Bill, I've understood everything you've said. I just don't agree with one of your points, and have calmly explained why without any large colored text histrionics, and without resorting to childish personal slurs.

Oh, and by the way do you understand that I agree with you about the two tier system? And that I also agree with you that PPP is NOT standing on it's own and is being subsidized? I've said that about a half dozen times now.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT I SAID. THAT'S THE WAY IS IS, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. JUST BECAUSE YOU ELECTED TO JOIN IN LAST APRIL, DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANYTHING HAS CHANGED, OR BECOME DIFFERENT. I, PERSONALLY DON'T GIVE A TINKERS DAMN WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT I POST. I THINK THAT YOU WOULD ARGUE WITH A FENCE POST. YOU CAN BE SHOWN THE ERROR IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, AND IT GOES RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD.

Bill, AMA 4720

ps.... are you related to STL pilot?

It's just a matter of whether AMA revenue and expenses are in balance for the various interest areas. It's my opinion that for those area with lower numbers of member participation (read less revenue from dues), that AMA is probably spending more in it's support of those activities than it may be receiving in revenue. If that's the case, then those areas are being "subsidized" just as PPP is as a result of it's start-up costs.

The backbone of AMA is, IMO, Sunday sport RC flyers. If you took all the free-flighters, indoor rubber guys, control liners, etc., out of dues, AMA could still survive. The reverse would not be true. So yes, the largest group does subsidize the rest. I believe this is true in terms of MA coverage, and probably the Nats, also.

But I don't think this is important, anyway. We need to be a cohesive group to survive, I think most anyone here agrees.

What is important, is the contention that PPP discriminates. No, it does not. Simple reason is because no one is forced to be PPP. No one is born into PPP. Skin color, gender, nationality, sex preference, nor any other factor causes anyone to HAVE to choose PPP. It is simply a choice one makes based upon one's preferences.
If I buy the basic cable tv package, I'm not being discriminated against because I can't watch HBO.

Some here will never get, or admit that fact, but, there it is.

Anyone who chooses PPP, then cries discrimination, is a hypocrite, IMO.

wait... so a PPP member cannot fly a free flight, rubber band powered airplane?

What will happen if they do?

Sure they can fly them. All day and everyday. They just won't be covered under their PPP insurance coverage. If that rubber band snaps and catches someone in the eye it's all on them. Wonder who provides coverage for the kite people? Much more dangerous and likely to cause injury. Don’t get me started on those dangerous toy zeppelin people.

Best of luck to Mr Smith. I am sure he will be a good EVP.

Yeah. And a two tier system of membership doesn't do much to foster that. Quite the opposite.

Agreed.

Those are the same as flying a .40 glow sport or 205mph 101lb turbine under PPP.
Same for the $2 styrofoam throw glider ftom the drugstore: Forbidden like a Waiverless Turbine by AMA.

Of course folks here will say you can always fly whatever you want,
which is just their way of saying joining AMA is useless, since you can fly more without AMA than you can in AMA or AMA*. Or am I mistaken about their message of it being just fine to fly beyond your voluntary AMA limits?

Muncie finally made it clear,
what will happen is your club is responsible (aka will be held liable) for you violating the terms of your membership

Tell me, how does the largest group of flyers subsidize the rest? By the furthest stretch you could argue that the categories of this hobby other than general sport flying get more than their share of magazine coverage, but that point is too nit picky for most to consider as an issue. I doubt that all the categories other than sport flyers have more than their share of insurance claims. So in terms of real dollars, let's hear all about how much the sport flyers subsidize the other categories.

I think that 804's reasoning with his comment was probably sound, Chuck. If you suddenly were to remove the dues contributed by those who choose to sport fly only, would the AMA be able to sustain it's programs for combat, scale, free flight, etc? I suspect not. If that is true, then the dues coming from sport flyers is in effect subsidizing the other activities.

Keep in mind that this whole line of talk was triggered by an individual who was complaining that ~$1.50 per year of his dues were going to subsidize a AMA activity that he chooses not to participate in.

