Thread Tools
Nov 19, 2019, 09:24 AM
Registered User
kingwoodbarney's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kneesaknockin

The AMA would greatly improve relations of past and present members, if they would petition for Federal Grant Money to establish New Flying sites in each and every state in the country. Too many places have been shut down by encroaching FAA UAV infrastructure. Or soon will be.
Most people don't realize that the FAA has a dual role in aviation. It must regulate and promote aviation. Now that MA is under the purview of the FAA they must promote MA. So Federal Grant money for facility improvements is not out of the question. This is an unintended consequence of regulation, I'm certain. And it might be addressed in future legislation. But just imagine MA is treated the same as full scale for this argument. Grant money is for municipal and county facilities and must be available to the public. They don't fund private strips.

So we might see a trend in the future that county and municipal flying fields have a path that is more appealing than privately own model airfields. And public facilities generally can't require operators have a specific brand of insurance or belong to a certain union. The AMA of the future might have a very diminished role.

Frankly I'm rather shocked the AMA hasn't been leaning on the FAA for money from the very beginning. It isn't uncommon for the FAA to give a grant of tens of millions of dollars to one tiny county airport for improvements. Or maybe this simply isn't a future the AMA wishes to promote.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Nov 19, 2019, 12:22 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwoodbarney
Most people don't realize that the FAA has a dual role in aviation. It must regulate and promote aviation. Now that MA is under the purview of the FAA they must promote MA. So Federal Grant money for facility improvements is not out of the question. This is an unintended consequence of regulation, I'm certain. And it might be addressed in future legislation. But just imagine MA is treated the same as full scale for this argument. Grant money is for municipal and county facilities and must be available to the public. They don't fund private strips.

So we might see a trend in the future that county and municipal flying fields have a path that is more appealing than privately own model airfields. And public facilities generally can't require operators have a specific brand of insurance or belong to a certain union. The AMA of the future might have a very diminished role.

Frankly I'm rather shocked the AMA hasn't been leaning on the FAA for money from the very beginning. It isn't uncommon for the FAA to give a grant of tens of millions of dollars to one tiny county airport for improvements. Or maybe this simply isn't a future the AMA wishes to promote.

Yes, the FAA gives grants money. It is collected in the way of a fuel tax and then returned to the aviation community. I don't think RC pilots pay any tax.
Nov 19, 2019, 01:34 PM
BFMA #13, aka Rogue 13
mongo's Avatar
the turbine guys that actually use jet a, might be paying some tax...
Nov 19, 2019, 01:38 PM
Registered User
kneesaknockin's Avatar
Thread OP
There's money's out there, just have to fight for it...

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html

Document Type: Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: 12-01
Funding Opportunity Title: FAA Aviation Research and Development Grants
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Opportunity Category Explanation:
Funding Instrument Type: Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Transportation
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards:
CFDA Number(s): 20.108 -- Aviation Research Grants
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No

Version: Synopsis 7
Posted Date: Jan 01, 2012
Last Updated Date: Aug 21, 2018
Original Closing Date for Applications: Dec 31, 2019
Current Closing Date for Applications: Dec 31, 2019
Archive Date: Jan 30, 2020
Estimated Total Program Funding:
Award Ceiling: $5,000,000
Award Floor:
Nov 19, 2019, 01:53 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwoodbarney
Most people don't realize that the FAA has a dual role in aviation. It must regulate and promote aviation.
It does not. The dual mandate was removed in 1996. The FAAs only role now is to regulate. If squashing model aviation makes real aviation one iota safer, it's part of the FAAs mission.
Nov 19, 2019, 03:32 PM
Registered User
As of Nov 2019....

Mission
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety and efficiency and to demonstrate global leadership in how we safely integrate new users and technologies into our aviation system. We are accountable to the American public and our aviation stakeholders.

Our Values
Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.

Page last modified: November 05, 2019 5:42:15 PM EST
Nov 20, 2019, 07:01 AM
Registered User
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/eaa-chapters...nd-Fly-Program

Think this will work?
Nov 20, 2019, 07:33 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fliers1
Hard to say. 500 bucks is a chunk of change for some chapters. Than there's the time to build and the short attention span of today's youth.

On a side note the AMA officially pulled the plug on the East and West coast Expo's. Something that should have been done some time back.

Mike
Nov 20, 2019, 07:57 AM
Registered User
Start a dialogue. In the lastest MA E.D. (View from HQ) explained how AMA has has always had an open door policy. How has that worked out for some of us who had high hopes of serious discussions with AMA HQ?
Last edited by fliers1; Nov 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM.
Nov 20, 2019, 10:30 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by fliers1

$500 seems to be a lot. Especially when you add memberships and club dues.
Nov 20, 2019, 10:51 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
$500 seems to be a lot. Especially when you add memberships and club dues.
Then you have to find volunteers to spend time showing how to build and then provide instruction. It's apparent that whoever thought up this project has no idea how club members feel about providing instruction (the huge elephant in the room). RC flight instruction, the old hand wall of silence.
Nov 20, 2019, 11:36 AM
Registered User
GeoffS's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fliers1
Then you have to find volunteers to spend time showing how to build and then provide instruction. It's apparent that whoever thought up this project has no idea how club members feel about providing instruction (the huge elephant in the room). RC flight instruction, the old hand wall of silence.
I think my local EAA chapter would be able to find a number of members who would be interested/capable in something like this.

It would not be out-of-character for the chapter to provide at least one partial scholarship to offset the student's out-of-pocket cost.
Nov 21, 2019, 08:03 AM
Registered User
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ration-scheme/

Are we next?


https://www.rccanada.ca/rccforum/sho...5&postcount=17
Last edited by fliers1; Nov 21, 2019 at 08:10 AM.
Nov 21, 2019, 02:57 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Another example of this same attitude. When I wrote to the ED asking why they don't do virtual meetings (GoToMeeting etc.) to save money AND allow greater member participation, he said "they're required" to do them face to face. When I challenged that nowhere in the bylaws nor in tax law is there anything requiring face to face, he got snippy and rude.

Bottom line, AMA leaderships doesn't want anything but sunshine and unicorns from the members. The entire EC and HQ staff views members as the "unwashed masses" who are just supposed to send them money and not ask questions.
I have a simple question in direct response to your statement. If the members truly are concerned for the future on modeling and the Academy, then why did only 11 percent of the membership take the 30 seconds or so to VOTE!!!

89 percent of the membership could not be bothered to vote yet will be the first one to complain. If you didn't vote and don't like it, I'm sorry but you could have taken a minute out of your life and made a difference.


If you don't like the leadership and what they are doing, then get off your butt and do something about it.....VOTE. 89 percent did NOTHING but sit on their hand, so deal with the results
Nov 21, 2019, 03:09 PM
Registered User
My question is, what could anyone person do that is any better than the last?
The main problem is the decline in members. How can anyone deal with that problem?


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion RC UAS Hobby Future with FAA/AMA kneesaknockin Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 41 Oct 31, 2019 07:09 PM
Discussion The AMA and the Future of RC jermo AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 2 Jul 30, 2007 05:09 PM
Discussion AMA, DIY, and the Future Padesatka DIY Electronics 46 Apr 20, 2006 09:31 AM
the future of the AMA Eljimb0 AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 13 May 01, 2005 09:59 AM