AMA EC July 2016 minutes
08-21-2016, 04:59 AM
#51
08-21-2016, 05:02 AM
#52
08-21-2016, 05:14 AM
#53
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again I ask were are all these new members...............
Mike
08-21-2016, 05:28 AM
#54
You do bring up a good point on the CD though. Keep that in in the forefront of your mind as you think about prior events involving CD's and promoters that have come back after the fact to deny any responsibility for accidents. I'm pretty sure that has happened, here even. Several times. As someone else has often said, that's a trend. A pattern and practice if you will.
It would be nice of course to have specifics. Not available at this time, but there are enough references to understand they are talking about a specific event, a specific situation, and specific people involved. I'd wager a bet that the EC decided to deal with the issue this way publicly, as if to send a message to those involved as well as others.....to shape up.
It would be nice of course to have specifics. Not available at this time, but there are enough references to understand they are talking about a specific event, a specific situation, and specific people involved. I'd wager a bet that the EC decided to deal with the issue this way publicly, as if to send a message to those involved as well as others.....to shape up.
I know a bit about aviation safety culture, what works, what doesn't, and how to change it. My experience and training tells me that safety culture does not change quickly, even in a squadron when everyone is within arms reach. It's even slower to change when the group is geographically distributed and not well connected.
In a squadron when there's an aviation safety culture issue, what I've typically seen is the squadron commander relieved, sometimes the Executive Officer, the Operations Officer, and even the Safety Officer. They're replaced by "hard core" guys specifically picked to restore operating discipline - only one way to do it - by the book.
Even in this environment, where all the members are "captive" with respect to training, scheduling, and accountability, it typically takes 18 to 24 months to establish the new norm safe for operations.
Give the comment the effect that the AMA is one major incident away from losing turbine privileges, I ask does AMA really have the luxury of time with respect to the culture changes that must take place? I argue no.
There are ways to try and change the culture quickly, but I'll hold those to allow folks to digest the above.
08-21-2016, 06:02 AM
#55
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Were not hurting for members and every new one we get is by the clubs presence at the LHS , our events and PR in the community. Not one of our new members is from BB or other fishing expeditions. Our FPV and multi-rotor members were existing AMA members.
Again I ask were are all these new members...............
Mike
Again I ask were are all these new members...............
Mike
But now the goalpost has moved. You're now asking about all these new members from BB or " fishing expeditions". If you can't see them at your club, they must not be real? Doubling down, really.
Are we seeing the start of a membership "truther" movement?
08-21-2016, 06:06 AM
#56
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
An apparent issue with rule compliance. Reluctance of members to police each other's operating discipline. And report of a CD that fails to perform a fundamental function in the safety program - only allowing people to fly who are properly qualified. The observation I make is the language and description of events points to a safety culture problem in a specific community.
I know a bit about aviation safety culture, what works, what doesn't, and how to change it. My experience and training tells me that safety culture does not change quickly, even in a squadron when everyone is within arms reach. It's even slower to change when the group is geographically distributed and not well connected.
In a squadron when there's an aviation safety culture issue, what I've typically seen is the squadron commander relieved, sometimes the Executive Officer, the Operations Officer, and even the Safety Officer. They're replaced by "hard core" guys specifically picked to restore operating discipline - only one way to do it - by the book.
Even in this environment, where all the members are "captive" with respect to training, scheduling, and accountability, it typically takes 18 to 24 months to establish the new norm safe for operations.
Give the comment the effect that the AMA is one major incident away from losing turbine privileges, I ask does AMA really have the luxury of time with respect to the culture changes that must take place? I argue no.
There are ways to try and change the culture quickly, but I'll hold those to allow folks to digest the above.
I know a bit about aviation safety culture, what works, what doesn't, and how to change it. My experience and training tells me that safety culture does not change quickly, even in a squadron when everyone is within arms reach. It's even slower to change when the group is geographically distributed and not well connected.
