STL,
The difference, of course, is numbers.
Most clubs don't have turbine fliers, and those that do have maybe one or two, and everyone knows who they are and therefore pretty easy to keep track of.
If AMA does what you want, the clubs will supposedly be swamped with new members having different coverage than existing members. Just the numbers alone of these new club members will pose a problem in enforcement. Another problem: how are the clubs going to handle the dues structure: one for "regular" AMA members and another for e-fliers? If the PF's think $58 is too much to join AMA, then how are they going to pay $60-$80 for club dues?
Flying a PF, as that's all you can do with it as there's nothing to build, IMO has nothing to do with modeling; it's just another fad that will soon pass.
My field has kids’ day where the kids come out and can fly a trainer type model on a buddy box. I think they’re exposed to what modeling is all about through this experience rather than buying some $30 foamie from Wal-Mart and trying to get it to fly.
I guess it's just how we look at this: you seem to think that these PF's are the future of modeling and I, and a lot of others, don't see any connection, other than they fly, to 'real" modeling.
Reminds me of my grandson and his video games, once he tires of them, it's on to the next thing.
Jon

F106A, you just inadvertantly brought up another issue. What is a "parkflier"? Is is based on the power source, size, speed, etc. I hope that you are wrong about it being a fad. I love playing with Air Hogs with my kid in the front yard! Even going to far as to rip the guts out of one and now building an airframe for it. Although he's six (and can fly it better than my wife) I believe it's a good introduction to aviation.

Jugflier, It's really not revolutionary. It's been tried and shot down before. LCS put it in short simple, but completely realistic terms. It's a devisive plan. You should be asking yourself why they want us divided. Another old saying. United we conquer, divided we fall. Do you think that there's anything that the AMA could offer a parkflier that wouldn't be appreciated by the general membership?

ptulmer, As i said i don't want to divide the AMA membership but i do think there is something that can be done that the vast membership would agree with. I am not trying to be argumentative, but let me offer this to you. We have 4 members of our club who started with electrics, we have 9 members now and growing. It was a tough sell to get someone with a 99 dollare aerobird to join the AMA at 58 bucks. That guy now has a giant ucando with a 45 cc gas motor. The point is the vast majority of these e-flyers when exposed to our hobby will want to step up in performance. But that is the point, we have to get them in and get them hooked. I personally believe that some kind of weekend membership, they can go straight to AMA website, use a credit card, print a 2 day pass, and come out to your field and fly and get introduced to the real face of the AMA.

It's free if your club has an intro pilot. See, you're talking about programs that would be appreciated by the general membership.

Technically if the e-flier was an experienced pilot, i don't know if he would qualify.

The question though JugFlier is does that member pay the same dues structure to fly at your club as the rest? Did that member come to your club as an electric flier and then get interested, or did they come to you after flying electric and seeing that they wanted more?
I think it is more of the latter that we will see who actually want to progress to something more and come looking to the AMA. There is not going to be a big rush of people coming to the AMA unless they think the AMA is going to also offer them a place to fly. In STL's proposal he wants the AMA to build electric fields or provide a place for them to fly, while at the same time giving them a cheaper membership. In reality the AMA has already paved the way for that with the Trainer program, which your club already uses. Like some of the others here I would think that the idea of the giving them a cheaper membership and providing them a field to fly would not sit to well with those who pay higher rates and get no field.
As to the tiered rates, that to me again is just a nail in the coffin. The original proposal hinted that those flying turbines and gas planes should pay a higher rate or insurance than those flying gliders or smaller glow displacement. The accident rates and insurance payouts do not support that since most of the accidents tend to be with the typical sport plane (obviously since there are many more of them flying). The major problem I saw with this was mentioned earlier and that is enforcement.
Also the E-flier will likely assume that their AMA membership will entitle them to club membership at AMA sanctioned clubs, which in most cases would be the case, but those individuals should be under the same rules of the club and pay the same fees.
In the case of the E-fields that STL is proposing this would make no difference, since these would likely be parks where the AMA would provide some type of coverage for the landowner or local government, and they would have the right to fly there as long as they held an AMA card. Of course when you get outside in the rural areas, where the majority of us play, it becomes a little sticky. I am not looking to be argumentative either, and agree that something should be done to bring them in, but only if they want to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Tommy

