rcmiket

Now that would be something I could get behind. Muncie is way down on my list of travel destinations.

Mike

franklin_m

Mike, I know the feeling. In my 23 years on active duty, I made several PCS moves across country. Florida pan handle to Whidbey. Whidbey to Pax River, Pax River to Whidbey, Whidbey to Newport, and Virginia to California. In those five moves, I never once considered stopping at Muncie. Why? Two reasons: I don't eat live and breathe model aviation. It's a hobby, but one of several. I could either delay a day or two in Muncie, or I could delay a day or two somewhere else, say to scuba dive or see battlefields or other major historic sites. Which brings me to my second reason. I'm the only one in the family that enjoys aviation, let alone model aviation. In Muncie, there's nothing much for the family to do. Contrast that with Seattle, San Diego, any number of historical sites in Virginia and mid-Atlantic, etc. Heck, we stopped at Indy, but didn't even consider stopping in Muncie. Plenty for the family to do in those places.

I'm convinced that AMA really doesn't want the general population to have knowledge of what happens at EC meetings. That's why they insist on face to face in Muncie, despite no AMA bylaws or tax law reason to do face to face. It's also why Rich proposed not even having one at Expo West. He said something about getting more done in Muncie. Yeah, it was really to avoid transparency. Same reason they'll never do GoToMeeting or similar technology. That would give the unwashed masses too much insight into what they do, and they (EC) don't want that oversight.

Now I'm sure the acolytes will argue the opposite. To which I say, if everything is on the up and up, and the EC is doing such a great job, then one would think they'd jump at the chance to show members how great they are by allowing them to dial in via GoToMeeting etc. But they won't. And that speaks volumes about the EC.

init4fun

I haven't yet gotten to speak with any of my lawyer relatives , but my CPA relative took one look at some of Franklin's pie graphs that I showed her and and she told me not to send the AMA any more of my money .

Not good ......

Hydro Junkie

How is it not being forced upon those that fly drones commercially? The way I read it, they are advertising it as "Join the AMA so your insurance is cheaper" while, at the same time, they go to congress and the FAA and say "Don't worry, we're handling the problem". Sure doesn't seem like they are handling the problem when parts of a noncommercial quad were found embedded in a military helicopter, along with a damaged rotor blade, that was flying at dusk and out of line of site with the quad owner. Some will blame the app the guy was using due to it's being down when this happened but, truth be told, he was flying illegally on two counts and knew it before he even lifted off. My question is, plain and simple, if the AMA can't control the thousands of hobby quad flyers, how do they expect to have any success with the commercial operators who don't want to have to answer to anyone that could affect their profit margin? Paying for an AMA membership just to get discounted commercial insurance is a definite "hit" to the profits that most probably won't be willing to take. Now let's look at what the AMA has on their SALES SITE:
Fly Your Drone With Confidence!

Insure your commercial flying with a custom policy at discounted prices.

Get pricing on liability insurance with protection of $500,000, $1 million, $2 million or more. AMA Membership is required for purchase, but you do not need to be a member to get a quote today.

Just answer a short list of questions. Within minutes, you’ll receive a quote, be able to make your purchase and be covered. It’s that fast!No One Knows UAV/UAS Requirements Like We Do!

For more than 40 years–since 1973–the AMA has provided its members with liability insurance for recreational flying. Now AMA members can purchase commercial drone insurance at a special low price. Better than the "per flight" app versions and good for all year.

Jester, I don't care how you spin it, THAT IS A SALES AD. SINCE IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE AD THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE A PURCHASE IN MINUTES, THAT MAKES THE AMA AN INSURANCE BROKERAGE AND NOT A CBO, MEANING IT CAN AND WILL COST THE AMA THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. ONE OTHER POINT, THERE IS ONLY ONE PLACE IN THE ENTIRE AD THAT SAYS AMA MEMBERSHIP IS REQUIRED AND I HI-LITED IT IN BLUE. MOST WOULD PROBABLY NEVER NOTICE IT UNTIL THEY WERE ALL SIGNED UP AND GOT THEIR AMA CARD

Hydro Junkie

Gee, could that have anything to do with how loud the Prowler was? That thing could rattle the fillings out of your teeth at full throttle. If you lived under the landing pattern(like I did) night flight ops tended to cut down on how much sleep you got

init4fun

Hydro my Friend , have you ever wondered if the people who will parrot the same BS over and over ; "The AMA isn't selling commercial insurance" even in the face of quoted AMA advertising that does in fact say that the AMA IS selling commercial insurance , are sent to the forums to specifically spread misinformation ? As in the old politician's mantra "Deny Deny Deny" when approached with proven facts rather than just go ahead and admit to the truth of what's actually happening ?

I knew in my heart a vote for Frank Tiano was the right thing to do , and now it's coming into much clearer focus why ......

jester_s1

HydroJunkie- Posting something in all caps doesn't make it any more true. NPO's sell things all the time. They are allowed to do that. I've already explained in a previous post why this new insurance deal is no threat at all to the AMA's NPO status.

