Rat-
but this would be a great place for measurements rather than

1lb, 35mph :Yes or no?
Yes.
Unless its glow, because the cox049's that have been flying in parks for decades are not parkfliers.

Why? Noise?
Then say how quiet is quiet. They actually have the wording 'or any similar quiet means of propulsion'. To a guy that shoots IPSC, anything that doesnt require earmuffs is quiet. The other side of that coin is when my old landlady was giving me a hard time for opening beer cans after midnight... yeah, just the crunch of the poptop was too loud for her. So just what is quiet to the AMA? Opening Beers? I guaranty an AP15 with 10" of hose on the pipe is a lot quieter than a bunch of 10year olds at a birthday party at the park.

The ama does have db standards for regular membership,
we just read about planes gtting disqualified at a contest for being over the db limit,
why does the Quiet Only membership not have it?

And when we do eventually get the db number, then
Quiet is Quiet whether wet or wired.



Getting back to reality:
Keeping the glow out of PPP is not about safety or noise, it is about keeping the most $58 AMA 1lb flyers out.

I disagree, noise is a major issue in many locations, even some at some AMA charter clubs. The noise gets the plane noticed, and then people come out of nowhere to complain about it, even if it is quieter than their neighbor mowing his lawn or running a gas trimmer.

To me, planes in the <1lb class are more indoor flyers than park flyers. I'd want to see at least a 1.5lb limit. The pod & boom Aerobird comes in at 17oz, and I have a plane I built out of flat foam that comes in at about 19 oz.

Rubber powered aircraft ARE allowed under the PPP, they just have to be RC or control line, no FF planes allowed.

PKH-
In your estimation, what % of existing Rubber planes are RC or CL?
We can flip thru back issues of MA & check the Rubber section for text & pics of RC Rubber as opposed to FreeFlight Rubber.

What is a park flyer, it's in the eye of the beholder. The AMA made their definition, which is supposed to be liberal, no different then their liberal position on the shooting of projectiles at RC aircraft, as long as the AMA supports it, the insurance supports it, then you should support it. No matter where the AMA put their own definition of "Park Flyer" those same people would have found a reason to complain about it. But isn't about time you try to support a not for profit organization ... for once.

What % of people flying "park flyers" today care about rubber power?

At least one. I think rubber is the most interesting of all the less then full scale model airplane hobbies. It's a pure form from start to finish. Didn't believe it myself till I got hooked on it.

If I could figure out how to rig up about 4 seperate bike innertube motors and feed them all into a planetary gear box....

Trouble with rubber power is it seems the ultimate goal is to lose the model?

You need about 200'+ of bungee, let us know your results!

Rubber powered has my interest also. Was looking at some of the small balsa and tissue kits at the hobby store the other day that are rubber powered.

The Jart lawn darts are no longer on the market ;->

Rat-
and how many of those BalsaTissue Rubber kits are not FreeFlight,
cause you cant play with the FF ones with PPP, you need to spend $28 more to be covered with the lil rubber freeflight planes than you do with a 300watt brushless 3d plane 15' from your head.

The level of PPP restriction in that case is not overly liberal.
If a guy has been playing with the lil rubber FF tissue planes for decades,
and drops to PPP from $58 Open AMA,
he has to stop flying his lil windups at the park cause they are not parkflyers....
making him made enough to start paying the $58 again,
and Presto! He can fly his lil tissue FF windups at the park again.

You can't, says who? Since when does the AMA say what you can or can't fly at anytime in your life? You still under the assumption the AMA has a monopoly on how, when and where someone flies their toy???

The only reason rubber guys join the AMA is for competition. They don't need insurance, they don't need flying fields with safety lines and they don't need frequency boards. And they certainly don't need all of this hypocrisy and animosity. Rubber guys are real artists, not radio control jockeys.

If you're not rubber guy, then what's your concern, again? If they don't want to be part of the AMA, that's their decision, not yours.

If I had to purchase ful membership to play with a small rubber powered piper or cessna that I would not even bother with the membership.

It is crazy to have to pay 58 dollars to play with one of them.

