AMA membership interests
06-05-2020, 01:58 PM
#77
Some should take note that I never said I flew over 400', all I said was sailplane contest and the 400' law had no effect on the contest. It could have been a DLG, ALES, F5J, F3F or TD contest. Some of Y'all made assumptions and started loosing your poop. Talk about true colors.
06-05-2020, 02:02 PM
#78
I would have to agree with this Franklin. I think that Andy really wants to try to influence action on things that will be good for the hobby. Having him on the EC gives me some hope that things could actually change for the better.
06-05-2020, 02:07 PM
#79
Some should take note that I never said I flew over 400', all I said was sailplane contest and the 400' law had no effect on the contest. It could have been a DLG, ALES, F5J, F3F or TD contest. Some of Y'all made assumptions and started loosing your poop. Talk about true colors.
06-05-2020, 02:11 PM
#80
Secondly, one of the communities that has been a flight discipline problem in the past are the noble "waiver holders" (16 July 2016 EC minutes). As a member of that community, and now a member of the EC, I think he needs to go on record whether this community, which often flies over 400 AGL in class G, are in fact breaking law. Given the absence of anything formal in writing from the FAA, I know what the answer should be, so why won't he just say it? That speaks volumes about AMA leadership "character" and the safety culture of the organization as a whole and that community in particular. If you don't like a law, you follow it while working to change it. You don't just "ignore it" which is precisely what that community and the AMA are doing. And this particular EC member is part of both cultures.
Which then leads to the $64K question: If AMA knows it's members are breaking the law, why do they look the other way?
06-05-2020, 02:12 PM
#81
I also note that you did not come out and say that you DIDN'T fly over 400'. Why don't you quit it with your normal hyperbole and come right out and tell us if you did or didn't. I'll bank on DID, otherwise you would've simply qualified it as a DLG contest and stuck your tongue out.
Fact is, YOU DON'T KNOW if I did or didn't, that pretty much makes your comments unjustified. I suggest you go oink up a different tree.
06-05-2020, 02:41 PM
#82
Again, my money is on the fact that you DID fly over 400'. And that is based on your posting history of NEVER once alluding to participating in any other discipline of soaring.
Of course, you could stop hiding behind your hyperbole and just tell us if you did or did not........ (second attempt at asking for your honesty)...
06-05-2020, 02:45 PM
#83
He throws that "RCU Community Moderator, Leader Member, and Contest Director" thing quite liberally - along with his status as a turbine signoff authority. That puts him in exclusive company. Company that I would think has thick enough skin to be challenged. But then again if not, that also sends a signal.
06-05-2020, 03:03 PM
#84
And right back at you, FAIR ENOUGH. I see where you're coming from and your argument does have merit. That said, as a new EC member, it is also possible that he's trying to not make waves or be labelled a trouble maker by the old guard. Not saying that's the case, just throwing it out there as a possibility.
06-05-2020, 06:35 PM
#85
Senior Member
I wouldn't sell short our esteemed EC member, I mean isn't he all but RC nobility? He's an EC member, a "knight of the RC round table." He's a member of that mystical community of "waiver holders," those infallible individuals with such skills, expertise, and fountains of aviation and technical knowledge that when one questions them, the response is "Are you a waiver holder?" If nothing else, that is surely as sign of their greatness, that if you're not part of hte club you're a mere mortal that should probably give way as they walk by. And not only is our esteemed EC member part of that secret society, he's empowered to bestow that greatness on others by signing off on their waivers. Surely someone with such credentials KNOWS with precision the altitude of his sUAS. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm shocked that NTSB, FAA, and even ICAO doesn't seek their assistance with all aviation related matters.
blame him for not answering those kind of questions. And it is all speculative now anyway.
I doubt he knows more than anyone else how the new rule and FRIAs are going to shake out. There may be
various scenarios kicked around, but my take is AMA never saw the NPRM coming and is still shell-shocked.
06-06-2020, 02:35 AM
#87
And right back at you, FAIR ENOUGH. I see where you're coming from and your argument does have merit. That said, as a new EC member, it is also possible that he's trying to not make waves or be labelled a trouble maker by the old guard. Not saying that's the case, just throwing it out there as a possibility.
I hoped BC would be a change agent, but I'm honestly not seeing it ... from him or anyone else on the board.
06-06-2020, 02:41 AM
#88
I agree, and would only add that in addition to ,their organizational strategy (above), some of us would like to see a radical change in their spending priorities / financial strategy - less overhead, more money directly into the local fields. I still fundamentally believe that high quality low cost and welcoming clubs/fields close to where members (and potential members) live and work is what earns members. Not platitudes, PowerPoint "programs," or yet another new advertising campaign from Muncie.
