astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Someone isn't "getting it".

Hydro, do you care to try again? Can you make it clearer this time?

Astro

Sport_Pilot

It's not a matter of not getting it. I just don't buy into the premise that most AMA members are completely ignorant of the rules. Yes there are a small number but not even near as many as those that ignore instructions with their new product.

Now if you mean their are members that don't give a $#!+ then I would agree.

Hydro Junkie

Who said anything about members or nonmembers? I'm just saying that, in these days of perceived "self importance", that many don't see the need to read instructions or, more importantly, rules written by a largely unknown organization. The fact that people that are supposed to know the rules ignore them (the turbine pilot showing in his own video that rules are just things to be ignored, for example) illustrates my point. Now, if we look at how many quads were purchased outside of hobby shops where the sales people are only trying to sell product, the odds of most knowing about the AMA or what the airspace zones are and what they mean are beyond almost nil. Then again, all I have to do to see flagrant violation of laws that every licensed driver knows is to take a radar gun and stand on the shoulder of the local freeway. 95% are in violation of the speed limit, some blatantly so. Then again, just this morning, I was doing 63 in a 60, only to get passed by a sports car doing at least 90. Tell me the driver doesn't know what a speed limit sign is or what it means. I rest my case

Sport_Pilot

The topic was AMA giving the impression that it is OK to fly in any park permission or not. Not ignoring rules or not bothering to read them.

Hydro Junkie

No, the topic is about a second city/town instituting Orlando type ordinances, not whether people are flying with permission or not. No matter what you want to call this thread or it's topic, it still comes down to the fact that people either haven't been told or read the rules or are just ignoring the rules put out by the FAA and that obscure group called the AMA over where and how they can fly and the knee-jerk reaction to it by the local officials who actually don't know the FAA rules themselves

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

Welcome to THE BLACK HOLE otherwise know as the AMA Forum where people come to vent.

init4fun

Hi Hydro ,

What I took of the topic was the fact that another city/town is banning RC flying of one type or another (drones , Jets , everything , depending on locale) and that despite the AMA putting fourth the perception to us members that ; "We've got the govt. relations thing covered" , maybe some of these bans do show that the AMA govt. relations lobbying is not as influential as the EC would have us believe .

Oh come on Larry , just Jump right on in , The waters fine and ya know ya want to !

Hydro Junkie

I totally agree. I'm seeing, more and more, that the AMA is a "paper tiger".
The EC has claimed the FAA has backed off of some regulations due to the EC's work. Okay, maybe that's true. When the court cases have come up, what did the EC say? "We're paying close attention to what's happening" or something to that effect. Why didn't they step in to the fray and exert some of that "influence" they claim to have or help with their bountiful treasury by assisting with the costs of paying for a higher caliber legal team? Is it possible the AMA doesn't have all of the money they should have from the dues paid over the years due to whatever?
I'd be inclined to believe they are over their heads and don't want to lose both the legal case and much of their reputation since, once the reputation is shown to be baseless, the AMA will lose all the the alleged influence they think they have and enjoy

franklin_m

Spot on. I see this as a when their accomplishments do not match their rhetoric. Government Affairs has all but broken their arm patting themselves on the back. But there's no way to put a shine on the "tu*d" that is the results of these two cases.

In fairness, 336 was a success, but is turning out to be a hollow victory - for it didn't stop registration and hasn't stopped further regulation. They achieved a partial victory in California, but that only meant the worst of the worst drone measures were vetoed. All the other "victories" seem to be confined to very small municipalities and/or a specific field here and there.

Fundamentally though, you're right. The fact that there haven't been decision makers in the room when dealing with the FAA is significant. The fact that AMA is not pressing forward with the federal court case is significant. The fact that they lost in Orlando is significant. The fact they didn't even try to fight for the Pennsylvania field is significant. I see all of those as "leading indicators" of a troubling future.

I predict there will be further decay in membership revenue, either from fewer members, fewer high dollar members and more low dollar members, or both. I also predict there will be continued loss of flying fields. I'm doubtful we see the real numbers on the number of active clubs. Just in a search of those within XX distance of where I live, there's an awful lot of non working website and emails that don't get a response. All things that make you go "hummmmm?"

