cj_rumley

As I recall the effort was abandoned when a squawk about some endangered species (a rodent?) arose. I think the enterprise was independent of AMA at any rate.

A club in the Tucson area has offered their excellent site as a regional AMA site, but even though it would be a turnkey deal for AMA, it has gotten no support from Muncie. The IAC needs the income from SIG sponsored events to defer its cost of ownership, and that will remain the stone wall for any other site that would compete for those $$$. I'd love to have a site for regional competitions on or near the left coast, but none of us will live to see it materialize. When Tougas pushed for it, the rest of the EC agreed to bank donations from members for it, effectively tabling the issue and there has been no further consideration of it by the EC.

franklin_m

On the endangered species, that should not have been a surprise. IMO, that's a failure on LT's part to fully research the issue.

Geolocation with respect to both existing members and membership pools is key to narrowing down the general possible site locations. Then it's a matter of looking at how these align with existing club fields. Then a look at each club field in detail to understand things like roads and parking, environmental issues, camping possibilities, noise restrictions, encroachment, utilities, airspace, local air traffic (even if in class E 1200 floor area), proximity to MTRs, etc.

franklin_m

We had one such endangered species on my base, the Fresno Kangaroo Rat. Had to have a management program, oversight, etc. Not fun, but doable.

crash1ace

Id love to see a regional site put up. Im not much on travel, but would do so if here on the east coast somewhere.

init4fun

Thank You Franklin , a very good idea indeed ! Yes I do understand folk's like Bedford's well founded concerns about a rise in Dues to pay for a couple of national flying sites but with ideas like yours the idea looks more and more feasible , if enough in the organization wanted it to be so , it could be done .

Yes Sir crash1ace , I'm right with you there . If a national flying site was anywhere within 3 or 4 hours drive , I'd endeavor to make the trip maybe even a few times a year . But to drive from easternmost Massachusetts to Muncie Indiana ? Not in the cards for this old guy , I'll never see it unless I fly there and how much model airplane stuff can one bring on a jetliner these days ?

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

To defray the costs a bit why not explore the possibility of a joint use deal with a business or organization? Sod farm, private airport, fly in community, fair grounds, ultra light aircraft club, full scale glider club etc. It doesn't HAVE to be exclusively a model field nor does it have to be exclusively available to modelers 24/7.

AMA owns the land and shares in the revenue.

As long as we are dreaming, why not dream "outside the box"?

rcmiket

Those venues would have to be constructed existing facilities would be far more cost efficient and ready for immediate use..

Mike

franklin_m

I'm a big fan of agricultural out lease. Not only does it maintain an encroachment free buffer around your operations, it allows you to establish relationships with folks by giving them a cut rate on the rental in exchange for the impact of your operations. Obviously you need to cover costs, taxes, etc., but that isn't too difficult with some money over and above that to help defray field costs.

jimbrock2

Good idea, expanded as per Plane Jim. Add a Gulf Coast site.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I think this is a great idea. I would like to see 6 or 8 "regional" sites.

I would pay ten or twenty dollars a year more in dues to support this as I would actually get to visit and use one or more of them at least a couple times per year. Pretty cheap price to pay, really. I've been within 30 minutes of Muncie three times over the last few years and never visited the HQ, museum or flying site, just not really that big a deal, for me I guess.

$1.2M in extra revenue dedicated to developing and maintaining 6 or 8 sites would go a LOOONG way.

I am thinking the nearest club to each location would be the "steward" club of the field in order to keep maintenance and staffing costs low.

I would really like to see this come to fruition!

Astro

rcmiket

From here to Munice would be a 24 hour road trip ( along with associated expenses) for me Both my kids (and grand-kids) are in northern Illinois) about a 4 hour trip to Muncie from their house just a day trip. Over the past 10 years of visiting them I've never had the desire to take the time.to make that 4 hour drive.
I'd also financially support a due regional sites as I see them as a investment in the future.


Mike

franklin_m

That's a good characterization of the issue that AMA seems to be missing.

init4fun

Hi Jim ,

if the sites on the Right & Left coasts are successes , I see no reason why the idea couldn't be expanded to the Gulf Coast as well .

