BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

LOL ok. Pretty sure I would

I just dont know the context of what you're talking about to ask.

franklin_m

I'll help you out. "Has the AMA rejected any offers, proposals, etc. proposed by the FAA? If so, what were they?"

fliers1

Dave Mathewson - $139,525.00
Joyce Hager - $117,806.00

Hydro Junkie

So, between those two, we're looking at over a quarter million dollars. I know the cost of living in Indiana isn't anywhere close to what it is on the coasts so again, I ask, what are they doing to merit that much money between them? Do they have law degrees or some other skill that makes that kind of pay legit or is it due to multiple "cost of living" raises(something I haven't seen in several years) or what?
I just did a little simple "websurfing" and found that, according the areavibes.com, the median income in Muncie Indiana is $43,000. So again, I ask WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THESE TWO DOING TO REQUIRE A PAY RATE OF OVER A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR BETWEEN THEM? THAT'S A WHOPPING THREE TIMES THE AVERAGE MUNCIE FAMILY INCOME SO THERE MUST BE SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, OTHER THAN WASTEFUL SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

I know Joyce has been there for "ever", and at one point took over the AMA when there was a vacancy if I remember correctly. Yeah I never even dreamed of such salaries! But as the old saying goes the richer get richer.....

Hydro Junkie

If they're getting paid that much, how much does the rest of the executive committee get paid? There has to be a reason as to why some of these people want to get elected so bad and, if the positions pay like these two are getting, I can see why.
NAMBA had a lady that held the job of Executive Secretary for many years, stepping down a few years back. Unlike Dave and Joyce, however, the only pay she received was reimbursement for money she spent in the course of her doing her job. The same can be said for the other officers, everything is done voluntarily and without pay.

jester_s1

Those salaries are pretty much in line for executives in a non-profit. There is skill involved in managing all the people involved, and business sense is required to make the best investments. If you look at some of the large charity organizations, you'll be shocked how much their executives make.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Your District V.P. Get Zero bucks......but under the new Trump Agenda, they will get a 50% raise!

Hydro Junkie

If you ask me, their business sense is sadly lacking when you look at how the AMA is bleeding to death
BTW, when did the AMA become a "charity"? How many people are being "managed"?
When you look at the large charity organizations(the Red Cross, March of Dimes, St Judes, Salvation Army, etc), how many people are being managed? WE'RE TALKING IN THE THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I doubt the AMA has more than a dozen people that are being managed so, again, WHAT JUSTIFIES OVER A QUARTER MILLION IN PAY FOR TWO PEOPLE???????????????????????????????????

franklin_m

It takes quite a bit of skill to produce consistently declining total revenue, consistently declining membership revenue, consistently declining subscription revenue, consistently declining advertising revenue, to not cut staff costs when revenue is declining, and to INCREASE their own compensation as a percentage of all salaries.

Hydro Junkie

Franklin,
After seeing your graphs above, I can't help but ask a few questions:
1) If two people are being paid over a quarter million dollars between them and the AMA has paid at or above $2,000,000 per year in salaries for at least the last 13 years, how much is being paid to everyone else individually and how many people are on paid staff?
2) I know Jester's AMA number is 891050, so there have been at least that many members. How many actual members are there now and does it justify the number of paid staff members?
3) Does the amount of lobbying justify the amount of staff since we've seen little in the way of results through the lobbying process over at least the past couple of years?

rcmiket

I firmly believe that maybe it's time to base the salaries on performance.

Mike
.

jester_s1

Guys, our hobby is in decline nationally, perhaps internationally too. We apexed in the 70's and 80's, and then Millienials didn't get the bug. I think most of it is simply that flight is no longer high tech or cool; it's not the new thing anymore. Baby boomers pretended to be Chuck Yeager or Neil Armstrong when they were little boys. I used to get up at 5 AM to watch space shuttle launches because it was cool and exciting. In the 90's though the excitement shifted to other things like the virtual world. That's why, IMO, drones have become so big- they are connected to computers. Our hobby is gentrifying and going into decline because aviation has become routine. It's old tech. The AMA has the difficult problem of trying to keep its programs going on through that and to find growth wherever it can. I think there are still opportunities for the AMA to flourish, some of which they are pursuing. But having a support base who resists any and all change in a declining market doesn't exactly make the AMA's job easy. I personally think their best opportunities are in education and existing child programs given the trend toward expanding STEAM and CTE programs in public schools and community centers. But even that would meet with resistance from the membership because it wouldn't be club based and it would cost money initially. The status quo is causing the organization to decline, not because of poor leadership but because what worked 30 years ago will not work now. Yet the membership is resisting change. And some want to lay that failure at the EC's feet as if a dozen people in Muncie caused it all? That makes no sense to me.

rcmiket

So why not not look at what NAR and Tripoli ( rocketry organizations ) are doing with youth programs? I'm a member of NAR and have encouraged our R/C club here to embrace rocketry the kids love it and get exposed to R/C at the same time. I know for a fact that the president of NAR gave a presentation to the AMA EC on this subject. What do we hear on it...................... Nothing, but the list of excuses for the decline just keeps getting longer.
Leadership starts at the top. That's why they get the big bucks.

