init4fun

I brought this post over from a different thread to show that there are two different fields near me , literally less than 1/2 hour drive for each , and one has no club dues requirement . The abandoned public land permission was secured in a town meeting years ago (actually a couple of meetings) whereby the idea of allowing flying on it was proposed , the town board researched allowing model airplane activities and decided GREAT ! just as long as we don't have to carry liability for it . It was one of the board themselves who in their research of the proposal learned that with an AMA card every flyer would cover themselves and so with that simple agreement ; Be AMA and don't be noisy , the field has run for years . No one from the town comes around asking for AMA cards , it's all a bunch of really good and friendly folks who fly there for the greater majority , and it's a really nice place to fly . My other field , the club field , is also a bunch of really great guys and for our $85 a year we do get a paved runway , exclusive use of the land (gotta share the no club field with the few hearty souls who occasionally jog through there) and naturally the place is kept far nicer cause it's not abandoned .

I really do consider myself CRAZY lucky to have two such great situations to fly in . Gotta admit at times to feeling a bit like a bee buzzing around in a jar for flying in the same two places for years on end , but breaking up the flying itself helps alot with that , bring the 3D Extra one day and the vintage biplane the next trip , that sort of thing .

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I have 8 clubs within an hour drive many of which have paved runways, covered pits, power etc.

init4fun

Hi Andy ,

Man , It sure seems you gents in Florida have got it made , RC field wise ! Whenever the subject of flying sites comes up it always seems people from Florida have the best access to great fields that some of the rest of us would love to share in . I have read of your model aviation communities like one called "on top of the world" I think and to live in a place not only model aviation friendly , but model aviation themed , must truly be great indeed .

I'm old . Ain't gonna be moving anywhere too far too soon . But if I did , you can bet one of those model aviation communities would be exactly what I'd be moving to !

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I'm extremely fortunate. Top Gun, Florida Jets, Nall, Perry Swap meet and a number of other events I attend are within a reasonable drive. But our field has two 400 foot paved runways, a large covered pits, bathrooms, kitchen, power, internet and WiFi (along with weather telemetry) and a great bunch of folks to hang out with. All that for 50 bux a year.

OTOW is nice, even the public field there in Ocala is fantastic.

init4fun

Wow ! One of these days I'll have to take a couple of shots of our humble club field , we do have a rubber runway and some fairly good open area to fly in , in the middle of some otherwise fairly forested area , but amenities ? Oh good grief we only just got one of those "porta potty" things a few years ago and there is no power or buildings on the field . We do have some wooden stands to prep the models on , a chain link fence separating the live flightline from the pits with a windsock mounted to it , and that's about it other than one of those big ol metal storage/shipping boxes like you'd see in major ship's ports that keeps the club mower and some gas grills & the like outta the rain . But really and what I cant stress enough , is what a great group of guys we got and to me the people are what matter most . None of that club politics stuff that lots of folks complain of goes on , everybody gets along , and who knows , maybe it is our primitive conditions that helps foster a sense of comradeship among the troops ? When one person's plane ends up in the woods pretty much all the able bodied ones go out lookin for it , and rarely do they come out empty handed . This is my kind of club for sure and if you got that as well as a paradise location I'll say it again , Man you truly ARE blessed !

Cue the Gilligan's Island theme ; "No phone no lights no motor car , as primitive as can be" .......

franklin_m

For what it's worth, therein lies what I believe is a problem the AMA will eventually have to face - the quality of the "customer experience." Club dues aside, for $75 a year where you live, a member get access to four great fields with excellent facilities. That same $75 where I live gets access to a rough grass field. Does population have something to do with it? Of course. But is AMA going to be an organization of only those who are fortunate enough to live in the "Goldilocks zone" so to speak? Areas there there's just enough population to have enough to draw from, but yet not so big that encroachment is an issue.

The MR racing crowd is much less constrained, as they need less real estate and airspace. But that's not a panacea either, for if that group gets big enough, there's lots of incentive to form their own CBO and get their own specialized insurance - no turbines, no large aircraft, relatively constrained flying sites, etc. that drive up costs.

init4fun

I know what your gonna say ; "who are you , and what have you done with init4fun ?"

