raptureboy

Maybe the issue is the clubs don't have a place to fly anymore. Our club lost it's field on private land in Dec. Since then we have been unable to secure a new field and the prospects don't look good for finding one. The AMA has sent us on 3 wild goose chases looking at EPA sites that were never pre- qualified as possible flying sites wasting my time contacting EPA officials who have never even heard of such a program. Many govt owned properties are now considering banning all RC flying and not renewing leases. We were told by our district rep that hundreds of clubs like ours are without a field or facing eviction. Then you have idiots flying quads causing this: http://www.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman...rd_for_15.html Why do we need a charter with no place to fly? We are going to have a real hard time convincing the public that we are not a bunch of yahoos endangering small children and defenseless animals.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

[QUOTE=rcmiket;12201191]True and time will tell just how this pans out. Bottom line the even if the AMA lost just 1/2 of that 400 this year it would not be a good thing for them or the hobby.

Mike[/QUOTE

It's doubtful anything even remotely close to either figure has ever happened, nor will it. Id bet good money the figure of clubs that no longer are AMA each year are at best single or lower level double digits, and as someone noted probably drop off because the club disbands for some reason.

I don't see any evidence that "we" collectively done like drones or foamies...but banning things is a horrible idea IMO. Even more so fixed wing. Where does it end? First foam...then smaller balsa...then nitro.....suddenly a club is giant scale only. Then they too ban 3D planes...etc etc. A slippery slope.

[QUOTE=RCFlyerDan;12201227]Because I am becoming the one who is a minority at the field flying gas and turbines. Foamies are becoming the primary planes flown at the field.[/QUOTE

Clubsare obviously able to control their own destiny via by laws...but how boring it would be to only have one type of plane or method\style of flight

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

I have been flying r/c since I was 11 and now 56, so I have seen the changes to the hobby. I have seen the helicopter come to the field back when they didn't have gyros. This was when what is considered 3D today, was considered running for your life to a picnic table or a 55 gallon drum for cover!! Yet, today some 40 years later, heli's are still not liked by the fixed wing flier, but are accepted into the Club. Gas came onto the field, and most thought they were great! Today, gas is thought of being too noisy, due to all of the foamy and electric fliers!! We with gas planes are spending hundreds of dollars to help make them more quiet with 3-bladed props and spinners, and quiet pipes and tuned pipes and headers! Then Turbines came onto the field, and some thought they are neat, others thought they were fireballs about to happen and went to fast. Jets are now safer as well as gas. With the changes of generations, there will also be changes to what are thought to be "traditional R/C", which for some of us, is still building a stick kit and ARF's are for those too lazy or not competent enough to build a true kit. BNF foamies are for the truly lazy and not "traditional R/C".

Again, all of this is just IMHO!!

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Clubsare obviously able to control their own destiny via by laws...but how boring it would be to only have one type of plane or method\style of flight[/QUOTE]

I agree that it would be boring too! But, I don't think it is all the Clubs' control. IMHO I think it is what is economic and the quickest mental reward to the hobbyist. Not everyone can afford to put a $10,000+ jet or IMAC plane into the air, let alone a $1000 plane. And, definitely not everyone has the talent to fly one either and should be limited to a foam plane.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I agree that it would be boring too! But, I don't think it is all the Clubs' control. IMHO I think it is what is economic and the quickest mental reward to the hobbyist. Not everyone can afford to put a $10,000+ jet or IMAC plane into the air, let alone a $1000 plane. And, definitely not everyone has the talent to fly one either and should be limited to a foam plane.[/QUOTE]

Ya, I guess it's a combination of the members, and then they sort of affect the makeup of the club. I belong to a club in NJ that only allows park flier style planes, but there are some pretty intricate and interesting planes that show up there. Another I belong to locally is primarily used for giant scale folks, and they prefer to fly one at a time...and historically have not been open and accepting of smaller hobby grade/foamy types. It took a few years but membership plummeted, who wants to wait an hour or so to fly while the big boys are out. The one I mainly fly at has a little bit of everything, from the scratch built two cell balsa 3 channel planes, to the 15,000 turbines. It's a huge mixed bag of everything under the sun, and I love turning into the field and not knowing what's going to be there (including the dreaded MR). I do like the fact however that ultimately it's the club membership that will (hopefully) decide what flies. I know of some clubs that banned helis for no other reason than fear, or rumor. I disagree with that, but ultimately if that's what they want, that's what they get. I would rather have that, then have a national organization telling us what we have to do all the time.

cj_rumley

Nothing hard to understand as to why drone operators are staying away from AMA in droves. If you don't need access to an improved flying site, you won't be required to join AMA. Simple, and if anything has changed it is because more people are choosing to fly craft that don't need fixed bases of operation.

