mike31

My Feedback: (67)

No law says people have to belong to any organization. Also, when does a park flyer interfere with a control line model, frequency issue?

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

Mike you are right their is no law ,i am a ama member because it is right for me. There is no problem with you flying your plane and some one flying control line . If you dont want to join thats fine ,i hope you have fun just flying. joe

tinner1

OK! We've had some good opinions overnight, but AGAIN this thread is about "Why does the AMA have to grow". Some posts are starting to drift off topic, as they usually do on the AMA threads, so PLEASE take the discussion about what the AMA is doing, or when it started.... to the appropriate threads. Thank You.

Jim,
nice reference to the History of the AMA. Although technically a little "off topic" on this thread, I think any time the history of the AMA is given, it serves to educate those that don't know its history, and make them better able to decide why the AMA should or should not grow. Too many people only read "facts?" posted on these forums and take them as the rule, when in "fact" they are usually opinions. Good job setting the record straight!

p51Dpony,
I agree that size doesn't matter as far as the AMA is concerned based on your post. The size doesn't mean squat if there is no purpose, direction, or effect. The AMA could be 500,000 members strong but get nothing done. I think over the years the AMA has done a good job with/for the membership it has. Quantity never makes up for quality. Bringing in a bunch of new members at the expense of the others/seasoned members, with lower dues, special interests, etc will just "water down" the membership, and often creates anamosity with the regulars. Example: I've seen it on other threads where people propose letting Parkfliers use AMA sanctioned fields, and even letting people use those fields WITHOUT joining the AMA as required by said field. As expected the reaction from the "full members" was "Why should I have to join then?" A lot of members said they would drop their membership and fly at the "open" fields, and then where would we and the AMA be? Club fields would die and cease to exist, and for the "Parkflier" it wouldn't matter because they "can fly anywhere for free", NOT SO for the guys with larger planes. That's what I see happening if we "water down" membership just to grow, lower the "quality" just to increase the "quantity".

BEFORE anyone jumps all over me for saying "Parkfliers" are not going to be good members, I am using that group as referenced to in OTHER THREADS on that topic about letting in new members with "special" rates and privilidges. I have NOTHING against Parkfliers, I have several myself.

Again, lets keep the ideas fresh and new AND NOT PERSONAL. So far there has been some good thought provoking reasons for the AMA either growing or not.

KidEpoxy

Bigger = Better???
Maybe for some things, like sq miles of state, but not always so for hobby orgs

A couple decades ago, the AMA back then was able to do the $10k NoReceipts trip to DC to get us some freqs... and that $10k NoReceipts has been lauded since as AMA dealing with the feds.

Now, the AMA was just in the sUAS ARC dealing with the start of regulation of lil unmanned flyers,
and we just had folks jumping up and down demanding we all accept that ...
"The AMA rep had ZERO voice in the ARC discussions. The closest modeling had to a voice was with Fred Marks,<....>"

so,
did we grow outta an org that could spend $10k to get stuff from FCC
into an org that has .... whats the term... " AMA rep had ZERO voice" dealing with the FAA?

Is that what growth is good for?
Then maybe we shouldnt grow

dbcisco

In the bigger picture of the hobby, the AMA not only doesn't need to grow, it doesn't need to exist. The AMA is but a small part of a huge hobby and industry.

The FAA and FCC were not and are not influenced by the AMA. Both the FAA and FCC are not "out to get" anyone. All the frequencies are still in the proposed new FCC rules and the AMA didnt even get involved.

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

If it does not need to exist, why did you get in the ppp and pay your dues sisco ?

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

Let me rephrase to see if I get the same result; I am betting if it weren't for the insurance and the local field's requirement to have an AMA membership, many of the harline AMAers would quit.

I would love to see several national flying sites... to support that would require growth... Having to drive a thousand miles to Muncie is not a great option. I think the need for growth is to help the new guys trying out the latest toys. If you don't get the needed help, they will soon be trash and you will loose your interest. Having support will improve the odds of success and keep you flying. Being by yourself flying is not a great choice. Should AMA get bigger, I would rather have a competing organization to help keep things competitive.

dbcisco

Same reason I do most things.
Because I wanted to and because it "does" exist.
That's it. Not playing this stupid game with you.

