How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
10-27-2002, 04:50 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Excluding the Headquarters Building and the Museum,
How much of your annual AMA dues would you like to have spent to support the National Flying Site, including additional land acquisition, repair, maintenance and upkeep, administration, improvements, additions, etc.
How much of your annual AMA dues would you like to have spent to support the National Flying Site, including additional land acquisition, repair, maintenance and upkeep, administration, improvements, additions, etc.
10-27-2002, 12:09 PM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
If we are to promote our hobby, what better way than to have a national showplace. This is the purpose of the AMA National Flying Site. Remember, without the AMA most of us would not have flying fields. Also remember that if we want to save money, we can eliminate the coverage for the field owners and clubs. I would bet that a lot of clubs would close and many would be sued for infractions that happened on club rented land. I wonder if there is a statistic to show personal vs club/owner settlements.
10-27-2002, 12:55 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
If you realy want to promote the hobby, then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole that relatively few people ever see, spend it on something that actually gets seen by a large number of people throughout the country... such as ads & articles in popular mags.
As for the notion that most of our flying sites would not exist without the AMA... strangely enough, the rest of the world somehow manages.
Gordon
As for the notion that most of our flying sites would not exist without the AMA... strangely enough, the rest of the world somehow manages.
Gordon
10-27-2002, 02:51 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by Gordon Mc
If you realy want to promote the hobby, then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole that relatively few people ever see, spend it on something that actually gets seen by a large number of people throughout the country... such as ads & articles in popular mags.
As for the notion that most of our flying sites would not exist without the AMA... strangely enough, the rest of the world somehow manages.
Gordon
If you realy want to promote the hobby, then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole that relatively few people ever see, spend it on something that actually gets seen by a large number of people throughout the country... such as ads & articles in popular mags.
As for the notion that most of our flying sites would not exist without the AMA... strangely enough, the rest of the world somehow manages.
Gordon
Also, what is more motivation, a picture of someone flying a plane in a magazine, or actually seeing one and maybe getting some stick time.
While the "rest of the world manages" I prefer to excell and lead the way.
Let's build a few more national flying sites to create a network to promote the hobby instead of whining about the $0.16 a day it costs you to have such an excellent facility.
10-27-2002, 04:00 PM
#5
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
They should spend the money at the grass-roots level where clubs are struggling to keep flying fields.
The way things are going now, especially in California is that we will only have one flying site......and that will be the national one at the AMA HQ.
Too many fields are being lost or severely restricted in their operation and the AMA does not seem to be doing any lobbying or providing any assistance at their level to stop this happening.
Forget about the white elephant in Muncie. It won't do any good when there are no fields left for regular club members to fly at.
I would guess that the majority of AMA members will never even get to see the field/HQ let alone even being able to fly there.
The way things are going now, especially in California is that we will only have one flying site......and that will be the national one at the AMA HQ.
Too many fields are being lost or severely restricted in their operation and the AMA does not seem to be doing any lobbying or providing any assistance at their level to stop this happening.
Forget about the white elephant in Muncie. It won't do any good when there are no fields left for regular club members to fly at.
I would guess that the majority of AMA members will never even get to see the field/HQ let alone even being able to fly there.
10-27-2002, 04:03 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by P-51B
Hmmmm, I guess we should get rid of the Smithsonian Institute also
If you feel the need to do so, feel free. Quite why that is tied into my AMA dues though, eludes me.
If you're suggesting that it's an adequate analogy to the question of whether the AMA should spend our dues on a NFS ... for that to be the case then the Smithsonian would have to be exclusivley owned and funded by some national full-scale flying organisation whose members join it primarily to get insurance for flying their aircraft. Is that the case with the Smithsonian ?
Also, what is more motivation, a picture of someone flying a plane in a magazine, or actually seeing one and maybe getting some stick time.
The most effective method will be that which reaches the most people and offers them info on how to get involved. Now, if the NFS was in New York, or LA, or some other popular tourist spot where it got lots of exposure to people outside of the R/C hobby, it would quite possibly be more effective. But Muncie ?
While the "rest of the world manages" I prefer to excell and lead the way.
That statement leads me to wonder which other parts of the world you have flown R/C models in, that makes you think the US excels.
Let's build a few more national flying sites to create a network to promote the hobby instead of whining about the $0.16 a day it costs you to have such an excellent facility.
