RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

About the other sports / hobbies having it easier in N J.

Not only are the PWC gone. ALL BOATS are gone.

For what ever reason every water sport is GONE.

More and more people have short attention spans of interest.-------And they are getting physically lazier.------------

Rule breakers travel long distances to kill your clubs fast.---------You do not boot them out fast enough.

Etc.--etc.----------Hell you know what kills clubs and fields.--------Are you going to boot someone out or enforce the Db limit or no fly areas???

NAAAHH.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Interesting, thanks..............

Do you go to the meetings...? I was at the last two (and that will be the last two) and that's how I found out that they are trying to decide where they are going to move their field to. It's too bad that not enough of their membership goes to the meetings and vote on issues. This is the chief cause of bad decisions being made because a small few is looking out for the clubs greater interests, this encourages biases..... From what I thought I heard, they did not have a lot of money in their account and I know that the new field will not be a nice as the present. I wonder what will happen to the present field as they had a lot of money invested to pave the runway and build the 200ft carport shelter.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

I can tell you how fast people are still pouring into this country.
NJ does not know which things are more important.

Development, water, sewers, Politicians free office sizes and furniture and staff.

I think you figured out where any hobby or sport problem is on the discussion agenda tonight.

Move to Alaska or the North or South Poles.

Safe for maby 10 years.

Saw a buy land ad on Direct TV for land in Costa Rica SWAMPS.

Local natives will shut you down for more land sales.

The world has damm few places for flying Goof Balls not to cause troubles.

I have no idea how you can stop the losses, even if you are out of ste and hearing.

So frustrated nut will come after you.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

I have never been much of a fan of other people complaining about something that others are doing but I grew up out in the country where you could do what you wanted and not worry. Its funny how the new neighbors complain about stuff like the smell of freshly spread cow manuer but never thought about that kind of stuff when they moved to the area. Its also funny how when the wind blows all of their trash and trash barrels wind up in our fence row and they have to look at it every time they leave their drive but never pick it up but they can still coment on some weeds around the barnyard looking bad. I dont understand why an existing field or anything or anybody else doesnt have rights because they were there first. As far as the noise, I love it, the louder the cooler! Does that affect our flying sites, probablly. The reason for most all noise reduction devices in effect today are probably in place form the Federal Goverment. I dont think the Federal Goverment is going to put db. limits on our planes but we as an rc communitity could if the AMA would get together with every major distributor and come up with a plan. For example the plan could be something like all glow and gas motors must meet a ??db reading by the year 2010. this would give time for engine manufactures to come up with quiet exuast systems and also give plane manufactures time to plan for prospective ways to make airframes to acomodate those systems. By the year 2012 no airplane exceding those db limits will be allowed to fly at any contest. By the year 2015 no airplane exceding those db limits can fly, period. If all the big names met up somewhere and decided on stuff and all agreed not to sell items that didn't conform it would work. Nobody would really loose out because they all would be dealing with the same rules. Besides, if the competition side of stuff made it tough, all the quality equipment would change and that would be what most of the average joes wind up buying also. Look at any quad runner exaust, it has information stamped into it stating its specs, most racers switch out to a free flow exaust and get some performance but if nobody made those exaust or it was illegal to use them, anywhere, you wouldn't see many. A stock exaust quad is unable to be heard at about 200 yards in a woods, a free exaust and you can hear it just as loud on the far side of the woods as you can when its right next to you darn near. Our planes wouldnt be that much different, an exuast that was an actuall muffler and not just an acasut diverter would make all of our planes exceptionally quiet. As far as GS planes and gas motors, cannisters are not the only answer. We would all get used to needing a 120 instead of a 100 for the same performace level. Engines can be virtually silent with a good muffler and in our case they wouldnt have to be that much bigger, heavier, whatever to be a lot quieter. Intake on bikes, snowmobiles, ect. are part of the noise. I have never ever heard of anyone trying to do anything to quiet the intake of our engines. I would have to imagine that just like on any other engine the entakes can be put in a big box to quiet the intake sound. I will admit I have never really noticed the intake sound on a model plane ,glow or gas but it has to be there, just not heard over the exaust and prop and other engine noise, it all adds up though. Enough for now, things can be made quiet if people in high places really want them to be. I like loud myself, always have, always will. I dont think Im intruding on anyone, they are just being crybabies. As far as GS planes go, many don't even come ready to accept canister mufflers so many do not see noise as a problem yet anyway.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

babflyer-

The problems with AMA (or anybody else) mandating limits on sound level are manifold. Here are just a couple of items to consider:

