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

Safety Metrics & AC91-57C

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

Safety Metrics & AC91-57C

Old 11-25-2022, 03:41 PM
  #251  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,188
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Yesterday all love and kisses, Happy Thanksgiving to all! CHEERS!... Today, "wretched humans", "deplorable". The most bat dung crazy is the little man thinking I'm conspiring to get him banned.

He can rack up the troll/insult/gossip post count all he wants. It's a banning offense on RCGroups. And if RCU operated like RCG this place would be the same black hole of carbon copy opinions. We just had our moderator strolling down memory lane in a several-post exchange about boats. Real boats, not even RC. Anyone suffer a forum injury they need to report?
LOL. There goes the banning talk again! The only reason it is a bannable offense (for some, not others) is because RCG doesn't like the truth, they like the good-ole-boy reach-arounds.

I call a spade, a spade. Pretty simple. It's the thin-skinned snowflakes that get bent out of shape when their narcissistic behavior is called narcissistic, and then the moderators think that using that term is against the rules.

And yes, I do wish everyone the best, even those I disagree with, as well as the deplorables, they especially need a little love.

Astro
Old 11-25-2022, 04:02 PM
  #252  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Never said you did.

If you reread my question above, I asked if you, as an EC member, are proud of the way AMA members are working to manufacture reasons to ban other AMA members on RCG? We're also well aware that Jim G is tight with AMA, given his status as a CD. Are you proud that a CD is banning members for, at best, questionable reasons. After all, some of us are banned for what others are allowed to do freely. I mean there was an AMA members that set up an entire thread to attack me. The AMA CD that owns the site allowed that.

So, are you proud? Is the AMA so fragile that it's "direct agents" ... i.e. CD's ... ban people?
I think he was replying to my comment about boats. This again points to the need to cite who/what you are answering if it's not plainly clear.
Old 11-25-2022, 05:02 PM
  #253  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
LOL. There goes the banning talk again! The only reason it is a bannable offense (for some, not others) is because RCG doesn't like the truth, they like the good-ole-boy reach-arounds.

I call a spade, a spade. Pretty simple. It's the thin-skinned snowflakes that get bent out of shape when their narcissistic behavior is called narcissistic, and then the moderators think that using that term is against the rules.

And yes, I do wish everyone the best, even those I disagree with, as well as the deplorables, they especially need a little love.

Astro

This points to cognitive impairment. That's clearly not what I said.

Old 11-25-2022, 07:37 PM
  #254  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I'd rather talk about AMA. Anyone not interested can change the channel. I think it's an important story how one pathological liar totally screwed over the RC model aircraft hobby, and how the AMA faithful rode the FPV train all the way into a brick wall. How could otherwise intelligent people buy into drones and FPV when it was obvious it would ruin the hobby?

Losing Sec. 336 was entirely preventable. THE LAW said model aircraft were not drones. All AMA had to do was say no FPV goggles. With AC91-57C the FAA is done. What's going to happen now is a slow grind over the next few years over what it all means. There's really not much to talk about. What there is to talk about is how it happened.

AMA had help. Hobby and commercial droners used AMA like a dish rag. One standout on the commercial side was Gary Mortimer, founder and editor of sUAS News. I posted about his not so veiled threat that it was not in AMA's interest to forget about drones. That's because commercial users were grifting a free ride on Sec. 336. Patrick Egan, sUAS journalist and FAA critic with a way with words, he straddled the fence painting himself as a concerned citizen for hobbyists. But he had some insights. Shortly after Sec. 336 was repealed, in April, 2019 he wrote an article, 'How Could It Get Any Worse Than This',

"Where was the champion of the hobbyist? The AMA has lobbied hard to lock out and lock-up the CBO definition. I’ve meant to write the story “What’s Wrong With the AMA” for a while now, but I have just been busy with other projects, and last year I gave them warning after warning (friendly chiding followed by alarm and complete disbelief emails) about the impending doom. I’m not the only guy doing so by a long shot. It looks like the AMA blew their $530K war chest on a rearguard capitulate with your-pants-down lock-up of the CBO definition.

