Since there is no support for parkflyers...

[moo]

I thought I might start to drum up some support.
AMA are doing it, why so slow Amerika Jr.?

The Academy is encouraging the development of new, officially recognized AMA Park Pilot Program sites in metro areas throughout the US. As an aid in reaching this goal, we’ve developed a special “How to Start a Park Flying Site” turnkey package; when using this, members who are trying to secure a field won’t have to start from scratch when they approach landowners or officials who are responsible for regulating public facilities.

MbozPK6oG1M

[moo]

Lower rates for Parkflyers as well:

http://www.theparkpilot.org/images/how to join/join1.jpg
http://www.theparkpilot.org/images/how to join/join.jpg

[moo]

Reduced insurance for reduced risk?

z-Y-iYxFRHk

[HalfaStrut]

HI
Sounds interesting, this is pretty much what I fly. And your right there is very little support.. I dont belong to a club don't really want to, so it would be good if there were a number of fields avalable to go to.
I realize the AMA is able to supply ins for the field owner. What about the flier, or must you still belong to MAAC.

Pat

[moo]

I would guess that if enough people get together and poke the corpse with sticks it's bound to move a little. ;)

[g-manz35]

Reduced risk?? You guys obviously forgot about the thread where the RCC resident experts figured out that park flyers are more dangerous than jets:p

I like the inclusive attitude. It should help educate flyers and reduce accidents.

George

[mjws]

Last I heard this program was being dumped due to incredibly low interest and turnout. Three year trial or something dumped in the near future? I think there were only a few hundred memberships in the entire US. Complete failure.

I'm sure there are some stats somewhere, and I could be off slightly on the number. Bottom line is the plug and fly park flyer crowd doesn't want to pay for insurance, and the liability isn't significant enough to motivate them to buy.

I believe MAAC has good data on the program.

Mike

[Max]

Hmm.. Interesting concept.
The 3 year performance data is disturbing though.

I strongly feel that MAAC's survival must include continual efforts to spread the word and recruit new members. I would guess that there are as many non MAAC park fliers out there than MAAC members combined.

The problem is, to the rogue park flier- he's presently flying with no additional costs and no rules or any other kind of BS to deal with, so the idea of spending money to get MAAC does not appeal the these people at the present.

It would be interesting to see if this can become something that is "desirable" to a non MAAC affiliated park flier.

[moo]

Last I heard this program was being dumped due to incredibly low interest and turnout.

Please tell them to remove it from their website :rolleyes:
So is MAAC basing their policy on flailure or are they going to push their own program?

I would guess that setting up an indoor or parkflyer club you could bury the insurance if the reality bothered the membership. But at this point in time the club would have to seek out it's own insurance as MAAC is a bit expensive for the parkflyer needs.

And yes, I am a member of MAAC ($75), and a flying club ($90), and may join a second flying club as I am moving in a month or so. (look out Guelph or OMFC!)

What I was thinking was that we (Canadar) needs to promote organized parkflying and indoor flying to get the kind of completions they host in Europe.

[g-manz35]

Hmm.. Interesting concept.
The 3 year performance data is disturbing though.

I strongly feel that MAAC's survival must include continual efforts to spread the word and recruit new members. I would guess that there are as many non MAAC park fliers out there than MAAC members combined.

The problem is, to the rogue park flier- he's presently flying with no additional costs and no rules or any other kind of BS to deal with, so the idea of spending money to get MAAC does not appeal the these people at the present.

It would be interesting to see if this can become something that is "desirable" to a non MAAC affiliated park flier.

I agree.

They (the flyers) will become more interested when city bylaws start getting enforced. Many cities have bylaws restricting R/C flying in their parks but they don't enforce them. If and when they start getting kicked out of parks then some of them will seek a new venue. This would be a good time to welcome them into the local clubs and cater to their special needs.

I started as a park flyer. I didn't know there was MAAC and had no idea I shoiuld have insurance. It wasn't till years later I found out there was a bylaw banning R/C craft from parks in Saskatoon where I lived.

George

[moo]

I started as a park flyer. I didn't know there was MAAC and had no idea I shoiuld have insurance. It wasn't till years later I found out there was a bylaw banning R/C craft

I knew there was a bylaw, but as a teen i didn't have the funds to buy club or MAAC membership nor the transportation to get to the local club. Now I'm the field officer.

I'm saying that I think clubs are fine the way they are set up; but we (Canada) needs to promote less expensive roads in to the hobby.

