How does everyone feel about the new CBO?
12-18-2019, 04:02 PM
#52
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really do like stirring the pot, don't you? Had to get that dig in at Franklin, if for no other reason than to do so.
Let me throw something at you that you may not be able to comprehend about organizations:
Both NAMBA and IMPBA have fairly large memberships
Both NAMBA and IMPBA have insurance coverage for their members, effective at selected sites and events
Both NAMBA and IMPBA use an elected officer system to run the organizations
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have office space
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have a paid staff
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have an set locations for national or district events yet they have them every year
With all that said, how is it that both NAMBA and IMPBA can do things that the much older AMA can't? Seems to me that the AMA just likes to spend money for the sake of spending money
Let me throw something at you that you may not be able to comprehend about organizations:
Both NAMBA and IMPBA have fairly large memberships
Both NAMBA and IMPBA have insurance coverage for their members, effective at selected sites and events
Both NAMBA and IMPBA use an elected officer system to run the organizations
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have office space
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have a paid staff
Neither NAMBA or IMPBA have an set locations for national or district events yet they have them every year
With all that said, how is it that both NAMBA and IMPBA can do things that the much older AMA can't? Seems to me that the AMA just likes to spend money for the sake of spending money
According to the NAMBA 2019 membership roster they have around 1,800 members, 2 full orders of magnitude less than the AMA.
All three officers of NAMBA have different area codes (SOCAL, NORCAL, and Montana). Which paid staff do they have?
Where might their offices be located? The address on their website is a private home in San Diego County, California.
NAMBA has exactly 36 insured sites. That is a few less than the AMA has chartered club flying sites.
NAMBA insurance is similar to AMA in both require going to your home owners first. NAMBA if far more restrictive only being active at one of their insured sites.
Sorry, but comparing NAMBA to the AMA is a bit like comparing apples to rocks.
And for the record, I am a past NAMBA member and raced both gas and Fast Electrics. Even held a couple of FE Straight-line records for a time. NAMBA does a great job doing what they do, but they are in no manner even remotely similar to the AMA beyond both being hobby-centric groups.
12-18-2019, 06:28 PM
#53
It seems like another entity that says "we can fix it for you fix wing flyers..". Thing is, it seems the main purpose is to circumvent the 400' rule that's been bestowed upon us, that at this point nobody follows, nor really understands. I know I don't understand the full gist of it.. and I've not yet let the 400' rule stop me from flying as high as I want.
'm just a fixed wing IMAC flyer, but still... I do see this PMA org is trying to seperate the fixed wing line of sight pilot from the drone community... and really that's not a bad thing at all. According to the AMA we've all been put into the same big melting pot, no matter how you slice it, and if an org comes along that can make sense of it to the FAA more power to them. I might join if they're successful.. but I really don't see any need to jump on that train anytime soon. I'll see how it plays out first.
'm just a fixed wing IMAC flyer, but still... I do see this PMA org is trying to seperate the fixed wing line of sight pilot from the drone community... and really that's not a bad thing at all. According to the AMA we've all been put into the same big melting pot, no matter how you slice it, and if an org comes along that can make sense of it to the FAA more power to them. I might join if they're successful.. but I really don't see any need to jump on that train anytime soon. I'll see how it plays out first.
12-18-2019, 08:10 PM
#54
It seems like another entity that says "we can fix it for you fix wing flyers..". Thing is, it seems the main purpose is to circumvent the 400' rule that's been bestowed upon us, that at this point nobody follows, nor really understands. I know I don't understand the full gist of it.. and I've not yet let the 400' rule stop me from flying as high as I want.
'm just a fixed wing IMAC flyer, but still... I do see this PMA org is trying to seperate the fixed wing line of sight pilot from the drone community... and really that's not a bad thing at all. According to the AMA we've all been put into the same big melting pot, no matter how you slice it, and if an org comes along that can make sense of it to the FAA more power to them. I might join if they're successful.. but I really don't see any need to jump on that train anytime soon. I'll see how it plays out first.
'm just a fixed wing IMAC flyer, but still... I do see this PMA org is trying to seperate the fixed wing line of sight pilot from the drone community... and really that's not a bad thing at all. According to the AMA we've all been put into the same big melting pot, no matter how you slice it, and if an org comes along that can make sense of it to the FAA more power to them. I might join if they're successful.. but I really don't see any need to jump on that train anytime soon. I'll see how it plays out first.
12-19-2019, 04:47 AM
#55
Moderator
The AMA embraced drones because that's the direction the hobby was going. If we want to support traditional model flying, it's important to understand that the tradition is to embrace the new technology whenever it comes out. I recall reading an editorial from around 1980 where an older modeler ranted about newfangled RC gear. His words were practically verbatim what is now being said about drones- it's not traditional, those pilots are inconsiderate and annoying, they don't have skills, it's more dangerous, etc. Change happens. New technology is invented. No organization can survive without adapting to new equipment and new ways of doing the activity that it supports.
