AMA parkflyer membership?
11-25-2005, 10:19 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum
This is going to be a long one, so if you are easily bored feel free to ignore it.
The issue that is being hidden by smoke and mirrors is the mission of the AMA. Giving discounts to low risk flyers who have been part of the AMA for years is not addressing the problem. Remember the mission of our organization is to promote model aviation, which we clearly have not been doing as can be proven by a look at our declining membership over the last few years. The park flyers are doing a better job at OUR mission than we have been doing.
Something has got to change or the AMA is not long for this world, and I am sure that is what the D9 AMA VP is trying to address. Why the specifics are being kept secret is beyond me, but most of what the AMA is doing has obviously had a strong impact on national security for the last few years because our AMA “betters” are sure we cannot have any information until after they have already made their minds up. I don’t think that is a good thing and I am sure it contributes greatly to the negative attitude many have of the AMA as the EC does make mistakes. That all being said, the subject does need some significant open discussion rather than our having to deal with the problems the EC might unwittingly create. It is apparent that the EC likes to have to make all decisions in a vacuum and then clean up the mess later. One of the last times something was decided this way, we were told it was because the time line was too short to let the membership know about it and it was an attempt to keep future dues down. That was when the AMA EC spent the new dues increase on an investment that nets $0.50 per member per year, at last look.
Today, like last year and the one before it, we are stuck on the stupid idea that it is someone else’s job to think up the magical idea that solves all our self created problems. So here is my contribution to your entertainment.
It probably would be worthwhile to have a â€.JR AMA’ segment similar to the cub scouts that feed the boy scouts. We have the capability to manage the administrative details in AMA HQ now, so all we have to do is set the differences out and the path upwards and the field management details. That is what this is an attempt to describe based on conversations with others over the last few years.
The first difference will have to be a significantly lower membership cost with no vote. The same insurance should not be offered, but possibly around $100,000 so that cost would be down. We need a name for this part of the organization and I suggest we call it the AMA Wings strictly to make it clear that members of the Wings are also AMA members. That sub organization will need a magazine and we already have it in The Backyard Flyer. Other issues include clubs, aircraft limits, upgrade to full AMA membership details and paths, and contests. The Wings should NOT encourage clubs as they normally fly on public land. However, clubs may exist but they will be treated as full AMA clubs for cost purposes and have the same rules except all members will be AMA or AMA Wings members. Individual groups might put on local contests, and the Wings should not discourage that. In fact, the same sanction process should be available with the exception that no rule book events will be allowed. Rule book events should be reserved for full AMA participation. The Wings cards should be stripped versions of whatever the current AMA cards are so full AMA clubs don’t have a problem managing the flight line and membership issues. Wings aircraft limits should be twofold. The first limit is to nothing more aggressive than electric and the second is to no more electric power than that packaged in a glow .28 sized engines. We don’t want to be encouraging folks into putting those 1/3 scale electrics in public parks. Larger aircraft with more power belong elsewhere, probably at the AMA club side. The upgrade path should be clear to all, higher cost and a new card. Instant upgrades supported by an e-mail could also be supported. There should be no downwards path unless someone goes a year without being a member of either group.
I still see massive problems marketing this organization and I very seriously doubt that much else we can do will impact that problem. The next question is going to be how do we penetrate that group? The stores will be unwilling to support us as they have their own profit margins to worry about and we will not be seen as contributing to that bottom line. The toy manufactures will have the same point of view, so we are still in the same place we are today. Spending more money on institutional advertising might work, but only if it is targeted to the market of people who buy the beginner electric outfits and THAT piece of information is a closely guarded and proprietary.
It might be time to send a couple hundred thousand dollars with a good advertising agency out of Manhattan to see where our best place to spend future advertising dollars probably is. Guessing or using a Midwestern agency probably is going to be just throwing more money down that black hole. It is also time for the AMA to turn to the local clubs to find answers as to market penetration as a great many get local advertising on a regular basis.
This is going to be a long one, so if you are easily bored feel free to ignore it.
The issue that is being hidden by smoke and mirrors is the mission of the AMA. Giving discounts to low risk flyers who have been part of the AMA for years is not addressing the problem. Remember the mission of our organization is to promote model aviation, which we clearly have not been doing as can be proven by a look at our declining membership over the last few years. The park flyers are doing a better job at OUR mission than we have been doing.
Something has got to change or the AMA is not long for this world, and I am sure that is what the D9 AMA VP is trying to address. Why the specifics are being kept secret is beyond me, but most of what the AMA is doing has obviously had a strong impact on national security for the last few years because our AMA “betters” are sure we cannot have any information until after they have already made their minds up. I don’t think that is a good thing and I am sure it contributes greatly to the negative attitude many have of the AMA as the EC does make mistakes. That all being said, the subject does need some significant open discussion rather than our having to deal with the problems the EC might unwittingly create. It is apparent that the EC likes to have to make all decisions in a vacuum and then clean up the mess later. One of the last times something was decided this way, we were told it was because the time line was too short to let the membership know about it and it was an attempt to keep future dues down. That was when the AMA EC spent the new dues increase on an investment that nets $0.50 per member per year, at last look.