Let's try to have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand without the need for tagging people as whiners just because they don't share your own particular point of view. If that's possible....
Gordon
Hmmmm, I guess we should get rid of the Smithsonian Institute also
If you feel the need to do so, feel free. Quite why that is tied into my AMA dues though, eludes me.
If you're suggesting that it's an adequate analogy to the question of whether the AMA should spend our dues on a NFS ... for that to be the case then the Smithsonian would have to be exclusivley owned and funded by some national full-scale flying organisation whose members join it primarily to get insurance for flying their aircraft. Is that the case with the Smithsonian ?
Also, what is more motivation, a picture of someone flying a plane in a magazine, or actually seeing one and maybe getting some stick time.
The most effective method will be that which reaches the most people and offers them info on how to get involved. Now, if the NFS was in New York, or LA, or some other popular tourist spot where it got lots of exposure to people outside of the R/C hobby, it would quite possibly be more effective. But Muncie ?
While the "rest of the world manages" I prefer to excell and lead the way.
That statement leads me to wonder which other parts of the world you have flown R/C models in, that makes you think the US excels.
Let's build a few more national flying sites to create a network to promote the hobby instead of whining about the $0.16 a day it costs you to have such an excellent facility.
Let's try to have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand without the need for tagging people as whiners just because they don't share your own particular point of view. If that's possible....
Gordon
10-27-2002, 11:29 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by Gordon Mc
[B][i]
If you're suggesting that it's an adequate analogy to the question of whether the AMA should spend our dues on a NFS ... for that to be the case then the Smithsonian would have to be exclusivley owned and funded by some national full-scale flying organisation whose members join it primarily to get insurance for flying their aircraft. Is that the case with the Smithsonian ?
Actually, the analogy is that the smithsonian recieves money from everyone, but most people never go to see any part of it. Just because you don't go to see what you are paying for doesn't make it any less valuable. If people want to join an organization primarily for the insurance, there is always Allstate, State Farm, or other carriers.
[b]The most effective method will be that which reaches the most people and offers them info on how to get involved. Now, if the NFS was in New York, or LA, or some other popular tourist spot where it got lots of exposure to people outside of the R/C hobby, it would quite possibly be more effective. But Muncie ? [b]
Well at least it has been admitted that wasting money on magazine ads, as was originally sugested, is waste.
[b]Let's try to have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand without the need for tagging people as whiners just because they don't share your own particular point of view. If that's possible....
After reading your comment, "then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole", I assumed that meaningful discussion was gone! Now, if you can apply that same standard to your comments instead of bashing localities that don't happen to fit your particular choice of places to live, then maybe this discussion can get back on track!!!
Gordon
[B][i]
If you're suggesting that it's an adequate analogy to the question of whether the AMA should spend our dues on a NFS ... for that to be the case then the Smithsonian would have to be exclusivley owned and funded by some national full-scale flying organisation whose members join it primarily to get insurance for flying their aircraft. Is that the case with the Smithsonian ?
Actually, the analogy is that the smithsonian recieves money from everyone, but most people never go to see any part of it. Just because you don't go to see what you are paying for doesn't make it any less valuable. If people want to join an organization primarily for the insurance, there is always Allstate, State Farm, or other carriers.
[b]The most effective method will be that which reaches the most people and offers them info on how to get involved. Now, if the NFS was in New York, or LA, or some other popular tourist spot where it got lots of exposure to people outside of the R/C hobby, it would quite possibly be more effective. But Muncie ? [b]
Well at least it has been admitted that wasting money on magazine ads, as was originally sugested, is waste.
[b]Let's try to have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand without the need for tagging people as whiners just because they don't share your own particular point of view. If that's possible....
After reading your comment, "then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole", I assumed that meaningful discussion was gone! Now, if you can apply that same standard to your comments instead of bashing localities that don't happen to fit your particular choice of places to live, then maybe this discussion can get back on track!!!
Gordon
10-28-2002, 11:50 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
I voted against the NFS, The need for insurance is understandable but I really don't feel that I should be forced to pay for something that I'm never going to see nor benefit from in order to enjoy this hobby. Since its mandatory that I purchase insurance, would my club allow me to use Allstate, State farm or any other major insurance company? I have only been in this hobby for two years now and from what I understand I have no other choices, it has to be the "AMA". Now since I am forced to pay for something (NFS) in order to enjoy this fine hobby, then I would prefer just exactly what Gorden, suggested and that would be to invest it into other type of promotions.
