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

AMA Bashing is Pointless

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

AMA Bashing is Pointless

Old 09-15-2021, 06:28 PM
  #326  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
There are two basic arguments, (1) the FAA had meetings outside the NPRM process, and (2) the final rule is more about
identifying and reporting UAS traffic to authorities than air traffic management.

On the meetings my guess is the FAA has plenty of lawyers advising on what is or not in the scope of FAA's authority. On the
second, I'd have to read it again but I think the 2018 bill mandating Remote ID says that the primary purpose of Remote ID,
apart from the generic "integrating UAS into the national airspace system", is national security.
I think this is the section that you are thinking of:
(a) UAS SAFETY ENFORCEMENT.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a pilot program to utilize available remote detection or identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws, including regulations.
The bill also requires the FAA to begin development of a UTM and RID is mentioned here as a necessary component of any such UTM. There may be other mentions as well.

Regardless, unless they successfully argue that the very notion of RID itself is somehow unconstitutional (which is highly unlikely), then there is really nothing that this lawsuit can accomplish. Even if they roll back the current rule based on some technicality (like having "secret" meetings), the FAA will still be under legal mandate to deploy RID and will just be required to put forth some new rule that avoids those technical difficulties. My fear is that any such new rule could then be worse for the hobby. They are really playing with fire here, with very little hope for upside.
Old 09-16-2021, 05:07 AM
  #327  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
Regardless, unless they successfully argue that the very notion of RID itself is somehow unconstitutional (which is highly unlikely), then there is really nothing that this lawsuit can accomplish. Even if they roll back the current rule based on some technicality (like having "secret" meetings), the FAA will still be under legal mandate to deploy RID and will just be required to put forth some new rule that avoids those technical difficulties. My fear is that any such new rule could then be worse for the hobby. They are really playing with fire here, with very little hope for upside.
Agree completely.
Old 09-17-2021, 04:01 PM
  #328  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

A twist of irony: RaceDayQuads complains in their lawsuit that the FAA didn't consider or even respond to AMA's proposed exemption for model
aircraft of a certain weight under AMA's park flyer program - after years of the droniacs and AMA insisting that drones are model aircraft too!

Gee, I wonder why. Maybe if AMA, AKA Hanson had been lobbying for model aircraft vs, drones, instead of trying to get a death-grip on the hobby ..

More irony: the Ruprrecht Law website notes that AMA has not joined their lawsuit.


Old 09-17-2021, 08:25 PM
  #329  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

To finish the thought, AMA joining RaceDayQuads lawsuit would put them in a bit of a pickle due to their formal comment on the proposed
Remote ID rule. If you recall, and as Barracuda Hockey schooled me, AMA is 100%, absolutely, no exceptions, only for line of sight RC flying.
AMA spells that out in no uncertain terms in their NPRM comment (notwithstanding their drone program and plastering their logo on any and
all drone events they can find).

RaceDayQuads' lawsuit is over FPV. I can say nothing bad about Tyler Brennan and RaceDayQuads. He's a believer and honest about what he
does. But he has put out the most convoluted argument on what constitutes beyond line of sight I've ever read. Essentially, there is no such
thing as beyond line of sight if your drone is a speck in the sky that you can see after pulling off FPV goggles.

Go ahead AMA, sign on to the suit.

Edit: Everything apart from the basic arguments in RaceDayQuads lawsuit is fluff, things they've throw against the wall to see what sticks.
There is no Constitutional right to observe people and things from a drone. Exactly the opposite. As the Michigan Supreme Court ruled,
drones are a new and unique form of surveillance, i.e., a cheap form of "persistent surveillance" that people have a right to be protected from.

I have no problem with FPV enthusiasts. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I posted on a forum in 2014 a
picture of a drone with the caption "Death Star" (for RC). It was obvious then and obvious now, drones will be heavily regulated. RC flying
should have run the other way as fast as it could run. AMA did not, and the result now is that model aircraft are just another type of "UAS".

Last edited by ECHO24; 09-18-2021 at 07:34 PM.
Old 09-19-2021, 09:10 AM
  #330  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

As Echo says, it appears as though what RaceDayQuads and the drone community at large really are fighting for is recreational BVLOS/FPV. But even if by some strange miracle they succeed in having RID declared unconstitutional (which is the only way to kill off RID since the FAA is mandated by law to implement it), recreational BVLOS/FPV is still going to remain a no-no. I still don't know what they hope to gain other than poking the FAA in the eye out of spite.

