Poll AMA Member? Please Raise Your Hand Poll

[SA716]

Frank,
What do you think 2009 AMA membership will do. I think we will see a slight increase.New leadership and E-power will help expand the membership base.

[Dr. Sandy Frank]

Originally Posted by SA716

Frank,
What do you think 2009 AMA membership will do. I think we will see a slight increase.New leadership and E-power will help expand the membership base.

since 2002 AMA membership has gone about 5% down per year..

the same will happen in 2009

ParkPilots "think" that they do not need:



clubs, MA, flying fields, the VOTE, insurance, instructors or other things that the AMA is offering now... ( a quarterly park publication not MA??
they should get MA each month to see what else there is in modeling
and become part of the whole of modeling)

(they DO need the above but telling them so will not work)

until AMA offers something that the ParkPilot is seeking and needing AMA membership will seem worthless to them...

"BRINGING modelers Together"

The GLUE that bonds modelers together...

it is the social aspects that some want and seek...

why even read this mess unless YOU wanted to commiserate with other modelers... flying by ones self is OK but bringing us together is where it is AT !

[SA716]

Dr Frank,
Just so you don't think I was just addressing you as "Frank". I was responding to Murocflyer (Frank). I am glad for your response. Maybe this year AMA can fine tune PPP and it will help membership numbers.

[Dr. Sandy Frank]

It is TIME for AMA to ask the PARKPILOTS what they WANT from AMA?

they have a database of PARK PILOT members

ask THEM how to expand their numbers...

this is what I am doing to encourage such:

http://web2.airmail.net/sfrank69/

http://web2.airmail.net/sfrank69/NEFI/

http://web2.airmail.net/sfrank69/seeit/

[Murocflyer]

Originally Posted by SA716

Frank,
What do you think 2009 AMA membership will do. I think we will see a slight increase.New leadership and E-power will help expand the membership base.

Sorry for the late response.

I'm afraid with the economy the way it is we will see another drop in membership.

I think the only way to turn that around is for AMA leadership to start focusing more on individuals like you, me, and all the other AMA members to start introducing the hobby to other people. Of course there will only be about 20% of the total membership to pick up the ball and run with it, but hey, that's a start.

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sandy Frank

It is TIME for AMA to ask the PARKPILOTS what they WANT from AMA?

they have a database of PARK PILOT members

ask THEM how to expand their numbers...

I wonder if we will see the responses of the PPP survey that was sent out.

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Not a bad showing I guess; 141 members read this AMA forum. Even though we have over 1800 members here on RCG.

Frank

[pathfinder]

I read Model Aviation from cover to cover.I read about free flight,soaring,rubber power and so on,,, all of it.Although I fly R/C I learn a lot from reading all the sections. I would much rather get M.A. above all the other r/c publications combined..I also take them to the libray when the year is up..I have been treated like royalty by the AMA.I think at one time a freind of mine and I were a little more involved with the AMA than the average modler.I think if you really get involved with things you will understand it.I am satisfied with everything so far... I have been a member prolly since 72.

jimmy.p.

[flieslikeabeagle]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sandy Frank

ParkPilots "think" that they do not need:
clubs, MA, flying fields, the VOTE, insurance, instructors or other things that the AMA is offering now...

As someone who entered this hobby via parkflying, and who still flies in parks more often than at my AMA club, I'd like to share my experience relevant to Dr. Frank's statement above.

I taught myself to fly in May 2004, using first a flight simulator, then an RTF parkflyer down at the local park. RC Groups was an ongoing resource, and I had advice and help from many other RC pilots. Within a year, I was comfortable flying aerobatics (not only rolls and loops, but also snaps, spins, inverted, etc).

Since I did not have a club to assist me, nor a subscription to MA, nor an AMA flying field (I did all my flying in local parks at this point), it is quite clear that in fact I did NOT need any of the first four items on Dr. Frank's list. It's not just a case of "thinking" I didn't need them - I really didn't need them, since I progressed successfully from zero RC piloting skills, to beginner RC pilot, to intermediate RC pilot, without any of these things.