06-06-2020, 02:46 AM
#89
I'm certain of it too. For on RCG, speedy and I had an extensive discussion of why he and others "need" to go above 400 feet to be competitive in aerobatics. We know he flys aerobatic competitions using a large plane (he told us so). We know he's spoken extensively of the "need" to go above 400 to be competitive (again, he said it). And we know he's done well in several competitions (so he's arguably doing what it takes to be competitive). Therefore, logic would indicate that if you need to go above 400 to be competitive, he's clearly been competitive, and since the plane doesn't fly itself - it's a simple conclusion that speedy went above 400 regularly, and knowingly, despite his comments here to the contrary.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-06-2020 at 02:52 AM.
06-06-2020, 07:46 AM
#91
Senior Member
I agree, and would only add that in addition to ,their organizational strategy (above), some of us would like to see a radical change in their spending priorities / financial strategy - less overhead, more money directly into the local fields. I still fundamentally believe that high quality low cost and welcoming clubs/fields close to where members (and potential members) live and work is what earns members. Not platitudes, PowerPoint "programs," or yet another new advertising campaign from Muncie.
is hyping the non-existent "app-based" solution trying to hang on to them, but they will eventually quit.
AMA is going to implode. A 30,000 to 40,000 drop in membership is inevitable. Those reforms won't stop it.
06-06-2020, 04:48 PM
#93
Every drone owner who registered, 1,000,000+, was told to follow AMA rules as a result of AMA's monopoly.
Saying AMA had no responsibility to make an effort to see that those people knew the rules is exactly the
kind of thinking that forced the FAA to take over RC flying.
Saying AMA had no responsibility to make an effort to see that those people knew the rules is exactly the
kind of thinking that forced the FAA to take over RC flying.
If those drone owners who registered were NOT members of the AMA, what power would AMA have to enforce ANY rules on them?
Just because the AMA Safety Code was the de facto rules the FAA was originally using is immaterial to whether the AMA has 'enforcement' authority.
If you were to commit an FAA violation, would AOPA carry out some form of enforcement on you?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit AMA "Nobility"
Last edited by R_Strowe; 06-06-2020 at 04:56 PM.
06-06-2020, 05:48 PM
#94
Senior Member
Echo,
If those drone owners who registered were NOT members of the AMA, what power would AMA have to enforce ANY rules on them?
Just because the AMA Safety Code was the de facto rules the FAA was originally using is immaterial to whether the AMA has 'enforcement' authority.
If you were to commit an FAA violation, would AOPA carry out some form of enforcement on you?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit AMA "Nobility"
If those drone owners who registered were NOT members of the AMA, what power would AMA have to enforce ANY rules on them?
Just because the AMA Safety Code was the de facto rules the FAA was originally using is immaterial to whether the AMA has 'enforcement' authority.
If you were to commit an FAA violation, would AOPA carry out some form of enforcement on you?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit AMA "Nobility"
AMA wanted all the benefits of their monopoly with no responsibility. That's why it all blew up.
It will finally sink in what has happened.
06-06-2020, 06:28 PM
#95
And I'd also submit that it was the FAA that originally adopted the AMA Safety Code, not the other way around. The AMA didn't force it on them, they most likely looked it over, saw that it made good sense and adopted it.
And also for the record, I'd just as soon see Hanson go. Put Tougas in there. As Speed said, he's a pretty upstanding guy, and truly seems to understand the issues at hand. Probably too late now, but who knows?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit 'Nobility'
06-06-2020, 06:45 PM
#96
Senior Member
No doubt that AMA seriously screwed the pooch on that one, although I am on record as being of a differing opinion as to why the did something so risky.
And I'd also submit that it was the FAA that originally adopted the AMA Safety Code, not the other way around. The AMA didn't force it on them, they most likely looked it over, saw that it made good sense and adopted it.
And also for the record, I'd just as soon see Hanson go. Put Tougas in there. As Speed said, he's a pretty upstanding guy, and truly seems to understand the issues at hand. Probably too late now, but who knows?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit 'Nobility'
And I'd also submit that it was the FAA that originally adopted the AMA Safety Code, not the other way around. The AMA didn't force it on them, they most likely looked it over, saw that it made good sense and adopted it.
And also for the record, I'd just as soon see Hanson go. Put Tougas in there. As Speed said, he's a pretty upstanding guy, and truly seems to understand the issues at hand. Probably too late now, but who knows?
R_Strowe
Proud member of the 5-digit 'Nobility'
and source of most of the problems for the numskulls, is RC flying is subservient to real airplanes, not the other way around.
06-07-2020, 07:20 PM
#97
Senior Member
Could very well be. My guesstimate was based on the the 10% rejected FRIAs with half of those displaced
not going to another club, the Park Program going away, and guys like myself who don't fly enough with a
club to make that expense and AMA membership worthwhile. On either estimate AMA is doomed.
As for the AMA and this dream of an app-based solution to hang onto off-field flyers, the FAA has already
rejected voluntary compliance outright. That is further bolstered by the 30-day study released in April by
the Embry-Riddle showing only 7% of drones detected in the controlled airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport had a 107 approval.
