Would you allow people to fly your plane remotely via a web service for a fee?

This comment reminds me of a conversation my brother in law related to me, between two co-workers. They had just seen an exciting action movie in the video store where they worked.

"Wow, how did they do that?"

"Special effects."

See? There's always a simple answer.

Why would anybody want to join an org with such dippy rules and restrictions? No wonder the membership numbers are stagnant while aeromodeling is growing at a good pace.

| > Anyway. nice try. Maybe if you find a plane that flies at a snails pace, | > takes eons for turns/climbs/dives, has a built-in safety to prevent | > oversteering in any direction and probably just puts your customers to | > sleep... yeh, then it might work. | | You argue that bandwidth and time lag would likely be problems. Maybe | so with today's technology, but the situation is likely to be | different in a few years.

OK, let's assume that all of the technology issues have been completely resolved -- we now have perfect, hi-res video with no lag time. This will never happen, but perhaps in a decade or two we'll get close enough.

How much do you think people will pay for this? Once you take your cut, who will put their plane up on the block for that price?

Don't forget that this person has to be right there, `flying' his plane with the unwashed masses to make sure it doesn't crash. So he's spending his time flying ... but not even flying. I guess he could do his own normal flying when he has no customers, but then he's not getting paid.

Looking at the sort of people found on online games, he's probably dealing with a significant number of people who *want* to crash the plane. Sure, the owner can stop 95% of the attempts ... but that other 5% is quite expensive. I guess you could add a system to rate the users, but then they'd just switch usernames.

Griefing would be taken to a whole new level with people being able to cost the plane owner real money -- and best of all, it would be his fault! I can envision communities developing who's sole purpose is to discuss the best ways they've made these planes crash, and talking about how to crash certain people's planes. With downloadable videos, of course.

The owner has to pay for fuel and maintenance. (I'll assume that you will provide all the needed hardware and gear, though that's a big assumption.)

Most flying fields don't have Internet access. Many (most?) don't even have electricity. But with perfect technology, let's assume that this problem goes away too.

When I work out what I spend on the hobby, each flight costs an average of several dollars -- for spent batteries, gas, broken parts, the plane itself, etc. -- and perhaps I spend almost as much time working on the planes as flying them. You could reduce that a lot by using a stock, reliable system -- but it won't be much fun for anybody. People are likely to want to pay only for wildly aerobatic planes, though you might find a few who think this might be a viable replacement for learing with an instructor and are therefore willing to fly a trainer type plane -- but it won't be a good replacement.

I can't imagine you'd find a significant user base willing to pay more than $10/hr for this (and that's only the die-hards, who really want to fly R/C but can't. Perhaps they can't handle sunlight, are under house arrest, who knows?), and I'm hard pressed to think of many people willing to offer their planes up for less than $20/hr, once they've done the math and understand what they're getting into. That's a pretty big disconnect, especially once you take your cut.

It's an innovative idea, yes, but I don't see the economics working out.

Consider these people --

-- they offer professional flight instruction, which is probably mostly one on one, very similar to what you'd do. They will provide the plane. One week to solo, only $629. But these are professionals, and I assume very good at what they do. Your local club probably provides instruction as well -- but for free, partially because many students wouldn't even willingly pay a few dollars per hour. And one on one buddy box time is still rewarding -- but merely protecting your plane from online hooligans? Doesn't sound so rewarding.

| As for voting introducing lag, well that would depend on how the | voting mechanism is implemented: you could count votes as soon as they | are cast.

I guess if several people could fly a plane at once, you'd have a better chance at making the economics work, but really -- now you want us to pay $5/hr to offer suggestions to what the plane does with ten other people? I think I'd rather poke my eyes out.

I think you'd be better off making a 3D airplane combat MMO game and do away with the `real planes in the air' aspect entirely.

If the technology improves to where you can have full 3D VR, making it feel like you're actually at the field flying the plane, then maybe -- but then you'd still be competing with real flight simulators that have exactly the same capabilties -- and cost a whole lot less.