In order for me to drive a car here in the State of TX, I have to have valid proof of insurance and in doing so I am in turn provided documentation of what my $$ are providing me with. To my knowledge in over the two years I have been paying dues to AMA have I ever see proof via "letter" of what my $$ are providing me with. What I'm finding out now is that some of my $$ are going to something other then insurance coverage.
Randy
In order for me to drive a car here in the State of TX, I have to have valid proof of insurance and in doing so I am in turn provided documentation of what my $$ are providing me with. To my knowledge in over the two years I have been paying dues to AMA have I ever see proof via "letter" of what my $$ are providing me with. What I'm finding out now is that some of my $$ are going to something other then insurance coverage.
Randy
10-28-2002, 01:54 PM
#9
National Flying site
I agree with Gordon Mc:
Why would anyone visit Muncie? I don't know about the rest of you guys but my family isn't demanding to go there for vacation! Where is the beach, where are the rides what is there to do? Guess I won't see it for a LONG time!
Seems to me if you want a NFS you should put it near a place where there is a large concentration of modelers. It would also help if the place was near other vacation type attractions. Is this rocket science or what?
Typical AMA logic to put the NFS in the middle of NO WHERE and them moan because attendance is not what they hoped, DUH!
My opinion is the whole thing is a tremendous waste of money! And they are still building!!!
Maybe they are trying to hide something! What better way to conceal mismanagement than to hide the whole mess in some cornfield in Indiana!
Why would anyone visit Muncie? I don't know about the rest of you guys but my family isn't demanding to go there for vacation! Where is the beach, where are the rides what is there to do? Guess I won't see it for a LONG time!
Seems to me if you want a NFS you should put it near a place where there is a large concentration of modelers. It would also help if the place was near other vacation type attractions. Is this rocket science or what?
Typical AMA logic to put the NFS in the middle of NO WHERE and them moan because attendance is not what they hoped, DUH!
My opinion is the whole thing is a tremendous waste of money! And they are still building!!!
Maybe they are trying to hide something! What better way to conceal mismanagement than to hide the whole mess in some cornfield in Indiana!
10-28-2002, 02:13 PM
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Like I have said in some of the other threads, and my first post in this one, keep the NFS where it is, but aquire additional sites in other locations. I think that one thing to remember in all of these forums is the purpose of the AMA.
From the AMA site;
AMA is a self-supporting, non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity.
The purpose of the AMA is not to provide insurance, that is just a benefit.
In joining the AMA you are VOLUNTARILY supporting its primary mission, as a benefit you get secondary insurance.
For those who are only interested in insurance coverage, why not go buy some property, and start a private club where your dues cover your clubs insurance costs?
As for the office building I have been hearing about, that's a different issue...
From the AMA site;
AMA is a self-supporting, non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity.
The purpose of the AMA is not to provide insurance, that is just a benefit.
In joining the AMA you are VOLUNTARILY supporting its primary mission, as a benefit you get secondary insurance.
For those who are only interested in insurance coverage, why not go buy some property, and start a private club where your dues cover your clubs insurance costs?
As for the office building I have been hearing about, that's a different issue...
10-28-2002, 03:36 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by P-51B
If people want to join an organization primarily for the insurance, there is always Allstate, State Farm, or other carriers.
We did a survey of our 400+ club members some years ago, to see why they joined the AMA... and the overwhelming response was that they joined it just because the club required it for insurance purposes. So, if you think that most people join the AMA because they support having a NFS, or other such non-insurance related reasons, then either you are mistaken, or my club just happens to have an abnormally high number of members who are not representative of the AMA membership as a whole.
Well at least it has been admitted that wasting money on magazine ads, as was originally sugested, is waste.
Nope. You are reading something that definitely was not wriiten. Show me where I said that mag ads was a waste...
If the AMA put some ads or articles in popular mags, which showed the incredible breadth of this hobby and dispelled the image of our hobby as being just young kids playing with .049 powered plastic airplanes, and pointed off to the AMA website with info on how to find a flying club to visit in your area... then I believe that this would get much more outside interest than the NFS ever will.
After reading your comment, "then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole", I assumed that meaningful discussion was gone! Now, if you can apply that same standard to your comments instead of bashing localities that don't happen to fit your particular choice of places to live, then maybe this discussion can get back on track!!!