You can go ahead and try some grassroots advocacy for the hobbyist on your own, but you’ll have to get by the $18 million a year gilded boat anchor. That gilded boat anchor may be encrusted with jewels here soon if the backroom dealio went correctly and the AMA is closer to what equates to a mandated million members. Times that by $75 a year and they’re taking a dive motivation comes into focus.Yeah, but I don’t need no stinking membership card! Sure you don’t, Johnny, but if you want to fly for recreation and enjoyment, you’ll either be flying on a hobby field with Grandpa Munster (or possibly Hodor, depending upon your geographical location) or possibly having to get a LAANC authorization to fly elsewhere."


Patrick Egan somehow missed the FAA's public statement that hobbyists only had to follow the rules, not be members. That "backroom dealio" blew up in AMA's face with them now waiting hat-in-hand for further instructions form their supervisors at the FAA.


Last edited by ECHO24; 11-26-2022 at 09:47 AM.
Old 11-25-2022, 09:53 PM
  #255  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,361
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

Echo, I'd like to congratulate you on a very well written synopsis.
This is one time I have to totally agree with your post
Old 11-26-2022, 03:21 AM
  #256  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,241
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Echo, I'd like to congratulate you on a very well written synopsis.
This is one time I have to totally agree with your post
Agreed.

I don't think there is anyone here who disagrees with the premise that our organization totally screwed the pooch on this one. I have long believed that, and have used the words "power grab" in the past to describe it, our AMA officials saw huge dollar signs in forcing anyone holding a TX to be a member, and were perfectly willing to gamble the hobby's future for that prospect. I KNEW it was destined to fail, our government has been in the business of "holding all the cards" for plenty long enough to have seen right through what the AMA was tryin to pull here, and wasn't going to be sharing their absolute power with anyone.....

Now, with that said, I'm left wondering, WAS it nothing more than a money grab, or did the AMA see the dwindling numbers of us "traditional" model flyers, and see the money grab as the only path to future financial solvency?

The Devil, as always, IS in the details.

Last edited by init4fun; 11-26-2022 at 03:25 AM. Reason: clarify my point.....
Old 11-26-2022, 05:25 AM
  #257  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I too want to congratulate Echo. Very well said.

As with many things in life, "Follow the money."

AMA is a membership based organization, and the overwhelming majority of its revenue comes from membership dues, club fees, event sanctions, and magazine revenue. As such, that's a very good measure of base level of support. Based on their public IRS 990 filings and adjusted for inflation, over the last 20 years (2020-2000) that revenue is down 38%. Over the last 10 years its down 18%. Over the 5 years it's down 25%.

In the face of that kind of performance, they've clearly had to look to other means to boost the amount of money coming in the door. Yes, they've had good years and bad years with investments, but that's dependent on factors beyond their control. So I think it's entirely reasonable that they took a look around and saw compulsory membership as a way to juice their income. Thus 336 was born with the "and" language. Thankfully that didn't last, as the FAA explicitly said they did not interpret it to compel membership. It was fixed once and for all by changing that "and" to an "or" - thus ending the prospect of compulsory membership. This plus aging demographics and reduced interest in these types of organizations at all provide considerable downward pressure on their principal sources of revenue.

Then came RemoteID and the possibility that the only place to fly recreational sUAS without a module were FRIAs - the vast majority of which will be AMA fields, where AMA dues and club dues are required. But AMA was again too cute by half, and they soon realized that not all fields would be approved for FRIAs, therefore they MUST support development and production of modules for their members that won't have a FRIA at their field. As others have noted, with every module produced, that's one less individual that truly "needs" AMA. This then becomes another downward pressure on revenue.

I think their financial stress is evident in the decreasing time between their dues hikes: 16 years (2002 - 2016) to the most recent 6 years (2016-2022). Thus the desperate search for non-dues revenue we read about in their EC notes. But even if some of that comes to pass, under IRS rules there's a limit to how much non-dues revenue a 501c3 can earn and remain a 501c3. So the EC is clearly gambling again. Think about what happens if the current trends continue (dues revenue continues to drop while non-dues revenue increases). It's the perfect storm for the end of their 501c3 status.

I've spoken with Mr. Egan and he's clued into the AMA financial solvency as it relates to their actions. While some may say there's other motivations for their actions, I think it's hard to look at the numbers and say what I've postulate isn't plausible.

Last edited by franklin_m; 11-26-2022 at 01:26 PM.
Old 11-26-2022, 10:26 AM
  #258  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post

As with many things in life, "Follow the money."

