STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Well good news, the AMA has kept the e-ticket proposal which Joyce Hager addressed in an email, on their plate. So in light of this info, I suggest we open up the floor to the AMA to be given some ideas on how we can help the AMA solve some of the issues they will encounter on rollout. Here is the proposal as we last saw it. I'm sure it's changed since then.

Dear AMA Member,

I am sending this E-mail to you in a request for your assistance. With recent advancements in electric R/C technologies and the advent of the very popular "Park Flyer" aircraft, the demographics of the modeling community are rapidly changing. In order to better serve our members the AMA Executive Council is considering instituting a membership program that is specifically aimed at addressing the needs of the park flyer pilots. We have defined these "park flyer modelers" as having models that weigh 2 pounds or less, do not exceed 60 mph, and do not fly higher than 200 feet.

This proposed program would have less insurance coverage, be limited to non-sanctioned events, and include a bimonthly magazine focusing on electric-powered aircraft. Additionally, we view this new membership group as establishing electric-power flying fields in urban areas and not being part of existing clubs. We have priced this program at $29.95 per year.

The only thing I suggest to the AMA is put the insurance at 1-2mm, somewhere it was suggested to be at 500k and most parks and recs won't go below 1mm and many won't go below 2mm. I've never worked with a parks department that didn't require less then that. Other then that, I think it looks great.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Those holding Park Flyer AMA cards would not be allowed to fly at Charter Club AMA fields. Do I understand this right? Would those holding Park Flyer cards be covered for flying anywhere else or only at "established park flyer fields". Would the AMA charter such Park Flyer clubs as they do present full membership clubs? Seems like they would have to have something for the land owners.

Hossfly

That plan has only one item that I see: The Enhancement of Fort "MA" in establishing the publication of another magazine. I don't see any plan that will enhance the reasons for "Park Fliers" to become a member of an association intrusted with the promotion and care of model aviation.

Stickbuilder

Dion,

This time last year, when the mention of a tiered membership caused instant polarization of the membership, I was on the side of the wet powered group. I'm still there, and probably will not ever wish to own a battery powered model airplane. They have made significant progress to where it is no longer a curiousity, but is a viable power source. I just don't like them.

I believe it is time to address the dreaded, "E-ticket", thing, and I am in favor of it (with some reservations). We must do something to organize this group, and the e-ticket is probably what will be required to do so. I think that the time is right, and I just hope that the AMA doesn't get greedy, and price these guys out of the market.

As to the flying locations, I would oppose the e-ticket holder being able to regularly utilize the normal flying sites. If they are going to use the various parks and the like fine. I would even not be opposed to them coming to a club field (on an invitational basis) for a fly in. I think that if we offer them something, we will build a bridge for them to cross when it's time to step up to larger models.

Bill, AMA 4720

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

So Far, this is just a proposal, so there's time to contact AMA and your VP to let your views be heard.
There's a lot of *****ing and moaning about how AMA is unreponsive to the membership, well here's your chance to be heard and influence the policy makers before this becomes official.

I'm e-mailing my comments which are (short version): if this passes it will fundementally change AMA for the worse. Let them start their own orgainization if they feel they must be part of a group.
BRG,
Jon

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

I think what would most make sense is that full AMA card holders would be allowed to fly at e-fields, but e-ticket holders would only be allowed to fly at e-ticket fields. This encourages them upgrade to full ticket. They are still members of the AMA, no different then a LSA pilot, is a pilot. The idea is to get more flying fields, especially in smaller spaces and public parks, on the radar screen and certified as designated AMA flying sites.

Again going back to full scale flying. A private pilot can fly and LSA plane, he can jump right in and fly away. However an LSA pilot can not fly planes which are out of the reach of LSA certification. The similarities of the 2 programs are relatively identical, I mean right down to the nuts and bolts.

And in regards to a new magazine, good. How many does your covenant NRA have for their niche groups, at least 3?? How many does EAA have for their niche groups, you guessed it, 7. Variety is the spice of life Hoss. There is life outside long dark road that leads to your flying field.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Thanks Hoss. Luckily the power of that statement can only be carried as far as the amount of keystrokes it took to type. Like I said, thanks for your contribution to aeromodeling, but it's time for the new blood to take it where you left off.

