Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

The EAA Get's It, why not the AMA?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

The EAA Get's It, why not the AMA?

Old 01-18-2020, 07:49 AM
  #1  
astrohog
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default The EAA Get's It, why not the AMA?

I just read this article over at the EAA website;

https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...kwd0FxUzIwSSJ9

This article sums up in a couple of very well-written paragraphs, exactly what the AMA SHOULD have been saying for YEARS!
I just joined based on that article alone! $30.00 and you get the print AND digital magazine! Now that is what I call value! Funny how people whine and moan about AMA dues increases and, based on one article posted on their website, I know literally DOZENS of people that joined IMMEDIATELY! I think that is more people than actually voted in the last AMA election! LOL

Why doesn't the AMA get it?

Regards,

Astro
Old 01-18-2020, 08:25 AM
  #2  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

I agree, a well written article. I do have to admit that I find myself relying more on other organizations to bring some common sense to the FAA. However I find it funny that over a year ago I had mentioned the negative impact on full scale aviation industry all this would have and of course got the usual sarcastic response from the Commander.
Old 01-18-2020, 09:15 AM
  #3  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
I agree, a well written article. I do have to admit that I find myself relying more on other organizations to bring some common sense to the FAA. However I find it funny that over a year ago I had mentioned the negative impact on full scale aviation industry all this would have and of course got the usual sarcastic response from the Commander.
It was sarcastic because you don't support your arguments with data. What you hope to believe, want to believe, etc. is one thing, but what carries the day is an assertion supported by data. It would have been a much stronger argument (by you and EAA) to cite what percentage of current professional aviators started out flying toy planes.
Old 01-18-2020, 09:35 AM
  #4  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
.....Why doesn't the AMA get it?
Regards,
Astro
It appears the EAA is concerned about saving traditional RC model airplane flying , VS the AMA being more concerned with forcing anyone holding an RC transmitter to have to be an AMA member .

One is about protecting traditional RC model aviation from being swept up in the drone mess , and one is about protecting itself .

I just pray the FAA figures out what the different organization's REAL motives are , and acts accordingly ....
Old 01-18-2020, 10:16 AM
  #5  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
It would have been a much stronger argument (by you and EAA) to cite what percentage of current professional aviators started out flying toy planes.
Not you, obviously.
Old 01-18-2020, 10:19 AM
  #6  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
It appears the EAA is concerned about saving traditional RC model airplane flying , VS the AMA being more concerned with forcing anyone holding an RC transmitter to have to be an AMA member.
I notice the EAA has sense enough to support the FRIA concept:

"EAA believes that anyone operating under the guidelines of a community-based organization should be able to establish a FRIA, such as individuals in rural areas who wish to fly from their own property."
Old 01-18-2020, 10:41 AM
  #7  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
........
- Request the FAA to expand the application period, to give time for more CBOs to form.
- Request the FAA to extend eligibility to other organizations (such as STEM schools) and individuals with suitable properties.
- Request the FAA to remove the unnecessarily harsh and burdensome language that states that FRIAs terminated at the request of a CBO can never be reactivated. Sometimes clubs lose fields for no fault of their own. That doesn't preclude someone else from using the same site in future if circumstances change.
- Request the FAA to accept FRIAs as a permanent part of the airspace system. UAS being safely operated within the confines of a FRIA are not being operated elsewhere, where they might conflict with other unmanned traffic. Keeping FRIAs open for as long as possible benefits both recreational UAS users and the FAA.
Originally Posted by grognard View Post
I notice the EAA has sense enough to support the FRIA concept:

"EAA believes that anyone operating under the guidelines of a community-based organization should be able to establish a FRIA, such as individuals in rural areas who wish to fly from their own property."
As long as all of the conditions set out in your above post I've quoted are met , along with a side order of "operating under the guidelines" not meaning "being a forced member" of a community based organization , sure I have no problem with the FRIAs on either private or public land . If those FRIAs set up on private land want an AMA only restriction , or Hell even a silver airplane only restriction I have no problem with that ; Private land = their right to set whatever rules suits their fancy . But on public lands ? Sure there should also be FRIAs , open to all who abide by a universally accepted FAA programmed set of rules , and not bound by force to join any private organization to have access to the public land .