Today, like last year and the one before it, we are stuck on the stupid idea that it is someone else’s job to think up the magical idea that solves all our self created problems. So here is my contribution to your entertainment.
It probably would be worthwhile to have a â€.JR AMA’ segment similar to the cub scouts that feed the boy scouts. We have the capability to manage the administrative details in AMA HQ now, so all we have to do is set the differences out and the path upwards and the field management details. That is what this is an attempt to describe based on conversations with others over the last few years.
The first difference will have to be a significantly lower membership cost with no vote. The same insurance should not be offered, but possibly around $100,000 so that cost would be down. We need a name for this part of the organization and I suggest we call it the AMA Wings strictly to make it clear that members of the Wings are also AMA members. That sub organization will need a magazine and we already have it in The Backyard Flyer. Other issues include clubs, aircraft limits, upgrade to full AMA membership details and paths, and contests. The Wings should NOT encourage clubs as they normally fly on public land. However, clubs may exist but they will be treated as full AMA clubs for cost purposes and have the same rules except all members will be AMA or AMA Wings members. Individual groups might put on local contests, and the Wings should not discourage that. In fact, the same sanction process should be available with the exception that no rule book events will be allowed. Rule book events should be reserved for full AMA participation. The Wings cards should be stripped versions of whatever the current AMA cards are so full AMA clubs don’t have a problem managing the flight line and membership issues. Wings aircraft limits should be twofold. The first limit is to nothing more aggressive than electric and the second is to no more electric power than that packaged in a glow .28 sized engines. We don’t want to be encouraging folks into putting those 1/3 scale electrics in public parks. Larger aircraft with more power belong elsewhere, probably at the AMA club side. The upgrade path should be clear to all, higher cost and a new card. Instant upgrades supported by an e-mail could also be supported. There should be no downwards path unless someone goes a year without being a member of either group.
I still see massive problems marketing this organization and I very seriously doubt that much else we can do will impact that problem. The next question is going to be how do we penetrate that group? The stores will be unwilling to support us as they have their own profit margins to worry about and we will not be seen as contributing to that bottom line. The toy manufactures will have the same point of view, so we are still in the same place we are today. Spending more money on institutional advertising might work, but only if it is targeted to the market of people who buy the beginner electric outfits and THAT piece of information is a closely guarded and proprietary.
It might be time to send a couple hundred thousand dollars with a good advertising agency out of Manhattan to see where our best place to spend future advertising dollars probably is. Guessing or using a Midwestern agency probably is going to be just throwing more money down that black hole. It is also time for the AMA to turn to the local clubs to find answers as to market penetration as a great many get local advertising on a regular basis.
Good post. The issue deserves much more than a knee jerk "No way, Jose, that's not the way we've always done it" and you've had your thinking cap on. Maybe DB is right this time re 'house divided." Prior attempts to bring the PFs into the fold have had essentially zero impact. IF that is an essential element in the future of AMA, something's got to change. I'm neutral - the future of model aviation is looking good, and that is my priority interest. If AMA can keep up, that would be good too.
Abel
11-26-2005, 05:21 AM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mesquite, NV
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Gotta put in my $.02 worth. It's time for me to renew. Fifty some odd bucks is a lot of money for an old, retired pilot, but new park flyer. But I'm going to send in the money. Not for the insurance. But because I hope and believe that the AMA will serve a purpose, much like, say the Salvation Army does in another area.
I only fly little electric foamies, just for the fun of it. There are enough soccer fields, etc. in my little town to keep me entertained. At the ripe old age of 72, I have just got back into the hobby after a 50 some year lay-off. I don't have the room or resources for gas and/or glow. I just want to watch my GWS Tiger Moth cruise serenely at twilight. Or, if I get a wild hair, I'll fly the Mustang until I have to gather the foam remains, and repair to the hangar.
So I'm in. I will leave it up the MIFWIQs at AMA to solve the big problems. I gotta go find some more epoxy.
Keep up the good work.
Dick Suter - 803000
I only fly little electric foamies, just for the fun of it. There are enough soccer fields, etc. in my little town to keep me entertained. At the ripe old age of 72, I have just got back into the hobby after a 50 some year lay-off. I don't have the room or resources for gas and/or glow. I just want to watch my GWS Tiger Moth cruise serenely at twilight. Or, if I get a wild hair, I'll fly the Mustang until I have to gather the foam remains, and repair to the hangar.
So I'm in. I will leave it up the MIFWIQs at AMA to solve the big problems. I gotta go find some more epoxy.
Keep up the good work.
Dick Suter - 803000
11-26-2005, 10:08 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: *
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
Do people still join clubs for the comraderie, shared experiences, building help, instruction, having a safe place to fly, etc. etc. - If not and if it is just about insurance, then the hobby is doomed anyway. 
What has changed in the modeling world? Did we go through this when IC powered models took over rubber band powered models, when R/C took over a large part of Control Line? Modeling is about building and flying miniature aircraft - size, type, power, construction, scratch or ARF, color, weight, or national origin shouldn't enter the equation - or am I missing something?
