Economic comparison
 

IMO, one of the issues that AMA must face sooner or later is access to flying sites. I realize everyone's situation is different, but I did a comparison of the cold hard economics & logistics for my situation:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]AMA Field[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Local Park[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]RT distance[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26 miles[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0.038 miles (100 feet)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gas cost[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6.26[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]zero (load aircraft in wagon and walk)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]RT time[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]39 minutes[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]AMA Fee[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$75 (req'd)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$0 (AMA not req'd)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Club Fee[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$100 (req'd)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$0 (no club = no fees)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Altitude limit[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]600 feet[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]none[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nearby Airport notification req'd[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Runway type[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Grass[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Grass[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Types can fly[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Any (as long as meet noise restrictions)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Electric only[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Size aircraft can fly comfortably in space[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Any[/TD]
[TD="align: center"].25 size electric / 500 helo[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Yesterday I went to the park with three helos (2x 450's and a 500). Flew 9 packs through the 450's, and three through the 500. Total time: 80 minutes, with 75 of it spent either flying or changing batteries. Best of all, close proximity meant I went home charged all the batteries (1C on four chargers), and two hours later went back and did it all again!

Contrast that with the logistics getting to/from the "normal" RC field. Not saying it's the same for everyone, but switching to slightly smaller stuff I can fly close to home has meant more flying in one day that I typically got in several trips to the flying field in years past. Economically, I also can save up to $175 a year in club/ama fees plus gas - which buys a lot of batteries and kits!

Other than your specific situation, is the premise here that the AMA has not been dealing with the issue of flying sites? Because of course they already have. It's not sooner or later, but rather been there done that and still doing it.

It's great that you can fly in a local park rather that make that arduous journey to that expensive field. You are aware of course that many cities and towns are banning the use of RC in their fields right? And it's no wonder why, what if 50 guys who live next to you decide to forgo that horrible ride to the field and show up at your local park and all want to fly? Wonder if the members of that community as well as the local govt are going to have a problem with it. I know I would.

Different areas of the country have different issues, but in more densely populated areas, it's more likely than not that public parks are not going to allow RC usage. And for the record, many had already banned all RC usage well before the MR issue.

Back to the sooner or later issue.....

Tony Stillman.... Flying Site Assistance Coordinator

Anyone wanting help getting a field going, contact him at AMA HQ. You might also bump into him as he drives the AMA fligh sim trailer all over the country. He'll walk you through the process. It does involve an application that needs to be filled out and that is then submitted to a committee to review. Obviously one person doesn't make a decision. Also keep in mind, it's not a guarantee that a field will be suddenly found or funded because the AMA is involved. Anyone looking at this issue knows full well is more complex than asking someone to find and pay for a field.

So at the end of the day Franklin this works out great for you, so kudos on finding a working solution. I see your analysis is cold, economic, and logistical, I guess that's why the issue of flying with other modelers and enjoying that type of fellowship and experience was left out.

What's up with your club's 600ft altitude limitation? Where did that number come from?

I go to fly, not to talk. It's just me, but if want social, I'll go to a local watering hole where I can enjoy a nice single malt at the same time.

Funny you should mention the field though. I had just come from the local flying field (on the way back from where I store my boat). So I stopped by for my third visit in about six weeks (two on Sundays, and one on a Saturday, all on great weather days and early to mid afternoon). A little bit of a breeze yesterday, but otherwise warm and sunny just like the two prior visits. In those three visits, have seen exactly one person flying at the field.

The 600' restriction? It's co-located with a private airfield, 600' limit comes from that.

Nope. But, I do doubt the numbers often reported as to number of flying sites. Within 25 miles of my zip code, the site lists two clubs. One of which is my local one (AMA says it's 2.5 miles away, it's actually 13) and another AMA says is 14 miles away that's actually 63. Within what AMA considers a 50 mile distance, there's seven. I've sent three of them emails, none responded, so I wonder if they're even active anymore. Given the experience with how well the AMA keeps other parts of their site up to date, I wonder if this is lagging as well.

