase. There is some teasing to sign up for 2 years. Is this a case of concern that there will be a loss in returning members?
I live in oregon, and cannot point to anything that the ama has done here. This may be my lack of knowledge; so maybe it is my fault. Some of the funds spent at the faa offices, could have been used to get the news to me by e-mail as to the programs in use. My take on the situation centers around the paychecks going out to the administration to keep their jobs.;
[email protected]
ama410664
The serious funds could have been better used in building flying sites all over the states, and developed a good legal operating hobby that the faa would have found agreeable.
I do not know how everyone defines what a quad is, but just how does one classify it is a model aircraft while it is nothing more than a spy platform.
With the ama embracing this machine, it reminds me of hugging a cobra snake. These machines do not need an ama flying site nor be a member. How many quad pilots are going to join the ama? That is really the question. So far i have received several e-mails urging me to renew my membership before the price increase. There is some teasing to sign up for 2 years. Is this a case of concern that there will be a loss in returning members?
I live in oregon, and cannot point to anything that the ama has done here. This may be my lack of knowledge; so maybe it is my fault. Some of the funds spent at the faa offices, could have been used to get the news to me by e-mail as to the programs in use. My take on the situation centers around the paychecks going out to the administration to keep their jobs.;
[email protected]
ama410664
As for the funds spent by the AMA, they have in fact continued to spend money funding flying sites. I don't follow your comment about them "developing a good legal operating hobby that the faa would have found agreeable". Are you up to date on what they have done so far? What the FAA is disagreeing on in terms of flying isn't really all hobby related...it goes well beyond that, and is something that's not really within our control (ie military and commercial use). As for not knowing what the AMA has done in your area, what are you doing to find that information out? Are you active in a club, do you read the MA magazine, do you attend functions? Are there any clubs in your area participating in Model Aviation Day...which is today!
You have a District Xl VP (Chuck Bower), and two AVPs in your state. If you need their contact info shoot me PM, I'll get your their info. The AMA routinely sends out e-mails (almost monthly), detailing what is going on and also sends out e-mails about important issues affecting the hobby. Check your SPAM filter to see if they are there. Mr. Matt, I have not been here for a while, but I am delighted to to read you all you recent posts that make perfect sense.
In the past few months, I have reached out to many of the major companies and manufacturers in our aeromodeling community, and absolutely all the ones I spoke with see AMA's embracing the drone community, spending money trying to attract them, as loosing proposition that will ultimately turn against us.
A few AMA members happen to fly drones, and it is likely they do so responsibly. The other drone operator are not members and will never be: it makes absolutely no sense to think that these independently minded people who fly wherever and however they feel like, will pay money to Join AMA and hear that they cannot fly over people, in cities, without a spotter, beyond line of sight, etc.
The drone proliferation, and the issues they create are far beyond the reach of the AMA, and will likely remain so.
We do need to keep the pressure on the elected members to reshape AMA's position on drone, publicly distancing ourselves from this "other" hobby.
In the past few months, I have reached out to many of the major companies and manufacturers in our aeromodeling community, and absolutely all the ones I spoke with see AMA's embracing the drone community, spending money trying to attract them, as loosing proposition that will ultimately turn against us.
A few AMA members happen to fly drones, and it is likely they do so responsibly. The other drone operator are not members and will never be: it makes absolutely no sense to think that these independently minded people who fly wherever and however they feel like, will pay money to Join AMA and hear that they cannot fly over people, in cities, without a spotter, beyond line of sight, etc.
The drone proliferation, and the issues they create are far beyond the reach of the AMA, and will likely remain so.
We do need to keep the pressure on the elected members to reshape AMA's position on drone, publicly distancing ourselves from this "other" hobby.
Any chance they compete with the major companies and manufactures of quads multi-rotors? I wonder if they also felt the same way when single rotor craft, ie Heli's were embraced by the AMA? Have they turned against the hobby as of yet?