If they want recreational FPV, they need to build a case for it. I can envision there being some possible argument to be made about very low altitude (i.e.; below treetop level) over private property as a starting point, but there is no way I can ever envision blanket allowance of recreational BVLOS/FPV being allowed.
Old 09-23-2021, 01:14 PM
  #331  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

AMA may be too embarrassed now to endorse RaceDayQuads' lawsuit, but count AMA in on FPV, despite their official NPRM
response (and spotter rule farce that no one follows). This is from AMA's dead-letter lawsuit against the FAA in 2014:

"Contrary to the 2012 Statute [Sec. 336], the FAA Order purports to impose new rules and regulations
upon model aircraft hobbyists operating within the scope of the AMA’s programming, including but not
limited to ... restrictions on the use of “first person view” systems to control model aircraft ... "

That's how much AMA is 100% committed to LOS model aircraft flying. And the author who wrote that, of course, was AMA's
then lawyer Brendan Schulman, chief US legal counsel for the world's largest drone manufacturer, DJI, until a month ago.

You couldn't make it up.

Old 09-24-2021, 03:57 AM
  #332  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

A lot has changed over the last 7 years. But in the end, most of us who fly "traditional model aircraft" are able to carry on, for the most part, as we always have (using the EAA's definition of traditional model aircraft as small UAS "not capable of navigating beyond the visual line of sight of the operator through advanced flight systems and technology"). It is the BVLOS/FPV crowd that got reigned in the most by the new regs and IMHO that is the crowd that needed to get reigned in.
Old 09-24-2021, 08:29 AM
  #333  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
A lot has changed over the last 7 years. But in the end, most of us who fly "traditional model aircraft" are able to carry on, for the most part, as we always have (using the EAA's definition of traditional model aircraft as small UAS "not capable of navigating beyond the visual line of sight of the operator through advanced flight systems and technology"). It is the BVLOS/FPV crowd that got reigned in the most by the new regs and IMHO that is the crowd that needed to get reigned in.
What's changed over the last 7 years is AMA's belligerence with the FAA has been costly: AMA rules are now subject to FAA approval, flying fields lost
for any reason are gone forever, and the pool of potential members is dwindling with non-AMA RC fliers now under FAA's drone (UAS) regulations. It's
not just the "BVLOS/FPV crowd" who got reigned in.

AMA could have simply allowed FPV with a spotter (if a club wanted it), but AMA's lame-brain president got into the FPV/FAA fight over his fantasy that
under Section 336 he could force AMA membership on the droners, people who had little reason to join and rarely if ever would be found at an AMA field.

AMA was also aiming for commercial drone operators, and offers insurance, straying as far as you can get from AMA's vision statement: "whose purpose is
to promote development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity". AMA's fake lawsuit against the FAA was during the
long-running FAA vs. "Trappy" saga: Trappy's lawyer - Surprise! - also Brendan Schulman. One of the charges was that the flight was for compensation.

You mention the EAA. The EAA advocates and lobbies for rules and laws that benefit all experimental aircraft owners, not just EAA members, unlike the
short-sighted buffoons running the AMA. It's hard to imagine a bigger failure for an advocacy organization.


Old 09-24-2021, 08:43 AM
  #334  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by echo24 View Post
what's changed over the last 7 years is ama's belligerence with the faa has been costly: Ama rules are now subject to faa approval, flying fields lost
for any reason are gone forever, and the pool of potential members is dwindling with non-ama rc fliers now under faa's drone (uas) regulations. It's
not just the "bvlos/fpv crowd" who got reigned in.

Ama could have simply allowed fpv with a spotter (if a club wanted it), but ama's lame-brain president got into the fpv/faa fight over his fantasy that
under section 336 he could force ama membership on the droners, people who had little reason to join and rarely if ever would be found at an ama field.

Ama was also aiming for commercial drone operators, and offers insurance, straying as far as you can get from ama's vision statement: "whose purpose is
to promote development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity". Ama's fake lawsuit against the faa was during the
long-running faa vs. "trappy" saga: Trappy's lawyer - surprise! - also brendan schulman. One of the charges was that the flight was for compensation.

You mention the eaa. The eaa advocates and lobbies for rules and laws that benefit all experimental aircraft owners, not just eaa members, unlike the
short-sighted buffoons running the ama. It's hard to imagine a bigger failure for an advocacy organization.
^^^^^^ this 100% ^^^^^^
Old 09-25-2021, 08:15 AM
  #335  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

We will have to agree to disagree regarding the AMA's effectiveness at supporting traditional model aircraft with regard to the regulatory battles that we have been fighting these last several years. It is unknowable, but it is my opinion that traditional model aircraft would be in far worse shape had it not been for the efforts of the AMA. Again, there is no way to go back in time to test this, but I strongly suspect that we would now be faced with regulations much more closely resembling what was in the draft RID NPRM had it not been for the AMA's efforts. I do not believe there is any circumstance in which we would have been left unregulated given the national security imperatives, the commercial mandates, the political climate, and the general opinion of the public at large no matter what the AMA or anyone else did or did not do. But despite those realities, most of us will be able to operate more-or-less as we always have.