In reply to your post 55, a lot of us who question the AMA PPP, support AMA just as much if not more than you do! You ask for blind compliance with all AMA proposals by all members so you can enhance your standing with AMA for you own personal reasons. The rest of us question whether PPP will actual do more harm than good. Do we know what the future will prove, no but we are entitled to our opinions and the right to express them as much as you.

The term "Park Flyer" in and of itself is designed to legitimize the flying of model planes at "the park".

Combat pig made the above statement and I think it sums it all up, to me this is a very dangerous agenda, and could lead to dramatic harm to the hobby and even the outright banning of RC nation wide. We can't stop anyone from taking a "park flyer" to a public park and causing harm, but do we have to "legitimize" the pratice by lending AMA's endorsement of it?

Wait a second, because the AMA put together a program which insures it'smembers, provides a quarterly magazine and creates some kind of organization, then that could lead to the end of RC flying nationwide??? Holy drama story in the making!!! Now I see why some people join one political party and others join the differ. There must truly be more then 1 type of human mentality.

Dion,

The problem with the PPP is that the AMA put the program together against the wishes of the majority of those whom they polled in regard to the e-ticket program last year. This is the sum total of the reasons that I, personally am against programs that make a difference in the classification of members. You expect people to join in large numbers, when they are fully aware that they will have absolutely no say in the governance of that group. Do you really think that the majority of the prospective membership is that stupid? Again, do you ever read what you type? Do you think before you turn your fingers loose on the keyboard? It does not really appear so.

Bill, AMA 4720

OK, I'll bite, how do you know this? I never saw a poll, but I did get an email. I sure hope you're not talking about a RCU poll.

Does that include sr. citizens, kids and family members?

I would also like to see this official Poll.


The only people I have ever heard or read about that complained about the possible program were those that were already AMA members with attitudes toward the PF crowd.

To me it looks like AMA was looking for a way to bring the PF group into the fold and the PPP program is effectivly doing that. What was the first months new membership under the PPP program again??? About 210 new members not including small percentage that dropped down to the PPP membership.

Looks like more money for the AMA to use in possible support of this hobby.

So just fromt he first months results, I am betting the program is here to stay no matter what some of the full members might say or think.


As far as what some suggested for specs on what a parkflyer should be. Well them specs fit the indoor type group but they will leave more then half of the available parksized models out of the loop to be used under the program.

I don't know how many of you have ever flown a a less then 1 lb model but any slight breeze over 3 mph makes it almost impossible to fly and enjoy it at the same time.

I think it would be far more dangerous to have people trying to fly less then 1lb models that can only do 35 mph in a slight wind at a park then it would be to have them fly something slightly heavier with more power to they can actually control it and keep it from going into a group of kids.

Speaking of "classification of membership" I got my local EAA chapter newsletter for the year. We have 8 Young Eagles rallies for our club this year. I was looking around and saw that most chapters had about 4 or more rallies each this year as well. So now that I think about it ... maybe the problem with getting the kids in is that some members actually do believe in this membership level of separation thing RC has going on an that $1 program only causes animosity against our RC youth. I suspect it's the glow fuel, always have.

1st month PPP joiners: <per VAFrank>
170 Non-AMA joiners
60 'Current' AMA Dues Droppers
40 Previous AMA, PPP returners

60 of 270 is not a small percent, for every 3 guys that never AMA'ed join, we lose an AMA'er to PPP.
Looking at in in a positive light, if PPP is successful and gets 6000 new joiners, AMA would only lose 2000 guys to it.

How many more would AMA lose if they let all the aged rubber guys go PPP?
How many more would they lose if they let 1/2a cox049 SchoolYard fliers join PPP?
As more $58 guys that fly electrics see they can still fly their brushless GWS Warbirds for $28 less, we will see more of those $58 electric guys drop to PPP... especially when the ~Renew/DropTier~ confusion gets settled & common: 2009 Renewals of the 08 electric fliers will show a heck of a lot of guys that can save $29 a year choosing to do so.

The definition is set to keep as many $58 as they can from joining. Not safety or quantitative noise limits.
Nobody is concerned with a lawsuit from a guy -
$2500 for a 6oz Rubber FF striking me at speeds in excess of 11mph, resulting in slight annoyance as it bounced off, at the park

Not in reply to anyone in particular.