.
If AMA was secretly lobbying for the network/internet Remote ID, later dropped for broadcast, as Patrick Eagan said, Hanson et al are Ponzi-level crooks. Drones could adapt but off-field RC plane flying would have been killed outright. You'd be forced to join an AMA club or quit. In the article Patrick Eagan says he meant to write the story, "What's Wrong With The AMA". I emailed him and asked if he still planned to to and if there was a way to prove that's what AMA was doing.





Old 11-26-2022, 10:48 AM
  #259  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,210
Received 263 Likes on 209 Posts
Default

Not now nor were they ever lobbying for internet based connectivity in any way that I'm aware of.
Old 11-26-2022, 01:44 PM
  #260  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Not now nor were they ever lobbying for internet based connectivity in any way that I'm aware of.
How would you know what AMA's lobbyists were up to? According to Patrick Egan it was a "backroom dealio". Vouch for Hanson at your own risk. Patrick Egan is veteran observer of UAS politics and has attended (with Hanson) the various ARCs and DACs. Egan has several other AMA "insights". Here's hoping he gets around to finishing the 'What's Wrong With The AMA' story.

We all know Hanson falsely claimed for years that AMA membership was required under Sec. 336, hand-in-hand with his false statements about AMA's CBO status upon which it rested. Here's former AMA president Bob Brown at the Sec. 336 MOU meeting with the FAA in Jan. 2014: "“Still to be realized is FAA’s formal recognition of the AMA as a community-based organization as described by Congress ...". Is Bob Brown was the last honest guy at AMA?


Old 11-26-2022, 02:08 PM
  #261  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post

As with many things in life, "Follow the money."
Are you also looking at AMA's foundation? In 2017 AMA paid Dave Mathewson $312,328, $156,164 from AMA and $156,164 from the foundation, another Patrick Egan article, 'The Academy of Model Aeronautics, A Gilded Trough of Advocacy',



"The AMA has spent a literal boatload of money lobbying on behalf of their membership with relatively little (being charitable) to show for wins.The particulars on who gets paid what and how the payment funnel works are a little mysterious. As you can see in the graphic, Dave Mathewson was compensated in 2017 by the Academy of Model Aeronautics Inc., EIN # 52-0799408, for $156,164.00 for forty hours a week.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics Foundation Inc., EIN #46-1336590, paid $156,164.00 in compensation for one hour a week, $1626 an hour is not a bad gig if you can get it.

Before anyone starts with the ” why ” pick on someone who is no longer with us stuff, these aren’t my numbers, and I don’t give a rat’s nest what people are getting paid if they are producing results. In the almost 20-years that I’ve been a part of the airspace integration effort, I’ve have seen the AMA lose ground and eventually bungle away the Sec. 336 backroom deal...

The lobbying total was $930,682 ..."


On the current trajectory Rich Hanson will walk away with a half million $$.

Last edited by ECHO24; 11-26-2022 at 02:14 PM.
Old 11-27-2022, 10:50 AM
  #262  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Pretty quiet over at the AMA Chat Shack. The personal anecdotes about glue repairs petered out and nothing to poach from here as they are not allowed to talk about the current subject.

I missed this one on on Nov 4 calling me "RCU poster". (Maybe we'll get handles over there, RCU poster 1, RCU poster 2)

"RCU Poster:
Ask FUTABA-RC if Futaba is planning on making modules. If not, that will tell you all you need to know. No answer back when I emailed them.

Futaba RC's response:
That is information I do not have. Since RID modules would be an aftermarket type of device only needed for non standard RID aircraft systems which Futaba does not make, I am not certain..."


That was of course before the wonderful news that AMA has been hard at work on modules, special committees, going all out for those of us who will never send AMA another dime. If things work out there soon might be more on the story, "What's Wrong With The AMA".
Old 11-27-2022, 11:11 AM
  #263  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,188
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I've been questioning the AMA Foundation since its inception. Why does a non-profit need ANOTHER non-profit? In order to freely spend $$ without the burden of having to answer to the AMA board? I noticed the last few years, the AMA has asked numerous times for any donations be sent to the foundation instead of the AMA proper.

I was not aware that Dave Matthewson was double-dipping. I personally find this disturbing.

Astro
Old 11-27-2022, 12:07 PM
  #264  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I've been questioning the AMA Foundation since its inception. Why does a non-profit need ANOTHER non-profit? In order to freely spend $$ without the burden of having to answer to the AMA board? I noticed the last few years, the AMA has asked numerous times for any donations be sent to the foundation instead of the AMA proper.