If the AMA had taken the hard line stance about drones that many members wanted, we likely would have seen drone pilots create their own national organization pretty quickly. The AMA would have been shut out, and would have continued to gentrify. Fast forward 15 years and the AMA's dwindling membership would be cursing the day that the AMA didn't see the opportunity it missed because its leadership was focused on the past. Just think how it would have gone if the AMA didn't embrace RC when it hit the market to see how it would have gone. I'm aware that the AMA didn't get a significant membership boom from drone pilots. They didn't go far enough in embracing them to do that due to member opinion. But because the AMA is still friendly to drones, there is still an opportunity to offer the right insurance and create value there. The truth is that drone pilots are the AMA's best chance at keeping membership numbers up. Just like RC pilots are the only reason that control line guys still have a Nats and insured flying sites, drone pilots could easily become the main financial support for the AMA and make it possible for RC pilots to keep doing what we do. It is possible to coexist if we are willing.
If the AMA had taken the hard line stance about drones that many members wanted, we likely would have seen drone pilots create their own national organization pretty quickly. The AMA would have been shut out, and would have continued to gentrify. Fast forward 15 years and the AMA's dwindling membership would be cursing the day that the AMA didn't see the opportunity it missed because its leadership was focused on the past. Just think how it would have gone if the AMA didn't embrace RC when it hit the market to see how it would have gone. I'm aware that the AMA didn't get a significant membership boom from drone pilots. They didn't go far enough in embracing them to do that due to member opinion. But because the AMA is still friendly to drones, there is still an opportunity to offer the right insurance and create value there. The truth is that drone pilots are the AMA's best chance at keeping membership numbers up. Just like RC pilots are the only reason that control line guys still have a Nats and insured flying sites, drone pilots could easily become the main financial support for the AMA and make it possible for RC pilots to keep doing what we do. It is possible to coexist if we are willing.
12-19-2019, 08:34 PM
#56
The AMA embraced drones because that's the direction the hobby was going. If we want to support traditional model flying, it's important to understand that the tradition is to embrace the new technology whenever it comes out. I recall reading an editorial from around 1980 where an older modeler ranted about newfangled RC gear. His words were practically verbatim what is now being said about drones- it's not traditional, those pilots are inconsiderate and annoying, they don't have skills, it's more dangerous, etc. Change happens. New technology is invented. No organization can survive without adapting to new equipment and new ways of doing the activity that it supports.
If the AMA had taken the hard line stance about drones that many members wanted, we likely would have seen drone pilots create their own national organization pretty quickly. The AMA would have been shut out, and would have continued to gentrify. Fast forward 15 years and the AMA's dwindling membership would be cursing the day that the AMA didn't see the opportunity it missed because its leadership was focused on the past. Just think how it would have gone if the AMA didn't embrace RC when it hit the market to see how it would have gone. I'm aware that the AMA didn't get a significant membership boom from drone pilots. They didn't go far enough in embracing them to do that due to member opinion. But because the AMA is still friendly to drones, there is still an opportunity to offer the right insurance and create value there. The truth is that drone pilots are the AMA's best chance at keeping membership numbers up. Just like RC pilots are the only reason that control line guys still have a Nats and insured flying sites, drone pilots could easily become the main financial support for the AMA and make it possible for RC pilots to keep doing what we do. It is possible to coexist if we are willing.
If the AMA had taken the hard line stance about drones that many members wanted, we likely would have seen drone pilots create their own national organization pretty quickly. The AMA would have been shut out, and would have continued to gentrify. Fast forward 15 years and the AMA's dwindling membership would be cursing the day that the AMA didn't see the opportunity it missed because its leadership was focused on the past. Just think how it would have gone if the AMA didn't embrace RC when it hit the market to see how it would have gone. I'm aware that the AMA didn't get a significant membership boom from drone pilots. They didn't go far enough in embracing them to do that due to member opinion. But because the AMA is still friendly to drones, there is still an opportunity to offer the right insurance and create value there. The truth is that drone pilots are the AMA's best chance at keeping membership numbers up. Just like RC pilots are the only reason that control line guys still have a Nats and insured flying sites, drone pilots could easily become the main financial support for the AMA and make it possible for RC pilots to keep doing what we do. It is possible to coexist if we are willing.
One club I belong to still is pretty anti-helicopter......
It's not the "drone" guys who are doing things responsibly, like joining clubs, flying safely, etc. THOSE are the ones any organization wants. It is the yahoos who fly on their own, doing what they want, any way that they want that have put us where we are....
