mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

OK JR I agree, but call a spade a spade,


If the only reason we would get a park flyer join is for the insurance, then by definition that is the only real "value" it has to them. The rest is just eyewash.

If that is the only value that the AMA has to this burgeoning segment, then we should accept that fact and get everything not associated with insurance GONE from the AMA, and I mean all of it.


And if that "Sword of Damocles" called "charitable entity" comes up again, I say throw that out too. Enough is enough.

J_R

Hi Matt

It’s not often that I view a post of yours as shortsighted. Let me lay this out. It’s gonna be long, don’t lose patience.

First, let me address the fact that everything the AMA does is not obvious. Matt, in your case, you should be able to relate to this. The basin has come under attack many times through the years, going back to before you flew your first plane. On many occasions, the AMA has come to the aid of the field. It does not hurt that the clubs involved with the basin had members who started the AMA and understand the value of AMA input.

Now, in comparison, let’s look at what was, arguably, the only similar site in Southern California: Mile Square. The flyers there put their fate in the hands of attorneys. Only when it was too late, was the AMA called in. The site was lost. Could the AMA haved save it? No one can say with certainty. The attorneys never did, and they took it to the sate Supreme Court. The site is gone. How many hundreds of modelers do you think left the hobby when Mile Square closed? If the basin were to close, how many modelers would we lose? I know our club picked up about 30 members who were willing to make the additional drive. I still wonder how many never did.

How many pilots at the basin are even aware the AMA ever interceded on their behalf? The point is, the AMA IS more than insurance.

Now, let’s move on to park flyers. Honestly, I can’t see much value to those with the $60 park flyers that are mass marketed. On the other hand, the ones I continue to see are ones where the pilots are spending in excess of $300 (many considerably more), or about the same amount as a traditional 40 trainer (or more).

I see a change taking place in the communities. Three years ago, I first posted that my community had banned all RC devices in parks. Since that time, more reports of similar actions have been taking place around the country. It is a trend I would expect to continue. Where today, access to parks is still primarily uninhibited, I can see the day, in the short term, where it will not be so. I also look at the area north of the “sun belt� and see the potential for traditional RC pilots to fly indoors all year round, instead of being relegated to a flying season and a building season. I see the potential for new kinds of competitive events.

As the numbers of park flyers, above the entry level, grow so will the demand for organized sites and clubs. Those cheap memberships will be converted to full memberships. I see all of this happening sooner than later.

At the same time, if we must send Dave Brown to the FCC, FAA or any other government body, I would prefer to he be able to say “I represent 200,000 members� (or 300,000 or a million) rather than 150,000 or less.

Personally, I don’t care if the existing membership has to pay an extra $2 or $3 or $5 a year to subsidize park flyers, or if the AMA puts out bread crumbs, or offers cheap insurance and a magazine to lure them in. We need them in the long run. Some of them are already us.

At the same time, there is no point in destroying the existing organization.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

.

jetflyer

My Feedback: (5)

J_R

You've drank the AMA koolaid and too far gone. My point in my story above was nobody is pushing AMA membership. If there was more of a benefit then just insurance, more people would have a reason to join up. If Timmy in my story wants to fly a park flyer all he is concerned with is getting outside and flying it. Who cares about a $10 AMA membership or monthly magazine that has coverage of control line and free models showing people like my grandpa.

I pay $5 a month for my Xbox live membership. Why so I can play with other people online. It is not mandatory that I subscribe to Xbox live to play any Xbox game. So why does the AMA think they can get membership levels up in the park flyer market when there is absolutely no benefit? Heck I know a lot of people that fly inside church or high school gyms. Do you really think they care about an AMA membership.

And the guys spending $300 + on electric planes are probably 1) transitioning from gas and already AMA members or 2) Never joined the AMA before and see no reason to. People join organizations to be part of something and receive a benefit. AMA insurance is secondary anyway and only if no rules are broken.

