 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / September 2006Old Farts in USA, but not Europe?
A friend recently returned from France with a copy of MRA, a French aeromodelling magazine similar in general layout to Model Airplane News. I noticed therein that the photos showed WAAAAY more youngsters and young adults than do US publications. I then looked at some British aeromodelling mags, and while not as pronounced as the French one, the average age was considerably less than in the USA. AMA has declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So what's different on the other side of the pond? > So what's different on the other side of the pond? Just watch the AMA-related discussions here. From the outsiders perspective, the AMA seems to be the home of old arrogant brickheads. Sorry folks, but that's the impression I got.  SignatureHubba Balu... >> So what's different on the other side of the pond? > > Just watch the AMA-related discussions here. From the outsiders > perspective, > the AMA seems to be the home of old arrogant brickheads. Sorry folks, but > that's the impression I got. Completely agree. Most young flyers wouldn't touch the AMA with a disinfected bargepole. Probably the same group of cretins who don't vote in national or local elections because they are dissatisfied with the system. If it weren't for the AMA we would not have any dedicated frequencies. Fields would be virtually impossible to obtain without the AMA insurance. A safe hobby would become a disaster because of the idiots who'd like to demonstrate their questionable skills by buzzing the spectators, fellow pilots, and parking areas. These are essentially the same individuals who complain because they can't taxi into the pits. etc., etc., etc., Of course the AMA is not perfect but name an organization/group that is. AFAIK, *every* aero-modeler who has made *any* significant contribution to the hobby has been an AMA member. If you don't like the AMA for whatever the reason, fine, that's your prerogative but why continue this constant barrage of fruitless, irrational, and usually unsubstantiated negative comments? Classic error - feeding trolls - my bad ;-) >>> So what's different on the other side of the pond? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Most young flyers wouldn't touch the AMA with a disinfected bargepole. > Probably the same group of cretins who don't vote in national or local > elections because they are dissatisfied with the system. If it weren't for > the AMA we would not have any dedicated frequencies. And in fact these days with The Spectrum DX, you don't need them any more. > Fields would be > virtually impossible to obtain without the AMA insurance. Insurance is not necessarily obtainable through only the AMA. >A safe hobby would > become a disaster because of the idiots who'd like to demonstrate their > questionable skills by buzzing the spectators, fellow pilots, and parking > areas. These are essentially the same individuals who complain because they > can't taxi into the pits. etc., etc., etc., All covered by local bye-laws and or local club rules if you have a club at all. Of course the AMA is not perfect > but name an organization/group that is. AFAIK, *every* aero-modeler who has > made *any* significant contribution to the hobby has been an AMA member. Every aeromodeller who buys a model has made a significant contribution - usually several hundred dollars. > If > you don't like the AMA for whatever the reason, fine, that's your > prerogative but why continue this constant barrage of fruitless, irrational, > and usually unsubstantiated negative comments? Classic error - feeding > trolls - my bad ;-) The fact is the AMA is stuck in the 60's or earlier, has utterly failed to keep up with the reality of the hobby on the ground, and has almost no real utility to the modern flyer at all, and has singularly failed to make the hobby appealing to the kids. What HAS made it appealing is cheap electric foamie planes. Cheap frequency hopping radios that don't need frequency control. And lithium batteries. The AMA behaves as if te reality of model aircraft were large and very dangerous glo/gas planes flying unreliable gear off small airstrips. Not surprisingly, only the old contingent who fly precisely that, are still members. It seems like everyone is missing one of the obvious points, and that is the cost of the insurance through AMA! If this were left up to the individual and the insurance companies I would suspect that after various cities and states mad this mandatory (it might be a good idea) that the cost would be somewhere around $500 a year or more. As someopne said an organization like AMA is not going to please everyone thats the nature of the beast but at least they are keeping the cost of insurance under control. If you don't think it will happen, look at auto insurance, before it became mandatory I was paying about $100 dollars a year for twice the insurace that I carry now. (This amounted to about 0.003% of my yearly income.) Now I pay about $1500 dollars a year for less insurance which is about 0.0375% of my yearly income. I'll get off my soap box now. >> Probably the same group of cretins who don't vote in national or local >> elections because they are dissatisfied with the system. If it weren't [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Not surprisingly, only the old contingent who fly precisely that, are > still members. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > It seems like everyone is missing one of the obvious points, and that is > the cost of the insurance through AMA! If this were left up to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > somewhere > around $500 a year or more. Just for comparison: USD 3 Million coverage for model aircraft up to 30 kg comes included on my liability insurance that costs me USD 100 for the whole family in Switzerland. Either the insurance companies, or the lawyers, or both seem to live rather well in the US :-). Marc SignatureSwitzerland/Europe <http://www.heusser.com> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail Hi Mark, Can you still be arrested/fined in Geneva for taking a shower or flushing the toilet after 2200 hrs? Only Geneva or all of Switzerland? >> It seems like everyone is missing one of the obvious points, and that is >> the cost of the insurance through AMA! If this were left up to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Marc | Probably the same group of cretins who don't vote in national or local | elections because they are dissatisfied with the system. Irrelevant. Though it does seem to be a good example of the `poisoning the well' logical fallacy -- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html | If it weren't for the AMA we would not have any dedicated | frequencies. We don't have dedicated frequencies *now*. Oh sure, part of the 72 MHz and 75 MHz bands are allocated to R/C usage, but being unlicensed users, we really have zero recourse for any sort of interference that shows up. And with pager towers showing up in-between our frequencies with hundreds of watts of power and things like wireless mikes, small paging systems (like used by restraunts) and other similar things in there as well, it's amazing that it works as well as it does. Those pager towers are licensed. What that means is that if we interfere with them, we have to stop, even if we're following all the FCC regulations. If they're interfering with us, and they're following all the FCC regulations, then we have no recourse. You lost your plane? Too bad. It crashed into somebody's house and the whole thing burned down? So sad ... hope you're insured. If it wasn't for the AMA's meddling in the FCC's business, we might have all been flying with spread spectrum gear for years now !$^#$!@ (For the humor impaired, that's meant as somewhat of a joke, but it's somewhat true too.) | Fields would be virtually impossible to obtain without the AMA | insurance. Of course. They'd just get insurance somewhere else. There might be more paperwork, and it might cost more (as it wouldn't be subsidized by AMA membership dues) but it's certainly not *virtually impossible*. Not even close. | A safe hobby would become a disaster because of the idiots who'd | like to demonstrate their questionable skills by buzzing the | spectators, fellow pilots, and parking areas. The AMA has magically made people not-stupid? Wow -- I had no idea! How did the human race ever survive before the AMA arrived to save us? Oh yeah, I remember now ... people can think, and can generally figure out the difference between safe and dangerous and govern themselves even without the AMA. Strangely enough, even with the AMA around, I've still encountered people like that. Even at AMA clubs. | Of course the AMA is not perfect but name an organization/group that | is. Well, once they achieve perfection, we will stop pointing out their flaws. Though just in case you get the wrong idea ... I don't really consider myself to be an `AMA bashers'. But then again, I also realize that many of the things they're bashed for are generally true, at least to a degree. | AFAIK, *every* aero-modeler who has made *any* significant | contribution to the hobby has been an AMA member. `Confusing Cause and Effect' http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html While this statement may be technically accurate (or have only a few exceptions), this really doesn't mean anything. It ranks right up there with `dihydrogen monoxide has been found in excised tumors of termincal cancer patients!') Ultimately, the way things have turned out (and this is no accident), if you want to fly at an AMA chartered club field, or compete in almost any national modelling event, or break any world records and be recognized for it, you have to be an AMA member (if in the US.) What this means is that if you're serious about modelling, you tend to be an AMA member. Not because you want to support the AMA or agree with their goals or because they push you to excel or anything like that -- it's just that if you're not an AMA member, what you can do is very limited. The people who have made very signifigant contributions to the hobby as a whole tend to be serious modelers, and serious modelers generally tend to be members of the AMA. It's not the AMA that causes them to provide signifigant contributions -- it's more the other way around. (Though really it's more that being a `serious' modeler tends to 1) require an AMA membership and 2) make people provide `signifigant contributions' to the hobby.) | If you don't like the AMA for whatever the reason, fine, that's your | prerogative but why continue this constant barrage of fruitless, | irrational, and usually unsubstantiated negative comments? Classic | error - feeding trolls - my bad ;-) At least it's on-topic. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play? > | Probably the same group of cretins who don't vote in national or local > | elections because they are dissatisfied with the system. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > At least it's on-topic. He just likes to argue. He isn't picky, he'll argue with anyone, about anything. <G> Ed Cregger | AMA has declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So | what's different on the other side of the pond? I don't know about things over there, but over here, there's a big difference in age between the different variations of R/C flying ... For example, the people flying glow/gas models tend to be older, especially if they're doing scale models or warbirds. People flying electrics tend to be younger. Same goes for people who fly park fliers, gliders and especially slope planes and helicopters. Of course, the former group has higher AMA membership percentages than the latter groups, so I'd guess that the average age of US R/C modelers to be somewhat younger than that of the average AMA member. Also older people tend to be more into joining clubs and organizations than younger people. It's just the way of things. And then there's things like free flight and control line, which aren't nearly as popular as R/C, but they are still given considerable space in the AMA magazine. And the people who do these things tend to be older than average as well, as they often got into it back when R/C wasn't even really a viable option. Note that these are all averages and tendencies -- they are certainly young people flying glow powered scale warbirds, and old people flying slope planes. So, overall, I'd say that the average modeler that you see in the AMA magazine is a good deal older than the average modeler that you'd see out flying his plane somewhere. If you get a magazine like `Backyard Flier' or `SE Modeler' and compare the people you see in it, they're a good deal younger than what you see in the AMA magazine. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Aren't you glad that cows don't fly? Oh shucks, it will all change with time, as will the hobby. CR > | AMA has declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So > | what's different on the other side of the pond? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > compare the people you see in it, they're a good deal younger than > what you see in the AMA magazine. Old farts?! I resemble that remark. :-) oc > | AMA has declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So > | what's different on the other side of the pond? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For example, the people flying glow/gas models tend to be older, > especially if they're doing scale models or warbirds. -- snip -- > If you get a magazine like `Backyard Flier' or `SE Modeler' and > compare the people you see in it, they're a good deal younger than > what you see in the AMA magazine. I second that. Based on what I see at the flying field and the hobby shop, people get interested in it young, get heavily involved from late high school (when you can drive to the field) to early professional, then drop out when the kids are born. Then when the kids get old enough that you can bring them to the field without worrying about them stepping on aircraft you get involved again, and fly part time until you retire. Which is why the flying field always seems to be populated with 50% retired folks, which was the case before my kids came around, is the case now, and will probably be the case when I'm retired and flying every weekend (I hope). SignatureTim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html > A friend recently returned from France with a copy of MRA, a French > aeromodelling magazine similar in general layout to Model Airplane [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So what's > different on the other side of the pond? Originally hailing from Europe (Germany) myself and looking back at "the days" when I flew there, the main difference is pretty much the organization - or lack thereof - of R/C pilots. In Germany at least there is no more-or-less-mandatory membership in any nationwide organization. You need proof of insurance and that's about all you need for flying at any of the fields. Sometimes clubs require membership, but often enough it's sufficient to have a member of the club there. And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind of R/C insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, it's quite easy to just go out, buy a plane and fly. However: it's also true that there ARE a lot of older pilots, except that they often enough don't have the time to fly during weekdays. Young pilots on the other hand often fly after school's out, so you'd see them a lot more often at the field than the older "farts" ;) Jenni > And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind >of R/C insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, >it's quite easy to just go out, buy a plane and fly. Jenni- That's true in the USA too, but a lot of folks pretend otherwise as a rationalization for demanding AMA's liability insurance to fly at their site. Fact: most insurers that sell HO insurance comply with ISO (an insurance trade organization) guidelines. Fact: HO policies that conform to ISO guidelines cover liability while flying model airplanes. Popular Fiction: most HO policies don't cover model airplane flying. Abel >> And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind >> of R/C insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > while flying model airplanes. > Popular Fiction: most HO policies don't cover model airplane flying. I know - that's how I am covered. No AMA membership, but I do have insurance. And