But you know something , What porcia said here did make sense to me in this way ; If after all these years , the economy of my club has only been able to support having a rubber runway installed , a porta potty , and keep the club mower running , why would it be the responsibility of the AMA (In other words all our fellow AMA members) to pay for improvements to a club that's ran this way 40 or 50 years ? Obviously what we got is what our dues affords to buy in our area and if we wanted more there is nothing keeping us from dipping into our own pockets if it was something that the whole club all felt was worthwhile and , well , what we got is what we got . I will not go too far down the politics road except to say that the whole "Great Redistribution" thing isn't looked on too highly by lots of folks , myself included , so why should it be OK in miniature in the form of the AMA redistributing the member's money to places where us , the natives , haven't endeavored to spend the upgrade money ourselves ? Let's also not forget that permanent facilities would equal more bills for things like ; increased taxes for buildings on the land , power bills and other utilities like maybe water & Natural Gas to heat the building , repairs & general upkeep of the building , are just a few I can think of that would all cause a pretty drastic dues increase to continually support the building . Land in Florida and buildings in Florida cost far less than the equivalent property in Massachusetts is a factor too in why less dues down there buys more , the entire cost of living being highest on both the East and West coasts .

rcmiket

The local clubs and the money they funnel into the AMA is what keeps it alive. If the local clubs fail so does the AMA.
Funny thing happened yesterday I signed up 3 new members to the AMA along to my local club.
Guess who's not redeeming any freebies from the AMA..

Mike

init4fun

Hi Mike ,

I couldn't agree with you more , yes sir clubs are what keeps the AMA alive . But I guess what my above post was trying to get at is , if my area has only so far been able to support what we have , club property wise , wouldn't the one time infusion of AMA money now put us into a higher category of spending that will last long after the one time AMA grant runs out ? And result in higher dues ? 20 years ago we were over 100 members and besides the ones that moved or died the biggest declines in membership always followed dues increases (hey , even the costs of "Gilligan's Island" aren't static) . I do know more leave due to increased dues than lack of amenities , It's right there in the numbers of those who leave each time the dues have gone up .

Not to mention , say for instance there are 150 in your club and 50 in mine , should your 150 (and all the other AMA members too) pay for upgrades to my field that the fifty of us , ourselves , aren't willing to pay for ?

rcmiket

If clubs need help ether to get them off the ground or improve the facility the AMA should be there for them. While they can't just write blank checks they certainly do more financially than they are now. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but when I look at money spent in Muncie vs the money spent in club grants there seems to be huge gap.
Apparently our organization sees no value ( or very little by the amount spent) on the local level.

Mike

init4fun

Mike , I'm glad you brought up Muncie , cause I have an idea concerning that as well ;

Ok , so great , we have Muncie , a world class aeromodeling Mecca , and it's complete . Built . Perfect . What's to say the AMA shouldn't stop spending another dime expanding anything there* or on other than just helping new clubs get started and endeavor instead to build one of the same type national flying sites on each coast ? This way we got the folks on both sides and the middle of the country all covered by a national flying site somewhat easier to get to for someone from Florida or Maine for instance . If there were a national site somewhere in the North or South Carolina area that'd be one heck of a shorter trip than Muncie would be for someone from Florida or Maine and then far more would have easier access to a group paid for national flying site . And of course the same for the California area regarding their best central location for one . And yes of course Muncie would always remain as the "corporate offices" domicile as such business always does need a home base and it has served the role fine all these years .

Three national flying sites as I described VS one ever expanding one , anybody got any comments on which would make better financial sense for the group at large ?

* lets not forget I'm not proposing not maintaining what it is , I'm proposing no more expansion and instead focus on building two new national flying sites minus the offices in place of any future expansion dollars that woulda been spent at Muncie otherwise ......

rcmiket

Just the upkeep alone is a sizable amount. Just look over the financials and you'll see what I mean, Now they are contemplating the purchase of this ( taken from the last EC minutes).

Rantoul, IL – This item is for discussion only. This is where the Indoor Nats will be held. An AMA member came to AMA with a proposal to purchase the Rantoul facility. It is an old hangar with a 98-foot ceiling; would be appropriate for Indoor FF and Indoor RC. The city currently owns it; the sale price is around 250k. Renovations to the facility could be as high as 2mil. It is on an airport and there are no zoning requirements. The ED would like to let staff do more research on the project; it is a historical building and there may be an opportunity for a historical grant; could also negotiate with the city. Maintenance of the site would need to be considered. Once more research is completed, the ED will come back to Council with more information.

I don't even see why this is even being considered..............................

Mike

franklin_m

There's software out there that can geolocate optimal positions for such things. What AMA needs to realize is that w/o relatively quick access to quality facilities, there's little incentive to join a club. Without clubs, need for AMA membership goes down. Large disparities in the "customer experience" make for a business model that crumbles over time - especially in an era where there's abundant park fliers etc. that can be flown close to home.

franklin_m

I missed that. OMG. NO!

Look at proximity to Champaign IL.. Gee, what else is located in Champaign? Hobbico and Horizon to name two. Think that's a coincidence?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Actually it is a coincidence.