If I read your comments correct, you're in favor of banning or excluding multi-rotors from the hobby?
Last edited by porcia83; 08-15-2015 at 03:04 AM.
08-15-2015, 03:56 AM
#661
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for the funds spent by the AMA, they have in fact continued to spend money funding flying sites."
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-15-2015 at 04:14 AM.
08-15-2015, 05:46 AM
#662
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.../...Who are these major companies and manufacturers...would really love to know who they are. You sought these companies out, and communicated with their spokespeople and they said those things? Did any of them issue press releases? I'm curious as to how that came about?
Any chance they compete with the major companies and manufactures of quads multi-rotors? I wonder if they also felt the same way when single rotor craft, ie Heli's were embraced by the AMA? Have they turned against the hobby as of yet?
If I read your comments correct, you're in favor of banning or excluding multi-rotors from the hobby?
Any chance they compete with the major companies and manufactures of quads multi-rotors? I wonder if they also felt the same way when single rotor craft, ie Heli's were embraced by the AMA? Have they turned against the hobby as of yet?
If I read your comments correct, you're in favor of banning or excluding multi-rotors from the hobby?
I am not at liberty to disclose their names at this time, but we have discussed, and are still discussing, the writing of a joint open letter to the AMA urging them, as long time members and professionals, to realign their direction in order to preserve our beloved hobby as we know it.
- None of us compete with muti-rotors.
- None of us felt this way in regards to helis (or any other form of flying like blimps, jets, etc).
- It is not a technology issue: turbine jets certainly have their share of high tech equipment!
- At least a couple are actually selling components used in certain drones (fixed wings)
- No, we are not "in favor of banning multi rotors from the hobby" all together: a multi rotor is like a heli with more than one main rotor. It belongs in the hobby like a heli, in the same airspace with the same rules.
The issue is AMA's stance on drones (which does includes certain fixed wings): these are the aircraft that can cause all the backlash from the media, the public, the law makers and the authorities. The very nature of that hobby is different from model aviation:
- Aeromodelers derive their enjoyment out of flying their machine and/or (more rarely now) building it, and watching it perform maneuvers in flight.
- Drone pilots enjoy the technology installed on their aircraft; the aircraft is but a platform that supports that technology. If the camera / GPS / FPV / self guidance systems are all removed, the drone pilots loses interest. If he still want to fly in line of sight without all that technology, he is no longer flying a drone.
Commonly accepted definition of drone (found in dictionary):
noun
1. The male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
2. An unmanned aircraft or ship that is able to navigate autonomously, or without human control, or beyond line of sight.
The majority of drone operators will simply never join the AMA, and we should not have to embrace the unique challenges they pose.
In reverse, the majority of AMA member do not fly drones.
The drones are here to stay, and we know it. However, they deserve to have their own organization to defend their interest, and face the challenges that are quite different and farther reaching than a traditional model aircraft (including helis) flying in a designated airspace, within line of sight.
If the AMA spends any more resources toward drones, it should be dedicated towards informing the public, the media, and the law makers on the distinction between model aviation (which we have practiced safely for close to 80 years), and drones (which have brought about countless instances of reported issues in their short few years of widespread availability).
Note that I am not anti drone either: they should only be used in a responsible manner, but can certainly do some very cool stuff. However they do pose challenges that are reaching much farther than what the AMA can address.
There is a consensus among all of us in the drone discussion is that it is only a matter of time before very strict legal restrictions are imposed on drone sales and use. We simply want to make sure that these do not affect model aviation. The only effective way to achieve that is to limit the AMA's lobbying to model aviation, making it unequivocally clear that model aviation is not drone flying, and vice versa.
The majority of the aeromodelers I have spoken with (air shows, competitions, customers, etc) all of whom are AMA members feel the same way, including a few who do professional photography from multirotors!
Last edited by islandflyer; 08-15-2015 at 05:50 AM.
08-15-2015, 06:59 AM
#663
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for the funds spent by the AMA, they have in fact continued to spend money funding flying sites."