Jugflier, experience doesn't come into it. Just gotta be new to the AMA and willing to fly with the intro pilot. But I'm not knocking the two-day pass idea. It's not a bad idea from our point of view, but from the AMA's it would cost yearly memberships that were previously purchased by the parkfliers and home fliers just so they could attend shows.

The tiered system was brought up by me as a talking point and I'm glad to hear some discussion on it. The point I was trying to make with that system was that it gave all a choice on levels of participation, not just "parkies" vs "real members" which seems to be the current way of thinking.
My main deal is this should be looked at from the top down as a way to be inclusive, not some half baked division based on power plant. We are all modelers, regardless of our area of interest.

As for these small electric "park flyers" being a fad, I really don't think so. Just like I don't think micro/indoor modeling is a fad.

So.....Since scrapping the idea of a "park flyer" membership (or e-ticket or whatever you want to call it) just leaves us in the same boat, what other ideas does anyone have? I personally don't think it's money as much as perception of what the AMA can offer.

Greg S

Kingcrash,
I too do not think it is a fad. It provides an outlet for those who are looking to do something at a fairly economical rate. I think it is more about the cost however, and "what we have to offer" comes second. Most are turned off by coming to a club that requires AMA membership and then having to pay for the AMA membership when they see only the insurance (not the representation). They are lulled in a sense of complacency by thinking that their facet of the hobby is immune from liability and thus they do not need the insurance. So they save themselve's a $100 and go fly in a field somewhere. They see nothing wrong with it, and they are probably right. But what if an accident occurs and we all suffer? Not very likely but certainly possible.
I certainly do not have an answer to this problem, I wish I did. There are some new and interesting things on the agenda of HQ this Spring from all I have heard.
Tommy

I'm trying to take it easy, it's never hard when it's 10:1 but I like a good debate. Either way they are putting through a proposal and if it passes it passes, if not, it's another year. I also agree that something should be done, but like I said, no matter what you try to put together to get new and leaving e-flyers it will come back to look something like the AMA already proposed. It makes a whole bunch of sense. It's a viable solution and most likely very close to the only solution. I certainly don't hear a lot of good ideas, only what a dumb idea the AMA came up with.

If the AMA wants what I want? How about I want what the AMA wants. I am only agreeing with team Muncie on this issue. Also the AMA proposed the e-flyers NOT to co-exsist with regular clubs, they can already do that. F106 you said you live in Bergen County and I work here, you can count how many designated e-fields that are in this area on your hand and there are hundreds if not thousands of parks in our area. Most flying, if not almost all is just done without any organization or protection. A great opportunity for parks for the e-ticket, something designed just for them, wonderful!

OK now lets pretend the AMA did want integration with e-ticket holders. Are you telling me you've never belonged to a club that had kid rates, family rates .... now e-rates. Wow, that was tough.

Again you guys continue to throw this word "segregation" a tad too loose. The AMA wants nothing of the kind, in fact I can't even comprehend how it can even be looked at that way. Bottom line is that the original proposal by the AMA for the e-ticket was brilliant, almost too perfect. I know that it's hard to take such an abrupt change for so many old-schoolers, but luckily they are continuing to propose such an innovative program. My hats off to the AMA!

I agree 100% on that.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, though.
Could it be the whole issue truly boils down to either the club chartering rules being "exclusive" or a lack of communication from AMA to the clubs/general populace? (just thinking out loud)
The old addage, "you attract more flies with honey" comes to mind here.

