RE: AMA dues increase
He may have -paid for his own membership plus his wife ($88, but might have had a buck credit or discount) -paid for membership plus a PPP membership for someone else ($87.95) -paid for his membership plus extra(s) e.g., FAI stamp, PP mag........
Posted on: 7/15/2012 12:12 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11156170

RE: Thanx for getting me junkmail
KE- Just for giggles, did the header on the latest spam start like this: "From: AxxAgeStore.com <newx@axxage.com> To: Special Offer for AMA Members" If so, your contact info along every other Tom, Dick and Harry that pays dues to AMA must have come from some data mining company like AXCIOM. Yeah, right. CJ
Posted on: 7/11/2012 5:16 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11151890

RE: Thanx for getting me junkmail
[quote]ORIGINAL: scale only 4 me yawn [/quote] Hope you enjoyed those unsolicited DVDs and collector coins that 'AMA' sent you, and then dunned you for payment. I did - hung with piece of string they made nice shiny, spinning targets for my .22 pellet gun.
Posted on: 7/9/2012 9:45 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149544

RE: Thanx for getting me junkmail
respected name to nonamewhomever cuts them in on the take. CJ
Posted on: 7/9/2012 9:16 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149523

RE: FPV SURVEY
what separates us and our model aircraft from regulated (or to be regulated) classes of UAS. CJ
Posted on: 7/8/2012 6:11 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11148012

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe The only safe place to fly FPV is at an AMA flying field, and I stand by that statement. [/quote] Rubbish. That's like saying no model airplane should be flown anywhere but at an AMA flying field.
Posted on: 7/7/2012 12:38 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146681

RE: FPV SURVEY
on that - got any to add? CJ
Posted on: 7/3/2012 4:12 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141812

RE: MA article on tip thrown glider declage timer.
[quote]ORIGINAL: scale only 4 me I found myself skipping right past those articles,,, Anyone else think these one aspect focused issues are too much of one thing in one issue? [/quote] Nope
Posted on: 7/2/2012 6:57 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11140644

RE: FPV SURVEY
in FPV while flying their legitimate model aircraft. CJ
Posted on: 7/2/2012 6:19 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11140589

RE: MA article on tip thrown glider declage timer.
, I'd say. CJ
Posted on: 6/25/2012 4:49 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11131693

RE: MA article on tip thrown glider declage timer.
it appeared was in print of a competing journal. You know what I 'm sayin'.......TMI already. CJ
Posted on: 6/25/2012 12:11 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11131330

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Hossfly <snip> No matter what anyone believes, the cost of insurance was the top item until some years ago the magazine [i][b]Model Aviation[/b][/i] topped out as the #1 expense outside basic administration. That is also in the annual audit reports. As you, CJ, say, "... and then read the articles about models and modelers. CJ
Posted on: 6/24/2012 7:17 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11130409

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
reports on fiscal state of AMA. If it matters to you, read them. Other than that, good post CJ
Posted on: 6/23/2012 10:32 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11129435

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.
on what we individually can imagine for the future of the tech. CJ
Posted on: 6/20/2012 3:59 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11125739

RE: FPV SURVEY
OP's question was completely answered in post 3 of this thread. After 3 pages of replies, maybe this question will be comparatively on-topic: Why did AMA poll the members about this? Kinda rare that they do. SOP seems to be such issues, if not resolved in a perfunctory manner at the HQ staff level, are brought to the EC by one amongst them for discussion at a quarterly meeting, and voted on. If not enough information is available, matter is tabled while the task of filling in info and providing recommendations goes to a committee. Prior polls from AMA have sought member input re their activities and preferences for marketing/business planning purposes. The poll regarding Park Flyer Program for example didn't ask members if they were in favor of the program, they had decided to do it regardless of what members wanted, with but one caveat: might not be good if too many current members might prefer the lower priced PF member option. That is what the poll asked, and a NO PF majority vote by members was a GO for the PF Program. I'm skeptical about member input being solicited on a matter of AMA policy. Too radical a change where any measure of control is delegated even one level down in the pecking order with great reluctance. I'm thinking they already know the outcome with a high confidence level, that it is anti-FPV, and the reason stated is "the members have spoken."
Posted on: 6/19/2012 9:09 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11124685

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.
[quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul In all the discussion of privacy and police drones in the news, I have never seen anybody acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this in United States v Causby - 328 US 256 (1946) While is is an old case it is still the precident ruling. (snipped) Brad [/quote] Somebody did in this forum, a thread discussing a fracas between a homebuilder/owner and MA interests, cuppla years ago. Sport_Pilot?? Anyway, let's hope if the Supremes do reconsider it, they include an exception for MA.
Posted on: 6/14/2012 3:20 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11118397

RE: Model Plane, Drone, Bird or?? UFO ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk I wonder if this guy had his name and number on his. Regards Frank [/quote] TMI. Except for that, Jim's story might have been a sequel to Roswell.
Posted on: 6/13/2012 9:18 AM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11116824

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot This is all useless blather. If they had not asked those questions HossFly would be asking whey they did not so they could use it to promote the hobby! [/quote] No, Hoss is way smarter than that. Ref. the quote in his sig line. Was it the lamb that called for putting the issue to popular vote? Hoss understands what polls are really about. YMMV CJ
Posted on: 6/10/2012 12:53 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11113432