My point is merely that I wonder if there are really as many flying sites as we're told there are. At least in the examples I've found, there's also an indication they're closer than they actually are - thus raising the proximity issue.

I went to my club last week ago last Sunday, 11-12:30. Overcast with blue skies and sun here or there, high ceiling. 75 degrees, almost no wind. Not a soul around. At 5 that night, about 20 people showed up. No rhyme or reason, stuff like that happens all the time. And we have 209 people in the club...go figure.
I

I'm sure you know the acronym....GIGO......apply that to some of the info shown on the AMA site. If the clubs feed the AMA incorrect info, that's what is going to show. I know a club close to me that lists that they have 259 members, when I was just at their meeting and they said 129. Is the AMA somehow responsible for that? Mix in google maps, coordinates etc etc and there are lots of errors. Not sure we want our dues going to someone at the AMA to spend their time cross checking every one of the 2,000 plus club to ensure complete and perfect accuracy.

The same goes for clubs that don't keep their contact information up to date, or don't respond at all to inquiries. That's on them. I've seen some websites for clubs that haven't been updated since 2012 yet they are still active. Site maintenance usually is someone someone volunteers to do, and if you're part of a club you know how it goes when requests to help do thing goes......pullin teeth!

Howdy Franklin..!
Your situation seems pretty clear and what a nice one you have.
When I first got into RC the club fields provided a level of entertainment that the parks, school yards and vacant lots were lacking.
A main attraction [for me] were the builders, designers, competitors and aerodynamicists.
Many of these guys were WWII, Korea and Vietnam era aviators too.
On any given day, you never knew who was going to roll out a recently built, hand crafted show stopping creation.
Before the internet, these guys were also your GO TO source for all the technical expertise not just for sport flying but also for competition.
Many of the WWII guys grew up together, went to school together here and were a very fun group.
The scene at the local club field has changed. "inspiring, creative, daring and unusual" are not words to describe what goes on there any more.
In my case, it has made more sense to save the $100 club fee since the local AMA field has lost it's luster.

I don't blame AMA for the incorrect info. However, part of the "sales pitch" for AMA membership is in large measure all these places to fly. Yet it isn't too difficult to find flying sites for which you get no response. So if some percentage of those flying sites are in fact defunct, isn't that misrepresentation in part the AMA's issue?

Just got back from seven more batteries worth through one of the 450's and the 500. All in less time than it would have taken me to drive to club, park, unpack, and set up to fly (assuming of course I didn't have to wait for flying space).

Times change, so do people's interest. There are still amazing things that folks bring out the club, not always a scratch built war-bird or J3 Cub. We have a more senior member who for the last 5 years has been building some of the most fantastic aircraft with blue core foam and playing with programing functions on his radio to make his aircraft do some amazing things. He recently rigged carbon fiber tubes to take in thrust from the EDF unit and run them off the end of the jet's wings so it can do slow high alpha passes. I see plenty of opportunity for the more senior or "traditional" modeler to still be inspiring and creative, and share their info with the newer folks, even if they do fly ARFs and foamies. I'm glad to see them stick around our local clubs, otherwise they quit and then complain about the sad state of affairs at clubs. I never thought quitting was the best option to an issue, but it might be for some.

CP... couldn't agree more. Not saying that those who value the social aspect are wrong, I'm just not willing to pay $100 for it (or $175 with AMA membership).

No, it's not misrepresentation, it never is. Again, you're blaming the AMA for a flying club not responding to you. There are a number of reasons why a club might not be responding to you, from old information, to spam filters, to you not sending the e-mail correct etc etc. Again, I don't know that this is the AMA's fault if the club isn't up to date on the info they submit, or the club just fails to get back to you.

Their "sales pitch" is multifaceted, yet you are focusing on just one aspect of it that doesn't seem to be working for you. Are you looking for perfection when humans and computers are involved.

