Honestly, I think they're in denial. So intent on hearing what they want to hear, they're not seeing the the signs right in front of them.

12 October 2018 - The "roundtable discussion" on the AMA Government blog posted. In it they reference the conversation with the FAA (starting about 7:15 of AMA video when Hanson starts talking).

12 December 2018 - The FAA updates the website with the statement to remain at or below 400 feet in class G.

And yet, you keep responding like a loyal family pet.

I could be the second coming and you wouldn't think of me as anything but evil, hateful and anti-AMA. That's because you have made your decision that that is what I am without having a real discussion of the facts. The AMA has some serious issues that have been building for years. And most members, like you, elect to do little or nothing about it. Be it from laziness, ignorance, plain stupidity or something entirely different, I don't know. Changes need to be made or the AMA will fade into history. I've attempted in my own way and in my own time and can actually point to one significant change I influenced. But not anymore.

Time for you and your buds to stand up and get to work. But I don't expect you to do so. Because when you get right down to it, it's you who are anti-AMA. Because the one who identifies issues and tries to do something about it risks it all. While those like you who sit back and do the minimum if anything place your lack of caring and concern on display for all to see. And in fact you go so far as to try to discredit anyone who dares to rock the boat. Regardless of why they are doing so.

You have convinced me the average AMA member probably isn't worth my effort and sacrifices. You neither understand it nor appreciate it. Rather, you expect it as part of your perceived entitlements. Good luck with that. You and the AMA will need it.

Professionalism isn't a skill set. It's a behavior. And you don't have it.

All the signs are there, yet some continue to wish them away. The CFO and Brady Ware comments at the July EC meeting. The membership revenue, charter club fees, total revenue, staff costs, magazine loss, and other trends I've shown from their IRS 990s. Those are facts. Yet some ignore them and their implications as the long term viability of the AMA.

Some see it no doubt. But they're up against the good ol' boys club. I've seen it before. In the 70's-80's there were some significant "squables". The venue then were the magazines and editorials. RCM and Scale RC both took hits for being on the sides they chose. And today many of the same issues continue but far worse than ever before. Added with the new threats, i.e. RC that doesn't need a club field, and the AMA can ill afford to miss many more warnings.

I like this, we're Franklin's pet dogs according the the AMA's "parrot". Is that what it means to be a leader member, to be someone that will keep repeating the company's boxed propaganda until others finally believe it's true?
This kind of reminds me of something I read, in the book Shattered Sword. A subordinate of Admiral Yamamoto was sent from the Hashirajima fleet anchorage to Tokyo with a preliminary version of the plan for the attack on Midway. After he made his presentation, what he had stated as fact was summarily destroyed by a lower level officer from the Tokyo fleet headquarters. After repeating his points, as written in the attack plan, and being totally destroyed a second time, he called Admiral Yamamoto(on the battleship Nagato), who stated he'd resign unless his plan was approved.. The plan was approved for further work, only to be pushed ahead with the full support of fleet headquarters after the Doolittle raid a few weeks later.
In the present case, the AMA doesn't have the possibility of a last second reprieve like Admiral Yamamoto did, given to him by the Americans. The AMA's rhetoric and chest banging isn't going to change the situation it's found itself in, almost completely by it's own doing. The AMA didn't take the time to look ahead and take into account the changing technology and how people would be using that technology. They just assumed that things would always stay the same and it would always be business as usual

IOW
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.". George Santayana

You know Hydro, fact is you, me, Franklin and every other critic could drop dead tomorrow. And AMA's problems would not go away. In fact, without us and those like us putting some pressure on the reigns, I believe the problems would get worse and accelerate to an even earlier demise of the AMA.

Giving it some thought and logically, I see no logical reason for the AMA to survive much longer. Just a matter of time. Although the hobby, more or less, might survive.
Those who belong to a good club, have a place to fly any type of aircraft and have the skill to fly on their own, seem to have a much more positive perspective of the state and future of the hobby/sport,
then those who have lost or about to lose their flying site. Then those who have been trying to earn their solo wings for many months and even years. Then those whose membership
has dwindled down to a small handful of aged members. Then those who have contacted AMA headquarters many times and never received a reply.