You are absolutely right ! I was trying to get across the point that Muncie is too far off the beaten track for it to get the kind of attention that a "national showplace" should have, but the characterization of it as a backwoods hole was wrong, and I apologize for that.
Let me rephrase the above as "then instead of pouring money into someplace that's too far from the primary population centres for it to be effective in terms of being seen by the masses..."
Gordon
If people want to join an organization primarily for the insurance, there is always Allstate, State Farm, or other carriers.
We did a survey of our 400+ club members some years ago, to see why they joined the AMA... and the overwhelming response was that they joined it just because the club required it for insurance purposes. So, if you think that most people join the AMA because they support having a NFS, or other such non-insurance related reasons, then either you are mistaken, or my club just happens to have an abnormally high number of members who are not representative of the AMA membership as a whole.
Well at least it has been admitted that wasting money on magazine ads, as was originally sugested, is waste.
Nope. You are reading something that definitely was not wriiten. Show me where I said that mag ads was a waste...
If the AMA put some ads or articles in popular mags, which showed the incredible breadth of this hobby and dispelled the image of our hobby as being just young kids playing with .049 powered plastic airplanes, and pointed off to the AMA website with info on how to find a flying club to visit in your area... then I believe that this would get much more outside interest than the NFS ever will.
After reading your comment, "then instead of pouring the money into some backwoods hole", I assumed that meaningful discussion was gone! Now, if you can apply that same standard to your comments instead of bashing localities that don't happen to fit your particular choice of places to live, then maybe this discussion can get back on track!!!
You are absolutely right ! I was trying to get across the point that Muncie is too far off the beaten track for it to get the kind of attention that a "national showplace" should have, but the characterization of it as a backwoods hole was wrong, and I apologize for that.
Let me rephrase the above as "then instead of pouring money into someplace that's too far from the primary population centres for it to be effective in terms of being seen by the masses..."
Gordon
10-28-2002, 04:20 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by Gordon Mc
We did a survey of our 400+ club members some years ago, to see why they joined the AMA... and the overwhelming response was that they joined it just because the club required it for insurance purposes. So, if you think that most people join the AMA because they support having a NFS, or other such non-insurance related reasons, then either you are mistaken, or my club just happens to have an abnormally high number of members who are not representative of the AMA membership as a whole.
Gordon
We did a survey of our 400+ club members some years ago, to see why they joined the AMA... and the overwhelming response was that they joined it just because the club required it for insurance purposes. So, if you think that most people join the AMA because they support having a NFS, or other such non-insurance related reasons, then either you are mistaken, or my club just happens to have an abnormally high number of members who are not representative of the AMA membership as a whole.
Gordon
I still think there should be a network of national flying sites. I first started flying in St. Louis. I never joined a club, just the AMA. You see, there was a public flying field, Buder Park. It had two paved runways (500 ft each), x shaped, three caged control line circles, and "clubhouse (actually a roof on four poles). The park administration required AMA just in case someone didn't have other coverage. You sent a copy of your AMA card, they sent you a permit to use the field. Cost me a stamp.
If the national flying site concept was expanded to sites in each state, then it seems everyone may be happy?
10-28-2002, 07:26 PM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
OK guys,
I feel like I need to go ahead and throw in a couple more cents worth of input.
Comparing the AMA NFS and Museum to the Smithsonian is like comparing a gumball machine to the Mall of America. Yes, the Smithsonian complex is paid for by some of your precious tax money, but there truly is something for everyone there. It is also located in our nations capital, within the heart of core of our govt buildings and landmarks, so they see alot of extra traffic just from its location. A family can split up and head to different areas, and spend the entire day not getting close to seeing one another, and everyone has a good time. They also generate alot of extra money in souveniers, and in endowments/grants/ etc. I'd be willin to guess that the percentage of people who will see a part of the Smithsonian complex in their lifetime is far greater than the percentage of people who will make the pilgrimage to Muncie, IN to see a model plane from 60 years ago. Not belitting the AMA museum, but it just would not be fascinating to someone who has no intrest in the hobby, because thats all there is there.
As for the insurance being a benefit, try flying at 80-90% of clubs in the states without an AMA card. You will be politely, and sometimes impolitely sent on your way.