Do you expect a club that has become "defunct" to immediately notify the AMA? Could you envision some lag time there?

You are winning today,,,,the ability to fly close by, and the weather too! To wet to fly here today.


EDIT: just thought of another benefit to being close by...you know, those times when you leave your transmitter at home, or the wing tube for the plane. Ya...those times. Ugh! :mad:

Meant to say enjoyed your pics of the rig you have set up for the helis....certainly easier than carting each heli and all the equipment around.

Choice is a great thing to have, for sure. To Combat's point though, outside of the social aspect of the club environment, I've learned more about the hobby from fellow members than I ever will from the internet. Sure, it's great to see a write up of a new product or some mods to a plane, but nothing beats having someone standing right in front of you helping you through an issue. Club are lots of different things to different people though, and club certainly have different personalities.

First, thanks for the compliment on the rig. It's not the prettiest, but it's functional, and it cost me zero. I'll rig some attachments to transport some aircraft as well. The park is a perfect place for my Adrenaline Rush....

As for the club issue. It seems inconsistent to be trying so hard to grow memberships, but then know (or should know) that clubs you list on your page aren't responding to inquiries, show locations that are in the middle of a forest, or have out of date info. Is there no process in place to re-verify contact info? Is there no stated expectation to respond to inquiries (again, if you're trying to grow membership), etc.?

How many excuses must we consider before we face the most obvious conclusion : that the club doesn't exist anymore - yet it's listed anyway. Is that not misrepresenting the number of places to fly?

Should information be perfect...sure, a great idea.

Again, the implication being here that the AMA is responsible for the info the club submits. I say it's on the clubs, not the AMA. The same for the clubs not responding to you...how that could ever be the AMA's fault is unknown.

I can't imagine it's easy for one person to spend time reaching out to every club in the country to ensure their info is correct. I'm sure the AMA can get right on that, but again, that will cost money, and we know how that goes. :)

Perhaps you don't see it as important, and we may have to just disagree. However, if your goal is to grow membership, then clubs that don't respond because they're lazy, or don't respond because the posted contact info is incorrect, or don't respond for any other reason are, no matter what the reason, not supporting a goal of the organization. At best, it's not helping. At worst, it's hurting.

In a recent issue of MA, they talked about what steps are common to clubs that are healthy, and thus help stem the 15 year trend of declining membership. So is someone that contacts a club electronically and doesn't get a response that much different than someone who shows up and doesn't get a warm welcome?

I've never even hinted that accurate information isn't important, I think we both agree that isn't good. The problem is that this appears to be yet another issue to find fault with the AMA on, as if it's their fault, despite the fact that they aren't the ones making this information up, it's the clubs that control it. Perfect information would be perfect, but I'm not clear on how that happens without intervention, at a cost of course. It can be done from both ends though, but it's really up to the club.

And again, the comparison you make is an apples to oranges one, but manages to again to find some fault with the AMA. All roads lead to that it seems. The AMA has nothing to do of course with how people are greeted at clubs. That's all on the club.

All in all, this feels like another red herring issue, much like the one complaining about the AMA spending to much money on pins. At least with that issue nobody else was involved in the pins, just the AMA. Or were they.....:rolleyes:

I think the info is after all on the AMA's website. If they don't value correct info, I guess it is their choice to accept any consequences that come from it.

So let me put it this way. You go to a national fast food company to find a location near you. They list a location. Are you saying that if that information is incorrect you blame the franchisee and not the parent company?

I had a coworker who was also too cheap to join the AMA and a club and regularly flew his helis at a local park. Funny thing is he smashed several (intentionally) because little kids or dogs who were also in the park would run up to try to grab them.

That's a risk. But I also witnessed a club member at the club field become disoriented and send his plane rocketing toward the pilot stations....several people dove out of the way to protect themselves, including one guy who lost a beautiful .75 powered scratch built twin. Flying at a club field is no guarantee you won't lose a plane from the actions of another person.