Hydro Junkie

Okay, let me throw out an idea on this one.
On the left coast, Arlington Washington's airport. Here are my reasons why:
1) It was formerly an NAS, just like Everett's Paine Field(home of the Boeing widebody products)
2) Being a former NAS, it was built with the classic triangle runway arrangement, of which the main runway(16/34) is active and, fortunately in this case, uncontrolled by a tower. Of the other two, 11/29 is used for ultralites while the third is inactive but still intact
3) It is close to hotels, restaurants, I-5 and, for the gamblers out there, several casinos
4) Adding facilities would not be an expensive proposition since all that would be needed is restrooms(portable or otherwise), additional parking(could be no cost by parking on the grass) and an area set up for tables and piloting stations
5) Communication between the three areas would be simple to have installed to facilitate keeping the three kinds of aircraft separate
6) This is the site of an Oshkosh style fly-in during the summer, as well as grass snowmobile racing so it can handle crowds
Any thoughts on this?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

probably the best and most realistic idea in this thread yet.

Great idea, now who takes care of the sites? Your club members? AMA staff? Contracted staff? Pipe dreams are great, but normally stay that way, just dreams, because the reality is something completely different. The devil is in the details. And the details are usually expensive.

So what decision process today is as flawed now, as it was then? Ever been to Joe Nall? Is there something right close by that the rest of the family could be doing while you fly? No, of course not, most fields of this size aren't plunked down next to built up areas, for obvious reasons. That, and lets face it, the "family" isn't normally brought along at these events, at least not most of the ones I've attended. Sure, a son or daughter might be there, or the wife, but they are rarely (sadly) big family functions. It doesn't appear you know the history of the choice, nor the reason Muncie was selected. It's right on the AMA website, although I doubt most here took the time to look it up.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/museum/ama_history.aspx

Go figure, cost was a big factor among the 50 options. Seems like they went through a reasonable process to arrive at that decision.

Very well put. Ironically those making these grand suggestions about multiple flying sites are the very ones complaining so very bitterly about the maintenance costs of Muncie. How dare they spend money keeping up a world class facility that is constantly used throughout the year. Bet nobody realizes there are events booked there all the way through the end of October. And how about those NATS? I can only imagine the outrage and condemnation the AMA would get if they had to pay for more than one National Site. And that's setting aside the reality of logistics, as in who would actually take care of the site, coordinate things etc etc...just the actual costs. As if 10 or 20 from each member would cover it, lol. The grants work great, for those that take the time to actually fill the paperwork out and submit it. I've yet to hear a story from a club getting turned down (for legit reasons). Heck, a club in my area got money this year when their runway was torn up by wildlife. Simply filled a form out, sent in some pics, and within a WEEK....they had a check. So easy even a caveman could do it.

Along those lines, check out Tony Stillman's article in this months MA mag about the club who had to deal with paving their runway. An excellent example of a CLUB...and IT"S MEMBERS taking the needed steps to deal with their issues, rather than looking for a handout from mama AMA to keep them afloat.

Speaking of repeating history, if history is any indicator the usual 2-4 people would no doubt be howling in protest if the AMA set up multiple flying sites, and had to spend OUR dues money on those sites without THEIR approval. It would be complaints of epic proportions. No doubt everyone would like to see a site close to them for convenience sake, but it's just not realistic. The costs involved make it unrealistic, let alone the logistics.

10 to 20 a year would sustain 6-8 regional sites? So what exactly would draw people to those sites, just the chance to fly? Don't those folks have their own fields to do that at? You made a personal choice to skip going to Muncie ...the place that has world class flying fields, the worlds best modeling museum, because it wasn't " a big deal". So what would be a "big deal' with a regional site that didn't have a HQ, or a museum to go through? What would draw in thousands of people a year to these sites? And finally, who again would take care of them on a daily basis, maintenance, security, etc etc etc.?

What, more criticism of the AMA without an alternative solution? History repeating itself. So...the issue AMA seems to be missing is not investing for the future? Funny, a few folks make personal decisions to not go to Muncie, and suddenly the AMA isn't investing in the future. The solution...build multiple sites (6-8) across the country to accommodate people who can't put forth the effort to go to Muncie. Seems reasonable and logical, and most importantly, practical.