All we can do is hope they crash (and not into anything or anyone), and decide it is not worth the money to keep on.
12-19-2019, 10:14 PM
#57
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is considerable information missing in the thread above. I'm not an authority - but started following what I could regarding the PMA a couple months ago. What I state below is my understanding from following posts and live broadcasts primarily by Joel Wilson -- one of the primary organizers.
The goal of PMA is not to replace the AMA. It's not to give all flying sites a higher ceiling. It's not something that just popped up. It's been in the works for a couple years - and very aggressively developing for the past year. Their website is still 30 to 45 days out -- by their account. The organizers are generally well known leaders in some of the SIGS that NEED a higher ceiling to operate -- specifically IMAC, Turbines, and Sailplanes. They are working to establish SANCTIONED sites with the FAA for the operation of these higher altitude disciplines. They have stated they want to operate in concert with the AMA. They said they see no reason a flying site could not be an AMA site and a PMA site. My understanding is that to fly at an AMA site you must be an AMA member. So a flying site that was both AMA and PMA would hypothetically allow AMA only members to fly withing the flight envelope allowed by the AMA and those with PMA membership in addition to AMA could fly with the extended ceiling. As a safety officer I think that would be a fuster cluck to administer. If a site was AMA only then AMA would be required for all pilots and if a pilot was also a PMA member they would not be able to fly on the extended ceiling. If a site was a PMA site only then only PMA members would be able to fly on their "Sanctioned field" using their negotiated extended ceiling.
Some - including myself -- have taken exception to the name "Professional". Unfortunately this train it already so far down the track that the name Professional is baked into the organization as that's what their articles of incorporation were created with as well as the documents they have in the works with the FAA. The FAA calls us "Recreational" -- and it's too bad the PMA didn't take the lead on that and name their organization Recreational Modelers of America. -- but they didn't and from what I've been told it can't be done at this point.
It's also unfortunate that the PMA did not organize as a SIG under the FAA umbrella. So members would pay to be a member of PMA and this membership -- and adherence to their code of conduct (no drones) would allow them to fly at their sanctioned sites with a higher ceiling. But -- that didn't happen either -- but perhaps it's not too late.
I think some are under the impression that this CBO is trying to serve all of the flying hobby. THEY ARE NOT! They are working only for those disciplines that need a higher ceiling and will be trying to attract only those clubs / modelers that feel the need for the higher ceiling. Some are under the impression they are trying to divide the hobby. THEY ARE NOT. They are working to alleviate crippling issues affecting the disciplines they gravitate toward.
My final thought -- which is only a guess -- is that this PMA will only be able to establish these sanctioned sited in Class G airspace. This will do little to help those clubs in population hubs that fall under controlled airspace - so I don't see them as being interested. PMA may get a foothold in a few locations - but it's not going to be anything to replace the AMA (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective).
The goal of PMA is not to replace the AMA. It's not to give all flying sites a higher ceiling. It's not something that just popped up. It's been in the works for a couple years - and very aggressively developing for the past year. Their website is still 30 to 45 days out -- by their account. The organizers are generally well known leaders in some of the SIGS that NEED a higher ceiling to operate -- specifically IMAC, Turbines, and Sailplanes. They are working to establish SANCTIONED sites with the FAA for the operation of these higher altitude disciplines. They have stated they want to operate in concert with the AMA. They said they see no reason a flying site could not be an AMA site and a PMA site. My understanding is that to fly at an AMA site you must be an AMA member. So a flying site that was both AMA and PMA would hypothetically allow AMA only members to fly withing the flight envelope allowed by the AMA and those with PMA membership in addition to AMA could fly with the extended ceiling. As a safety officer I think that would be a fuster cluck to administer. If a site was AMA only then AMA would be required for all pilots and if a pilot was also a PMA member they would not be able to fly on the extended ceiling. If a site was a PMA site only then only PMA members would be able to fly on their "Sanctioned field" using their negotiated extended ceiling.
Some - including myself -- have taken exception to the name "Professional". Unfortunately this train it already so far down the track that the name Professional is baked into the organization as that's what their articles of incorporation were created with as well as the documents they have in the works with the FAA. The FAA calls us "Recreational" -- and it's too bad the PMA didn't take the lead on that and name their organization Recreational Modelers of America. -- but they didn't and from what I've been told it can't be done at this point.
It's also unfortunate that the PMA did not organize as a SIG under the FAA umbrella. So members would pay to be a member of PMA and this membership -- and adherence to their code of conduct (no drones) would allow them to fly at their sanctioned sites with a higher ceiling. But -- that didn't happen either -- but perhaps it's not too late.