In a squadron when there's an aviation safety culture issue, what I've typically seen is the squadron commander relieved, sometimes the Executive Officer, the Operations Officer, and even the Safety Officer. They're replaced by "hard core" guys specifically picked to restore operating discipline - only one way to do it - by the book.
Even in this environment, where all the members are "captive" with respect to training, scheduling, and accountability, it typically takes 18 to 24 months to establish the new norm safe for operations.
Give the comment the effect that the AMA is one major incident away from losing turbine privileges, I ask does AMA really have the luxury of time with respect to the culture changes that must take place? I argue no.
There are ways to try and change the culture quickly, but I'll hold those to allow folks to digest the above.
08-21-2016, 06:06 AM
#57
Porcia,
I will not engage with your fuzzy logic and spin tactics for the sake of the other members here.
Your incessant desire to be "right" and the tactics you employ to do so are absolutely destructive to this community, yet you strut around here with your air of superiority. As an AMA Leader Member you should be ashamed.
Good-bye, Mr. Pigeon
Astro
I will not engage with your fuzzy logic and spin tactics for the sake of the other members here.
Your incessant desire to be "right" and the tactics you employ to do so are absolutely destructive to this community, yet you strut around here with your air of superiority. As an AMA Leader Member you should be ashamed.
Good-bye, Mr. Pigeon
Astro
08-21-2016, 06:15 AM
#58
Agree overall. But as folks are fond of saying here though, perhaps it's time to look at the those rules. If the rules at present don't have enough teeth in them to deal with behavioral/operational issues, perhaps something more aggressive could be done. I think the report was intentionally vague on names, and I'm pretty sure I know the reason why. But ya, if someone keeps doing something they should be doing, and has been advised of that already, buh bye!
Here's another analogy (but you have a hard time with analogy, so I am sure you will try and say it is a bad one!):
Guy goes into a bar. Has multiple drinks (heck, it IS happy hour after all!). Guy gets DUI on his way home. Do we need to change the rules because they didn't prevent this guy from driving under the influence? NO!
Astro
08-21-2016, 06:16 AM
#59
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Porcia,
I will not engage with your fuzzy logic and spin tactics for the sake of the other members here.
Your incessant desire to be "right" and the tactics you employ to do so are absolutely destructive to this community, yet you strut around here with your air of superiority. As an AMA Leader Member you should be ashamed.
Good-bye, Mr. Pigeon
Astro
I will not engage with your fuzzy logic and spin tactics for the sake of the other members here.
Your incessant desire to be "right" and the tactics you employ to do so are absolutely destructive to this community, yet you strut around here with your air of superiority. As an AMA Leader Member you should be ashamed.
Good-bye, Mr. Pigeon
Astro
The truth, and/or another perspective is always difficult for some to see. It seems to be popular to have a single perspective and agree with everyone, sorry that doesn't happen. You are yet another in a long line of folks who rather than discuss the issues get frustrated and go to the personal attacks, over and over. You might want to take Ken or Mikes advice and just use the ignore function, rather than continuing to be frustrated, and take the thread off topic with yet more personal attacks.
Got any more thoughts on the minutes. Mike noted there were lots of interesting things there, I agree. The jet thing is more interesting every time I look at it.
08-21-2016, 06:26 AM
#60
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here is a perfect example of your fuzzy logic. The rules were not followed in this situation. The people (either operators' CD's or both) DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES and you are calling the rules into question? Simply makes no sense!
Here's another analogy (but you have a hard time with analogy, so I am sure you will try and say it is a bad one!):
Guy goes into a bar. Has multiple drinks (heck, it IS happy hour after all!). Guy gets DUI on his way home. Do we need to change the rules because they didn't prevent this guy from driving under the influence? NO!
Astro
Here's another analogy (but you have a hard time with analogy, so I am sure you will try and say it is a bad one!):
Guy goes into a bar. Has multiple drinks (heck, it IS happy hour after all!). Guy gets DUI on his way home. Do we need to change the rules because they didn't prevent this guy from driving under the influence? NO!