And that isn't something I would lend my support to. It's one thing obtaining a property, its another staffing and maintaining it. Just my personal thoughts.

TimJ

I wouldn't be opposed to something similar to this.

TimJ

http://www.scrc-club.com/flyingsite.php

http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/pen...ane-clubs.html


So you have a few options to consider:
• One, move to someplace that you can afford to live that is centralized to best take advantage of your hobby and life style.

• Two, work with your local club board and the flying site they are sharing to bring in pavement or concrete. The AMA have grants, the federal and state government have grants available for airports. Or at minimum bring in equipment to grind up the runway level it out.

• Three, change they type of aircraft you fly.

franklin_m

You're kidding right? Move? So you're advocating spending of $30K plus to move, yanking two kids out of school, paying out of state tuition plus room and board for the one left behind, sell a house, buy a house, overturn a social life, just for a hobby? Absolutely ridiculous suggestion. These costs alone would be prohibitive.

On the put in pavement at existing site and/or grind and smooth. Again, all well and good if the airport owner allows it. And they don't. Not enough traffic at airport to support maintenance and upkeep of fully paved runway, and property isn't large enough to put in parallel paved runway next to approved grass runway. What looks like a lot of property to the north is owned by someone else. Area to left (west) is temporary parking area for transient full scale. Area to right and directly behind existing flight line are hangars and / or a home. Another suggestion that sounds good on paper, but next to impossible in implementation at this site. We could buy land somewhere, but that's cost prohibitive - especially when most land in the area is under class E with floor at 700AGL. Have to go thirty plus miles away to get out from under that.

So the only real option is to change what I fly. Again, more expense for the member. Larger planes, more expensive equipment (engines), more expensive servos, etc. Additionally, the only planes I've seen do well there are vastly overpowered mid wing tail dragger aerobats. If I had an interest in that, maybe. But I don't.

So, I'm apparently less of an AMA member than you. As I place limits on the amount of money I'll spend on a hobby. I guess that makes you better than me. So be it. But, there's a lot more folks out there like me, folks on a budget, folks that don't eat live and breathe the hobby. If AMA needs folks like me to survive, then I argue they need to change. On the other hand, if they want to be an organization that can survive on folks like you, then that's their choice.

Based on yours and BH's comments, it appears that's what the organization wants.

franklin_m

Not sure how much "staffing" is required for better runways at a few flying fields. But hey, I'm just part of the unwashed masses.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Not sure what your response means.

The discussion was about acquiring a site that would have to be maintained and staffed and I indicated I'm against it.

Nothing about clubs or masses in there.

Sport_Pilot

More fields than most places have golf courses!

TimJ

So it is obvious then that your lifestyle will not permit you to change at this time. Not a big deal there.

So the board has sat down and investigated the possibilities? That would be a good step forward.

You seemed to have assumed too much. May be I have as well. I am thinking you are flying a typical 40-60 size bird? You stated that the surface is too rough for your aircraft. With my assumption of that, I would think that hand launch aircraft that belly land is best suited for your field and/Or jumping to 90 size and larger aircraft without wheel pants is better for the area you are launching from. The type and size of aircraft is completely dictated by facilities that are available to you.

I don't ever recall stating ("So, I'm apparently less of an AMA member than you.") or anything remotely close to that. Sounds to me like you're envious or possibly jealous of people whom have taken the time to migrate to larger aircraft at your field?

You and only you have imposed artificial limits on yourself via a budget limit on your hobby. Your budget is allowing you to fly, which is awesome. So with your limits also come with limits as to the type of facility you fly your aircraft at.

How is it the AMA's responsibility to dictate what facilities are available to you? In what way(s) do you believe the AMA needs to change in order to be more friendly to folks in your state of affairs? May be you can elaborate on your current state of affairs, such as the type, mode and size of aircraft you enjoy with your current budget?

Your local club and the AMA as a whole need dedicated people yes. Your local club, hobby shop and the AMA need people with money to help keep the hobby going. But all of the above also need a consistent flow of people to survive. It doesn't matter if a person chooses to fly a drone or a giant scale turbine warbird. All of these type of people choose the form of flight that interest them with the budget limits they set. If more people show up to your local field with flat foamie 3D aircraft, then you know the field will never be mowed. If the majority of your club fly Sailplanes, then you know your field will be a putting green. If the majority fly mid sized 40-60 size aircraft, there is a good possibility the surface will be paved. So on and so on. The AMA does not dictate the type of people whom join or the form of flight they choose. The people do.

franklin_m

While the Henry Ford approach to aeromodeling, namely that "you can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" is an interesting business model. So yes, I can fly belly landers or tail draggers w/o wheel pants. Unfortunately, I have no interest in those. Part of the allure of the hobby is being able to fly a variety of different types, with types matched to one's interests, not just the types they can fly at the local field. So I changed to smaller planes, and now no longer need a club field. Is that a success from AMA's perspective? I argue no. It's not a good long term business model.