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
08-15-2015, 12:48 PM
#664
08-15-2015, 02:22 PM
#665
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The contacts with these manufacturers (owners, not spokes persons) are on the basis of professional (and sometimes personal) friendship: as a model airplane designer and manufacturer, I am in frequent contact with many other people in the model aviation professional environment.
I am not at liberty to disclose their names at this time, but we have discussed, and are still discussing, the writing of a joint open letter to the AMA urging them, as long time members and professionals, to realign their direction in order to preserve our beloved hobby as we know it.
- None of us compete with muti-rotors.
- None of us felt this way in regards to helis (or any other form of flying like blimps, jets, etc).
- It is not a technology issue: turbine jets certainly have their share of high tech equipment!
- At least a couple are actually selling components used in certain drones (fixed wings)
- No, we are not "in favor of banning multi rotors from the hobby" all together: a multi rotor is like a heli with more than one main rotor. It belongs in the hobby like a heli, in the same airspace with the same rules.
The issue is AMA's stance on drones (which does includes certain fixed wings): these are the aircraft that can cause all the backlash from the media, the public, the law makers and the authorities. The very nature of that hobby is different from model aviation:
- Aeromodelers derive their enjoyment out of flying their machine and/or (more rarely now) building it, and watching it perform maneuvers in flight.
- Drone pilots enjoy the technology installed on their aircraft; the aircraft is but a platform that supports that technology. If the camera / GPS / FPV / self guidance systems are all removed, the drone pilots loses interest. If he still want to fly in line of sight without all that technology, he is no longer flying a drone.
Commonly accepted definition of drone (found in dictionary):
noun
1. The male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
2. An unmanned aircraft or ship that is able to navigate autonomously, or without human control, or beyond line of sight.
The majority of drone operators will simply never join the AMA, and we should not have to embrace the unique challenges they pose.
In reverse, the majority of AMA member do not fly drones.
The drones are here to stay, and we know it. However, they deserve to have their own organization to defend their interest, and face the challenges that are quite different and farther reaching than a traditional model aircraft (including helis) flying in a designated airspace, within line of sight.
If the AMA spends any more resources toward drones, it should be dedicated towards informing the public, the media, and the law makers on the distinction between model aviation (which we have practiced safely for close to 80 years), and drones (which have brought about countless instances of reported issues in their short few years of widespread availability).
Note that I am not anti drone either: they should only be used in a responsible manner, but can certainly do some very cool stuff. However they do pose challenges that are reaching much farther than what the AMA can address.
There is a consensus among all of us in the drone discussion is that it is only a matter of time before very strict legal restrictions are imposed on drone sales and use. We simply want to make sure that these do not affect model aviation. The only effective way to achieve that is to limit the AMA's lobbying to model aviation, making it unequivocally clear that model aviation is not drone flying, and vice versa.
The majority of the aeromodelers I have spoken with (air shows, competitions, customers, etc) all of whom are AMA members feel the same way, including a few who do professional photography from multirotors!
I am not at liberty to disclose their names at this time, but we have discussed, and are still discussing, the writing of a joint open letter to the AMA urging them, as long time members and professionals, to realign their direction in order to preserve our beloved hobby as we know it.
- None of us compete with muti-rotors.
- None of us felt this way in regards to helis (or any other form of flying like blimps, jets, etc).
- It is not a technology issue: turbine jets certainly have their share of high tech equipment!
- At least a couple are actually selling components used in certain drones (fixed wings)
- No, we are not "in favor of banning multi rotors from the hobby" all together: a multi rotor is like a heli with more than one main rotor. It belongs in the hobby like a heli, in the same airspace with the same rules.
The issue is AMA's stance on drones (which does includes certain fixed wings): these are the aircraft that can cause all the backlash from the media, the public, the law makers and the authorities. The very nature of that hobby is different from model aviation:
- Aeromodelers derive their enjoyment out of flying their machine and/or (more rarely now) building it, and watching it perform maneuvers in flight.