Sport_Pilot

Good point but AstroHog was referring to the AMA and their parkflyer program and I don't agree it has anything to do with this. For the most part they are not part of the problem.

Hydro Junkie

They are, for the most part, not the problem as we modelers see it. It's the non-flyer/modeler that sees them as a problem.
An R/C boat is on the water, it's a danger to anyone near the water as well as any wildlife. A nitro or gas boat is even worse due to the engine oil, exhaust and noise
An R/C plane is being flown, it's a danger to everyone since it's going to crash and hit something/someone. If it's not a foam park flyer, it's even more dangerous since it won't crush on impact. A nitro or gas powered plane is even worse since, once again, it's noisy, messy and and potentially deadly.

It's a no win situation since, as long as John Q Public has a cellphone and can come up with a plausible reason to complain, the flyer is almost always going to lose

cj_rumley

Did you mean "To be charitable" where you you wrote "In fairness?" It was tacked on to a "must pass" bill, at cost of more than $1,000,000 to dues paying members, to provide "members only privileges" under federal law. AFAIK, no one has ever been prosecuted for exercising any freedom reserved for AMA members by 336. Success is relative.....I'm good with acknowledging they apparently didn't do as much harm to the hobby as I expected.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You missed my point.....COMPLETELY.

- AMA embraces "park flyers" when they fear they will lose members, or capitalize on this "new" segment of enthusiasts (or a combination of both). I have been on record for many years opposing this decision for two reasons; 1. The AMA has absolutely no way to monitor activities that occur in the public arena, away from established club fields. 2. Because of that (AND the close proximity and visibility to the general public) it is these folks that have raised the eyebrows of the media, municipalities, FAA, the uninformed, uptight public, etc, etc, causing the restrictions and regulations we are now seeing.

The irony I was referring to earlier (that seemed to escape you) is that the very group that the AMA aggressively marketed to and created a whole new type of membership for, are now being denied to fly in the parks and public places they are accustomed to and the AMA doesn't seem to be present to advocate for them.

The WORST part, is that while the AMA was courting and spending all of it's time and resources on the very segment of the hobby that is causing these restrictions and regulations, it has completely forgotten about the "traditional" modelers. Rember them? The ones that CREATED the AMA to begin with???

Before you dig your heels in and say it is not this segment causing the problems, I will provide my perspective: If ALL flying activities were to remain on established club fields, we ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT BE SEEING THE LEGISLATION AND REGULATION THAT WE SEE TODAY. PERIOD.

Regards,

Astro

init4fun

Hi Astro ,

And this here is both the problem and the answer to that problem .

Yes indeed if all RC flying was done on club field there would be no call for regulating a problem that doesn't exist . But what of the literal hundreds of thousands who don't belong to clubs , it's those very people who have created the problem and if marketing figures are to be believed we are outnumbered by a fairly large number . What is the total of AMA members , a bit less than 200K ? And the claim that millions of drones were sold last year means that by far the greatest segment of RC flying is happening outside of the club structure with things like following a sensible set of safety rules as part of the program* . Had our AMA not tried to position itself as the only hobby way to the skies RC wise , we wouldn't have been lumped in with the unregulated flyer and thus we sit , literally between the rock and hard place that our own organization put us in by first romancing the park flyer and then romancing the drone .

* Mostly although as Franklin's jet video showed , lapses of good safety judgement can and do happen even on "AMA fields" .

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Yep, Yep and Yep!!!

Yes, I agree with this as well.

It was/is only a matter of time that SOME established flying fields may (unfortunately) be shut down to population density/encroachment, or due to said members not being good neighbors/stewards, and/or refusing to follow AMA safety guidelines and protocol. However, I believe these instances to certainly be the exception, rather than the rule.

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

I was being charitable. They worked really hard, and spent a lot of money, to get language in law that actually did very little.

