quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

I had posted this question on another thread, but not wishing to 'highjack' that discussion, I though it worthy of a new thread.

My question is: How do you feel about the trend and marketing blitz pushing the e-fliers as 'fly at home or in a playground' items. Do you see that as helping AMA or club/flying site membership? Are these planes going to be seen as play toys by the mass market? I'm not speaking about those of us that simply go to e-power as another way to fly our models, I ask about the impact on new membership.

Around here we've seen many newbies buying a backyard flier because they are a cheap, fast way to try flying a plane and because they can do it on their own terms without a need for clubs, AMA (most we've run into don't even know about AMA) or rules and restrictions. They try them, either end in failure, or get classified as a 'nice toy for my kids' and they go on to other things. Yes, some do come around and look into the clubs/AMA activities. Are we going the way of Ham Radio membership in the US as cell phones and the Internet were introduced? Any ideas or opinions would be welcome.

quint

Dave Mathewson

Hi Quint,
I guess my observation, right now, is that these new park flyer models aren’t helping AMA or our clubs to the level you might expect. I wrote somewhere else a while back that AMA membership was down last year. It’s down again this year. At the same time all indications are that the sale of modeling related items is up. The conclusion is fairly obvious.

I think we have both an opportunity and an obligation here. I equate what we’ve seen in the last couple years with airplanes to the RC Car phenomenon of several years ago. The numbers of these PF models being sold is staggering. Approached right we have an opportunity to grow our organization and clubs. But we also have to realize that a percentage of these new modelers won’t be interested in taking that route. I still think we have an obligation to our members to at least try to educate these new modelers regarding at least interference issues.

I chaired an AMA ad hoc committee for a few years devoted to this. About three years ago we created a trifold brochure, printed a couple hundred thousand of them, and asked manufactures and distributors of these PF models to include them in their kits. Most all did. In fact, some took it upon themselves to expand on what we did at their own expense. The intent was not only to try to introduce the people who were buying these models to the more “traditional” form of model aviation, but also to also make them aware of safety and interference issues. Unfortunately the results of that effort weren’t what I had hoped for.

Last year our committee developed the Introductory Membership Program. A three-month membership with all the benefits of a full open membership except the right to vote. The cost is $19.95. Once again our thoughts were to try to show these new modelers the more broad view of modeling. It put three copies of Model Aviation in their hands to give them an idea of the many different disciplines of modeling and it made it easier (a little less costly) for them to get involved in the club atmosphere. This effort has had better results. Many of those that initially purchased an intro membership have converted to a full membership.

The bottom line though is that I still don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface. I think there will always be that percentage out there that just plain have no interest in anything more than flying by themselves somewhere. And that’s OK. But I still think we need to make the attempt to reach out to these modelers if for no other reason than to insure the safe operations of our current members who fly at the more traditional fields. We need to create a program that will do that.
Dave

J_R

Hi Dave

Dr Sandy Frank, D VIII VP, has an item on the EC agenda this weekend to: “Create program to assist in getting flying sites for indoor and park flyers”. Is this a concept you support and what are your views on it?

Jean-Pierre Rondot (J_R)
AMA 732

Dave Mathewson

Hi JR,
Actually, after reviewing the supporting comments in Dr. Frank’s agenda item, I do support this concept in principle. Obviously I’d like to hear his presentation before I make a final decision, but if I understand completely what he is proposing I think this could be a program beneficial to our members and clubs.

In my district, where both indoor and PF modeling has grown dramatically in the last two years, I get contacted on a regular basis by members looking for help in either locating or gaining permission to use a facility or piece of property. The development of a program like Dr. Frank is suggesting would be another tool we could provide to our members to aid in their efforts.
Dave

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

Dave,
As always, THANK YOU for being available and taking the time to respond to our questions and suggestions. You have begun to put your arms around another hot subject and while a final solution is not obvious, it's good to know some in AMA are aware of the growth trends in park flyers vs. AMA membership.

Now I ask about another by-product of the proliferation on backyard flyers; the issue of possible radio interference from uncontrolled operation at recreational and private lands to 'conventional' RC operation. We only need one or two RC planes brought down by this and causing injury to ruin our hard won public image. We recently had a case where a flier was preparing to put on a public demo and luckily did a range check. Someone in the audience had an e-flier on the same freq and was 'testing' his radio. The demo was quickly called off while we checked our underwear.

We have solved the ground vs. flying model channel problem and I do believe we are heading for another bottleneck with organized RC compared to uncontrolled operation. What do the frequency coordination gurus think? - A new band, channel sharing, nothing needed? I'm an ex Ham operator remembering the CB days. [:'(]

quint

Dave Mathewson

Hi quint,

Well, the concern we had initially with possible interference caused by the low cost park flyer models never materialized. Mostly because the vast majority, if not all of the models, in this low-end price range operate on bands other then 72 MHz. I don’t think this will become a major concern because using certified equipment capable of legally operating in the 72 MHz range would probably be cost prohibitive to the manufacturers of these models. I talking mostly about the ones you find at the major chains like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.

On the other hand we have run across some cases this year where we have found modelers flying on the 72 MHz frequencies who were in a park, ball field, etc. but in close proximity to a traditional club field. More and more modelers (and they’re probably made up of an equal amount of both AMA and non-AMA members) are beginning to fly these types of models in these settings and I think this is really where the problem lies.

First we need to continue to find ways to educate the brand new modeler about the possibility of interference. But this effort will only do so much and won’t by any stretch be a total solution. I think the industry is going to have to step up here. We’ll probably see more spread spectrum units available. I know there are a couple out there now, one our Frequency Committee saw in Muncie earlier this year. Receivers like the FMA FS series that have the ability to recognize a specific transmitter signal on startup and claims that it can prevent most interference even from other transmitters on the same frequency will help. Ultimately, I think this is how the problem will be solved. I don’t see a “new” band helping since the frequencies don’t belong to anyone in particular and the problem we have now would probably just gravitate to the new frequencies. I doubt sharing will work because it would be impossible to know who’s flying what, where and I can’t think of any way to create a frequency-sharing program that would work. So, most likely the solution will be technology and it appears that's the direction this is taking.
Dave

swooper

Right on, this makes perfect sense to me. The fact we've taken modeling into the turbine jet and 42-percent-scale range on such simple radio gear is ridiculous. Of course, everyone will put up a great howl of complaint "Those park flyers are making us buy new radio gear!" But, seems like it'll be optional. Want to keep your 1991 FM gear? Fine, it's your model. Want to step up to a system that makes frequency pins obsolete? Get out yer Visa card. The park flyers are simply showing us the glaring inadequacy of current standard radio gear.