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

I think the rest of the forums know why you do things ,and i do too. I dont ever play games but i have won alot of them. I am not posting any more ,i will let tinner get back to his thread, sorry tinner. joe

KidEpoxy

Ice Cream dont 'need to exist', yet I buy it sometimes

...


Having 2 or 3 Regional flying sites that are self supporting
does not require 'growth'.

We can do that now if we choose.
heck, we could do that even with fewer folks than now

What if we took the $1.4mil we put in the stock market last year,
and bought a regional field instead.
Pay per Day, and let 2 or 3 local clubs run the show for a cut of the door

No 'growth' needed for that.




heck, we even started a new magazine while shrinking,
so we dont need growth for that either

dbcisco

What ever you say.

dbcisco

Sell off all the Muncie properies, except the museum, and buy a few hundered small fields across the country.

blubberpoke

My Feedback: (39)

<font size="5">The AMA wont grow....................and heres why!  [:@]                                      </font> Less and less people out there need the support of groups and the mentallity of the not for profit system. AMA and its non for profit system of economic survivability which dosent provide incentives for innovators (including its employees) to take the risks that deliver the products of their innovation to society. (In this case members to keep the orginazation strong)The basic premise behind AMAs not for profit logic is that the sport has achieved all the technological innovation that is suitable and so the profit incentives for innovation and risk taking are expendable. The flaw in this logic is that new difficulties will arise requiring new innovative solutions. A not for profit orginazation that has removed the incentives for creativity will find itself incapable of functioning efficiently in a changing world, and will eventually have to adopt free market mechanisms to sustain itself. People will go elsewhere to get what they want when they want it, the sport has evolved so rapidly in the past 10 years that much of the support they need for the products they buy are comming from the hobby shops or from online support directly at the manufacturer.
The AMA is a clean and pure orginization that hasnt been infected with the greed of the orginized market. Maybe there is some value in thoughts that if its free then its worth nothing to me. Turn the page of this organization to the next chapter, lets invoke the public to grow with us.

knifemaker

As some of the guys have stated,"It's about clout". It really is. If you have been following the efforts of the EC you will know that they have been in conference with the FAA, Military, and EAA to define and protect what are no longer 'toy airplanes' but UAV's. Our hobby has been militarized to a scale not imagined in our youth. Our frequencies, radio gear, etc. are all controled by the federal government. The more members we claim, the more strength we hold in those conferences. Staying static in numbers will exhibit a basic weakness in those meetings. We need to protect our right to practice this hobby. Otherwise we will all be flying rubber powered FF again. (I do that too.) Also, the business axiom, "If you ain't growing, your dying!" is a fact of orginizational life. The AMA is ,afterall, an Orginazation.

dbcisco

The FAA/ARC discussions are over. The FCC changes are over with very little input from the AMA as well.

tinner1

Quite often in these forums the topic of a flying site at Muncie comes up, and as to why we need it. Some say it is too far, some there is nothing there for me, and some just say who cares. If I remember correctly, and some of the long time members can help me with this, one of the reasons for the move to Muncie was to provide a standard place to hold competitions/the Nats year after year. I can also remember reading once that also considered was the fact that the highest number of members live within a days drive of Muncie, a statistic that didn't hold up anywhere else in the US. THAT may have changed......

In the past acquiring sites was a chore to say the least. Most were held on military bases, but since 9-11 there is NO chance of that happening again. Sometimes the site was canceled at the last minute causing all kinds of logistical problems. Now I know a lot of you guys will say who cares about competition, but competition is what brings innovation. A few posts here say there should be a competing organization to the AMA, so there must be something to it. A lot of the advances in our hobby can be directly attributed to competition. Sponserd pilots get the latest and greatest stuff to torture test in competition, and that trickles down to us regular guys. Do you think JR or Futaba would design a better servo because Joe Blow asked for one? To win you need the best and manufacturers are fully aware of what is winning. There are a few sponserd guys in my club who fly in competition, and they get whatever they need, and review and report back their findings. So even though you may not like competition, nor will ever compete, there are a lot of members who do year after year, and that I believe is the reason for a field at Muncie.