- Drone pilots enjoy the technology installed on their aircraft; the aircraft is but a platform that supports that technology. If the camera / GPS / FPV / self guidance systems are all removed, the drone pilots loses interest. If he still want to fly in line of sight without all that technology, he is no longer flying a drone.
Commonly accepted definition of drone (found in dictionary):
noun
1. The male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
2. An unmanned aircraft or ship that is able to navigate autonomously, or without human control, or beyond line of sight.
The majority of drone operators will simply never join the AMA, and we should not have to embrace the unique challenges they pose.
In reverse, the majority of AMA member do not fly drones.
The drones are here to stay, and we know it. However, they deserve to have their own organization to defend their interest, and face the challenges that are quite different and farther reaching than a traditional model aircraft (including helis) flying in a designated airspace, within line of sight.
If the AMA spends any more resources toward drones, it should be dedicated towards informing the public, the media, and the law makers on the distinction between model aviation (which we have practiced safely for close to 80 years), and drones (which have brought about countless instances of reported issues in their short few years of widespread availability).
Note that I am not anti drone either: they should only be used in a responsible manner, but can certainly do some very cool stuff. However they do pose challenges that are reaching much farther than what the AMA can address.
There is a consensus among all of us in the drone discussion is that it is only a matter of time before very strict legal restrictions are imposed on drone sales and use. We simply want to make sure that these do not affect model aviation. The only effective way to achieve that is to limit the AMA's lobbying to model aviation, making it unequivocally clear that model aviation is not drone flying, and vice versa.
The majority of the aeromodelers I have spoken with (air shows, competitions, customers, etc) all of whom are AMA members feel the same way, including a few who do professional photography from multirotors!
Slightly off topic, didn't notice your name or your affiliation until your response...gotta say I love some of the products you rep. One of our members has the Bulldog and it's amazing. Also, one of your pilots is a member of our club. In addition to being a fantastic pilot, he's a great kid (well..18). Dean was at our field last week practicing when a new prospect showed up at the field trying to fly his new EDF jet. If you've never seen the video online of the "I want to fly my edf jet that goes 100 mph", Google it. It's fits the situation almost exactly. After helping this guy trim his plane out, set up the radio etc, Dean maidened it. Underpowered and poorly made, it barely flew. Once he got it airborne and trimmed as best he could, the noob insisted on taking the box back. Dean tried to say no, let me land it, but the owner insisted. Within 10 second, the owner landed it. After all the pieces were collected, he left the field.
08-15-2015, 04:21 PM
#667
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, didn't notice your name or your affiliation until your response...gotta say I love some of the products you rep. One of our members has the Bulldog and it's amazing. Also, one of your pilots is a member of our club. In addition to being a fantastic pilot, he's a great kid (well..18). Dean was at our field last week practicing when a new prospect showed up at the field trying to fly his new EDF jet. If you've never seen the video online of the "I want to fly my edf jet that goes 100 mph", Google it. It's fits the situation almost exactly. After helping this guy trim his plane out, set up the radio etc, Dean maidened it. Underpowered and poorly made, it barely flew. Once he got it airborne and trimmed as best he could, the noob insisted on taking the box back. Dean tried to say no, let me land it, but the owner insisted. Within 10 second, the owner landed it. After all the pieces were collected, he left the field.
As for the subject at hand, I was on the phone yesterday with a good friend who is high up in one of the largest RC companies (among several businesses he controls), and also happens to have a finger directly on the pulse of Washington: he assured me that it is only a matter of time (probably short) before they regulate all drone activities.
He is not happy about it, because he really enjoys his DJI, which he uses very responsibly. But that is reality. He too feels that the AMA would best serve our long term interest by stepping away from drones.
The drone challenges are simply too vast to be managed by a modest organization like the AMA. It goes far beyond this membership based group that was created around model aircraft that we also affectionately call toy airplanes.