I'm disappointed at how hard it is to have a productive conversation when the AMA is concerned. I'm impressed that everyone waiting until page 2 to make a reference to Nazis, as this is usually the go to for someone who gets frustrated about having their points refuted. But other than that little bit of restraint, I see the same old stuff. The wholesale condemnation of the leadership, having a tiny issue become the entire AMA's direction, paranoid suspicion of unknown dealings, it's all here. How about weighing this tiny maneuver with all the other stuff the AMA is doing well? Why do these conversations have to go straight to black and white absolutism and degenerate into name calling when we are capable of so much better?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Jester, there are always two sides to every story. What some seem to be ignoring is that while the AMA does do some things well, right now, we are in the midst of a battle to retain the basic freedoms that are crucial for every member of the AMA to enjoy the airspace. This is paramount to our hobby and should be #1 on the EC’s list. While you continue to stand on your soapbox and preach your “everything is fine” sermon, a few things come to mind:

”Don’t mind the man behind the curtain” and can’t see the forest for the trees come to mind.

This thread is about the AMA blurring the lines, not about their tax-exempt status. You can continue to deflect to that if you wish, but it is not the topic of this thread.

The fact is that the AMA has definitely blurred the lines by advertising commercial drone insurance.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Let's make a couple of things clear:
1) I'm not calling anyone in this thread anything or accusing anyone posting in it of anything
2) I have worked in retail and have had classes in marketing and know when something is being sold, which the AMA is doing, if not directly, as a brokerage
3) I have not cut down the EC or AMA in any way in this thread, other than pointing out(using their own ads in my last post) that they are violating their own mission statement, using deceptive advertising practices and endangering their 501C3 status.
Trust me, I also belong to an organization that is under 501C3 tax exempt status and we have been warned by the IRS that having that status is tenuous at best. The organization I'm a member of has an annual budget of less than $10,000 and a membership of less than 100 and all we do is host one square dance per month. That being the case, how can the AMA due what they are doing without risking their tax exempt status? Offering insurance as part of a membership is one thing, considering the Washington State Square Dance Federation does so with their 4,000 or so members, just like the AMA has done for years with hobby flyer members. To be selling commercial insurance and forcing those that buy to join the AMA isn't the same thing, it's almost bordering on extortion since for someone to get the price break, they have to join the organization. The fact that there is only one line in the ad that says you must be a member to buy yet says in several areas that you don't need to be a member for a quote is deceptive, to say the least.

Hydro Junkie

To be honest, I'm not thinking that way and prefer to see it as giving those that want to back the AMA the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt that Jester is a good person, he's shown me that here in the forums over the years. The fact that he's on the opposite side of the fence on this issue does not change anything. If he's been asked to defend the new strategy employed by the AMA in commercial insurance by the EC, that's between him and the EC and isn't my concern. This is an issue that the board has brought to light by their own actions and advertising and anyone that is an active member should be questioning.

franklin_m

That's funny, but true. The "Double Ugly" was definitely loud.

franklin_m

It's the optics of it. You know as well as I do from watching the news that something can be perfectly legal but just look bad in front of the public, regulators, or legislators. The optics of this AMA commercial drone thing is bad. As several have pointed out, on one hand they're saying they advocate for model aviation, but on the other it's very easy to see commercial drone and AMA in copy. Most staffers on the hill aren't that sophisticated, and when they look at this they see blurring the line. It hurts AMA credibility because it dilutes the purity of what they're doing.

rcmiket

" This thread is about the AMA blurring the lines, "

I don't care how many say they are not selling drone insurance. Point is the wording in the advertising makes it look like they are thus 'blurring the line". We are a hobbyist organization that's were the focus should be. All this does is confuse the same law makers we're supposed to be trying to work with for the hobbyist.

Mike

jester_s1

I can see the point that this could create some perception issues with people who don't bother to look beyond the ads. I think that's a small concern, but I'll agree it's a concern.

