View Poll Results: Should the AMA build a regional flying site on each coast ?
Yes , the AMA should build the regional flying sites
27
62.79%
NO , the AMA should not build them and keep all property aquisitions to Illinois only
16
37.21%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll
Should the AMA consider building two regional flying sites , one on each coast ?
10-03-2016, 05:03 AM
#51
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
No alternative solution? You must have missed posts 20, 27, and 33 in this same thread. So as to not burden you with going back and reading them. I'll summarize:
1. Identify lat/longs around the country that capture the most existing AMA members as recorded by their mailing addresses. Adjust the radius until you get a reasonable number of options (proximity to pool of current members)
2. Run the same analysis for general population, perhaps using zip codes (proximity to pool of possible members)
3. For each lat/long identified, cross reference with existing club locations.
4. Evaluate the existing club locations for airspace issues (seems logical to prefer locations where class E starts at 1200 AGL), encroachment, noise, environmental, access, potential for expansion (parking, camping), utilities, and facilities.
5.Then establish a minimum facility standard.
6. Determine cost to bring each up to that standard.
7. Determine upkeep cost for the enhanced facilities
8. Prioritize.
9. Enter into negotiations w/ local clubs to establish cost / responsibility sharing relationship.
10. Fund based on priorities and budget limits.
1. Identify lat/longs around the country that capture the most existing AMA members as recorded by their mailing addresses. Adjust the radius until you get a reasonable number of options (proximity to pool of current members)
2. Run the same analysis for general population, perhaps using zip codes (proximity to pool of possible members)
3. For each lat/long identified, cross reference with existing club locations.
4. Evaluate the existing club locations for airspace issues (seems logical to prefer locations where class E starts at 1200 AGL), encroachment, noise, environmental, access, potential for expansion (parking, camping), utilities, and facilities.
5.Then establish a minimum facility standard.
6. Determine cost to bring each up to that standard.
7. Determine upkeep cost for the enhanced facilities
8. Prioritize.
9. Enter into negotiations w/ local clubs to establish cost / responsibility sharing relationship.
10. Fund based on priorities and budget limits.
But back to all those costs and expenses for 6-8 sites. Lots of costs and expenses. Again, you have gone on and on about the cost to maintain Muncie, yet suddenly you're fine with even more money being spent (where is all this money coming from again?) for sites across the country. Odd that nobody has stopped to think about the bureaucracy involved in these ideas, but I guess when you're spending AMA money it's easy to overlook that.
Absent in all of these evaluations is the other costs involved...who is doing all this analysis and evaluation? AMA staff of course. Are they currently staffed up to do this, or should they start hiring staff as it seems like this would be both a labor and time intensive process. The most probable answer is no, they are not. Nor should they be.
At best, this is something that the DVP's, AVPs, and Leader members could and should do. In fact, if they are in tune with their districts, they would already know what fields could handle this type of operation. Of course, that's taking into the consideration the club would even want to deal with this, many would not. Oh, also, there is already a process in place for something like this. DVPs have budgets that will allow them to "sponsor" or help out clubs who are able to host events. Seems to be working well already.
10-03-2016, 05:19 AM
#52
I haven't answered the pole because I think there are other choices.
I'd like to know why folks feel there is a need for regional AMA sites in the first place.
The purpose behind Muncie was to have a stable national flying site to hold the national level competitions, driven by the US Navy backing out of supporting modeling by letting the AMA use NAS's. Ironic that one of you suggested using an old NAS. So, what will be the purpose of the regional sites, if you still have to travel to ONE location in the US to compete for the national titles?
Another idea floated here is how do you locate them? How many competitive West coast flyers don't go to the nationals just because of the drive? Do we locate them on membership population?
Would we see more completion and more records if the nationals rotated between these multiple fixed sites? The IPMS plastic static modelers currently operate like this. Local clubs sponsor the national convention and it is rotated east, west, central every couple of years.
Just some thoughts
I'd like to know why folks feel there is a need for regional AMA sites in the first place.
The purpose behind Muncie was to have a stable national flying site to hold the national level competitions, driven by the US Navy backing out of supporting modeling by letting the AMA use NAS's. Ironic that one of you suggested using an old NAS. So, what will be the purpose of the regional sites, if you still have to travel to ONE location in the US to compete for the national titles?
Another idea floated here is how do you locate them? How many competitive West coast flyers don't go to the nationals just because of the drive? Do we locate them on membership population?