BTW, many here go back to discussing multi rotors: I do not believe that those are not necessarily an issue until they (along with some fixed wings or helis) become drones by way of adding the electronic devices that make them drones.
08-15-2015, 04:39 PM
#668
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"As for the funds spent by the AMA, they have in fact continued to spend money funding flying sites."
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
No, wrong. A club may apply (then go though a approval process) for a "Flying Site Assistance Grant" which is up to 10% of the project cost and not every application is funded. I believe $5000.00 is the max a club may receive.This year they awarded $30,000.00 to clubs vs. Munice's operating costs for 2014 were ? It's buried somewhere in the 7.2 million operating expenses in the financial statement.
The only site they have funded and continue to financially support is Muncie and that was and is with our (the members) money.
Please name one other site that was funded from the ground up and supported financially yearly by the AMA.
Mike
Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club? Say it ain't so.... Of course every application isn't accepted, how would that make sense? Do you understand how those grants are awarded, and what some of the criteria are to get those grants? And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China...wait, are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? Can only imagine the grief they would get then, about what a second rate operation they were running, heck they don't even have a nice home office!
Check out this months AMA mag, some good info in there about a club that got some funding from the AMA. If clubs aren't asking and putting a good case together for why they should get it...that's on them. My club got a few hundred bucks from them 5 years ago, despite thousands in damages. We were grateful for it, and didn't think to criticize the amount, or wonder how much more we could have received if the lights were shut out in Muncie.
08-15-2015, 04:46 PM
#669
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: hemet , CA
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so much for the people with a lot of money the more they get the more they want the [ama] dues are nothing to the beer you drink all week long or the cigs u smoke and i cut my letters short if u dont like stick your head in a bucket of water
08-15-2015, 04:55 PM
#670
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Linden, MI
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say, I am a bit dumbfounded by the amount of controversy a $17 dues increase has caused. I mean, everything goes up, have you seen the price of an OS engine lately? Or a Saito? I wish they had only gone up $17 over the last 13 years or so. All I know is I am happy the AMA is there to support me. Call me stupid (or a sheeple), but I will happily pay the $17 so someone is protecting the hobby and interests I enjoy.
Dave
Dave
08-15-2015, 05:06 PM
#671
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this is an exercise in pedantry because of one word, or just the continuation of the AMA bad theme. You say I'm wrong, but in the next sentence say they gave $30,000 to clubs. Can you share where you got that figure from with us mere mortals?
Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club? Say it ain't so.... Of course every application isn't accepted, how would that make sense? And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China...wait, are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? Can only imagine the grief they would get then, about what a second rate operation they were running, heck they don't even have a nice home office!
Check out this months AMA mag, some good info in there about a club that got some funding from the AMA. If clubs aren't asking and putting a good case together for why they should get it...that's on them. My club got a few hundred bucks from them 5 years ago, despite thousands in damages. We were grateful for it, and didn't think to criticize the amount, or wonder how much more we could have received if the lights were shut out in Muncie.
Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club? Say it ain't so.... Of course every application isn't accepted, how would that make sense? And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China...wait, are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? Can only imagine the grief they would get then, about what a second rate operation they were running, heck they don't even have a nice home office!
Check out this months AMA mag, some good info in there about a club that got some funding from the AMA. If clubs aren't asking and putting a good case together for why they should get it...that's on them. My club got a few hundred bucks from them 5 years ago, despite thousands in damages. We were grateful for it, and didn't think to criticize the amount, or wonder how much more we could have received if the lights were shut out in Muncie.
"Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club?"
Why not? Is not the the whole idea behind the organization to promote the hobby? What better way than financially supporting the local clubs?
"And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China."
I'd like a actual number on just what it costs to run it maybe I could help them save a few bucks. I hear it's a nice place but will never go there. I wonder just what percent of the paying members have actually been there? Why not smaller regional sites? Would that not better serve the membership?
"Do you understand how those grants are awarded, and what some of the criteria are to get those grants?"