You are one of a few who complain about the cost of upkeep at Muncie...are you really an advocate for opening yet more flying sites? Is this something that should be brought before the membership to discuss and vote on? How long do you think that process would take?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Oh, and for those that feel the AMA hasn't "invested" in the future...look no farther than the chronic and constant complaints from those noting the time and effort of the AMA by embracing...yep, MR and drones. The largest and most significant change in the hobby, notwithstanding the protestations of the few. Some might even call them the a vital part of the future of the hobby.

init4fun

Hi Hydro Junkie ,

Thank You for your thoughtful , well worded post about this idea . Of course , that's all this is , is an idea , a talking point for a rainy Sunday afternoon , and it's not like the solution to world peace is gonna come out of it or that it's anything to be taken too seriously . Hell yea I think a couple of such "outposts" would be great for the folks in the areas where the regional site(s) would be and as said earlier would likely attract folks who wouldn't otherwise be able to visit the home base in Muncie . If the business model of any and all other successful endeavors is to be believed , more locations would equal more exposure , and hence more foot traffic in and out spending more money .

Poll results are pretty favorable to the idea so far too , it seems a majority think the idea is at least worth looking into . Has it been looked into before ? sure it has . But does that mean that looked into once means it'll never work ever ? Of course not ! What if the guy who invented WD-40 had that quitter mentality and given up after WD-39 wasn't a success ? Great ideas take fine tuning to make them work , things like Franklin's very smart advice of the location software , and it's exactly those kinds of positive ideas like both his and yours that can make something like this happen .

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Geesh! Maybe you didn't get the gist of this thread. It was clearly intended as a place to share different views. It is clear that you don't like the idea of developing multiple sites, as some others here have mentioned as well. Do you have to attack those that have a different view than you do? Nobody said they had all the answers, or that it was even feasible, just that they would like their representatives in Muncie to maybe consider suggestions from their membership. No harm in that, right?


Those are all questions that could and would be answered if this were given a chance for serious discussion. This thread is what, a few days old? Hardly enough time to have considered all the implications. Once again, you seem to take issue with those who have differing opinions.

My "home" field comprises 30 acres and is owned by the club. It is sustained by between 100 and 200 members (fluctuates year to year). Dues are $75.00/yr. Best case scenario, that is $15,000.00 (and I cannot remember when there were 200 members, average is more like 125). While that field is not what I would consider a good candidate for a regional facility, it costs TEN TIMES less to maintain than what would be provided by a mere $10.00 dues increase (not to mention the additional income that would be provided by "host" club members, income from events, etc.).

$10.00/year per paying member would add approx. $1.2M to the AMA coffers. If that were dedicated to building and maintaining regional flying sites each year, I do believe it is enough to sustain 6-8 flying sites. That is ALOT of $$. One of the fields I fly at easily cost over $1M to build. While maintenance is not cheap, it certainly doesn't cost $150,000.00/yr ($1.2M divided by 8 sites). As per my suggestion, each "regional" site would be attached to host club that would play steward to that field and would certainly help defray the costs through their dues and volunteer efforts.

The draw to these sites would be that they would be:

A. Generally nicer facilities to fly at than your "average" club flying field
B. Generally within a reasonable travel distance to a majority of AMA members, allowing them to participate in hosted events WITHOUT having to take a full week off of work, or to feel obligated to bring the entire family and make it a "vacation", eliminating the need to turn it into a Disneyland, or be located in close proximity to one.
C.I have run across many members who would like to make the jump into larger, more complex models , but don't because they do not have adequate flying facilities nearby. If there were a regional site available, they would be much more likely to engage in such projects (good for the hobby, no?)
D. They could/would host regional events in many of the different disciplines in our hobby (turbines, scale, IMAC, Heli, Warbird, 3D, FF, CL, etc, etc). This would do wonders to expose the "average" modeler to other disciplines of our hobby that he/she might otherwise only be able to read about online or in magazines. (good for the hobby, no?)
E. They would be perfect venues to use to expose the non-modeling public to our hobby (good for the hobby, no?) Many of the non-modeling public view our hobby as somewhat elitist and expensive ala polo and exclusive golf clubs. If they realized that for a mere $100.00 or less they can belong to an organization that provides regional facilities, insurance and advocation for their continued enjoyment of the hobby, they may be more likely to join (good for the hobby, no?)