No, I'm not jealous so much as concerned about the young folks and young families that we're trying to get involved. If the only way to fly at a field close to home is to get a plane of a type they don't enjoy, or bite the bullet and spend a ton more money on a large airplane of a type they do like, are those folks more or less likely to get involved in the hobby long term? I argue less. Is that ultimately good or bad for AMA? I argue bad.

It's really not so much a budget issue. I've got plenty of funds, but I don't enjoy the hobby that much to devote that much of my money to it, especially when it's just to compensate for conditions at the field close to home. I've often considered turbines, having had the chance to fly a few UAV models on AD, but why? So I can drive half a day to get to a suitable field to fly what I ultimately want to fly? Or get involved, but be limited to only those types and sizes that can handle a rough grass field? No thanks. But, that said, many of the very folks we're trying to capture are on a budget. And the more we raise the financial bar to entry, the less likely they are to enter. And we wonder what's driving that 15 year decline in club membership that Dave Scott spoke about. People are drive by economic factors much more I think than we may want to believe. Not everyone eats, lives, and breathes a single hobby. Make one too much of a load, and folks do other stuff.

In DoD, they have what's called a Basic Facility Requirement (BFR), for each type of unit. So an A6 squadron's BFR is based on the number of aircraft, number of people etc. That drive everything from hangar space to work spaces, to office spaces. A single seat Hornet squadron has a different BFR. I think it would be wise for AMA to establish a BFR type criteria for local club fields. Not saying this is a "must do," but rather something to use as a baseline. Then survey clubs and see how they stack up against that BFR. Then look at the geographic distribution of those clubs, as related to members in the area and as related to total population (potential member pool) in the area. I suspect you'll find areas where there's a lot of "haves" and areas with a lot of "have nots." I also suspect you'll find strong membership in areas close to good facilities, and lower membership rates in areas with poor facilities. That gives you the areas to target for enhancement based on distance / population / existing members. Not to make it better for individual members, but rather to create facilities more likely to draw more NEW members. The go where the data takes you. Some of these existing facilities, with suitable enhancements, might also for the core of the regional facilities discussed above. Proximity to where folks live is key. Not everyone can take a week off to travel to Muncie.

I don't agree. If the AMA wants more members in clubs, then there's got to be an incentive to join a club. I dearly hope AMA is not pursing a way to use law or regulation to do that, but it will ultimately fail, a people don't like to be forced - especially this younger generation. Same for working with towns and parks etc. If AMA convinces them to make membership mandatory, it may succeed for a time, but ultimately it will fail for the same reason. Create reasons people WANT to join - it's got to be a cost / benefit calculation in favor of joining. "Because I have to" will ultimately fail.

As for the local club, by the time we drive that kind of change using that method, I'll be long past dead. Ironic that you mention sailplanes. There was an active group of members that flew them. They left the club a few years back and now fly at a local school - actually the same place I flew last Sunday. As for me, my preferences vary. But with respect to nitro, it's .049 to about .75 max. I'm unusual in the sense that I pride myself on being REALLY good at landings. I do short field, flare, soft field, downwind, wheel, three point, simulated power loss, precision touchdown point, unusual configuration, wing down top rudder, forward slip, front side of power curve, backside of power curve, etc. Why? Watch many of the videos online and where do most folks have trouble (especially jets it seems), and it's landings. For small stuff, the local field it's out of the question unless it's a belly lander. For the .75 and below, forget anything w/ retracts. Field is too rough. So that rules out the warbirds that I'd like to fly. Even much larger ones, if retracts, struggle on the field. So why put several hundred into a kit and months building only to be frustrated when you fly? Sorry, not for me. If I had a paved field closer, completely different story. That would be quite an "incentive" to join.

So I switched to helos. Small ones (Oxy) to big ones (700's). Don't need AMA field for my style of flying (scale). Could I fly at a club field? Sure. But why? I'd spend a good amount of time sitting while the 20cc+ aerobats hog the center of the runway hovering and / or low altitude acro over the runway. I'm not going to risk a $1500+ heli with things that have that kind of unpredictable flight path. So I quit the club and fly elsewhere. And I fly more often.

franklin_m

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the regional facilities. I'm glad to hear you oppose this indoor facility boondoggle.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

Gents, why does the AMA Expo take place in CA and not Muncie?