Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
AMA membership interests >

AMA membership interests

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

AMA membership interests

Old 06-03-2020, 07:22 PM
  #26  
Thread Starter
 
allanflowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,798
Received 41 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
Here's something most members are not interested in:

"Less than 10% of our members list MRM or First Person View (FPV) as their interest."
So HOW did you get the above?
Old 06-03-2020, 07:22 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Allan, without the full picture it's difficult to contribute anything to your topic. There was that one post that claims only 10% of AMA members were interested in FPV ( would have been nice had he given credit to the source ). That said, with all the different facets of our hobby including FF, CL and R/C genres 10% could very well be a relatively large number. I'm interested in seeing what percentage of members genres will be extinct as a result of enforcement of the 400' law.
I think you overreacted to Franklin. A request above 400' may become more formal, but I don't
see any reason why exceptions won't continue for pattern and sailplanes.

On a personal note, the height of some pattern maneuvers detracts from a spectator's point of view,
for my eyes anyway. The planes are too hard to see at the top of some of them.

*** That does not change the fact that, like I said before, I'm in awe of guys like you who can build
and fly these planes competitively. I'm for anything that flies better than the last time.

Last edited by ECHO24; 06-03-2020 at 07:57 PM.
Old 06-03-2020, 08:13 PM
  #28  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
I think you overreacted to Franklin. A request above 400' may become more formal, but I don't
see any reason why exceptions won't continue for pattern and sailplanes.

On a personal note, the height of some pattern maneuvers detracts from a spectator's point of view,
for my eyes anyway. The planes are too hard to see at the top of some of them.

On your personal note, Pattern is overall boring to watch and gets very few spectators. It's just too slow paced. The box height is what is dictated by the FAI. The NSRCA sequence committee designs sequences from sportsman through masters so that progression through the classes is a manageable so that a competitive masters pilot could jump into world championship competition. Not flying the same format would effectively take the US out of international pattern competition.

With that hat said I do tend to agree that the current format/sequences has us flying too large. Most guys who give Pattern a go are very uncomfortable flying at those distances and some drop out as a result. The difficulty level and perceived cost limits participation even more.
Old 06-04-2020, 04:45 AM
  #29  
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
And yet I'm not required to live by your book.
Apparently you feel as though you are not required to live by the law either?

So your stance is that the FAA can change the rules all they want, we can just continue to operate as usual, so all is good?

WOW!

Astro
Old 06-04-2020, 12:01 PM
  #30  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Only when the FAA starts enforcing their own laws in regards to traditional LOS operations. Up to this point they have demonstrated no intent to do so. Now that Covid-19 restrictions are loosening up events are starting to take place again. You can go to just about any club website, click on events and find when and where these are taking place. The FAA can't claim that they aren't aware of what we are doing nor can anyone claim that we are doing anything secretly.
That's not how FAA typically enforces, by going to events to check. The FAA will wait until there's an event where it's clear cut no ambiguity, then use that to make a very public example of someone. And the media will be all over it as well, which will only amplify the impact of FAA actions in terms of impact on the hobby.
Old 06-04-2020, 12:02 PM
  #31  
Thread Starter
 
allanflowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,798
Received 41 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

The following is the answer to my e-mail. I greatly appreciate the response from the AMA Membership Director.
---------------

Good afternoon Mr. Flowers,

Thank you for your support of the AMA!

Member interests are not published on our website, but I can provide the information to you. There are a few things to keep in mind when considering the member interest data:
  1. Nearly 30% of all current members have not selected an interest when joining or renewing.
  2. Two years ago, we upgraded to a new membership system, which has the ability to capture more accurate data on our membership interests. As members update their preferences, we will have a better picture of the niche disciplines.
  3. The percentages below total more than 100%, because members are now able to select interests in all categories.
Of the respondents, 79% of adult members have selected an interest in Radio Control, 5% have an interest in Control Line, 7% have an interest in Free Flight, 12% have an interest in multirotor.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Sincerely,
Angie Martin
Membership Director
Old 06-04-2020, 12:31 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by allanflowers
A perfect example of what I was saying. Go whine somewhere else.
Allan, I still have that email I sent back at the beginning of this topic using the contact form on the AMA website. I did receive an acknowledgement that they have my question but nothing since then. If I don't receive any answers in the next few days I'll fire the question off to my regional VP, Jim Tiller. He has actually been good about responding to me, I just thought someone at HQ would be better suited to know the answer. I'll be sure to let you know what I find out either way.