As sad as that sounds, you're probably right. I've seen organizations go under due to lack of participation, lack of income, being forced out of their location just to name a few reasons. I've never seen an organization with the membership and financial solvency of the AMA have the same kind of problems the AMA is putting upon itself. I said, in another thread, ways in which the AMA could help itself out, financially. In a nutshell, make these changes and the AMA could be around for a long time:
1) Eliminate the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. An elected president, treasurer(or hired accountant) and area VPs could handle any issue that needed to be taken care of
2) Eliminate the retail, historical and publication departments. I don't see where these areas really need to exist and, with the historical part, someone that works in the office could probably handle that fairly easily
3) Cut down on the legal staff. It obviously isn't doing it's job anyway so eliminate the excess positions
4) Contract out the grounds and building maintenance. It would be cheaper to have a crew come out and take care of the grounds every four weeks or so than to pay to have a crew that really isn't doing anything most of the time anyway
5) Contract out the web site maintenance. The paid staff isn't doing their job and since the web site rarely changes, why pay for a staff that doesn't do anything most of the time.
6) ELIMINATE THE AMA FOUNDATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is just a way for the EC to circumvent the rules to spend money as it wishes rather than have to get approval for things
7) Cut down the number of people in the office staff. When you really look at it, the staff could get by with three or four at most. Cut it back to an office manager, one that handles insurance claims and one that handles new member applications and renewals would be all that is really needed for most of the year. When there is a need for more people, such as during the renewal period at the beginning of the year, add some help from a temp agency rather than hire a bunch of people that are not really needed most of the time.
8) Eliminate the requirement of leader membership to be an officer. Leader members are like NCOs in the military. Instead of having the EC appoint them, make up a list of requirements needed to become leader member as well as a list of requirements needed to be an area VP or president.

Gee, I just solved the AMA's problem of going into the red every year with a two minute period of hitting computer keys. AM I GOOD OR WHAT???

Everything you listed above are sound ideas, but still there is the problem of increasing membership. Despite all of the promotional money AMA invested, they still cannot find a way to increase membership, although they've tried. That is a nut not even AMA and the rest of the industry with all of those millions of dollars at their disposal can crack. Anybody got any ideas on how to attract and retain the numbers needed? Safety in numbers.

It's not really that difficult. Lower the fee. If you make all the cuts I called out in my last post, the overhead will drop and then rates can be lowered to all present and prospective members. Obviously, you need to keep a bit of a profit margin, say between 5 and 10% at most, between income and costs but, when you really look at it, when you cut the overhead and, with it, the expenses incurred by said overhead, it's really a no brainer. The problem beyond that, which is not in the AMA's control, is that most places are now only selling foamie's and park flyers. Unless people can be lured back to conventional aircraft and hobby shops start selling them again, the hobby that we've known won't be around after the last of the builder/flyers from the past are gone and, with that, the AMA will also die.

Just curious , are we allowed to turn a profit as a 501c ?

And , good grief guys , can't we please leave the mud slinging to the professionals (our elected "public servants") ? I consider every person who participates here to be a kindred spirit in aviation , and it really saddens me to see the bad blood in these threads .

In a word, YES. There are limits in HOW MUCH PROFIT is allowed but I don't know how that is figured. A square dance club I used to belong to made a profit of $1500-$2000 each year for several years. When I asked a tax return company about it, I was told that they weren't making too much but, if they did, it would void their 501c status. When the state of Washington hosted the national square and folk dance convention back in 2012, it turned a profit of over $200K. Not sure why but that didn't affect the state's 501c status either.

For the sake of discussion, I'll approach the AMA's membership problem from the other direction. A bottoms up review if you will.