I think some are under the impression that this CBO is trying to serve all of the flying hobby. THEY ARE NOT! They are working only for those disciplines that need a higher ceiling and will be trying to attract only those clubs / modelers that feel the need for the higher ceiling. Some are under the impression they are trying to divide the hobby. THEY ARE NOT. They are working to alleviate crippling issues affecting the disciplines they gravitate toward.
My final thought -- which is only a guess -- is that this PMA will only be able to establish these sanctioned sited in Class G airspace. This will do little to help those clubs in population hubs that fall under controlled airspace - so I don't see them as being interested. PMA may get a foothold in a few locations - but it's not going to be anything to replace the AMA (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective).
12-20-2019, 07:18 AM
#58
Moderator
x2 that!
One club I belong to still is pretty anti-helicopter......
It's not the "drone" guys who are doing things responsibly, like joining clubs, flying safely, etc. THOSE are the ones any organization wants. It is the yahoos who fly on their own, doing what they want, any way that they want that have put us where we are....
All we can do is hope they crash (and not into anything or anyone), and decide it is not worth the money to keep on.
One club I belong to still is pretty anti-helicopter......
It's not the "drone" guys who are doing things responsibly, like joining clubs, flying safely, etc. THOSE are the ones any organization wants. It is the yahoos who fly on their own, doing what they want, any way that they want that have put us where we are....
All we can do is hope they crash (and not into anything or anyone), and decide it is not worth the money to keep on.
12-20-2019, 07:20 AM
#59
Moderator
Thanks for explaining all of that, Scott Page. It actually makes a lot more sense now. So essentially it's meant to be an organization for serious competitors who need a few more concessions and are willing to jump through some hoops to get them?
12-20-2019, 11:13 AM
#60
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a couple dozen FAA officials came to observe a turbine event run by the PMA authors last fall (don't remember the name of the event) FAA officials observed that keeping the turbines below the 400' limit was less safe then if they had more space to negotiate. That seemed to be the turning point for the PMA's negotiations for a higher ceiling.
12-20-2019, 01:54 PM
#62
I predict that the drone community will continue to mature and become more responsible, just as RC airplane hobbyists have. As they do, there will be a demand for insurance, organization of competition, and government advocacy. If the AMA plays it right, they'll be in the best position to provide those things.
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...PulNe-J975h_nI
Regards,
Astro
12-20-2019, 03:03 PM
#63
12-20-2019, 06:06 PM
#64
Looks like the EAA recognizes the difference between legacy (i.e. traditional) aircraft and drones. Good on them! I believe that is what it will eventually take to get our altitude restrictions lifted. The AMA should have done this from the beginning!
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...PulNe-J975h_nI
Regards,
Astro
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...PulNe-J975h_nI
Regards,
Astro
Bob
12-20-2019, 11:34 PM
#66
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-21-2019, 09:24 AM
#70
https://www.modelaircraft.org/eaa-ama-partnership
https://www.modelaircraft.org/eaa-ama-reception
https://amaflightschool.org/educator/eaa
https://unmanned-aerial.com/eaa-and-...ational-flying
There are more and these took just a few seconds to find. I used that "Google" thing. Works great for finding information.
12-22-2019, 08:59 PM
#73
Moderator
Let's move on, guys. The only thing worse than a person making a snarky comment is other people letting the thread become all about said snarky comment. Let it die.
I appreciate that we continue to have advocates for our hobby. I didn't know about EAA and this new group's efforts. I think in the end we'll see that the FAA is pretty reasonable and will let us do what we want as long as it doesn't bother anyone. It's a process that takes time.
I appreciate that we continue to have advocates for our hobby. I didn't know about EAA and this new group's efforts. I think in the end we'll see that the FAA is pretty reasonable and will let us do what we want as long as it doesn't bother anyone. It's a process that takes time.
12-22-2019, 10:42 PM
#74
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No quite the opposite. There were dozens of examples readily available that anybody with a simple grasp of the Internet could search and read for themself. But lazy folks like having all the work done for them. Typical.
12-22-2019, 10:45 PM
#75
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's move on, guys. The only thing worse than a person making a snarky comment is other people letting the thread become all about said snarky comment. Let it die.
I appreciate that we continue to have advocates for our hobby. I didn't know about EAA and this new group's efforts. I think in the end we'll see that the FAA is pretty reasonable and will let us do what we want as long as it doesn't bother anyone. It's a process that takes time.
I appreciate that we continue to have advocates for our hobby. I didn't know about EAA and this new group's efforts. I think in the end we'll see that the FAA is pretty reasonable and will let us do what we want as long as it doesn't bother anyone. It's a process that takes time.
Seasons Greetings.