I have continued to search the AMA web site member area and otherwise for some trace of the results of the polling. Just because I didn't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Old 06-04-2020, 12:39 PM
  #33  
Thread Starter
 
allanflowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,798
Received 41 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Thanks jcmors. Your heart is in the right place. Please read my post above (#31) if you haven't already. Your post spurred me to also write the AMA. Probably you had softened them up for me
This whole episode gives me perspective on some of the people here on this website, who to listen to and who to ignore.
Old 06-04-2020, 12:43 PM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by allanflowers
Thanks jcmors. Your heart is in the right place. Please read my post above (#31) if you haven't already. Your post spurred me to also write the AMA. Probably you had softened them up for me
This whole episode gives me perspective on some of the people here on this website, who to listen to and who to ignore.
Allan, thank for that... You wrote to someone in membership! <slapping my head> Brilliant and intuitive! Why I didn't think to address the proper source is beyond me. Thanks for sharing the answer you received.
Old 06-04-2020, 01:40 PM
  #35  
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,537
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by allanflowers
The following is the answer to my e-mail. I greatly appreciate the response from the AMA Membership Director.
---------------
1. Nearly 30% of all current members have not selected an interest when joining or renewing.
3. The percentages below total more than 100%, because members are now able to select interests in all categories. Of the respondents
  • 79% of adult members have selected an interest in Radio Control,
  • 5% have an interest in Control Line
  • 7% have an interest in Free Flight
  • 12% have an interest in multirotor
Sincerely,
Angie Martin
Membership Director
I took the liberty of editing out what would be unneeded fluff for my response, hope you don't mind. What I see in the numbers provided makes sense:
  • 30% didn't put in an interest-probably figured it wasn't needed or wasn't any of Muncie's business. This is pretty much normal
  • 79% said R/C-makes sense since the first thing people see when it comes to flying anything is an R/C. Most have no clue that the other two kinds of model aviation even exist
  • 5% said control line-again, this is a fading way to fly. Most have probably never seen it, let alone tried it
  • 7% said free flight-again, one of those that most have never seen. Those that have probably wouldn't try it as they would be afraid of losing their airplane due to wind or other things
  • 12% said multirotor-seems low, considering how many have been sold in the past few years. I guess it just shows how most that fly them want nothing to do with having to follow rules

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 06-04-2020 at 01:55 PM.
Old 06-04-2020, 01:54 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by allanflowers
So HOW did you get the above?
It is from Lawrence Tougas' campaign statement, the only common sense I've seen from anyone at AMA.

2% growth in multirotors over nearly five years shows Lawrence Tougas was on the mark. Those are also
most likely traditional modelers who also have drones, as Tougas points out below.

"We must return the AMA’s focus back to traditional modelers...

... a tidal wave of bad news stories crashed down on AMA members... The common denominators in
these events were that the offender was flying a multi-rotor model (MRM) and they were not an AMA member.


The problem is ...Since an MRM pilot doesn’t need flight instruction and they can be flown from a small area there
is no incentive to join a local club or the AMA.
... Less than 10% of our members list MRM or First Person View
(FPV) as their interest. Most of the current MRM and FPV pilots that are AMA members are traditional modelers
who have expanded into these areas not new recruits to our fold.


So if we are not seeing a large increase in membership in these areas then why is the AMA chasing people
who have clearly spoken that the AMA is not for them?
...The thought was the AMA would have a new stream
of members to fund all of our membership programs such as flying site assistance grants, education scholarships,
political outreach, etc. ..it is time to reassess our plan."


AMAhas been chasing drones and FPV over Hanson's fantasy of ruling all RC flying, even when it became clear
it was a dead end. It's the FAA and FRIAs that have finally ended it. Ignore whatever you like.

*** Tougas ran in the 2015/2016 election. I didn't bother changing it.

Last edited by ECHO24; 06-04-2020 at 02:22 PM.
Old 06-04-2020, 01:57 PM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
I took the liberty of editing out what would be unneeded fluff for my response, hope you don't mind. What I see in the numbers provided makes sense:
  • 30% didn't put in an interest-probably figured it wasn't needed or wasn't any of Muncie's business. This is pretty much normal
  • 79% said R/C-makes sense since the first thing people see when it comes to flying anything is an R/C. Most have no clue that the other two kinds of model aviation even exist
  • 5% said control line-again, this is a fading way to fly. Most have probably never seen it, let alone tried it
  • 7% said free flight-again, one of those that most have never seen. Those that have probably wouldn't try it as they would be afraid of losing their airplane due to wind or other things
  • 12% said multirotor-seems low, considering how many have been sold in the past few years. I guess it just shows how most that fly them want nothing to do with the AMA or having to follow rules
To me, as the result of a poll from AMA membership, 12% for MR seems about what I would have expected. There are folks in the AMA that are interested in multirotors from an engineering and skill perspective building non stabalized MRs as well as perhaps having fun with a racing quad, something like that. Of the other multirotors sold many buy them and can fly them in their backyards or if they fly in empty lots and fields, really need no training or interfacing with experienced fliers as the ones you buy off the shelf pretty much fly themselves. They also have no need for AMA flying fields so less incentive to persue AMA membership. Then you have those who buy expensive Multirotors with high def cameras who are actually more photography hobbyists that RC model aircraft hobbyists and why would they want or need to join the AMA? They want to take photos and videos of new and different things. Many don't care about rules and regulations and quite a few have no common sense or care about flying in a safe manner. I wouldn't expect they would be filling out a membership or membership renewal form for the AMA.