Astro
Yes, your analogy is again a poor one. Rather than create a fictitious one, let's discuss a specific one (if we can do so without personal attacks and petty antics).
Recently certain folks have been outraged, incensed if you will about only 3 candidates being nominated for the presidency. Oh the unfairness of it all. But wait, it got worse. Some members of the nominating committee were able to vote about who was nominated. You recall that right? Now, a few folks here that complained the most also thought the nominees nominated themselves, and that wasn't true of course, but that didn't stop them from continuing that rumor. Eventually, that was corrected. But, back on issue. The folks ranted and raved about the GOB network, and how poorly crafted the bylaws were, and that the rules needed to be changed. Imagine that, they didn't get what they wanted (Tiano on the ballot) so they wanted to change the rules. Weren't you one of those folks that wanted the rules changed, even if nothing was done that broke the rules?
By the way, I agree with you 100% that if those involved did not follow clearly established rules, it's them who should change, not the rules. But shouldn't that logic hold through on the nomination bylaws? That would seem, logical right?
08-21-2016, 06:36 AM
#61
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
An apparent issue with rule compliance. Reluctance of members to police each other's operating discipline. And report of a CD that fails to perform a fundamental function in the safety program - only allowing people to fly who are properly qualified. The observation I make is the language and description of events points to a safety culture problem in a specific community.
I know a bit about aviation safety culture, what works, what doesn't, and how to change it. My experience and training tells me that safety culture does not change quickly, even in a squadron when everyone is within arms reach. It's even slower to change when the group is geographically distributed and not well connected.
In a squadron when there's an aviation safety culture issue, what I've typically seen is the squadron commander relieved, sometimes the Executive Officer, the Operations Officer, and even the Safety Officer. They're replaced by "hard core" guys specifically picked to restore operating discipline - only one way to do it - by the book.
Even in this environment, where all the members are "captive" with respect to training, scheduling, and accountability, it typically takes 18 to 24 months to establish the new norm safe for operations.
Give the comment the effect that the AMA is one major incident away from losing turbine privileges, I ask does AMA really have the luxury of time with respect to the culture changes that must take place? I argue no.
There are ways to try and change the culture quickly, but I'll hold those to allow folks to digest the above.
I know a bit about aviation safety culture, what works, what doesn't, and how to change it. My experience and training tells me that safety culture does not change quickly, even in a squadron when everyone is within arms reach. It's even slower to change when the group is geographically distributed and not well connected.
In a squadron when there's an aviation safety culture issue, what I've typically seen is the squadron commander relieved, sometimes the Executive Officer, the Operations Officer, and even the Safety Officer. They're replaced by "hard core" guys specifically picked to restore operating discipline - only one way to do it - by the book.
Even in this environment, where all the members are "captive" with respect to training, scheduling, and accountability, it typically takes 18 to 24 months to establish the new norm safe for operations.
Give the comment the effect that the AMA is one major incident away from losing turbine privileges, I ask does AMA really have the luxury of time with respect to the culture changes that must take place? I argue no.
There are ways to try and change the culture quickly, but I'll hold those to allow folks to digest the above.
08-21-2016, 06:47 AM
#62
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
08-21-2016, 06:50 AM
#63
Wait, are you back again? I won't engage....mr pidgeon, goodbye etc etc......but then this? That didn't take long, LOL.
Yes, your analogy is again a poor one. Rather than create a fictitious one, let's discuss a specific one (if we can do so without personal attacks and petty antics).
Recently certain folks have been outraged, incensed if you will about only 3 candidates being nominated for the presidency. Oh the unfairness of it all. But wait, it got worse. Some members of the nominating committee were able to vote about who was nominated. You recall that right? Now, a few folks here that complained the most also thought the nominees nominated themselves, and that wasn't true of course, but that didn't stop them from continuing that rumor. Eventually, that was corrected. But, back on issue. The folks ranted and raved about the GOB network, and how poorly crafted the bylaws were, and that the rules needed to be changed. Imagine that, they didn't get what they wanted (Tiano on the ballot) so they wanted to change the rules. Weren't you one of those folks that wanted the rules changed, even if nothing was done that broke the rules?