I was not aware that Dave Matthewson was double-dipping. I personally find this disturbing.
It comes down to governance I think. "The Foundation" can earmark money for specific reasons by majority vote of a very small board (five seats at most). Contrast that with the much less certain effort to get approval of the AMA EC (10+ members). And who sits on the foundation board? The AMA ED (how is that not a conflict of interest?) and die hard AMA lifers. So basically, whatever Hanson wants, he gets from "The Foundation."

Oh, and for those that are "in the know" a man-year of work is 2080 man-hours. So when someone says that a project is 2,000 man-hours of staff time, that's just a shade under ONE full time equivalent (FTE) for a year. So 3,000 would be about 1.4 FTE for a year, while 4,000 would be just shy of 2.0. Considering the size of the AMA staff, I'd think one FTE for a year would be easy ... taken out of existing staff work. Just drop less priority stuff.
Old 11-27-2022, 03:29 PM
  #265  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Patrick Egan called me today and gave me the thumb-nail sketch of the AMA - FAA dog-and-pony show. A lot of information to digest. Here's one corker.

Even before Sec. 336, Rich Hanson was telling the FAA to get ready for one million AMA members. A manager at the UAS office told him AMA was going to get the exclusive CBO deal. Patrick Egan said he told Hanson don't believe anything from the FAA unless you have it in writing from FAA's lawyers. 1,000,000 members times $75 = a lot of money that could be sucked out by top insiders, was too much to resist. We all know the rest of the story, Hanson ran with that like a dog with a pork chop until he burned down AMA with greed:

Patrick Egan wasn't aware of Rich Hanson's op-ed in The Hill in January, 2018. I sent him a link to that tutorial in poor writing and where to find Hanson's cry baby response in the Feb 2018 Model Aviation Magazine President's Perspectives column, after the FAA publicly stated AMA membership was not required under Sec. 336. Egan said he's gotten other requests to finish the AMA story and plans do so when he can find the time.

Here's for any English teachers out there.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technolo...ule-followers/

Last edited by ECHO24; 11-27-2022 at 06:40 PM.
Old 11-27-2022, 06:32 PM
  #266  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Looks like we stirred up the nest over at the AMA Chat Shack. Must not be able to gin up an original thought to be laser focused on RCU.



A lot of bottom-dweller internet talk that would get any AMA critic blocked and banned. An exception is the always polite anymodeler. To him I would say there is nothing left for AMA to do. They, meaning Rich Hanson primarily, have wasted all their ammunition and good will chasing drones and FPV and are now totally beaten into submission by the FAA. Every jot and tittle now requires FAA approval. They can try to promote the RC model aircraft hobby, but not only has interest waned young people are the first to see through a bunch a geezer swindlers.

Thomas B is hilarious. Reading comprehension must not be his strong suit with all the bickering here and rare agreement. That's the trade-off, an occasional useful takeaway vs. spending time in an intellectual wasteland of jawboning just for the sake of it, in the land where threads die of indifference.
Old 11-27-2022, 08:06 PM
  #267  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

If they got their wish and RCU closed the forum: (1) I glued on a tail that got broke on landing. (2) I've glued on a lot of tails, never had one break twice. (3) I glue on stuff. Here's pictures of my entire fleet. (4) I like glue. Here's pictures of MY entire fleet. Thread closed.

@exf3bguy (AKA speed)- You claim Franklin was banned for too much off-topic chatter. You and your pals are spewing off-topic gossip, insults and shait posting like machine guns about people not even on that forum. Cross-posting is a violation too, No? A string of them, from across town. Why aren't you banned?

Last edited by ECHO24; 11-27-2022 at 08:32 PM.
Old 11-27-2022, 09:48 PM
  #268  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,361
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

The way you describe it, Echo, it sounds like it's a bunch of "Rules for thee but not for me", kind of like what's gone on the past couple of years in Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's Congress, as well as in the Biden Administration.
Old 11-28-2022, 03:18 AM
  #269  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,241
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

As long as the hate stays over there, I'm fine with that.......