I would say that the 12% number also includes many who checked off an interest but also fly traditional model airplanes and helicopters as people can check off more than one area of interest.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:09 PM
  #38  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
Apparently you feel as though you are not required to live by the law either?

So your stance is that the FAA can change the rules all they want, we can just continue to operate as usual, so all is good?

WOW!

Astro

You seem pretty adamant about the 400' law. Have you looked up your local soaring club to express your concerns? They fly in Carnation which appears to be only 10 miles from your location.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:14 PM
  #39  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
That's not how FAA typically enforces, by going to events to check. The FAA will wait until there's an event where it's clear cut no ambiguity, then use that to make a very public example of someone. And the media will be all over it as well, which will only amplify the impact of FAA actions in terms of impact on the hobby.


Based on what? This is new territory for the FAA as well as us since this is the first time they have had control of model aircraft, there is no history on how they will handle anything model related. I'm not as naive about the FAA as you would like to think having previously participated in an FAA investigation on a near miss incident.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:17 PM
  #40  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
It is from Lawrence Tougas' campaign statement, the only common sense I've seen from anyone at AMA.

2% growth in multirotors over nearly five years shows Lawrence Tougas was on the mark. Those are also
most likely traditional modelers who also have drones, as Tougas points out below.

"We must return the AMA’s focus back to traditional modelers...

... a tidal wave of bad news stories crashed down on AMA members... The common denominators in
these events were that the offender was flying a multi-rotor model (MRM) and they were not an AMA member.


The problem is ...Since an MRM pilot doesn’t need flight instruction and they can be flown from a small area there
is no incentive to join a local club or the AMA.
... Less than 10% of our members list MRM or First Person View
(FPV) as their interest. Most of the current MRM and FPV pilots that are AMA members are traditional modelers
who have expanded into these areas not new recruits to our fold.


So if we are not seeing a large increase in membership in these areas then why is the AMA chasing people
who have clearly spoken that the AMA is not for them?
...The thought was the AMA would have a new stream
of members to fund all of our membership programs such as flying site assistance grants, education scholarships,
political outreach, etc. ..it is time to reassess our plan."


AMAhas been chasing drones and FPV over Hanson's fantasy of ruling all RC flying, even when it became clear
it was a dead end. It's the FAA and FRIAs that have finally ended it. Ignore whatever you like.

Lawrence is a good guy with great insight. If he ever decides to run for AMA office he has my vote. I think he's too vested in staying in California though.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:21 PM
  #41  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Based on what? This is new territory for the FAA as well as us since this is the first time they have had control of model aircraft, there is no history on how they will handle anything model related. I'm not as naive about the FAA as you would like to think having previously participated in an FAA investigation on a near miss incident.
Based on what? How about their pattern of enforcement over the years?

But what was I thinking? Compared to your experience, I clearly have no idea about anything. I mean opening new airspace, coordinating with LA and SF centers on letters of agreement, compliance checks, and fatal mishap investigations, in flight failures, navigation aid certification, airfield certifications, air traffic controller certifications, flight violations by people operating out of my field, coordination w/ other aviation stakeholders on J and V routings, etc.

- pales in comparison to you as a 5-digit AMA member, pattern flyer without equal, toy plane designer, and your experience with one investigation...

Last edited by franklin_m; 06-04-2020 at 02:26 PM.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:29 PM
  #42  
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,537
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
You seem pretty adamant about the 400' law. Have you looked up your local soaring club to express your concerns? They fly in Carnation which appears to be only 10 miles from your location.
You might want to check Google Maps on that one. It's over 40 miles and roughly and hour to Carnation from my house and Astro is at least 50 miles further north than I am. To make it even more fun, once you get to Snohomish or Monroe, depending on your route, it's pretty much all two lane county roads the rest of the way

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 06-04-2020 at 02:44 PM.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:32 PM
  #43  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
It is from Lawrence Tougas' campaign statement, the only common sense I've seen from anyone at AMA.

2% growth in multirotors over nearly five years shows Lawrence Tougas was on the mark. Those are also
most likely traditional modelers who also have drones, as Tougas points out below.

"We must return the AMA’s focus back to traditional modelers...

... a tidal wave of bad news stories crashed down on AMA members... The common denominators in
these events were that the offender was flying a multi-rotor model (MRM) and they were not an AMA member.


