What does Flite Test offer?
05-12-2023, 09:51 AM
#26
These are all actions/failures by members. And I know that you will say that silence by the AMA leadership effectively constitutes complicity, and I won't argue that. But I do maintain that is still very different from the very flagrant and risky behaviors that are actively and directly being promoted (and maybe even encouraged) by the Flite Test organization itself through their YoutTube channel.
Also, the AMA is not playing "whataboutism" here. Maybe you can claim that I am (and maybe I am even a little bit guilty of that), but I certainly do not speak for the AMA and I have never seen the AMA making any claims about Flite Test or any other organization. All I am trying to point out is that Flite Test has many positives and many negatives (like any organization, including the AMA). There seems to be a tendency here to highlight only the negatives associated with the AMA and only the positives of the Flite Test. Again, I have no association with either and think there is plenty to like and plenty to dislike about each.
In short, if you are genuinely concerned about safety (and I think you are) it would seem that you would be just as active at speaking up about the safety risks with what appears to the more rapidly growing organization and the one that is currently representing the hobby to (quite literally) millions of people.
05-12-2023, 09:54 AM
#27
I made no comment about the lack of safety in that senecio, just pointed out that the fish in your story keeps getting bigger.
As you may recall, you also commented that that facility was unacceptable in part because of poor runway quality. Ruts and such, yet someone with a 30cc 3D bird deemed it acceptable for his lightly built fragile airplane.
It’s these inconsistencies in your stories that take away from you credibility.
As you may recall, you also commented that that facility was unacceptable in part because of poor runway quality. Ruts and such, yet someone with a 30cc 3D bird deemed it acceptable for his lightly built fragile airplane.
It’s these inconsistencies in your stories that take away from you credibility.
Instead you pull another comment out of context. And then you wrap it in a statement that has a lot of assumptions, things like "lightly built." I don't conceded that. And yes, the grass was rough, and it's well known for gopher holes. I submit that given the difference in wheel size between generally larger size models and generally smaller size (mine was .25 FW), that roughness makes a difference.
That said, it's entirely possible that at some point his larger aircraft ripped off landing gear in one of the holes, as I ripped off mine in one. I can't say for sure, as I didn't go back.
05-12-2023, 09:57 AM
#28
One other general thought about safety. Overall, despite all the risks we discuss here, model aviation is still an incredibly safe activity compared to many other hobbies and leisure activities out there. For example, according to Golf Digest, around 40,000 people each year visit the emergency room due to accidents on the golf course (mostly as a result of being struck by flying golf balls or club heads). The only data I can find on UAS related emergency room visits was an article in Science Direct which claimed statistics of 12,870 model airplane and drone related injuries over the period of 2010 to 2017 (under 2,000 per year), the majority being "propeller related" (no specifics given, but I bet we all know someone who got their finger cut up by being careless around a prop). Again, no hard data, but it is a probably a pretty safe bet that being a spectator at a model airplane field is far, far, safer than being a spectator at a golf course. Yet there is no government agency running around regulating golf courses and golf equipment 
I am not saying we should be lackadaisical about safety, but I also think we need to keep this in perspective too.
I am not saying we should be lackadaisical about safety, but I also think we need to keep this in perspective too.
05-12-2023, 10:18 AM
#29
Let’s reel this back in a bit and maybe concentrate on the topic. I’ve still not heard anything that gives FT any value except that they are reaching youth. Again I’m not a fan in the way they are attracting youth but some of those youth may adopt a higher degree of safety awareness at a later date.
05-12-2023, 10:32 AM
#30
Let’s reel this back in a bit and maybe concentrate on the topic. I’ve still not heard anything that gives FT any value except that they are reaching youth. Again I’m not a fan in the way they are attracting youth but some of those youth may adopt a higher degree of safety awareness at a later date.
05-12-2023, 10:40 AM
#31
Let’s reel this back in a bit and maybe concentrate on the topic. I’ve still not heard anything that gives FT any value except that they are reaching youth. Again I’m not a fan in the way they are attracting youth but some of those youth may adopt a higher degree of safety awareness at a later date.
05-12-2023, 10:45 AM
#32
In the end, it always seems to come down to this. Those who oppose the AMA are ultimately opposed to the dues (both AMA and club). I have no problem with that and respect that view. I just wish those that had that view also respected that there are many who don't mind paying for the ability to fly at a club field that is well maintained, has nice amenities, and is insured (everything else aside, that is ultimately what the AMA provides to me).
05-12-2023, 10:47 AM
#33
Everything I've ever been taught about leadership is that it's not just what one does, but so too what they tolerate. So in that sense, I agree but state the two actions are equivalent. If I'm a leader not following my own rules, I'm wrong. On the other hand, if I'm a leader and tolerate my organization not following the rules, that's just as wrong.
Don't disagree. In fact, I don't think one can objectively measure whether one is better or worse than the other based on what they do and do not offer. Each caters to its constituency. AMA's membership (at least those who vote) cares about things that FT members do not. FT focuses on what's required by law for a CBO, which isn't much.