JR Gautreaux

J_R

How long do you think flying inside is going to last, without insurance for the landlord? Until the first spectator gets a minor cut (or worse) and the city, school district or church finds themselves responsible?

Keep in mind that insurance for landlords is NOT secondary and is NOT subject to the safety code. Also keep in mind that half of the dollar amount of all claims paid by the AMA are for trip and fall liability claims generated against clubs and landlords.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Double post problem....


I'm lost......

I never said the AMA MEMBERSHIP should get smaller, I only want to MAKE SURE that even with this shrinking membership we can keep what we have today with the insurance (in particular the site insurance).

If we have insurance, then by definition we have what (by your own admission) is the only thing that would temps a newbie 9or newbie's Dad) to join in the first place.

If we do not have the insurance we have nothing. Save the insurance and we can at least live another day to tempt park fliers.

You yourself have said that most people would not reup without insurance. The corollary is, most people would reup if there was ONLY insurance.

If you ask me my view IS the long term, REALISTIC view. The membership is shrinking...deal with it now....save the insurance first, then use the insurance as the only carrot you have to keep members and to temp new park flyers to join.

J_R

If this works, the graph is of the membership numbers, past, present, and projected by Don Koranda at the last EC meeting.
Note that the membership is currently about where we were in 2000 and has not dropped in a precipitous manner. The fact is it dropping is discouraging, but nothing to panic about.

jetflyer

My Feedback: (5)

J_R

That graphs to me represents people who have 1) died off (RIP) 2) Lost interest in the hobby or 3) joined for a few years and figured what am I paying for and left the hobby or still flying but at non AMA fields.

I just don't see how the AMA can anticipate such a high increase in membership. And if that is the case, instead of increasing dues, they should be lowering them. Especially if they think the membership will double by 2008 or 2009.

Interesting graph to say the least. Thanks for sharing.

JR Gautreaux

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I think it's good to encourage prospective members, ie park fliers etc. I really question whether DB is looking at the park fliers to promote RC or just for the additional income for what Matt was speaking about!! What i don't like is DB willing to sacrifice the 'upper end' or whatever it is to bring in the new members. Fine, offer the park fliers a reduced rate say $20, that's great, but leave the giant scale and jets to heck alone!!! We have been way above reproach in all aspects of modeling, holding a much higher standard than the average flier on building, safety, equipment and maintenance and i think our record more than proves that!! For it we've been kicked in the head. DB has made it clear in several statements that he is not for the giant scaler and jet flier!! I wish i could find the presidents perspective (searched the ama site and couldn't find it) that he stated about everything going way to far and it needed to be brought back to more restricted limits etc!!!

J_R

LOL. I guess hinting around is not going to get it, so here goes.

After the last election, I was extremely discouraged about the state the AMA was in and where it was headed. All I could see was stagnation for the next three years.

Out of nowhere, Don Koranda was hired to become the new ED. So what? We have seen new ED's before. Not since John Worth, have we had a strong individual as ED, IMHO. Sooo... I start doing some research... and talking to people. Koranda has a track record. A track record of turning organizations around. Of leading the organization.

For the last several years, many of us have looked to the EC for almost every decision. For direction. Things have changed. The EC is willing to set policy and leave the day to day operation of the organization to the ED. I believe their support will be unwaivering.

Even if the EC becomes bogged down in a quagmire of indecision, the organization will be run. If any of you have the chance to talk to Koranda, do so, wether it be on the phone or in person at a show or whatever.

I have made three recent posts involving published statements. Two involving Dave Brown and one the writings for Koranda. Go back. Read the Koranda column in the latest MA. There is no more business as usual. Things have changed. There is hope.

Simply: quit beating on Dave Brown, and get on the Koranda bandwagon.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Sorry JR.. but I cannot back down on the ridiculous actions by Dave Brown when he continually preys upon the fears of the uninformed AMA member with incorrect or simply fabricated information. 300mph off the shelf aircraft? Where? Name ONE. He's playing to people's emotions to try and force his anti-turbine agenda. It's sickening.

