ECHO24

Canadian goose poo with no stake at all in the ouitcome, it's easy to be a troll.

ECHO24

Consider this, shortly the US will have more restrictive rules on RC flying than Communist China. Wake up AMA idiots.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I agree wake up AMA dump the cockroaches before they drag the whole organization down. Take care of those who are footing the bill with they're dues.

ECHO24

What a dirtbag. You've produced nothing here, no facts, no insights, just bile.

Hydro Junkie

Isn't that all a worm is good for, other than being fishbait? It crawls through the dirt, eats said dirt and dumps it out the rear end

R_Strowe

Several years ago people were here and on other forums complaining that the AMA was only representing the interests of AMA members. So they changes gears and are now trying to represent the hobbyist across the board, member or not. So now those same members complain about that.

Seems to me they will never be satisfied with any effort by the AMA. All because franklin digs up AMA’s financial problems (which are admittedly a big problem), yet never really proposes a viable solution acceptable to the membership, all because his request for AMA funds to build an R/C field, on a military installation (inaccessible to the majority of AMA members) was rejected.

R_Strowe

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I pay dues. They are not supporting me. Therefore I b!+tch. Get it now?

Astro

Hydro Junkie

I don't pay AMA dues because it would be wasted money. Wasted by those that run the money pit and not on what the membership needs or wants(like an indoor flying facility that wouldn't be used 99% of the time)

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

How much could the AMA save by closing ranks and representing members only? Sweep the chaff out and close the door. How much better for the membership if they had concentrated on their needs instead of attempting to represent those non members most who refuse to cooperate or recognise the AMA in the first place. That is throwing good money after bad.

franklin_m

This has nothing to do with their decision on that matter. I didn't like it, I'll admit that, but it's no different than any number of fields that are closed to new members. And you'll note I've been very quiet on that matter. If there is an issue w/ the field they didn't want when I asked, it's the irony of a couple years back they reached out to MWR to do the very same thing. Granted, membership had been tanking for a couple more years at that point. I know, because I reached out to offer to help them ... individuals that formerly worked for me had advanced much higher in MWR and were in a position to influence decisions. But again, AMA said no ... opting instead for someone internal to do it. Someone who's grand total experience was having once worked at MWR. And it failed.

But again, that's more ironic entertainment than what drives my efforts. Where AMA crossed a clear bright line with me was when they tried to use 336 to compel membership. Any number of instances have been highlighted in these pages where multiple senior AMA officials made statements and/or published articles implying (if not explicitly saying) that membership was necessary. I saw this as wrong for two reasons: First, I feel using law to compel membership is patently wrong. But second, AMA was doing because revenue was falling and they were unwilling to act inside their own fence line first ... slashing costs. And why? Because they're in over their head. They're managing a multi-million dollar organization like a bake sale. They're haemorrhaging money from the magazines. It's not like the magazine losing money is new ... see chart below. Yet they've allowed it happen - year after year after year after year after year after year - you get the idea (see chart below). Yet they keep kicking the can down the road. Another committee study, another delay, and even more members' money down the toilet in the meantime.

The other place they crossed a clear bright line with me is mismanagement and disinformation. Take a look at the other chart below. Note how staff spending as a percent of member dues (primary source of AMA revenue) has risen sharply over the last few years? That alone would be shocking, but it's even more so when one considers that membership revenue (i.e. paying members) fell consistently yet staff size stays the same.

As I said above, since 2005 the magazines have LOST over $30,000,000 of members money. No staff changes. No firings for poor performance, etc. Staff spending growth despite falling membership. Again, no changes, no firings, no downsizing. Why? Cannot say, unless they just don't have the stomach to make the hard decisions that clearly need to be made. And all this mismanagement and waste is on top of foolish efforts. Things like trying to obfuscate their loss of paying members (only ones that count) by giving away free membership and then being secretive about how the number break down. The only number that matters is paying members, which is why they won't be open about it. Fortunately, they have to report (on taxes) one number that is directly related to the number of paid members - and that's membership REVENUE - which continues to fall. And the scary part? The rate it's falling has accelerated. Yet you'd never know that from AMA communications and reports to members. Why can't they just be honest? Because doing so would be to confront their own lack of performance.

ECHO24

Another AMA fantasy. 4 out of 5 RC flyers will be forced out of the hobby with FRIAs.
It will also be a slow death for AMA as fields disappear and people quit

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

AMA Vision We, the members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, are the pathway to the future of modeling and are committed to making modeling the foremost sport/hobby in the world. This vision is accomplished through: • Affiliation with its valued associates, the modeling industry and governments. • A process of continuous improvement. • A commitment to leadership, quality, education and scientific/technical development. • A safe, secure, enjoyable modeling environment.