[HalfaStrut]

HI

I am a park flier, all of my planes are slow fliers although some planes hit the 50" mark.
I would be very interested in a program like this, and the competitions that come with such an orgaization.
I am not ,as of now a member of MAAC or of a club. I really don't want to join either; but I'm assuming that eventually I'll have to.
I think it would be a great organization, just because it did'nt work in the US, does not mean it wont work here. IMO

Pat

[1THEPALMER]

I think the reason for the AMA failure with this program lies not with the program but with the mindset of the people who fly "park flyers"
The ones I have met are great people but purchased an all in the box solution as a quick easy way to try out model flying. Note the term "model flying" they are not RC hobbists.
Most have little or no prior experence with models they are just interested, so for a few hundred they are up and flying. If they enjoy it they might buy another plane after the first dies most I meet do not.
Our club field lies within a city park http://www.brcm.org/ and a second within a provincal park so I guess the entire club are "Park Flyers"
We see our fair share of park flyer types showing up as spectators (no MAAC so no fly) but not sure if we have ever gained an actual member from this group.
Our LHS (Skycraft) sells a lot of Park Zone charge and fly stuff I have no idea where it all goes as I have never come across one flying in a local park.

[HalfaStrut]

HI

Acctually I build all of my planes from Aerodrome RC or Manzano Lazer works kits. I also scratch build alot of my planes from plans. I just happen NOT to be a club type. I don't like the politics in most large clubs. As fo MACC, ..........maybe one day. I do agree alot of Park Fliers do by arfs or rtfs,....but not all of us!! The one RTF I do have is a Park Zone Super cub, and that was to relearn flying after a 35yr break. I did'nt want to rekit one of my builds.

Pat

[philipa_240sx]

I guess I am a rogue park flyer.... and a casual one at that.

Although I understand and respect MAAC and it's member clubs, all I want to do is fly on my own time. I have precious little time to fly... maybe the odd weekday evening after 8PM or very early (7AM) weekend mornings. Many of the local MAAC clubs don't operate during the hours that I have available to me.

So when I can fly, I just want to have fun with it. Even if all I ever do is putter around with one of my scratchbuilt 3ch foamies at a local field, that's perfect for me. It's a relaxing break from my 60hr a week job.

[HalfaStrut]

HI

I agree

Pat

[dm-digital]

This year I did not renew my MAAC. I don't fly at any MAAC sanctioned fields or indoor events. If I'm not going to get any form of support from MAAC for the locations I fly at then I just feel my money is being wasted.

I fly all electric aircraft (fixed and rotary wing) and most fit within the park flyer classification. The closest club field to me is a good half hour drive away and with my schedule just isn't worth the drive...especially when you get out there to find the winds much stronger and too much for my models compared to areas closer to home. Myself and several others fly at a local Catholic school with a large field. It is literally a less than 2 minute drive to get there. We've asked the Priest who lives just off the property if he minds us flying and he replied that he enjoys watching. We respect the property and others who have rights to use it. We follow our own common sense rules to keep things as safe as possible.

Some of my models get 5-6 hours of actual air time per week. When my time and weather permit I can quickly pop out for some evening flying. If the field is being used for some event it's usually free again before the sun sets allowing me to squeeze in a couple of flights. If I was forced to use the closest club field then I would be lucky to get 5-6 hours in per year. Back in the day when nitros were your only option and you had to fly at a club field I really didn't get much flying in and I eventually left the hobby. It wasn't until smaller electrics started taking off that I got back into the hobby.

If MAAC offered support for the park flyer classification I would gladly become a member again. These days with the popularity of park flyers I don't know how a park flyer program could fail. At our local hobby shop the majority of models sold are park flyers. Now with the cost and convenience of park flyers there are many new people getting into the hobby. I'm sure if MAAC had some kind of support for them, they would gladly become a MAAC member.

[philipa_240sx]

Same here,

All of my planes are parkflyers under 16oz with several in the 5-10oz range. They do not like winds much above 15 km/h. The local field is 5min away from me and I can fly on a moments notice if the wind is good. Convenience is key.

Electrics certainly have opened up a lot more opportunities. Clean and quiet flight makes flying nearly anywhere a possibility.

[HalfaStrut]

HI
Most of my builds are about the same, with some reaching 35oz all between 36"and 50" ws and all elec.
I suppose eventually like all good things over time the free flying will end .Someone will have a misshap and ins is going to be needed to cover our asses.
I thought I saw a post here that a Co. in BC was offering ins to park fliers with a blanket coverage for all parks they fly in or something like that. I just can't rembember the name of the co.


Pat

[Tyler P]

This a good thread!

I started out park flying also. I had a PZ Corsair and a HobbyZone Super Cub. I no longer have any small planes and have gotten into giant scale, but I do think it is important that MAAC try do something with all these 'rogue' park flyers. And what I mean by 'do something' I mean that they should try to make some sort of attractive membership package, as the AMA tried to.