ORIGINAL: stuk_at_work
SNIP
If people are flying at non-AMA fields (or don't meet the AMA suggested guidelines), and they are not covered by AMA insurance, what benefit will they get by joining?
Access to a flying field, park etc. may require insurance of some type, and AMA is probably the best game in town in this regard.
If they are going to get coverage, watch out, as the insurance costs will certainly escalate as accidents at local schools/ball fields/parks by new AMA members who may not be getting proper training get into trouble with people/property they are flying in proximity to.
I agree, electric risk under these circumstances will be higher than for those flying at an established club field with some discipline, frequency control, safety rules etc.
You want to increase AMA enrollment by getting the electric only guys hooked up? You need to find something other than the attractiveness of lower membership dues. In the 1st place, I don't think it will do anything to increase numbers, and may actually cost the organization more. It will also alienate other "classes" of exiting members. Should the FF, Control Line or even the static folks also be eligible for some discount? Should some members who fly other classes of aircraft be required to pay more?
Good questions, just about everyone I've talked to is concerned about the same issues.
Where I live, there are at least (3) flying clubs that I can fly at (they all require AMA membership to join). From what I read in these forums, Model Aviation and other magazines other areas of the country are not so lucky. Perhaps there is a call for "non-combustion" only clubs, that may be situated in areas where glow/gas is not currently allowed. If the AMA promoted and helped establish clubs like this, perhaps then we would not have to discuss options like "reduced membership" fees to attract new members.
SNIP
If people are flying at non-AMA fields (or don't meet the AMA suggested guidelines), and they are not covered by AMA insurance, what benefit will they get by joining?
Access to a flying field, park etc. may require insurance of some type, and AMA is probably the best game in town in this regard.
If they are going to get coverage, watch out, as the insurance costs will certainly escalate as accidents at local schools/ball fields/parks by new AMA members who may not be getting proper training get into trouble with people/property they are flying in proximity to.
I agree, electric risk under these circumstances will be higher than for those flying at an established club field with some discipline, frequency control, safety rules etc.
You want to increase AMA enrollment by getting the electric only guys hooked up? You need to find something other than the attractiveness of lower membership dues. In the 1st place, I don't think it will do anything to increase numbers, and may actually cost the organization more. It will also alienate other "classes" of exiting members. Should the FF, Control Line or even the static folks also be eligible for some discount? Should some members who fly other classes of aircraft be required to pay more?
Good questions, just about everyone I've talked to is concerned about the same issues.
Where I live, there are at least (3) flying clubs that I can fly at (they all require AMA membership to join). From what I read in these forums, Model Aviation and other magazines other areas of the country are not so lucky. Perhaps there is a call for "non-combustion" only clubs, that may be situated in areas where glow/gas is not currently allowed. If the AMA promoted and helped establish clubs like this, perhaps then we would not have to discuss options like "reduced membership" fees to attract new members.
What has changed in the modeling world? Did we go through this when IC powered models took over rubber band powered models, when R/C took over a large part of Control Line? Modeling is about building and flying miniature aircraft - size, type, power, construction, scratch or ARF, color, weight, or national origin shouldn't enter the equation - or am I missing something?I can see what you're saying and understand the concern about "modeling".
Your answer took me back to when I was a kid in the mid to late 50's and was making the switch in modeling from display models to control line.
"The crowd" back then was a bunch of us local kids gathered at any clear area big enough for the flying circle, usually a ball field, taking turns flying.
The few really good flyers that wanted to compete joined the AMA for the contests. So the contests was the drawing card for the AMA back then. Flying models was the main focus though. At least in my area.
Now days with a person that is developing an interest in RC being hit with "you gotta pay 58 bucks and join this AMA mafia monopoly and then pay x amount of dollars to this local crowd before you can even try your plane out" - well it just doesn't sit well at all.
Something needs to be done to get away from the legalistic way it is now and to get back to the "modeling is fun" like it was back then. It needs to get back to being a gentlemans hobby as it was 20 years or so ago.
Too many policemen everywhere in it these days. The guys I fly with, and myself, just want to enjoy flying and the fellowship and have some time AWAY from the rules and problems of everyday life.
That's why we get together at one of the flyers home and fly in his field in front of his house and not at any AMA field. It's like it was back when I was a kid - just a bunch of guys that have a common interest getting together to enjoy it. And we are flying the electrics there and it's a blast.
Most, if not all, of us are AMA members and are members of the local county RC club. But the AMA was joined because of the "I"m holding a gun to your head" rules of the club being an AMA club, and just to have a place to fly our glow/gas powered plans. That has left a very negative view and impression of AMA.
Another result of that atitude is members selling off their glow/gas powered planes and going all electric. That is happening. It isn't it might happen. It IS already happeneing. And frankly - with what I see out of AMA these days - I may just do that myself.
AMA MUST change from a policeman/enforcement mentality to a modeling mentality.