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

All the more reason for leadership change. I would like to see performance commensurate with pay! ( I know that is how it works at my job anyway)

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I have been saying this for years. Drones are distinctly DIFFERENT from OUR hobby, the one the AMA was founded on. WHY should the AMA change fundamentally to adapt technology that is not the same as what they do best? THAT is the reason some here say that if model aviation as we know it is dying, so should the AMA. Let another organization emerge that is better suited to advocate, support and be the voice for this NEW, emerging hobby.

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

I don't know how many people are on paid staff, but I created a graph to show that while other staff salaries have held relatively constant, executive compensation has risen. As for the members, I don't know how many there are. But one thing is clear, the membership revenue is in constant decline except around those years when they announce increases. That leads me to believe the total number of paying members is in steep decline. On the lobbying, their IRS 990s show a max of $65,000 in any one year.

franklin_m

The ED is being paid rather handsomely, and it appears he's been unable to make difficult decisions to save money when revenue is declining. Fifty percent of AMA's expenses are in two areas, the magazine and staff. The staff expenses have stayed constant when revenue is declining. Most well managed organizations find ways to cut when revenue drops. But not AMA. And what about holding people accountable for the performance of the item they manage. Magazine losing money, yet still have same editor? Advertising declining, yet no change in that staff? Well run organizations don't reward mediocrity, yet that's what AMA appears to be doing -- which is the fault of one person -- the ED. The hobby may be in decline, but that doesn't excuse the poor management we're seeing.

Hydro Junkie

First off, Franklin, I wasn't asking you to answer all of my questions, they were general questions to all. I do, however, appreciate your attempt to answer them.
Now, back to the subject at hand.
I can't help but compare the AMA to three NFL teams. Yesterday, USA Today Sports published an article that showed where three teams, the Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers and Carolina Panthers have all fired part of their coaching staffs:
Seattle fired OC Darrell Bevell and Offensive line/Assistant Head Coach Tom Cable due to lack of performance by the offensive, the offensive line and lack of a running game
Green Bay fired OC Edgar Bennett and QB coach Alex Van Pelt due to back up QB Brett Hundley's apparent lack of preparedness to play
Carolina fired OC Mike Shula and QB coach Ken Dorsey due to lack of offensive production and lack of improvement by Cam Newton
Seattle and Green Bay could both make a valid claim that injuries were what prevented them from making the playoffs but, as said by Mike McCarthy, that's just an excuse and that doesn't cut it in the NFL
By the same token, the AMA needs to really take a look at it's people and how effective they are. With revenue and membership falling and a serious lack of production from the paid staff, as shown in Franklin's graphs, it's clearly time to clean house and get people in that want to help the AMA to succeed in the long term rather than milk it for what they can get until it fails and dies.

franklin_m

Among other things, I analyze business metrics for a living, from the operational perspective, where what matters most are the big picture key performance indicators. You're right. It's long past time to get rid of non performing staff. I'd start with the magazine, as that's one of the two largest expenses. I'm sure there's editors that can find a way to either make money or not lose $500,000 to a million per year (depending on whether you go by AMA financial statements or IRS 990s). By the objective measures, the organization's major source of income (membership dollars) are in steep decline, and the AMA can ill afford to be paying salaries for people who can't do their jobs. Web folks is another example. Up until a couple days ago, the OCTOBER Model Aviation cover was displayed on the site. It wasn't until I shot a note to RK that it got corrected. What are all the web folks doing? Is nobody looking at the very item they're responsible for maintaining? Another example is the Notam/TFR person. Given that AMA is trying to make a big deal about being a member so they get NOTAMS/TFRs from AMA, you'd think they'd pay attention to it. And yet there was one active for POTUS from 8 to 10 January --- that wasn't reflected on AMA's front page until the 10th! Someone's getting paid to do crappy work like these two examples -- unfortunately they're being paid with our money.