Sport_Pilot

Sorry but I simply do not agree.

init4fun

Hi Astro ,

I will be the first to admit when I was wrong , and in the beginning I was wrong about the Park Pilot Program . My mistaken notion was that yes indeed the AMA EC was trying to bolster membership numbers , and that no harm other than the wasted money of trying to attract a non existent group would come of it . I say non existent because my thought was that the EC saw the numbers of park flyer sized planes being sold and thought there was this huge untapped resource of what could be paying members if only a membership category were there to cater to them , when in reality it was us , already AMA members , who were buying the all the parkies for a bit of "grab and go" flying . Myself and CombatPigg had noted that of the hundreds of thousands of park flyer planes being sold why weren't there people out there flying in every open space in town ? , and being just 30 miles outside of Boston I'd figure to see at least some . But no , despite getting out quite often for an old guy I never saw folks flying parkies in any field I drove by other than my fellow clubmates and myself flying them on our club field . But then came #336 and the whole "CBO" farce where our organization attempted a "power grab" by positioning itself as the only way to hobby fly anything RC and it was then that I got the picture , it was no longer about protecting any kinds of "traditional" aircraft modeling and had fully become all about protecting the AMA and if we traditionalists (who built the AMA in the first place) had to end up under the bus' wheels in the effort well so be it . This was further proven by the whole romancing the drone effort , an effort that again has gone no where . To anyone who wants to answer I ask ; "Where ARE the thousands of new AMA members that were supposed to be signed up due to the "drone friendly" program that was initiated ? Shouldn't we have leapt from our 179K members up to at least 250K or so if the effort was successful ? So the parkflyers for the most part ARE us and the drone flyers for the most part don't want us (and our "fun killing" safety code) and so still we sit at less than 200K members with a lot of $$$$ spent for what I see as no real return on the "investment" .....

Hi Sport ,

No problem buddy , no one ever said we all have to agree on everything , and were the world totally 100% agreeable there wouldn't be 50 different flavors of Ice Cream at Guifford's Ice Cream shop if everybody only liked Vanilla

franklin_m

In fact, based on minutes from last meeting, I sure looks like membership revenue is dropping.

- "Open adult membership renewals are on the decline" --- (high dollar memberships declining)
- "There was a decline in the Senior adult membership 2015 to 2016" --- (next highest dollar memberships declining)
- "As the dues went up, the Park Pilot memberships increased almost 33%, 2015 to 2016" --- (high $$ members converting to low $$)
- "The conversion rate on youth members is extremely low" --- (the "free youth" memberships are not turning into paying new members)

AMA's total "membership" numbers may be flat or even up slightly. But the real story is membership revenue, which by all indications is going down. Now the EVP is calling for EC to spend more money to try and get drone fliers through a special program for them. Pouring good money after bad. Not typically good economic strategy. But, as the EVP once told me "We're pretty smart people."

Not sure I agree with his self assessment.

rcmiket

I inclined to agree also. If you go back over the meeting minutes there's conflicting information every meeting.

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

What part don't you agree with?


It is very clear to me and many others, that it is those who fly away from established AMA club flying facilities (i.e. in the public arena, sharing common space with all who are entitled to use it) that have caused all the recent media hype, public outcry and Governmental regulations.

Had we never ventured away from our club fields, we would have a much stronger argument for exemption from rules and regulations that are being imposed and will continue to be imposed in the future.

Regards,

Astro

Sport_Pilot

OK. Any recent cases where an AMA member flew his parkflyer in the path of a full scale? Or even flying dangerously from a park?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

First, I don't believe that there are records kept that would differentiate an AMA vs. non-AMA member flying in such a manner. Do you know of a source that keeps such records?

It doesn't really matter (AMA or not) because the public perception has been set and they cannot distinguish the difference between an AMA member who is flying within the rules, or a non-member who is not.

Second, I never said that AMA members were or were not causing problems, I stated that the reason we are being scrutinized and regulated is due in a very large part to people flying outside of established flying fields. The AMA has embraced flying activities outside of established flying fields by embracing and romancing the park-flyers and droners, even though they have NO WAY of effectively managing or controlling such activities. Their "self-policing" policy has served them (and us) fairly effectively for eight decades at established flying fields, but it isn't too hard to see how ineffective that is when our flying activities are conducted in the general public arena, sharing the space with hikers, bikers, frisbee, dogs, swimmers, sunbathers, bird watchers, joggers, strollers, etc, etc. It is my contention that the majority of our population does not want to share our common space with R/C activities, whether you are a rule-abiding AMA member or not.

Regards,

Astro

Sport_Pilot

So AMA should ban flying outside flying club fields?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Dude, Really?

The AMA can't ban anything.

Regards,

Astro