And...I suspect that this horse is probably dead enough by now.

the money matters only due to the goal...not how or who is subsidized IMO. the goal is/was to grow the ama not to promote any particular aspect of our hobby. The program has failed. Needs to be turned off...the sooner the better.





I have seen nothing about PP that will have the effect of growing that aspect of the hobby we now label park flying but likely will only retard its growth. Bad plan!





The program is only about promoting AMA...not the hobby that AMA truly needs for sustenance...backwards thinking at its best.

I dont get member information from AMA anymore,
since I get the parkie mag and not MA,
so could you please put a scope or magnitude of dollars Muncie spends on this now?
Sure, I realize it is the combined sum now,
but just in scale to say... $2mil MA or $quartermil PPP or $XXX mil on programs for (CL/RC/FF/&AllOthers)?
What are these programs you speak of costing the whole AMA now?

I've been flying C/L combat for over 25 years, please advise about the AMA C/L program I've yet to uncover. I'll wager that at least 90% of C/L flying is done at non club, non AMA fields. The connection that control liners have with the AMA is very slight. A select few are funded to a degree for FAI competition, but like all other categories must foot their own bill to get past the team trials. Here's where it gets real interesting.....many of your participants in the lesser known categories are also big time RC sport pilots with your standard equipment. So then, who is footing the bill for who? Many of the advancements that the sport flyer takes for granted were borne in competition. In other words it was free R&D for the sport industry. Now who is subsidizing who?

This is the best post, and the true post.

It echoes what CP wrote, "They must realize that they can not create a demand, it has to already exist."

It could also be that they were under the impression a great demand existed and as it turns out (so far) it did not. That's why there has to be, and according to DM there is, a limit on how long PPP has to become financially successful. It happens every day in the business world.

Now where did I put the keys to my DeLorean.

IMO what the AMA should do is just come right out and admit the truth we have been faced with for years, the AMA is in the insurance business whether they want it or not. Admit it. Offer us an economical plan for liability, for those who do not have homeowner's insurance or want more coverage, offer us access to a magzine at an affordable rate, and do this thru a cooperative made up of members who fly whatever they wish. There are plenty of people out there flying things taht do not fit the AMA guidlelines, and there is no law against it. It simply means they would be excluded from coverage (from the AMA) should they be liable for an accident. With the development of the 2.4 technology, I doubt the AMA is going to see any increased growth in the future. Yet, we continue to add people to the employment coffers and subsidize a flying site which 85% or better of the AMA membership will never see nor have use.

The AMA served a purpose at one time, and to a limited degree it still does, but it is evident from the failure of this PPP program that they were delusional to believe that these people out there were just dying to join and be a part of the organization. There is obviously a failure in understanding the needs of the modeling community.

One tank of gas and a Sunday drive past all the known vacant lots, parks, school yards, etc. in just about any area could have saved us $200,000?

How many thousands of Cox and Testors C/L planes used to get sold every year? Anybody ever seen hundreds of them fly? Dozens, maybe? Probably just a few at best.
Learn from the past.

Robo, please, they were not under the impression a great "demand" existed. There was not, and never has been a "demand" from parkies to find venues and representation.

But I assume to know what you really meant and I agree based on the fact people buy the junk at WalMart and the question is how to tap into that? In a throw-away please me for sixty seconds world you can't.

Instead you put resources into ensuring flying fields are secure into the future. Build on what you have.

The only good thing about the PPP is the fact the AMA logo is out there on those boxes. Ouch. Nearly a quarter of a million for advertising! That's only what it is. The PPP will be around for awhile, let's just hope they don't sink any more money into this bottomless pit of a money hole.

Pay Per Day at ama clubs.

Get them to the club fields and have them fly their junk for a while paying daily use fees,
and you stand a better chance of making friends and having them join the club
than the EVP's idea of Urban PPP Clubs being created by the guys that are not even in AMA yet.

For the RC flyer, getting into the hobby and local AMA club is one thing,
but for some parkie flyer they have to get into the hobby and CREATE an Urban PPP club themselves
is how the EVP set this up.