So Hydro, I'm in full agreement. Time to do a housecleaning.

jester_s1

I'm going to have to take you to task on this one, Astrohog. I've seen some valid points made in this thread, some negative ones that I am inclined to agree with, some positive. I've seen some points I consider invalid too, this one being one of them (with all due respect).
The AMA was founded when nearly all aeromodeling was done by teenagers building free flight airplanes. The original purpose of the AMA was to be a source of information and to organize competitions. It was a response to the market, a move to make money amongst a group that was interested in what they had to offer. Yes, it was a non-profit, but there's little way to deny that AMA in the early days was established to tap into a potentially lucrative group of enthusiasts.
By the logic above, the AMA should never have embraced control line when it started to grow in popularity. Backwards minded people would have said (and might have for all I know) "The AMA's core is free flight competitions and building. This will dilute its efforts and waste resources." And if the whole purpose was to promote free fight contests, they'd have been right. Of course, the hobby moved on whether the AMA wanted it to or not. RC was the same story. I can imagine old free flight guys going on and on about how much less precise RC planes were compared to their perfectly trimmed works of art. "Punk kids just want to buzz around... have no interest in precision!" And they'd have been right too.
I've said it in numerous threads that I lament that the forward thinking excitement that quickly embraced new technologies for most of the AMA's history seems to be gone. If aeromodelers had had the same mindset in the '70's as they do now, RC would have never become part of the AMA. The AMA would have faded into irrelevance, and a new national organization would have formed to provide RC contest organization, help clubs form, provide insurance, and advocate to the government on our behalf. BTW, all of those activities are outside of the AMA's original purpose. The AMA added staff, spent money, raised dues, and cut older programs to be able to do those things. I'm sure there was controversy about it then too, but it would be hard to deny that we've benefited from those decisions.

The AMA has stayed relevant and therefore stayed useful and survived many times in its history by embracing and adapting to new technology and new ways to enjoy flying toys. I see multirotors, FPV, and autonomous flight as simply the next step in the evolution of the same hobby. Sure, there are AMA members who will never fly a quadcopter. There are also AMA members who have never and will never move to RC from control line. That's ok. But to want our organization to suppress or ignore this latest new technology is not in keeping with the AMA's culture historically, nor the historic culture of our hobby. And for the AMA to separate itself from the new toys is to miss a great opportunity to develop new kinds of contests and in turn be a part of developing this technology into new applications. I love keeping our historic planes flying and reliving the yesteryears of our hobby with my Cub and Sweetater. But I also like seeing the youngsters have a great time with those ugly flying machines and wish them all the best. I don't see why we all can't do that.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

jester_s1

I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. I appreciate your thoughtful comments too, Astrohog. This is the value of an online forum- people who know a thing or two discussing and debating an issue based on its merits instead of letting it become a battle of wills.

You bring up a good point, that camera equipped aircraft aren't likely to ever fly much in established club flying sites. That's an issue the AMA will inevitably have to handle if they do indeed gain a significant drone pilot membership. BTW, I realize that "drone" is ambiguous, but when I used the word above what I meant was a multirotor with a camera on it. That's what most people mean by that word, so that's how I'm using it. That said, the AMA has the option to accommodate the way FPV aircraft are normally flown. Flying club sites got a lot bigger when RC came into prominence over control line, and the AMA navigated that change. So maybe in 20 more years the average AMA member won't be connected to a club flying field? It would certainly be different, but I think doable.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I saw the dangers of this when the AMA instituted the Park Flyer program. That was the first step in their desperate attempt to retain members, but it was also the first step outside of our traditional flying sites into the general public arena. Ironically, this is when we started seeing the hobby getting negative press in the mainstream media.

Here is the scenario that I see playing out IF the AMA were to receive some kind of elite, elevated status as THE CBO and that all operators of RC (both LOS and BLOS, hobby AND commercial) had to join: Let's say that membership increases from the approximately 180,000 that we have today, to the 850,000 that have registered with the FAA. That would mean that roughly 700,000 people (nearly 4 TIMES the current AMA membership) would be operating RC aircraft out in the general public arena, presumably without the support of other club members to "remind" them of the rules and general good judgement, with some thought and consideration for the others that share the same space (Mom's walking babies or sunbathing on our beaches and parks, people walking their dogs, playing Frisbee, reading a book, playing chess in the park, etc., etc. and that is not to mention being aware of airports or other full-scale aviation that may be taking place in the area.!). I've been a member of flying clubs long enough to know that we actually do a HORRIBLE job of the safety thing. On any given day at my field, I find plenty of aircraft that are marginally equipped or prepared for flight. The only reason that we haven't been exposed and can still advocate a fairly stellar safety record for 80 years, is due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of our activities have been confined to our flying sites, which are generally removed from populated areas and are largely only frequented by model aviation enthusiasts, who already know the inherent dangers and consequences. Most modelers will not report a crash due to an inadequately prepared aircraft; that is an inherent part of the learning curve of the hobby, is it not? Take those activities into the public arena and we are in trouble! But I digress from my point. So, 700,000 people join the AMA because, "they have to" to be compliant. Are they going to be ANY more diligent in their preparation of their aircraft? NO, in fact I would venture they would be ALOT less likely to, as there is nobody else watching or to mentor and show them correct set-up/procedure. So they put their new drone up in the air and take it up to, say 600 feet; "this is so cool, I wonder how high I can go!", "I'm getting some killer video, I can't wait to download and watch it on my computer later!", when all of a sudden, they hit the low-flying helicopter or light airplane, or lose control and crash through a neighbors window, or into the middle of their backyard BBQ. Yes, these are completely fictional incidents, but I know that if I were to have started flying in the general arena (instead of at my flying field) that ALL of the above would have been VERY likely to have actually happened to me. Now, multiply that times 700,000 and you can imagine the amount of insurance claims the AMA will get! The AMA would have no choice but to deny claims due to finding some kind of rule-breakage by the operator (or raise the insurance rates beyond affordability for the average Joe, or go bankrupt!), which would leave hundreds of thousands of members pretty disenchanted with "their" organization, not to mention that the Feds would soon realize that the AMA simply cannot police their members away from established clubs and flying-field settings and would start to question their viability as a CBO.

