Stickslammer

Maybe the AMA doesn`t want to risk being totally ignored by Uncle Sam by being financially responsible. "Not running a huge deficit annually? Ugh, get lost, you`re dead to us!"

Appowner

You know, I have yet to come across any AMA member who disputes Franklin's analysis of the AMA's financial situation. And yet, there have been only a very few who express any concern what so ever about it. Why is that?

You tout the AMA as your representative to the world and yet, you sit here and allow it to fiscally disintegrate without doing a damn thing about it. Is that what you really think of your hobby? Are you the same kind of people who are stepping up to run this nation? Those who label the messengers and call them names rather than present a real argument?

God help the United States if that's the case.

Stickslammer

I appreciate Franklin`s effort in pointing out that in the face of declining revenue year after year, that the AMA will eventually have no choice but to do what`s been suggested here, or close up shop. Or maybe they will become an arm of the FAA, in which money will start growing on trees and they`ll have nothing to worry about.
Either way, I`m confident that the hobby will survive.

franklin_m

Per my latest MA, the new ED says they're "realigning staff." Well, given that staff is their single biggest expense, I'm not sure "realigning" them is going to save anything. In fact, 75% of AMA's expenses are tied up in just five items per their 2017 IRS expense filing:

Staff - 40% / $3.8 million
Insurance - 13% / $1.2 million
"Other" - 10% / $0.96 million
MA & Park Pilot losses* - 7% / $0.68 million
Legal & other fees - 5% / $0.49 million

* = MA & Park Pilot revenue - MA & Park Pilot expenses

From a management standpoint, I think it makes the most sense to find savings in the big buckets first. As insurance is probably about as good as they can negotiate, that means if they want to save meaningful dollars, I'd be looking at staff and "other."

init4fun

If we're talking song lyrics , for all of the shooting of the messenger that's taken place in this thread , David Bowie's song "Changes" comes to mind ;

"And these children that you spit on , as they try to change their world , are immune to your consultations , they're quite aware of what they're going through !"

And this right here naturally leads to the question , what exactly IS this "other" that cost us damn near a cool mil ? Pencils ? Other office supplies ? Hookers like the owner of a famous NFL team just got caught with ? Inquiring minds (or at least one inquiring mind , mine) would love to see an exact breakdown of what kinds of other we got for the shady side of a million bux !

franklin_m

You and me both. A million bucks in "other" given the other categories sure seems like a lot. Makes we wonder. I seem to remember that "Dear Leader" recently wrote a column for MA how he went to Australia, and visited their equivalent of AMA. I wonder who paid for that trip? There's others I'm sure.

fliers1

To begin with there was only Woodward and Bernstein who were reporters for The Washington Post, and Deep Throat provided key details about the involvement of U.S. President Richard Nixon's administration in what came to be known as the Watergate scandal.

fliers1

Could anyone think of a scenario if AMA did fold?

Appowner

Well, the sudden loss of the insurance would leave a great many wandering around stunned. Wondering what they should do next.
I can see large numbers of AMA members leaving the hobby. Simply because they no longer have any direction. The end of their world. Especially the older ones.
However, roughly 800,000 registered recreational flyers would continue as before. And I suspect most AMA clubs would continue all be it with fewer members.
There simply would be no formal organization to the traditional side of the hobby and we would suddenly find ourselves as low men on the hobby totem pole.

Anarchy in a sense.

franklin_m

Since the new FAA authorization removed the "and" from the "...within the programming" sentence, and thus took away any possibility that AMA could argue a membership requirement, tt for routine recreational sUAS operations, there's less reason for an AMA to exist. There are really just three reasons under the new law why there is a need for AMA:

- The Safety Code Itself. Yes, the law requires one to follow a CBO safety code, but one could argue the AMA's safety code ...especially the one they've been providing free of charge for years in kits, on their public website, etc. is public domain. Even so, there's no reason why FAA couldn't issue their own safety code. AMA might sue, but how stupid would that be? There's also a possibility that an alternative organization might stand up, what I call a "minimalist" approach. Something that literally meets the legal definition of a CBO and nothing else. No insurance, no magazine, etc. It could be done very cheaply and I think it presents a real opportunity for a competitor.

- FW Turbine. The reason I say FW is that there's nothing in 107 about power sources, so heli folks have an easy alternative. For FW, they could go the 107 route, but then they'd need to apply for a speed and altitude waiver. The way things are going with regulations, if AMA can't get an carve out for >400 feet, then it's not that hard to ask for a speed waiver while you're applying for an altitude waiver. Otherwise, if there is a CBO exception for 400 feet, that is another opportunity for the "minimalist" group above.

- LMA. Much like FW turbine above, it creates an opportunity for many of the same reasons.

Now all of this could be moot if FAA gets more engaged over time, which honestly I think they will, then the need for an AMA goes down to just advocacy. There's value in that, but no reason why a competitor can't spring up.

Honestly, if I had the time I'd give it a shot. Establish the non-profit, set up policies and such that meet the requirements of the law, and try and keep the cost down to a minimum. The way the law is written there's no explicit requirment to have clubs etc., just the structure in place if you do. The other biggie is the whole "nationwide" thing. Again, AMA thinks its a big deal, but it's actually easy to do. Personally, I think FAA would jump at the opportunity to name a second CBO ... especially if that CBO is one that requires registration as a condition of membership, etc. One that doesn't fight AMA at every turn.

