AMA Sport Aviator

Has anyone seen AMA's new website, Sport Aviator? This site is dedicated to R/C exclusively. There is no mention of C/L or F/F in any form. This is one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen. The AMA is supposed to represent ALL of aeromodeling, not just the big buck R/C segment. It's as though nothing else even exists. I'm planning to file a protest. How do you all feel?

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 12:39 PM (CST)
 
I'll try this again. Frank Granelli, editor, in his "Copilot's Thoughts" says the first issues are RC only, but later issues will include F/F and C/L. Best regards, dale gleason -PS-Hangar Flying is a neat Forum. Good job!

Interesting response to an e-mail I sent to them.

Dear Mr. Fowler,

Thank you for visiting Sport Aviator On-Line Magazine. We appreciate your comments about the missing facets of model aviation. In fact, we had hoped to include both Free Flight and Control Line in Sport Aviator.

However, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to find a single qualified author willing to spend the time to help new pilots understand and learn about these disciplines. I have contacted many noted C/L and FF pilots and authors, but none were able to help us.

We have also contacted the organizations at the shows and, despite their good intentions, none have been able to help put C/L or FF articles in Sport Aviator. If you know of anyone who is qualified to write introductory articles about these important parts of Model Aviation, please have them contact us.

Thank you again,

Frank Granelli

----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fowler
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: How do I like the Website

Hi Folks,

I would like to see some control line represented here. I know we are not where the "big bucks' are flowing but the AMA has almost run CL off the pages of Model Aviation and nothing here.

Geez

Thanks for listening to me ramble

Dick Fowler AMA 144077

>Interesting response to an e-mail I sent to them.
>
>Dear Mr. Fowler,
>
>Thank you for visiting Sport Aviator On-Line Magazine. We
>appreciate your comments about the missing facets of model
>aviation. In fact, we had hoped to include both Free Flight
>and Control Line in Sport Aviator.
>
>
>
>However, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to
>find a single qualified author willing to spend the time to
>help new pilots understand and learn about these
>disciplines. I have contacted many noted C/L and FF pilots
>and authors, but none were able to help us.
>
>
>
>We have also contacted the organizations at the shows and,
>despite their good intentions, none have been able to help
>put C/L or FF articles in Sport Aviator. If you know of
>anyone who is qualified to write introductory articles about
>these important parts of Model Aviation, please have them
>contact us.
>

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

I had a post earlier when I was getting a bad attitude about some of the PAMPA threads, but it got lost in the Forum outage. It's just as well, it wasn't very diplomatic.

I had suggested that perhaps John Brodak could send them a catalog. He's got a lot of beginning control line information summarized in it. However, he's got his hands full already with arguments over PAMPA (and whether he can distribute any document).

It's really sad to think - if true - that the Sport Aviator couldn't find a single person in the CL community to contribute. On the surface of that claim, I'd have to say it must be completely false. After all, there's the mighty "Stunt News" that flys in the face of the claim of "none were able to help us."

Yet, after reading many of the PAMPA threads, the lack of response may be by design. My impression is that there is a huge contingent of PAMPA that could care less about the sport CL flyer, or furthering the hobby in general.

In the "general cl organization" thread,
grzly23 said:

>The name of your postulated organization is the
>"Academy of Model Aeronautics!" It already does
>all that you suggest.

and tomB replied:
>the AMA works for the herds of RC flyers, which
>represent the overwhelming majority of members.

The Sport Aviator site is pretty much proof
of the above statement. Nicely done though.

>>...we have not been able to find a single qualified author...
What does he mean by "qualified?"

Why don't you step up and write something? You seem to have something to say ?

>However, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to
>find a single qualified author willing to spend the time to
>help new pilots understand and learn about these
>disciplines. I have contacted many noted C/L and FF pilots
>and authors, but none were able to help us.

What is his definition of "SINGLE QUALIFIED AUTHOR"? There are hundreds of people who are able to produce entry level articles. Hopefully they are looking for someone with more knowledge than the person who wrote the engine 101 article in Model Aviation.

Remember that one of the first thing AMA did in 1936 was promote Radio Control competition at the Nats for a type of flying that didn't exist.

>
>>However, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to
>>find a single qualified author willing to spend the time to
>>help new pilots understand and learn about these
>>disciplines. I have contacted many noted C/L and FF pilots
>>and authors, but none were able to help us.
>
>
>What is his definition of "SINGLE QUALIFIED AUTHOR"?
>There are hundreds of people who are able to produce entry
>level articles. Hopefully they are looking for someone
>with more knowledge than the person who wrote the engine 101
>article in Model Aviation.
>
>Remember that one of the first thing AMA did in 1936 was
>promote Radio Control competition at the Nats for a type of
>flying that didn't exist.

