Candidates for AMA President

[Scott Richlen]

Read the statements by the candidates for the AMA Presidency.  Lawrence Tougas has a view based on reality.  Holy smoke - AMA has been chasing multi-rotors and FPV and it turns out that less than 10% of AMA membership has any interest in them!  Another tail-wags-the-dog issue.

It seems like everything these days is "tail wags the dog."  Wouldn't it be nice to end it in the AMA?

[Mike Keville]

In his statement, Tougas appears to favor a return to REAL modeling, as opposed to multirotor 'toys' being pushed by the current administration.

Sounds good to me.

[Randy Cuberly]

It seems like everything these days is "tail wags the dog."  Wouldn't it be nice to end it in the AMA?

Actually that's not surprising.  The advertising money is obviously in the Tail not the Dog!

Both Larry Tougas and Rich Hansen are very nice people and will most likely tell the truth about what they believe in.

That is not meant as criticism of the other guy it's just that I know those two and not the other one!

Randy Cuberly

[peabody]

I know Eric Williams pretty well.....he has flown control line with the GSCB, attended events including the Swap Meet.
Eric was instrumental in cutting the Albany County NY attempt to ban model aviation entirely.
Eric also influenced the WRAM Show people to allow control line exhibitors and to include control line models in the events that are judged there.
Eric knows of the huge influence that multi rotors have within the AMA, but is a true "modeler" and believes in coexistence....
He's a great guy and has done a great deal for all clubs and modelers in District II

Have fun!

[Brett Buck]

In his statement, Tougas appears to favor a return to REAL modeling, as opposed to multirotor 'toys' being pushed by the current administration.

Sounds good to me.

  Maybe when David and I torched him in email for advocating flying RC over other people, we had an impact. Or, rather, he sees how well "Drones Are Our Future(tm)" worked out for Brown. I know Hanson a little bit, he's generally a good guy.

   I have a suggestion - invite all of them to join a Q and A thread on Stunthanger. There's not a lot of easier ways to reach a few hundred people than that.

     Brett

[FLOYD CARTER]

I tend to discount any "campaign" statement.  They all craft their campaigns on what they believe is best for AMA.  And that isn't always what's best for the hobby, or,specifically, C/L interests.

[Steve Helmick]

  Maybe when David and I torched him in email for advocating flying RC over other people, we had an impact. Or, rather, he sees how well "Drones Are Our Future(tm)" worked out for Brown. I know Hanson a little bit, he's generally a good guy.

   I have a suggestion - invite all of them to join a Q and A thread on Stunthanger. There's not a lot of easier ways to reach a few hundred people than that.

     Brett

Hopefully, a few hundred people who will all vote! I don't believe there are very many voters in POTAMA elections.  Steve

[Brett Buck]

I tend to discount any "campaign" statement.  They all craft their campaigns on what they believe is best for AMA.  And that isn't always what's best for the hobby, or,specifically, C/L interests.

  That's why I would suggest direct questioning, if possible. For instance, my first question is "How are you going to dissociate the AMA from the drone hobbiests, and commercial drone operations?".

      Brett

[Mike Keville]

It would benefit us if the 'drone' crowd formed their own organization and left model AIRPLANES alone.  This, of course, runs counter to what Bob Brown and others are espousing ("the future of model aviation", blah-blah).

Based on the three candidates' statements, I'd say Lawrence Tougas agrees with this opinion, and deserves our vote.

Be that as it may, and regardless of the outcome, if 'our' (HA!) AMA continues to be the 'Academy of Multirotors & ARFs', 2017 will be my final (since 1951) year.....and I've no doubt that many others share that opinion.

[FLOYD CARTER]

Your membership, or non-membership, will not change the AMA "vision" direction.  The vision is driven primarily by  lobbying, or advertising dollars.  Better leaders can be voted into office, but only if their true agenda is known to the members.

[Bill Mohrbacher]

Larry will get my vote.  After thousands of dollars, big dinners, big hotel bills, and the misbelief that FAA was listening to all our efforts, we got mandatory registration.

Do vote for Larry!

[wwwarbird]

 As a thought, whoever any candidate may be, a mandatory requirement should be a proven ability in building their own flying model airplanes.

 I don't know anything about Mr. Tougas but from what I see here he sounds like someone who understands and respects many of the things the AMA has been ignoring for too long.