Remember, the AMA coverage is SUPPLIMENTAL, in addtion to your homeowner's/renter's insurance. The only place it is primary is in the event you do not have personal insurance. The reason alot of gov't owned parks require AMA is so that everyone is on a level playing field, and so they cant be sued in whole (the facility) in the event of an accident.
The tiered level policy that you spoke of would not be functional in a real-world scenario. How would you adequately enforce it? There will always be the people who buy the cheap park flier insurance, and fly larger 1.20 sized planes, just to save a buck or two. How many people would remember to "up" their coverage when moving up to the next larger scale? Would you be granted a "grace period" before commiting to a larger scale, so you could try it before you buy it? The "What if's" can go on n on n on.
The comment about multiple national flying sites is a little far fetched. How would you treat the larger states (CA, FL, TX), where it would take a full day of driving just to get to a site? With land costs as high as they are, the AMA would go bankrupt trying to purchase or lease the land, and overfly rights. And speaking in a the pure cynicism of the conspiracy freaks, then they could charge you whatever they want, once they finish acquiring the last pieces needed for the monopoly of RC flying.
Please dont take these items personally, it's the points that I disagree with. Not everyone is going to be happy, or be made happy all the time.
Steve
I feel like I need to go ahead and throw in a couple more cents worth of input.
Comparing the AMA NFS and Museum to the Smithsonian is like comparing a gumball machine to the Mall of America. Yes, the Smithsonian complex is paid for by some of your precious tax money, but there truly is something for everyone there. It is also located in our nations capital, within the heart of core of our govt buildings and landmarks, so they see alot of extra traffic just from its location. A family can split up and head to different areas, and spend the entire day not getting close to seeing one another, and everyone has a good time. They also generate alot of extra money in souveniers, and in endowments/grants/ etc. I'd be willin to guess that the percentage of people who will see a part of the Smithsonian complex in their lifetime is far greater than the percentage of people who will make the pilgrimage to Muncie, IN to see a model plane from 60 years ago. Not belitting the AMA museum, but it just would not be fascinating to someone who has no intrest in the hobby, because thats all there is there.
As for the insurance being a benefit, try flying at 80-90% of clubs in the states without an AMA card. You will be politely, and sometimes impolitely sent on your way.
Remember, the AMA coverage is SUPPLIMENTAL, in addtion to your homeowner's/renter's insurance. The only place it is primary is in the event you do not have personal insurance. The reason alot of gov't owned parks require AMA is so that everyone is on a level playing field, and so they cant be sued in whole (the facility) in the event of an accident.
The tiered level policy that you spoke of would not be functional in a real-world scenario. How would you adequately enforce it? There will always be the people who buy the cheap park flier insurance, and fly larger 1.20 sized planes, just to save a buck or two. How many people would remember to "up" their coverage when moving up to the next larger scale? Would you be granted a "grace period" before commiting to a larger scale, so you could try it before you buy it? The "What if's" can go on n on n on.
The comment about multiple national flying sites is a little far fetched. How would you treat the larger states (CA, FL, TX), where it would take a full day of driving just to get to a site? With land costs as high as they are, the AMA would go bankrupt trying to purchase or lease the land, and overfly rights. And speaking in a the pure cynicism of the conspiracy freaks, then they could charge you whatever they want, once they finish acquiring the last pieces needed for the monopoly of RC flying.
Please dont take these items personally, it's the points that I disagree with. Not everyone is going to be happy, or be made happy all the time.
Steve
10-28-2002, 07:36 PM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
If I am not mistaken, most of the governing bodies for RC in the world are government funded. Ours is not. With the way our government wastes money, I would welcome the government giving the AMA a stipend to function with.
10-28-2002, 08:00 PM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by Geistware
If I am not mistaken, most of the governing bodies for RC in the world are government funded.
If I am not mistaken, most of the governing bodies for RC in the world are government funded.
I have flown in several different countries, and as far as I know the government has not funded the R/C body in any of them. The benefits that I got from the SAA (Scotland), the BMFA (Britain), SAARF/SAVRV (South Africa) etc were all paid for by my dues AFAIK.
Gordon
10-28-2002, 08:07 PM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: vancouver , WA
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
WHY WOULD ANYONE VISIT MUNCIE Because , in case you forgot. That's close to the area in mind for the setting of SPEILBERG's CLOSE ENCOUNTER'S OF THE THIRD KIND
10-28-2002, 08:15 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location:
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by P-51B
While the "rest of the world manages" I prefer to excell and lead the way.
