Stickslammer

Salaries and benefits went up $900,000 in 2016 vs. 2015

Holy Smokes! They must think that there`s a limitless "Vast Galaxy Of Cash" out there. Not much longer at this rate I`m afraid.

Hydro Junkie

I think Franklin's graphs show why the AMA is trying to "force" anyone that FLIES ANYTHING R/C to be a member, they need the dues income to keep feeding the bloated and inefficient mechanism commonly referred to as the AMA headquarters as well as the pet projects the EC is trying to force down the membership's throats

franklin_m

What bothers me is why doesn't AMA be open about these trends? Why is that rank and file members have to do the research? What is it about being open and transparent that is so frightening to them... unless of course they don't have any idea how to cut costs or change the trends.

Hydro Junkie

This is actually a simple question to answer:
1) To admit they are running out of money means to admit the powers that be failed the membership
2) To admit they failed the membership means that they have to admit to the fact that there was and is a problem
3) To admit there was and is a problem means they have to admit they hid that fact
4) To admit they hid information would be almost suicide to their reputations

franklin_m

For what it's worth, I sent those charts to my VP, Mark Radcliff, along with this email:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark,

Just as a board is accountable for the company's financial performance, so too is the AMA's leadership accountable for the organization's financial performance. The attached charts show very disturbing trends across the board. As my representative, I'd like to know what is AMA doing to address each of these trends.

Frank
--------------------------------------------------------

I'm reasonably certain I will not even get a response.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Let us know if he does.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I've been loosely following and nowhere did I see the AMA state you had to belong. Follow the same guidelines is not the same as belonging.


If non members face restrictions on altitude and proximity to airports where members are allowed to fly at altitude as in glider contests and clubs operate on airports around the country these are exemptions for members of the AMA flying at registered fields.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The AMA has been saying all along that you must be a member to be in compliance.

That is what AMA is saying, That is NOT what the FAA is saying.

The FAA says non-members DO NOT face these restrictions, as long as they are abiding by the same rules as AMA members.

Are you really having a hard time understanding, or are you just being obstinate?

Regards,

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I understand that you are Canadian and may not be an AMA member, but one needs to look no further than Rich Hanson's editorial in February's issue of Model Aviation.

He says, "To operate with AMA's community-based safety program one must: 1) affirm that you will abide by AMA's safety guidelines as a condition of membership; 2) provide the AMA with up-to-date contact information so we can communicate with you concerning relevant safety matters; and 3) be financially responsible (e.g., you must have adequate insurance to respond to any third-party claim for injury or property damage). In short, you must be a member."

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

You wanna know what's really funny? I can't think of ever receiving a communication from them about "a relevant safety matter." Not one*. Ever.

* Excluding of course the "master of the obvious" stuff like "don't stick your finger in a spinning prop," "don't burn your house down charging batteries," "don't drink gasoline," or "don't look at the sun."

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I also got a laugh about the article regarding the drone incident with the Blackhawk. They were really rough on the drone pilot! Isn't that the crowd they are trying to force to join the AMA? LOL Do they think that if they were to capture these people as members that they would have any effect whatsoever how they operate away from an established flying field? LOL. NOPE. How, pray tell, do they think they would retain their CBO status (if they were ever to be officially granted CBO status) if their members repeatedly cause incidents with full-scale aircraft? Rich Hanson's article also mentioned, "adequate insurance". What is considered adequate when you are cause, "hundreds of thousands of dollars" of damage?

Did you notice the article written by the Editor-in-chief, Jay Smith titled, "Who is to blame?". LOL Apparently, "they" ARE reading the forums and hearing what we are saying, but they are just quick to deflect to "what they HAVE done". Maybe they ought to look at the statistics you have compiled. Might be easier for them to see the forest for the trees?

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

The biggest joke about their safety program is the communications part. Any credible safety program requires an acknowledgement of receipt and of understanding. AMA requires neither. For all they know their "relevant" communications end up in SPAM folders.

On the other stuff, I didn't see their article. Is it in the Feb issue? On the financials, I can't help but remember Gary Fitch telling me, about the EC, that "we're pretty smart." Well, their "smart" is on display in the performance metrics. Hardly something to brag about. Which I suppose is why they deflect and change the subject to things that can't be measured. Things like their "influence" sprinkled with a lot of "working on...." stuff.

rcmiket

It's being heavily implied just like the " AMA has you covered" with commercial drone insurance but keep insisting they are not in the commercial drone insurance business. Have you read Hanson's op ed in the hill or this months presidents column in MA? If not you should.

Mike

Hydro Junkie

If you do, it would probably be worded something like this:
Frank,
I don't know where you obtained that information but it's probably not correct. I will look into the matter and let you know what I find out
Mark

I personally think the board is well aware of the problem and will try to cover it up, if for no other reason, just to save face

revmix

dues reality news

paysa.com/salaries/academy-of-model-aeronautics--executive-editor

projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/520799408

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Link doesn't work for me....

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Hanson is correct; “To operate with AMA’s community-based safety program” one must belong. To abide and follow AMA’s safety guidelines is what is required but you do not have to be a member to do so. I do not have access to the Feb issue to read the full editorial not just a snippet of a few lines but several you tube interviews he always addresses the non member and member as two separate entities. He also addresses exemptions carved out for the CBO because of its history of safe/responsible operation.

rcmiket

Did you heard what the FAA representative said at the CES answer and question on this "you must belong" crap?

Mike

init4fun

Mike , do you know what they say about feeding Trolls ? Maybe if folks stop feeding this Troll it'll go back to the MAAC forums to try to stir up some stink there ?

Hydro Junkie

I have to look at WHO HAS MORE CLOUT, the AMA or FAA. If the FAA says I don't need to be a member to be in compliance with 336, how can Mr Hanson say the FAA is wrong? Since the FAA is the one with the power to enforce, not the AMA, I'm going to go with the FAA's interpretation since it's got the power to back it up

rcmiket

The funny thing is he lives up in Canada.. So what the AMA does or doesn't do has no effect on him.

Mike

init4fun

Exactly , and if he behaves at the Canadian version of the AMA's forum , the MAAC forum , like he behaves here maybe that's why he's here in the first place , maybe his fellow countrymen have already tired of his "disagreement purely for disagreement's sake" style of trying to stir up trouble ?

It's quite obvious what the FAA intends , by their own words AMA membership is not required , so anyone arguing otherwise is doing so simply to stir up trouble ; "The Sun is Yellow , NO the Sun is Orange" doesn't even come into play here , there is NO "alternative meaning" in the FAA's directive regarding "No CBO membership required" .

rcmiket

Not to worried about what some organization that doesn't effect me does. Got enough keeping up with what's happening here.

Mike

init4fun

The biggest issue with the AMA being membership and the dwindling numbers thereof , I would think the AMA EC should be looking into ways to entice folks to want to be members , rather than looking for ways to force folks to be members . I want to be a part of an organization dedicated to model aircraft , not an organization dedicated to itself first and model aircraft second . In other words , I'd FAR rather the hobby survive and the AMA didn't rather than the AMA survive and the hobby didn't . Forced members are never happy members , willing to do the things we've always done (mentor newbies , help run events , and so on) and I see a bleak future for this spirit of helpful friendliness if the AMA were to become a forced membership organization .

I rode motorcycles for years and I can't ever recall a time that the motorcyclist's AMA ever tried to pull a forced membership stunt on any one of us ......

revmix

The push for mandatory membership via lobbying Congress has nothing to do with safely operating r/c but all about the nonprofit tax-free dough