[Bill Mohrbacher]

Please, please VOTE WHEN THE TIME COMES!  All the forum comments won't change anything, but your vote may.

[Mike Keville]

I'll say this one more time.  Lawrence Tougas believes - as do many of us - that Multirotors are NOT "the future of model aviation" .... that model BUILDING is alive-and-well (though rarely seen through the eyes of our current President)....and who would, hopefully return the AMA to becoming the Academy of MODEL AERONAUTICS, rather than its current platform as the Academy of MULTIROTORS & ARFs.

Vote for Tougas!!! 

[peabody]

I believe that the three choices are different:
Tougas wants to be regressive
Hanson is more of the same
Williams is forward thinking

The AMA is NOT going to disassociate itself from multi-rotors....just not going to happen.

Why not support a candidate that seeks accommodation of all types of airmodeling?

Mike....are you even an AMA member?

[M Spencer]

 



  sorry chaps ! . 

[Paul Smith]

The space shuttle ENTERPRISE, drop-tested during the 1977 AMA Nats.

Johnny Clemens, AMA President was really geeked-up.  He had the radio broadcast on the big speaker system.

[Brett Buck]

The AMA is NOT going to disassociate itself from multi-rotors....just not going to happen.

Why not support a candidate that seeks accommodation of all types of airmodeling?

     I see no issue with airmodeling. But drones and ARF/ARC toys are not modeling, look up he definition. By the way, in the series of emails David and I had with Tougas earlier in the year, this was a prominent point that we made. We torched him on the topic of the irresponsible flight of RC modelers but we seemed to all be on the same page about drones.

     You are on the wrong side of this, too. In every songle case, you chose to support the destruction of modeling to get something more "progressive". As with all progressives, if we did what you thought we should do, it would take a wrecking ball to what we all enjoy. Why I am not surprised?

      Brett

[peabody]

Exactly the response I expected...

[Scott Richlen]

What is very interesting about this is that the impression you get from reading Model Aviation and the editorial comments of our current leadership is that multi-rotors and FPV are an over-whelming interest of the membership, an un-stoppable wave of the future, and anyone against them are hopelessly antiquated and regressive.  But according to Mr. Togas, there is actually only a small percentage of the membership interested in them, and some of us recognize a certain quality of "hoopla-hoop-ness" to this particular wave of the future.  Sorry, but opposing this stuff is neither regressive nor a bad idea.

The further the hobby veers from recognizing the value of building and design and the promotion of those abilities in the individual membership, the further we stray from being an actual hobby.  We end up being just another trite form of entertainment with no intrinsic value other than that it is entertainment.  And I reject the assumption that because we can find a couple of exceptions (someone who has some kind of health disability and cannot build for themselves and therefore has to fly ARFs: so therefore everyone should have to fly ARFs) we have to govern everything by the exception.

Multi-rotors and FPV are tail-wag-the-dog and should be treated as such.  And AMA leadership needs to exhibit real leadership by being responsive to its membership rather than always making the organization, itself, the issue  This is supposed to be an organization serving its membership.  Here's your clue that something is very wrong with AMA: notice that the "I am the AMA" column of Model Aviation used to feature outstanding members of the AMA and now focuses on AMA leaders?  Have you noticed that in the leadership columns there is more talk about AMA leaders and lots of other "happy talk" instead of actual factual reporting to the membership?

[Mike Griffin]

I think it has been a couple of years ago when I was still a member,  that I contacted the AMA and asked for a breakdown by genre of membership and I do not remember the specific number in each category but I do remember that the total membership was just a little over 186,000.  Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the present membership total is today?  Has it increased or decreased?

Mike

[Randy Cuberly]

What is very interesting about this is that the impression you get from reading Model Aviation and the editorial comments of our current leadership is that multi-rotors and FPV are an over-whelming interest of the membership, an un-stoppable wave of the future, and anyone against them are hopelessly antiquated and regressive.  But according to Mr. Togas, there is actually only a small percentage of the membership interested in them, and some of us recognize a certain quality of "hoopla-hoop-ness" to this particular wave of the future.  Sorry, but opposing this stuff is neither regressive nor a bad idea.

The further the hobby veers from recognizing the value of building and design and the promotion of those abilities in the individual membership, the further we stray from being an actual hobby.  We end up being just another trite form of entertainment with no intrinsic value other than that it is entertainment.  And I reject the assumption that because we can find a couple of exceptions (someone who has some kind of health disability and cannot build for themselves and therefore has to fly ARFs: so therefore everyone should have to fly ARFs) we have to govern everything by the exception.