Greg S

Yeah, we are on the same page here. Although STL I cannot see a club offering a different fee for membership to an E-flier and a glow flier who uses the same facility. Why should they do that? The cost of maintenance on a runway and facility is the same whether the flier is 14 or 80, flying an AstoHog or a Stryker. You should pay for the facilites equally, that is what the club is about. Although I can agree that their may be different liabilities issues, and insurance rates could certainly reflect that, so there we can find some common ground, but on the local level I believe the club should be able to address that based upon the ideals of the membership (sort of a state right's issue, if you know what I mean...)
Tommy

Again and I still don't understand why you guys can't understand this. The AMA did proposed NOT to integrate the e-ticket within AMA current fields. I know it's too complicated for most clubs to figure out 1+1 let alone how to create a different price point for certain members, lets forget about the fact that most of them already do it. It's just plain out rocket science to aeromodelers I guess. Best part is the AMA feels the same way you do and they decided to take advantage of the tens of thousands parks and smaller designated areas for this proposal.

Don't get all testy now STL......no one has ever explained the fact that the AMA ticket would not be good at the standard field, or am I reading to much into what you just said??? If not then it does not do a lot of good for those out in the rural areas who want to fly at a club field.
Besides I never claimed to be a rocket scientist...LOL
Tommy

I am sending this E-mail to you in a request for your assistance. With recent advancements in electric R/C technologies and the advent of the very popular "Park Flyer" aircraft, the demographics of the modeling community are rapidly changing. In order to better serve our members the AMA Executive Council is considering instituting a membership program that is specifically aimed at addressing the needs of the park flyer pilots. We have defined these "park flyer modelers" as having models that weigh 2 pounds or less, do not exceed 60 mph, and do not fly higher than 200 feet.

This proposed program would have less insurance coverage, be limited to non-sanctioned events, and include a bimonthly magazine focusing on electric-powered aircraft.

Additionally, we view this new membership group as establishing electric-power flying fields in urban areas and not being part of existing clubs.

We have priced this program at $29.95 per year.

To better assess the views of the membership, the AMA Executive Council is seeking your input in answering the following questions:

1) Given your current involvement in the hobby, would an "electric only" program as described above better meet your needs?

2) If such an alternative membership program was offered, would you be inclined to choose this program over your existing full-service membership?

So this proposal really only affects and provides for the urbanite? The average joe schome E-flier out here in the boondocks is offered nothing he does not already have, am I right? Cause what I read out of your bolded statement there would be a solution for the E-flier in the crowded cities who does not want to belong to a club, but out here it would not do much for them.

It seems like this is a band-aid for a gaping wound, and may help stop some of the bleeding but will not cure it. I'm not playing devil's advocate with you, I am just not convinced yet that this will help in the big picture.
Tommy

Well, leaves me out. My Firebird has hit more than 200 ft AGL with regularity. So no, not as defined.

Greg S

The reality is that there are more places to for AMA'ers to gather and create and organize fields that live in rural regions, to fly planes of any size. But the good part is that even rural areas still have small parks which this proposal could work it's way into. I've lived in rural areas, don't tell me that there are not some nice spall spaces which could be designated as smaller e-fields for e-only flyers. Which in turn will create more organiztion and safety for the larger fields.

Ironically you are stating that this proposal won't effect you, so you are against certain criteria because it has nothing to offer you. Well I say "so what", so this might not effect you and I know for a fact this is the biggest problem concerning this proposal to the members. Most members are older and live in rural areas. Now this is where segregation really comes into play into this disucssion. (not aimed at you doc)

You're right, it may not effect you, you you you but it may effect others in a positive way. Like the people that AMA are trying to target, people the AMA has never had. This is why most AMA'ers cannot see this as something positive, because they want the AMA to do for them and only them. Most of the people that this proposal will effect are not AMA'ers. They are not on this forum, except the ones leaving the AMA to parkfly. But they are still out there, look how the market is moving and the AMA is running flat.