J_R

Hi Doug

Dave has reduced himself to being the vocal minority. Those uninformed members have no say in the running of the AMA, other than a vote, and they already voted him back in. What is of consequence is that people find out who Koranda is, and, if they agree with me, that they let their VP know that continued support of Koranda is desired.

Don't get me wrong, there is no conflict between Dave Brown and Koranda, BUT Koranda has a plan which continues to grow, and I believe it will be executed, given the continued backing of the EC, regardless of Dave Brown's personal agenda.

Dave Brown has had, and probably will continue to have, some good ideas. He just needs to drop the ones for which there is no support and go forward. There is no reason he can't be a productive AMA President again.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Nope. I have no intention to quit beating on DB until he stops beating on us.

As for Koranda ... he may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, but the past leadership under DB has jaded us so much w.r.t. the AMA that IMO its gonna take more than some meanginless made-up graphs etc. to win most of the membership over. Show us the firm results, rather than just the spiel, and we'll pay more attention.

J_R

Keep in mind that neither Dave Brown's speech, nor the graph appear in any AMA publication, or on the web site. They were not intended for public consumption.

Gordon, if you want proof, do as I suggested to Horrace. Do the research on Koranda and AOPA. The proof of his ability is there for all to see. It's on the internet... more than once.

the-plumber

I think Doc got it about right, although alienate might be a bit stout . . .

Anyone who paid attention to the hideous prohibitions enacted against turbine models, and specifically the development thereof, surely understands that the EC has only very recently rescinded a large number of heretofore severe restrictions on turbines. The pandemic fear of turbines hit its high when the EC mandated speed limiters when no manufacturer had a viable device. Pure and simple knee-jerk rule-making was at work during the heyday of the anti-turbine mindset. The only reason many of the restrictions were rescinded had a great deal to do with pressure from JPO and the manufacturers to back off or else.

Ditto for giant models in general. For models which exceed the CIAM limit of 55 pounds, AMA's Experimental Class rule set is a joke, and until very recently had some truly nonsense requirements (e.g., for models with more than 12 servos, a _smaller_ battery was required than for models with less than 12 servos - I pointed that tidbit out to Steve Kaluf and it got fixed) and/or requirements which are just plain onerous - mandating a range check before every flight, for example. Similarly, the requirement for an "annual" by a certified experimental class inspector smacks of FAA-dom.

In the age when IMAA had essentially dumped the safety inspection back on the builder/flyer, and when AMA doesn't scrutinize models weighing 54 pounds 15 ounces, the inspection requirements for models 55 pounds or over is overly severe.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that 100 pound bombers be allowed to fly under AMA auspices without any scrutiny at all, but I am advocating that the rules need to make sense (try figuring out what the rules mean regarding connecting servos to large wires, for example) and that the rules need to be based on a modicum of logic and a bit of common sense - the folks who are capable of building, and have the capacity to build, 55+ pound models is a pretty small percentage of the membership. You're not going to build one of those on the kitchen table between meals.

Then there is the prohibition against giant jets, period. We won't be seeing any giant B-52s, or Vulcans, or anything along those lines. Exit AMA's leadership role in model development, stage left.

I particularly like the thrust restrictions. The total thrust limit for multi-turbine models is a mere 5 pounds more than for a single-turbine model. So, single-engine ops on twin-turbine models is a real iffy thing - not a sound idea.

Worse even yet, unlike any other AMA program, e.g. Leader Member and Contest Director, if a turbine waiver holder has their waiver pulled, appeal is _after the fact_. Turbine waivers can be revoked by the President or the Special Services Director (Carl Maroney), but appeals are the province of the technical guy, Steve Kaluf.

Oh, yeah. If you're going for your waiver, you have to fly a turbine model capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Kinda hard to do that for a control line turbine model, which have an absolute speed limit of . . . 100 MPH. Of course that's not what I think the rules intend to state, but state it they do.