So let me put it this way, if there was ever an on point comparison, I'd be happy to respond to it. Until then, I'll just keep waiting the hear the latest issue that the AMA is at fault for. Do I hear global warming, gas prices, or say, the middle east?

So the logically consistent position, at least based on your posts, would be that you'd blame the franchisee.

I take the position of trying to find out what the problem might be...not lay it consistently and unconditionally at the foot of one party, illogically I might add.

While I feel the numbers posted are accurate since flying here in a local park is against city ordinances I don't have option on where to fly. I don't think I own anything I'd feel comfortable flying at a park anyway. I have two really nice fields within 16 miles of my house and would much rather fly with the guys anyway.

Mike

Good job on the economic comparison. While your comparison includes gasoline, you neglected vehicle wear and tear, depreciation, maintenance, increased chances of an accident, etc.

Based on your economic comparison, what lifestyle changes will you be making and when do you plan to implement them?

Okay guys, how is this for a way to keep the club listing on the AMA website accurate:
1) Every club that wants to be listed on the AMA website MUST submit accurate club and contact information by a specific date to the AMA assigned webmaster
2) Any club that does not sent in updated information for the club by the given date will be sent a hard letter, not email, informing the club of being delinquent and given a reply by date to respond
3) Any club not responding as per #2 above will be deleted from the club listing on the AMA website by the end of the following week.

Now you have an accurate listing process that REQUIRES the club to respond and the AMA to remove any club that doesn't. Any Objections?

You could add a button to each search result that says "Club not responding? Let us know." That way people could let AMA know which information might be out of date and need checking.

Good point on the maintenance. It's non zero to be sure, but I considered it small and more challenging to quantify in relation to the other issues for the purposes of this comparison.

As to what lifestyle changes? Now that I've built a rig to carry more than one helo to the park, I'll probably fly more. I'll add some additional pieces that make it easy to carry a plane or two as well. Once I get my 600 sized nitro burner ready, I'll add a way to carry that and fuel as well. I can't fly at the park (too small), but the local school has a huge open space, and that's only about a 200 yard walk.

Have you flown at the school property yet, if so did anyone ever come out and have an issue with it? I've seen posts from other folks, usually from heli folks getting hassled at school fields. one of them was flying during school hours, so it's not surprising the school would have an issue with it.

A couple years back, I flew my CL FliteStreak at the school, and a couple walking their dog came over to check it out. I had an 0.049 flat wing plane that I brought along, and put the husband on the handle for a bit. He said that he was always interested in trying it, and thanked me.

About three months ago, I flew a large EDF there, and although staff was around (after school hours, no school events or kids on field), nobody said a thing. There's two guys flying sailplanes here about once a month for the seven years I've lived here. I stopped by to talk with them one weekend not long after I moved here. They left the club because it was too expensive and they learned they didn't need it to fly. In fact, there's no altitude limit at the school, where there's a 600' cap at the AMA field.

They let people hit golf balls, walk dogs, etc. All of which is during non school hours / no athletic events. It seems people are generally being smart about it.

It's funny you mention the golf thing, some of the parks around here specifically list that as something that is not allowed. I get the reason why, nobody wants to get clocked by a ball, but for the most part I've only seen guys using foam or plastic balls.

I fly at a few fields around here when I don't feel like making the trek to my field, and I've met some great people that way. I usually have my clubs card on hand to give them, or other clubs info depending on where they live. I picked up a box of cheap gliders on Amazon a few years back and hand those out too, only if parents are around. People don't think they can fly something until they try, and the buddy box gives them a certain measure of confidence.

Yep. Having a beater or two that you don't mind if it crashes is a big factor. But my point is that let's take the whole AMA thing off the table, and get folks out there flying responsibly.