Old 11-28-2022, 07:07 AM
  #270  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
As long as the hate stays over there, I'm fine with that.......
One of the usual suspects finally got tagged for "Trolling (Provocation)" on that thread. Can't see it but it was in response to a guy who took exception to Thomas B's infantile scribbling. He said the crowd there was no different. My guess is the tagged post was some kind of insult, re. an RCU sympathizer
Old 11-28-2022, 09:39 PM
  #271  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post

Now, with that said, I'm left wondering, WAS it nothing more than a money grab, or did the AMA see the dwindling numbers of us "traditional" model flyers, and see the money grab as the only path to future financial solvency?

The Devil, as always, IS in the details.
That's an odd take, "the only path to future financial solvency", bless their hearts, as if AMA did it all for us.

It isn't like anyone was going to starve. AMA still has 2,400 flying fields. Maybe a little belt-tightening, maybe fewer $300,000 plus payouts, maybe no more wasting money on the drone circuit jetting around the country (or Europe yet to confirm) to ARCs and DACs and FAA meetings, maybe no more expensive meals and hotels.

My question is, At what point does lying and cheating for money become "bad"?

Old 11-29-2022, 04:38 AM
  #272  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,188
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
That's an odd take, "the only path to future financial solvency", bless their hearts, as if AMA did it all for us.

It isn't like anyone was going to starve. AMA still has 2,400 flying fields. Maybe a little belt-tightening, maybe fewer $300,000 plus payouts, maybe no more wasting money on the drone circuit jetting around the country (or Europe yet to confirm) to ARCs and DACs and FAA meetings, maybe no more expensive meals and hotels.

My question is, At what point does lying and cheating for money become "bad"?
I don't see that as an "odd take" at all. Very plausible, actually.

For the record, the "AMA" does NOT have 2,400 flying fields. I believe the only field the AMA owns is the one in Muncie.

Regards,

Astro
Old 11-29-2022, 06:43 AM
  #273  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,361
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

I think both of you are right on this one:
Echo said the AMA has 2400 flying fields, which may be close, but they are "sanctioned flying fields", not owned by the AMA.
Astro is correct on the fact that the AMA only has the one in Muncie but, with that said, who really owns it, the AMA or the members?
Old 11-29-2022, 11:32 AM
  #274  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,241
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
That's an odd take, "the only path to future financial solvency", bless their hearts, as if AMA did it all for us.

It isn't like anyone was going to starve. AMA still has 2,400 flying fields. Maybe a little belt-tightening, maybe fewer $300,000 plus payouts, maybe no more wasting money on the drone circuit jetting around the country (or Europe yet to confirm) to ARCs and DACs and FAA meetings, maybe no more expensive meals and hotels.

My question is, At what point does lying and cheating for money become "bad"?
A very good question indeed, and my first thought is that it's a shame that every company's / organization's health is measured strictly on growth alone. I believe this "growth at all costs" mentality is behind many company's / organization's misdeeds in the name of appearing to be a vibrant, growing business. I believe that as Franklin's charts & graphs so plainly illustrate, that the AMA is on the downward spiral as we old farts age out and die and aren't being replaced, and that the EC ain't so dumb to have not noticed, and that the attempted forced membership ploy was what they saw as the organization's only hope, whether we see it as honorable or not (certainly NOT in my opinion). I for one absolutely agree with the belt tightening, which will be forced on them as the membership dollars dwindle, and when we dwindle enough it'll be impossible for it to continue.

At any rate, the most direct answer is, it becomes "bad" when it negatively affects the organization, which is every time money is spent that doesn't benefit the entire organization VS individual members thereof.

Last edited by init4fun; 11-29-2022 at 03:38 PM. Reason: clarify my point.....
Old 11-29-2022, 12:54 PM
  #275  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I don't see that as an "odd take" at all. Very plausible, actually.

For the record, the "AMA" does NOT have 2,400 flying fields. I believe the only field the AMA owns is the one in Muncie.

Regards,

Astro
Whatever the pet name for the relationship, AMA has 2,400 flying fields that generate money through members' dues. Like clockwork this invariably devolves into a semantics argument with someone tossing out their AMA credentials trying to "correct" the poor misinformed individual who brought it up. It's been going on since the first online AMA discussions, and umteen times here by you. Everyone knows all about it.

The point lost in the meandering, it wasn't like AMA was going to go broke. There was a revenue spike in 2015 with registration and the forced membership scam in full swing. Reality set in and brought that down but AMA hasn't had to file for bankruptcy.

Last edited by ECHO24; 11-29-2022 at 12:59 PM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.