I completely understand what people mean about the freedom aspect of park flying. It's nice to be able to zip out to your local soccer field or what have you and get in some valuable, relaxing, flying time. But as most of you have ascertained already, the free flying will likely come to an end at some point. We have by-laws against it here in Ottawa also. I never had an issue, but there's always that risk.

I think where this might start to get more attractive to the 'rogue' park flyer is that we now have coverage again on non-sanctioned fields as long as we have the landowners permission and use a reasonable amount of the MAAC safety guidelines. Yes, it is more work than tossing the planes in the air like we used to, but at least you'll have coverage if something were to happen.

I'll likely have another park flyer in the future, but I'm enjoying flying at the clubs I belong to at the moment. It would certainly be nice if we could attract more of the park flying crowd to MAAC, though!

[HalfaStrut]

If MACC won't do anything for the Park Fliers, I'm sure someone will fill the need eventually. So would'nt a school yard class as a flying field if the principal or the City gave permission for you to fly there. And if so would Macc not cover you.

[imported_paintball_kidz]

I am a self supported parkflyer? if that makes any sense, all my planes range from 40-77" and they all fly in parks fine. I am however a maac member cause its only $10 for me and one of the electric only parkflyers club here, the fee for a teen flyer is free so its all good, i fly there somtimes but i perfer the park as its closer, and i like having my own rules

[HalfaStrut]

Fortunate fellow

[voyager_663rd]

Tuan, went to your youtube video. That camera you use produces awesome movies (in 720 to boot). On the pricey side but you do get a great vid from it.

Good stuff.

[cman]

I am a MAAC member and have been since 1999, If I showed up to your club or any club, with my Great Planes electric 3 channel cub, and frequency pin, would you let me fly? If I payed the club membership could I fly on my own? This aircraft is hand lunched in light winds.

C

[HalfaStrut]

Hi

I'm not a MACC member, and I've only been out to two clubs.
I've asked that question twice ;and have been told definatly NOT! But someone would fly it for me.

Pat

[Max]

I am a MAAC member and have been since 1999, If I showed up to your club or any club, with my Great Planes electric 3 channel cub, and frequency pin, would you let me fly? If I payed the club membership could I fly on my own? This aircraft is hand lunched in light winds.

C

Hi

I'm not a MACC member, and I've only been out to two clubs.
I've asked that question twice ;and have been told definatly NOT! But someone would fly it for me.
Pat


I guess it depends on the club.
Obviously, No MAAC, No Fly. That goes without saying

At my club, [Aurira Model Aircraft Club],if a guy has MAAC and his MAAC wings pin, then he is welcome to fly as a visiting guest.

If a guy had MAAC but no wing pin, (usually for guys that learned to Park fly in a schoolyard before considering joining MAAC or a club), then we have an instructor check him out for competency before we let him fly alone. If they fail, then they need to do our wings program.

So while we allow guests, I'm sure allowing guests to fly can be abused, but so far most guys that fly as a guest are either passing through (we had guests from Ottawa, to Chicago at one time or another) or locals that want to stop in and check us out. Guys that are local (GTA) if they fly as a guest a second time, we would ask them to consider joining if they want to continue coming out

[HalfaStrut]

HI

I agree, a MACC sanctioned club that lets someone fly with out it jepardizes the club.
I think what would be good is... if there was an INS that would cover Park Fliers that don't want to join a club, not everone enjoys the club atmosphere for one reason or another.
Also some don't want to drive 1/2 and hr or an hr to fly for 10 or 20 min when the feeling hits

Pat

[MarkCrowe]

I have to say this is kind of a disconcerting thread for someone new to the hobby.

I've visited the MAAC site but haven't read into it in great detail yet. From what I read here, (and again, I haven't read the MAAC rules in great detail yet and am speaking only from limited knowledge and conjecture), it sounds as if MAAC membership and sponsorship for clubs/fields could be just too cumbersome with little reward for the 'casual' hobbyist. Perhaps, and I don't mean to insult, even elitist.

As I've said in another thread, there is no club here, the nearest one listed on the MAAC website is 4 hours away. As for the Wings program, if a group in town here wanted to start a MAAC-affiliated club, how difficult would it be to even get someone local who could qualify up to at least be able to certify Wings Level A and B? I haven't yet looked into local bylaws, but there are certainly schoolyards and some largish parks in town, as well as an actual abandoned airstrip beside a lake which is a 10-minute drive from anywhere in town, that could very well be ideal for a club, if the interest is there.