11-26-2005, 10:26 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: *
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
In response to the original idea of this thread of different levels of membership.
1) Who is going to enforce it? With that, You're getting even more into police and enforcement and less into the hobby.
2) What about going the other way too? Would there be more cost to the big airplane flyers? (there may be already and I just don't know about it)
It's just my opinion, but I think a long hard look would be advisable before implementing such a policy.
And, What direction does the AMA want to take? It could mean alot to AMA's future.
1) Who is going to enforce it? With that, You're getting even more into police and enforcement and less into the hobby.
2) What about going the other way too? Would there be more cost to the big airplane flyers? (there may be already and I just don't know about it)
It's just my opinion, but I think a long hard look would be advisable before implementing such a policy.
And, What direction does the AMA want to take? It could mean alot to AMA's future.
11-26-2005, 11:44 AM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mercer,
WI
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Maybe I'm missing the point of all this so excuse me if I am. But take this as a "for instance". Why should I pay more to join flying my 1/2A Cub than some guy/lady flying say an EP Edge thats just as big or bigger than my cub? EP planes and helicopters are getting bigger, more reliable and the motors are getting more powerful everyday. I have a T-Rex 450 XL thats just as dangerous as a nitro/gas powered plane/heli. (Very cool little heli btw). Peolple who by the little pieces of cr@p at wally mart might just get interested enough to actually buy a "real" RC plane. Or not, if they fly like cr@p, don't know never bought one. In the instructions of pretty much anything I've bought, they do suggest to join tha AMA. I guess some people just don't care or bother to join. I don't have an answer for that, if I did the AMA would love me 
Maybe the AMA should do a bit of "campaigning" at local hobby shops, grade schools and high schools to get more younger people interested. One of the first things I did when I got into this hobby, which was only 2 years ago, so my opinion may not be worth much anyway, was to join the AMA. Why did I do it? Mainly for the insurance, to join most clubs you need to be a member, to be in any sanctioned AMA events, you must be a member. Oh, and so I can put that cool sticker in the back window of my Jeep, JK on the sticker comment 
Anyho. I think it should be "all for one & one for all". Just my .02
BTW $58 might seem a little bit high, but the way I look at it is a little less than 1/2 of that as the magazine subscription. So $29 a year for insurance aint all that bad. Hey, maybe they should give the people a break if they don't want the magazine Sorry for opening up another can o worms there. I was honestly just kidding about that.
Maybe the AMA should do a bit of "campaigning" at local hobby shops, grade schools and high schools to get more younger people interested. One of the first things I did when I got into this hobby, which was only 2 years ago, so my opinion may not be worth much anyway, was to join the AMA. Why did I do it? Mainly for the insurance, to join most clubs you need to be a member, to be in any sanctioned AMA events, you must be a member. Oh, and so I can put that cool sticker in the back window of my Jeep, JK on the sticker comment Anyho. I think it should be "all for one & one for all". Just my .02BTW $58 might seem a little bit high, but the way I look at it is a little less than 1/2 of that as the magazine subscription. So $29 a year for insurance aint all that bad. Hey, maybe they should give the people a break if they don't want the magazine
Sorry for opening up another can o worms there. I was honestly just kidding about that.
11-26-2005, 01:28 PM
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
I personaly feel there should be one set price for AMA, no matter what you fly. PERIOD. If you give discounted prices because of the type of aircraft you fly, then why not give discounted prices if you only fly 4 months out of the year.
Again, 1 price for all.... either if you fly park flyers or giant scale, 6 times a year or everyday
just my 2 cents
mark
Again, 1 price for all.... either if you fly park flyers or giant scale, 6 times a year or everyday
just my 2 cents
mark
11-26-2005, 02:04 PM
#34
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
i dont get it, people complain about the 58 dollars a year for insurance coverage and the few benifits that go along with it. Drop the magazine and save a few bucks, some pilots agree with AMA and some dont, but still for the 58 bucks a year? just pay the small fee, and go fly........
that is what this sport is all about, right?
mark
that is what this sport is all about, right?
mark
11-26-2005, 02:07 PM
#35
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Payson,
AZ
Posts: 2,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
For an organization that is supposed to support and increase the sport/hobby of model aviation we're missing something somewhere.