By the way, I agree with you 100% that if those involved did not follow clearly established rules, it's them who should change, not the rules. But shouldn't that logic hold through on the nomination bylaws? That would seem, logical right?
Yes, your analogy is again a poor one. Rather than create a fictitious one, let's discuss a specific one (if we can do so without personal attacks and petty antics).
Recently certain folks have been outraged, incensed if you will about only 3 candidates being nominated for the presidency. Oh the unfairness of it all. But wait, it got worse. Some members of the nominating committee were able to vote about who was nominated. You recall that right? Now, a few folks here that complained the most also thought the nominees nominated themselves, and that wasn't true of course, but that didn't stop them from continuing that rumor. Eventually, that was corrected. But, back on issue. The folks ranted and raved about the GOB network, and how poorly crafted the bylaws were, and that the rules needed to be changed. Imagine that, they didn't get what they wanted (Tiano on the ballot) so they wanted to change the rules. Weren't you one of those folks that wanted the rules changed, even if nothing was done that broke the rules?
By the way, I agree with you 100% that if those involved did not follow clearly established rules, it's them who should change, not the rules. But shouldn't that logic hold through on the nomination bylaws? That would seem, logical right?
This is a perfect example of your fuzzy logic and spin. Two completely different situations! In one, the rules WERE broken and some are calling for a review of the rules (the rules were not the issue, the offenders were). In the other, the rules were NOT broken, yet some of the membership were displeased with the outcome. You are trying to pinpoint it to the fact they were displeased that a certain candidate was not included. For me, it was not that a certain person was not included on the official ballot, it was that someone (anyone) that was willing to throw their name in the hat and volunteer to serve the membership was not allowed to have an equal opportunity to do so. We have all agreed that we have an apathetic membership, yet when someone WANTS to become involved, they can be excluded? (no wonder we have an apathetic membership!?). This is a perfect example of how/when to work within the rules to make a change that will only work to make for a better organization. Really nothing wrong, dark or bad about that, yet you choose to portray it as, "anti-AMA".
Astro
08-21-2016, 06:51 AM
#64
We set up a track for racing with the gates, and obstacles etc (lower left hand of pic). Got a lot of use the first few months, We already had a heli area there, so why not. Curiously though, while still used, it's not as popular. Why? Because many of the MR guys ended up getting fixed wing aircraft (more than half actually), and are now addicted to that too. They came into the club as MR only, and within months were also flying fixed wing. Just another example of the benefits of the AMA opening up membership to ALL.....because many members are into ALL things RC.
Cool, nice layout! Where is the secret lodge?
08-21-2016, 07:13 AM
#66
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You are preaching to the choir. Yes, there were some here that were crying foul, if you will, about the nomination process (not me).
This is a perfect example of your fuzzy logic and spin. Two completely different situations! In one, the rules WERE broken and some are calling for a review of the rules (the rules were not the issue, the offenders were). In the other, the rules were NOT broken, yet some of the membership were displeased with the outcome. You are trying to pinpoint it to the fact they were displeased that a certain candidate was not included. For me, it was not that a certain person was not included on the official ballot, it was that someone (anyone) that was willing to throw their name in the hat and volunteer to serve the membership was not allowed to have an equal opportunity to do so. We have all agreed that we have an apathetic membership, yet when someone WANTS to become involved, they can be excluded? (no wonder we have an apathetic membership!?). This is a perfect example of how/when to work within the rules to make a change that will only work to make for a better organization. Really nothing wrong, dark or bad about that, yet you choose to portray it as, "anti-AMA".
