Frank Tiano, Candidate for AMA President

[Krzy4RC]

I would start here...

http://www.giantscalenews.com/threads/campaign-statements.9011/#post-193482

Look at "Why I am running" at the bottom.

 

[porcia83]

Hard to keep all the campaign statements straight. First he released one that said he wasn't running and listed all the reasons why, then he released at least two more (well, others are releasing them on his behalf). Curious as to why he hasn't personally reached out to his core constituents here as well as FG though.

But my question remains, who is the AMA being "taken back from"? Was it stolen? Did it go away? Who took it over in the dead of the night? Or has the acceptance of a new flight discipline threatened a few folks flying something different? Guess it was o/k when Giant Scale and Turbines and Helis were embraced, but nothing else?

I see a lot of typical political bluster on those multiple campaign statements (in all fairness, they all do it), but it lacks specificity. Reminds me of Trump, we'll do this, we'll do that, we'll "see" once I'm elected, trust me I know. Nothing specific though. Well, scratch that, there were some changes/additional suggested, most if not all seemed to favor giant scale, turbines, and benefits to folks who have those type of businesses. Sort of self serving, but I'm sure the "intent" is to help the whole hobby.

The hobby will continue to change going forward. There is no going back however. Any candidate advocating that, or promising that is a liar, a fraud, and delusional. It simply can't be done with to any reasonable degree.

 

[Bartman]

I don't think anyone's trying to go backwards. It seems the goal is to change how resources are allocated amongst the many disciplines of RC flying probably to remove the recent emphasis on drones, which I don't think is unreasonable.

 

[Jetpainter]

Or has the acceptance of a new flight discipline threatened a few folks flying something different? Guess it was o/k when Giant Scale and Turbines and Helis were embraced, but nothing else?

There is a huge difference between between embracing Giant Scale, Turbines and Heli's, and the crap storm that drones have caused. I don't remember weekly stories on the news about Giant Scale airplanes, turbines or heli's causing trouble like drones have. I think people have a damn good reason to feel threatened. If you read the Senate version of the re-authorization bill our right to fly certainly was threatened. And anyone that thinks the drone issue didn't cause that is kidding themselves.

It seems to me that Frank Tiano's comments about taking the AMA back refers to the feelings of a good deal of us that don't think the AMA had our interests at heart when it came to the drone issue. I, and a lot of others I've spoken with, think the AMA saw drones as a new way to increase membership and income. The problem with that is in embracing drones, they also embrace all the problems that go along with them.

I for one, and I'm sure I'm not alone, think they really dropped the ball with the FAA when it comes to all the other disciplines being lumped in with drones. When I registered with the FAA it REALLY ticked me off to click a tab labeled "Register Your Drone" I don't have a "DRONE"

The big problem with the AMA's thinking on drones as I see it is why anyone with a drone, that doesn't already belong to the AMA would even join. Why would you? The only reason the vast majority of AMA members belong now is that they are forced to by their club or other clubs they visit. Drone owners don't need a club to fly. Now that the CBO's are part of the rules, honest people will join the AMA. Most still wont and the drone problems will continue, and we will pay for it.

And before anyone reading this thinks I'm a drone hater, that is certainly not the case. I think it's a cool technology. We had a drone race at our field last year that looked like an absolute blast.

 

[js-rc]

Well said Jetpainter !! That's my take on it too . A lot of my flying buddies have drones & noone has had a problem, I just can't seem to get into those though, ha !!

 

[porcia83]

I don't think anyone's trying to go backwards. It seems the goal is to change how resources are allocated amongst the many disciplines of RC flying probably to remove the recent emphasis on drones, which I don't think is unreasonable.

Finally, a much more precise and eloquent way of laying out what the intentions might be! Not only a fair and probable expectation or desire, but a reasonable one. I would say that the AMA has "spread the wealth" out across all the disciplines, perhaps more on the MR/QUAD thing this year only because it's growing in popularity and relevance in the RC world. It's front and center in discussions, lots of ads in all the RC media, and well as the mainstream media as well. They certainly put some time and effort into the UASSTEM program this year, but have also put an equal amount into the Camp AMA/Flight School program since 2011. That focuses on fixed wing and helis. I'd guess they are far ahead in spending for that then they are MR/Quad. Nonetheless, I completely see your point.

As for going backwards, it just seems to me that based on Tiano and Tougas's approach, they are pandering (or more softly...focusing their efforts) on going back to traditional themes, ie before MR/Drones. They are using jargon that appears exclusionary and devisive, even slogans like "take the hobby back, or make the hobby great again". Both have spoken specifically about and Us versus Them approach to dealing with them, which at this point would be absolutely impossible, and not make any difference in terms of federal oversight/regulation.