Multi-rotors and FPV are tail-wag-the-dog and should be treated as such.  And AMA leadership needs to exhibit real leadership by being responsive to its membership rather than always making the organization, itself, the issue  This is supposed to be an organization serving its membership.  Here's your clue that something is very wrong with AMA: notice that the "I am the AMA" column of Model Aviation used to feature outstanding members of the AMA and now focuses on AMA leaders?  Have you noticed that in the leadership columns there is more talk about AMA leaders and lots of other "happy talk" instead of actual factual reporting to the membership?

Very well said Scott.

It's very clear that it's the advertising money that's "wagging the dog" and not any interest in accommodating the AMA membership!

Randy Cuberly

[Dave_Trible]

I am going to vote for the guy most willing to part company with the drone culture.  I can understand somewhat the idea of trying to bolster the membership but that can't mean transforming into something else other than a model airplane organization.  'They' should join IRCHA or simply form their own- surely they must be trying to anyway.

Dave

Actually a Google search brought up the gift horse: www.multirotor.com.   Looks like their startup has arrived.

[Brett Buck]

What is very interesting about this is that the impression you get from reading Model Aviation and the editorial comments of our current leadership is that multi-rotors and FPV are an over-whelming interest of the membership, an un-stoppable wave of the future, and anyone against them are hopelessly antiquated and regressive.  But according to Mr. Togas, there is actually only a small percentage of the membership interested in them, and some of us recognize a certain quality of "hoopla-hoop-ness" to this particular wave of the future.  Sorry, but opposing this stuff is neither regressive nor a bad idea.

   It is very much like the BOM arguments. A few people want to fundamentally change the event/organization on the *hope* that it will bring greater participation. In the case of drones it's a huge fad that they are trying to chase - with entirely dubious upside. But they look at it and say "hey, if we could get even 10% of those drone people, we can double our membership and think how much money and influence that will buy us!". They probably rationalize this with the notion that with much more influence, they are "protecting" traditional modeling. But drones are another fad (like the slot car fad in the 60's - for about a year and a half), and in a year or so, drones will be either a cute memory, and/or regulated out of existence. But the damage will be done.

     Always remember that the AMA operates like a bunch of small-town Babbitts or Chamber of Commerce types. Many times they are well-meaning earnest types, but the culture creates a situation where they are big fish in a small pond, and that almost invariably goes to their heads.

     Brett

[dave siegler]

So the drone guys do not fit the definition of modelers for most of the readers here.   

But what about Duke Fox, Walt and Bill Good,  Phil Kraft, Bill Brown, Bob and Roland Boucher, and Dieter Schlutler were they modelers? 
they worked on some technology that was pretty scary for the time.

So why not the teams of people that build and operate the hobby based electronics used in UAV's modelers?

Yes there is a lot of off the shelf stuff out there, but also a lot of really great and innovative home-brew electronics and software systems. 
There are drone kits, modelers build and design their own systems. 

If these teams working one small drone projects are not "modelers", then the by logic Duke was just some machinist and Walt Good was just a ham radio guy. 

So no matter what you think a portion of the people that work with hobby based drones are the next generation of Duke Fox and Walter Good. 

They just methods processes and mediums that are unfamiliar to you and scare you to death.  You can't put the genie in the bottle.

Would you have voted for someone that wanted to distance them selves from RC in the early 1960's?

[Brett Buck]

So the drone guys do not fit the definition of modelers for most of the readers here.   

But what about Duke Fox, Walt and Bill Good,  Phil Kraft, Bill Brown, Bob and Roland Boucher, and Dieter Schlutler were they modelers? 
they worked on some technology that was pretty scary for the time.

So why not the teams of people that build and operate the hobby based electronics used in UAV's modelers?

     You mean anonymous people in China who designed and built it?  Or the 8-year old girls who put them together?

    I don't think your analogy is at all valid. And frankly, using Duke Fox as an icon rings pretty hollow considering his issues.

     Brett

[dave siegler]

     You mean anonymous people in China who designed and built it?  Or the 8-year old girls who put them together?

    I don't think your analogy is at all valid. And frankly, using Duke Fox as an icon rings pretty hollow considering his issues.

