Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Time for the AMA to step up and get involved in the real-world needs of its members. I saw an ad for Remote ID devices on page 51 of the current issue of Model Aviation. I checked out the device and learned it is easy to operate, runs 2 hours on a charge and would serve its intended purpose. Then I checked the price...$299.

I promise that the law would be greatly ignored at this price. The AMA needs to get together with its industry partners and come up with a device in the $30 range if they want compliance with this requirement.

Any thoughts?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Thoughts? Misplaced anger?

How do you suppose AMA is going to facilitate having any manufacturers to produce a RID module at a loss?

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

I'm not convinced that the device needs to be complicated nor expensive.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Lots of things to consider with a transmitting device. It must meet standards of the FAA and FCC possibly others. Getting things qualified can be time consuming and expensive. Those costs need to be absorbed by the end user. We are talking about a very limited market as well. What I see happening is come September the prices will still be above $200 possibly prompting the FAA to push the date for a second time.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

My personal opinion, there's going to be some shaking out between now and the deadline.

I'm curious what you think the AMA needs to be doing though. We recently held a round table discussion with most of the radio manufacturers so its not like we are ignoring the issue. We have told the FAA from the beginning that price of any module will be a major factor in compliance and originally they (the FAA) kept putting out that module based RID should be in the sub 50 dollar range.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Sounds a lot more workable than the $299 option they advertised in the MA ad.

One idea of a pro-active approach is to send out notice to many different sources that there exists a potential market for 100,000 of these devices but they need to hit a specific price point. Let the free market do it's thing. This is an opportunity for the AMA to take the lead in the situation. It seems to me that they have not done that yet.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

You say that but please refer to what I already said, the AMA led a round table conference call with all the major players and manufacturers and have been in constant contact with them since this started. You might not be aware because you're not in that group but trust me this has been forefront for many months. We are also are and have been working on our wants for the next reauthorization as soon as the elections were finished and we knew who we were working with.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Good to know. Thanks for your input.

I am curious who all the major players might be? Seems to me that stepping outside of the traditional model aviation circles might be a good step. Contacting electronics manufacturers on the Asian continent might be the way to go rather than the same major players we deal with now.

ECHO24

In an AMA podcast a year ago with Chad Budreau and (barely coherent) Rich Hanson, Tyler Dobbs said AMA was working with Remote ID module manufactures at AMA headquarters and claimed prices would be below $200 by rollout in September 2022. Maybe the hobby and therefore demand has died and those guys decided to bail.

franklin_m

Reminds me of a quote from Ernest Hemingway: "Never confuse movement with action"

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I would expect that RID modules will follow the same pricing pattern that every consumer grade electronics device ever made has followed we will see prices dropping once competition sets in. I am sure that the manufacturers well understand the relationship between pricing and market adoption and understand that a $299 price point will be a "no sale" most. The question that remains open what the actual market size will be. Is there be sufficient demand from non-FRIA flyers to create a market large enough to make a lower cost product viable?

p.s.: I suspect that the driving factor in determining price will be volume. The "features" in most consumer electronics are typically secondary to production costs when compared to production volume.

rgburrill

Remote ID is not required at a FRIA.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Yup!

Truth be told, there are probably more non-AMA flyers out there who won't be flying at FRIAs than AMA club FRIA flyers, and that population is likely to grow while the AMA club "FRIA flying" population is likely to continue to continue to "age out". But how many of those non-AMA members are actually going to be concerned about compliance?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Not sure I would agree with this. Based on what I have seen over the years, more club guys then not. This conclusion comes from real world observations. Granted based on what goes on with these forums, one could easily conclude the opposite. YMMV.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I think that club guys tend to socialize mostly with other club guys (and likewise with non-club guys). I am basing my speculation (and it is admittedly that) on things like the popularity of FliteTest and other non-AMA centric social media sites. FliteTest currently has over 2.1 million subscribers. I suspect that many are outside of the US and many more don't actually fly, but even if only 10% of that number are US based active flyers, it still bigger than the 190 thousand AMA members and this population is growing while the AMA population is continuing to decline.

p.s.; There is probably crossover between FliteTest flyers and AMA members too, but I still think the general trend holds up.

franklin_m

Based on objective data, in this case AMA's own IRS990 filings and adjusted for inflation to ensure constant year dollar comparisons, hear what we see. The AMA membership revenue + AMA club fees + AMA event fees:

2001 - 2021: DOWN 27%
2011 - 2021: DOWN 13%
2016 - 2021: DOWN 21%

Add: Charter club fees dropped 7% just in the year 2020-2021!

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Objective data VS one sided data. Riddle me this Professor, how many guys fly with you at your local school yard? How many members in your local club?

To assume that AMA membership is down but non AMA member’s remaining in the hobby as consistent is hardly an accurate accounting.

franklin_m

Irrelevant, as those are single data points and do not support any conclusions. Unlike the AMA filings, which are - as I noted - are objective data from the organization itself.

Never said that in my post. And besides, even if non-AMA members remaining in the hobby fall at a faster rate, there's substantially more of them based on FAA registration data. And of course that doesn't change the multi-decade trend of the AMA.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

We know that AMA membership is declining, that is a hard fact. Based on anecdotal data from the clubs I belong to, I also believe that a big part of that decline is that members are aging out of the hobby (as opposed to losing interest in the hobby or just giving up their AMA membership but remaining in the hobby). This is not a hard fact, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.

There is no direct way to know how many people participate in the hobby who are not AMA members, but one way to get a sense of the trend might be to look at overall trends in the RC aircraft hobby industry. Are sales trending up or down? That can't give you a count of participants, but it would probably provide a reasonably meaningful metric on the trends (i.e.; sales growing likely means more people in the hobby). Anyone know where to get that data?

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

The problem with the FAA registration data is that it is very, very heavily skewed by drone flyers who I do not consider to be relevant to this discussion. The vast majority of drone flyers will be buying DJI style drones equipped with Standard RID built in and will not require RID modules.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Or the number of registrations that flew once or twice and moved on. I'd be interested in seeing the registration renewal numbers.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Last time I checked the renewals were about half of the first round registrations. We all know that regeneration numbers aren’t a good way to gauge AMA membership VS non members due to a large number using drones as a photographic platform. Problem is there is no way to break it down so Franklin will keep running his farce.

franklin_m

^^^^^ - Everyone note above...
No comment about what he DOES KNOW, which is AMA's declining revenue trend (in constant year dollars) over the last two decades.
No comment about how every time they raise dues, the total revenue declines to less than it was before the hike within just a couple years.
No comment on the wisdom of raising dues on a discretionary activity heading into tough economic times.

franklin_m

And if it was half, that's still FIVE TIMES as many as AMA members (which revenue is also declining). And who cares about how they're used, in the eyes of the law and regulations they're ALL recreational sUAS. You're making a distinction as if there's a difference in the only terms that matter, the law and regulation.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I’m fully aware that if YOU don’t care then you feel nobody should care.

Although you are incapable of seeing it, the FAA has been making the distinction themselves. By allowing events/competition that they are aware of exceeding 400’. By implementing the FRIA concept ( no RID modules ), higher altitudes for sanctioned events, eventually most FRIA sites will have either 800’ or 1200’ altitude limits.