The amount of the increase in dues is not an issue for many, but I can understand that it it may be a problem for some.
However, the amount voted by AMA to spend on the multirotor/fpv/drone (and what ever else it it can be called) community is a misdirected use of the funds we, the aeromodelers, have paid in.
If you don't think that drones are that much of a problem, take a look here:
www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/faa-drone-report-incidents-mishaps
This shows a list of 194 incidents involving drones, reported to FAA in 2014 alone! This does not includes un-reported incidents, law suits regarding privacy issues for pictures taken, insurance claims. etc....
Most r/c modelers have
no issue with multirotors flown in line of site at the local club: these are hardly any more than a heli with more than one rotor.
But once you add FPV/GPS/self guidance systems, the aircraft (multirotor, heli or fixed wing) has become a drone. Most I have seen are flown with no spotter, not in direct line of sight, or in accordance with the AMA rules, and they likely never will. You can google "drone for sale" and find countless outlets selling these that are not affiliated with, or recommending AMA membership.
It is increasingly clear that drone flying is not model aviation: in fact, the military drones, even only equipped with observation cameras, are certainly not model aviation....
To the drone community, the flying object is only a platform, a transportation system, for the electronic and camera equipment it carries, making it very different from model aviation which has always focused on the joy of flying, whether it be scale, aerobatics, racing, etc. Drones are simply not model aviation, and pose challenges and problems that a model aviation CBO is ill equipped to address. And if the AMA did focus on addressing all these issues, it would have to loose what should be its sole focus, the reason why we elected our representatives in the first place:
represent and develop model aviation.
Like minded people sharing a common passion are best equipped to gather and form an association that cater specifically to their needs; the drone community needs to form their own association if they do not have one yet, and the AMA need to rededicate itself to what it was created for, and what we have been supporting it for: Model Aviation. Drones are not Models, they are Drones. The AMA has done a fabulous job at representing and protecting model aviation for decades, and I hope it continues.
By blurring the lines between these two separate activities, the AMA is exposing us to all the issues that drones have and will increasingly generate in the eyes of the public, the media, and the law makers. This is a disservice to the vast majority of us who are aeromodelers who have always supported the AMA, but have any interest in drones.
We are not subjects of the AMA, we are members. As such we should be consulted on such matter as dedicating a
quarter of a million dollars for the multirotor program, as it was voted last year. The vote was 6 against 6, and the tie was broken by the current president (see here:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...ecminutes.aspx)
I realize some (but not most) AMA members may fly some form of drone: I am sure many also shoot guns, and ride motorcycles; it does not mean the AMA should manage these other two activities too.
The drones have attracted more negative press in the few short years of their existence than has model aviation in 78 years of safe flying under the AMA's umbrella. I see not good coming to model aviation if we accept all the liabilities coming from an activity most of us do not practice.
The wisest course of action now is to demand that the AMA VP candidates make their position on drones known in their campaign statements, and let the votes speak. If the majority want drones as part of the AMA, so be it. But these major decisions, especially when they involve such a large budget, cannot be taken but the VP's without our knowledge or consent.