The FCC might have something to say about that!! It sounds like a crazy idea. Why not buy XTR and allow people to log into your computer and fly your simulator. Wouldnt there have to be a good video camera involved that could pan all over the place. You cant be serious.

Jimbo

It is worth the money just for the insurance provided. Also, our field requires AMA membership for that reason alone. Over the years I have witnessed several accidents that went into the thousands of $$$$ damage. In one case a guy lost control of his plane and did close to $3,000.00 damage to a motorhome. AMA insurance picks up after your homeowners coverage (if you have it). In another case a guy put one through the roof of the house with a lot of damage.

| | Why would anybody want to join an org with such dippy rules and | | restrictions?

#1 reason: because they have to, to fly at the local AMA field.

| | No wonder the membership numbers are stagnant while | | aeromodeling is growing at a good pace.

That's hardly the AMA's fault. It was stroke of genius for them to offer insurance as a part of their membership, and this made their membership grow greatly. But now that technology has advanced to allow flying at many more non-formal fields, what the AMA offers (to the individual, anyways) is needed by a smaller and smaller percentage of the hobby.

It really has little to do with `dippy rules and restrictions' -- most people don't really care. They care about that $58/year, but that's the price of flying at their field, so they pay.

| It is worth the money just for the insurance provided. Also, our field | requires AMA membership for that reason alone.

Your field and lots of others. Like I said, a stroke of genius on their part, with the goal being to increase the size (and therefore influence) of the AMA.

| Over the years I have witnessed several accidents that went into the | thousands of $$$$ damage. In one case a guy lost control of his | plane and did close to $3,000.00 damage to a motorhome. AMA | insurance picks up after your homeowners coverage (if you have | it). In another case a guy put one through the roof of the house | with a lot of damage.

And none of these accidents are likely to cause anywhere near enough damage to exhaust primary insurance policies, unless there is no primary insurance at all.

Really, unless somebody isn't covered by another form of insurance (homeowners, renters, etc.), the only way the AMA is likely to pay a claim (I'm talking about the coverage offered to AMA members here, not AMA clubs -- that's a different beast) is if somebody is hurt. Otherwise, the damage caused isn't likely to be enough. Sure, it's possible that your jet hit a house and burned it down, but that's incredibly unlikely.

But $3000 damage to a motorhome? That's cheap. It could be 100x that if it hit somebody -- that's what the AMA insurance is really for.

Which proves once again the old adage that once an organization reaches a certain size or age its sole purpose is self preservation.

In article , Robert Reynolds wrote: | Doug McLaren wrote: | | > Your field and lots of others. Like I said, a stroke of genius on | > their part, with the goal being to increase the size (and therefore | > influence) of the AMA. | | Which proves once again the old adage that once an organization reaches | a certain size or age its sole purpose is self preservation.

It proves no such thing. It's just my opinion.

And even assuming that the AMA started offering insurance with the express intention of setting their clubs up to require it to fly there and this was all done with the goal of increasing their membership (and I've no idea if this is true, though it would be reasonable), then that doesn't prove or even suggest that the AMA's sole purpose is it's own self preservation. (It's not even clear that simply increasing it's membership even contributes to it's self preservation.)

A large organization does need to have self preservation as a goal, yes -- otherwise it probably won't survive. So it's an important goal. Perhaps people even lose sight of other goals pursuing that one. But *sole* goal? I think that pretty much only exists in the minds of people who don't like the organization.

Maybe 'overriding' purpose is better?

There may be some that don't like the organization. I know firsthand there are some that don't care for its leadership, or lack thereof.