AMA Mission The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities. The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education, and scientific/technical development to modelers.

I don't see anywhere the AMA agreeing to take on the burden of representing the freeloaders of the nation a number by those here estimate about twice the paid membership. What have the freeloaders done to better the AMA or the paid membership. What have the freeloaders here done to improve anything AMA? An associate member is a paid member but with limited rights so even those associated members from other countries have made a greater contribution than you freeloaders.

ECHO24

And in their greed AMA committed suicide for themselves and the hobby.

What the AMA loons ignore is that since 2008 AMA has been negotiating RC rules for the other 80%
of RC fliers who don't belong to AMA without their consent.

franklin_m

I'm sorry. I must be missing the part where they say "...only for our members...,", "...for our members...", etc.

Oh, that's right. It's not there.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Then my recommendation is valid. They should stop and let the FAA do its job and regulate all model fliers and concentrate on an exemption for AMA members only. That's exactly what happened in Canada and we enjoy the same flying rules we had before and non members get to fly under Transport Canada rules and I believe over a couple of pounds have to have a licence to fly. So far it has worked out very well for MAAC. Just the other day some idiot decided to follow the life flight helicopter from a fatal car accident and was caught and fined and for once there was no attempted connection to model rc flyers by the media. Transport Canada fined him as a commercial enterprise.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Nowhere in either the mission statement or the vision does it address all modelers including non members.
The first sentence in both the vision and mission speak to the membership even referring to them as modelers. The rest of both statements give direction they intend to support modeling. Nowhere is there any offer, mention or intent to represent the interests of those outside the parent organization. As you said where does it say representing the interests of non members? Oh right its not there.

Hydro Junkie

What's also not there is how the AMA needs it's own flying facilities, a magazine, an overpaid staff, a museum and many other things it's putting out member's paid money for. The rest of the "mission statement" is a bunch of wasted ink since all the AMA actually does is provide overpriced insurance and sanctions competitions, something the individual clubs could do just as easily themselves. I know this because many other organizations do the same thing, not needing the sanctioning body to lead the way and tell the club what to do

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You're not very bright, are you?

The AMA statements clearly address, "modelers". Not "AMA modelers", ALL modelers and modeling.

Just because you suffer from lack of understanding of the written English language, does not mean you are free to cast your misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding on the rest of us.

As a side note, based on the current status of the AMA and modeling, I'd say they are FAILING on most of the points mentioned in both of those documents.

Astro

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Nowhere does it say all modelers its only what you want to believe. In fact the only modelers mentioned are "We the members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics" written in plain speak read it slowly, twice if you have to.

franklin_m

By your own admission, the AMA's mission is:Basic logic.
- Are all AMA members modelers? Arguably yes.
- Are all modelers AMA members? Arguably no.

AMA's mission statement says "modelers", which would necessarily include both members and non-members. Now, if they don't want to be seen that way, it's as simple as changing their mission statement to say "our members" and be done with it. But as soon as they do that, they make themselves even more irrelevant than they are already.

ECHO24

This idea that AMA only represents only their members if bollox. AMA is the lobby for all of RC flying. Given your belligerent attituted I can see where you
would be on board with AMA kicking 80% of RC fliers to the curb. In any case, it was utter stupidity on AMA's part pusuing their greedy little monopoly.

Under the new rule, instead of AMA's dream of forcing all RC fliers to become members under the CBO scam, those non-AMA members now just
disappear when RC flying is oulawed except at approved sites. AMA will wither and die with no new blood and flying fields going away and never
renewed under the proposed rule.

You do know that is what Remote ID means, do you not? Model aircraft cannot be retrofitted, i.e., they will be banned from flying except at FRIAs.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

-Are all UAS operators modelers? Arguably No.

Princeton's WordNet(0.00 / 0 votes)Rate this definition:

1. modeler, modeller(noun)
   
   a person who creates models
   

Hydro Junkie

I like it, not one place in that definition does it say AMA or anything related to it. Thanks Speed

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

The AMA needs to divest itself of the Klingons

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You HAD to go down that rabbit hole? Really?

I guess to be a "true" AMA member one needs to "create models" then? I guess the AMA needs to divest their ranks of all those who do not build.......
I can only imagine the small group left after the cleansing.....THAT would be a fun and lively group! LOL

Astro