Appowner

If not for my health, I'd be right there with you. The old SFA was a one man operation and it shook the AMA to it's core. I really do not see the AMA surviving any form of direct competition today.

The MR crowd have several organizations doing some fantastic work in a number of MR related areas. Insurance is available from a number of sources. They're organized, heavily involved with the commercial side and making great strides for the interests of the MR crowd. In the meantime the AMA has become an also ran.

fliers1

I'm not sure, but at one time, Carl Maroney, who was AMA special services director, left AMA and attempted to create another modeling organization, (I forget what he named it), dues were only $20.
I sent in a check and never heard from him again. He did cash the check.

fliers1

What would a new modeling organization look like? What would the best value it had to offer its members, most importantly the beginner?

Appowner

1. What is the absolute minimum required to qualify as a CBO? That's where you start.
2. What services and options do the members want? These get added as time and need dictate.

Your FAA number becomes your CBO number. Thus verifying compliance in a single move. And tell you what, first time you join if you need to FAA register as well, we'll give you a discount of $5 and pay for your FAA registration. How's that?
Safety code would be online for anyone and mirror the FAA requirements.

Insurance? I wouldn't offer insurance directly but I would work with the insurance industry to provide policies for recreational modelers at decent rates. Less than the AMA? Probably not as the AMA is self insured for the first 250k and I wouldn't do that. But I'd make sure the available policies were primary coverage vice the secondary of the AMA.

Advocacy? Difficult at first with a small operation but I would start with the drone industry. Establish partnerships that can then be leveraged for improved exposure, better/cheaper insurance, etc. I'd also use these partnership to go to work directly with congress. IOW use the partners advocacy system. As the organization grew, districts could be based on the states. This way the district reps would be responsible for working with the individual state governments. And again, leverage partnerships to help cover this aspect. A bit clunky having 50 districts. But when dealing with the laws of 50 individual states, anyone got a better idea?

One thing I would drive for is a means to leverage the national organization to help local clubs finance their own flying sites. There would be conditions. But again, partnerships with industry might be leveraged to help. Would it be so bad to share a site with some company developing their own systems?

The trick is to think outside the box. However, most people I've seen can't even find the lid to the box.

Appowner

Now someone is no doubt going to come out and say something to the effect, "But you need to be nation wide. How are you going to get members in every state over night?"

First of all, where does it say that nation wide means a member in every state? Nation wide simply means you're available to everyone in every state. And how do you do this? With a single web site you become not only nation wide but world wide. It's there, available to anyone and everyone. I can't force people to join so if a state has no members, that's not my fault. The CBO is available to them should they decide otherwise. Simple as that!

fliers1

Sounds great. Wonder if AMA would once again sic the lawyers on this new organization? Also, wonder if AMA is reading this and steal some of your ideas?

BTW, what you presented was very much like what SFA offered.

Appowner

The trick with the drone industry is to convince them of the value of the recreational side of things. This is one place where the future engineers, pilots, etc of commercial drones get their start. In the fun of building and flying your own fixed wing, rotary wing or MR for recreation comes the interest to take it farther. They need to understand that their task becomes more difficult without the recreational side.

What would you rather have, someone whose drone education and experience comes from a college program. Or someone who flew his first model at the age of 5?

fliers1

Recreational Modelers of America. How's that sound? Any other ideas are welcome. This new CBO could place ads in MA.

Appowner

KISS Keep it simple and grow from there as members require. Should the AMA play lawyer games? I think it would end the AMA. Especially if the new organization had established partnerships in the industry. Can you picture the AMA picking on someone Boeing or Lockheed are teamed with? How about both? And a dozen more industry giants.

Yes there would be the temptation to toss the CBO under the bus. But even if they did, the AMA's reputation within the industry and government would hit new lows. AMA reps in Congress wouldn't be able to get directions to the bathroom after that. Shunned doesn't describe how the AMA would be treated after that.

Appowner

RMA sounds like a broken part being returned.

On a take from Hanson's op-ed last year, I kind of like "Renegade (or Rogue) Air Force". RAF with all the historical connotations. Name, even acronym recognition goes a long way.

Yes, I think Rogue Air Force would be the way to go.

Or if we must, "Rogue Aero-modelers Foundation" Still RAF. And the long name would soon be dropped more or less in favor for the acronym. Which is the key component here anyway.

Appowner

Ads in MA? Why limit your advertising dollars to some 180,000 out of a potential million or more?

How about ads with EAA, AOPA, the drone magazines, etc.

Forget the AMA. Pretend they don't even exist. March ahead with the purpose of the new CBO and to hell with the old school GOBs.

fliers1

Just kidding about the ads in MA. But how about: https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/pr.../saso/partners

Appowner

I think I'm the one who first posted that link. But yes, there is a list of who we would approach for partnerships. You'll notice who's absent from that list! The more the merrier.

fliers1

Yes, that's why I went to that link. Imagine the possibility of the financial resources for our new CBO? AMA, if you're watching, we are seriously working on this. I've had some serious back channel conversations.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I don't think they are too concerned. Getting someone to recognize you guys as a CBO might be more difficult than you imagine. Good luck.