As I said, whether large or small, whether leaders breaking rules themselves, or leaders tolerating rule breaking in their organization, both are wrong.
Don't disagree. In fact, I don't think one can objectively measure whether one is better or worse than the other based on what they do and do not offer. Each caters to its constituency. AMA's membership (at least those who vote) cares about things that FT members do not. FT focuses on what's required by law for a CBO, which isn't much.
As I said, whether large or small, whether leaders breaking rules themselves, or leaders tolerating rule breaking in their organization, both are wrong.
05-12-2023, 11:57 AM
#35
I think it's reasonable to allow a new organization time to sort things out. I'm content to allow FT some time to mature as an organization in the same way I'm tolerant of giving teenagers some time to mature.
I also think it's different once you start requiring your members to pay for services. Some will argue that you're paying for those services, but when you're collecting millions per year, I expect more. Especially when the organization isn't a teenager, it's well into old age!
05-12-2023, 11:59 AM
#36
In the end, it always seems to come down to this. Those who oppose the AMA are ultimately opposed to the dues (both AMA and club). I have no problem with that and respect that view. I just wish those that had that view also respected that there are many who don't mind paying for the ability to fly at a club field that is well maintained, has nice amenities, and is insured (everything else aside, that is ultimately what the AMA provides to me).
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-12-2023 at 12:03 PM.
05-12-2023, 12:12 PM
#37
I would tend to disagree. I pay a $15 yearly membership fee to my scale hydroplane racing club for each boat I register and another $90 membership/insurance fee to the North American Model Boating Association for both the wife and I. In addition, I also pay a $20 racing fee to participate in each race I go to. If I go to every race my club has, of which there are 11 this year, I would be looking at $325 for membership in NAMBA, membership and boat registration and entry fees for a single boat. At the same time, I wouldn't pay a dime to the AMA. The EC has already shown they have no idea what fiscal responsibility is. All I have to do is look at how they waste their funds to know I want no part of them. NAMBA has no hired staff, no headquarters building or property to be maintained. What NAMBA does have is a President, Vice President, Executive Secretary, 20 district directors and 15 chairmen. The difference between the AMA and NAMBA is that NONE OF THE PEOPLE LISTED ABOVE GET PAID!!!!!!!!! I can read the NAMBA monthly newsletter/magazine, Propwash, online for free so NAMBA doesn't have to pay over a million dollars per year to print and publish a magazine. I hope you can see the difference
I said I respect the point of view of those who don't find value in AMA membership. I also said that I do find value in AMA membership specifically because it gives me access to a nice place to fly, and that I wished others would respect the reason why I would find value in an AMA membership. I don't disagree that the AMA wastes money and I never said I was happy with the way they spend my dues (especially the magazine), but I still enjoy having that access to a nice place to fly.
05-12-2023, 12:18 PM
#39
Interesting question. I'm well aware that not everyone will agree, but here's some reasons off the top of my head:
I think it's reasonable to allow a new organization time to sort things out. I'm content to allow FT some time to mature as an organization in the same way I'm tolerant of giving teenagers some time to mature.
I also think it's different once you start requiring your members to pay for services. Some will argue that you're paying for those services, but when you're collecting millions per year, I expect more. Especially when the organization isn't a teenager, it's well into old age!
I think it's reasonable to allow a new organization time to sort things out. I'm content to allow FT some time to mature as an organization in the same way I'm tolerant of giving teenagers some time to mature.
I also think it's different once you start requiring your members to pay for services. Some will argue that you're paying for those services, but when you're collecting millions per year, I expect more. Especially when the organization isn't a teenager, it's well into old age!
05-12-2023, 12:18 PM
#40
In the end, it always seems to come down to this. Those who oppose the AMA are ultimately opposed to the dues (both AMA and club). I have no problem with that and respect that view. I just wish those that had that view also respected that there are many who don't mind paying for the ability to fly at a club field that is well maintained, has nice amenities, and is insured (everything else aside, that is ultimately what the AMA provides to me).
That is far from the case with AMA clubs. You pay for the base membership, but then you also have to pay a separate fee to "go in" each of the facilities. And those facilities are far from consistent.
Point being not everyone has access to clubs that are "well maintained" and "[have] nice amenities". For years I've been said that the strongest reason for AMA membership is a quality field close to where someone lives. I've advocated that they geolocate members, survey clubs for standard amenities, and then try to ensure that as many members as possible have access to the same level of amenities within some specific distance. Instead, what AMA does is tell clubs to DIY, and meanwhile they're plowing money into a giant site in the center of the country that most members will rarely if ever use (note 1). It's great for AMA staff and those that live in the area, but then again, maybe that's the true purpose.
Note 1: I'd be really curious to see data. (1) How many unique AMA numbers use the Taj-Muncie site each year for the past 5 or 10 years, (2) for each one of those unique numbers, how many times they visited each year, and (3) how many unique AMA numbers have never used the facility. I predict that AMA will never share that data with the members who are funding the site (all of us) because it'll show that the vast majority of members are funding a site used by very few individuals, and of those, they're heavily concentrated in the HQ.