The problem is ...Since an MRM pilot doesn’t need flight instruction and they can be flown from a small area there
is no incentive to join a local club or the AMA.
... Less than 10% of our members list MRM or First Person View
(FPV) as their interest. Most of the current MRM and FPV pilots that are AMA members are traditional modelers
who have expanded into these areas not new recruits to our fold.


So if we are not seeing a large increase in membership in these areas then why is the AMA chasing people
who have clearly spoken that the AMA is not for them?
...The thought was the AMA would have a new stream
of members to fund all of our membership programs such as flying site assistance grants, education scholarships,
political outreach, etc. ..it is time to reassess our plan."


AMAhas been chasing drones and FPV over Hanson's fantasy of ruling all RC flying, even when it became clear
it was a dead end. It's the FAA and FRIAs that have finally ended it. Ignore whatever you like.

*** Tougas ran in the 2015/2016 election. I didn't bother changing it.
Spot on. And yet another example of people telling Hanson and the cabal that their strategy failed - yet they ignore it like they ignore just about everything. And we see how well THAT approach is working! Presumably they ignore things like Tougas and others because they believe they have some divine insight that nobody else can see. Or we can see it, but we're too stupid to realize how smart they (Hanson et. all) are.

But again, the results of Hanson and his cabal are clear. Declining membership. No fundamental change in spending priorities. Keep running a deficit. Keep giving MA Editor "more time" to stop the losses. Keep giving ad company "more time" to get advertisers. Keep spending more on websites etc. that don't work and/or need to be changed ... YET AGAIN. No fundamental change in strategy - keep doing the same and hope for a different result.
Old 06-04-2020, 02:37 PM
  #44  
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
You seem pretty adamant about the 400' law. Have you looked up your local soaring club to express your concerns? They fly in Carnation which appears to be only 10 miles from your location.
I'd just like to know why you don't think the law applies to you. Your actions reflect on the rest of us.
I guess you only follow the rules when someone is watching?
Wasn't it you that explained how effective the AMA's "self-policing" safety policy is? Didn't you say that when a member is not following the rules, it is every members' responsibility to gently remind him/her about the rules?
It's no wonder the FAA is taking control when this is the kind of response a member gets when trying the self-policing thing!
As I said before, the more you post, the more you show your true colors.

Astro

Last edited by astrohog; 06-04-2020 at 02:43 PM.
Old 06-04-2020, 03:32 PM
  #45  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
I'd just like to know why you don't think the law applies to you. Your actions reflect on the rest of us.
I guess you only follow the rules when someone is watching?
Wasn't it you that explained how effective the AMA's "self-policing" safety policy is? Didn't you say that when a member is not following the rules, it is every members' responsibility to gently remind him/her about the rules?
It's no wonder the FAA is taking control when this is the kind of response a member gets when trying the self-policing thing!
As I said before, the more you post, the more you show your true colors.

Astro

In a nutshell, it is not unsafe to fly a traditional LOS model higher than 400'. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE where flying a model airplane LOS has caused an injury where flying above 400' was the cause of the accident. I bet you would be hard pressed to even find record where flying above 400' was even a contributing factor. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE of collision above 400' between a LOS model and manned aircraft.




Old 06-04-2020, 04:04 PM
  #46  
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,538
Received 85 Likes on 75 Posts
Default

goodyear blimp
Old 06-04-2020, 04:09 PM
  #47  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
... it is not unsafe to fly a traditional LOS model higher than 400' ...
And that is based on your vast expertise as a .... what?
Old 06-04-2020, 04:14 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
In a nutshell, it is not unsafe to fly a traditional LOS model higher than 400'. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE where flying a model airplane LOS has caused an injury where flying above 400' was the cause of the accident. I bet you would be hard pressed to even find record where flying above 400' was even a contributing factor. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE of collision above 400' between a LOS model and manned aircraft.
Safe if you know what airspace you're in. When I heard AMA say flying over 400' was OK without
qualifying that, in 2014 I think it was, that's when I knew something was seriously wrong with AMA.

I'm no expert, but I have been a licensed pilot since I was 19 and have owned several airplanes.
You can't disregard the FAA and their authority over airspace the way Hanson does so flippantly.

There is no place for that in aviation. Period. The rules are there because the simplest mistake
can kill someone. I knew AMA would one day pay a price for that belligerence and stupidity.
Old 06-04-2020, 04:19 PM
  #49  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
And that is based on your vast expertise as a .... what?

Reasonable human being, you should try it sometime.
Old 06-04-2020, 04:23 PM
  #50  
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
In a nutshell, it is not unsafe to fly a traditional LOS model higher than 400'. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE where flying a model airplane LOS has caused an injury where flying above 400' was the cause of the accident. I bet you would be hard pressed to even find record where flying above 400' was even a contributing factor. There is not ONE SINGLE CASE of collision above 400' between a LOS model and manned aircraft.
I didn't say it was unsafe. I said it is against the law.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.