1) A limit on sound source level is ultimately a limit on power delivered to the prop. Engine intake and exhaust noise can be limited to any arbitrary level without much difficulty - there are no limits imposed by physics. Not so for the levels generated by the prop. The prop blade displaces air, and no matter how you want to slice it, displacement of air is the mechanism that causes sound. AMA for many years recommended a limit of 90 dBA at 9 ft for models flown at sites where noise is an issue. That effectively limits power absorbed by the prop to less than about 1 BHP, i.e., the power delivered by a decent .40-.46 2-stroke engine. It doesn't matter what engine/motor is turning the prop. If a brushless electric motor with good bearings is the prime mover and it is putting out on the order of 750 watts into the prop, the 90@9 rule will be approached or exceeded. This is a rule-of-thumb and not an absolute, as some mitigation is possible without giving up power in direct proportion to noise level reduction. the A-weighting in the dBA measurement is a frequency compensation intended to model human hearing response. Hearing response peaks at about 1 kHz, and the further below that frequency the power plant is operated at, the lower the perceived level, and accordingly the dBA reading, will be for a given physical shaft power level. This is why 4-strokes typically have an advantage when it comes to noise; the engine's power is usually generated at a lower RPM (and so frequency of engine and prop sounds), hence perceived sound levels are lower though actual physical levels may be similar.

2) Not all model flying fields are created equal. The 90@9 rule may make sense if the nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile away, but what if the separation distance is much greater? A doubling of the separation distance reduces the received level by 6 dB, due to spreading loss. That allows for up to about 4 times the engine power, with judicious prop selection. The only AMA rule-book event AFAIK that puts a limit on sound level is pattern aerobatics. The limit of 96 dBA @ 3M is really a driver as to who can fairly compete in these events. A higher level would limit venues where competitions could be held, and would eliminate many potential competitors because they would not be able to practice at their home sites. Everybody wants more power of course, but allowing more power effectively means fewer available venues to accommodate the sport. Look at the relative exclusivity of pylon racing for the why - think about why the top competitors always seem to come from Nevada.

I am not an advocate of broad, uniform regulation of sound emissions. Better to be aware of what standards apply in the locale where you fly, and do what it takes to conform to them.

btw, suppression of intake noise and reducing RPM aren't new. Back when pattern rules limited engines to 10 cc, reduction gearboxes and rear intake (where it could more readily be baffled) were common amongst the top competitors.