As to more AMA fields for the members in general....Regional flying sites sounds good at first, if you happen to live close to where they put them. I can just hear all the comments about why did such and such get a field and not us? If the AMA were to build lets say 200 fields, that would be about 4 per state on average. In a state like Texas, Florida, or California, that could be a hundred mile plus drive, and since one of the reasons a LOT of posters complain about needing clubs/AMA is nearness to fields.....Well you can see it won't work. You can never please everyone, unless you built about 140,000 fields.

Guys.....I hate to have to keep asking, but PLEASE lets quit getting personal. And the topic of this thread is "Why does the AMA have to grow". NOT what is stopping it from growing, or what it needs to do to grow. I want to hear why you think it has to grow and not stay status quo....

dbcisco

There is no information to base a good answer on. I say it doesn't "need" to exist, nice to have around but the hobby as whole is flourishing without the AMA. The AMA did relativelly little in the FAA/ARC project and did next to nothing in the new FCC part 95 changes. Both of which are over and done (as far as input goes) so there is nothing to talk to the FCC or FAA about, probably for another 30 years.

CKLLOYD

IT HAS BEEN SAID HERE THAT THE AMA HAS LOST 30,000 MEMBERS THAT NOT JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET THATS A LOT OF MEMBERS AND MONEY. THE AMA CAN NOT SURVIVE ON THAT KIND OF LOSS AND WILL NOT AT THIS RATE OF DECLINE. AND YES THERE IS ALOT OF DIE HARD AMA MEMBERS BUT THEY TO ARE DROPING OFF FASTER THEN THEY ARE REPLACED. THE AMA NEEDS TO GET OFF THERE BUTTS AND START LOOKING INTO WHAT THEY CAN DO TO HELP THEM SELF OUT OF THIS SLUMP BEFORE ITS TO LATE FOR THEM AND US.. AND AS TO THE AMA B.O.D. IF YOU LIKE YOUR INCOME THEN START DOING YOUR JOB ITS NOT A FREE RIDE.. IF YOU NEED INPUT JUST ASK. THERE ARE ALOT OF GOOD PEOPLE OUT HERE. PEOPLE THAT DO CARE AND HAVE GOOD IDEA'S THAT MAY HELP YOU...

Access

I think people who say shrinkage is fine with them don't understand how insurance works. The larger the pool, the more they can spread the risk and the more cost-effective the insurance plan becomes. If the pool is shrinking every year, the cost of the insurance will rise until it becomes no more competitive than say adding a rider onto a homeowners or an umbrella liability policy. At this point there is a cascade effect since one of the main functions of the AMA is the insurance. People who were members mainly for the insurance get out, making the insurance even more expensive until the cost of insurance simply becomes untenable and it is dropped altogether.

Also think of loans, if they use loans to finance long-term projects or funding for big projects (national flight competitions and such) it becomes much harder to get a loan your revenue is shrinking every year.

dbcisco

So the insurance (currently costs about $8/member) might increase, and competitions that a small percentage of the 140,000 members can attend or compete in might have reduced funding.
Get rid of MA and you reduce expenses by around $2M.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

Get rid of MA, the national flying site, the staff, the insurance and you will reduce costs to $0. Why would they want to get rid of MA?because a few ............ people on a RC forum have it in for it?Think of the educational and scientific void that would leave. Most AMA members look forward to it each month.

I may have made an incorrect assumption that you have actually read MA. Have you ever read MA?

dbcisco

I am not for or against MA. The reality is it costs $3M and takes in $1M in advertising, the other $2M comes out of dues. If you don't have the extra $2M due to low membership.....

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

ut you would also be getting rid of , for many, one of the most visible and tangible benefits of being an AMA member. Dues would probably have to be lowered to compensate.

dbcisco

On the inside of MA it says $18 of each open member's (around 120,000 of them) dues is for the subscription. Many do not like having a mandatory magazine bundled with dues. Efforts to make it seperate have been met with strong opposition. That would lower dues though. Let MA stand or fall on its own merits with voluntary subscriptions seems a reasonable idea. It has also been suggested to sell it like a real magazine, that also has been strongly opposed.

Ted Boz

My Feedback: (2)

How about a reference to verify this statement? Or, is it another sisco moment?