Why do you feel the need to attack others for having an opinion?
Has it not been made painfully clear to you that those that have voiced their concerns about Muncie expenditures have more to do with how many of the dues-paying members it serves? It is pretty clear to me that they are saying that IF our organization is going to spend $$, it should serve a larger portion of its' dues-paying memberships.
How long SHOULD the process take? As long as it takes. What does it matter how long it takes? Why are you so opposed to the membership having a voice?

This discussion had a great vibe to it, with multiple opinions being voiced and represented.......for awhile......

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And some would simply have a different opinion. I wonder who is, "right" LOL

Astro

franklin_m

No alternative solution? You must have missed posts 20, 27, and 33 in this same thread. So as to not burden you with going back and reading them. I'll summarize:

1. Identify lat/longs around the country that capture the most existing AMA members as recorded by their mailing addresses. Adjust the radius until you get a reasonable number of options (proximity to pool of current members)

2. Run the same analysis for general population, perhaps using zip codes (proximity to pool of possible members)
3. For each lat/long identified, cross reference with existing club locations.

4. Evaluate the existing club locations for airspace issues (seems logical to prefer locations where class E starts at 1200 AGL), encroachment, noise, environmental, access, potential for expansion (parking, camping), utilities, and facilities.

5.Then establish a minimum facility standard.
6. Determine cost to bring each up to that standard.
7. Determine upkeep cost for the enhanced facilities
8. Prioritize.
9. Enter into negotiations w/ local clubs to establish cost / responsibility sharing relationship.
10. Fund based on priorities and budget limits.

franklin_m

Perhaps, but as they grow bigger they also have increased incentive to break from AMA and form their own CBO. They could get a break on insurance if nothing else, for they don't have large drones, turbine drones, don't fly at high altitude, etc. Furthermore, their operational need for flying spaces is very different, and a traditional AMA club field is not necessarily the best option for them.

So, yes, they may be the future. So too could that be a future where they suddenly leave AMA suddenly, creating all sorts of cash flow and other issues.

init4fun

Hi Franklin ,

If drone racing is really to become "the next big thing" as we keep hearing in these threads , and if the actual participation numbers truly support it , I would see no problem with the regional sites having a section dedicated specifically to a drone racecourse . Give them somewhere nice to race their drones along with the other reasons they already belong to the AMA and they would have less of an incentive to strike out on their own , right ? If there really IS "big money" in this why shouldn't the AMA have a drone racecourse or few to cash in on this latest craze ? In the other thread when the subject came up of the building for Indoor free flight and indoor RC in Rantoul Illinois that the AMA is considering buying , I gotta admit my first thought was that if the drone racing really is so huge then why is the new facility being proposed first for things like indoor Free Flight and indoor RC but with no mention of any of that indoor RC being this next red hot hobby advancement , drone racing ?

rcmiket

Ya know there's a whole lot of "if's" there. The "big money" it doesn't involve the AMA and are not even mentioned by the DRL.

http://thedroneracingleague.com/

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Intolerance to a contrary opinion...not surprising. I don't see any "attacks" in the thread, just a Trump like attempt to make it so. I voiced my opinion, which is contrary to yours, so in your mind that is always an attack. It's Pavlovian at this point. Also, I didn't say anyone is either right or wrong on their opinion...that was someone else noting a "wrong opinion/perspective). The idea of multiple flying sites is impractical as presented, and not fully supported with either funding, or any logistical means. That's my opinion/perspective, which I believe I'm able to have.....

MajorTomski

I was told that Oklahoma City was in the running when Muncie was chosen. Lots to do out here and more centrally located. Funny thing, I've been an active modeler in OKC since '77 and never heard of this until two years ago.