More news from the AMA, boy are they busy!
 

[h=1]AMA appointed to a high-level advisory committee/team[/h] We are excited to share that AMA has been appointed to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). Dave Mathewson, AMA executive director, will represent the AMA as he joins a small group of executive level stakeholders from across the aviation industry to discuss UAS integration into our nation’s airspace. Together, we will work to set the path forward for further UAS integration, while at the same time maintaining the safety of our skies for all.
The FAA’s DAC is a broad-based, high-level advisory committee/team facilitated by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) that will provide the FAA with advice on key UAS integration issues by helping to identify challenges and prioritize improvements.
AMA members have a strong safety record due to our well-established safety guidelines and educational programs. AMA’s participation in the DAC reflects the progress made in our outreach and advocacy programs over the past eight years, and appointment to this high-level committee demonstrates AMA’s respected role in the UAS and aviation industry overall.

AMA’s government affairs team and advocacy efforts lead by Rich Hanson have raised the AMA’s profile in the aviation community and the emerging unmanned aircraft industry. Top level involvement in the regulatory and legislative process has assured the aeromodeling community has a voice in the development of new laws, regulations and policies that impact our hobby. Congratulations and a job well done go out to Rich Hanson and the entire government affairs team.
We look forward to sharing more about AMA, our programs and experience during the upcoming DAC meetings, which are scheduled to begin September 16.


My emphasis added. Part of our dues put to good use!

Excellent stuff!

And to think that people believe the AMA is completely broken........Looks to me the AMA is following the mission statement very well.

Reminds me of the question asked recently....is the AMA "saveable". To me, a completely ignorant question that presumes the AMA is in need of saving. The answer wasn't much better.

Continued Increases in membership, increased visibility and partnership in programs at the national/federal level, a well manicured and utilized National Flying site, a super cool magazine, and excellent adorned shirts and lapel pins, what needs to be saved?

What they fail to grasp is the whole hobby is failing on the airplane side. Those airplane holes are now being filled with Multi-Rotor aircraft.

So they must think that the AMA is either responsible for the depression of the market and believe that somehow the AMA can change a cultural shift.

Their heart is in the right place, but energy focused in the wrong direction.

Well, some have certainly said that the AMA should have built that proverbial wall and "kept them out", or you know, made separate rules for them. Also, some feel that if the AMA did those things all this FAA involvement would have never happened, and of course now that it's here, lay all the blame at the feet of the AMA. Completely unfounded and untrue, but hey, somebody has to be blamed.

I do think the airplane popularity is down somewhat, perhaps Mike can chime in as he works at an RC shop. I've helped one of them out here locally with some marketing and I can tell you sales are definitely up in some areas. MR and drones are certainly taking off, as is their popularity despite literally one person denying that's the case. I do however think that different types of airplane sales remain strong, perhaps are even growing. The ARF and RFT types, and that includes the dreaded foamies as well. As you know from reading there sometimes, they are also to blame (along with MR/Drones and the AMA) for the loss of "tradition" in the hobby, ie scratch building those Mustangs and J3 Cubs! Lost in that generalization is the reality that some people just love to fly, and aren't really into the building process. Those folks are sometimes looked down upon, marginalized if you will, because they don't want to build. And of course, at least one person here has indicated there's more gravitas and skin in the game if you will depending on how much money one spends on their airplanes. To me, how we each enjoy the hobby is up to each of us. The guy with the RTF Vapor is the same as the guy with the $15,000 turbine. But that's just me.

It's an exciting time to be involved in the hobby, not without challenges of course, but I think we're all seeing the next iteration of the hobby coming to be. Obviously that's scary for a lot of people, even more so those who think they built the hobby. In reality, we all build the hobby every day, it's not a static thing. In 20 or so years I'm sure we'll be barking at the moon too! :)

This is great news, and more like I would have expected from the get-go. It is comforting to know that the FAA has realized the value of having the AMA on board to help provide their experience, concerns and direction on these matters and certainly how I expect my membership $$ be spent.

Porcia, you continue to mock the "traditional" modeling community as if they are "lesser", antiquated or irrelevant now that the shiny, new drones have hit the scene, when in reality, they (without a doubt) comprise the vast majority of the AMA membership. It is only YOUR generalization and characterization that "traditional" means scratch-built Cubs and P-51's. This was discussed at length on numerous other threads you participated in and it became genarally accepted that "traditional" had nothing to do with how many props or rotors, turbines, lack of motors, ARF, kit or scratch built, but had everything to do with HOW it was flown; i.e. LOS via TX vs. autonomous (GPS, computer guided) and BLOS. The spin continues.....

You also made mention and mocked that some thought there ought to be different rules for drones vs. "traditional" craft. Well, guess what? Your own AMA has already distinguished the difference between LOS and BLOS operations and I think it is inevitable that there WILL be different rules established for those differing types of operations, which is what I was seeing a need for and advocating for at the beginning of this mess. If you look at the fab 14's message, that is essentially what they were asking for the AMA to recognize as well.