While the "rest of the world manages" I prefer to excell and lead the way.
10-28-2002, 08:31 PM
#18
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Take it personally? Ha! Never, nothing in life is that serious.
I would say this is true of AMA chartered clubs, but don't know how private clubs would handle it. I have known of people who get together and fly on private property without any membership in the AMA.
I think you mis-read my idea. The idea is for coverage for your club only vs. the right to participate in sactioned events etc.
I saud sites, not site, in each state. I also didn't say I thought it could be done overnight. But one way to do it is for them to begin putting up the money to purchase the land, then local clubs may have to assist with the taxes, upkeep, etc. If the rumors about the cost of the new building are true, you can buy a lot of land (even in California) for that kind of change!
I just keep reading all the different threads on this subject, and find very few people offering suggestments for improvements, so I thought I would try.
Originally posted by stevezero
OK guys,
As for the insurance being a benefit, try flying at 80-90% of clubs in the states without an AMA card. You will be politely, and sometimes impolitely sent on your way.
Remember, the AMA coverage is SUPPLIMENTAL, in addtion to your homeowner's/renter's insurance. The only place it is primary is in the event you do not have personal insurance. The reason alot of gov't owned parks require AMA is so that everyone is on a level playing field, and so they cant be sued in whole (the facility) in the event of an accident.
Steve
OK guys,
As for the insurance being a benefit, try flying at 80-90% of clubs in the states without an AMA card. You will be politely, and sometimes impolitely sent on your way.
Remember, the AMA coverage is SUPPLIMENTAL, in addtion to your homeowner's/renter's insurance. The only place it is primary is in the event you do not have personal insurance. The reason alot of gov't owned parks require AMA is so that everyone is on a level playing field, and so they cant be sued in whole (the facility) in the event of an accident.
Steve
I would say this is true of AMA chartered clubs, but don't know how private clubs would handle it. I have known of people who get together and fly on private property without any membership in the AMA.
Originally posted by stevezero
OK guys,
The tiered level policy that you spoke of would not be functional in a real-world scenario. How would you adequately enforce it? There will always be the people who buy the cheap park flier insurance, and fly larger 1.20 sized planes, just to save a buck or two. How many people would remember to "up" their coverage when moving up to the next larger scale? Would you be granted a "grace period" before commiting to a larger scale, so you could try it before you buy it? The "What if's" can go on n on n on.
Steve
OK guys,
The tiered level policy that you spoke of would not be functional in a real-world scenario. How would you adequately enforce it? There will always be the people who buy the cheap park flier insurance, and fly larger 1.20 sized planes, just to save a buck or two. How many people would remember to "up" their coverage when moving up to the next larger scale? Would you be granted a "grace period" before commiting to a larger scale, so you could try it before you buy it? The "What if's" can go on n on n on.
Steve
Originally posted by stevezero
OK guys,
The comment about multiple national flying sites is a little far fetched. How would you treat the larger states (CA, FL, TX), where it would take a full day of driving just to get to a site? With land costs as high as they are, the AMA would go bankrupt trying to purchase or lease the land, and overfly rights. And speaking in a the pure cynicism of the conspiracy freaks, then they could charge you whatever they want, once they finish acquiring the last pieces needed for the monopoly of RC flying.
Please dont take these items personally, it's the points that I disagree with. Not everyone is going to be happy, or be made happy all the time.
Steve
OK guys,
The comment about multiple national flying sites is a little far fetched. How would you treat the larger states (CA, FL, TX), where it would take a full day of driving just to get to a site? With land costs as high as they are, the AMA would go bankrupt trying to purchase or lease the land, and overfly rights. And speaking in a the pure cynicism of the conspiracy freaks, then they could charge you whatever they want, once they finish acquiring the last pieces needed for the monopoly of RC flying.
Please dont take these items personally, it's the points that I disagree with. Not everyone is going to be happy, or be made happy all the time.
Steve
I just keep reading all the different threads on this subject, and find very few people offering suggestments for improvements, so I thought I would try.