See , not everyone out here is out to be contrary , you say something I agree with I'll agree with you , Franklin says something I agree with I'll agree with him .......
Old 01-18-2020, 11:36 AM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

I'm all for getting people involved in the hobby as well as preserving the way that I enjoy the hobby. Having non CBO members able to enjoy a FRIA site may very well be a good way to increase participation. However it brings up some obstacles that must be overcome. The first one is the insurance aspect. Not only for the individual but for the site as well. Any solutions to that?
Old 01-18-2020, 01:05 PM
  #9  
astrohog
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Well, this thread got off track and deflected from its intent quickly......

I’ll ask again, why do you all suppose that everybody else seems to “get” the difference between drones and traditional models, yet the AMA doesn’t?

Astro
Old 01-18-2020, 01:10 PM
  #10  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Well, this thread got off track and deflected from its intent quickly......

I’ll ask again, why do you all suppose that everybody else seems to “get” the difference between drones and traditional models, yet the AMA doesn’t?

Astro
Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
It appears the EAA is concerned about saving traditional RC model airplane flying , VS the AMA being more concerned with forcing anyone holding an RC transmitter to have to be an AMA member .

One is about protecting traditional RC model aviation from being swept up in the drone mess , and one is about protecting itself .

I just pray the FAA figures out what the different organization's REAL motives are , and acts accordingly ....
I gave the topic question my answer in post #4 ...
Old 01-18-2020, 01:17 PM
  #11  
astrohog
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
I gave the topic question my answer in post #4 ...
yes you did! I should have given credit where credit was due!

Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro
Old 01-18-2020, 01:42 PM
  #12  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
yes you did! I should have given credit where credit was due!

Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro
Astro , I gotta say , it truly saddens me that I believe what I'm seeing is that the AMA is willing to gamble the hobby's future against it's own . That's my take , that the AMA sees itself as doomed unless it can get mandatory membership for all who fly RC by whatever means it takes . First get it so only CBO /FRIA flyers can fly , and then strangle any upstart CBOs in the cradle ALA the sport flyer's association , bingo ! instant monopoly on all hobby RC flying . I have been AMA for many years and this is the first time I can say I completely disapprove of what I see the AMA doing , I had kinda figured I was gonna age out of the hobby rather than seeing the hobby regulated out from under us under the AMA's watch ....
Old 01-18-2020, 01:43 PM
  #13  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

I'm not so sure that AMA doesn't get the difference. It's my understanding that the FAA a few months ago proposed to the AMA that altitude limits could be set at 700' or 1,200' and that was rejected by the AMA due to soaring, IMAC and Pattern requiring higher altitudes. To me it appears that AMA is still trying to advocate for all forms of model aviation. Although it appears that the FAA called their bluff and that offer has been pulled off the table and replaced with the FRIA concept. I can't help but think if AMA had stuck with advocating for traditional aircraft that we may be better off now. I think they missed the bus thinking that the MR guys would be interested in a club atmosphere.
Old 01-18-2020, 02:06 PM
  #14  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
See , not everyone out here is out to be contrary...
Maybe you should edit this post then:

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
...SURE I believe you've never posted here before , cause flippin Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny told me so !...
Old 01-18-2020, 02:22 PM
  #15  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
I'm all for getting people involved in the hobby as well as preserving the way that I enjoy the hobby. Having non CBO members able to enjoy a FRIA site may very well be a good way to increase participation. However it brings up some obstacles that must be overcome. The first one is the insurance aspect. Not only for the individual but for the site as well. Any solutions to that?
Based on AMA's IRS 990s, they spend an average of 17.58% +/- 3.5% of member revenue on insurance (at $75 a year). That works out to a charge of $13.19 +/- $2.70 should cover insurance.
Old 01-18-2020, 02:30 PM
  #16  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Maybe you should edit this post then:
Nope , no way dude . I'll go only this far , you keep it civil and so will I , I believe you've been here before , you say you haven't , and so we'll have to agree to disagree and move on .

I will not edit that post because it's my belief , I stand by it , but am willing put that in the past and not mention it again unless you do .



Old 01-18-2020, 03:11 PM
  #17  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
I'll go only this far , you keep it civil and so will I , I believe you've been here before , you say you haven't , and so we'll have to agree to disagree and move on .
I have no problem keeping it civil. The offer still stands -- you can take the issue of my identity to the moderators for a ruling.
Old 01-18-2020, 03:37 PM
  #18  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,141
Received 40 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
I have no problem keeping it civil. The offer still stands -- you can take the issue of my identity to the moderators for a ruling.
Not my style , I don't need to to the Mods cause it don't mean all that much to me .