Looks like things are progressing appropriately!

Regards,

Astro

Well not much was expected from the AMA, at least not by the more ardently anti-ama folks. Not at the "get go", and not even now. But yes, they have been there all along....want to take a guess how long they have been involved in this particular issue, advocating on behalf of the membership? Not 2 years, not 4, not even 6. And at every turn, more angst and anger and second guessing about how they were spending our membership dues. One doesn't need to look far to see the usual negative responses every time they posted an update on what they were doing, or the progress they had made. Not enough info, to much info, not enough progress, to much progress (it's all about the money, etc etc). Thank god they don't do the business of the AMA based on a tiny fraction of disaffected folks. I have trusted that the EC, including all of those elected DVPs have the best pulse check on the memberships wants and needs.

As for mocking "traditional" community, I'll agree to disagree, that's your repeated interpretation of my comments. I'm not even sure what that is, can it really be defined? We're all part of the traditional modeling community in one way or another. I don't recall it being distilled down to LOS, that's again your recollection. I'm fairly certain the folks who are so anti-MR would disagree that a MR flown LOS would be part of the "traditional" hobby...in fact I remember posting up pics of MR that had fixed wings and were not flown with GPS etc, and was still told it was a drone, because it didn't look like a normal airplane. LOL, can you imagine? Remember my suggestions for folks to check out the MAG from Dec 2015..one of the best editions ever IMO, specifically the article on Otto Dieffenbach. What a guy. But I will say I do have no problem showing what I feel are some pretty narrow minded, arrogant, and exclusionary positions folks have taken over the years (keep in mind, my opinion), usually from folks who themselves tout the "traditions" of the hobby. You know, the ones who fly giant scale turbines who look down at folks who don't spend as much as they did on their airplane, who feel that dollar value of aircraft means someone is more invested and serious about the hobby. The same guys who stick their nose up at those guys who dare to fly foamies. Or the ones who fly helis who I guess were o/k with them being allowed in to the AMA, but god no, don't let the MR/Drone guys in, they are not traditional. Or the guys who claim for 10 plus years that the AMA is some giant insurance scam, when clearly it is not.

"My" AMA, you mean ours? Yes of course there are different rules for different methods and means of flying. That's a nobrainer, and nothing new. Thankfully the AMA adapts and changes to the times, much the chagrin of some. If you want to attribute the AMA making new rules as technology changes to a letter that couldn't get the spelling of the recipients right, o/k I guess. I think they were well on the way to doing that before those folks wrote the letter, or any online petition was signed. You can always check with your DVP on that as well, or better yet just look to the EC meeting notes that are constantly updated.

I agree with you on the progress though, it is happening, and I'm glad to see my dues being put to use. Actually once my dues get knocked down again ( got several events under by belt now as CD), I think I'll donate the difference to the AMA Foundation! Want to match me dollar for dollar? :)

Porcia,
Your last post was, once again, so misguided. You quoted my post and then went on a diatribe about what some of the, "exceptions" on RCU keep ranting about. My post dealt with you and your words. I think we wk have a better chance at having a positive discussion here if you would keep your comments centered to what I said in the post you quoted.

As far as agreeing to disagree on your mocking of the traditional crowd: it is clear that you do it, and do it often. If you disagree, you are in denial.

You also continue to use your spin by saying there are many anti-MR folks here and that is simply NOT TRUE!!! I bet you can't name three.

In your other post you jested that some thought the AMA ought to adopt seperate rules. Now you admit, "of course there are different rules". What gives? You make me dizzy!

Astro

You keep mentioning how dizzy you are....I can't help ya there buddy. Obviously there are already different rules out there, are you not familiar with turbine rules/regs/waivers? Knowledge is power my friend! Those have been around a long time. As technology changes, so will the AMA. Thank God too, otherwise we'd still be chasing free flight models right?

Now, I just got the Sept MA mag, I know, I get it late. Poured through it, well some of it. A couple of things jumped out right away. Fantastic article by Bill Pritchett on page 14 (for those who get the paper edition of this "rag"). Just reemphasized all the fantsatic programs the AMA offers through it's Education department. I hope they are increasing their budget this year, they sure are busy too! Our club has already started the process of integrating some folks from a local CAP squadron into our club, but the MASC program looks pretty interesting too. That's in addition to all the other programs of course, one of which is STEM. But the MASC program looks pretty good as a way to involve schools in the local community, as well as wait for it....younger kids and students. More potential future AMA members, nice! Now the one drawback that might get some complaints is that it does offer a free membership to the faculty sponsor, but hey, I think it's money well invested! There are a few Space, Aviation, and Technology magnet schools in this area that would be perfect for this.