Would we see more completion and more records if the nationals rotated between these multiple fixed sites? The IPMS plastic static modelers currently operate like this. Local clubs sponsor the national convention and it is rotated east, west, central every couple of years.
Just some thoughts
10-03-2016, 05:21 AM
#53
Intolerance to a contrary opinion...not surprising. I don't see any "attacks" in the thread, just a Trump like attempt to make it so. I voiced my opinion, which is contrary to yours, so in your mind that is always an attack. It's Pavlovian at this point. Also, I didn't say anyone is either right or wrong on their opinion...that was someone else noting a "wrong opinion/perspective). The idea of multiple flying sites is impractical as presented, and not fully supported with either funding, or any logistical means. That's my opinion/perspective, which I believe I'm able to have.....
Pretty shallow opinion, when one can not support it.
Astro
10-03-2016, 05:34 AM
#54
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Perhaps, but as they grow bigger they also have increased incentive to break from AMA and form their own CBO. They could get a break on insurance if nothing else, for they don't have large drones, turbine drones, don't fly at high altitude, etc. Furthermore, their operational need for flying spaces is very different, and a traditional AMA club field is not necessarily the best option for them.
So, yes, they may be the future. So too could that be a future where they suddenly leave AMA suddenly, creating all sorts of cash flow and other issues.
So, yes, they may be the future. So too could that be a future where they suddenly leave AMA suddenly, creating all sorts of cash flow and other issues.
So now we see yet another doom and gloom scenario, the MR/Drone users suddenly leaving the AMA and causing all types of cash flow and other "issues". Gotta chuckle at that one considering Mike says there hasn't been a single person who joined the AMA who flies these. All of 0.0 people leaving would mean a 0.0 hit on the bottom line right? The reality is there is likely to be another CBO, and it will probably be related largely to MR/Drone users. I've been mentioning that for over a year. Drone Users Group. But so what? There isn't going to be some wholesale exodus of people. If you (or others) spend any time at a field that allows MR/Drone, you'll see that many of these folks are also flying fixed wing aircraft as well. Guess we would have to see if this new CBO would cover fixed wing as well. Another CBO might be a good thing, I'm a huge fan of competition.
10-03-2016, 05:38 AM
#55
Fair enough, I guess I should have been more clear and noted "reasonable alternative". I guess any idea is technically an "alternative". There's a lot of "evaluate" in your suggestions, but the one thing that sticks out is cost. Repeatedly. Astro noted a cost increase in dues that he would accept. I can't help but think back to the last change in dues, and the outrage and indignation that followed that slight increase after what, 12 years? Imagine the outrage of yet another increase, and this time to cover fields that once again won't cover everyone, just the lucky ones in denser populations. Guess the folks in the outlying area are out of luck. I guess they can travel to the fields if "it's a big deal" to them.
But back to all those costs and expenses for 6-8 sites. Lots of costs and expenses. Again, you have gone on and on about the cost to maintain Muncie, yet suddenly you're fine with even more money being spent (where is all this money coming from again?) for sites across the country. Odd that nobody has stopped to think about the bureaucracy involved in these ideas, but I guess when you're spending AMA money it's easy to overlook that.
Absent in all of these evaluations is the other costs involved...who is doing all this analysis and evaluation? AMA staff of course. Are they currently staffed up to do this, or should they start hiring staff as it seems like this would be both a labor and time intensive process. The most probable answer is no, they are not. Nor should they be.
At best, this is something that the DVP's, AVPs, and Leader members could and should do. In fact, if they are in tune with their districts, they would already know what fields could handle this type of operation. Of course, that's taking into the consideration the club would even want to deal with this, many would not. Oh, also, there is already a process in place for something like this. DVPs have budgets that will allow them to "sponsor" or help out clubs who are able to host events. Seems to be working well already.
But back to all those costs and expenses for 6-8 sites. Lots of costs and expenses. Again, you have gone on and on about the cost to maintain Muncie, yet suddenly you're fine with even more money being spent (where is all this money coming from again?) for sites across the country. Odd that nobody has stopped to think about the bureaucracy involved in these ideas, but I guess when you're spending AMA money it's easy to overlook that.
Absent in all of these evaluations is the other costs involved...who is doing all this analysis and evaluation? AMA staff of course. Are they currently staffed up to do this, or should they start hiring staff as it seems like this would be both a labor and time intensive process. The most probable answer is no, they are not. Nor should they be.