as a result there's only one field I can fly at, because it's not owned by a club. Jenni >>> And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind of R/C >>> insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, it's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jenni Has anyone played golf on a regular basis at a country club where they lack a membership? If you want to play, you have to pay. I see nothing unusual about this. Of course, as a child I used to fly control line models in the adjacent country club's rough. We were always prepared to grab all of our stuff and run at a moment's notice. It added an extra dimension of excitement to flying. Has Europe lost its industrial base as we have in the US? This was once a country of well paid blue collar workers. Those days have long since gone. Without good pay, model flying isn't possible for most folks. I used to build my first models from toothpicks, popsickle (sp?) sticks, tongue depressors (used), Duco cement (scrounged from local trash cans) and covered them with facial tissue. I "painted" them with Mom's fingernail polish, which might explain my persistent fondness for red models even to this date. I had a lot to learn about weight management and balance point, but you could tell they were supposed to be airplanes. Fortunately, Mom thought they were cute. Ed Cregger >>>> And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind of R/C >>>> insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, it's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a membership? If you want to play, you have to pay. I see nothing unusual > about this. I'm not talking club membership, and I don't know much about golf. :) The one field I was talking about DOES require a fee to fly there (either per visit or a flat fee per year). Which is okay, after all it does cost to keep the whole area clean and in reasonably good repair. Not to mislead anyone, there are other big issues which keep me off airfields in general, AMA requirement or not. I prefer to be alone, and thus also prefer to fly alone. What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. > Has Europe lost its industrial base as we have in the US? This was once a > country of well paid blue collar workers. Those days have long since gone. > Without good pay, model flying isn't possible for most folks. I don't know about the industrial base. Unemployment is and has always been higher in Germany than in the US, but there's also minimum wages and social support systems in place there which don't exist here. Theoretically, that means no one is supposed to be really poor, and no one should end up begging on the streets for any reason. Practically there are still reasons people do end up on the streets in Germany at least. Germany has the same problem than the US though: The rich get richer, the "middle class" gets poorer - to a lesser degree than in the US maybe, but same problem nonetheless. It's not easy to compare Germany with the US though, since there are too many issues involved (most of this is just personal perception, i.e. not gathered from any official sources): - average wages in Germany AFTER taxes and such are lower than in the US - cost of health care is covered by mandatory healthcare in Germany - retirement funds seem to be about par on both sides of the pond, with a minimum income covered by social care if need be in Germany In other words... I think it's a wash where you live. If you're healthy, you end up richer in the US and can afford more things. If you're having serious health issues requiring constant medical care you're better off in Germany. If you're not well educated you're completely screwed in both countries. Well, you'll still have a roof over your head and food in the fridge in Germany even if your bank account is deep in the red and you haven't had a job in 10 years. Wonder why I am still a German citizen and have no intention of ever giving that up? :) Jenni What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. AMA CHARTER CLUBS / REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP IN AM A mixed bag of members versus non-members is not permitted if a clu wants to maintain it's charter. Roger aka GIFLYR -- ROGER GANT > What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one > has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A mixed bag of members versus non-members is not permitted if a club > wants to maintain it's charter. So what is this "charter" and what does it offer the member clubs that they couldn't otherwise live without? Steve > > What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one > > has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Steve The club charter with the AMA affords additional insurance to cover the club officers during the preformance of their duties. Without it, I nor anyone I know would take a club officer position without it. We formed a club specifically for the purpose of buying a small boat for aircraft retrieval during float flying. Initially, we were not chartered because we fly at public lakes and do not have a designated flying field. I was concerned about liability as an officer and was relieved to find that we would be covered by AMA if we chartered. >> What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one >> has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Steve Well the simple answer to that question is - the owners of the land from whom we have a lease, demand the AMA coverage to the owner, thus the club must be a "chartered" member. I don't know how widespread this requirement may be, but over the past 20+ years, it certainly has been one for our club. UNLESS we have enough affluent members to go out and buy equivalent Liability Insurance for the property owner from some independent insurance company. When I say "equivalent", most owners don't accept some piddling level of coverage. Something to consider, since it seems to be largely ignored! Olin McDaniel, AMA 30932, also W4PFZ Amateur Radio This note is actually in reply to the whole string... in marketing there is something called branding. It is a term that decribes what people see an item as, not what it really is. Unfortunately branding of model planes is seen as something that old people do here in the States So younger folks look at things like skate boarding (12 million kids own good skate boards) instead of CL or RC Combat... same thrill but only my grandpa or maybe my not so cool dad would fly model planes. It would take considerable time and advertising to rebrand modeling so younger folks see it as cool. A national ad campaign in the skateboard magazines might be a start... but it would cost most of the AMA budget and would have to go on for years. Bob Furr AMA 93014 > What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one > has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Roger aka GIFLYRC Most folks do not have sufficient reading skills to decode whether any given policy will cover a particular activity under typical conditions. I sold insurance for a while and believe me, some of our sales folks (with BS or higher degrees) could not adequately read an insurance policy to determine whether their customers were covered under particular circumstances. If the township, park commission, etc., has to refer every single individual's insurance policy to a lawyer simply to discover if that particular policy meets the field owning organization's criteria, you can well imagine the end result - which is precisely what we have today in the AMA insurance requirement. It is unreasonable to expect the powers-that-be to keep a full time lawyer on staff just so a few folks can fly models on their property without utilizing the AMA's insurance policy covering site owners. Ed Cregger | Most folks do not have sufficient reading skills to decode whether | any given policy will cover a particular activity under typical | conditions. I don't buy that. Yes, legalese is difficult to comprehend, but it's certainly possible for normal people to understand most of it if they actually try and put some time into it. The problem is that most people don't even bother reading this stuff. Getting a cell phone? Sign that contract -- who cares what's in it? Starting a new job? Sure, sign that paperwork! Same goes for buying a car or anything else ... people just sign. When I bought my house, it was quite obvious that the sellers and title company were quite annoyed at me because I insisted on reading every line of what I was signing (and if you've never bought and financed a house, it's a trip -- you have to sign like forty different documents!) If I didn't understand something, I asked (and took their answers with a grain of salt, because what matters is what it says, not what they say), which annoyed them more. But hey, I'm spending $150K here, and something like $1500 of that's going right to the title company, $3K to the realtor, and most of the rest to the seller. Quit your bitching! (Actually, the realtor was quite helpful, even though he techically worked for the seller rather than me.) I suspect that part of the reason your salespeople couldn't read the policies they were selling is because they never had to, because nobody ever expected them to, and if somebody did expect them to, they just threw up their hands and didn't try. In any event, I've read through my homeowner's policy quite carefully (from USAA, if anybody cares) and determined that it does cover model airplane related issues. It explicitly excludes aircraft, but it defines aircraft in such a way that model aircraft that don't carry people aren't excluded from the policy. If you haven't read your policy or contract, do. Having your insurance company or salesman give you a summary doesn't count, because you're not signing that summary. If you really can't understand it, ask, but be aware that what matters is what the paper says, not what the salesman tells you. So if you still can't understand, have a lawyer read it to you. At least you can generally trust your lawyer to give it to you straight, since he works for you, but lawyers make mistakes too ... SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us "I don't know the scientific explaination, BUT FIRE MAKES IT GOOD!" --Homer Simpson > I suspect that part of the reason your salespeople couldn't read the > policies they were selling is because they never had to, because > nobody ever expected them to, and if somebody did expect them to, they > just threw up their hands and didn't try. No, they actually could not comprehend what they were reading. Ed Cregger > When I bought my house, it was quite obvious that the sellers and > title company were quite annoyed at me because I insisted on reading > every line of what I was signing (and if you've never bought and > financed a house, it's a trip -- you have to sign like forty different > documents!) There might be a difference here too - law in the US seems to require lengthy contracts. Buying and financing a house over here in Switzerland can be done with two or three