The one price fits all for membership seems fair to me and I'm in the senior citizen area and get by for ten bucks less. For what I spend on models it isn't that much more. To get the park flyers into the fold would certainly increase the total membership but just trying to sell them on the insurance certainly won't do the job. There must be other benefits such as assistance in obtainng flying sites. Believe it or not there are towns and cities that specifically ban ALL model aircraft flying within the city. There should be opportunities for contests, fun flys and clubs. They could be invited to join existing clubs. We have park flyers in our club and some of them got into modeling on that path and have since seen the fun and fellowship of "full size" RC and stepped in that direction. Some still fly their park flyers too and they do it at our field. Another large error is classifiying all electric power as park flyers. In addition to gas power which I started in 1936 I have flown electric, not park flyers, for the last 25 years, some semi scale as well as sailplanes. Let's remember they are all model aircraft and The AMA's purpose is to promote model aviation. Make it easy for the park flyers to become one of us without having to wear a special tagor have a different membership card. $.02
The one price fits all for membership seems fair to me and I'm in the senior citizen area and get by for ten bucks less. For what I spend on models it isn't that much more. To get the park flyers into the fold would certainly increase the total membership but just trying to sell them on the insurance certainly won't do the job. There must be other benefits such as assistance in obtainng flying sites. Believe it or not there are towns and cities that specifically ban ALL model aircraft flying within the city. There should be opportunities for contests, fun flys and clubs. They could be invited to join existing clubs. We have park flyers in our club and some of them got into modeling on that path and have since seen the fun and fellowship of "full size" RC and stepped in that direction. Some still fly their park flyers too and they do it at our field. Another large error is classifiying all electric power as park flyers. In addition to gas power which I started in 1936 I have flown electric, not park flyers, for the last 25 years, some semi scale as well as sailplanes. Let's remember they are all model aircraft and The AMA's purpose is to promote model aviation. Make it easy for the park flyers to become one of us without having to wear a special tagor have a different membership card. $.02
11-26-2005, 02:35 PM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Ballgunner............ well said
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
11-26-2005, 03:33 PM
#37
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: trioval00
Ballgunner............ well said
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
Ballgunner............ well said
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
Can a gutted membership be attractive to park flyers? I have no idea, but, I can't see how it will hurt to try.
If this "LIMITED MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM", as Dr. Frank labeled it, puts a burden on clubs, there may be a revolt... or there might not... or the clubs may have no part in the program.
Heck, maybe mongo has been right all along. Eliminate the insurance from AMA benefits all together and let it return to being an organization to promote modeling as it was designed to be. It seems that the primary function of the AMA has become to access risk. Kinda hard to do when the primary focus are toys with a saw on the front end, or a torch on the rear… but, what the heck.
Did you note the statement in the minutes concerning EMT's on site during the NATS? The AMA donated a piece of property to be used as an EMT station. Now, when it was brought up that the AMA might be able rely on that facility instead of onsite EMT's, Dave Brown raised the issue of the liability created by such a move.
In an appendix to those minutes, we find that the AMA is asking the insurance company to remove coverage for UAV's. ASKING!! (Do you suppose turbines, or experimental class planes are next?) At the same time, coverage of UAV’s for NON-AMA educational intuitions will be continued under some circumstances. You can watch UAV’s being flown at your club field, but YOU can’t fly them (unless you are part of the institution).
Let’s name the HQ building “Adverse Risk Assessment Headquarters”
The appendices show that the EC discussed the marketing program for memberships in executive session. I guess some of them must believe the UMA and/or SFA is/are coming back from the dead and preparing a frontal assault on the AMA.
BAH! Humbug! Bring on Christmas, I'm ready!
11-26-2005, 08:33 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East Cobb County,
GA
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: J_R
At the same time, coverage of UAV’s for NON-AMA educational intuitions will be continued under some circumstances. You can watch UAV’s being flown at your club field, but YOU can’t fly them (unless you are part of the institution).
At the same time, coverage of UAV’s for NON-AMA educational intuitions will be continued under some circumstances. You can watch UAV’s being flown at your club field, but YOU can’t fly them (unless you are part of the institution).
11-26-2005, 10:59 PM
#39
My Feedback: (3)
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: the-plumber
[link=http://www.ccrc.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=1&Itemid=43]Humbug, indeed !!!![/link]
ORIGINAL: J_R
At the same time, coverage of UAV’s for NON-AMA educational intuitions will be continued under some circumstances. You can watch UAV’s being flown at your club field, but YOU can’t fly them (unless you are part of the institution).
At the same time, coverage of UAV’s for NON-AMA educational intuitions will be continued under some circumstances. You can watch UAV’s being flown at your club field, but YOU can’t fly them (unless you are part of the institution).
Indeed! Look again and then you can join me in rolling on the floor laughing at our new taxing authority. Where does it say the folks of the educational institution folks who can use your field have to be AMA members? But do note that you will probably be required to support them because THEY will represent the mission statement of the AMA.
Sure does sound to me like just more of my tax dollars needed,,, er dues...
11-27-2005, 12:02 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: trioval00
Ballgunner............ well said
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
Ballgunner............ well said
that is my point too.. we also have a few park flyer guys in our club which are on the move into the glo side of model aircraft. The only problem with seperate groups in AMA ie; park flyers and the rest, who gets to police the ranks? so to speak. if a park flyer moves up, who will check thier AMA? the club? a district AMA associate? thats to much work. bottom line you want to fly? get AMA and pay the 58 bucks.
I didn't see a big problem to 'police' the ranks. How many members does your club have?
Some clubs use AMA card slots on a board for frequency control. Others require all flyers to display their AMA card while operating; lots of people pin it to their hats. Would either of these approaches mitigate the problem of 'too much work' to check them?
Abel
11-27-2005, 12:11 AM
#41
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Anybody that has followed this forum knows what Hal deBolt would have had to say about banning UAV's. I wonder if anyone on the EC had the intestinal fortitude to call Maynard Hill and tell him they had decided that UAV's are too dangerous for the general AMA membership.