I'm certainly not exceptional in this regard, either - the advent of RC simulator software and small, slow-flying, relatively inexpensive RC models during the past decade or so has now made it quite practical for many to teach themselves how to fly, and to fly well, on their own. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the RC pilots I meet down at the park are self-taught.

This is a big change from the days of built-from-a-kit .40 size glow trainers - I have no doubt that it would be extraordinarily rare for anyone to have successfully taught themselves to fly one of these fragile and dangerous bricks. I am not at all sure the powers that be at the AMA have woken up to this sea change, either. The AMA club instructors whom I know continue to recommend learning to fly with a .40 or larger glow trainer. I consider that extremely poor advice today, given the cost, fragility, high speeds, and inherent danger of these large and heavy models.

So that brings us to the last two items on Dr Frank's list - insurance and instructors.

Simply put, I think RC insurance should be considered a necessity, wherever in the US and whatever sort of RC model you fly. Like it or not, we live in the most litigious country on the planet. Insurance will not necessarily save you from a lawsuit, but it might perhaps let you walk away from one without losing everything you own in the process. So, I joined the AMA long before I ever set field in an AMA club - primarily for whatever insurance coverage I might get through them, and secondarily so that I would be able to participate in local fun-fly events that required AMA membership.

And now the final item - instructors. Do you need an instructor to learn to fly today? The answer is obviously "No!", since there are thousands of self-taught RC pilots out there, many of them far more skilled than the typical AMA club member who went through the traditional instructional process.

However - though you do not absolutely NEED an RC instructor, I still think it is a good thing to have one. The main reason? I find that self-taught RC pilots often have a very poor sense of safety. The flight simulator will let you teach yourself how to fly rolling harriers three feet off the deck - but it will not teach you the painful real-life lessons that have led the AMA over the decades to the current safety rules that govern all AMA fields. It will not teach you why it is a very bad idea to fly that rolling harrier so close to yourself that the aircraft passes within ten feet of you. It will not teach you why you should never fly over people or property. It will not teach you just how badly a rotating propeller can tear up a part of your body, should you be unfortunate enough to make contact with it.

And so, this is where I think the AMA can continue to benefit modelers: by teaching them how to fly and work on their models safely, and by providing insurance that reduces their financial risk while participating in their hobby. Providing suitably insured locations at which to fly is a wonderful addition, but I think as urban development continues, the future of RC flying is going to continue to move to small parks and open spaces, rather than the gigantic open areas of the traditional club field. The AMA is likely going to have to flow with this change, or slowly become more and more irrelevant.

I see that the AMA promotes the insurance angle, but I haven't seen anything from the AMA promoting safety. I can understand why the AMA would not want to start a public campaign that says "Let us teach you safety, or end up a bloody mess in hospital when your RC plane chews you up!" - the AMA probably doesn't want the public to be too clearly aware as to how dangerous an improperly handled RC plane can be! But the fact remains that this is a MAJOR area where park pilots need help, IMHO, and the AMA has more expertise than any other organization relevant to the hobby. I see that as an opportunity.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sandy Frank

flying by ones self is OK but bringing us together is where it is AT !

And here we have another major cultural sea-change to contend with. I myself like flying with other people - other people who fly with skill, courteousness, and safety awareness, that is. Like most AMA club members, I grew up in a generation when kids still played together with other kids, and I learned while young that it is fun to play with other people.

But I notice that many of the younger RC pilots I meet at the park are not really into the social aspect of flying. Often they are loners at heart, brought up in a paranoid world when children from the neighbourhood no longer meet to play hop-scotch in the driveway, badminton on the front lawn, or basketball in the backyard. Instead, these young people grew up living a life of social isolation, watching TV, playing computer games, and surfing the 'Net from the solitude of their bedrooms. They never learned to play with others as children, and they're not about to start now, as adults.