pages each - and it is large print, not small. There are tendencies to require longer contracts over here too - as far as I am concerned I like the idea of common sense and contracts that are short and clear enough to be read and understood by ordinary human beings :-) Marc SignatureSwitzerland/Europe <http://www.heusser.com> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail >I sold insurance for a while Ditto, Ed. >... It is unreasonable to expect the powers-that-be >to keep a full time lawyer on staff just so a few folks can fly models on >their property without utilizing the AMA's insurance policy covering site >owners. Indeed. Keep in mind that AMA insurance is secondary to any other insurance we may have, so the more liability insurance we have, the lower the exposure to loss for the AMA. Too bad our dues aren't assessed based on the amount of our personal liability policies! But, as you say, it would take a whole team of AMA lawyers and paralegals to assess the proper level of dues. Perhaps we're just too damned litigous for model aircraft flying - or "normal" living - in the USA. Geoff Paul Harvey indicated there is one lawyer for every 278 people here in the US, whereas in Japan it's something like one lawyer for every 5,000+ people. Mystery solved :-) > Perhaps we're just too damned litigous for model aircraft flying - or > "normal" living - in the USA. > > Geoff >>>>> And since practically all insurance agencies offer some kind of R/C >>>>> insurance, sometimes even with their normal household insurances, it's [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Jenni Thanks for briefly describing life in Germany, Jenni. I've always been curious about living in other countries, particularly Germany. My last name is Cregger, but allegedly was Krieger at one time, many generations ago. We have a cultural problem in the US that is tough to defeat. When I was growing up, it was fashionable to be competitive. Society rewarded those that competed and succeeded, even in every day, mundane tasks. Then the educational system decided that no one should fail and they began deemphasizing competition. In fact, they demonized those that enjoyed competing. Today it is not fashionable to be smart or competitive. As a result, our brightest minds, raised in less than a stellar family environment, are ashamed to admit to being bright. Technology is frowned upon (knowing it - not using it) and we have lost the edge in education that we once held. Is it any wonder that the jobs have moved offshore? Also, the constant bombardment on television telling us how we are destroying the world has had a negative effect upon our younger generations. Why bother or try to excell when we all know the world is going to end anyway? I'm not against caring about the environment, quite the contrary. But you must tell those that do not know any better that we can most likely survive to clean it up eventually. Then they wonder why things like Colombine occur.... All of the above has to do with the shaping of young folks' attitudes. When we fly, we are competing with drag, gravity, etc. If our culture says that it is not cool to be smart, using our brains to outwit drag and gravity will make us not cool. Not fashionable, nor popular. To me, an elder citizen, I see this trend as squashing our younger generations' inquisitiveness before it ever has a chance to flourish. Of course, we know that there are some young folks that will be driven to excell regardless of how uncool it may appear. But I feel that a lot of good talent is being diverted by social pressure. Ed Cregger > We have a cultural problem in the US that is tough to defeat. When I was > growing up, it was fashionable to be competitive. Society rewarded those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > upon (knowing it - not using it) and we have lost the edge in education that > we once held. Is it any wonder that the jobs have moved offshore? I would contend that.. the main reason jobs have moved offshore is due to the cheap labour that is to be found in the currently popular manufacturing countries. I doubt that the American labour force is any less intelligent or less capable of learning new skills than it was in the past. The demise of manufacturing in both USA and the UK is entirely due to companies seeking cheaper and cheaper labour. The labour is currently cheap because the standard of living is not very good. Would you want to work in an American factory and also live in America or would you prefer a sweatshop factory and a life in a country like China ? Capitalism chases the lowest costs and thus the highest profits ! Major companies. many of them American, dumped the American worker and the factories in order to utilise sweatshop labour in countries with repressive human rights records. This way profits are increased and the directors get some more HUGE bonuses ! I have frequently seen Americans berate the Unions and high labour charges for the shifting of production to overseas countries. Just how low do these guys think the American production worker should have let his pay go ? If they did drop to such low levels of income what would the American way of life look like then ? Currently, in the UK, many people are coming in from the Eastern European countries... many of them are Polish. They come here and take low paid work because it is still 8 times higher than they could get in Poland. Meanwhile a whole slew of International Companies were setting up brand new factories in Poland to cash in on the very