Sure do we applied and received on a few years back. How about you have you ever gone thru the process?
"are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? "
Great idea. after all that's what all us local club officers do and by the way we along with our club members are the backbone of the .organization.
We tend to forget the whole idea of a national organization is to support the members who fund it.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-15-2015 at 05:23 PM.
08-15-2015, 05:25 PM
#672
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Dean is a great kid, and I am happy to support him. I did see the very funny cartoon on the 100 mph edf. I think we have all talked to this guy at our local fields....
As for the subject at hand, I was on the phone yesterday with a good friend who is high up in one of the largest RC companies (among several businesses he controls), and also happens to have a finger directly on the pulse of Washington: he assured me that it is only a matter of time (probably short) before they regulate all drone activities.
He is not happy about it, because he really enjoys his DJI, which he uses very responsibly. But that is reality. He too feels that the AMA would best serve our long term interest by stepping away from drones.
The drone challenges are simply too vast to be managed by a modest organization like the AMA. It goes far beyond this membership based group that was created around model aircraft that we also affectionately call toy airplanes.
BTW, many here go back to discussing multi rotors: I do not believe that those are not necessarily an issue until they (along with some fixed wings or helis) become drones by way of adding the electronic devices that make them drones.
As for the subject at hand, I was on the phone yesterday with a good friend who is high up in one of the largest RC companies (among several businesses he controls), and also happens to have a finger directly on the pulse of Washington: he assured me that it is only a matter of time (probably short) before they regulate all drone activities.
He is not happy about it, because he really enjoys his DJI, which he uses very responsibly. But that is reality. He too feels that the AMA would best serve our long term interest by stepping away from drones.
The drone challenges are simply too vast to be managed by a modest organization like the AMA. It goes far beyond this membership based group that was created around model aircraft that we also affectionately call toy airplanes.
BTW, many here go back to discussing multi rotors: I do not believe that those are not necessarily an issue until they (along with some fixed wings or helis) become drones by way of adding the electronic devices that make them drones.
Mike
08-15-2015, 08:34 PM
#673
The AMA does not fund clubs period. What part of this don't you get? A club may apply for a grant up to 10% of the total project. Not to mention only a handful get selected. Have you ever been involved in a field startup from scratch? I have and what we received was a very very small potion of what I cost. The 30 grand they gave out is nothing and so much more could be done to support the local clubs.
That's called funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding
"Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club?"
Why not? Is not the the whole idea behind the organization to promote the hobby? What better way than financially supporting the local clubs?
Sounds like a great long term sustainable business model. I suspect you've already developed a process to distribute those funds accordingly so every club gets their fair share? I assume you also have a process in place to prevent fraud? You wouldn't want to fund any fictitious clubs, right?
"And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China."
I'd like a actual number on just what it costs to run it maybe I could help them save a few bucks. I hear it's a nice place but will never go there. I wonder just what percent of the paying members have actually been there? Why not smaller regional sites? Would that not better serve the membership?
"Do you understand how those grants are awarded, and what some of the criteria are to get those grants?"
Sure do we applied and received on a few years back. How about you have you ever gone thru the process?
"are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? "
Great idea. after all that's what all us local club officers do and by the way we along with our club members are the backbone of the .organization.
How many local club officers support 170k+ members and do it as a full time job/career?
We tend to forget the whole idea of a national organization is to support the members who fund it.
Often times individuals assert their own definition or understanding of how an organization should work w/o ever checking the organization's vision/mission statements to genuinely understand the role of the organization. That simple fact is echoed many times in this thread.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx
Mike
That's called funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding
"Are you under the impression the AMA should fund the startup and operations of a club?"
Why not? Is not the the whole idea behind the organization to promote the hobby? What better way than financially supporting the local clubs?
Sounds like a great long term sustainable business model. I suspect you've already developed a process to distribute those funds accordingly so every club gets their fair share? I assume you also have a process in place to prevent fraud? You wouldn't want to fund any fictitious clubs, right?