Sport_Pilot

If you mean quads then they are not staying away in droves. The last time I visited the RC field almost half had a quad.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Staying away in droves....? Proof of this, or just hope and speculation? They are joining, and holding more and more events every month. Soon to be seen flying at Joe Nall too.....

TimJ

This sort of thing happens every year. Also clubs come and go all the time. R/C aircraft isn't dieing. Infact the R/C aircraft segment has showed growth over the last 3 years. So just because 16 percent of the clubs didn't renew doesn't mean the hobby is dieing. It just means those people either are no longer a club or are late paying their charter.

rcmiket

This just in.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: yiv1654553007drop, colspan: 3"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] Dear AMA members,

The U.S. Senate is currently considering amendments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016. We need your help today to ensure this proposed legislation fully protects the model aircraft community.

Click here now to urge your Senators to support Senator Inhofe's amendment number 3596 to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016.

As you know, we are pleased that the Senate's proposed legislation preserves a community-based approach to managing the recreational community by maintaining the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. However, at the same time, we are concerned with additional provisions in this bill that could detrimentally impact our community.

These new provisions would require all UAS, including model aircraft, to meet new FAA design and production standards and impose unnecessary regulation on hobbyists who often build their own models at home. The bill also requires modelers to obtain permission from air traffic control when flying within 5 miles of towered airports which could jeopardize hundreds of existing flying sites. And if passed, the bill would require model aircraft enthusiasts to take an online FAA safety test and carry proof of passing the test when flying. These new directives would undermine the model aircraft activity and detract from the creativity, innovation and enjoyment of the hobby.


By supporting Senator Inhofe's amendment number 3596, you can help stop this from happening. This critical amendment would maintain the basic intent of the Senate's proposed legislation, while lessening the negative impact on the model aircraft community.

As always, thank you for your support of AMA and your efforts to protect our community.

Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs




[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: yiv1654553007drop, colspan: 3"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: yiv1654553007drop, colspan: 3"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: yiv1654553007drop, colspan: 3"] Mike
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

cj_rumley

Rather than addressing the motivation for most, you are citing the pretty much solitary exception. OK, folks that fly drones for FPV racing competition will join AMA because chartered club sites are convenient venues for that activity. Is that why AMA powers-that-be are so bent on "embracing" drones? They blew a quarter of a $mil over the past year that was ostensibly earmarked for marketing to commercial drone interests. Is FPV racing envisioned as the next big thing for commercial drone operators?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Rather than repeating sweeping generalities and stereotypes, I noted at least one exception, there are more of course. Both racing and general FPV usage are increasing in popularity, as well as just plane old line of of sight flying with MR. I've seen it first hand at multiple clubs, and have read about it here and at RCG as well. Folks can wish it all away all they want, it won't change a thing. As for the money the AMA "blew", you might want to go back and check how long ago that was, and what the plans were for that money. It wasn't for "commercial drone interest", that's just another generality that continues to be bantered about by the anti AMA, anti progress, and anti MR folks.

FPV is the current big thing, but I've yet to see the AMA trying to woo or attract the folks at Amazon, Google, etc. Maybe they are starting that in California?

Sport_Pilot

The amendment.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Inhofe3596.pdf

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Just woke up and mind is still a little foggy, so what does all this really mean ?

Sport_Pilot

Good but not completely good. I don't like the part where we still have to take a test, but one administered by the AMA.

rcmiket

" impose unnecessary regulation on hobbyists who often build their own models at home."

Let me get this straight this will be illegal? What the hell?
Mike

Sport_Pilot

You can build, but you would need FAA approval to fly.

rcmiket

What a load of crap. This is ridiculous and getting worst everytime I open a email.

Mike

Sport_Pilot

We were discussing this in another thread over a week ago. This amendment would correct that, but still has testing, but done by the AMA.

rcmiket

I've lost faith in them getting anything done for some time.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So what organization should be advocating for us? Is there another one out there that we don't know about? What other organization similar in size to the AMA has the ability to change what the feds want to do?

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Putin !

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Really starting think that this whole situation has gone far enough. It is only a hobby ! Since when do people have to be tested to pursue a hobby ? If you need to test people for a hobby, then I can only assume that testing should be initiated for every other activity that people partake in.

Finally I fail to understand why the AMA has not gone Nationally to explain that it is not us the model airplane group that is causing all of the problems with these so called drones.

Damn !! Here I go, working myself up again.

init4fun

The ACLU ?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If he could kick us some of his funds from those offshore accounts it would be really nice!