At best, this is something that the DVP's, AVPs, and Leader members could and should do. In fact, if they are in tune with their districts, they would already know what fields could handle this type of operation. Of course, that's taking into the consideration the club would even want to deal with this, many would not. Oh, also, there is already a process in place for something like this. DVPs have budgets that will allow them to "sponsor" or help out clubs who are able to host events. Seems to be working well already.
As for the costs, yes, there will be costs. But unlike the last dues increase, where people are paying more for the same, this would be a case where people are paying more to get more. What a concept eh? And yes, it does take analysis. The same sort of analysis they must have done before looking at this proposed indoor site. The same sort of analysis that drove the building of a museum in Reston, then less than ten years later abandoning the site and moving half way across the country. So if they don't have capacity to do analysis before big decisions like this, what are they using? A Ouija board?
A regional approach to a national problem is the wrong way to go about this. It is an idea to put better facilities closer to where members live, and where potential members live, rather than expecting folks to make treks to the model airplane mecca to enjoy good facilities.
You have a nice field. Of course you don't support it. But I suspect there's many more members that don't have easy access to such facilities. I believe it would incentivize both AMA and club membership - and perhaps a way to stem that multi year decline in club membership that Dave Scott spoke about.
10-03-2016, 05:44 AM
#56
I didn't say they are the future, I said they are part of the future. Mike has been the one mocking their relevance and/or their involvement in the hobby. If you are he can point to one other form of flight that has come along in the past 20 years that has energized the hobby, but all means....point it out. Every new means of flying can be part of the future of the hobby, consider nitro, gas, electric, heli, giant scale, turbine etc etc. They all came after free flight.
So now we see yet another doom and gloom scenario, the MR/Drone users suddenly leaving the AMA and causing all types of cash flow and other "issues". Gotta chuckle at that one considering Mike says there hasn't been a single person who joined the AMA who flies these. All of 0.0 people leaving would mean a 0.0 hit on the bottom line right? The reality is there is likely to be another CBO, and it will probably be related largely to MR/Drone users. I've been mentioning that for over a year. Drone Users Group. But so what? There isn't going to be some wholesale exodus of people. If you (or others) spend any time at a field that allows MR/Drone, you'll see that many of these folks are also flying fixed wing aircraft as well. Guess we would have to see if this new CBO would cover fixed wing as well. Another CBO might be a good thing, I'm a huge fan of competition.
So now we see yet another doom and gloom scenario, the MR/Drone users suddenly leaving the AMA and causing all types of cash flow and other "issues". Gotta chuckle at that one considering Mike says there hasn't been a single person who joined the AMA who flies these. All of 0.0 people leaving would mean a 0.0 hit on the bottom line right? The reality is there is likely to be another CBO, and it will probably be related largely to MR/Drone users. I've been mentioning that for over a year. Drone Users Group. But so what? There isn't going to be some wholesale exodus of people. If you (or others) spend any time at a field that allows MR/Drone, you'll see that many of these folks are also flying fixed wing aircraft as well. Guess we would have to see if this new CBO would cover fixed wing as well. Another CBO might be a good thing, I'm a huge fan of competition.
It makes abundant sense from the MR perspective to split off at some point. They operate much differently than do FW and RW. Generally I'd say, their racing can be confined to what would be just the runway environment at a typical field - they don't need the extra overfly space. Don't "need" to go above 400 feet. Don't "need" to pay more to insure jets, heavy aircraft, etc. Furthermore, if they want attendance at events, they need to set up courses close to people - not at typical AMA fields which are out and away from possible spectators.
My point is that I'm not confident that anyone has thought to the logical conclusion of this effort and have just assumed, that more MRs means more revenue. Maybe true, for a time, but what happens in ten years if they grow to the numbers some have put forth?
10-03-2016, 05:45 AM
#57
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
More attacks and characterizations of perspective and opinion...par for the course. I didn't just say it's not feasible, I pointed out the obvious reasons why, as well as the glaring hypocrisy and complete about face from two or three people who have done nothing but complain about dues, and maintenance and upkeep of Muncie. Suddenly the idea of a field close to them has not only alleviated concerns about expenses, but now we see a proposed raising of dues to support this endeavor. My takeaway from that is that if they get something out of it, a personal benefit, then it's o/k for dues to be increased and the AMA to spend money. But it's bad when they can't get something out of it. Of course, everyone can go to Muncie and enjoy the benefits of membership, but it's a personal choice that they don't, even when they are close by. I asked before, but no answer was offered...if one isn't drawn to the best flying site in the country (or at least one of the best), that also houses the best model aviation museum in the world, what again is the draw to a regional field?
