No, it's not the noise. At least, the noise generated by model airplanes is not the reason flying sites are lost. The problem with respect to noise is the number of block-heads who insist their models aren't noisy but who start getting edgy when someone hauls out a noise meter. The problem is also that the hobby, and I do NOT mean AMA, has done little in the way of noise abatement. That's probably because not enough hobby consumers are demanding quieter IC power sources, quieter mufflers, and quieter props. Noise abatement is not only possible, it's relatively easily accomplished. Having said that, the fastest way to induce loud snoring at a club meeting is bring up the subject of noisy models. When everyone wakes up and heads off to fire up their model engines, noise abatement gets lip service if it gets any attention at all.

One of the clubs in which I hold membership has it's flying site across a small river (large creek, whatever you choose. . . ) from a new starter mansion development. Starter mansions. Y'know . . . they look like mansions, cost half a mil, and are three bedroom split level jobbies with truly snooty gingerbread glued on the outside.

One new homeowner started making noise complaints to the 'landlord' - the county water authority. In short order the club modified it's flying pattern, instituted maximum noise limits, and reassured the county and the homeowner that the club will be more active in monitoring noise levels. Every club member is on the mailing list, and the majority are on the e-mail list. Every member was made aware of the problem, particularly when flight ops were suspended for a month while the club figured out how to deal with the problem.

The DAY after flight ops resumed, a blockhead launched his 54%/Zenoah sans muffler and proceeded to intentionally provoke the neighbor.

It's this sort of stupid and arrogant attitude (always a bad combination) that causes the loss of flying sites, not the noise itself.

Noise we can deal with. We know how to do that. AMA can indeed help resolve noise issues.

Blockhead attitudes are something else again.


Exactly. As someone else put it, we're not an island unto ourselves. We live and fly our toys smack in the middle of the rest of the population (and yes, birth control might have worked 50 years ago but at this point in time it'll take another black plague pandemic to resolve that problem . . . ).

Irritating our neighbors is the reason flying sites are lost, pure and simple.

Neighbors become irritated for a number of reasons, and they complain because they are being irritated. Noisy model airplanes is an easy complaint to make, particularly in most jurisdictions which have no noise pollution ordinances and simply react to "too noisy" complaints by prohibiting the activity. It's really easy to pass ordinances against flying model airplanes inside the jurisdiction, as many model aviators have painfully discovered in the past.

Yes, but only if we can figure out a way to convince the blockheads of their condition.

I submitted a lunatic proposal which would enable chartered clubs (read : make sure chartered clubs realize that it is really ok to allow non-members to fly at their flying sites) to welcome newbie park flyers from the community. The resulting program is entirely voluntary (read : >>>is not mandatory<<< ) for the clubs. The non-members would be "allowed" to fly at the site, obtain such help as the club itself is willing to provide, and generally get a look at model aviation as "we" know it, up close and personal without having to shell out for membership in a lunatic hobby which might not be to their liking. The proposal and the resulting program (the proposal was passed by the EC) will cost AMA nothing, it will cost AMA members nothing, and it will cost chartered clubs nothing. The only administrivial load on the clubs is to notify AMA HQ when a non-member begins his month-long 'visit', so the end date for that freebie can be established.

My braine fharte was based on having on more than one occaision been forced to tell Dad and kid that yes, this is the place where model airplanes are flown but no, he can't let his kid fly his new park flyer there without joining AMA. That is what the club rules say (in all three clubs in which I hold membership at present, and in every club I've ever held membership). That scenario is repeated over and over all across the country, because the majority of chartered clubs believe, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot allow non-members to at least "try out" the hobby gratis. That belief is all wrong, and always has been all wrong.

The problem with that ill-gotten notion is that park flyers are something entirely new in the universe of model aviating. Only in the last very few years had Dad been able to snag Jr. a Christmas present which was fully capable of flight after a few minutes' charging time, and at a very reasonable price. In as little as an hour after hauling out the Christmas wrap, Jr. can have his new toy ready to launch.

Whether park flyers is simply a fad is a "don't care". Whether park flyers outnumber AMA members a million to one in a few years is a "don't care". Whether park flyers even manage to discover that there is a flying site right down the road is a "don't care". Whether jurisdictions across the country start prohibiting model airplanes in city parks is a "don't care".

What is NOT a "don't care" is Mr. Dad Taxpayer complaining to his county commissioner about his taxes being used to support a bunch of snobs who are using perfectly good land for their private benefit. That complaint can and has been the death knell for far more chartered club flying sites than most AMA members ever realize.

It's not even truly legal, unless the lease agreement is very carefully written, for the jurisdiction to force taxpayers to join AMA before they are allowed to use public land recreation facilities, but a lot of clubs and a lot of jurisdictions get away with doing so. None of the challenges to that sort of arrangement have ever been defeated by the jurisdiction or the chartered club, to my knowledge.