In a country already overburdened with rules upon rules and everyone and their dog being a 'stakeholder' in nearly everything anyone wants to do, perhaps membership in what, on the surface, seems to be an inflexible organization, just wouldn't be palatable to a lot of new or casual RCers.

Just my thoughts, not necessarily my opinions.

[moo]

then we have an instructor check him out for competency before we let him fly alone.

What he said. :TU:

[moo]

I have to say this is kind of a disconcerting thread for someone new to the hobby.

MAAC membership is optional, unless you want to fly at a MAAC sanctioned club. (the only exception I can find is AMA members)

Insurance is optional, unless you damage someone or something through negligence (i.e. you didn't test all servo cables...)

Edit: unless the property owner requires you have insurance to rent the place (i.e. Toronto District School Board)

[Dangaras]

It's no fun until somebody loses an eye. Or until its your eye and then the fun really starts.

No matter what anyone says or thinks, MAAC does a whole lot more than cover us with insurance. The flying in a park or backyard can be covered by your homeowners insurance policy and again there are rules there as well. Its always a nuisance at first.

Just wait until you have a property damage or personal injury issue caused by your model and then you will quickly learn the hard way.

[JimMcIntyre]

In a country already overburdened with rules upon rules and everyone and their dog being a 'stakeholder' in nearly everything anyone wants to do, perhaps membership in what, on the surface, seems to be an inflexible organization, just wouldn't be palatable to a lot of new or casual RCers.


I don't find MAAC inflexible, nor are they simply an insurance broker.

One of the mandates of MAAC is to assist us with working within (or changing) the same rules you mention. Many communities have already banned the flying of model aircraft in parks and schoolyards (nice rule eh?). I've witnessed MAAC coming to the aid of many clubs who have lost a field due to bureaucracy and mis-information or an uninformed or otherwise individual doing something that appeared dangerous or truly was dangerous (I once witnessed an idiot straffing children in a schoolyard!). This activity will likely continue, epsecially as entry to the hobby becomes easier and more accessible with the blurring between 'harmless toy' and disciplined, potentially harmful complex model continues. This is why MAAC invested in the "Getting and keeping Flying Sites" committee; http://maac.ca/committees/maac_committee.php?cm=13 and works directly with clubs and/or individuals as well as manufacturers, retail and the media to educate and inform in an effort to ensure we don't end up with a homeland security type reaction when the next idiot piles his "parkflyer" into a gaggle of schoolchildren. :(

I recall the recent complaints over lack of representation for sportflyers ... MAAC responded by creating a focused committee to assist with these needs. The needs didn't surface.
What are the need of the ParkFlyer discipline? Well, I am also an avid parkflyer and, being a MAAC member I'm informed of the risks and what i need to do to mitigate them as well as several venues (and experts) I can tap to address my specific needs/concerns.

As for your experience at the clubs ... yes there are many elitist clubs that view anything other than 40 sizeor larger fixed wing flying as anathema, but this is not a MAAC problem, this is a personality/clique/ignorance problem related to the individual clubs and most often a minority of vocal individuals in the these clubs.

[1THEPALMER]

Just came back to this. We all have made some very valid points, I get the feeling that a park program is a good idea but how to sell it?
My very first radio came with a Transport Canada operators licsense application and a MAAC membership form/pamplet with a stern warning that both were required before I attempted to operate the radio or fly a plane! The Morse code test had just been droped.
I am converting my fleet over to electric, this will allow me to fly @ our club field before operating hours as they are based on noise concerns. Things like a 10:00AM start on Sunday. Our lease has a clause that excludes electric planes from the operating hours restriction.
I do not fly my 1400 WATT system early as an APC 15x6E prop clawing @ the air when stomped from idle to full power is LOUD!
While I am a club flyer for the most part I also own several sub 40" models that do get flown @ off club fields. Some sort of Insurance coverage would be nice.

[pschulte]

Ive been approached by four people who are not covered or a member of our rc club about something like a park flier program. They just cant justify paying 80 a year plus club fees to fly a 100 dollar plane. They just wanted to join to fly in our indoor venue in the winter. I dont blame them. Two are thinking of joining anyway because they have moved up to larger planes. My point is if more people are welcomed into the club with a reduced maac bill and club fees because they dont use all the facilities then they may become interested in becomeing full members when they move on to larger planes. With only approx 35 paid members that would have meant over 10 percent growth. In my opinion new fresh faces can bring new ideas, energy, enthusiasm(dont know if I spelled that correctly) and their exitement is contaigous. I wish that maac had a park program I think it would be a good transition to full membership.

[moo]

well said, hopefully more people are listening