"And what does the costs of running Muncie have to do with the tea in China."
I'd like a actual number on just what it costs to run it maybe I could help them save a few bucks. I hear it's a nice place but will never go there. I wonder just what percent of the paying members have actually been there? Why not smaller regional sites? Would that not better serve the membership?
"Do you understand how those grants are awarded, and what some of the criteria are to get those grants?"
Sure do we applied and received on a few years back. How about you have you ever gone thru the process?
"are they supposed to sell the building and work out of their homes or something? "
Great idea. after all that's what all us local club officers do and by the way we along with our club members are the backbone of the .organization.
How many local club officers support 170k+ members and do it as a full time job/career?
We tend to forget the whole idea of a national organization is to support the members who fund it.
Often times individuals assert their own definition or understanding of how an organization should work w/o ever checking the organization's vision/mission statements to genuinely understand the role of the organization. That simple fact is echoed many times in this thread.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx
Mike
08-16-2015, 12:35 AM
#674
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scappoose, OR
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for critiquing my comments. One has to understand who is driving the hobby's direction. Yes, I am aware of change, but that does not change the ingredients in grandmother's chocolate cake. The hobby started out from building models, and then test flying them. Is this the same reason in the hobby today, or, is the direction being done by the brain washing going on to attract customers through advertising that they have no time to build models, but have time to drink beer, and watch sports programs. I have no negative thoughts about beer, or sport games, but to say that flying models is the primary reason for being in the hobby just does not compute.
I have to smile when reading the wording, " mulit-rotors" being band from the hobby. Come now, is this the best reasoning to include a flying machine which is not a model aircraft into the hobby. The quads belong under another oversight agency to make the flying rules, and fines for not following them. Our hobby is model aircraft not spy platforms that need no runway. If you want to fly rotary wing models, how about helicopters?
The MA magazine as far as I am concerned does not even qualify for being in an out house. The brain washing advertisements are nothing more than mfg's product catalogs to make you think you are lost if not owning what they are selling. The real question is: Just how far have our minds be infiltrated to the point we cannot know we are being programed to purchase items we really do not need?
Our lives are made up by what we enjoy doing. How we apply that direction in this model aircraft hobby remains your choice, and if piloting a premade model is what you like, I find that just fine. I on the other hand find something lacking in not building, or reworking someone else's built model. If you build a model, there is a very strong sense that you do not want to damage it. Purchasing a model just does not have the same feeling, and if it crashes a new one can be had in a short time to just crash the second one.
I have read, and re-read District XI's monthly report, and do not get much from the short printed material. This just brings up what do these VP's do? It seems their area to cover is much to large to be effective. How any one could visit all the flying sites each year puzzles me. Having a VP for just each state would make more sense in that all the clubs could have a chance to meet and visit with some updated information. At one time years past, the VP for XI District lived here, he visited with the SkyKnights monthly meetings quite often. Once retired, I have no knowledge that the two new ones ever visited Portland, Oregon.
Ok, I am done for now. Keep me in this discussion so I can have a better flavor of just what everyone else is thinking. The direction the AMA is taking seems to be toward a black hole. Maybe someone can come up with a better ending to our hobby.
[email protected]
[email protected]
I have to smile when reading the wording, " mulit-rotors" being band from the hobby. Come now, is this the best reasoning to include a flying machine which is not a model aircraft into the hobby. The quads belong under another oversight agency to make the flying rules, and fines for not following them. Our hobby is model aircraft not spy platforms that need no runway. If you want to fly rotary wing models, how about helicopters?
The MA magazine as far as I am concerned does not even qualify for being in an out house. The brain washing advertisements are nothing more than mfg's product catalogs to make you think you are lost if not owning what they are selling. The real question is: Just how far have our minds be infiltrated to the point we cannot know we are being programed to purchase items we really do not need?