     Brett

So the 20 year old kid in California who was pulling apart game controllers to get the giros to build auto pilots isn't a modeler?   He most surely is.  He is president of 3 d robotics now.  he was just a kid. 
The HW and SW are open source. contributors from everywhere.
 
They operate just down the road from you in Berkley Californian, not china. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Robotics

Also flybrix  is a start up right down the road from you en the bay area.  A few really good controls engineers in the bay area founded that company.   

https://www.reddit.com/user/flybrix/

or this guy.

http://rcexplorer.se/
designs and builds his own stuff.  A modeler, engineer and real smart dude.

three examples of many that do not fit your premise of toy makers in china
 
News flash a lot of stuff isn't built in the USA anymore. 
News flash some great engineering talent isn't US based either.  But this has noting to do with modeling. 
 
A great deal of the people doing the innovation are electronics guys, sw guys airframe guys and the like all over the world. 

Off shore engines and air frames are OK?
US based quad copters are not?

The 8 year old assembling and ARF Flight Steak is somehow OK
An 8 year old building circuits drone auto pilots inst?   

You keep saying what a modeler isn't but never say what it is. 
Are the F2d guys that buy airplanes and engines from eastern Europe modelers? 

The major manufactures of components and tools we use are built under the same conditions as the quad copters.  But somehow that is OK but quads re not?

[Dave_Trible]

I think maybe the point is being missed.  There are model trains by modellers,  model cars by modellers,  model houses by modellers,  and dozens of other venues for modellers,  including drones and certainly have very sharp people involved.  More power to them.  What they aren't is model airplanes.  The AMA is a model airplane organization.  It was founded and has matured as such.  Multi rotors are simply not model airplanes any more than balloons or rockets even though they ply the airspace.  What is happening is an effort to mate unlike hobbies.

Dave

[Scott Richlen]

By some of this logic we could be including model trains in AMA.  There are a lot of people who collect them and I bet a sizeable number of AMAers also have train sets.  Advertising revenue would add a minor revenue stream (and that is what this is about, right?). So why not?  If a multi-rotor tail can wag the dog, why shouldn't model trains also wag the dog?  They are models, right?  They have as much in relationship to airplanes as multi-rotors.  Like model airplanes they are a model of a real form of transportation (unlike multi-rotors which are not even a model of anything), they "fly" down the track, etc.... ad naseum...

Better than this, LEGOs builders can be considered "modelers" and that group is huge and young and growing, so how about adding LEGOs to AMA?  Think of the revenue stream!!!   Woo-hoo!!  That could be a really big tail wagging the dog...

So Brett: let's make an electric stunt-ship built of LEGOs!  Think of the advertising dollars that can role in if AMA decided that LEGOs were the "wave of the future"....

[Brett Buck]

So the 20 year old kid in California who was pulling apart game controllers to get the giros to build auto pilots isn't a modeler?   He most surely is.  He is president of 3 d robotics now.  he was just a kid. 
The HW and SW are open source. contributors from everywhere.
 

      That's a tiny fraction or so people. The AMA cares what they think about as much as they care what we think. They are not looking at the people working on drones - they are looking at the legions of the "buy this morning crash this afternoon, that was fun, lets play Pokemon Go! tomorrow" crowd just like the ARF pilots.

   The points about model railroad are on point as well. They are ignoring the current, known-to-be-interested-in-AMA members in order to chase a larger group, which they speculate will be larger. That's where the BOM analogy comes in - screw the current participants because we might do better with a different bunch.

       Brett

[dave siegler]

      That's a tiny fraction or so people. The AMA cares what they think about as much as they care what we think. They are not looking at the people working on drones - they are looking at the legions of the "buy this morning crash this afternoon, that was fun, lets play Pokemon Go! tomorrow" crowd just like the ARF pilots.

       Brett

I think the people "working" on drones are a lot larger than you think, a lot larger than the total number of pampa members.
Probably more than all control line "modelers".  Cheap electronics, cameras and open source software make drones attractive to a lot of people.

Go to RC groups sometimes. Or count the number of contributors on the Audro pilot project. 
Check the number of STEM based education based on drones. 
Or go to flitetest.com

You just described 90% of the ARF RC airplane guys, you are excluding them too?  Come to think of it, F2d guys too.  A lot of the ARF control line stunt people. 

Gee who is left in the AMA?
The 50 expert stunt fliers and the few hundred FF's? 
Only BOM believing modelers? 
 
Good luck with that platform. That would kill the AMA even faster than the actuarial tables will.