Do the archery guys take the same kind of heat in the NRA by the way? I bet your a real go getter in that organization.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Re: Magazine

It is stated that the e-ticket holders would get a semi-monthly publication. How about they just get MA on even or odd months, MA could adjust their contributors and writers schedule so that articles focusing on direct e-ticket modeling would be in the odd or even months. Having the e-ticket guys see some other phases of modeling would be an advantage. Might be a problem for distribution, but I'm sure in this computer age it could be worked out. Of course I'm still from the old school where MA served to expose me to other expects of modeling that had the potential to enhanced my my modeling skills.

Then when it comes to tiered dues structure I am reminded of the old saw, "cut a worm in enough pieces and it won't wiggle any more." Modelers have gone for 75 years with people skilled in hand launch gliders paying the same as IMAC 3D 40% flyers and enjoying the same benefits and protection. Are we going to open Pandora's box here, with indoor free flight wanting the same opportunity for reduced fees? I'm kind of on the fence - but willing to give it a try and see if it accomplishes what it is intended to.

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

To your comment STL, they are qualifying the pilot/model not model/field. With the E-ticket and paid club dues they should be welcomed to fly at an AMA chartered field. Do chartered clubs make a habit out of discriminating gliders, freeflight, or other diciplines? That would be a club issue not an AMA issue.
The E-ticket should allow the same benifiets (or those limitations stated in post 1) with the only restriction being the as stated for the model type and weight.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Well if the AMA goes that route, what really changes? Nothing really. It doesn't encourage the intended purpose. It's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of getting these new smaller fields on the radar screen and trying to at the very least grab a very fast growing audience and encourage them to upgrade. In the end they will all be AMA members. If you run the e-ticket and let them use the regular fields, now you are effecting the current AMA club charter program and this will cause outrage. But if you just add a program which encourages upgrade and gives the ability of full AMA ticket holders to be able to use e-fields and full fields, the only thing that will change is that you'll be adding only.

I have a feeling that this is the way the AMA will run the program. It really debunks to reasoning to do it any other way. Don't think about what you need for you if your happy with the current AMA. Think about what a new member or a leaving member will want to stay or join and thats how the AMA has to look at the situation.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

This is kind of a shaddy area. Would e-ticket flyers be allowed, under AMA rules, to fly at AMA chartered club fields?

Looking a part of the first post: This proposed program would have less insurance coverage, be limited to non-sanctioned events, and include a bimonthly magazine focusing on electric-powered aircraft. Additionally, we view this new membership group as establishing electric-power flying fields in urban areas and not being part of existing clubs.

I would like to see a clearer statement as to exactly what e-ticket holders could and could not do.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

the only times i fly at a club facility of any kind, is when i attend a fly in, usually heli, somewhere. i do all of my local flying at parks and such with a group of about 40 or so folks, none of which have ama. i showed this proposal to most of them over a month or so back when it first appeared. not a single one of them expressed any interest in taking it up, and quite a few stated that it was a waste of funds that could be spent on new airframes.
i don't see it bringing in the folks that ama wants to bring in. at least not from the somewhat limited test market i tried it in. i do, however, see it causing a big drop in the regular role of full ama members, as those that have joined just for the insurance drop back to what they will see as a more realistic level for their involvement.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

My gut feel at this point is that Mongo is right on with his assessment. The park flyer or those that do not fly with chartered clubs isn't going to get excited about a $30 dues reduction when he is flying for free.

Stickbuilder

Red, and all,

I would be in favor of giving them full exposure. I say give them MA every month. The more exposure to our group, the more members that we will automatically get. Most of the guys flying in the schoolyards are not aware of what the AMA does, They have told me that they knew that there was some group or Association, but knew nothing about it. They are interested, but you have to make it worthwhile to them. They are no going to part with the brass for grins.

Bill, AMA 4720

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Or we can just keep gut feeling until the AMA dwindles down to nothing. At the very least if you don't think you can get him at $29, then I guess $58 will leave a set of skid marks on top. Price has a lot more to do with this then you think.