Abel

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Abel, I may be wrong on this but the "A" part you talk about, would that be the same thing as comparing a high pitched two stroke engine to a four stroke, plane, dirtbike, whatever? I guess is the "A" part supposed to be a way to compensate for a lets say a louder 4 cycle to become the equal of a quieter 2 stroke becuase the human ear finds the noise less offensive? Just asking. If I take the rest of your post right you are basically saying that you really cant control the noise because we have props making a lot of it no matter how they are driven. That might be true as I heard a 3w 4 cylinder turning a prop to where it made WAY more noise than any other plane I have ever heard. I thought it was great:D.lol. Myself I think the pop pop pop sound that comes from regular exaust systems on gas planes could easily be taken care of, sometimes they will have a "tinny" sound, almost like the muffler was loose. I think that kind of sound is more noticeable than most prop noise myself. Also on glow engines just an extension of silicone tubing changes the tone of the engine noise greatly and I would imagine also quiets things as in the quad racing world guys have been known to fail a db test, go zip tie a piece of dirtbike innertube onto the outlet flange and then go pass the db test. In that instance there is an actuall reading that is less db's regardless of how humans percieve the noise. Myself I am not worried about the noise my model makes to much yet although one time I did run some silicone tubes on my first 33% after a complaint but others had said that guy complained any time someone flew a large model, I was fairly new to the rc planes and the club at that time so I tried to make a little peace. I just wonder if noise is such an issue, couldnt someone in high places make it mandatory to do what could easily be done to keep things quieter. If IMAC for instance didnt let a single plane fly that wasn't equiped with canisters I would think all GS manufacturers would make their planes canister ready without modification. That would mean that All GS planes could be quieter if they were proped right and did indeed run cans instead of mufflers. Then the local level could actually push people to try and run quieter setups a little easier maybe. Just dont have IMAC say that its happening, let everyone know its going to happen at a set time and give everyone a chance to design their latest models to conform. Noise levels are so funny how people justify what they run but complain about others. I have heard some guys comment about the noise my GS planes make while others run unmuffled glow engines that seem twice as loud. Weather or not they are twice as loud or not I dont know but I would have to think way more irritating to no rc'ers since many rc'ers find them more irritating. Personally I think there are other factors more important than noise although that might be an easy complaint to make to the authorities. I think size is a huge factor, I think being part of the community probably helps also. I never did get the thinking behind having a flying site on public property and then putting a limit on membership. I dont think that the school demonstrations may be the best idea as I can see those kids that are interested going home and nagging their parents to death lol. Its probably not that bad though. I think open to the public days, sell some food, just try to cover your cost, not make a bunch of money on it, flight demos by some of the good pilots, buddy cord for whoever wants, put an add in the paper, a big one so people will see it. Do what you can to entertain people, see if the paper will do a story or print a story for you. Have a good pic from the day. If a reporter happens to come out to the field just on a whim to take a pic and write something up, make sure the pic is of someone in the home town!!! Not one of the members from another city that probably noone in the hometown will know. Thats happened at my club a few times and it kind of amazes me that every time the pic and caption winds up letting everyone know that hey great, someone from the big city is out using our small town recources. It would HAVE to be petter PR to have a hometown person pictured. I dont even know why the paper guy does that?:eek: I have been to a flyin where its a fourth of july party also, there are other things to do besides just fly or watch flying. rc cars, rc tractor pulls, fireworks, fun for pretty much anybody that breaths. Even if your club doesnt have a car track people could be entertained by a break with a quick rc car race, somebody in the club is probably into that also. If its a grass runway you can lay out some plywood for jumps, if pavemanet the same thing or some garnden hose laid out quick for a nice oval race. If your having a contest, get the news to come out if you can. Thats big publicity for the club to make money on if its a 2 day thing and you charge for parking or something like that and get yourself percieved as an attraction not a problem to get rid of some day.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Yeah babflyer, you got the essence of it straight. I wouldn't go so far as to say you can't control noise because prop noise is the limit, though. You just have to recognize that prop generated noise will be the limiting factor when you have done all that is feasible to control engine generated sounds, and control that even if it limits the amount of power you can supply to it.

Regarding exhaust extensions of silicone compounds and such, they can indeed work to reduce exhaust sound level. A caveat is that they can also detune the exhaust system and result in all sorts of mysterious engine problems. The usual expansion chamber muffler represents a capacitive reactance to the flow out of the exhaust port. We don't often think of stock mufflers as 'tuned' exhaust systems, but they are in fact just that - though due to their usual short length they are tuned to a harmonic frequency several times the fundamental exhaust port opening frequency. When properly 'tuned,' a low pressure front is reflected back to the exhaust port at the time it opens, promoting exhaust scavenging. A length of tubing attached to the muffler outlet is constrictive, and in electrical analogue terms represents an inductive reactance. This can change the the timing of exhaust port/wavefront timing dramatically, such that a reflected high pressure front coincides with the opening of the exhaust port, impeding the scavenging part of the cycle and significantly affecting performance. Just be aware of this and that an exhaust extension should be first on the list of suspects when the engine just won't run right. It's not always a negative impact - many owners of K&B .65 engines, for example, have found that it makes more power and produces even less noise (the stock muffler is itself one of the better supplied with engines) with an 18" length of automotive fuel/vapor tubing attached to the muffler outlet.

As for the public relations aspect, yes in spades! We should not forget that sound level is just one of many factors that contribute to noise annoyance, which is entirely subjective, and sound level is just a simple objective measure that happens to correlate well with it. For me, Wagner at 110 dB is music, a mosquito at 40 dB is noise. One's attitude toward the source of a sound can make all the difference in the world.

Abel

edited: format

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Well folks it's happening faster than I thought.... I just heard that Pomona Valley Fliers have lost their Norton AFB field..... I was at the club meeting for Corona R/C Club and it was announced that the first 150 to 175 homes are going to be build on the property we fly on. What next, another golf course for those newly built homes.....?

Damn, I wish we were not so noisy with this HOBBY....sport!!!

What should I do with my nitros now?





fixed some ooops....

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Ron-

Hmmmm.........something about burning bridges comes to mind.

Sell them, or move far away from the LA basin. You're not likely to be welcomed back to the club you trashed in post #124 et al, and that leaves precious few options in your little part of the world.