Our lives are made up by what we enjoy doing. How we apply that direction in this model aircraft hobby remains your choice, and if piloting a premade model is what you like, I find that just fine. I on the other hand find something lacking in not building, or reworking someone else's built model. If you build a model, there is a very strong sense that you do not want to damage it. Purchasing a model just does not have the same feeling, and if it crashes a new one can be had in a short time to just crash the second one.
I have read, and re-read District XI's monthly report, and do not get much from the short printed material. This just brings up what do these VP's do? It seems their area to cover is much to large to be effective. How any one could visit all the flying sites each year puzzles me. Having a VP for just each state would make more sense in that all the clubs could have a chance to meet and visit with some updated information. At one time years past, the VP for XI District lived here, he visited with the SkyKnights monthly meetings quite often. Once retired, I have no knowledge that the two new ones ever visited Portland, Oregon.
Ok, I am done for now. Keep me in this discussion so I can have a better flavor of just what everyone else is thinking. The direction the AMA is taking seems to be toward a black hole. Maybe someone can come up with a better ending to our hobby.
[email protected]
[email protected]
08-16-2015, 05:11 AM
#675
Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cameron,
WI
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read all of the posts in the thread but here are my abbreviated thoughts....
1.) It absolutely amazes me the amount of whining over a $13 dues increase. Folks on this thread are saying they would like to audit the AMA to see where the wasted money is. I think we should audit the members that are complaining about a dues increase to see where they are wasting that $13 dollars. Two Big Macs you didn't need. A movie. Six pack of beer. You get the idea...
2.) Someone here stated that we should could more coverage if they are raising the dues. Last time you paid your car insurance, did they increase their coverage when they raised the rates? This mentality (more for less) is the reason Chinese products proliferate our economy.
3.) The FAA is about to get very serious about this drone issue. As a professional pilot, drones (quads or whatever you want to call them) are a huge concern of mine. Hitting one of those square on in the windscreen at 250 knots may not end well.
4.) In reference to #3, here is a link to a news article in one of our industry's publications.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ightings-spike
5.) In light of the above statement (#4), our dues would be better spent distancing ourselves from the drone flyers that will not become AMA members. A public awareness campaign showing a responsible drone operator or other aspect of responsible modeling contrasted with the drones being operated in an irresponsible way (like the recent crash of a drone into a grandstand at a car racing event). If you folks think that this is not going to get serious real quick, you are sorely mistaken. Not too long ago a guy received a sentence of 20years for shining a laser at airliners. Surprisingly it did not make the news.
6.) I believe that drone manufacturers need to bear the brunt of this burden.
1.) It absolutely amazes me the amount of whining over a $13 dues increase. Folks on this thread are saying they would like to audit the AMA to see where the wasted money is. I think we should audit the members that are complaining about a dues increase to see where they are wasting that $13 dollars. Two Big Macs you didn't need. A movie. Six pack of beer. You get the idea...
2.) Someone here stated that we should could more coverage if they are raising the dues. Last time you paid your car insurance, did they increase their coverage when they raised the rates? This mentality (more for less) is the reason Chinese products proliferate our economy.
3.) The FAA is about to get very serious about this drone issue. As a professional pilot, drones (quads or whatever you want to call them) are a huge concern of mine. Hitting one of those square on in the windscreen at 250 knots may not end well.
4.) In reference to #3, here is a link to a news article in one of our industry's publications.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ightings-spike
5.) In light of the above statement (#4), our dues would be better spent distancing ourselves from the drone flyers that will not become AMA members. A public awareness campaign showing a responsible drone operator or other aspect of responsible modeling contrasted with the drones being operated in an irresponsible way (like the recent crash of a drone into a grandstand at a car racing event). If you folks think that this is not going to get serious real quick, you are sorely mistaken. Not too long ago a guy received a sentence of 20years for shining a laser at airliners. Surprisingly it did not make the news.
6.) I believe that drone manufacturers need to bear the brunt of this burden.
Last edited by JurassicJet; 08-16-2015 at 05:20 AM.