I noticed some other good information from our CFO Keith Sessions. Interesting to note that the AMA got hit with more taxes because of advertising revenue. First world problem right? But he's right on, it's better to pay taxes on a dollar than to not have the dollar!

Brown's article was pretty good, he's right, we need to attract newer and younger modelers to the hobby. Plus, he looked great with pressed pants and a neatly ironed shirt! Couldn't miss the great thoughts and suggestion on page 133 though. Fantastic advice!

I see what you did there! LOL YOU were the one mocking that some were asking for different rules and you turned it around to try and make ME look ignorant! And you wonder why I am dizzy? Yes, you can help my dizziness......just post the facts and stay the course....no hypocrisy or contradictions would be a great start!

I see what you did there! It was the AMA (not innovative modelers) that brought us out of the free flight era? LOL!! ;)

Me too, "read" it cover to cover in 5 minutes and it now resides in the recycle bin.

You mean where he dissed the, "traditional" modelers who make up the vast majority of the organization he represents? That was so classy, I missed the part where his pants were nicely creased!

Astro

I know Tom's not too humble and there's maybe somethings he does which he doesn't try to take credit for and so perhaps, Brown is getting advisement from Porcia?

Experience obviously educates some and yet clearly not all. There are some who do, and some who just talk. I'll certainly never feel bad about all the good things I've done, or been part of, that was something my mum thought me. Perhaps we're moving on to participation and/or success shaming too now? Brown was criticized for his sloppy attire by the guy who wants to take the hobby back, as if suddenly gone, I thought it interesting to note how well Brown looked. Of course he's not running for office so it's unclear how anything said could be called an advertisement.

Dissed? Dissed who? What part of that first section of his article was a "dis" or slam on "traditional" modeling (I'll go ahead and take credit here for his use of using quotes on the word "traditionalist"), :) Were you talking about the part where he mentioned all the changes that he has seen over 60 years in the hobby? Or the part where he said it was ironic that all of these changes are irritating to "traditionalists"? Was that the big dis? If so, I don't see it. In keeping with desire to stay the course, he's certainly being factual. One need not look far, at least here, to see the ire and angst of the "traditionalists" lamenting progress, and most importantly the inclusion of yet another form of flying. Certainly you see that here right? If not here, certainly at FG and other similar sites. He's also dead on about the natural inclination of some folks to be reluctant to change (something I've said for a couple years now, more credit coming my way!). To clarify though, I've noted how folks fear change as well. It's only natural.

I thought his initial comments were pretty good. He gave a specific example of a club (giant scale focused) membership voting to host a first FPV event, which was successful, and how many folks showed up to enjoy the event. That's good right?

"These modelers are from a new, younger generation that will expand our hobby"....exactly on point.

Thank god his club has seen the wisdom of expanding their horizons and looked to grow their membership base. Same with the AMA.

Does your club allow MR/FPV flying, or has the issue not come up yet? How about helis? How would you go about growing the membership of the AMA?

Have you or your club participated in any showcases or mall shows or even open houses where the public gets to see what we do? This might be surprising, but I have. Folks don't gravitate to the Mustangs and Cubs, not even to the Habus or Goblins....they go right for the MR's. But as experience has shown (at least for me and our club), most of those interested in MR also end up flying fixed wing too! WIN WIN !

I believe TheEdge used the word advisement not advertisement.

maybe not so much a diss, but completely misses the mark. shows he hasn't really listened enough to understand the memberships' concerns.
disgusting (smiley or not)
I have not seen one instance where anyone has lamented progress. That is simply your spin and broad characterization of what some have said here.
. ABSOLUTELY NOT! There have been maybe, literally, one or two that have been that black and white, and one can latch on to one or two extremes to paint broad generalities, or one can choose to ignore and excuse the one or two extremists.(I choose the latter).
HAHA! Ummmm. Should this be headline news, or should we have a parade for his level of astuteness?


Do you think that these are all new things to ask people? Revelations, if you will? Same questions that were being asked in our clubs 30 years ago. You see, as much as you say things change, not everything does. Like the "rules" of life.....

Some get them, some don't.....

Others want to strut around and say, "Look at me, look at me, look at me..." A little humility really goes a long way to command respect sometimes. (MY Mum taught me that!)

Regards,

Astro

I know, I know Tom, all that good you do and you still can't shake off what your best known for.
It just isn't fair Tom.
Surely someday, people or just a person will come forward and speak of this good that you do but for now, your on your own.
At least your not berating and mocking people whilst your blowing your trumpet.

At the end of a long, exhausting day of posting, I wonder if Tom reflects on why his posts are so seemingly controversial, and why he has turned so many members off to him? Are his opinions so genuinely unique that others just don't get it and want to call him out for them? NOPE!

Then why, WHY is there so much angst surrounding the threads that he engages in?