Abel

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

What bridge should I burn Able, I just went back and looked at post 124...... what club did I trash? Please explain your post.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

ron-

Your locale is familiar to me, though it has been a while. I was there for a few years either side of 1970, long enough to acquire a couple of sheepskins at some fine institutions there, start a family, and begin a career in elex/sys engineering. Also in idle time pursued my interest in flying toy airplanes, and so became pretty well aware of the limited venues available for that pursuit. That was then, and ensuing progress ala bulldozer has reduced the spare number of such venues to a one-hand count now. I don't go there frequently, but have a son that earned his doctorate in math at UC Riverside and teaches at another college in the area, and other contacts that bring me back for occasional visits. IOW, I have a general idea of the lay of the land that is fairly current, and that with your hints, it's a trivial matter to deduce what club you were talking about - and also to predict that you have a short list of options to accommodate your continued pursuit of the hobby. That is, except if you opt for moving. That option was the right choice for me for a multitude of reasons in addition to having choices as to where I will fly toy airplanes.

Oh, and if you have a beef with that club it's up to you to point the finger, not me.

Abel

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

I'm glad you are familiar with the area and what we are up against. Your input will sure help here. I'm actually not out to point fingers at any one particular person or club because we all have our ups and downs. I am however attempting to make a case that if we all don't get up from sitting on our hands, this sport will be gone and those that still "LIVE IN THE BOX" needs to get out and wake up..... However, if the SHOE FITS, than we deserve to lose and all those that are employed by this machine will also die!!! I guess we all need to grow up sometime and stop playing with our toys.

Did you get the letter from Joyce Hagar from AMA expressing concern about manufactures of models having to pay royalties to the creators....... now that is an interesting topic...... What is happening to this hobby, Able?

Once again, I will repeat what I posted in post 61 of this thread........................

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

"If modelers want to keep fields, then they need to go out and BUY, DEVELOP, and maintain their fields. To depend on others to fund their recreation is pure folly. In this society which we live in, depending on others is going to be a thing of the past in the not too distant future. Get a 100 guys together, each pitch in 2-5 thousand, form a IRC 501 (c) (7) corporation and you have a start in setting up a facility. You may have some older types with a lot of money to invest long long term (recent retirees with big payouts into IRAs are good) and they can finance a sizable amount of land for your Club, Inc. (Sterling Trust, Waco TX is a specialist in IRA real estate investing.) "

Isn't noise it is Profit and $$. If you don't own the land you can't fly. Population growth is causing fields to close. We lost ours and now it is a 50 mile drive to fly. BUY your Field when you have the opportunity. If I can find the land I will buy it and build a home, then flying field. But I haven't found the land yet. Best of luck. Jim

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

And therein lies the rub, and as Will Rogers said it isn't being made any more.

100 guys at $5K each couldn't buy the adjacent unimproved 1/3 acre lot my current homesite overlooks, and this is in a semi-rural neighborhood 50 miles from "downtown" and my place of employment.
Hoss has told us it works for his club in the boonies of TX, but then most of don't live in the boonies of TX. For those that do, it's a fine idea. Maybe it will work in LA too, but good luck in any of the first 13 colonies, or FL, CA or any other locale of average or greater population density.

Abel

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Forget trying to buy land here in Southern California that is close enough and yet immune. It would take very big dollars. They are buying land up to develop in the dairy preserve and moving the dairies further and further out. They are building houses and buildings on old manure heaps, corn fields and swamps. Even if we did buy the land it would be before long that something would come along and try to take it away and then probably sue us anyway.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Lemme guess. I have some dear friends that used to have a dairy farm in Chino; ceded to the subdividers years ago. Now I visit them where they got pushed out to - the Red River Valley, near Lake Texoma. Now they raise sod instead of cows. Visits are more fun, though. The beer is 3.2 on the OK side, but the real McCoy is close at hand directly across the river in TX, fireworks are still legal so the 4th of July partying is more than a faded memory, and there's no smog. Not bad, really. 100 guys just might buy a model field in that part of the country.

Abel

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Hey Vipe, dude, Warthog here.

Welcome to the discussion. The consensus is in, we need to buy land to keep our fields. Got anyplace close in mind here in the sunny land? Maybe ask Duff if there is anything left up on the hill that BLM still owns that's less than an hours drive for us..... Anyway see you at the Rally next weekend.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

You guys might try looking for a Superfund site or some other reclaimed dump site that can't be used for housing, etc., for the forseeable future. Our flying site is on reclaimed city dump property. We lease it from the city.