There is no way the FAA would require every drone manufactured to have tamper-proof remote ID and then
allow anyone to build a drone and only require them to log into an app.
The era of voluntary compliance is over. And the end of voluntary compliance is the end of the AMA.
not going to another club, the Park Program going away, and guys like myself who don't fly enough with a
club to make that expense and AMA membership worthwhile. On either estimate AMA is doomed.
As for the AMA and this dream of an app-based solution to hang onto off-field flyers, the FAA has already
rejected voluntary compliance outright. That is further bolstered by the 30-day study released in April by
the Embry-Riddle showing only 7% of drones detected in the controlled airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport had a 107 approval.
There is no way the FAA would require every drone manufactured to have tamper-proof remote ID and then
allow anyone to build a drone and only require them to log into an app.
The era of voluntary compliance is over. And the end of voluntary compliance is the end of the AMA.
06-08-2020, 02:59 AM
#98
With RC flying illegal except at FRIAs, those who fly off-field and joined just for insurance will drop out. AMA
is hyping the non-existent "app-based" solution trying to hang on to them, but they will eventually quit.
AMA is going to implode. A 30,000 to 40,000 drop in membership is inevitable. Those reforms won't stop it.
is hyping the non-existent "app-based" solution trying to hang on to them, but they will eventually quit.
AMA is going to implode. A 30,000 to 40,000 drop in membership is inevitable. Those reforms won't stop it.
06-08-2020, 08:00 AM
#99
Senior Member
My take is AMA and the hobby will continue for the foreseeable future, just less of it. There is a 10% loss
of flying fields right off, and the further attrition of fields going away from natural causes like development,
as well as the aging model aircraft flyers who also won't be replaced.
I got into RC on my own (with a friend) and later got interested enough to join a club. I don't think I would
gotten involved if it meant having to join a club and the AMA on top of having to buy a complete radio system
along with all the rest of the gear for that first plane. It's a big enough expense all at once when you're young.
Those potential members will be gone when flying becomes illegal without remote ID anywhere besides an AMA
field, including those who fly on their own property. Another group going away are people convinced by AMA that
they had to join to be legal. All of it combined will have a further downward effect on membership. It has to.
You've been around AMA for a long time. How do you see it going?
of flying fields right off, and the further attrition of fields going away from natural causes like development,
as well as the aging model aircraft flyers who also won't be replaced.
I got into RC on my own (with a friend) and later got interested enough to join a club. I don't think I would
gotten involved if it meant having to join a club and the AMA on top of having to buy a complete radio system
along with all the rest of the gear for that first plane. It's a big enough expense all at once when you're young.
Those potential members will be gone when flying becomes illegal without remote ID anywhere besides an AMA
field, including those who fly on their own property. Another group going away are people convinced by AMA that
they had to join to be legal. All of it combined will have a further downward effect on membership. It has to.
You've been around AMA for a long time. How do you see it going?
06-08-2020, 09:11 AM
#100
My take is AMA and the hobby will continue for the foreseeable future, just less of it. There is a 10% loss
of flying fields right off, and the further attrition of fields going away from natural causes like development,
as well as the aging model aircraft flyers who also won't be replaced.
I got into RC on my own (with a friend) and later got interested enough to join a club. I don't think I would
gotten involved if it meant having to join a club and the AMA on top of having to buy a complete radio system
along with all the rest of the gear for that first plane. It's a big enough expense all at once when you're young.
Those potential members will be gone when flying becomes illegal without remote ID anywhere besides an AMA
field, including those who fly on their own property. Another group going away are people convinced by AMA that
they had to join to be legal. All of it combined will have a further downward effect on membership. It has to.
You've been around AMA for a long time. How do you see it going?
of flying fields right off, and the further attrition of fields going away from natural causes like development,
as well as the aging model aircraft flyers who also won't be replaced.
I got into RC on my own (with a friend) and later got interested enough to join a club. I don't think I would
gotten involved if it meant having to join a club and the AMA on top of having to buy a complete radio system
along with all the rest of the gear for that first plane. It's a big enough expense all at once when you're young.
Those potential members will be gone when flying becomes illegal without remote ID anywhere besides an AMA
field, including those who fly on their own property. Another group going away are people convinced by AMA that
they had to join to be legal. All of it combined will have a further downward effect on membership. It has to.
You've been around AMA for a long time. How do you see it going?
I've seen the hobby slowly decline in all the time I've been in the hobby. All of the clubs in and around my area, one, by one members and then clubs disappeared. I knew why, but to this day, no wants to hear about it. If drones get boring, and us old timers are gone, then what does AMA do without membership money? Yes, AMA may exist in one form or another, but I sure miss the good ole days. lol
Last edited by fliers1; 06-08-2020 at 09:14 AM.