I am not saying the AMA is perfect and has made no mistakes, and as you know from my previous posts I am not an AMA fanboy that will support them right or wrong. There is a LOT of room for improvement within the AMA. But I also do not believe they are anywhere near as malignant and/or incompetent as many here like to claim. I don't expect to change any minds, but will state my opinion for the record.
Old 09-25-2021, 09:44 AM
  #336  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

AMA is in a perfect storm of their own making. They're now in a competition for members, the largest pool of which have no operational "need" for the club field, thus no "need" for what is AMA's strongest selling point. At the same time, despite the occasional small increase, continued steady decline in membership revenue. Continued focus on a capital asset (Taj-Muncie) located far from the largest pools of potential new members. And failure to put away money for long term maintenance, recapitalization, and upkeep of that major capital asset.

Now, in yet another misguided strategy, the want to focus on education in the hopes that public schools and others will be a source of new revenue. Yet they fail to understand that these organizations are struggling to meet required teaching topics, let alone adding another.

In short, AMA has, yet again, fallen victim to believing their own rhetoric. They've never done an extensive and detailed survey of what their own members and clubs actually want, and most certainly have never done even basic research - for example asking tens of thousands of "free" members why they didn't become paying members.
Old 09-25-2021, 09:54 AM
  #337  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
AMA is in a perfect storm of their own making. They're now in a competition for members, the largest pool of which have no operational "need" for the club field, thus no "need" for what is AMA's strongest selling point. At the same time, despite the occasional small increase, continued steady decline in membership revenue. Continued focus on a capital asset (Taj-Muncie) located far from the largest pools of potential new members. And failure to put away money for long term maintenance, recapitalization, and upkeep of that major capital asset.

Now, in yet another misguided strategy, the want to focus on education in the hopes that public schools and others will be a source of new revenue. Yet they fail to understand that these organizations are struggling to meet required teaching topics, let alone adding another.

In short, AMA has, yet again, fallen victim to believing their own rhetoric. They've never done an extensive and detailed survey of what their own members and clubs actually want, and most certainly have never done even basic research - for example asking tens of thousands of "free" members why they didn't become paying members.
Although I may not agree with all of the details, I am in complete agreement with your overall sentiment here, especially the notion that the AMA is really only appealing to those in need of a club field. The problem is that they do not know how to monetize their organization with hobbyists who do not have that need. Again, if you look to FliteTest as a template, I am certain that they are generating add-revenue income off of their YouTube channel and of course income from their own "store" where they are selling products.

There is a very well developed model for making money on the internet and that is one potential vehicle for the AMA to pursue, there may be others as well. But they will never make money via a membership model unless they are providing some service or content that cannot be obtained elsewhere for free. Today, that service is access to club fields. To your point, that will not be a winner much longer.
Old 09-25-2021, 10:37 AM
  #338  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
Although I may not agree with all of the details, I am in complete agreement with your overall sentiment here, especially the notion that the AMA is really only appealing to those in need of a club field. The problem is that they do not know how to monetize their organization with hobbyists who do not have that need. Again, if you look to FliteTest as a template, I am certain that they are generating add-revenue income off of their YouTube channel and of course income from their own "store" where they are selling products.

There is a very well developed model for making money on the internet and that is one potential vehicle for the AMA to pursue, there may be others as well. But they will never make money via a membership model unless they are providing some service or content that cannot be obtained elsewhere for free. Today, that service is access to club fields. To your point, that will not be a winner much longer.
You got me thinking. I did a comparison of AMA and FliteTest.
AMA has 36.5K subscribers on YouTube, FliteTest has 1970K subscribers (plus mine a moment ago).
The video that FliteTest posted two hours ago has more views than the last 5 of AMA's ... COMBINED!

What bothers me, is our membership dollars are paying a staff to generate content that's clearly not what the market wants to see. My question is: "Why do we keep paying them?"

Qualitatively, I look at AMA's content and it's static ... "blah" comes to mind. How many Nats videos do we really want? Based on the numbers, not many. Yet AMA keeps making them. Doing more of the same and hoping for a different result. I had to go back six months for anything that remotely looked like an easy quick build ... and it was AMA's rubber band powered Alpha? BORING!