CR

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

We did look for a superfund site, but the community had other plans. I also agree w/ the high price of land, but that really is just about the only option. It is unfortunate that the community doesn't support model aviation or full size aviation for that matter. Just a cattle hauler in the sky I guess. Now about the space program,, at least they have the "space", but not the $$.

It would appear that powered "gas/glow" r/c is becomming a thing of the past, at least if you live within 50 miles of a population center. Then if you buy the land and an apartment is build, you are too noisy just as they did with the New Orleans airport.

Now ask the question about electric.

Help for finding a superfund or other site,, here in Louisiana not a chance. But did you say golf course,, of course there are pleanty, but the danged nose wheel keeps falling in the little holes and the flags keep getting in the way on take off.

Best of luck if you have a field. Jim

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

1.Noise is a major factor, do you like the sound of a chain saw or dirt bikes even a 1/2 block away all day? Internal combusion model engine noise must be muffled better. Certain noisy electric models can also be as loud and irritating as 1/2A IC engines.
2.City fathers feel that it is their duty to protect the city from the cost of inury liablilty suits so they pass anti-model flying regulations and post signs everywhere. AMA and homeowners insurance helps some but not if most park flyers have no coverage.
3. We lost our wonderful Mile Square Park, Fountian Valley, CA, flying area because the county thought they could make money with another golf course. If they had not spent the money to make the golf course, and charged each of us $200 each per year instead, they might have been money ahead, but there was the noise issue too and liability fears too.
4. Corny TV shows often portray model airplane, rocketry and model and boat car activity as frenetic, toy-like play activity, laughing at crashes, with irritating R&R music in the background. We need to convey (somehow) that this really worthwhile, challenging and fascinating activity that leads youth to techinical careers and that others can easily become involved in.
5. Many modelers are chronically underfunded and really can't afford club and AMA dues. Many others are enjoying the hobby "on the cheap" and won't pay club or AMA dues. Others make non-club/non AMA membership a "holy grail cause". With such lack of organizing ability and lack of strength in numbers, it's no wonder we don't get new flying sites and lose the ones we have.
6. Community involvement in fund raising for charities, getting youth involved in constructive modelling activity, involvement with schools etc are all helpful things that require work and involvement by modelers.
7.Lack of recent support from aircraft and aerospace firms is shameful. We need to get them involved and they could really benefit from many public relations standpoints.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

Charley,

Not a response to you, but rather to expand on your idea. Try what worked for us. A lot of farmers (some close to urban areas) have put considerable amounts of property into the Greenway program. They can't till the soil, or sell it for development. They can, however, lease it to an AMA sanctioned club to be used for a model airplane flying field.:DWe were able to lease several hundred acres, and lease it in blocks of 10 years, renewable. Works well for the farmer. (he gets more money) works well for the farmer. (he does not have to keep it mowed) works well for the Govrnment. The farmer is willing to renew the Greenspace program when the original one runs out. Works well for us. We have one of the best fields in the country. It's a win/win/win situation.

Bill, AMA 4720

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

It seems the key is to apply a measureable amount of effort toward working with our neighbors at existing model fields where people are moving in...especially where there was just fields only a few years before. People come in and don't want to be inconvenienced by someone else's enjoyment.

1. Contact the neighborhood association officers and work out (negotiate) agreeable times when aircraft can fly, that way they feel they have a say in the times noise will be made. Sometimes it might be limit flying a little or lose the field.

2. Buying land will be a good temporary fix, but someday, the same issues will have to be dealt with...so working with the surrounding communities and educating people is still a good idea.

3. Never take your field for granted. Proactive education and outreach are necessary. The last thing that anyone wants is a group of people that think they can do anything they want with no consequences.

4. The "we were here first" argument seems logical, but has not proven to work in any case I've ever heard of. Sad but true. Instead we'll have to settle for the education and pleading for understanding tactic... Not flying over houses is a good idea too.

Good luck! Keep fighting the good fight and let everyone here on RCU know what WORKS for people that are being PROACTIVE in keeping their sites! Please!

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

I did a bit of research on this. If a club can afford to buy enough land to qualify for the Greenspace program it might be able to establish a buffer around its field large enough to keep development at arm's length. Otherwise, you never know when some developer or government entity will find a way to get the "farmer" to sell out.