So , getting back to Astro's topic question , I've stated why I believe the EAA's approach is closer to what I'd like to see VS the AMA's approach , but haven't yet seen your answer .

Old 01-18-2020, 04:11 PM
  #19  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
So , getting back to Astro's topic question , I've stated why I believe the EAA's approach is closer to what I'd like to see VS the AMA's approach , but haven't yet seen your answer .
Well, you characterized the two approaches in this manner:

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
It appears the EAA is concerned about saving traditional RC model airplane flying , VS the AMA being more concerned with forcing anyone holding an RC transmitter to have to be an AMA member . (etc)
I haven't seen any remark by the AMA that indicates their goal is forced membership. And I see no reason to dignify questions amounting to "have you stopped beating your wife" with a serious answer.

Yours in Civility...
Old 01-18-2020, 05:56 PM
  #20  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,165
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
I haven't seen any remark by the AMA that indicates their goal is forced membership. And I see no reason to dignify questions amounting to "have you stopped beating your wife" with a serious answer.
Actually, when you look at the way the proposed FRIA laws are worded, it's very much a join a club and CBO or don't fly situation. When the FAA starts talking CBOs, the only one presently operating that can show up at meetings is the AMA. The others don't have the "clout" to really do anything. The EAA, on the other hand, does have the clout to effect change and is doing so using that clout. Being someone in the aviation industry, I put a lot more faith in what the EAA is doing than what the AMA "claims" to be doing
Old 01-18-2020, 06:09 PM
  #21  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Based on AMA's IRS 990s, they spend an average of 17.58% +/- 3.5% of member revenue on insurance (at $75 a year). That works out to a charge of $13.19 +/- $2.70 should cover insurance.

That's not a solution. Having an actual premium quote from an insurance carrier would be a solution. Until you have that in hand, your continual parroting of numbers is nothing more then dribble.
Old 01-18-2020, 06:13 PM
  #22  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Actually, when you look at the way the proposed FRIA laws are worded, it's very much a join a club and CBO or don't fly situation. When the FAA starts talking CBOs, the only one presently operating that can show up at meetings is the AMA. The others don't have the "clout" to really do anything. The EAA, on the other hand, does have the clout to effect change and is doing so using that clout. Being someone in the aviation industry, I put a lot more faith in what the EAA is doing than what the AMA "claims" to be doing

Well shoot, gonna have to make note of this one too as I think the FAA is more opt to listen to the EAA and any other full scale organization as well.
Old 01-18-2020, 08:47 PM
  #23  
astrohog
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Well shoot, gonna have to make note of this one too as I think the FAA is more opt to listen to the EAA and any other full scale organization as well.
Especially if this is the best that the AMA Government Affairs has to offer!


Regards,

Astro
Old 01-18-2020, 08:58 PM
  #24  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,864
Received 149 Likes on 128 Posts
Default

I did watch that a couple days ago. I thought the Flite Test guy did a great job.
Old 01-18-2020, 09:01 PM
  #25  
astrohog
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
I have been AMA for many years and this is the first time I can say I completely disapprove of what I see the AMA doing , I had kinda figured I was gonna age out of the hobby rather than seeing the hobby regulated out from under us under the AMA's watch ....
I feel pretty much the same way. I've been a member for 30 years and I have always been proud to be a member, and of the organization itself. I'm not sure if you remember, but I was very vocal about the drone issue as soon as it started to get bad press in the mainstream media. There were a handful of folks, mostly long-time modelers and Hobby Industry Insiders and business owners that petitioned the AMA to do more to create separation from autonomous flight. At a minimum, to treat it as different from traditional LOS flight, and to help educate the FAA and other Government agencies of, not only the differences between the two, but how they affect the NAS in vastly different ways. The AMA completely ignored the petition, I don't believe they even sent a canned response letter back to the principal parties, and that group took a lot of heat from the modeling community for being, "anti-drone" and exclusionary in trying to divide and segregate the hobby. Looking back, as hindsight is 20-20, it appears that we were right and ironically, even those that were throwing stones at us then are now acknowledging that the AMA should (or should have) distinguished that separation!

Regards,

Astro

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.