10-03-2016, 06:00 AM
#58
10-03-2016, 06:04 AM
#59
And yes, there's a big difference from paying more to get the same and paying more to get more.
10-03-2016, 06:12 AM
#60
I haven't answered the pole because I think there are other choices.
I'd like to know why folks feel there is a need for regional AMA sites in the first place.
The purpose behind Muncie was to have a stable national flying site to hold the national level competitions, driven by the US Navy backing out of supporting modeling by letting the AMA use NAS's. Ironic that one of you suggested using an old NAS. So, what will be the purpose of the regional sites, if you still have to travel to ONE location in the US to compete for the national titles?
Another idea floated here is how do you locate them? How many competitive West coast flyers don't go to the nationals just because of the drive? Do we locate them on membership population?
Would we see more completion and more records if the nationals rotated between these multiple fixed sites? The IPMS plastic static modelers currently operate like this. Local clubs sponsor the national convention and it is rotated east, west, central every couple of years.
Just some thoughts
I'd like to know why folks feel there is a need for regional AMA sites in the first place.
The purpose behind Muncie was to have a stable national flying site to hold the national level competitions, driven by the US Navy backing out of supporting modeling by letting the AMA use NAS's. Ironic that one of you suggested using an old NAS. So, what will be the purpose of the regional sites, if you still have to travel to ONE location in the US to compete for the national titles?
Another idea floated here is how do you locate them? How many competitive West coast flyers don't go to the nationals just because of the drive? Do we locate them on membership population?
Would we see more completion and more records if the nationals rotated between these multiple fixed sites? The IPMS plastic static modelers currently operate like this. Local clubs sponsor the national convention and it is rotated east, west, central every couple of years.
Just some thoughts
The premise is not that that they will be exclusively competition based, but rather generally better fields closer to where members actually live (and where there are more potential members). Better fields closer to home will draw more people than one great field in the middle of the country.
As for location, above I proposed using geolocation based on proximity to existing members and population centers (potential members). Say you tell the software to find locations where you capture the maximum number of members in a three hour drive. Ok, maybe that produces 20 sites (too many to afford). So you change it to 4 hours. That produces ten. Then you look at proximity of the center of these circles to existing fields. See what it would take to bring them up to a reasonable standard that appeals to more people / would support regional events, if not the NATS on a rotating basis. Airspace, parking, logistics, environmental, utilities, etc. would all factor. An added bonus would be those sites close to other tourist draws, so there's something to do for family (who may not eat live and breathe model aviation).
That make more sense?
10-03-2016, 06:14 AM
#61
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is so bad about putting generally better fields closer to more members and potential members? If the goal of AMA is to promote model aviation, it seems to be a perfectly logical thing to do. Position those fields where they have the largest market draw in terms of members and potential members.
And yes, there's a big difference from paying more to get the same and paying more to get more.
And yes, there's a big difference from paying more to get the same and paying more to get more.
Mike
10-03-2016, 06:24 AM
#62
National flying sites, no matter where they are, will be limited to the few who can afford to go on vacation to fly toys. And the costs will be borne by the many who already complain about the high cost of membership. AMA should stick to solving modeler issues in not spend it's money in any more acquisitions, and that includes the new building.
10-03-2016, 06:43 AM
#63
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Funny how you now throw in the qualifier "reasonable" to the alternative issue. Convenient how that now allows you to be a moderator of what is and is not reasonable.
As for the costs, yes, there will be costs. But unlike the last dues increase, where people are paying more for the same, this would be a case where people are paying more to get more. What a concept eh? And yes, it does take analysis. The same sort of analysis they must have done before looking at this proposed indoor site. The same sort of analysis that drove the building of a museum in Reston, then less than ten years later abandoning the site and moving half way across the country. So if they don't have capacity to do analysis before big decisions like this, what are they using? A Ouija board?
A regional approach to a national problem is the wrong way to go about this. It is an idea to put better facilities closer to where members live, and where potential members live, rather than expecting folks to make treks to the model airplane mecca to enjoy good facilities.
You have a nice field. Of course you don't support it. But I suspect there's many more members that don't have easy access to such facilities. I believe it would incentivize both AMA and club membership - and perhaps a way to stem that multi year decline in club membership that Dave Scott spoke about.
As for the costs, yes, there will be costs. But unlike the last dues increase, where people are paying more for the same, this would be a case where people are paying more to get more. What a concept eh? And yes, it does take analysis. The same sort of analysis they must have done before looking at this proposed indoor site. The same sort of analysis that drove the building of a museum in Reston, then less than ten years later abandoning the site and moving half way across the country. So if they don't have capacity to do analysis before big decisions like this, what are they using? A Ouija board?