I think the AMA should stick to the model that has served them relatively well for the better part of 80 years and let the droners go it alone. No hate to the droners in any way, they must just realize that the way they wish to operate is so far removed from traditional activities, that they really do need their own organization that can focus strictly on their new and unique needs.



That is part of the rub, the AMA really needs to take the lead in educating and defining what a drone is. It is very difficult to clearly define what is a "model aircraft" and what is a "drone". A multirotor with a camera on it, doesn't necessarily make it a drone.

Earlier you mentioned that when the AMA was founded, that it was all about control line and free-flight and that, as technology advanced, the AMA was able to remain relevant through RC, jets and helicopters. All of those advances were due to modelers that were constantly striving for more and getting a grasp on the physics of flying and adapting the latest technologies in order to miniaturize them in order to replicate their full-scale counterparts; in essence, a passion for all things flying and understanding HOW and WHY they fly. These are the basic tenants of aero modeling and are what makes us "a group". How many drone pilots that you know are into drones because they are inspired by flight and the physics that make it possible? How many even put a second of thought into HOW their drone stays aloft? Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't qualify them to be aero modelers, it makes them "different". Not "good" or "bad", just different, with a need for "different" representation.

Regards,

Astro

jester_s1

On your first point, certainly it's within the realm of possibility that 700,000 new AMA members could show up, overwhelm the current staff, and create new insurance risks that no one anticipated. What I think is far more likely, were the AMA to become to legally required CBO that it wants to be (isn't going to happen), is that about 400,000 of those registered pilots will simply choose to fly out of compliance or quit the hobby altogether. What's left will be the more committed ones who will likely form clubs. They won't be the flying site type clubs that we've come to know, but there is one already in north Texas that is absolutely thriving. They have get togethers of all kinds, some to educate members on technical aspects of drone setup and flying, others are contests, and many are basic fly ins. With all of it, that club's leadership is keenly aware of safety and public perception concerns. So far, that group has an excellent safety record and has actually become a network for learning new tech and for a few guys to get their commercial certification and find jobs. It's all done well and they all generally have a good time with it.
Another possible scenario is with a doubling or tripling in the AMA membership is that the AMA departmentalizes and hires specialist staff to address the new needs of its membership. Perhaps multiGP racing grows in popularity because of the AMA's involvement. Maybe we'd see more search and rescue contests, which would help develop tech and methods useful to commercial pilots. The AMA has been instrumental in building a culture of safety and organization within aeromodeling in a community that started with teenage boys just having fun in vacant lots and school playgrounds. Maybe the drone community could benefit from that kind of influence too?

On your second point, it doesn't take very long for a person to figure out with a multirotor, camera equipped or not, that they are going to need some technical knowledge of flight and their vehicle to be successful. The stereotype of "open the box and fly" isn't really accurate. I read the north Texas drone user group board (mentioned above) and a couple of drone oriented Facebook pages. It looks to me like about 3/4 of the content is about the flight aspect, most of the rest about events. There are very few video shares and it's the rare exception to get a guy who wants to take off with a minimum of knowledge. The truth is that goofballs, both in drones and in planes, crash themselves out of the hobby pretty quickly. From what I see, the drone guys really aren't much different from us. There are varying levels of commitment just like us, but generally these guys want their machines to perform well, they want to stay out of trouble, and they want to avoid accidents so they can enjoy their toys. So why wouldn't we want more guys like that to be a part of the AMA?