Yes, and in 1936 if they had any inkling that control line existed they would have made provisional rules for that too.
Lets stop being so paranoid that the AMA is out to eradicate C/L. They don't have to . We'll all do it ourselves at this rate.
Dennis

by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

Dennis:

My point was that the AMA has since its inception promoted RC flying and its advancement. In 1936 there were neither RC aircraft nor radio control systems, however an event was added to the Nats to promote its development. There were no contestants in 1936 as no one was able to build an airplane and radio system in time, the first contestants flew in 1937 which is why I said they had a contest for a type of flying that did not exist.

Control line started in the late 1930's and was extensively flown in 1940 & 1941, however control wasn't flown at the nats until after WWII. Why wasn't an active form of modeling flown at the nats before WWII?

I'm not saying that AMA is actively trying to do away with CL just that the main emphasis of the organization has been developing the RC segment of the hobby which is easily supported by history. How many committees have been set up by AMA in the last 50 years to work with government agencies to do things such as eliminate the need for licenses and get frequencies established. The AMA for decades worked closely with radio manufacturers to improve the quality,reliability, and manufacturing compliance of radio systems. I'm not aware of any committees being formed to meet with industry to develop better equipment or supplies for either FF or CL.

>Dennis:
>
>My point was that the AMA has since its inception promoted
>RC flying and its advancement. In 1936 there were neither
>RC aircraft nor radio control systems, however an event was
>added to the Nats to promote its development. There were no
>contestants in 1936 as no one was able to build an airplane
>and radio system in time, the first contestants flew in 1937
>which is why I said they had a contest for a type of flying
>that did not exist.
>
>Control line started in the late 1930's and was extensively
>flown in 1940 & 1941, however control wasn't flown at the
>nats until after WWII. Why wasn't an active form of
>modeling flown at the nats before WWII?
>
>I'm not saying that AMA is actively trying to do away with
>CL just that the main emphasis of the organization has been
>developing the RC segment of the hobby which is easily
>supported by history. How many committees have been set up
>by AMA in the last 50 years to work with government agencies
>to do things such as eliminate the need for licenses and get
>frequencies established. The AMA for decades worked closely
>with radio manufacturers to improve the quality,reliability,
>and manufacturing compliance of radio systems. I'm not
>aware of any committees being formed to meet with industry
>to develop better equipment or supplies for either FF or CL.
>
>Carl
>
>

in 1936 Obi St clair flew his C/L plane in Oregon I believe. Jim Walker introduced C/L to the public in 1940. R/C had been demonstrated before 1936 and the AMA was aware of development in the field and knew that several people were developing S/C planes with the hope of flying and proving the concept viable.
In that respect the AMA drafted a rudimentary set of rule and regs for a rc event. If my memory is correct the first trophy was awarded to the one individual who got up and actually flew. The others didn't make the cut.
For the record no RC or C/L models were flown in the war years at the nationals
Now as to the AMA actively promoting RC I'm not aware of the AMA doing anything exemplary in the 50's other then lobbying for a license free frequency to promote development of rc equipment. This was supported by people like Vernon McNabb,Dr Walt Good and other RC pioneers. They got 27.255MHZ
Yes they got 5 frequencys on the 11 meter band in the mid 60's right smack in the CB radio spectrum and that was all there was till the 80's.
Now to ask a question that really needs no answer. If C/L enjoyed unparalleled growth and popularity for 30 years why do you think that it was eclipsed by radio control. I assure you the AMA didn't do it. Yes they helped get the frequencies but they certainly didn't lobby for the RC manufacturers with the idea of obliterating C/L or F/F.
It appealed to a larger segment of the modelling public then other forms of modelling, became affordable in the 70's, and exploded in the 80's.
If that is true then you should perhaps look to Midwest,Top Flite, Fox, and all the other major manufacturers and all the new suppliers who literally flooded the market with an overwhelming array of products to support this new facet of the hobby. Advertising and an insatiable appetite for RC by the modelling public, it's adaptability to the toy world, it's versitility in applications to all forms of modelling probably did more to put the nail in the C/L coffin then any devious effort by the AMA.
Look my answer is not a definitive to your statements but I think that you are voicing a conspiricy theory that I've heard ever since I flew my first Citizenship RC job in 1958. Simply put if this is so then I'd really like to see something a little more definite then an allegation.