The funny thing is that this weird isolated upbringing is often filled with the illusion of social connectedness - Facebook, Twitter, RSS feeds, and all the other empty and meaningless coloured dots on your computer screen that are trying to substitute for the lack of actual human beings in your life. But the common elements are that (a) there are no real people in the room with you, and (b) when you get bored with your "social connections", you can turn them off with a click of the mouse, so you never have to learn to deal with the complexities of real-world relationships.

And so, what I observe is that many of these young people have no desire to be brought together with other people - rather the opposite. They are extremely uncomfortable at the thought of being in any way brought closer to other people, and will actively avoid anything that involves them with other people. These people do not want to belong to any sort of club - and the AMA, or any other organization, is going to have a slim to none chance of recruiting them.

If I were the AMA today, I would be looking to find a way to provide safety, insurance, and flying locations to this new breed of people who do NOT want to be part of any organized activity, but who might purchase a membership that provided these benefits. If, for instance, the AMA actually negotiated and owned the rights to RC flying at local parks, and gave then access rights to members, that is more likely to work than encouraging this generation of people to form their own AMA clubs and negotiate their own flying rights with the local authorities.

It's not the way the AMA has traditionally done things - but I think the days of the traditional RC club and the traditional AMA organization structure are numbered.

-Flieslikeabeagle

[Warningshot]

Very good post.

[BillM]

flieslikeabeagle
Good post.
While I agree with you on most of what you have written I must disagree with your suggestion of AMA operated fields.
I do this for several reasons.
First is the issue of cost. The maintainance cost and the site development cost would most likely have to fall on the shoulders of the AMA. I seriously doubt many municipalities would be wiling to foot the bill.
Secondly there is the issue of control. You stress safety and well you should but with out a sponsoring club who would be responsible for safety issues? As you mention self taught pilots often lack safety awareness. Again the AMA would have to assume the responsibility which might entail more investment.
And finally there are usage issues. If the field was under the control of the AMA would AMA membership be required? If so who would assure that all users were AMA members?

I think you have some very valid points and more access to public land is a great idea but it is not without cost.
The solution of course would be park flyer clubs willing to handle the required maintainance and safety concerns and surely the AMA would offer assistance in achieving those ends. The stumbling block here is as you have pointed out so well is the reluctance of the young people in our society to become involved beyond their own perceived world.

I'm an old so and so and a club flyer for decades. I wouldn't know how to do it any other way. My canvas is blank on this issue as I haven't a clue as to what needs to be done other than rhe fact that it needs doing. Wish I did know how.

Good luck

BM

[flieslikeabeagle]

Originally Posted by BillM

While I agree with you on most of what you have written I must disagree with your suggestion of AMA operated fields.
I do this for several reasons.
First is the issue of cost. The maintainance cost and the site development cost would most likely have to fall on the shoulders of the AMA.

Let me start out by making it clear that I know absolutely nothing about successfully running any sort of business, so I have no doubt it is possible for people with better business skills to improve on my suggestions.

That said, currently AMA members pay money both to the AMA (for their membership), and to the club (for the club dues). If the AMA essentially took over club operations, this additional stream of revenues from club dues would flow directly into the AMA's coffers. If the clubs can do it with the dues money they receive, so can the AMA - it's just a case of having a different middleman, i.e. an official or officials appointed by the AMA rather than an official or officials appointed by a local AMA chartered club.

Originally Posted by BillM

Secondly there is the issue of control. You stress safety and well you should but with out a sponsoring club who would be responsible for safety issues?

The AMA would have to hire some small number of people at each AMA-owned field, who would essentially fill the functions currently filled by club officials. That includes safety training, and field safety enforcement.

This doesn't seem like an entirely new business model - after all, firing ranges, for instance, have similar (but even more serious) safety issues to deal with.