Based on the current law, which gives a choice of recreational under 349 and existing AMA Safety Code, or recreational under 107. If you fly under 349, and have a turbine powered anything, you have to be an AMA member or they won't bestow their blessing on you to fly. Same for something over 55lbs. On the other hand, you can fly recreationally under 107 with any type of power source, though you have to stay below 400 feet, below 100 mph, or be less than 55lbs - unless you have a waiver from FAA. It's probably not practical to fly a turbine FW under 107 w/o a waiver, but a turbine heli is easy for example.

So ultimately, the the only people that must be members of AMA are FW Turbine or LMA flyers AND who are unwilling to get their 107 AND who are unwilling to petition FAA for speed, altitude and/or weight waiver. I won't quote numbers from AMA's members only documents, for those who are members, you can go online and count the number of FW turbine waiver holders and LMA operators. Then multiply that number by $75 full membership, and what you get is CONSIDERABLY less than what AMA needs to operate.

So if AMA is going to close the gap between what they can get from those above who MUST be members and what they need to survive, then AMA needs to create a reason why these folks WANT to join. I argue that for many, it's a rational value decision ... do I get more perceived value than what it costs? What is AMA doing to capture that group? Talking about "advocacy" that was so impactful that it couldn't prevent 349? Or is insurance that only kicks in AFTER your own homeowners? Or is it a magazine? Or is it that prestigious ID card? Or is it access to club fields if you're willing to spend even more? Or is it the ability to compete? Or is it knowing there's a site in the center of the US where you can fly for free if you're willing to travel there?

So, the MUST JOINs are the FW Turbine and LMA folks. For the rest, it's optional. And that means creating perceived value. Something that based on the decade of declining membership revenue, AMA seems to struggle doing.

In Canada we only have between 12000 and 14000 members yet co-operation between MAAC and Transport Canada is alive and well. From what I have gathered much along the same lines is being worked on between the AMA and the FAA. By the way look at the home page of the MAAC web site and notice the line that says "Join because you want to!" https://www.maac.ca/en/
No MAAC member in Canada is attempting to discredit or interfere with the work done by the MAAC leadership. In fact on the forums I read there only seem to be the half dozen on RCU that are working hard to discredit and interfere with the process the AMA is working on.

This is the letter that all members in Canada were emailed.

Upcoming Release of Canadian Aviation Regulations, Part IX (RPAS)
This document is intended to provide MAAC Members with some important information on the soon to be released regulations that will apply to UAS/RPAS/Model Aircraft.
1. The new regulations governing all Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), which include all aircraft operated without a pilot onboard, will be included is a new Part IX to the existing Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
Note - Transport Canada will now use the term RPAS to identify all/any aircraft without a pilot onboard.
2. The new regulations will no longer differentiate between recreational use and non-recreational use. This means that unless otherwise authorized, those operating model aircraft will have to follow the same regulations as the commercial operators.
3. Although the regulations are expected to be published before the end of this year, it should be noted that the new regulations will not actually come into force (i.e. fully take effect) until approximately six (6) months after they are published in Canada Gazette II. Meaning that people are not required to follow the new regulations until they come into force date, which will likely be June, 2019.
4. Many of you may remember from the briefings Transport Canada provided last summer, that MAAC or similar organizations with established safety cultures were to be provided a "carve out" from the new Part IX regulations. Due to several factors, mainly timelines and Transport Canada resource issues, this "carve out" will now not be included in the initial release of UAS/RPAS regulations.
5. To address this issue, MAAC leadership has been working with Transport Canada to secure an exemption to the new Part IX, RPAS regulations. This exemption will apply to all MAAC members, in good standing. With this exemption MAAC members will not be required to comply with the regulations in the new CARs, Part IX, provided they comply with MAAC’s published safety practices and guidelines and a few conditions in the exemption itself.
6. Once approved, this exemption will permit the vast majority of MAAC activities/operations to be conducted as they are today. Details of the exemption will be provided to all members as part of an upcoming MAAC news letter.
7. The draft exemption is currently going through the final approval processes at Transport Canada and should be issued on the same day, or at minimum, very shortly after the new regulations are published in Canada Gazette II. This will be well before the coming into force date of the new regulations.
8. We hope you find the above information beneficial to assist with the transition to the new regulations. More details will be provided soon.
9. Should you have any questions on the above information please contact your MAAC
liaison to Transport Canada, Rodger Williams ([email protected] )

Very interesting discussion but please allow me to ask a stupid question.

