Alternative proposal to AMA tiered memberships * EC agenda item

Dr. Frank requested input be sent to him at his e-mail address. Available on the AMA website.

I thought it might be interesting to discuss it here as well

JR

It's simply Brilliant! Building on the huge success of the AMA ?Introductory Membership? Program, DVIII VP will transmogrify it into the "Introductory E-flight Only Membership" Program.

Doc Frank didn't say exactly how much it will cost ("any reduced ..." is a little vague), but extrapolating the $19.95/quarter for the current program to a full year (is that similar to a membership year?) works out to $79.80. A generous discount of, say 25%, would be quite the bargain (is it possible the EC could be that generous??), but I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm 'till I see what the EC decides by way of "reduced services offered." No insurance, maybe? Bummer that it's "for first time ONLY members," though. Some long standing members that are dropping slimers for e-power might feel slighted by that. Not me though - my plans for cloning Jason Shulman's F3A ship(s) haven't waned a bit - I'll stoically bear the full regular membership dues if it helps to get the newbies in ( but only if they are US citizens).

Go Doc, Go AMA!

Abel

What would be most useful to the AMA to encourage membership is an option that offers the benefits of insurance and no monthly magazine or anything else. I figure the value of this would probably be around fifty cents, but I'd go three fity!

Ciao,

Mr Akimoto.

Yeah, I'm with you,----that mag is pure vapor. The subject materials are out of date copies, from other mags,-- as is the "New" format. But thats the type of low quality crap you get, from an organization that is headed by pompus, outdated, self important stuffed shirts. They haven't had an original thought in years. If the paper were softer it would make good ass- wiping material.

That's a novel idea! I'll put that in their suggestion box about printing the magazine on softer paper or perhaps modern technology would permit authetic toilet tissue. Then I'd go four fity!

Ciao,

Mr Billy, Mr Akimoto's loyal, humble, and trustworthy manservant.

Whoa, if you have a decent home owners insurance, do you REALLY need AMA insurance. I was under the assumptions that AMA insurance is secondary anyway ?

Why do you even bother posting anything about the AMA? You have your own private 100 acre flying site after all, you Navy pilot!

AMA liability insurance is really three coverages. The personal portion has probably the least value to most AMA members. It is, indeed, secondary to any other insurance, inlcluding homeowners or renters (if applicable). However, it does come into play should the amount of your homeowners, etc., coverage be exceeded. It is also requires obeying the safety code, or it MAY not cover you.

The second coverage also has holes in it. It is coverage for clubs and their officers. It too requires compliance with the Safety Code and it does not cover some potential problem areas, such as slander and libel.

The coverage that really makes it all worth while is the coverage for landlords, which may be requested by clubs, or by CD for a specific event. There are about 2500 clubs that might not exist without the coverage for the landlord. There are about 3000 events sanctioned by CDs each year. Coverage for landlord has none of the restrictions of the Safety Code. It is full blown coverage. The cost of this insurance is $20 or slightly more if special wording is requried. Obviously, we all subsidize this coverage. Without it, clubs, their meeting places and even events like the NEAT show might cease to exist. Keep in mind that clubs generate about 50 percent of the dollar amount of all liability claims handled by the AMA.

The coverages for liability cost about $20-$25 of AMA individual dues, including the portion that is self insured by the AMA.

There is also secondary coverage for medical as well as coverage for fire, vandalism and theft. That's another story.

Hmm.... finally a better explanation of what it really is. I do have AMA insurance, simply because of membership with an AMA AST, requires it. Luckily, I have not used it at all. My home owners insurance does have a special "rider" to cover me in case of an accident. It is quite large since I also fly full scale. Interesting is that the field where most of us fly, is a public field and no AMA insurance is required, except when the local club has an "AMA sanctioned" fly in, or what ever.

Thanks for explaining.

It will be interesting to see what happens at your "public" field after the first time the public owners get sued.