A regional approach to a national problem is the wrong way to go about this. It is an idea to put better facilities closer to where members live, and where potential members live, rather than expecting folks to make treks to the model airplane mecca to enjoy good facilities.
You have a nice field. Of course you don't support it. But I suspect there's many more members that don't have easy access to such facilities. I believe it would incentivize both AMA and club membership - and perhaps a way to stem that multi year decline in club membership that Dave Scott spoke about.
So now it's o/k to spend AMA money if they build more sites...but are you actually suggesting sites for clubs to fly at, or sites to hold national events at? The more I hear about your ideas of my dues going to pay for a club somewhere far from me, the more I feel like this is some socialist scheme. If there are no fields in an area, perhaps there isn't a need for a field in that area? And the decision to move to one place is certainly different from a process that would involve all of the steps you noted above (and there were a lot of them)...for 6-8 locations. High expectations for an organization you hold in such low regard. As for the alleged decline in club membership, that seems odd given the continued growth with AMA membership over the past 4-5 years...record numbers of increases each year. I guess there is a possibility of clubs closing up for a number of reasons, but membership is still climbing. I think that's good. The fact that I have a nice field is irrelevant, I suspect you know that but couldn't resist the urge to make it an issue. I belong to 4 clubs, all with nice fields (one is actually part of a town park). That somehow makes me not care about others getting the AMA to buy and take care of a field? LoL. I'm all about then helping out, I even donate to them for that specific reason (does everyone know they can allocate donations to specific causes?) I just don't think my money should be going to do clubs that can't pull it together themselves. Good money after bad as far as I can see.
There are always unintended consequences. What is the logical conclusion of this effort? A handful of clubs around the country where they have the Goldilocks combination of interest, space, and logistics to support them? And what about displaced FW and RW fliers?
It makes abundant sense from the MR perspective to split off at some point. They operate much differently than do FW and RW. Generally I'd say, their racing can be confined to what would be just the runway environment at a typical field - they don't need the extra overfly space. Don't "need" to go above 400 feet. Don't "need" to pay more to insure jets, heavy aircraft, etc. Furthermore, if they want attendance at events, they need to set up courses close to people - not at typical AMA fields which are out and away from possible spectators.
My point is that I'm not confident that anyone has thought to the logical conclusion of this effort and have just assumed, that more MRs means more revenue. Maybe true, for a time, but what happens in ten years if they grow to the numbers some have put forth?
It makes abundant sense from the MR perspective to split off at some point. They operate much differently than do FW and RW. Generally I'd say, their racing can be confined to what would be just the runway environment at a typical field - they don't need the extra overfly space. Don't "need" to go above 400 feet. Don't "need" to pay more to insure jets, heavy aircraft, etc. Furthermore, if they want attendance at events, they need to set up courses close to people - not at typical AMA fields which are out and away from possible spectators.
My point is that I'm not confident that anyone has thought to the logical conclusion of this effort and have just assumed, that more MRs means more revenue. Maybe true, for a time, but what happens in ten years if they grow to the numbers some have put forth?
Not sure what logical conclusion the AMA should have, or should be "thinking through" on the the MR issue. They concluded it was best to embrace them...check. They concluded it's a good idea to support and encourage them...check. They believe there is growth potential there...check. I suspect like any organization that is growing, they are planning for that. Are we now concerned with what might happen in 10 years if they grow to much? In the larger scheme of things...I'm going to say that's a good thing to worry about.
10-03-2016, 06:43 AM
#64
LOL.
Actually, what you do is use other peoples words and inject them into mine in order to obfuscate what is being discussed (another illogical fallacy, BTW)
And your point is?????? this is wrong? Don't you think the AMA SHOULD bring value for the dues we spend? Maybe that is why they seem so desperate to lure, entice and buy new members?
Already gave some answers to that one, apparently you missed them, so I will paste them again for you.
Astro
Originally Posted by porcia83
I pointed out the obvious reasons why, as well as the glaring hypocrisy and complete about face from two or three people who have done nothing but complain about dues, and maintenance and upkeep of Muncie.
Originally Posted by porcia83
My takeaway from that is that if they get something out of it, a personal benefit, then it's o/k for dues to be increased and the AMA to spend money. But it's bad when they can't get something out of it.
Originally Posted by porcia83
what again is the draw to a regional field?