How does any of us truly know if we are above 400 feet?

I fly 40 and 60 size planes at what I consider one mistake high. While I am confident that my current flying situation keeps me below 400 feet what if I start flying larger models? Short of telemetry I don't believe I would be able to tell if I'm exceeding or staying below 400 feet with any certainty.

Thanks to anyone willing to share their insight on the subject.

And why would you call that a stupid question? When flying a plane, your eyes will be on it and no place else. It would be very difficult to determine how high a plane is even with telemetry. To look at your radio, you still have to take your eyes off the plane which, and I'm guilty of this one, means it will take you a few seconds to find and re-orient yourself to the plane. I don't know if this is required or not but you would almost have to have a spotter that could be your "altimeter", as well as a second set of eyes to watch for potential problems. Even with a spotter, I crashed a boat due to that one or two seconds of not having my eyes on it.

The issue here in the US isn't one of discrediting or interfering. What's actually happening is that the AMA home office and executive committee are not being truthful and forthcoming with the members, not to mention being fiscally inept. For example, the FAA has recently published on their website that any R/C aircraft must be kept below 122 meters. The AMA is telling it's members that they can pretty much do what they want as the height limit isn't in effect due to something posted in a now superceded law from 3+ years ago. The office is telling members that everything is great, but not telling anyone except the government (due to forms that are mandatory) that the AMA is losing several thousand dollars per year. It's not a matter if interference or discrediting that you're reading, it's calling out a corrupt, wasteful and dishonest organization's officers and paid staff.

I guess I considered it a stupid question due to the matter of fact debate on flying above or below 400 feet. It made me think that I was either missing something or the only one who didn't know how to easily identify the 400 foot ceiling.

Excellent point on requiring a spotter as your "altimeter." One way around this would be to program an audible alarm associated with let's say 380 feet, this would then allow the pilot to make maneuvers to prevent breaking the 400 foot mark. I might consider this on larger models I intend to build/fly in the future, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to add this type of telemetry to smaller say 40 size planes.

Does anybody have an easier solution?

1st; not a stupid question at all...

2nd: when I was regularly flying I flew at an airfield that was near an airport (across the street actually) so the 400 foot limit was definitely in play... We flew behind the Evergreen Aviation Museum. In all our documentation for the club, including site posted info the height of the museums main building ( 125 feet) was posted for use as a reference. While I flew .40 to .60 sized aircraft i assure you no one who could fly off out 500 foot paved runway ever exceeded the estimate of 400 feet based off that reference while I was present.

BUT!!! In order to be sure of these things one MUST have a visual reference to objectify. i was lucky enough to have an air field that had that but how many others do??

DeLand RC Club flys ON airport property, they have a silhouette of an average 60 size model placed 400 feet from the flight line for reference.

They can petition the manager for a waiver to I think 1000 feet or 800, something like that, when they host an event, the airport grants it and puts out a NOTAM so the full scale guys know they are there.

Only other way is telemetry. I know my camera drone stops climbing between 395 and 400 AGL and I can barely see the thing, but gliders I've had over 1000, even at that, my 6m starts getting pretty small.

Electronics have come such a long way that I believe some things, like a telemetry altimeter, will become standard fare in the new radios. The changes to the Receiver will add little to no discernible weight. The electronics might already be there and just require programming. There will probably be a probe of some sort to install but it too will be minimal. And the whole package will remain small enough to install in anything capable of going to 400 feet and remain visible enough to control.