10-28-2002, 09:48 PM
#19
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Hi everyone,
One of the promoters of model aviation was Byron Goderson and his "Striking Back" show. He used to get on Good Morning America and all the other news shows with a 3-4 minute segment. AMA used to NUTS, since he didn't have anything to do with them (owned the property and had his own insurance) and never mentioned AMA in his interviews. One of the reasons he gave it up was that it got so big the infrastructure in Ida Grove couldn't support the event. Oh yes, he even made a profit. I guess AMA could do something similar if they wanted to, and I'm sure they could cover their expenses, but by the time the idea went through all the committee's and studies, we'd all be looking at the grass from the wrong end.
And yes, for 95% of the members, it's only about insurance.
Regards,
Jon
One of the promoters of model aviation was Byron Goderson and his "Striking Back" show. He used to get on Good Morning America and all the other news shows with a 3-4 minute segment. AMA used to NUTS, since he didn't have anything to do with them (owned the property and had his own insurance) and never mentioned AMA in his interviews. One of the reasons he gave it up was that it got so big the infrastructure in Ida Grove couldn't support the event. Oh yes, he even made a profit. I guess AMA could do something similar if they wanted to, and I'm sure they could cover their expenses, but by the time the idea went through all the committee's and studies, we'd all be looking at the grass from the wrong end.
And yes, for 95% of the members, it's only about insurance.
Regards,
Jon
10-28-2002, 11:22 PM
#20
My Feedback: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
My $.02 worth. We need a national flying site like we need more politicians. The vast majority of AMA members will NEVER fly there, NEVER go there, it is used by a very small minority of AMA members, and it is not centrally located in the continental US. Remember Sport Flyers? They took the AMA to court on the grounds that AMA was a monopoly. Of course, the AMA fought back to hang on to the monopoly they did/do have. I really resent my AMA dues being used to build extravagant facilities I and many others will never derive any benefit from.
I remember the "good old days" when the NATS were held at various facilites around the country. It made it much more fair for the membership, and it made it easier for more members to attend a NATS. Now, the guys on the left coast are facing a drive almost clear across the country to get to a NATS, and the events are staged instead of being run concurrently. It used to be great fun to wander around and watch other events in between rounds of competition.
I remember the "good old days" when the NATS were held at various facilites around the country. It made it much more fair for the membership, and it made it easier for more members to attend a NATS. Now, the guys on the left coast are facing a drive almost clear across the country to get to a NATS, and the events are staged instead of being run concurrently. It used to be great fun to wander around and watch other events in between rounds of competition.
10-29-2002, 12:59 PM
#21
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by hroachen
IF you believe the U.S. leads the way in R/C, then you haven't been outside the U.S.
IF you believe the U.S. leads the way in R/C, then you haven't been outside the U.S.
10-29-2002, 01:08 PM
#22
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by Geistware
If we are to promote our hobby, what better way than to have a national showplace. This is the purpose of the AMA National Flying Site. Remember, without the AMA most of us would not have flying fields. Also remember that if we want to save money, we can eliminate the coverage for the field owners and clubs. I would bet that a lot of clubs would close and many would be sued for infractions that happened on club rented land. I wonder if there is a statistic to show personal vs club/owner settlements.
If we are to promote our hobby, what better way than to have a national showplace. This is the purpose of the AMA National Flying Site. Remember, without the AMA most of us would not have flying fields. Also remember that if we want to save money, we can eliminate the coverage for the field owners and clubs. I would bet that a lot of clubs would close and many would be sued for infractions that happened on club rented land. I wonder if there is a statistic to show personal vs club/owner settlements.
Face it the AMA doesn't want to promote our hobby. Except maybe to get more people to buy TOC planes.
10-29-2002, 01:12 PM
#23
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by P-51B
Let's build a few more national flying sites to create a network to promote the hobby instead of whining about the $0.16 a day it costs you to have such an excellent facility.
Let's build a few more national flying sites to create a network to promote the hobby instead of whining about the $0.16 a day it costs you to have such an excellent facility.
10-29-2002, 02:08 PM
#24
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
You might see a rise in "private clubs" until someone has an incident at one, and then sues the pilot and property owner (notice I said property owner, because the property owner is ultimately responsible for events that take place on his property.) It's the same kinda concept of having a backyard swimming pool, and some kid sneaks into your backyard, falls in, and drowns. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The property owner then gets sued because he did not provide adequate security of his pool, even though the kid trespassed and was in it illegally.
Just playin a lil devil's advocate here, because we had this very same discussion with some of our club members/officers.