Originally Posted by astrohog
A. Generally nicer facilities to fly at than your "average" club flying field
B. Generally within a reasonable travel distance to a majority of AMA members, allowing them to participate in hosted events WITHOUT having to take a full week off of work, or to feel obligated to bring the entire family and make it a "vacation", eliminating the need to turn it into a Disneyland, or be located in close proximity to one.
C.I have run across many members who would like to make the jump into larger, more complex models , but don't because they do not have adequate flying facilities nearby. If there were a regional site available, they would be much more likely to engage in such projects (good for the hobby, no?)
D. They could/would host regional events in many of the different disciplines in our hobby (turbines, scale, IMAC, Heli, Warbird, 3D, FF, CL, etc, etc). This would do wonders to expose the "average" modeler to other disciplines of our hobby that he/she might otherwise only be able to read about online or in magazines. (good for the hobby, no?)
E. They would be perfect venues to use to expose the non-modeling public to our hobby (good for the hobby, no?) Many of the non-modeling public view our hobby as somewhat elitist and expensive ala polo and exclusive golf clubs. If they realized that for a mere $100.00 or less they can belong to an organization that provides regional facilities, insurance and advocation for their continued enjoyment of the hobby, they may be more likely to join (good for the hobby, no?)
B. Generally within a reasonable travel distance to a majority of AMA members, allowing them to participate in hosted events WITHOUT having to take a full week off of work, or to feel obligated to bring the entire family and make it a "vacation", eliminating the need to turn it into a Disneyland, or be located in close proximity to one.
C.I have run across many members who would like to make the jump into larger, more complex models , but don't because they do not have adequate flying facilities nearby. If there were a regional site available, they would be much more likely to engage in such projects (good for the hobby, no?)
D. They could/would host regional events in many of the different disciplines in our hobby (turbines, scale, IMAC, Heli, Warbird, 3D, FF, CL, etc, etc). This would do wonders to expose the "average" modeler to other disciplines of our hobby that he/she might otherwise only be able to read about online or in magazines. (good for the hobby, no?)
E. They would be perfect venues to use to expose the non-modeling public to our hobby (good for the hobby, no?) Many of the non-modeling public view our hobby as somewhat elitist and expensive ala polo and exclusive golf clubs. If they realized that for a mere $100.00 or less they can belong to an organization that provides regional facilities, insurance and advocation for their continued enjoyment of the hobby, they may be more likely to join (good for the hobby, no?)
10-03-2016, 06:47 AM
#65
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National flying sites, no matter where they are, will be limited to the few who can afford to go on vacation to fly toys. And the costs will be borne by the many who already complain about the high cost of membership. AMA should stick to solving modeler issues in not spend it's money in any more acquisitions, and that includes the new building.
Mike
10-03-2016, 06:55 AM
#66
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
National flying sites, no matter where they are, will be limited to the few who can afford to go on vacation to fly toys. And the costs will be borne by the many who already complain about the high cost of membership. AMA should stick to solving modeler issues in not spend it's money in any more acquisitions, and that includes the new building.
If along the way they come across a good business opportunity that furthers the hobby, then I think they should look into that as well. If a chance to buy a building that can host national and international events can be purchased, and projections done to show it's cost effective, then I wouldn't have a problem supporting that. Going out and buying and maintaining fields for people who can't do that for themselves doesn't seem like a great idea. The dues increases needed to support that kind of project would no doubt be staggering.
10-03-2016, 07:26 AM
#68
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason was the fact that the land got classified as a protected environment by California Fish and Game. I drove pst the site this past Saturday evening and it sits exactly as it was when the AMA was looking at it. I have no idea what the current status of the land is. But it is still in the middle of nowhere!! Just cows and farmland around it.
10-03-2016, 07:37 AM
#69
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
LOL.
Don't you think the AMA SHOULD bring value for the dues we spend? Maybe that is why they seem so desperate to lure, entice and buy new members?
I think the AMA already does bring value, tremendous value. I just don't think they should be turned into a slush fund for people who can't fill a form out, or want a field close to them because they are to lazy or incapable of doing the legwork themselves. LOL on the desperate to buy new members..oh the horror of an organization advertising for new members. NRA or AAA ring a bell to you? Watch TV at all, listen to the radio much? Companies run these things called ads....to get members/customers. Nothing really desperate about it. Just good business.
This piece was interesting:
Already gave some answers to that one, apparently you missed them, so I will paste them again for you.
Thanks!