Astro
This is a perfect example of your fuzzy logic and spin. Two completely different situations! In one, the rules WERE broken and some are calling for a review of the rules (the rules were not the issue, the offenders were). In the other, the rules were NOT broken, yet some of the membership were displeased with the outcome. You are trying to pinpoint it to the fact they were displeased that a certain candidate was not included. For me, it was not that a certain person was not included on the official ballot, it was that someone (anyone) that was willing to throw their name in the hat and volunteer to serve the membership was not allowed to have an equal opportunity to do so. We have all agreed that we have an apathetic membership, yet when someone WANTS to become involved, they can be excluded? (no wonder we have an apathetic membership!?). This is a perfect example of how/when to work within the rules to make a change that will only work to make for a better organization. Really nothing wrong, dark or bad about that, yet you choose to portray it as, "anti-AMA".
Astro
As for the ballots, well, I think you realize how unworkable it would be to just open that up to anyone who wanted to be involved. That would be completely impractical. If they want to do more, they have to start somewhere, build up the credentials to warrant serious consideration for the position. That's the process. But yes, if folks want that process changed, they need to do more than just complain about it here. Becoming a leader member is just one of those steps. That is not a difficult or time consuming process either. And I'll again reference back to the EC meeting notes where we all get a chance to see what is discussed, what motions are being offered and voted on, and most importantly how each party voted. The EC has changed almost every year, the nominating process didn't seem to come up as a point of contention by any member...as far back as I can see.
Also, might be a fair point to bring up. The District V spot came open months ago. Wouldn't that seem to be a good place for Tiano to have started? Wasn't he already an associate VP in that district to begin with? Why not start there and do a stint as a DVP rather than trying to come in from "the outside" to take the role as president? He's been asked some questions he's been unable to answer noting he isn't familiar with the current thoughts/processes at the AMA now. From purely a tactical position, why not get on the EC as a DVP (of a huge and very active district I might add), attend the open and executive meetings to get a full and thorough understanding of whats going on, then be that much more prepared for the presidency?
08-21-2016, 07:19 AM
#67
Also, might be a fair point to bring up. The District V spot came open months ago. Wouldn't that seem to be a good place for Tiano to have started? Wasn't he already an associate VP in that district to begin with? Why not start there and do a stint as a DVP rather than trying to come in from "the outside" to take the role as president? He's been asked some questions he's been unable to answer noting he isn't familiar with the current thoughts/processes at the AMA now. From purely a tactical position, why not get on the EC as a DVP (of a huge and very active district I might add), attend the open and executive meetings to get a full and thorough understanding of whats going on, then be that much more prepared for the presidency?
I mean, as President you don't even get a vote on motions unless there's a tie.
08-21-2016, 07:38 AM
#68
As for the ballots, well, I think you realize how unworkable it would be to just open that up to anyone who wanted to be involved.
Becoming a leader member is just one of those steps.
Also, might be a fair point to bring up. The District V spot came open months ago. Wouldn't that seem to be a good place for Tiano to have started?
Why not start there and do a stint as a DVP rather than trying to come in from "the outside" to take the role as president?
He's been asked some questions he's been unable to answer noting he isn't familiar with the current thoughts/processes at the AMA now.
From purely a tactical position, why not get on the EC as a DVP (of a huge and very active district I might add), attend the open and executive meetings to get a full and thorough understanding of whats going on, then be that much more prepared for the presidency?
Astro
08-21-2016, 08:57 AM
#69
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[h=4]6. Executive Director’s Report[/h]• Best Buy Program: revenue generated through end of February was $62,092; the program has become profitable for us although not what we had hoped. Still working with them to make improvements.
08-21-2016, 09:11 AM
#71
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Because it is completely irrelevant. One does not need to be a LM or CD to be involved. Laughable! You do not answer the questions asked of you, why should anyone answer yours, only to be spun into another of your diatribes?
UMMMMM.....NO? Let's take this years' real-life situation and use it as an example, shall we? FOUR candidates vs. THREE. OUTRAGEOUS! COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL! That is a laugh!!