And the comfort level someone gets when they are part of their own niche is even more compelling then just being part of the blanket orgaization. I don't believe we would need this e-ticket thing if there were more blacks, women, children, mexicans and just more diversity overall in the organization. The AMA is made up of mostly white middle aged men, that live in rural regions and much like their lifestyle, want to keep the AMA one way. I believe the e-ticket will open up new diverse channels within the org. And I think the AMA has the same snakin suspicion as well.

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

So what happens if the AMA flying site is part of a public park? What then?

(example: The Pennsylvania state park system incorporated RC flying sites into thier state parks.)

Moon lake State park has an RC flying site as part of the park. SO ...What the "park flyers" can't fly?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

I don't know if you read the label of the discussion forum John, but this is the AMA forum. This forum is about discussion in regards to the AMA and maybe creating more AMA fields and programs. Of course you can go fly in just about every park in the country. I hardly know of any parks that won't allow RC pilots take to the air. But how do we use this to help the AMA and construct more designated flying sites within these parks? The more AMA flying sites, the more AMA pilots, the bigger the AMA gets, the bigger aeromodeling gets, the stronger we all become. So if we are 500,000 and Schummer makes another stupid comment like he did, a loud roar will knock him over.

I beg of any person in this forum to spend 1 single day of their lives in Oshkosh so you can understand what I'm talking about when it comes to unity in aviation.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

[:'(] Now growing the AMA is a racial, ethnic, equal opportunity issue.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Well you can't deny the reality of the situation Red. Where are they? It's not an issue, it's an opportunity to get them.

I've lived in a world where I believe anyone can get anything they want.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

NON SEQUITUR

KidEpoxy

I'm with Red on this one
(and that should be noteworthy: When Red & I agree on something it must be really good or really bad)

If we give them reduced insurance you are in essence banning them from Full/Real/True/Existing clubs. There is no ifs about it. The dogma that clubs need the full 6 billion dollars & 38 cents insurance to step on the club land will spit on the HalfMember HalfInsurance card. Just take up this idea in my Non-Member Allowed thread & watch folks scream about insurance variances.

put my name on the Mongo & Red list. This is correct, they will pay for what? And do they want to pay for that or simply fly & not pay it. Shouldnt we get quickly to the good old "AMA is not an Insurance Company" bit, and then hold that upto trying to sell folks to e-Join for insurance? If we are not selling insurance, what are they buying with their HalfMembership?

Still standing with Red on this one too.
With the idea that if we are trying to cut the HalfMember's dues, then mailing them a 3x5 card quarterly would save them even more.

Maybe tiering AMA to have Real Members and the new HalfMembers is a good idea.
My opinion is that it is not.

"Here is a list of the 1000 clubs you cant fly at, and the list of the 23 you can"
but none of them are in my state
"yeah, too bad... maybe one will charter up near you soon... would you like to buy some AMA Chili?"

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Great, so you, Mongo, Red, Hoss, F106 don't need the program. Perfect, AMA can count on you for your full membership dues next year. Exactly as planned. Thanks for the feedback Kid!

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

To better understand where STLPilot (Dion Cini) is coming from see: http://www.thehobbyquest.com

His posts will make more sense to all now that his quest is clear. A great opportunity http://www.thehobbyquest.com/funchisefaq.htm

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Not one of THQ's 20,000 students is over the age of 12. What benefit could this possilbly give them? If they want to join the AMA, they get it for $1, so why would I have to fight for something for them at $29? This is a hobby program for children, and a job for a lot of people who enjoy it. Like I said, the last people on earth I need help raising capital in my life is the AMA.

KidEpoxy

You know, maybe Tiers is a good idea
We definately need to have this PF tier be 1lb models or less,
and if 2lb planes are ~ $29 AMA, then the 1lb'ers should be ~ $19


Cause what full would a 1/2A 30oz plane be... it would be a dog that the poor little 049 couldnt drag around. With the new 1lb PF tier we can finally embrace what House of Balsa calls the Schoolyard flyer group

So yes, Hear Hear I say to the 1lb PF Tier
Viva los MedioKilos! (or whatever them foreigners say)
Carpe Poundum (seize the pound?)

2lb models are dangerous, keep it under a pound.
Why have some odd quantity of pounds, just use the single unit measurement. The Pound- yes or no, not some vast amount of pounds to look up & hope your scale goes that high.