E. They would be perfect venues to use to expose the non-modeling public to our hobby (good for the hobby, no?) Many of the non-modeling public view our hobby as somewhat elitist and expensive ala polo and exclusive golf clubs. If they realized that for a mere $100.00 or less they can belong to an organization that provides regional facilities, insurance and advocation for their continued enjoyment of the hobby, they may be more likely to join (good for the hobby, no?)
I remember a guy here, can't remember the exact name, but his comments certainly came off as elitist. He was going on and on about how much money he had invested into his turbine jet, and how he was in a different class than us (to coin a Franklin fav...unwashed masses). He felt more "invested" in the hobby because of is equipment, more so than some guy who flies...wait for it...a foamy. Those horrible non traditional non scratch built foamies. I can't help but think that's the kind of mentality he's showing not only to us, and his fellow modelers, but also member of the public he might interact with. Because he's a turbine pilot. Ugh! As for "cost" to belong to this hobby, I've got to disagree with you there. I peg the figure more at $500.00 to join a club, join the AMA, and get the radio gear as well as a plane. Be it electric or nirto/gas...and that's entry level stuff. Good gear etc probably brings the cost up to $750.00. But another great part about joining a club is they usually have used gear to sell people, and can direct folks as to what to buy so they don't go off buying stuff online that is low quality, or above their capabilities.
But I guess my point is...you don't need 6-8 national sites to show the non-modeling public what we're about. The best place to do that is at your own field. I'm speaking in general terms here, not to your field....but what do we do to invite the public in to our events? I won't go into what I do, because that will be thrown back at me as a negative, show off etc etc..but I think you get the point. There are ways to get the public to our fields, either during events, or not. Do we go to non RC events and promote our clubs and hobby? Do we go into schools and partner with them in any way? Do we invite civic groups to our events like the Cub Scouts, or Boy Scouts, or residents from local veterans homes?
Again, I look at this as something clubs and us as members are required to do (if we so chose). Don't get me wrong, if a club just wants to have their membership and just fly and not look to engage in any outreach programs, that's all fine and well, they don't have to. But they shouldn't look to the AMA to drum up more members for them, or help support them in some way when they aren't able or willing to do that themselves. Clubs and members are sometimes their own worst enemies. I went to a local one years ago on a Saturday morning with my son, looking for information about the hobby and how to join their club. They couldn't have been more stand-offish if they tried. Stay over there, don't come any closer (planes weren't running), what do you want...etc etc. No brochures on the club, no AMA information...no nothing. I did end up going back again and spoke with others and let them know what had happened, and they confirmed it was an ongoing issue. Oh, the club was on town property on a well traveled street and they were losing members. Go figure.
Astro
Don't you think the AMA SHOULD bring value for the dues we spend? Maybe that is why they seem so desperate to lure, entice and buy new members?
I think the AMA already does bring value, tremendous value. I just don't think they should be turned into a slush fund for people who can't fill a form out, or want a field close to them because they are to lazy or incapable of doing the legwork themselves. LOL on the desperate to buy new members..oh the horror of an organization advertising for new members. NRA or AAA ring a bell to you? Watch TV at all, listen to the radio much? Companies run these things called ads....to get members/customers. Nothing really desperate about it. Just good business.
This piece was interesting:
Already gave some answers to that one, apparently you missed them, so I will paste them again for you.
Thanks!
E. They would be perfect venues to use to expose the non-modeling public to our hobby (good for the hobby, no?) Many of the non-modeling public view our hobby as somewhat elitist and expensive ala polo and exclusive golf clubs. If they realized that for a mere $100.00 or less they can belong to an organization that provides regional facilities, insurance and advocation for their continued enjoyment of the hobby, they may be more likely to join (good for the hobby, no?)
I remember a guy here, can't remember the exact name, but his comments certainly came off as elitist. He was going on and on about how much money he had invested into his turbine jet, and how he was in a different class than us (to coin a Franklin fav...unwashed masses). He felt more "invested" in the hobby because of is equipment, more so than some guy who flies...wait for it...a foamy. Those horrible non traditional non scratch built foamies. I can't help but think that's the kind of mentality he's showing not only to us, and his fellow modelers, but also member of the public he might interact with. Because he's a turbine pilot. Ugh! As for "cost" to belong to this hobby, I've got to disagree with you there. I peg the figure more at $500.00 to join a club, join the AMA, and get the radio gear as well as a plane. Be it electric or nirto/gas...and that's entry level stuff. Good gear etc probably brings the cost up to $750.00. But another great part about joining a club is they usually have used gear to sell people, and can direct folks as to what to buy so they don't go off buying stuff online that is low quality, or above their capabilities.