While I applaud those who strive for more, it is certainly NOT necessary, nor an essential step to becoming more involved. furthermore, it is certainly not a guarantee that they will be of any positive influence to our organization.
Why ask me? Why ask anyone but Frank himself? It is certainly not a prerequisite for candidacy, Frank met all those already, is that not enough?
Careful, you are showing your true colors here. An' "outsider"? Again, laughable, he has been a member longer than most here! Maybe we all need to know the' "secret handshake" before we are qualified? Your agenda is becoming more transparent all the time!!
Ooh, let's tar and feather him! OR....we could just vote for someone else....
That would be a much better question for Frank.
Astro
UMMMMM.....NO? Let's take this years' real-life situation and use it as an example, shall we? FOUR candidates vs. THREE. OUTRAGEOUS! COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL! That is a laugh!!
While I applaud those who strive for more, it is certainly NOT necessary, nor an essential step to becoming more involved. furthermore, it is certainly not a guarantee that they will be of any positive influence to our organization.
Why ask me? Why ask anyone but Frank himself? It is certainly not a prerequisite for candidacy, Frank met all those already, is that not enough?
Careful, you are showing your true colors here. An' "outsider"? Again, laughable, he has been a member longer than most here! Maybe we all need to know the' "secret handshake" before we are qualified? Your agenda is becoming more transparent all the time!!
Ooh, let's tar and feather him! OR....we could just vote for someone else....
That would be a much better question for Frank.
Astro
Before more twists and spin starts I just thought I'd add I've already said I think it's great that he's running it's admirable that someone is taking more steps to be involved
Edit...I think he was also the jet SIG president as well, and quit that post early, not 100 sure on that though
08-21-2016, 09:17 AM
#72
You've made many references to your experience in the military and in civilian life, and your focus on safety. Last year you were involved in a thread regarding a jet crash that resulted in the jet spewing jet fuel like a blowtorch and seriously injuring two people. I don't recall you ever getting an answer to your questions. Recently you've been afforded an opportunity to question the CD/Promoter/Host of that event to what happened, and better yet address those specific issues from the meeting notes relating to turbine jets, safety, not complying with rules, and most importantly, not accepting responsibility. Rather than ask any questions regarding that, your question to him focused on why Muncie only give so much by way of grants to clubs, and keeps so much money for itself. Seems odd that this is something that you wouldn't want to specifically address with him, rather the focus is about money?
Maybe they should not have ignored the email a year ago.
Last edited by franklin_m; 08-21-2016 at 09:28 AM.
08-21-2016, 09:20 AM
#73
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Right. Another interesting point too that hasn't been discussed. We now have two candidates that are running on the " let's go back to the traditional AMA platform " ie: Drones bad. Can't help but wonder if these two will siphon off votes amongst themselves and effectively negate that chance that either will have a chance at winning. meanwhile the race really ends up being decided by the people who really don't have an issue with the direction the AMA has gone over the past five years, ie the majority. Then it just comes down to a name recognition battle between Williams and Hanson.
08-21-2016, 09:24 AM
#74
I was not aware that you were the moderator of questions.
08-21-2016, 09:25 AM
#75
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
With respect to what I saw were leading indicators of the problem they now face, the questions were directed to the EVP, as a safety culture issue is not confined to a single event but rather this entire type of operation. Those questions / suggestions were ignored. And they're now they can't ignore a safety culture issue, one they could have started changing a year ago. Now they must try to change a culture in an environment where they're one significant event away from losing turbines and large aircraft.
Maybe they should not have ignored the email a year ago.
Maybe they should not have ignored the email a year ago.
But still, wouldn't this has been a great question to ask Tiano instead of how much money month the AMA keeps versus how much they give out to clubs? It would seem he is deeply invested in the giant scale and turbine culture, probably more than any other person that deals with this issue. Is it too difficult a question to ask of him as he would not only be responsible for normal safety operations within the AMA but also within this SIG.