Originally Posted by franklin_m

Yes, it was the same club. I thought I'd go out and see if there's been any change in the factors that caused me to end my membership. The AMA site lists 38 members, but have yet to see one out flying on Saturdays over several weekends.

You mention another club. That's also where we get into that concept of access that we've talked about. Using myself as an example, there's a certain group of folks out there who enjoy the hobby, but don't enjoy it enough to spend the better part of an hour (or more) driving just to get to the field. Is that wrong? Of course not. How many folks would join the hobby if there was a club closer? Is that a demographic that AMA needs to grow the hobby? I think so. And there it is, back to the issue of access close to where the members (or potential members) live.

The next three closest clubs are 43, 65, and 76 minutes away. Maybe some don't mind driving that far, but some do. I do. I'm balancing my hobby flying with three kids and their events. I'm also engaged in other hobbies, and some athletics. So there isn't the time to make trips of that length for one purpose. So not everyone is as dedicated, but can AMA survive only on the members that devote that much time to flying?

What about the folks that don't want to drive that far? If we're lucky, the AMA will capture those folks as park fliers. Others, like me, will move to flying things that don't require a club field. No club field requirement, no club membership required, and hence the 15 year declining trend in club membership that Dave Scott talked about.

You mention two clubs, with a lot of active members. I mention a club with very few members, and other clubs quite a distance away. Can AMA survive when there's such a difference between the AMA experience? When there's such a difference between the have's and have nots? I think it makes it tough.

BTW, total reported membership among all three other clubs I mentioned: 89