The real problem is the AMA is trying to define park flying...for us as well as others outside of AMA's control. There really is no way to win by this strategy...a better strategy would be to scrap this PPP stuff and educate all of us better ways to get park flying established wherever possible. Maybe give current clubs incentives to foster new park flying sites or allow fledgling park flyers in their ranks of the current clubs. At many club sites, enough extra space exists to allow an area just for park flyers. The club can decide what size, weight, membership fee etc. is appropriate at each site.

In more urban areas the AMA could wave the fees associated with chartered clubs and their site insurance premiumns (????) for some period of time to help them develop new sites in parks. Maybe reduce the required minimum initial size of “park clubs” to two or three members instead of five. But either way, remove AMA stipulations of size, power and speed so that each and every new park site can be developed to a maximum potential for the particular site. Some sites may be good for only for 10 ounce or less models while others can be full blown, with turbine jets but have no limit to how small a model can be. The only criteria for special AMA considerations would be that it is a new site within an actual park and that the park authorities officially outline the use in regards to size, type or whatever. AMA would look to insure the formal acceptance of the club by the park system.

All AMA memberships should be the same cost for each member or all should be tiered depending on type of model flown. This tier for park flyers is simply wrong no matter how you look at it.

As park flyers grow, so will the hobby and the AMA if cultivated correctly. If not…well we had our chance. Let’s get back to promoting the hobby first…the AMA will be ok.