Originally Posted by BillM

As you mention self taught pilots often lack safety awareness. Again the AMA would have to assume the responsibility which might entail more investment.

Isn't the AMA trying to assume this responsibility right now, by recruiting people to the Park Pilot program?

Any safety training that self-taught pilots get is a bonus for the AMA - the safer pilots are, the less likely that the AMA will have to pay out on insurance claims. By adhering to the AMA safety rules, members of the Park Pilot program are likely to be at least somewhat safer pilots than those who have never even heard of safety rules.

Business and profits aside, the issue of safety for both RC pilots and members of the public continues to worry me more and more as I see the evolution of park flying at the local parks. When I started in 2004, the term "Parkflyer" meant a 16-ounce foam model carrying a 70 W power system and flying around at 35 mph or less. Today, in 2009, the term more typically means a 40" wingspan, 2 lb balsa model carrying 200 W of power and flying at 50 mph. During the same period, RC helicopters have become very popular, and there are now people flying 600-size electric helicopters packing many hundreds of watts in small neighbourhood parks. These could be described as flying circular saws with a four-foot diameter, and enough power and kinetic energy behind them to cut through limbs. And I see these routinely being hovered at face height, often within 10 feet of the pilot.

Even the 2004 parkflyer could do some damage if it hit a human, or animal. But the rapid escalation in size, weight, speed, and power means that todays parkflyer models pack the punch of a 2 lb sledgehammer tossed from a car moving at freeway speeds. If all that destructive kinetic energy were not enough, we also have a spinning meat-grinder/circular saw powered with hundreds of watts (the propeller/ or rotor) attached to that flying sledgehammer.

I don't think I'm being Chicken Little when I see this as a situation ripe for trouble, especially when these already too large, too fast, and too heavy models are flown with very little safety awareness in many cases - over people, over roads, and too close to the pilot, in many cases. Something needs to be done, and soon, IMHO.

Back to the revenue vs expenses angle, it's the AMA members who provide the AMA revenue. More members = more revenue. So, by providing a way for people who do not want to participate in a traditional club structure to fly with insurance coverage, and in insured venues, I think the AMA will increase its revenues along with its expenses. That goes for any expanding business, and presumably the people running the business will get the ratio of expenses to revenues right.

Originally Posted by BillM

And finally there are usage issues. If the field was under the control of the AMA would AMA membership be required? If so who would assure that all users were AMA members?

The low-tech solution is to hire someone to man the gate during operational hours, and check AMA memberships. Not very different from the 18 year old manning the downtown parking structure and collecting your payments when you drive in.

Perhaps even pay-by-the hour field access is a possibility, closer to the car parking structure business model?

Originally Posted by BillM

The stumbling block here is as you have pointed out so well is the reluctance of the young people in our society to become involved beyond their own perceived world.

I think this is a very real societal change, and unfortunately it's not going away, its getting worse. Clubs and organizations of all types have been withering on the vine for lack of membership - even long-standing bastions like the boy scouts and girl scouts of America are dying for lack of membership, and lack of adult volunteers.

My suspicion is that the divide began quite a long time ago - I think maybe as much as forty or fifty years ago. People younger than fifty years old today seem to be progressively less and less likely to want to be involved with other peoples lives in any significant way.

Originally Posted by BillM

I haven't a clue as to what needs to be done other than the fact that it needs doing. Wish I did know how.

You summarized my sentiments exactly.

The one thing we can be sure of is that "business as usual" is simply not going to work.

-Flieslikeabeagle

[Red Scholefield]

As an active AMA member for well over a half century, and a member of the local AMA chartered club where ever I happend to live I don't want the AMA taking over the responsibility for local flying sites.

Look what HMOs have done to our medical system! Any time you delegate something you want done to someone else they are going to need a little piece of whatever, to do it and usually it will end up being not what you really wanted in the first place.