The Experimental Class and Turbine rules are replete with nonsensical and self-conflicting requirements. IMHO the Experimental Class rules came to life as scribbled notes on a paper dinner napkin, and after transalation by the folks in word processing, became 'law'. IMHO the turbine rules came to life at the EC meeting table and were passed without anyone at that table knowing more than two-bits about turbines. Many of the newly-written rule(s) were a surprise to JPO, and the only SIG devoted specifically to turbine models had to work extra hard to get the rules modified or rescinded. And it took them a long time to get the dumb rules removed.

ALL of these restrictions came to exist under Dave Brown's leadership.

How can you have any doubt about which class of model Dave Brown sees as suitable to subject to the highest rates for his tiered membership scheme ? Or, please tell me you're not kidding yourself by thinking that the largest risk group, the .40 to 1.2 glow model drivers who generate the largest segment of non-trip-and-fall claims, are going to be the high-rate group ?

We've had more folks killed by errant .60 helicopters than by giant gassers and turbines combined. Any bets the heli guys aren't going to pay the high rates if enacted ?

BTW - I'd put a bit more faith in Brown's notions if he were to come out on the warpath against carbon fiber props. AMA prohibits metal props for good and sufficient reason, but not CF props, and I don't understand why . . . then again, maybe the Rowe claim will force a wake-up call about CF props.

As I said, alienate might be a bit strong, but stifle sure seems to fit the bill.

My absolutely positively unofficial $0.02, anyway.

the-plumber

The survey needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt, because the respondents were those who _read_ MA. As has been evidenced many times in many forums, there is a significant percentage of the membership which only reads one or two columns and a significant percentage who toss the magazine the day it arrives. Hard to imagine folks responding to surveys they don't see.

Would that he could. I'd gladly forego the pleasure of paying higher rates to insure high-risk aeromodeling activities like pylon racing, so it would be 'jes fine by me if the _users_ of the services paid for them, rather than forcing every member to pay for services they won't likely ever use. Pylon racing is so popular, y'know . . .

Of course, I'm immune with respect to increased membership costs, but it's the thought that counts . . .
<g>

the-plumber

Timmy may have got stuck on the airplane, but I'm looking for the blonde's phone number . . .

the-plumber

See ya there. I'll be the one in the gawdawful jacket.

the-plumber

I watched a bunch of folks fly in a High School gym weekend before last (2/19). Picture of one of the models on my web site home page, too. Took a bit of work to get the digital camera to blur only the prop, too.

'course, the model is rubber powered, and doesn't have quite the Oomph ! of a park flyer, but it's not that much down on power.

The folks flying the indoor models are likely glad they have the option of the AMA flying site coverage for sanctioned events.

IMHO when the park flyers start organizing and having invitational events, and the 'landlords' (the political entities like cities and counties) see the crowds, the politicos are going to spot the liability issue right away. THAT is when AMA will have something the park flyers need.

So, we should invent a park flyer 'division' now, with reasonable rates, to be ready when the park flyer craze matures. _if_ it matures, that is.

the-plumber

Wow.

I for one am _delighted_ about the changes in D-I and D-V. I think Andy and Tony, along with Dave Mathewson, represent a significant change in the makeup of the EC.

I'm real sure Dorothy would like the way things are changing down here, anyway. We'll even let her bring the dog.

EDIT : Yes, I worked late, and yes, youse guys been at it for hours. I'm just catchin' up here.
<g>

EDIT 2: First really decent thread in this forum in some time, IMHO.

Nice job, guys.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Since I'm no longer flying full-scale, Don's ability within AOPA has limited interest to me. While it may be reasuring to see unrelated successes elsewhere to indicate that the guy is not a total loser, I actually care only about what he is able to get done within the AMA.