The fact is that if you read the proposal it's not aiming to change a SINGLE thing with the current AMA structure, it's looking to ADD a new solution for members who are slowly leaving or not joining. Let's not forget the AMA has been shrinking at the rate of 3-5% a year while our economy, stock market and consumer spending are at and all time high. The AMA needs to take advantage of this and by the looks of the first post of this thread, they are trying to figure out a way to do it.

STL, you claim this program would not segregate the e-fliers, then go to great lengths to prove that's exactly what it does. Aside from the discount and lesser service, what exactly can be done for e-fliers that shouldn't be done for everyone? This is a step in the wrong direction no matter how you state it.

I think all 1/2a fliers should get a discount because they are far safer than a parkflier. They are usually lighter. They won't start up accidentally (sometimes not on purpose, either), the props are smaller and blunter meaning you've got to really try to get cut by a Cox rubber ducky. Sticking your hand in the arc will sting, but usually that's about it. It won't do nearly as much damage as a heavier e-powered airplane when it strikes something, etc. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? That's how this whole proposal sounds to me. Take my reaction and spread it out over a large segment of the AMA membership. That's in addition to my belief that you would hear many more stories from idjits that brought their e-card to a regular club field and got the cold-shoulder. (to clarify, e-fliers and parkfliers are not all idjits. Idjits seem to be everywhere. Even Long Island.)

Well, since we foot the bill...

I can't see anything good in a proposal that further divides the membership on an issue that already has caused bickering in the past.

Potato, Potatoe PTulmer. You see things the way you see them. I see nothing but more RC flyers, rather AMA flyers. When was the last time you visited my field??? You never invited me to yours??? Must be segregation. Oh, how about designation. You fly at your field, I fly at mine, either way we fly right? You have an AMA card? So do I. So do people at the field 10 miles away whom I've never seen before. The thing we have in common is that THEY ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE AMA. Capice? I just don't think you understand the membership thingy, in fact you told us you don't. You belong to the AMA for the insurance, I'm sure they appreciate your contribution, even at a price.

Bickering? Between whom? We don't live on these forums PTulmer. This is just a place to come vent. Flying is done on the field.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying you have to convince the membership that that they are not losing out by offering something like this. I did not say I was against it, I just think it needs a little tweeking. Don't kill the messenger, I am just echoing what the majority of the current membership will feel (I assume). The AMA's biggest asset IMO has been the fact that they gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, and treated them the same. The guy who went in and bought a plane at the LHS who is never going to learn to fly it can purchase a membership and insurance for the same price as the veteran flier who in twenty years has never made a claim. There are valid points to both sides of the arguments. I am only seeing it from my POV here in the rural area, oh and secondly...
I seriously doubt that age has alot to do with my POV...[:-] I don't think the AMA has to only do for me, but as long as they want my money each year, I think my opinion is as valid as yours.
Tommy

Well this I have to disagree with. If the average age of the AMA was in the 20's or even 30's, of course it would be much better received. Again, I'm not against old people, I'm going to be old one day. But typically they have more money and they like to keep things the way things are. Same goes for people that live in rural areas, they live there for a reason, they want things simple and consistent. This is a social issue as much as it is a financial one.

I see nothing but more R/C flyers regardless of the outcome.
I've not seen "separate but equal" work in the real world, STL. I also agree that we (the AMA) are missing the boat here and should do SOMETHING. That something, however, needs to be a much better solution than "park flyer memberships not allowed" signs at the local club facility, while "Real AMA members" can go anywhere. It leaves an aweful taste in ones mouth. The solution has to be equitable for all AMA members and potential new members or it is doomed to failure.

Greg S

We do like to keep our women folk barefoot and pregnant, and maw can put a purty fine possum on the table when she has to...but I pretty much think that things work similar in rural Alabama as they do in the big city. Your assuming that I am an old guy, don't know seemed like only a year or so ago I was in my 30's, time sure does fly.
Hate to leave this conversation, but I hear the cable company is throwing away a bunch of those wooden reels, and we are in need of a new dinette set....
Tommy