On the local scene, a gun club built and maintained a beautiful and safe range. Then when the local community college need a range to secure a Police Academy. The club, thinking it would enhance their position in the community, donated the range to the community college. All was well until the new director of the Police Academy decided having civilians getting firearms training was not in the best interest of the community. By by free club run shooting range. Hello $200/year membership to private shooting facility.

[flieslikeabeagle]

Originally Posted by Red Scholefield

I don't want the AMA taking over the responsibility for local flying sites.

Keep in mind the AMA already has a pretty solid monopoly on whether or not a (traditional) flying site can stay functional (in the USA) or not. Without being under the AMA umbrella, few RC clubs could exist - I don't know of too many alternative sources of affordable and adequate flying site insurance coverage, for one. So the local club officers may think they are responsible for the club - and for small and more or less trivial local matters they are - but the AMA still has the ultimate say-so. If the AMA chooses to shut down your club, they can and will do so.

This is not just speculation - a local Los Angeles County AMA chartered club field with a spotless safety record many years long was recently shut down for a period of weeks when the AMA decided to withdraw its flying site insurance, based on verbal complaints (apparently unsupported by any actual documentation) of two disgruntled club members. Eventually after much negotiation the AMA restored its insurance coverage, and the club is back in operation.

The interesting thing is that the arrival of the parkflier movement earlier in this decade is the first thing in a long time to have challenged the AMA monopoly of US flying sites. For the first time in decades, people could fly RC with or without AMA approval. In a way, it sounds as though this is what you want - reduced control by the AMA of flying sites.

The problem is that, for the reasons I discussed in one of my earlier posts, I see trouble brewing in park-flying paradise...

-Flieslikeabeagle

[flieslikeabeagle]

Originally Posted by Red Scholefield

Any time you delegate something you want done to someone else they are going to need a little piece of whatever, to do it and usually it will end up being not what you really wanted in the first place.

Just so we're on the same page, I agree with you on this. Certainly a salary isn't substitution for human passion. You can't pay a person to do a job well - it won't be done well unless that person has passion for the job.

Trouble is, the AMA is going to continue to wither on the vine unless something changes. Despite the entry of thousands of people into the hobby in recent years (the parkflier boom has probably done more for the growth of the hobby than anything else in decades), traditional AMA clubs are going under, and traditional AMA membership is shrinking.

If the situation were fine and dandy with the new pilots, I would shrug my shoulders and say "Oh, well". Every human institution comes to an end eventually - it is inevitable. The trouble is, I don't think things are fine and dandy - I think unless something is done to provide insurance coverage and safety awareness to thousands of self-taught RC pilots, and to limit the ever-increasing size, weight, and power of "parkflyer" models churned out each year by the RC manufacturers, there are likely to be unpleasant consequences in the all too near future for many individuals as well as for the hobby itself.

Here are a few of the entirely avoidable incidents I've already witnessed at the park in the past few years: an RC pilot attempting to hand-catch his powered RC model had his bicep sliced open by the propeller (17 stitches, IIRC). Another RC pilot flew his flying wing right into a baby carriage - with a baby in it. A third RC pilot was doing 3D stunts with his helicopter about 3 feet off the ground and 15 feet in front of him; he lost control and the helicopter lunged, rotor first, for his head. He ducked, and the helicopter missed him by inches before smashing into the ground behind him. A fourth RC pilot, attempting to land a 3lb powered glider pointed directly towards himself, misjudged the distance it would take to land and hit another RC pilot behind him full in the chest with the model. A fifth RC pilot was flying over a group of soccer players having a game at the park; he lost control and hit one of them with his model, luckily causing no injury.

Every one of these incidents would have been avoided if the pilots had been just a little more safety-aware: don't fly near people, including yourself. Don't land with the model aimed directly at yourself or at the people behind you. Don't ever fly over people. Don't try catching planes out of the air. Simple stuff, but stuff that, probably, these pilots had either never heard, or had never been trained to follow.

-Flieslikeabeagle