This is just FYI for my fellow Giants: AMA is hiking dues up from $58 to $75 a year for regular members, and $48 to $65 for senior members (senior members being 65 years and older as of July 1, 2015).

Right now they are offering for us to lock in our current rates up until the 2018 flying year. All of the details can be read here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/membershipfaqs.aspx

still very affordable compared to insuring my home, 2 suv's, motorhome, jetski's, airplane trailer, life insurance, etc.

What I'd like to know is how much "insurance" was used over say the last 5yrs. How much was used for other things. Not that rate hike is bad....I just want details of what my money is going to

Wonder if it has anything to do with spending a quarter of million dollars to "educate" the "drone" users, (FPV, etc)!
It is unbelievable how much of our dues is going into such a program most of us have nothing to do with and would not endorse.
It seems that we are more and more subjects of the "leaders", and less and less members of an association.
This really needs to change, and this year's votes will be more important than ever to choose the right representatives.

Originally Posted by sweetpea

What I'd like to know is how much "insurance" was used over say the last 5yrs. How much was used for other things. Not that rate hike is bad....I just want details of what my money is going to

Members can view the annual financial statements on the AMA website.

Here's the info on the dues increase:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/membershipfaqs.aspx

guys it is $17 more a year. I am surprised it wasnt much more. We waste much more yearly on silly things. I still could not insure for the annual dues worth and still get benefits like the advocacy to keep our hobby protected and able to be enjoyed.

Originally Posted by PropsnWings

guys it is $17 more a year. I am surprised it wasnt much more. We waste much more yearly on silly things. I still could not insure for the annual dues worth and still get benefits like the advocacy to keep our hobby protected and able to be enjoyed.

I am not opposed to a reasonable rate hike, so long as it is applied toward the development of model aviation.
I am opposed to wasting money to "educate" the "drone" users, most of whom buy their stuff from places that are not affiliated with model aviation and do not recommend joining the AMA.
These users will likely never join the AMA. and they are the very careless individuals who can put us in a bad light on us as long as the public perception is that we are all part of the same group.
AMA members who happen to fly FPV are likely to do it safely anyway...

Well, what they have been doing is advocating for us. If they had not been I am pretty sure we all would have been shut down by now. I believe they set up a campaign in conjunction with the FAA to do the "know before you fly". Of which I think is a very positive way to educate even if that individual is not a part of the AMA.

According to the article that accompanied the announcement, it said the AMA has had a less than stellar claims record over the last few years, but are still able to remain insured. That says to me, we have some concerns that may need looked at with our own, rather than targeting the "careless non AMA person".

The AMA has also spent quite a bit of money filing law suits and such to ward off the FAA eliminating us completely of a hobby.

I feel the AMA has been doing a stellar job in preserving our hobby. IF we ignore the users that are not a part of the AMA, then surely that will spiral out of control. It is a problem we must also deal with and I think they took the best approach they could.

Originally Posted by Islandflyer

I am not opposed to a reasonable rate hike, so long as it is applied toward the development of model aviation.
I am opposed to wasting money to "educate" the "drone" users, most of whom buy their stuff from places that are not affiliated with model aviation and do not recommend joining the AMA.
These users will likely never join the AMA. and they are the very careless individuals who can put us in a bad light on us as long as the public perception is that we are all part of the same group.
AMA members who happen to fly FPV are likely to do it safely anyway...

I have to agree with PAU, I am still waiting for an answer from the President of AMA on the questions I asked him back in January on that very subject.


Here was his response:


From: Bob Brown <amadiii@atlanticbb.net> [Add to Address Book]


To: JTEC/RADIOWAVE <jtec@earthlink.net>


Subject: Re: What is AMA's official position on multi rotors/"Drones"


Date: Jan 13, 2015 7:33 PM


I understand some of the large scale boys are unhappy that we are paying attention to multi rotors.

Do you know this gent….

Bob Brown
AMA President
35 Sanford Street
Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701
amadiii@atlanticbb.net
+1 (814 ) 598-0050

AMA can, has , and should always represent those that have ANYTHING to do with model aeronautics, includes ALL aspects of model aviation, I understand that not EVERY aspect is everybody's cup of tea.... but that does NOT mean one aspect is more important than another.
Geeeesh when was the last time there was a dues raise???? very cheap insurance and membership in a great organization.

I agree. I would take $5 off deal and not get the magazine though.... but they are doing good things for us and this is cheap.

I agree. I fly giant scale, but I also fly smaller stuff. I do not feel any part of the hobby is more important than the other. Even the "lil" guy needs fair treatment.

I am a voracious reader but have almost completely lost interest in the magazine. Very hard to find anything interesting.

Glad I am not the only one...

I didn't know about the quad education.

I doubt most quadcopter customers join the AMA. I fly a quad, but if that is all I flew, I wouldn't join the AMA. I'd start a national quad association with $1 dues and no insurance, get some buddies from different states to join on some quad forum, and bam, I'm operating under under the rules of a "aeromodeling community-based organization".

AMA needs to do more to preserve and encourage flying fields. And get rid of the stupid 30 nautical "VIP" rule, covering 3700 square miles. Shuts down our field, 28.5 nautical miles from Minneapolis, every time a president or other VIP (my grandpa taught me the president puts his pants on the same way I do, one leg at a time) wants to raise funds. They did write an article once about it, reusing some of my calculations, and it was a start. But it really is a silly rule. Likely to become an issue for me again when I want to fly on a calm day, and some VIP wants to raise money, cause traffic jams, etc. Real airplanes can fly 10 nautical miles, but I can't fly line of site at my field under 400 feet with no risk whatsoever to anybody.