Abel

Good choice of words. "Overriding" is a much better adjective in this case. I don't particularly disagree with their leadership, or any lack of leadership. What I don't like is the immediate knee-jerk association between AMA and aeromodeling in general. It reminds me of playing the saxophone. I don't play jazz, I'm more of a blues guy. But somehow the saxophone has been associated with jazz to the extent that in most people's minds "play saxophone" means "play jazz", even though jazz players don't constitute a clear majority of working saxophone players. I know, that's a far-fetched analogy, but it makes sense to me because the same universality is attributed to the AMA for some reason. I just find it irritating that people pay such deference to a dinosaur organization that has maneuvered itself into a position to be paid $58 annually by millions of modelers, for a crappy magazine and $6 worth of insurance that we wouldn't even notice if it was gone.

I'm starting a business, and I plan to start a few more in years to come. My overriding purpose is to produce something that people want badly enough to pay me for it, not just to hook people in through clever maneuvering.

| I know, that's a far-fetched analogy, but it makes sense to me because | the same universality is attributed to the AMA for some reason.

Only by those who don't know better.

| I just find it irritating that people pay such deference to a | dinosaur organization that has maneuvered itself into a position to | be paid $58 annually by millions of modelers

In 2003, the AMA's membership was 175,000 members. Presumably a significant portion of those 175,000 don't pay the full $58/year, either due to being minors, or senior citizens, or whatever other discounts are offered.

| for a crappy magazine and $6 worth of | insurance that we wouldn't even notice if it was gone.

Out of curiosity, where did your the $6 figure come from?

| I'm starting a business, and I plan to start a few more in years to | come. My overriding purpose is to produce something that people | want badly enough to pay me for it, not just to hook people in | through clever maneuvering.

I suspect that the AMA feels they're providing something that people want badly enough to pay for too.

YGBSM!

I have a friend who enjoys researching legal cases, actuary tables, statutes, county records, etc. He's the same guy who lobbied the local park officials to grant flying permits to people with no AMA cards. I generally have a lot of respect for his information. He's one of those guys who knows how much it would cost you to get a million dollar liability rider on your homeowners insurance. I also met an insurance guy a while back at a blues club who told me it was closer to $4 worth of insurance. You may not like my sources, but it's a lot closer to "under $10" than it is to $50.

You're probably right, but I suspect that most people pay for it only because they believe that they have to.

| Doug McLaren wrote: | | > | for a crappy magazine and $6 worth of | > | insurance that we wouldn't even notice if it was gone. | > | > Out of curiosity, where did your the $6 figure come from? | | You may not like my sources, but it's a lot closer to | "under $10" than it is to $50.

Well, nobody ever said all $58 went to insurance.

In any event, there's no need to guess. Here's the payouts for 2006 --

$1.5 million, or about $8.35/member. 2005 figures were similar --

And looking at their 2006 financial statement ...

They took in $7.6 M in memberships. $234K in club charter fees.

For expenses, MA was $2M, and brought in about $1M in advertising and subscriptions. So that works out to about $5/member, though not all members get the magazine.

If I'm reading this right, they paid $1.2M for membership insurance in

2006. I don't know how that relates to the $1.5M figure given above.

If you are an AMA member, you can view the whole thing at

(The 175,000 members in 2003 figure came from a AMA BPL FCC filing. They don't seem to advertise just how many members they have very often, but I doubt it's changed much since then. I imagine I could work it out exactly from the financial report, as they do give revenue from each membership class, but it's not worth the effort -- it's obviously still close to 175K.)

The magazine isn't crappy. It's mediocre, granted, but not really crappy.

| > I suspect that the AMA feels they're providing something that people | > want badly enough to pay for too. | | You're probably right, but I suspect that most people pay for it only | because they believe that they have to.

I doubt many people pay for it just because they feel they need an `AMA license' to fly their plane at the local park. However, if the local park or flying field *requires* AMA membership, then I'd say that they really do `have to' join (or not fly, of course.)

Perhaps the rules could be changed so that AMA membership isn't required, and insurance can be provided in other ways, but that sort of change tends to be difficult to push through. Not impossible, but difficult.

