While the Henry Ford approach to aeromodeling, namely that "you can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" is an interesting business model. So yes, I can fly belly landers or tail draggers w/o wheel pants. Unfortunately, I have no interest in those. Part of the allure of the hobby is being able to fly a variety of different types, with types matched to one's interests, not just the types they can fly at the local field. So I changed to smaller planes, and now no longer need a club field. Is that a success from AMA's perspective? I argue no. It's not a good long term business model.

No, I'm not jealous so much as concerned about the young folks and young families that we're trying to get involved. If the only way to fly at a field close to home is to get a plane of a type they don't enjoy, or bite the bullet and spend a ton more money on a large airplane of a type they do like, are those folks more or less likely to get involved in the hobby long term? I argue less. Is that ultimately good or bad for AMA? I argue bad.

It's really not so much a budget issue. I've got plenty of funds, but I don't enjoy the hobby that much to devote that much of my money to it, especially when it's just to compensate for conditions at the field close to home. I've often considered turbines, having had the chance to fly a few UAV models on AD, but why? So I can drive half a day to get to a suitable field to fly what I ultimately want to fly? Or get involved, but be limited to only those types and sizes that can handle a rough grass field? No thanks. But, that said, many of the very folks we're trying to capture are on a budget. And the more we raise the financial bar to entry, the less likely they are to enter. And we wonder what's driving that 15 year decline in club membership that Dave Scott spoke about. People are drive by economic factors much more I think than we may want to believe. Not everyone eats, lives, and breathes a single hobby. Make one too much of a load, and folks do other stuff.

In DoD, they have what's called a Basic Facility Requirement (BFR), for each type of unit. So an A6 squadron's BFR is based on the number of aircraft, number of people etc. That drive everything from hangar space to work spaces, to office spaces. A single seat Hornet squadron has a different BFR. I think it would be wise for AMA to establish a BFR type criteria for local club fields. Not saying this is a "must do," but rather something to use as a baseline. Then survey clubs and see how they stack up against that BFR. Then look at the geographic distribution of those clubs, as related to members in the area and as related to total population (potential member pool) in the area. I suspect you'll find areas where there's a lot of "haves" and areas with a lot of "have nots." I also suspect you'll find strong membership in areas close to good facilities, and lower membership rates in areas with poor facilities. That gives you the areas to target for enhancement based on distance / population / existing members. Not to make it better for individual members, but rather to create facilities more likely to draw more NEW members. The go where the data takes you. Some of these existing facilities, with suitable enhancements, might also for the core of the regional facilities discussed above. Proximity to where folks live is key. Not everyone can take a week off to travel to Muncie.

I don't agree. If the AMA wants more members in clubs, then there's got to be an incentive to join a club. I dearly hope AMA is not pursing a way to use law or regulation to do that, but it will ultimately fail, a people don't like to be forced - especially this younger generation. Same for working with towns and parks etc. If AMA convinces them to make membership mandatory, it may succeed for a time, but ultimately it will fail for the same reason. Create reasons people WANT to join - it's got to be a cost / benefit calculation in favor of joining. "Because I have to" will ultimately fail.

As for the local club, by the time we drive that kind of change using that method, I'll be long past dead. Ironic that you mention sailplanes. There was an active group of members that flew them. They left the club a few years back and now fly at a local school - actually the same place I flew last Sunday. As for me, my preferences vary. But with respect to nitro, it's .049 to about .75 max. I'm unusual in the sense that I pride myself on being REALLY good at landings. I do short field, flare, soft field, downwind, wheel, three point, simulated power loss, precision touchdown point, unusual configuration, wing down top rudder, forward slip, front side of power curve, backside of power curve, etc. Why? Watch many of the videos online and where do most folks have trouble (especially jets it seems), and it's landings. For small stuff, the local field it's out of the question unless it's a belly lander. For the .75 and below, forget anything w/ retracts. Field is too rough. So that rules out the warbirds that I'd like to fly. Even much larger ones, if retracts, struggle on the field. So why put several hundred into a kit and months building only to be frustrated when you fly? Sorry, not for me. If I had a paved field closer, completely different story. That would be quite an "incentive" to join.

So I switched to helos. Small ones (Oxy) to big ones (700's). Don't need AMA field for my style of flying (scale). Could I fly at a club field? Sure. But why? I'd spend a good amount of time sitting while the 20cc+ aerobats hog the center of the runway hovering and / or low altitude acro over the runway. I'm not going to risk a $1500+ heli with things that have that kind of unpredictable flight path. So I quit the club and fly elsewhere. And I fly more often.