But I guess my point is...you don't need 6-8 national sites to show the non-modeling public what we're about. The best place to do that is at your own field. I'm speaking in general terms here, not to your field....but what do we do to invite the public in to our events? I won't go into what I do, because that will be thrown back at me as a negative, show off etc etc..but I think you get the point. There are ways to get the public to our fields, either during events, or not. Do we go to non RC events and promote our clubs and hobby? Do we go into schools and partner with them in any way? Do we invite civic groups to our events like the Cub Scouts, or Boy Scouts, or residents from local veterans homes?
Again, I look at this as something clubs and us as members are required to do (if we so chose). Don't get me wrong, if a club just wants to have their membership and just fly and not look to engage in any outreach programs, that's all fine and well, they don't have to. But they shouldn't look to the AMA to drum up more members for them, or help support them in some way when they aren't able or willing to do that themselves. Clubs and members are sometimes their own worst enemies. I went to a local one years ago on a Saturday morning with my son, looking for information about the hobby and how to join their club. They couldn't have been more stand-offish if they tried. Stay over there, don't come any closer (planes weren't running), what do you want...etc etc. No brochures on the club, no AMA information...no nothing. I did end up going back again and spoke with others and let them know what had happened, and they confirmed it was an ongoing issue. Oh, the club was on town property on a well traveled street and they were losing members. Go figure.
Astro
10-03-2016, 07:45 AM
#70
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason was the fact that the land got classified as a protected environment by California Fish and Game. I drove pst the site this past Saturday evening and it sits exactly as it was when the AMA was looking at it. I have no idea what the current status of the land is. But it is still in the middle of nowhere!! Just cows and farmland around it.
Thanks for the info.
Mike
10-03-2016, 11:52 AM
#71
The main reason was the fact that the land got classified as a protected environment by California Fish and Game. I drove pst the site this past Saturday evening and it sits exactly as it was when the AMA was looking at it. I have no idea what the current status of the land is. But it is still in the middle of nowhere!! Just cows and farmland around it.
I'll bet by now the place would look pretty darned good indeed had the effort not failed . Course , if we halt all building cause some bug or critter already lives there that rules out a lot of places , and more than just model airplane fields at that . So it sounds like this site would have come to be if not for unsuitability of the land that was being considered ? That means that if the EC had a plan to make it work there , it could work elsewhere as long as some endangered spotted woodpecker don't already live there ?
Last edited by init4fun; 10-03-2016 at 11:56 AM.
10-03-2016, 04:16 PM
#72
The main reason was the fact that the land got classified as a protected environment by California Fish and Game. I drove pst the site this past Saturday evening and it sits exactly as it was when the AMA was looking at it. I have no idea what the current status of the land is. But it is still in the middle of nowhere!! Just cows and farmland around it.
10-03-2016, 04:29 PM
#73
Are you saying the Dave Scott misrepresented the facts in his article? AMA published it. If it wasn't accurate, why did they allow it? Of course the answer is simple: just because a person joins AMA does not mean they join a club. So yes, you can have "record increases" and yet still have declining club membership.
10-03-2016, 04:32 PM
#74
I'll bet by now the place would look pretty darned good indeed had the effort not failed . Course , if we halt all building cause some bug or critter already lives there that rules out a lot of places , and more than just model airplane fields at that . So it sounds like this site would have come to be if not for unsuitability of the land that was being considered ? That means that if the EC had a plan to make it work there , it could work elsewhere as long as some endangered spotted woodpecker don't already live there ?
10-03-2016, 04:34 PM
#75
Intolerance to a contrary opinion...not surprising. I don't see any "attacks" in the thread, just a Trump like attempt to make it so. I voiced my opinion, which is contrary to yours, so in your mind that is always an attack. It's Pavlovian at this point. Also, I didn't say anyone is either right or wrong on their opinion...that was someone else noting a "wrong opinion/perspective). The idea of multiple flying sites is impractical as presented, and not fully supported with either funding, or any logistical means. That's my opinion/perspective, which I believe I'm able to have.....
I consider your Trump comments offensive, intolerant and of an, "attack" nature. Pavlovian? HAHA. Maybe...... You continue to spin and use illogical fallacies as your method of delivery, I will continue to point them out. That might be considered Pavlovian...so be it!
Impractical as presented? We are having a simple discussion, not presenting a motion to be considered!
Astro