Since it was brought up and I'm a fan of full disclosure, I have not been asked by anyone to take a particular position on any issue, AMA or otherwise. The attitude of the management at RCU is that mods are forum members first and are free to express their opinions as long as they follow the community guidelines. I see many things the AMA does well, some that I think they miss the boat on. I've been in their position before though (not with aeromodeling) where I had to sit in closed meeting and make hard decisions with a committee about the direction of an organization. Then I had to deal with the court of public opinion as people who weren't aware of the nuances of the situation had knee jerk reactions. Sometimes the right direction failed because the group didn't see the need or just didn't want to see change. I've been on the receiving end of the unfair criticism and complaints, the accusations of corruption and collusion with "enemies," the perception that I've forgotten the organization's purpose simply because I saw a new opportunity and wanted to take a shot at it. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, it's a safe bet that the executive council or other leadership team of any organization is working for the overall good of the organization. That doesn't make them infallible, but it does make them the ones doing the research and asking the hard questions. They will get it right more than they get it wrong. So I approach news like this with an attitude that it's for the good of the organization and the hobby in general, and then ask if there is a clear way that's the case. I don't approach it with an attitude that if it's new it must be bad or with suspicion toward our leadership.
In this case, the AMA has engaged in a little side business to make money from commercial drone pilots. Given the revenue trends and the general decline of RC flying nationally, it's probably necessary to find some new income. Nothing has been changed about AMA activities or the budget, Nothing has been changed about the bylaws or roles of officers. The AMA is 99% the same as it was before drones even were a part of our hobby. Yet some are preaching the end of all that is holy based solely on the fact that the AMA saw an income opportunity and went for it. What they are doing is perfectly legal (BTW, is anybody actually so dense as to think the EC would have moved forward on this without checking with the AMA's lawyer to make sure it was kosher?) and may result in an increase in membership. If it does, the EC will revisit the situation in a couple of years and have those hard conversations again to see how they can use that leverage to further advance the AMA's purpose. They won't get it right every time, but they will be working for the good of the organization and the hobby in general.

init4fun

Both Franklin's and Mike's posts hit the nail squarely on the head , in all aspects of life appearances matter .

And it sure appears our AMA wants a foot in both worlds , hobby & commercial operations .

Should our AMA embrace such a diluted mission , "jack of all trades , master of none" , Or stick to what it's done best for 80 years , advocate for our hobby only , and let the commercial side take care of itself ?

If it were put to a vote , my vote would be of course to concentrate exclusively on the hobby , even if it means forgoing the huge influx of commercial dollars .

init4fun

[QUOTE=jester_s1;12394304]

......Since it was brought up and I'm a fan of full disclosure, I have not been asked by anyone to take a particular position on any issue, AMA or otherwise.......

Thank You , I appreciate this answer . I do believe your "for real" and yes indeed we do have our different opinions about the AMA but the bottom line is that we are dwindling in number and I don't personally believe the commercial side will be the AMA's savior . We should have already seen a huge boost in membership #s in the past couple of years and we haven't .


.........to make sure it was kosher?.......

But , but , what if I'd prefer Halal ?

rcmiket

" I can see the point that this could create some perception issues with people who don't bother to look beyond the ads. I think that's a small concern, but I'll agree it's a concern. "

Here's my biggest issue with the whole thing. We ( as a hobby) are under the microscope as far as the feds go. The more we confuse them ( which is easily done now-days) with a stance other than we're "just a bunch of hobbyists " the worst off we'll be. Why risk it?

Happy New Years

Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

My opinions here are my own as well.

jester_s1

I don't think we are under nearly as much scrutiny as many of us think. Take your typical senator in Washington with his busy work day. He has 1000 decisions to make about budgets and bills and all the networking he has to do. Congressmen don't care about flying toys. The press put enough goofballs in the spotlight that the FAA had to do something just to look responsive, so they hit us with a $5 fee every few years. That's not the action of an organization that sees us as a significant threat. Sure, if a lot of drone pilots start getting stupid we may see more regulations, but that community is becoming more mature and more organized every month. The worst is probably over.

rcmiket

On the flip side with commercial drone delivery being in the news, use of the airspace ( which we use) is a hot topic. So since there's money being tossed around by big the players in the commercial drone end of this in DC makes sense the hobby is on the radar.

Mike

[email protected]

I have never seen a "drone"! Question: Do you "pilot" one like you do a fixed wing model plane, or do you merely "point" it???

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Depends on the "drone"

[email protected]

Barracuda - would appreciate more detailed info. Not the terminology, by "drone" I am referring to a "quadcopter" or maybe "multicopter" , nothing with wings and control surfaces on the tail. Thanks

jester_s1

Has this conversation actually degenerated to arguing over semantics? In common parlance, "drone" is a multirotor vehicle with a camera on it. I'm aware that the more traditional meaning of the word is an autonomous military aircraft, but the common usage of the word has come to include multirotors too.

Hydro Junkie

I have to agree with Jester on this one. The term "drone" has come to mean, in the R/C world, anything multi-rotor that is controlled by a radio, regardless if it has an FPV camera on board. Obviously, that wouldn't include a model of the Boeing H-46/47 Chinook helicopter or the Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, even though they are both multi-rotor aircraft. If we really want to get technical, the military refers to "drones" as being any remote controlled aircraft, be it a Predator that can be flown half a world away or the little hand carried scout chopper that ground troops can use to see over a wall or into multi-storied buildings. They also use the term "drone" to designate an aircraft that is remote controlled for use as an airborne training target, such as the QF-16, which is nothing more than a radio controlled F-16 that is deemed to be too old or has too many flight hours to use with a pilot on board in combat operations. Interestingly, the term "drone" was also used in the sci-fi world of Star Trek gaming to refer to unguided missiles launched by actual controlled ships, much in the way destroyers launched torpedoes in and prior to WWII.