The AMA does do good things for the hobby. When dealing the FCC and FAA (or the government as a whole), they're pretty much seen as the voice of the hobby, for example, and they seem to try and take care of everybody as well as possible.

I'm not saying they're perfect, or they don't have some `pork' in their budget (really, how many millions were spent on the Muncie facility?), but they're not the enemy either.

"Doug McLaren" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@frenzied.us... | In article , | Robert Reynolds wrote: | | | Doug McLaren wrote: | | | | > | for a crappy magazine and $6 worth of | | > | insurance that we wouldn't even notice if it was gone. | | >

| | > Out of curiosity, where did your the $6 figure come from? | | | | You may not like my sources, but it's a lot closer to | | "under $10" than it is to $50. | | Well, nobody ever said all $58 went to insurance. | | In any event, there's no need to guess. Here's the payouts for

2006 -- | | | | $1.5 million, or about $8.35/member. 2005 figures were similar -- | | | | And looking at their 2006 financial statement ... | | They took in $7.6 M in memberships. $234K in club charter fees. | | For expenses, MA was $2M, and brought in about $1M in advertising and | subscriptions. So that works out to about $5/member, though not all | members get the magazine. | | If I'm reading this right, they paid $1.2M for membership insurance in | 2006. I don't know how that relates to the $1.5M figure given above. | | If you are an AMA member, you can view the whole thing at | | | (The 175,000 members in 2003 figure came from a AMA BPL FCC filing. | They don't seem to advertise just how many members they have very | often, but I doubt it's changed much since then. I imagine I could | work it out exactly from the financial report, as they do give revenue | from each membership class, but it's not worth the effort -- it's | obviously still close to 175K.) | | The magazine isn't crappy. It's mediocre, granted, but not really | crappy. | | | > I suspect that the AMA feels they're providing something that people | | > want badly enough to pay for too. | | | | You're probably right, but I suspect that most people pay for it only | | because they believe that they have to. | | I doubt many people pay for it just because they feel they need an | `AMA license' to fly their plane at the local park. However, if the | local park or flying field *requires* AMA membership, then I'd say | that they really do `have to' join (or not fly, of course.) | | Perhaps the rules could be changed so that AMA membership isn't | required, and insurance can be provided in other ways, but that sort | of change tends to be difficult to push through. Not impossible, but | difficult. | | The AMA does do good things for the hobby. When dealing the FCC and | FAA (or the government as a whole), they're pretty much seen as the | voice of the hobby, for example, and they seem to try and take care of | everybody as well as possible. | | I'm not saying they're perfect, or they don't have some `pork' in | their budget (really, how many millions were spent on the Muncie | facility?), but they're not the enemy either. | | -- | Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzied.us | Communicating with aliens via the `fire' button |

One thing the AMA has done, and I failed to mention in my previous post, is to lobby and work with the FCC for our radio frequencies. Without the AMA we may not have kept those frequencies from the Crane and other services. True, Spread Spectrum is here, and if I were to fly in a non frequency controlled environment, I would be definitely using it.

Acronym Definition YGBSM You Gotta Be Spoofin' Me! (polite form) YGBSM You Gotta Be Stuffing Me (polite form)

Since I'm Norwegian I had to look that up in the dictionary. I LOVE the sencored translations. Why on earth do those controlling the media in the U.S. seem to believe "s*it" to be an obscene word? I hear it's quite common...

Stefan Pettersen

"Jim" skrev i melding news:McQ4i.11775$qp5.7057@trnddc03...

George Carlin (American comedian) had a record album (round vinyl thing with a long groove and a hole in the middle) out in the 60's or 70's of his comedy routine "Seven words you can't say on TV" - it was hilarious and asked the same question....

Cheers. Don

It's just a case of maintaining the status quo for no particular reason. There's almost always a better way to do things.

"Doug McLaren" > wrote

Hard to prove that they have adeqate insurance. If the AMA is required, it is way easy to have a person show a card, and all questions are answered.

They are around, watching our back, so to speak. Sad to say that it is necessary.