low wages. Unfortunately.... Poland joined the EU and it's workers were then eligible to work in other EU countries. The cheap, but intelligent, labour force voted with it's feet just as the new factories were about to open. Next time you are flying a cheap ARTF or a cheap but high quality engine just pause to think what life is like for those who made the product and wether you want want life in America to come down to the same common denominator. That bastion of anti- Unionism and hater of organised labour... Walmart, has reputedly jumped straight into bed with the Chinese Communist Party. Who would have thought it from a company with such strong views ? >:-) Enough of that anyway, I had a good flying session today and just got down off my perch to have a little rant >:-)) Tomorrow may present another good flying opportunity looking at the weather forecast >:-)) Reg > Thanks for briefly describing life in Germany, Jenni. I've always been > curious about living in other countries, particularly Germany. My last name [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > upon (knowing it - not using it) and we have lost the edge in education that > we once held. Is it any wonder that the jobs have moved offshore? That is the result of branding of the political process..its easier to tell stupid people how wonderful they are and get them to elect a stupid president, than it is to explain that clever peoplel should be allowed to BE clever. Its not a left/right thing either. Its an accidental collusion of the wishy washy liberal with cynical manipulation by the republicans as well. In times of deep sh.t, which may be upon us all in the next few years, attitudes can and will change.. > Also, the constant bombardment on television telling us how we are > destroying the world has had a negative effect upon our younger generations. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > excell regardless of how uncool it may appear. But I feel that a lot of good > talent is being diverted by social pressure. Indeed. > Ed Cregger > What does surprise me is the _requirement_ for AMA membership. If one > has proof of insurance, that ought to be enough in my opinion. The requirement for AMA membership is only at fields which are AMA chartered -------- When a group of individuals decide to form a club and get a flying site, there is no _requirement_ that the AMA be in any way involved. However, the AMA provides help to those who wish to form an AMA chartered field (advice, sample documents, insurance for the landowner, etc) Many of the people who form clubs decide that doing it as an AMA chartered club provides them an advantage of some sort and is the best way for them to go about it. One of the requirements for an AMA chartered club is that only AMA members may fly there. (Whether it's due to insurance requirements or not, and whether you feel it's fair or not, AMA can certainly make it one of the requirements for a club that _choses_ to charter with them) So if those founding members form an AMA chartered club, the club will require AMA membership to fly there. Groups of individuals are also free to form clubs which are not chartered through AMA, and they can and do set other membership and/or insurance requierments. ---------- The fact that many of the fields you wish to fly at require AMA membership is merely a reflection of the fact that the founders of those fields found some benefit to forming an AMA chartered club instead of an unchartered club. | When a group of individuals decide to form a club and get a flying | site, there is no _requirement_ that the AMA be in any way involved. | | However, the AMA provides help to those who wish to form an AMA | chartered field | (advice, sample documents, insurance for the landowner, etc) It's mostly about insurance, but I imagine the rest gives them some warm fuzzies too. When a club is chartered with the AMA, they can get insurance for the field very cheaply -- it might even be free (or part of the charter fee, which isn't very much) or if not, it's like less than $100/year. But with it comes that `AMA members only' restriction. Basically, the field insurance is subsidized by the AMA memberships of the people who fly there. People do the math ... I can get insurance through the AMA for < $100/year, or on my own for $5000/year (warning: made up figure!) ... and guess what people go for? Even if it ends up costing more when you add up all the needed AMA memberships ... A brilliant move on the AMA's part, as I've said before ... SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. >| When a group of individuals decide to form a club and get a flying >| site, there is no _requirement_ that the AMA be in any way involved. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Basically, the field insurance is subsidized by the AMA memberships of >the people who fly there. Even better than that, Doug. it is subsidized by the dues of AMA members that don't belong to any club (~half of AMA's membership). >People do the math ... I can get insurance through the AMA for < >$100/year, or on my own for $5000/year (warning: made up figure!) >... and guess what people go for? Even if it ends up costing more >when you add up all the needed AMA memberships ... > >A brilliant move on the AMA's part, as I've said before ... It has worked in the past, but that 'AMA members only' thing is a deterrent to new modelers/potential AMA members. AMA is shrinking while modeling is booming. Most newbies are opting for no organization instead of AMA. PFs have made that option viable. Seems to me that AMA needs a plan B, but if there is one the powers-that-be are doing a great job of keeping it under wraps. Abel | It has worked in the past, but that 'AMA members only' thing is a | deterrent to new modelers/potential AMA members. AMA is shrinking | while modeling is booming. Most newbies are opting for no | organization instead of AMA. PFs have made that option viable. | Seems to me that AMA needs a plan B, but if there is one the | powers-that-be are doing a great job of keeping it under wraps. I'm not even sure what form a plan B could take. For now, it seems to be ads that say `Keep on flying!' with a picture of a park flier and a very short discussion of the benefits of AMA membership. In the past, what the AMA has had to offer (in an indirect way) has been flying fields. Without the AMA membership needed to fly at the local AMA club field, most people had no place to fly. (Most -- not all. Some have enough land, or have friends with enough land, or live out in the middle of nowhere with places to fly.) Now, local parks are all the fields people need, and park fliers (or gliders, for that matter -- people have been flying them out of parks for decades) fly there just fine without the AMA. If you read Model Aviation, it seems like the AMA have confused themselves with the hobby itself, and they seem to think that the _only_ reason the park fliers haven't joined up yet is ignorance of the AMA and it's goals. I think the AMA would benefit from an attitude change, but I don't know what the solution is to their declining membership ... My first thought is to think it's not really a problem at all to anybody but the AMA, but ultimately the AMA does fulfill a needed role in dealing with the government and such, so I just don't know ... SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while. > Wonder why I am still a German citizen and have no intention of ever > giving that up? :) My friend who brought me the French magazine is still a French citizen - for much the same reason. Her daughter is German by birth, so I guess they've got ALL the bases covered! :-D Geoff | Fact: most insurers that sell HO insurance comply with ISO (an | insurance trade organization) guidelines. | Fact: HO policies that conform to ISO guidelines cover liability | while flying model airplanes. | Popular Fiction: most HO policies don't cover model airplane flying. Of course, there was an article (or was it a letter to the editor?) about that very `popular fiction' in a recent Model Aviation issue. They even gave an example of somebody who discovered that their homeowner's policy actually didn't cover them, and boy oh boy were they glad they had AMA! (I guess I shouldn't be expected that the AMA's magazine was protecting the lifeblood of the AMA, even if some facts got in the way. Though it may not have been technically lying, it certainly distorted the truth ...) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us "Our parents were never our age." > A friend recently returned from France with a copy of MRA, a French > aeromodelling magazine similar in general layout to Model Airplane [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > declared that the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So what's > different on the other side of the pond? The general perception of the hobby is different. In the USA I constantly observe that very strange approach to viewing the aeromodelling hobby as a "replacement" for the full-scale flight for those who have no access to the latter. This is often especially obvious in the way the commercial ads are phrased in American aeromodelling magazines (take the AMA's "Model Aviation" for example). The model fliers are essentially portrayed as losers who cannot afford to fly real planes so they have to quench their urge with toy models and accept it as being as close as they ever get to the real flight. Needless to say, something that is perceived that way will never be popular among younger people. This idiotic attitude towards model flight is not present in Europe. In Europe model aviation is not seen in that manner and any attempts to counterpoise model flight to full-scale flight would be considered "strange" at least. SignatureBest regards, Andrey Tarasevich I lived in Europe for five years. It has nothing to do with AMA or anything else that would satisfy the AMA Haters here. It has to do with the fact that in Europe the general population thinks models are cool! Period! Go to one of their model events and people attend like crazy. Models are not considered toys over there. Modelers are respected 'technicians'. They are looked up to. Kids love to emulate them. End of story >A friend recently returned from France with a copy of MRA, a French >aeromodelling magazine similar in general layout to Model Airplane News. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So what's different on the other >side of the pond? Jim is right on with this one. How many statues like the one in Copenhagen of a youngster flying a model have you ever seen in the US. How many museums in the US have a model collection like the Deutsches Museum in Munich? Red S. >I lived in Europe for five years. It has nothing to do with AMA or anything >else that would satisfy the AMA Haters here. It has to do with the fact [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>the average age of AMA membrs in 57.5. So what's different on the other >>side of the pond? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.