HMMMM.....

Astro

Attention, any which way it can be achieved.

For those who are interested in the complete membership, you can find it here:
http://www.rtca.org/article_content....d4&article=237

Some real heavy hitters on the committee, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Airline Pilot's Association, Professional Helicopter Pilot's Association, AOPA, Amazon, UPS, American Airlines, CNN, Facebook, BNSF Railway, Stanford, MIT, MITRE, Lockheed Martin, among others. ...and Dave Mathewson, Academy of Model Aeronautics.

Now, it's certainly better that AMA has someone there rather than not. But the AMA has been part of other big time advisory committees before, not the least of which was the one that brought us the registration scheme. So membership does not guarantee a positive outcome. All it guarantees is that government can point to it and say "they were part of the process."

I agree.

No doubt, there will be some here that will try and discredit your opinion by calling you critical and for having reservations about the outcome, but you DID cite the AMA's prior involvements as well as the outcome, so at least you are sticking to the true, historical facts. Of course, there are differing opinions on whether that was a "good" or "bad" outcome (the FAA now exercising authority over model aviation), but it doesn't change the facts.

I am optimistic that the AMA is now being recognized as a significant partner in this process and that they will do what it takes to protect our hobby with as little impact on us as is reasonably possible, now that the FEDS are driving the boat.

Regards,

Astro

Good point, the response would be the same though. But that's not to say I wouldn't give him some if asked. We can all learn from each other, right? Well, thats mainly true if folks share their ideas and actual experiences, both good and bad. I figured that's one of the purposes of threads like these and others. I guess now if that's done that's a bad thing too... boastful, taking credit etc etc. I'd love to hear his or your specific experiences too....do you have any to share?
Also...don't throw the MA mag out so soon...why not donate that to a local school or boy scout group, veteran's home etc. Far more useful no?

The way you spin it, yes. One must be deemed trustworthy to take credit for something, i.e Al Gore inventing the internet?? and you being responsible for the open candidate forum where Ken had to correct you and you rescinded the credit you had taken for getting that done. One simply must be credible. Just like the thread where you name-dropped a couple of local hotshot 3D pilots who you intimated that you were tight with, when in actuality, one of the named pilots denied knowing who you are.i
I do not answer your questions very often because you never return the courtesy, or you spin the information into something that it is not. I would rather not engage with someone who does that. have you not been reading my responses to your posts? I do not have a problem with you, personally, I have a problem with your never-ending need to spin, twist and deflect in order to make yourself look right.

I have more experience than the majority of folks here. You'll just have to trust me on that because I refuse to toot my own horn, especially here, where it just gets misconstrued as something it is not. Just like the guy who mentioned he had an expensive jet. You immediately judged him and continue to use that one single person as an evil poster child for how "bad" jet guys are.

No, don't need your praise and acknowledgement to justify my modeling activities, but thanks for asking.

Astro

LoL....back this stuff again, o/k. Only here in the land of negativity can someone getting involved, talking about successes, trying to share experiences, and having a positive message be mocked and denigrated, and turned into personal attacks by a select few, or two. Envy is a curious thing, just like the concept of fear that we talked about earlier. In retrospect I should have advised Brown to talk about fear, as well as reluctance to change. (Note to self) There's no desire for self praise, acknowledgement or thanks for sharing what I do, I do it because I want to, and enjoy it, and more importantly to show that others can do the same. I don't even get adorned shirts for free, but the lapel pin was nice! Check out that message on page 133 of the MA mag you glanced at, it's some powerful and meaningful stuff in the first part of the VP's message. I guess the alternative is to not say anything, or perhaps keep the things we do that are successful to ourselves so as not to appear boastful or attention getting? God forbid another club tries something new, or someone decides to get more involved? Seems contrary to what I've heard from all these "traditional folks" about what the hobby is all about, or used to be. I don't see the logic there.

Nonetheless, I'll keep posting what I want, and you can do the same. I'd rather focus on the positive aspects of this hobby and how we can all make an impact, rather than dwelling on the personalities, and negatives. Perhaps if I take the Trumpian approach and say "I've heard people say this went well, or People have said this was fun"....it will be better received? I just have a different outlook I guess. It's been a great year to fly, and get involved....got some great plans and ideas for 2017. I'll be sure to share the successes, and opportunity if any. I had a great year controlling the weather, so hopefully that remains for 2017. So keep an eye out,more good news to follow soon I'm sure, maybe even in the MA again!

This feels like one of those damned if they do, damned if they don't kinda things. Are you holding them solely responsible for the outcome of the registration scheme as if they had something to do with that decision? You said it yourself, membership does not guarantee a positive outcome. They are involved...have a seat at the table...and can continue to have a voice for the members. If not them, who else?

Hot off the press......adorned mugs! Nice!

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2180339