astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

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

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

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.

franklin_m

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.

init4fun

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 ....

RCUer75345

Not you, obviously.

RCUer75345

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."

init4fun

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 .......

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

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?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

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

init4fun

I gave the topic question my answer in post #4 ...

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

yes you did! I should have given credit where credit was due!

Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro

init4fun

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 ....

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

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.

RCUer75345

Maybe you should edit this post then:

franklin_m

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.

init4fun

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 .

RCUer75345

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.

init4fun

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 .

RCUer75345

Well, you characterized the two approaches in this manner:

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...

Hydro Junkie

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

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

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.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

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.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Especially if this is the best that the AMA Government Affairs has to offer!


Regards,

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I did watch that a couple days ago. I thought the Flite Test guy did a great job.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

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