Originally Posted by islandflyer

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.

Originally Posted by AERORICH73

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]

Originally Posted by rcmiket

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.

"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

Originally Posted by porcia83

Ya, that's what I thought, nit picking the meaning of the word funding. I'd put up a definition of the word, and they all fit exactly what I said, but I doubt it would make a difference. See Ace Dude's response above, took the words outta my mouth. I don't quite understand the disdain and almost total contempt you have for the AMA, it's lost on me. Keep the thread updated and what you and the VP's etc are doing to get the changes you want. I think the effort is better channeled elsewhere, but at least you are getting involved.

Originally Posted by Ace Dude

Page 28 and unless I've missed it, the only action I've seen is "I spoke to my AVP."

Originally Posted by Duncman

Wow, now we'll go after all them doggone seniors on SSA, the nerve of them getting a discount. I say do away with the discount and Social Security while we are at it also, if they can afford $20 for a gallon of fuel they don't need Social Security, just an entitlement anyway. Make them worthless old-timers pay their fair share I always say.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

Originally Posted by Duncman

Naw, it is sarcasm, I'm on SSA so I made a feeble attempt to be funny, oh well, came out stupid instead!!!! You and I can enjoy our entitlement at the flying field while numb3rulz works to pay us for what we don't deserve (more sarcasm, sorry)

Originally Posted by ovationdave

Good Grief. I give up.

Originally Posted by porcia83

Well, it's a first step right? Better than just complaining on a blog...

I believe it might have been this or another AMA Is all bad complaint thread where he said something about mobilizing the forces to do something. I might have mentioned his district VP had already voted no to funding the initial $250k, so I wasn't quite sure what was going to be accomplished by continuing to wage war. I suspect being around of bunch of likeminded people will give someone the impression that this subset of people speaks for the masses. That everyone must want the same things they do, or in this situation, don't want it. That might be the case here, and the "pulse" that is being checked isn't the one that the rest of the group has. Remember a year or so back when the AMA was pressing everyone to get their comments in to the FAA regarding the drone issues...how many people ended up responding? And of those, how many do you think were AMA members? Probably the bulk of them, but still a pretty low number given the amount of people in the AMA. And although the vote was 50/50 and the president had to break that tie vote, I would still question if those that voted to not fund did so because of personal preference, or because they really checked in with all of those in their district and gathered a consensus. Then again the same question could be asked of those voting yes.

I say enjoy what we have now, go out and fly, be safe, embrace the change and make the best of it. This is supposed to be fun right?

Originally Posted by porcia83

Well, it's a first step right? Better than just complaining on a blog... I say enjoy what we have now, go out and fly, be safe, embrace the change and make the best of it. This is supposed to be fun right?

Originally Posted by islandflyer

Not on board with that one:


The only salvation for us is to make it unequivocally clear that Drone flying is not model aviation, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Ace Dude

What exactly is your definition of drone flying?

Originally Posted by islandflyer

My definition (or yours) does not matter (as I already posted one page ago).
Commonly accepted definitions are what matters in this, or any discussion that makes any sense (as I already posted one page ago). Otherwise, you can spend all day redefining language, and any communication becomes fruitless and pointless.

If you're trying to have an intelligent conversation with mutual understanding then yes, both matter, which is why I asked for clarification.

Here is again what I posted about one page ago (as I already posted one page ago):

I did read that. IMHO the bee reference is completely meaningless and irrelevant.

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.

I would agree with #2, but would also include any LOS operations that have a pecuniary interest (e.g., commercial operations).

Originally Posted by Ace Dude

I would agree with #2, but would also include any LOS operations that have a pecuniary interest (e.g., commercial operations)..

Originally Posted by islandflyer

Not on board with that one:
I am not here to complain, but rather to raise awareness on the drone issues as it affect the AMA and model aviation as a whole. The only exists to represent the interest of its members, and not to pursue directions contrary to the position of the majority of its members. I have spoken to my VP, and I know he voted NO. Next is to spread the word on social media (not just here, but also FG, GSN and RCG).


While I do embrace the technological advances in all domains, I am not embracing the change (of the AMA), and neither are the majority of the AMA members I have spoken with (and there are many!). It is up to us, the members, to make our voices heard in order the change the composition of the leadership in the AMA, and change the very misguided direction it is following as a result of a very close vote last year. The drone issue is no doubt the biggest challenge our Aeromodeling hobby has ever faced, and it is time for AMA members to really get involved with the vote that can rectify this direction.

Yes, it is all about having fun....I just want the fun to continue for a long time, without being affected by overreaching regulation that are likely to come as a result of drone proliferation. The only salvation for us is to make it unequivocally clear that Drone flying is not model aviation, and vice versa.

This will absolutely not change anything for drones: what ever regulation affect them will affect them no matter what.
On the other hand it can change everything for model aviation, by lobbying to be affected but any upcoming drone regulation.

Originally Posted by AERORICH73

Boy, you got my vote on this!!!! Get the drones away from our model flying. These spy platforms are just going to get into a lot of trouble since there is no licensing, or agency watching them. Suspect that once a seller gets sued, there will be a vacuum in the market place to get out of the business of selling them. Right now all that the sellers see is a lot of funds in their pockets with no responsiblity for their use. While it can be argued that our models can be involved in accidents, there is a better connection between a modeler operating a build kit model being flown, and does not want to break it. We will see just what the ama renewals are like in october to see what the membership reaction is to the fee increase, and the ama embracing the quads.


Rich s.

Originally Posted by porcia83

Hmm...if that logic applies. there should have been a vacuum in gun manufacturers after they were sued, was there? How about car companies when there vehicles were used recklessly, any vacuums there? Why should the drone manf be liable for anything these dopes do with them? They have warnings all over the instructions about how they are to be used, and they are routinely ignored. At some point someone has to take personal responsibility, and face the consequences when things go south, NOT point a finger at the drone manf.

Also, might want to hold back on looking at Oct renewals, I doubt you'll really see a drop this year, if anything a spike given the rate increase. The real "test" if it could be called that will be when that renewal period is up. My guess.....negligible change on way or another, probably flat.

Originally Posted by islandflyer

Not on board with that one:
I am not here to complain, but rather to raise awareness on the drone issues as it affect the AMA and model aviation as a whole. The only exists to represent the interest of its members, and not to pursue directions contrary to the position of the majority of its members. I have spoken to my VP, and I know he voted NO. Next is to spread the word on social media (not just here, but also FG, GSN and RCG).


While I do embrace the technological advances in all domains, I am not embracing the change (of the AMA), and neither are the majority of the AMA members I have spoken with (and there are many!). It is up to us, the members, to make our voices heard in order the change the composition of the leadership in the AMA, and change the very misguided direction it is following as a result of a very close vote last year. The drone issue is no doubt the biggest challenge our Aeromodeling hobby has ever faced, and it is time for AMA members to really get involved with the vote that can rectify this direction.

Yes, it is all about having fun....I just want the fun to continue for a long time, without being affected by overreaching regulation that are likely to come as a result of drone proliferation. The only salvation for us is to make it unequivocally clear that Drone flying is not model aviation, and vice versa.

This will absolutely not change anything for drones: what ever regulation affect them will affect them no matter what.
On the other hand it can change everything for model aviation, by lobbying to be affected but any upcoming drone regulation.

Originally Posted by porcia83

There is no overreaching regulation on this hobby right now, none that have really been presented, and none on the horizon that will have an adverse effect on this hobby. Of course anyone can say "yes, but there might be"...but that could be said about anything. I think your voices have been heard in the districts that have voted no....so not sure what change is going to be affected at the leadership level. Ultimately, time will tell.