I make sure to call the class D tower everytime I fly, even if in my yard below the roof of my house (say hover checks for blade tracking etc.). Having experience with full scale makes it easier, as I can give the info that makes it easy for them: VOR radial and distance, visual landmark for traffic flying VFR, and use the proper aviation phonetic alphabet when giving them name and contact info. I can't help but think that gives them confidence that the person they're talking to (me) knows what the heck I'm doing. When I called yesterday, the guy even said "Oh, you called yesterday right?" Now, I'm hopeful that if I call a bunch, they'll be a bit more willing to enter into a memorandum of agreement whereby I won't need to call anymore provided I stay within agreed upon operational parameters (easy given that I"m mostly flying helos these days).

Oh ya...the beater is a necessity. I usually keep an old skysurfer/bixler plane with me and that's the one that gets on the box. Easy to fly, can float like a dream, and if it crashes, some CA or Foam Tac and it's good as new.

Agree on more information typically being better, especially with regards to civilian aircraft and towers. Case in point, I attended a sailplane/gilder event recently. Tugs brought the planes up to 1000 feet or so, and some soared up to 1500 feet. The club is over 11 miles to the closest tower. I've been to the club and have never seen a civilian aircraft around. Apparently a Blackhawk cruising around reported two of the gliders to the local tower. They noted both of them to be yellow in color, at 1500 feet There were no yellow gliders at the event). The fliers saw the helo, but it wasn't that close to the field and continued to fly on. 30 minutes later, a State Trooper pulls into the field, the tower had filed a report with them. He talks to the CD, figures out what's going on, and he stayed and watched for a few minutes, then off he went. Perhaps a pure coincidence, but a CAP 172 came by about 30 minutes later and circled the field, then went on it's way. Next year they are going to send a notice to that tower letting them know they have an event going on, I suggested they try for a NOTAM as well. Notifying the tower (although not required) might have circumvented the reporting and visit by the trooper.

..

Here's my situation. 2 AMA Chartered Club flying sites within 30 to 40 minutes travel time. Paved 600 to 800 foot long runways. Both require AMA. One club is $40 per year the other $100. One has altitude limits due to being close to an airport. The other has no altitude or noise limits.

I do not own anything that could be flown in a local park (mostly 50cc and larger gasoline planes) and RC aircraft of all types are banned in all parks in my County. Plus all the local school districts restrict RC airplanes and public access to their land.

So I guess the only reasonable solution is to stop flying the planes I like and move to a place where park/school flying is allowed. This will be a bit inconvenient for my employment, and that of my wife, but who cares. Franklin says flying small electrics in local parks is the way to go!!! His economic analysis "proves" it!!!

The comparison does leave out many things I think are important to most pilots.

I don't have any Freudian need to fly large airplanes. If you enjoy flying the bigger stuff, more power to you, and you obviously need to pay to play. For those that don't though, are we somehow lesser members? The economic analysis wasn't proof of anything, nor was it intended to be such, and I certainly never indicated that it was. I simply provided a side by side comparison of the pro's and con's.

I wasn't intending nor did I say it was all inclusive. It was factors that mattered to me. If others want to do the same pros and cons of what's important to them, feel free.

Then why the need to mention the AMA in the first sentence of the first post in the thread? I'm not even sure what your economic comparison has to do with your statement: "AMA must face sooner or later is access to flying sites".

Because one of the things that matters to me is how easy it is to find a place to fly. Simply put, if I can easily fly, I fly more often, and isn't that the holy grail of "participating" in the hobby? Part of "access" is distance. Part of "access" is cost. Part of "access" is facilities. I'd likely fly different types of airplanes if I had a paved runway, but I don't. So I chose a different direction, one that gets me much more flying per dollar/distance traveled/etc.

One of the books I use in consulting teaches that if you want to incentivize a behavior, you have to make it easy. If getting to a place to fly is too far, too expensive, or second class facilities, people will chose to put their time elsewhere. So it's in that sense that I made the comment that I think the AMA will have to address it sooner or later.

BUT...you had a flying site 100 yards away! Why would you bother looking to the AMA to find another?