You've laid a more precise vision or goal however, these candidates should let you vet their statements and appeal to a broader spectrum of folks. Also, just for the record I don't do MR/Quads/Drones or helis, don't particularly care for any of them. I'm strictly fixed wing, but I appreciate pretty much anything that is RC.

Thanks for the comments and discussion.

 

[porcia83]

There is a huge difference between between embracing Giant Scale, Turbines and Heli's, and the crap storm that drones have caused. I don't remember weekly stories on the news about Giant Scale airplanes, turbines or heli's causing trouble like drones have. I think people have a damn good reason to feel threatened. If you read the Senate version of the re-authorization bill our right to fly certainly was threatened. And anyone that thinks the drone issue didn't cause that is kidding themselves.

It seems to me that Frank Tiano's comments about taking the AMA back refers to the feelings of a good deal of us that don't think the AMA had our interests at heart when it came to the drone issue. I, and a lot of others I've spoken with, think the AMA saw drones as a new way to increase membership and income. The problem with that is in embracing drones, they also embrace all the problems that go along with them.

I for one, and I'm sure I'm not alone, think they really dropped the ball with the FAA when it comes to all the other disciplines being lumped in with drones. When I registered with the FAA it REALLY ticked me off to click a tab labeled "Register Your Drone" I don't have a "DRONE"

The big problem with the AMA's thinking on drones as I see it is why anyone with a drone, that doesn't already belong to the AMA would even join. Why would you? The only reason the vast majority of AMA members belong now is that they are forced to by their club or other clubs they visit. Drone owners don't need a club to fly. Now that the CBO's are part of the rules, honest people will join the AMA. Most still wont and the drone problems will continue, and we will pay for it.

And before anyone reading this thinks I'm a drone hater, that is certainly not the case. I think it's a cool technology. We had a drone race at our field last year that looked like an absolute blast.

Folks feel about MR/Drones much the same way they feel about politics, they feel what they feel and that's that. On this issue, nobody is going to change their point of view, at least not easily. I don't think anything the AMA did by embracing this technology had any effect on what the FAA did. They can't control the media or how the public sees us as a hobby, and the media certainly ate up the "near miss" hysteria and "peeping Tom" stories too. There were legitimate security concerns too that started springing up as well, so the timing wasn't good. But the hobby was going to be regulated with or without the AMA doing anything. I think it would have been a huge miss to intentionally keep MR/Drone out, a big blunder. Let's not forget that the difference between a heli and a racing quad is literally one rotor blade, sometimes not even that (some heli's have two main blades).

More to your other point, the membership issue. The Best Buy program clearly showed that people who flew these machines felt there was some value on joining the AMA, about 900 of them actually. Yes, they paid nothing for the membership (but of course they did indirectly via the cost of the machine), but the AMA derived $ 50,000 in memberships dues from that. Sure, every single of one them might quit, but it's not likely. I think Tougas has made reference to seeing data that showed about 10% of the membership's main focus was MR. I think that number is high, but let's say it's 10,000...that's still not bad given the relative infancy of the discipline. At the club I belong to, we've seen about 25 MR guys join over the past two years. They came in specifically just to do that since we carved out an area for that by our heli field. It was used a lot first few months, and it's still used every week. The funny thing though is that more than half of them have also migrated over to Helis, and fixed wing. They are loving the foamy warbirds and actually fly them more now than they do the MR/drones. I agree that the pure "drone" enthusiast probably wouldn't see value going into a club given the limitations imposed upon them. The sport and racer MRs though I think will remain strong. Time will tell!

 

[porcia83]

pic didn't load, tried a few times, no can do. It's a big grassy field, lol.

 

[Jetpainter]

As someone that flies Heli's I'd like to think there is a little more then blade count as the difference between the two. In my eye it's the fact that my 92 year old father could fly a drone probably has something to do about that.

 

[porcia83]

As someone that flies Heli's I'd like to think there is a little more then blade count as the difference between the two. In my eye it's the fact that my 92 year old father could fly a drone probably has something to do about that.

Ah yes, the familiar generalization that anyone can fly a drone, just take it out of the box and fly. It's a reliable standby used to marginalize and minimize the skills of anyone who fly these aircraft. Like most generalizations, they miss the mark. Some flight skills are of course needed, as well as basic programming and calibration. Many of the issues noobs have with these are as a direct result of NOT having and doing those two things.

But are we now going to go by the ease of flight for the aircraft as a metric? Here is something your 92 father could probably fly out of the box.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/product...-1/ready-to-fly/glasair-sportsman-rtf-hbz7600

If that's too hard, how about this little guy:

https://www.motionrc.com/products/h...=22810960454&gclid=COWkop6j5c4CFc5lfgodJCQDlg

Stabilization systems, heading programming, will take off and basically fly by itself, as well as land itself. Watched one last week fly straight as an arrow and land in a stiff crosswind with no fingers on the sticks.