Compare that with FliteTest, which looks like FUN!
Duct-tape plane. Giant Stuka. Soda Can dive bombing. Giant B17. 8 foot troop glider. WW2 glider tow FPV from cockpit. Giant shark kite glider launch. Etc.

Last edited by franklin_m; 09-25-2021 at 10:47 AM.
Old 09-25-2021, 11:06 AM
  #339  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
You got me thinking. I did a comparison of AMA and FliteTest.
AMA has 36.5K subscribers on YouTube, FliteTest has 1970K subscribers (plus mine a moment ago).
The video that FliteTest posted two hours ago has more views than the last 5 of AMA's ... COMBINED!

What bothers me, is our membership dollars are paying a staff to generate content that's clearly not what the market wants to see. My question is: "Why do we keep paying them?"

Qualitatively, I look at AMA's content and it's static ... "blah" comes to mind. How many Nats videos do we really want? Based on the numbers, not many. Yet AMA keeps making them. Doing more of the same and hoping for a different result. I had to go back six months for anything that remotely looked like an easy quick build ... and it was AMA's rubber band powered Alpha? BORING!

Compare that with FliteTest, which looks like FUN!
Duct-tape plane. Giant Stuka. Soda Can dive bombing. Giant B17. 8 foot troop glider. WW2 glider tow FPV from cockpit. Giant shark kite glider launch. Etc.
I pointed those exacts facts out to the AMA leadership 2+ years ago. I even made the comment that when you look at the images on the AMA site, you see very serious and stoic men concentrating like they were gearing up to go to war as opposed to a youthful inclusive image of people having fun. I got a reply saying that they recognized the problem and had a new social media team poised to create new content. And to be fair, many of the images on the AMA site and YouTube channel have changed, but not nearly enough, and their social media program is still a joke. But once again, the average rank-and-file old-school AMA members would probably lose their minds if the AMA started putting up videos of a giant B17 getting shot up with an apple cannon!
Old 09-25-2021, 12:17 PM
  #340  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
I pointed those exacts facts out to the AMA leadership 2+ years ago. I even made the comment that when you look at the images on the AMA site, you see very serious and stoic men concentrating like they were gearing up to go to war as opposed to a youthful inclusive image of people having fun. I got a reply saying that they recognized the problem and had a new social media team poised to create new content. And to be fair, many of the images on the AMA site and YouTube channel have changed, but not nearly enough, and their social media program is still a joke. But once again, the average rank-and-file old-school AMA members would probably lose their minds if the AMA started putting up videos of a giant B17 getting shot up with an apple cannon!
I hear that and wonder how much members' money have we flushed down the toilet paying this "new social media team" that seems to produced much the same as the old team. Typical AMA, all hat and no cattle.

And your point about the rank-and-file is well taken, and illustrates utter inept EC leadership. What I see is they just can't let go of the old guard thing, perhaps because it is them. They continue to assume that the "market" is just like them, "the market" just doesn't know it. How many businesses have failed for the same reason ... failure to adapt to a changing market?
Old 09-25-2021, 03:39 PM
  #341  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I hear that and wonder how much members' money have we flushed down the toilet paying this "new social media team" that seems to produced much the same as the old team. Typical AMA, all hat and no cattle.