05-12-2023, 12:20 PM
#41
In the end, it always seems to come down to this. Those who oppose the AMA are ultimately opposed to the dues (both AMA and club). I have no problem with that and respect that view. I just wish those that had that view also respected that there are many who don't mind paying for the ability to fly at a club field that is well maintained, has nice amenities, and is insured (everything else aside, that is ultimately what the AMA provides to me).
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-12-2023 at 12:22 PM.
05-12-2023, 12:21 PM
#42
05-12-2023, 12:22 PM
#43
05-12-2023, 12:32 PM
#44
Neither are most AMA sites across the northern part of the country. Many areas in the north get so much snow that there's no way to get to an AMA affiliated flying field. Then again, I have several lakes that I can run the boats in year round, within 30 minutes of my house, and for free. I don't see it as apples and oranges, like you do. I see it as spending money in a responsible manner rather than wasting it on things that I won't ever use, such as the money pit called Muncie Indiana.
05-12-2023, 12:34 PM
#45
The part I highlighted is what I disagree with. If I was opposed to paying club or NAMBA dues, I wouldn't have a hobby in the R/C world. I spent years as a member of other organizations with yearly dues and other costs, many times as an officer. What I'm getting at is it's not the dues that most are unwilling to pay. What most are unwilling to do is pay dues to an organization that wastes the funds provided by the dues being paid by the members for pet projects or on things that cost outweighs the benefits.
05-12-2023, 12:47 PM
#47
Say I'm a member of one of the airline premium travel programs, where I pay money to be part of the club. I get affinity programs, newsletters, special notices, custom luggage tags, etc. in addition to access to the facilities at the airports. Whether I go into the facility in Detroit, Minneapolis, Atlanta, or elsewhere, there's a certain base level of amenities that I get for that membership dollar. Sure some have more, for example only one of the Delta clubs in Detroit has showers, but in all there's similar food, service, reading material, services, drinks, chairs, etc.
That is far from the case with AMA clubs. You pay for the base membership, but then you also have to pay a separate fee to "go in" each of the facilities. And those facilities are far from consistent.
Point being not everyone has access to clubs that are "well maintained" and "[have] nice amenities". For years I've been said that the strongest reason for AMA membership is a quality field close to where someone lives. I've advocated that they geolocate members, survey clubs for standard amenities, and then try to ensure that as many members as possible have access to the same level of amenities within some specific distance. Instead, what AMA does is tell clubs to DIY, and meanwhile they're plowing money into a giant site in the center of the country that most members will rarely if ever use (note 1). It's great for AMA staff and those that live in the area, but then again, maybe that's the true purpose.
Note 1: I'd be really curious to see data. (1) How many unique AMA numbers use the Taj-Muncie site each year for the past 5 or 10 years, (2) for each one of those unique numbers, how many times they visited each year, and (3) how many unique AMA numbers have never used the facility. I predict that AMA will never share that data with the members who are funding the site (all of us) because it'll show that the vast majority of members are funding a site used by very few individuals, and of those, they're heavily concentrated in the HQ.
That is far from the case with AMA clubs. You pay for the base membership, but then you also have to pay a separate fee to "go in" each of the facilities. And those facilities are far from consistent.
Point being not everyone has access to clubs that are "well maintained" and "[have] nice amenities". For years I've been said that the strongest reason for AMA membership is a quality field close to where someone lives. I've advocated that they geolocate members, survey clubs for standard amenities, and then try to ensure that as many members as possible have access to the same level of amenities within some specific distance. Instead, what AMA does is tell clubs to DIY, and meanwhile they're plowing money into a giant site in the center of the country that most members will rarely if ever use (note 1). It's great for AMA staff and those that live in the area, but then again, maybe that's the true purpose.
Note 1: I'd be really curious to see data. (1) How many unique AMA numbers use the Taj-Muncie site each year for the past 5 or 10 years, (2) for each one of those unique numbers, how many times they visited each year, and (3) how many unique AMA numbers have never used the facility. I predict that AMA will never share that data with the members who are funding the site (all of us) because it'll show that the vast majority of members are funding a site used by very few individuals, and of those, they're heavily concentrated in the HQ.
05-12-2023, 01:10 PM
#48
OK, that's fair. What I was trying to say (apparently poorly) is that those who oppose the AMA often do so because they are opposed to the AMA and AMA club dues (not dues and fees in general). You list very specific reasons why you are opposed to those dues, and those reasons have been listed and documented before, so I understand and respect your position (at least that is what I was trying to say). But I still enjoy the access to my local fields, and if the price I have to pay to get that access is AMA membership and club dues, well I am OK with that.
Astro
05-12-2023, 01:41 PM
#49
The price you pay to enjoy those fields are the club dues, NOT AMA membership. Club dues go to support each local flying field, as the AMA does nothing (or very little) to support the actual facilities, they are all owned and operated at the expense of the individual clubs. The AMA LOVES that narrative, though! LOL