You know, it's a good thing the ones that voted for this were not around when ailerons were added to models years ago. They might well have prohibited them and insisted that polyhedral was all that was necessary to make a plane roll. Don't laugh too hard.
I am beginning to wonder if this group understands why the AMA was formed. The promotion of areomodeling appears to have taken a back seat, literally, to some pseudo lawyer(s).
You know, it's a good thing the ones that voted for this were not around when ailerons were added to models years ago. They might well have prohibited them and insisted that polyhedral was all that was necessary to make a plane roll. Don't laugh too hard.
I am beginning to wonder if this group understands why the AMA was formed. The promotion of areomodeling appears to have taken a back seat, literally, to some pseudo lawyer(s).
11-27-2005, 12:28 AM
#42
My Feedback: (3)
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: J_R
Anybody that has followed this forum knows what Hal deBolt would have had to say about banning UAV's. I wonder if anyone on the EC had the intestinal fortitude to call Maynard Hill and tell him they had decided that UAV's are too dangerous for the general AMA membership.
You know, it's a good thing the ones that voted for this were not around when ailerons were added to models years ago. They might well have prohibited them and insisted that polyhedral was all that was necessary to make a plane roll. Don't laugh too hard.
I am beginning to wonder if this group understands why the AMA was formed. The promotion of areomodeling appears to have taken a back seat, literally, to some pseudo lawyer(s).
Anybody that has followed this forum knows what Hal deBolt would have had to say about banning UAV's. I wonder if anyone on the EC had the intestinal fortitude to call Maynard Hill and tell him they had decided that UAV's are too dangerous for the general AMA membership.
You know, it's a good thing the ones that voted for this were not around when ailerons were added to models years ago. They might well have prohibited them and insisted that polyhedral was all that was necessary to make a plane roll. Don't laugh too hard.
I am beginning to wonder if this group understands why the AMA was formed. The promotion of areomodeling appears to have taken a back seat, literally, to some pseudo lawyer(s).
Let me see if I understand this right. It is O.K. for Dave Brown to fly around the world to play with a UAV but it is against the rules for the membership of the organization he is president of to do the same thing? I got it! Rules for them and different rules for us, just like congress critters and other dictators.
BTW, welcome to the real world. This has been an on going problem for the last 10 or 12 years. It probably actually existed 20 years ago but was hidden behind a lot of other things.
11-27-2005, 12:45 AM
#43
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Sorry if I am missong something, but why all of the hullabaloo over this UAV thing?
Autonomous aircraft have been banned by AMA safety code for at least a few years now. So in that context, this motion just codifies what is already in the safety code, no?
Autonomous aircraft have been banned by AMA safety code for at least a few years now. So in that context, this motion just codifies what is already in the safety code, no?
11-27-2005, 02:11 AM
#44
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Sorry if I am missong something, but why all of the hullabaloo over this UAV thing?
Autonomous aircraft have been banned by AMA safety code for at least a few years now. So in that context, this motion just codifies what is already in the safety code, no?
Sorry if I am missong something, but why all of the hullabaloo over this UAV thing?
Autonomous aircraft have been banned by AMA safety code for at least a few years now. So in that context, this motion just codifies what is already in the safety code, no?
The same mentality leads to consideration of a marketing plan to take place in executive session. Who are they hiding from? UMA?
As another example of something that may be changed, the Safety Code modification changed the wording and knowingly allowed shooting such things as paint balls at planes. That issue has not been resolved and the question is being submitted to the EC by the Safety Committee to see if it will, as with the UAV rule, be changed.
There were quite a number of changes made in the mods last year.
As far as I am concerned the entire EC can take blame or credit for such changes if they are going to let a minority make changes and then allow them to hide behind a protocol that does not reveal who voted for what. I thought we had a better bunch than this sitting on the EC.
If you think I am kidding about turbines being reconsidered, think again.
11-27-2005, 02:29 AM
#45
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Matt, here is the wording.
From the 10/05 EC Minutes appendix marked Westchester Primary Policy, a section marked “The exclusion language will then read” in a sub-section marked:
“4. UAV limitation”
“The AMA has decided to exclude coverage for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) since autonomous flight would allow aircraft to fly over populated areas in violation of the AMA safety code. However, AMA will allow an exception for educational institutions provided they meet stringent safety and insurance requirements.”
“Rationale:”
“AMA wants to ban UAV flights from AMA club fields except for educational institutions research and development. This move will also discourage any attempt to use an AMA field for commercial test flights for UAV development. The policy now does exclude any business pursuits or commercial enterprise.”
(The typing is mine, sorry for any errors.. J_R)
From the 10/05 EC Minutes appendix marked Westchester Primary Policy, a section marked “The exclusion language will then read” in a sub-section marked:
“4. UAV limitation”
“The AMA has decided to exclude coverage for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) since autonomous flight would allow aircraft to fly over populated areas in violation of the AMA safety code. However, AMA will allow an exception for educational institutions provided they meet stringent safety and insurance requirements.”