The only positive side of the AMA acquiring land to have sites across the country would be the ability to turn a profit on the land WHEN the time comes to have to sell it, after being shut down for noise/overfly area infringements/development/etc.
How much overhead would the AMA incur on managing these projects, and how much of that money would never see the fields? Would all fields be the same, with a cookie cutter template? How far do you go in the design? Buildings, paved runways, grass runway, heli area, oh yeah, gotta keep the FF and CL guys happy, so ya need a big circle or two, and a massive area for the FF guys to try to find their planes in.
There is bound to be alot of resentment from pilots who dont live near the first batch of new fields constructed, yet would be paying for a portion of them. Then the project fizzles due to lack of funding/return, and they are left with their current situation.
To me, it just seems like there would be better ways to spend OUR money that we contribute to the AMA.
Steve
Just playin a lil devil's advocate here, because we had this very same discussion with some of our club members/officers.
The only positive side of the AMA acquiring land to have sites across the country would be the ability to turn a profit on the land WHEN the time comes to have to sell it, after being shut down for noise/overfly area infringements/development/etc.
How much overhead would the AMA incur on managing these projects, and how much of that money would never see the fields? Would all fields be the same, with a cookie cutter template? How far do you go in the design? Buildings, paved runways, grass runway, heli area, oh yeah, gotta keep the FF and CL guys happy, so ya need a big circle or two, and a massive area for the FF guys to try to find their planes in.
There is bound to be alot of resentment from pilots who dont live near the first batch of new fields constructed, yet would be paying for a portion of them. Then the project fizzles due to lack of funding/return, and they are left with their current situation.
To me, it just seems like there would be better ways to spend OUR money that we contribute to the AMA.
Steve
10-29-2002, 02:28 PM
#25
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much of Your AMA Dues Should be Spent on the National Flying Site?
Originally posted by stevezero
You might see a rise in "private clubs" until someone has an incident at one, and then sues the pilot and property owner (notice I said property owner, because the property owner is ultimately responsible for events that take place on his property.) It's the same kinda concept of having a backyard swimming pool, and some kid sneaks into your backyard, falls in, and drowns. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The property owner then gets sued because he did not provide adequate security of his pool, even though the kid trespassed and was in it illegally.
Just playin a lil devil's advocate here, because we had this very same discussion with some of our club members/officers.
The only positive side of the AMA acquiring land to have sites across the country would be the ability to turn a profit on the land WHEN the time comes to have to sell it, after being shut down for noise/overfly area infringements/development/etc.
How much overhead would the AMA incur on managing these projects, and how much of that money would never see the fields? Would all fields be the same, with a cookie cutter template? How far do you go in the design? Buildings, paved runways, grass runway, heli area, oh yeah, gotta keep the FF and CL guys happy, so ya need a big circle or two, and a massive area for the FF guys to try to find their planes in.
There is bound to be alot of resentment from pilots who dont live near the first batch of new fields constructed, yet would be paying for a portion of them. Then the project fizzles due to lack of funding/return, and they are left with their current situation.
To me, it just seems like there would be better ways to spend OUR money that we contribute to the AMA.
Steve
You might see a rise in "private clubs" until someone has an incident at one, and then sues the pilot and property owner (notice I said property owner, because the property owner is ultimately responsible for events that take place on his property.) It's the same kinda concept of having a backyard swimming pool, and some kid sneaks into your backyard, falls in, and drowns. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The property owner then gets sued because he did not provide adequate security of his pool, even though the kid trespassed and was in it illegally.
Just playin a lil devil's advocate here, because we had this very same discussion with some of our club members/officers.
The only positive side of the AMA acquiring land to have sites across the country would be the ability to turn a profit on the land WHEN the time comes to have to sell it, after being shut down for noise/overfly area infringements/development/etc.
How much overhead would the AMA incur on managing these projects, and how much of that money would never see the fields? Would all fields be the same, with a cookie cutter template? How far do you go in the design? Buildings, paved runways, grass runway, heli area, oh yeah, gotta keep the FF and CL guys happy, so ya need a big circle or two, and a massive area for the FF guys to try to find their planes in.
There is bound to be alot of resentment from pilots who dont live near the first batch of new fields constructed, yet would be paying for a portion of them. Then the project fizzles due to lack of funding/return, and they are left with their current situation.
To me, it just seems like there would be better ways to spend OUR money that we contribute to the AMA.
Steve