Anybody interested in what Muncie has to say?

I was, so I called them. Here's what they had to say. (not verbatim)

1. No real science in weight/speed classification. More a simple way for a beginner or non-expert to pick an appropriate plane; either the airplane fits the criteria, or not. Because,

2. The park flyer program, even though experts and beginners alike are encouraged to join, is really focused on beginner pilots, hence, the Park Pilot Partner program, to help those beginners.

3. Although this wasn't said explicitly, my understanding of the conversation leads me to believe this program is an entry level stepping stone to, hopefully, full membership status.

I still agree with the OP that the limits might be a little high on weight and speed, but they are what they are and not likely to be changed anytime soon.

Just found this discussion. Pretty interesting. However I think a number of people have missed the point of the program:

THE AMA PARK PILOT PROGRAM - Just in case you have not actually read the details of the program
http://www.modelaircraft.org/parkflyer.aspx

At half the price of regular AMA membership, it seems to offer a nice package for pilots who are not interested in larger planes, glow planes, gas planes or jets. If you are primarily focused on small electrics, electric helies or small gliders, this is something you should consider.

In addition, the AMA is looking to help form Park Pilot clubs and help those clubs establish Park Pilot fields. These clubs would be focused on flying park flyers and would not be open to gas, glow, jets or large planes. As a result they can be located in smaller fields and potentially in places where regular AMA fields have been rejected or cast out.

Certianly sounds interesting.

Park Flyer Definition:

Key points:

Small - up to 2 pounds
Quiet - electric, glider or other quiet forms
Not too fast - to give potential landlords the confidence of what the upper limit is of the planes that would be flown on the site. So an F27 Stryker B would qualify. A C would not. this speed limit is based on top speed on a level run, not measured in a dive.

Flying Site Development:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/UserFil...iteBooklet.pdf

The AMA is encouraging the development of new, officially recognized AMA Park Pilot sites in metro areas throughout the US. As an aid in reaching this goal, AMA developed a special “How to Start a Park Flying Site” turnkey package so members who are trying to secure a field won’t have to start from scratch when they approach landowners or officials responsible for regulation of public facilities. The package includes a DVD to show landowners and park officials what park flying is all about––and how different it is from the engine-powered, radio-control flying with which they may already be familiar. There are tips on how to approach officials and landowners, plus instructions on how to set up a field. It even includes a guide for how to quickly and efficiently organize a club, its bylaws, and field rules. And best of all, members will be able to inform landowners and officials that they’d be covered by AMA site liability coverage in the amount of $2.5 million, which should serve as a great incentive. The goal is to make it easier for official AMA recognized flying sites to be developed quickly and in great numbers.

So the goal is NOT for people to be flying in parks, although those folks could join and be covered. The goal is create a new kind of club and a new kind of flying field so that park flyer pilots can have a safe secure place to fly their planes. A place that might be acceptible where the traditional AMA field might be rejected.


Clearly the plane manufacturers think this is a good idea. They are offering rebates to help cover the cost of membership.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/parkflyer/shops.aspx
When you join you will receive rebate coupons in your membership package worth upto $50.00 Partners include: Hobbico, Ready to Fly Fun, Hobby-Lobby, RC Micro World, and Rotory Modeler. Check out their web sites to see all the products they offer.

Finally, the program is intented to reach out to the pilots who have been turned away by AMA clubs or who have been turned off by traditional AMA clubs. Now the AMA can help you form your own clubs around the kind of flying that interests you, parkflyers.

So, what's so bad about that?

So the ama has 170 new members (probly a large % that were not planning on getting ama in the first place)

They brought back 40 AMA members that let their membership drop (most likely because they did not feel the need to spend 58 dollars to fly their little parkflyers around)

They kept 60 members (the ones that dropped down to the PPP rather then just drop their membership all together).


So in my eyes they got 210 new or returning members and saved 60 from dropping ama all together.

Sounds like success to me.

I know you can be adding atleast 1 more new member to the fold.

Its a start