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
[quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul [quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe I thought that "line of sight" applied to the pilot operating the trainer box. He is the pilot in charge who allows the dude with the buddy-box to operate the plane safely as the porotolcl requires. [/quote] Somebody has figured it out !!!!!!!!!!, and that is why the AMA cannot eliminate the 2 pilot buddy box requirement............................ they do not have the authority to do so and still keep the exemption under the bill passed by Congress. Brad [/quote] Wow! That's awsome! Another topically related Q has been nagging at me.................. Referring back to OP, what motivated AMA to publicize the petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf, conduct a member poll, focus the ED's Blog on it, and whatall? I'm sure they receive such appeals frequently, but it is very rare for them to actively seek member opinions on policy matters a priori, and so this issue amongst many must be special in some way. I wonder if the question would have surfaced if they didn't anticipate the result would be what they wanted it to be.
Posted on: 6/10/2012 12:01 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11113379

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
them adversely> " CJ
Posted on: 6/9/2012 4:51 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11112642

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
. If AMA acks that, what remains of the rift is at noise level. How hard is that? CJ
Posted on: 6/9/2012 1:49 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11112526

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Hossfly Now, CJ, having someone disagree with me is almost an hourly thing. No problem there. [b]However CJ, think on this one[/b]. >>>>> (major snipping) [/quote] Okay Hoss, I thought about it - admittedly not giving the question the kind of consideration the AMA... the reality checker in the grey matter. I'm callin' Uncle and outta this one. CJ
Posted on: 6/8/2012 5:41 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11111737

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
wore the crown, appears his successor(s) are going to have a go at something similar. CJ
Posted on: 6/8/2012 3:34 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11111634

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
with IAC, that is). CJ ps: Hoss, I got the Email (don't need the URL I asked
Posted on: 6/8/2012 2:31 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11111585

RE: AMA, What are you Thinking?
that of AMA. I quit in disgust before finding an end to it, if there is an end. CJ
Posted on: 6/7/2012 10:38 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11110859

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
[quote]ORIGINAL: mongo sooner or later, yes, the FPV stuff should be reviewed and possibly re vamped. don't think that now is the right time. with all the FAA stuff still in flux and no real concrete ideas where it will fall out, well, sure would be rough for us to set a new policy and find out a time later that it is in direct contradiction to the new FAA policy. the above also applies to most everything we could be looking to change. best to wait until after our controlling authority gets their ducks in line before we start changing our duck formation. [/quote] Good points, but only address one of at least two objectives; there are probably more and doubtless some are conflicting. It appears AMA wants to back off from the hardline Ludditism re FPV taken by a prior administration to an extent that it doesn't drive off existing members engaged in that aspect of the hobby and may even bring in new members. FPV is rapidly growing and maturing, and the window of opportunity for AMA to act so as to keep/bring its enthusiasts into the fold isn't going to be open forever. I think the dismal reception of the Park Pilot Program illustrates the result of a too-little-too-late approach. Status quo of AMA's outreach to the FPV community (if my perception that there is one isn't completely out to lunch) is that it seems to be going over like a turd in the punchbowl. Do something in pursuit of member interest and membership goals or avoid rocking Uncle's boat? I won't chose sides, but admit that doing nothing (not rocking the boat) is the path of lesser gradient.
Posted on: 6/7/2012 4:04 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11110485

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
[quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those. [/quote] What business of FAA is the frequency he is flying on? If you meant something something else by 'it' in saying you suspect FAA rules will not allow 'it,' what is 'it?' If 'it' is FPV ops by non-CBO modelers, they would have merry chase enforcing a ban. There's a lot of FPV modeling going on, and darn little of it in places where AMA has any influence or visibility of it..........nor cash flow from it. Some in AMA are attempting to be less inhospitable to modelers with an interest in it.
Posted on: 6/2/2012 4:04 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11104053

RE: SOS, DD
[quote]ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield [quote]ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf [quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul Hmmm... i'd split the newsletter/political portion from the magazine/hobby portion. That one change would make MA more desirable for every modeler... not just AMA members. [/quote] Absolutely brilliant!!!! So now there would be two mailings to open members, that's a real saving. [:'(] Maybe they would make up the difference in not mailing to the few that wanted to opt out. [8|] Don't give up your day job to become a business consultant! [/quote] [/quote] Brilliant indeed. A total hack job on the cites turns the stereotypical drooling of venom mildly humorous.
Posted on: 5/13/2012 4:21 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11079337

RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles
what you have seen personally, but interpreting what is seen AMA-wide. CJ
Posted on: 4/16/2012 2:37 PM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11044598

RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles
[quote]ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk [quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot That is only after the part you left off. (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport [b]should[/b] establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) [/quote] Communications is the first step in ensuring safe operations. The word “should” in that statement expresses an obligation or duty to communicate. Below is a snip from an airport directory that properly notifies inbound and outbound pilots of the location of RC flying at an airport. AIRPORT REMARKS: Attended 1300Z‡–dusk. Radio control acft flying area NW side of Rwy 18. ACTIVATE MIRL Rwys 09–27 and 18–36; REIL and PAPI Rwys 09 and 27—CTAF. We are not seeking permission, only notification of operations so any conflicts can be addressed or notifications of possible conflicts can be posted. Please note that ample points of communication are provided in the draft letter. As I have stated before, this has been an issue for thirty years and it is past time people realize we need to communicate with the rest of the aviation community that we share the NAS with. Regards Frank [/quote] No, the only should that counts is what AMA tells you to do or not do. Folks thinking for themselves.........using their own judgement and sense of responsibility...............you are advocating anarchy. For shame, Frank.
Posted on: 4/2/2012 7:28 AM by Author "cj_rumley" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11024921