“Rationale:”
“AMA wants to ban UAV flights from AMA club fields except for educational institutions research and development. This move will also discourage any attempt to use an AMA field for commercial test flights for UAV development. The policy now does exclude any business pursuits or commercial enterprise.”
(The typing is mine, sorry for any errors.. J_R)
11-27-2005, 11:01 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: J_R
Matt, here is the wording.
From the 10/05 EC Minutes appendix marked Westchester Primary Policy, a section marked “The exclusion language will then read” in a sub-section marked:
“4. UAV limitation”
“The AMA has decided to exclude coverage for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) since autonomous flight would allow aircraft to fly over populated areas in violation of the AMA safety code. However, AMA will allow an exception for educational institutions provided they meet stringent safety and insurance requirements.”
“Rationale:”
“AMA wants to ban UAV flights from AMA club fields except for educational institutions research and development. This move will also discourage any attempt to use an AMA field for commercial test flights for UAV development. The policy now does exclude any business pursuits or commercial enterprise.”
(The typing is mine, sorry for any errors.. J_R)
Matt, here is the wording.
From the 10/05 EC Minutes appendix marked Westchester Primary Policy, a section marked “The exclusion language will then read” in a sub-section marked:
“4. UAV limitation”
“The AMA has decided to exclude coverage for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) since autonomous flight would allow aircraft to fly over populated areas in violation of the AMA safety code. However, AMA will allow an exception for educational institutions provided they meet stringent safety and insurance requirements.”
“Rationale:”
“AMA wants to ban UAV flights from AMA club fields except for educational institutions research and development. This move will also discourage any attempt to use an AMA field for commercial test flights for UAV development. The policy now does exclude any business pursuits or commercial enterprise.”
(The typing is mine, sorry for any errors.. J_R)
FAA has been waffling over the definition of UAV, trying to arrive at a line that separates unregulated flying things from those they have to regulate. It would be interesting to see the Chinese fire drill in Muncie that will occur after FAA includes model airplanes in their definition of UAV, putting AMA out of the insurance business. This inane action could ultimately have a good outcome.
Abel
11-27-2005, 12:08 PM
#47
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Thanks for the update, JR. Now I think I get it.
So in your opinion, based on what you have seen, and end run has been made to the safety code to ban something that was specifically intended to be allowed by the EC (as evidenced by the removal of the autonomuous aircraft ban)? Is this what I am reading from you?
Do you know of any other example of something this specific being excluded from the insurance coverage that was NOT specifically excluded in the Safety Code?
And what makes you think that someone is going to exclude turbines from the insurance? I am sure you realize how dramatic the response to something like that will be.
I for one do not understand what they need an executive session for in the first place. If there are personnel related matters, maybe, but as a general course, I do not get it.
So in your opinion, based on what you have seen, and end run has been made to the safety code to ban something that was specifically intended to be allowed by the EC (as evidenced by the removal of the autonomuous aircraft ban)? Is this what I am reading from you?
Do you know of any other example of something this specific being excluded from the insurance coverage that was NOT specifically excluded in the Safety Code?
And what makes you think that someone is going to exclude turbines from the insurance? I am sure you realize how dramatic the response to something like that will be.
I for one do not understand what they need an executive session for in the first place. If there are personnel related matters, maybe, but as a general course, I do not get it.
11-27-2005, 01:04 PM
#48
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
Matt
First, you have not taken my previous postings to heart or have not seen them. The Safety Code is NOT a list of exclusions to the insurance policy. The Safety Code has no direct link to the insurance coverage. It has been described by HQ as a gentleman’s agreement. I have not read the insurance policy, which is now posted on the AMA site, nor do I intend to. However, my understanding is that the Safety Code is not mentioned in the policy, either as a list of exclusions or in any other way. You can deduce the result of that. A policy that covers some risk, has a list of exclusions, and then, after paying for the policy, telling the membership by way of the Safety Code that there is no such coverage. Take a guess at the legal footing that leaves one on.
This, of course, leads to an interesting question. Why do we want to eliminate coverage that is already paid for? No mention of a reduction of policy fees is made. How is eliminating any action conducive to the advancement of modeling? What is being discussed is risk. As you know, turbines have been placed high on the risk scale by some.
As to specific examples, I will return to the paint ball example. There is a club very near me that held an event this year based around shooting paint balls at flying models. Not only was the AMA aware of the event, they, as I understand, sanctioned the event knowingly, asking that the CD write a report and send it along with the event report. So… there is something else that may change. It is covered now, but may not be in the future. There are quite a number of changes being looked at. I don’t like typing well enough to address each of them here. You are welcome to request from HQ the minutes and appendices, as I have done, then ask people about the questions they will raise for you.
As to turbines in particular. Well, it depends on what you envision in your question. This set of minutes contains a draft copy dealing with closing of airports for jet events. If you think the incident between the turbine pilot and full size aircraft pilot has been forgotten or is being ignored, guess again. Is there some grand plan to revoke turbine waivers? Not that I specifically know of, but, that does not mean much. I was unaware that there was a move afoot to ban autonomous flight. Are turbines continually under scrutiny? Yes. Is the potential there to ban them? You answer the question. Are there 6 EC members that might do so on any given day?