The proposal and resulting program is nothing more than a way to "allow" clubs to permit non-members to "try out" model aviation, gratis. Nothing more, nothing less.

Alas, the blockhead contingent in AMA are calling for my expulsion from AMA, or termination of my volunteer status, or censure, or some other draconian measures because of this truly simple proposal, which is aimed directly at getting clubs to realize that they operate their public land flying sites at the pleasure of the jurisdiction, which in turn means at the pleasure of the taxpayers. If you don't know it already, taxpayers have MUCH better access to county and city officials than any bunch of model airplane crazies, particularly when a significant portion of those model airplane crazies don't live in that jurisdiction.

Can AMA help ?

Maybe. But probably not until the blockheads among us wake up and see their flying sites being paved with biking paths and start screaming that AMA didn't do anything to help prevent the loss of the site.

AMA only owns one flying site.

"We" simply cannot afford to buy flying sites all across the country. Even if AMA somehow managed to acquire a bunch of flying sites, there is nothing to stop a disgruntled neighbor complaining about some aspect of model aviating ("too noisy" is a sure-fire way to get the attention of a county supervisor) impacting his use of his private real estate, right across the fence.

Even though AMA could, in our hypothetical situation, buy the land, the local jurisdiction can enact whatever ordinance it deems fits to curtail the use of that land thus rendering it utterly useless to AMA. That happens all the time, everywhere. Enough taxpayers make enough complaints, and the activity on the affected parcel gets modified or the activity gets terminated. With the idiotic suspension of private ownership not so long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, it has become even easier for local bureaucrats to simply take private land away from the owner and hand it over to some developer, on the premise that the community "needs" another shopping mall.

It may be reasonable for a chartered club to buy a flying site in some parts of the country, but enough land to build a flying site anywhere East of The Big Muddy simply costs far more than a chartered club or AMA can conjure up.

It's nice Horrace was able to set up Jetero with a parcel they could buy. Really. The Jetero flying site is a luxury, no question. I wish we had that sort of opportunity down here in hotLanta, but the fact is that land here is so far out of the reach of a model airplane club that the proposition is not workable. Atlanta RC Club was offered the opportunity to buy their existing flying site. No way could 60-odd members cough up 2 million samoleons to buy the land. Utterly impossible in a market where reasonably flat land goes for over 100k per acre and hilly land is two or three times as high (flat land tend to flood all too often around here . . . ).

Buying flying sites may work for the short term in some locales, but I suspect that won't hold true for very much longer, given the birth and immigration rates.

If our hobby is to survive, and I do mean OUR hobby (AMA 'haters' and AMA members together), we have GOT to re-train the blockheads and get them to understand that the vast majority of US manage to keep flying through the good graces of the local jurisdiction (and the fact that the Soccer Mom's haven't discovered our flying sites yet . . .).

Chartered clubs operating flying sites on public lands while nurturing "blockheaditis" by refusing to accomodate the few local residents who would like to 'try out' model aviation, does not sound like a good plan for retaining the use of that site.

But that's just my opinion.

Don't bother telling me what it costs in manpower and bucks to acquire and maintain a flying site. Been there, done that a lot. Been to a considerable number of meetings between clubs which would like to acquire a bit of public land (usually a closed landfill no one else wants) to put up a flying site, and local jurisdictions (mostly parks and recreation departments of counties). Helped a lot of clubs jump bunches of hurdles in getting the counties to allow the club to use the land.

Been to a bunch more flying sites, in North Georgia, which no longer exist because the club simply could not be bothered paying attention to noise complaints, or overflight complaints, or irritated taxpayers who thought is was not ok for private clubs to have exclusive use of public lands.

I never said it was fair that these clubs lost their sites. I never said it was fair that the club has to get and maintain the land, and then turn around and let "freeloaders" use the flying site. It's not fair. I don't think it's fair either, particularly when I spend a weekend every month during mowing season fighting off mosquitos and bees.

On the other hand, if the county water authority decides that the club should have welcomed local taxpayers gratis and didn't, and the site use permit gets terminated, I'll be on the committee looking for a new flying site.

I know what it costs to get and keep flying sites. I know what it costs clubs, and what it costs the members who keep the flying site going. I know how much time it takes the 10% who will work on the site, who will mow the grass, who will paint the shed, who will fix the safety fences, and who will pick up the litter.

I am also pretty sure that not enough AMA members know very much at all about what's involved in getting and keeping flying sites. I'm of the opinion that most members think they've done enough when they pay their annual AMA and club dues, and anything else can be left for George to do, whenever he gets around to it.

I think that's a bit blockhead-ish too, but that's just my $0.37, adjusted for inflation.