I recall watching a TV series in the UK, in which an extremely experienced and talented "troubleshooter / turn-around guy" would go to a company or organization that was having difficulties, analyze the problems, and turn the companies around. He did a fantastic job in numerous companies, and then he went to the Morgan motor car company (makers of hand-built sports cars) ; despite him quickly determining what the various problems were, and trying his best to resolve them, he was continuously hampered by the efforts of the existing head-honcho who seemed to spend much of his time & effort deliberately undermining the expert and working to prejudice the rest of work-force against the improvement plans. Result - total failure ; all of the well thought out improvements were ignored and instead the company fell back on its "maybe if we just keep hoping, we might be able to turn out 9.5 cars per week instead of the 9 that we manage now" approach - totaly ignoring the fact that those exact same hopes alone had not worked in the past. Depending on how DB behaves and who he manages to influence, the AMA could be Koranda's "Morgan".

So, when I said I was looking for firm results, I'm talking about seeing results of Koranda achieving useful change at the AMA, not at AOPA or NAA etc., because even if he is a really smart guy, the support or otherwise that he gets from DB and others can make a very big difference to the outcome.

Yes, I'm a cynic when it comes to the AMA, but I didn't used to be that way ... the AMA itself caused the transformation in my attitude to them. While there is always some hope, any hope & expectations that I may have are always tempered with the recollection that any time in the past when I've gotten my hopes up about anything to do with the AMA, such hopes have proven to be misplaced. If we had Don Koranda without DB in the picture at all then my hopes would be higher - but with DB still in he picture I can only expect more of the same old nonsense that his leadership has brought us in the past, and be pleasantly surprised if Don is able to make improvemets despite DB.

Gordon

J_R

LOL, wake up Fred
It was Mark Smith who was elected along with Andy and Tony. Dave Mathewson is in his second term.

Now to be specific, and you might ask Tony about this now that he has had a chance to see what is happening, the President controls virtually all of the committees (very few standing committees or committees created by the EC). The chairmen and members serve at the presidents pleasure. Therein lies the real power of the President. Look at the most recent minutes, with attention to the by-laws committee, and you may get some insight into that power and the frustration it can result in. That power alone can bring stagnation to the EC unless the rest of the EC is in full revolt. Virtually all of the work done by the EC is funneled through committees.

PS Had Mathewson won in the last election, we would not be having this discussion.

J_R

[quote]ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc


Allow me to paraphrase:

"Since I'm no longer a turbine waiver holder, their ability within the realm of safety has a limited interst to me. While it may be reasuring to see an unrelated past safety record to indicate turbine waiver hoders are not total idiots, I actually care only about what they are able to do under the new turbine guidelines."

Sorry Gordon, your logic is leaving me fruther and fruther in left field.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Sorry to hear that JR ... I can remember the days when you used to be able to keep up !

the-plumber

Indeed, I forgot about Mark Smith. That's three newbies for Brown to deal with. I mentioned Dave Mathewson, who is of course in his second term, because we here in this forum have read where he wrote about having supported something which in hind sight and with further information he would not have supported in the first place. While Dave M. may be in his second term, he still represents IMHO a refreshing change to the extant EC.

Indeed, the President controls the committees. He also allowed the nearly useless McNeill Ad Hoc Witch Hunts to go on for far too long. I would think that if he doesn't include the newbies on some of the committees he's going to get looked at pretty hard by those same newbies, and those newbies make up a significant percentage of the EC. Four outta thirteen isn't anything to ignore, at least not for very long.

Even so, committees don't pass rules, so while the newbies may not serve on many committees to start with, I tend to think that there are four new voices ready to consider the making of rules from a logical perspective rather than rubber-stamping the report of some committee.

I can hope that's what happens, anyway.

I do know that Tony is by no stretch of the imagination doing business at the same old District V stand. I'm proof of that, although I am still tempted to pinch myself now and then just to be sure.
<g>

And yes if enough other folks had supported Dave Mathewson, this thread would not exist.

It's late and Ah'm tard. Night all.