First, you have not taken my previous postings to heart or have not seen them. The Safety Code is NOT a list of exclusions to the insurance policy. The Safety Code has no direct link to the insurance coverage. It has been described by HQ as a gentleman’s agreement. I have not read the insurance policy, which is now posted on the AMA site, nor do I intend to. However, my understanding is that the Safety Code is not mentioned in the policy, either as a list of exclusions or in any other way. You can deduce the result of that. A policy that covers some risk, has a list of exclusions, and then, after paying for the policy, telling the membership by way of the Safety Code that there is no such coverage. Take a guess at the legal footing that leaves one on.
This, of course, leads to an interesting question. Why do we want to eliminate coverage that is already paid for? No mention of a reduction of policy fees is made. How is eliminating any action conducive to the advancement of modeling? What is being discussed is risk. As you know, turbines have been placed high on the risk scale by some.
As to specific examples, I will return to the paint ball example. There is a club very near me that held an event this year based around shooting paint balls at flying models. Not only was the AMA aware of the event, they, as I understand, sanctioned the event knowingly, asking that the CD write a report and send it along with the event report. So… there is something else that may change. It is covered now, but may not be in the future. There are quite a number of changes being looked at. I don’t like typing well enough to address each of them here. You are welcome to request from HQ the minutes and appendices, as I have done, then ask people about the questions they will raise for you.
As to turbines in particular. Well, it depends on what you envision in your question. This set of minutes contains a draft copy dealing with closing of airports for jet events. If you think the incident between the turbine pilot and full size aircraft pilot has been forgotten or is being ignored, guess again. Is there some grand plan to revoke turbine waivers? Not that I specifically know of, but, that does not mean much. I was unaware that there was a move afoot to ban autonomous flight. Are turbines continually under scrutiny? Yes. Is the potential there to ban them? You answer the question. Are there 6 EC members that might do so on any given day?
11-27-2005, 04:35 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: J_R
<snip>
This, of course, leads to an interesting question. Why do we want to eliminate coverage that is already paid for? No mention of a reduction of policy fees is made. How is eliminating any action conducive to the advancement of modeling? What is being discussed is risk. As you know, turbines have been placed high on the risk scale by some.
<snip>
This, of course, leads to an interesting question. Why do we want to eliminate coverage that is already paid for? No mention of a reduction of policy fees is made. How is eliminating any action conducive to the advancement of modeling? What is being discussed is risk. As you know, turbines have been placed high on the risk scale by some.
First of all, it isn't 'we' that want to eliminate coverage, it's some over the hill carney/ amateur insurance underwriter and a few that seek favor from the throne. He isn't interested in reducing the risk exposure for Westchester, he want's to eliminate it for AMA. AMA insures the 1st $250K in any incident per the SIR, as I'm sure you will recall. It's the same reason they asked the real insurance company to drop member-to-family coverage. Tell me again that AMA is not an insurance company. Quacks like a duck........
Of course he has other motives for killing autonomous control of models - this isn't the first time he scammed the rest of the EC and the membership at large to ban it.
And yeah, there's no doubt he wants to kill turbines to, and nothing motivates him more than to have it his way when others that think they have some measure of control have acted against his will.
Abel
Edit for orthography
11-27-2005, 07:24 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East Cobb County,
GA
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA parkflyer membership?
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
FAA has been waffling over the definition of UAV, trying to arrive at a line that separates unregulated flying things from those they have to regulate. It would be interesting to see the Chinese fire drill in Muncie that will occur after FAA includes model airplanes in their definition of UAV, putting AMA out of the insurance business. This inane action could ultimately have a good outcome.
FAA has been waffling over the definition of UAV, trying to arrive at a line that separates unregulated flying things from those they have to regulate. It would be interesting to see the Chinese fire drill in Muncie that will occur after FAA includes model airplanes in their definition of UAV, putting AMA out of the insurance business. This inane action could ultimately have a good outcome.
I _think_ the way it stands right now is that our sort of UAV will not become regulated in the same bucket as the commercial UAVs because our models fall into a category of UAV in which FAA has expressed the least interest : direct operator control, in sight at all times, not flown over populated areas, and flown below 400' AGL.
Our models, except for the odd record attempt now and then, are not autonomous and are not presently considered to need regulation.
It's the semi- or fully autonomous air vehicles FAA is concerned with, particularly those which operate in controlled airspace. And rightly so, because those UAVs operate at the same altitudes as the air carriers. Nobody wants a B-777 coming down in pieces because it centerpunched a 1500 pound UAV doodling along in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I _think_ the outcome will be considerably less disruptive to our normal modeling operations than was first suspected by a great many modelers.
IMHO, for now.
Then again, The Mahout had best levitate off the chair if the elephant opts to sit, and if nothing else FAA is indeed The Aviation Elephant.