Here's an example of a government taking land away for a developer's benefit. There was a wildlife and exotic game park just outside our little town. This park charged a reasonable fee per carload for folks to drive through and view the animals. One end of the park's land abutted IH-10 at TX Hwy 16. This was also the entrance to the park. Some developers came along and wanted to buy that corner strip so they could build a big convenience store & gas station. The park's owners declined to sell. So the developers, being good ole boys, got their cronies on the city council to annex the park's land. The park ownwers couldn't afford the now-astronomical taxes and were forced to sell out. So now they're building another GD golf course out there, with a nice gas station on the corner! Just what we needed.

The above can happen to anyone without the resources to fight this kind of action in court.

CR

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

After watching two clubs hit the road...

California is a fuuny state, legal-wise. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you can do what you want on it. Even if a club owns the land, the neighbors can call out noise-pollution and hazards as reason to ground you.

Besides, purchasing land in California requires an awful lot of dough up front. Granted, AMA has done a remarkable job with helping some clubs, but their resources are limited. Most clubs either lease or rent. In those cases, the next corporation with a bigger pocketbook can kick them off. This is actually the most common situation.

I've seen one club survive by taking up a small, ugly plot of land by the railroad tracks, and then imposing additional noise and size standards in order to not tick off the neighbors. Then they required Dual-conversion or DSP receivers as additional assurance that crashes outside the flight zone would be highly unlikely. Sadly, this is your future. Cars and Airlines are constantly being updated to be less disruptful, and model airplanes will have to follow suit. This is partially why the park Flyer population is on the rise. They're quiet, and they APPEAR safer. YES, I'M AWARE THEY CAN BE JUST AS DANGEROUS. That subject's already been beaten to death. The fact is they APPEAR less dangerous, and are therefore more socially acceptable.

If you're site is in danger of being called to the carpet, it may be better to compromise with stricter noise/size requirements and radio requirements, rather than fight to the death and get the boot.

RE: Is noise really the problem....?
 

I have got to respond to this thread. This has been some of the best reading I have seen on RCU. That being said.

I think we all need to face the facts as they are. Out door glow and gas airplanes are not going away. What is going to change is we probably will be condensed into a few clubs or flying sites spread out in remote locations. Instead of a 20 or 30 minute drive to the field it will be an hour or more, for most of us.

What may seem very important to those of us who fly R/C means very little to people outside of the hobby. But step on someone’s toe’s that does not fly and all hell break’s loose. It is very similar to someone putting in a gun club across the street from your home, if you don’t shot you are not going to be a happy camper.

Our numbers as in people that fly R/C as a percentage of the population are so small how can what we want really carry any weight. Face facts R/C is not the number one pastime in the USA. When you say to someone (I fly R/C. They almost always say what is that?) If it would not have been for my father I would probably never have gotten into this hobby, or even known what it was.

With that in mind, why has R/C not been promoted to the general public? You know PR, public relations. Let the public know about the fun R/C is, and where to go to find out more about it. Let’s say like TV ad’s or newspaper ad’s.

If you don’t think PR is important just look at bowling. I was an avid bowler for many years. We used to call a bowling alley a bowling ally. Now every once in a while you will see an ad on TV to take the family to you local Family Fun Center. Are you kind of getting the picture.

A good example of what I am talking about is the training night that was set up at the Flying Tigers club west of Toledo. I belonged to that club last year, and let me say right up front it is a good club. They had a training night set up for people to come and learn how to fly.

Guess what, hardly any one showed up. One club member took it upon himself to organize the whole thing. My self and a few other members were instructors; the sad part is we were never needed.

That leads you to the question of why were we not needed. The answer was simple. Hardly anyone outside the hobby even knew about training night. If it would have gotten some publicity outside of the local hobby shop the whole thing might have been completely different.

Did training night at the field get into the local papers or any other media outlet? The answer is NO. How could anyone be expected to show up if no one knew about it? Is this not the same thing that is happening in our hobby.



Maybe the AMA should consider spending some of that money they take in every year on promotion of R/C. I am sure a few TV spots could be purchased every now and then. They could spend a little of that investment money on promotion, and a little less on the AMA portfolio. All the money in investments the AMA has are not going to mean a thing when there are only a few thousand flyers left.

The noise issues may never go away, but with more public awareness of what we do and how much fun this hobby can be things could change. We are living in a vacuum if we think we can keep going down the road we are going without making some changes to how things are done.

There are several other factors that also come into play but I would like to end this on a positive note. And a lot of you out there know what I am talking about. As a group we need to make the AMA do what is best for R/C. If that means putting people in there that will push for change then that is what needs to be done.

Carl Anderson AMA# 18633 and proud of it.