And your point about the rank-and-file is well taken, and illustrates utter inept EC leadership. What I see is they just can't let go of the old guard thing, perhaps because it is them. They continue to assume that the "market" is just like them, "the market" just doesn't know it. How many businesses have failed for the same reason ... failure to adapt to a changing market?
I suspect the problem is that they didn't spend enough on their team! Social media experts are in very high demand and the good ones are expensive (VERY expensive). But even more of a problem is the AMA's brand image. Without a total overhaul, there is nothing that even the best social media campaign can do to attract younger eyeballs to the AMA sites. When I sent my note to Rich Hanson I actually said that the AMA needs to overhaul its brand the same way that P&G overhauled the Old Spice brand. Up until 4 or 5 years ago, Old Spice was your great grandfather's brand (and was dying), but P&G turned it inside out with an off the wall ad campaign that was fun, irreverent, and appealing to a younger audience. They completely changed the brand image and kept it from going the way of the dodo bird. That's what the AMA needs to do if it wants to survive, but that kind of change at the AMA would be like asking the Pope to convert to Buddhism
Old 09-25-2021, 03:51 PM
  #342  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
I suspect the problem is that they didn't spend enough on their team! Social media experts are in very high demand and the good ones are expensive (VERY expensive). But even more of a problem is the AMA's brand image. Without a total overhaul, there is nothing that even the best social media campaign can do to attract younger eyeballs to the AMA sites. When I sent my note to Rich Hanson I actually said that the AMA needs to overhaul its brand the same way that P&G overhauled the Old Spice brand. Up until 4 or 5 years ago, Old Spice was your great grandfather's brand (and was dying), but P&G turned it inside out with an off the wall ad campaign that was fun, irreverent, and appealing to a younger audience. They completely changed the brand image and kept it from going the way of the dodo bird. That's what the AMA needs to do if it wants to survive, but that kind of change at the AMA would be like asking the Pope to convert to Buddhism
No kidding. For at least a couple years now they've been hand wringing over what to do with the magazines, meanwhile $500K or more a year down the toilet. Yet the editor is still employed. The writers are still employed. The Ad folks are still employed. And let's not forget, the ED comes from a marketing background. Former "Multi-Media Manager," "Manager of Marketing and Computer Systems," and "Marketing Executive / Digital Lead" for a broadcaster. Where's he in all this? Or is that another six digit salary being wasted?
Old 09-25-2021, 04:42 PM
  #343  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I have a feeling that the social media team was vetted before hiring and are kept on a short leash by the EC.

Astro
Old 09-26-2021, 02:43 AM
  #344  
fliers1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lockport, NY
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

“The Consolation of Philosophy” by Boethius, who was wrongfully imprisoned and then sentenced to death. He wrote:


If I have fully diagnosed the cause and nature of your condition, you are wasting away in pining and longing for your former good fortune. It is the loss of this which, as your imagination works upon you, has so corrupted your mind. I know the many disguises of that monster, Fortune, and the extent to which she seduces with friendship the very people she is striving to cheat until she overwhelms them with unbearable grief at the suddenness of her desertion”


Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.

Hannah Arendt


The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
Old 10-06-2021, 07:59 PM
  #345  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
We will have to agree to disagree regarding the AMA's effectiveness at supporting traditional model aircraft with regard to the regulatory battles that we have been fighting these last several years. It is unknowable, but it is my opinion that traditional model aircraft would be in far worse shape had it not been for the efforts of the AMA. Again, there is no way to go back in time to test this, but I strongly suspect that we would now be faced with regulations much more closely resembling what was in the draft RID NPRM had it not been for the AMA's efforts. I do not believe there is any circumstance in which we would have been left unregulated given the national security imperatives, the commercial mandates, the political climate, and the general opinion of the public at large no matter what the AMA or anyone else did or did not do. But despite those realities, most of us will be able to operate more-or-less as we always have.

I am not saying the AMA is perfect and has made no mistakes, and as you know from my previous posts I am not an AMA fanboy that will support them right or wrong. There is a LOT of room for improvement within the AMA. But I also do not believe they are anywhere near as malignant and/or incompetent as many here like to claim. I don't expect to change any minds, but will state my opinion for the record.
Mistakes were made, blah, blah. You cannot even contact AMA outside of a scripted form for members only.

I just tried to email Model Aviation about an RC plane I've designed but it's a you can't get there from here: "ama-membership-form.pdf - AIAA"
"contact us - AMA Media Kit", "Subscribe | Model Aviation", blah, blah, blah. So here it is:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1097552...search_click=1
Old 10-06-2021, 08:19 PM
  #346  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

No one has designed anything like this so far as I know. 3D printing is like magic.

if only I weren't banned from RCGroups.

Last edited by ECHO24; 10-06-2021 at 08:24 PM.
Old 10-06-2021, 08:51 PM
  #347  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here's what the 3D parts look like:

Old 10-07-2021, 12:16 AM
  #348  
FlightLine1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You can find all the e-mails here: www.modelaircraft.org/contact-executive-council

No membership required to access this page. If an e-mail isn't displayed for someone simply right click on their name and select the option of copying their e-mail address.

Old 10-07-2021, 06:53 AM
  #349  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FlightLine1 View Post
You can find all the e-mails here: www.modelaircraft.org/contact-executive-council

No membership required to access this page. If an e-mail isn't displayed for someone simply right click on their name and select the option of copying their e-mail address.
Thanks Flight Line1 but it's the general contact email for the magazine I was looking for.
All I could find is a form for members to contact the editor.
Old 10-07-2021, 07:07 AM
  #350  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,127
Received 147 Likes on 118 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Thanks Flight Line1 but it's the general contact email for the magazine I was looking for.
All I could find is a form for members to contact the editor.
[email protected]

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.