Phil AMA609

Check with your insurance agent. At the back of your policy are exclusions to your homeowners policy. One should be an exclusion of man carrying aircraft. The wording is different with every company, but virtually all cover model aircraft (non-man carrying). If models are not excluded, they are covered. Basically, the concept with any insurance is that there will be a statement of what is covered. Everything is covered that is not excluded. As an example on the homeowners, it may contain a list of breeds of dogs that are not covered. Liability for all other breeds are covered.

As an additional side note, homeowners liability covers you away from home, unless it is excluded.

I have no idea what would happen in the case as suggested by "pcoopy". Since it is a public field, it really does NOT have an AMA requirement. Truly, I do not fly there that often. I have only seen maybe three accidents there in the last 15 years.

The "rider" (which is an extra thing) I have on my Home Owners insurance does include accident insurance for model aircraft AND full scale. It was written up especially for that. It was not cheap either !!! If such things could only be done simpler ....... I wonder how many people read those "exclusions".

It depends on where the publc field is. In CA and some other states, the public entity that owns it cannot be sued unless they agree to be sued. Theory is people using public facilities should be responsible for their own actions. Odd concept, seems in conflict with the Great American Dream of Better Living Through Litigation.

Probably not many. Those that do may think they know what the insurance covers, and not. If they are reading the AMA insurance policy that is posted on the web site as I have, word from AMA insurance guru is that it is erroneous and does not reflect what is actually covered and excluded. See Addenda to minutes of the last EC meeting for some discussion of this, if interested. As you have HO and understand its terms, you probably are unlikely to be affected.

Abel

That is interesting as all public sites I have flown on all require AMA or some other form of liability insurance.

You are right also. I flew at a "public" air field in Redmond Washington, and they DID require AMA coverage. Just here where I live, It is NOT required, unless the local club has something going where they have the field essentially for themselves. They have "rules" posted, but very few of the "non club members" adhere to them. One of them is a 500 foot ceiling, since the field is very close to the main airport. Some of these "oddballs" fly over the pits or fly very close to the freeway, which is about 500 feet behind the pits, almost none of them use a "spotter", although it is posted that there is supposed to be one, etc. Kind of a crummy place to be, and a lot of old geezers who always to have something to bitch about. Hence I fly very little there.

The way the AMA coverage is structured, the landlord is covered regardless of the AMA or club affiliation of individual pilots. On the other hand, clubs and their officers are not covered for the flying actions of non-AMA members. This leaves the clubs and their officers in a position, if they have exclusive use of a public facility, where they generally do not allow non-AMA members to fly at the site, except when some special progam like the Intro Pilot Program is in place. IMO, it would not be very bright of the officers to assume responsibility by letting non-AMA members fly in this situation, and that is the conclusion of virtually every club in that position. When they do not have exclusive use, everything chanages.

This leads back to discussion of unlimited buddy boxing (put forth to the EC by one of the other posters on this thread) for all non-AMA members and to the discussion of tiered and/or low cost memberships. It seems there are many thoughts on how new members might be encouraged to experience the AMA.

Wow! I wouldn't be anywhere near there!

That's the problem. the field is only 20 minutes away from me, but due tot he behaviour of some I, and some other people, drive 45 to 60 minutes further. To a field that is in the desert. Everybody there keeps the rules, and IF somebody goofs, all yell out, so we watch out for each other.

The public field we have here is State property and listed as a "State Park". The local club does have an Intro Pilot Programme. I used to help out. It is just, when all the other "Non Club" people come around, that the trouble starts. Too bad actually, they may even loose that field. They (the political bunch in charge) want to put in a "Sports and Recreation Center". They are just waiting until there are sufficient funds available. The "rub" here is that the runway was put in with private donations from pilots from way back, so that group is also kind of ticked off about that. The field has been there a very long time, when the homes were way out. Now they are at the end of the field almost. To make things even worse, the "diehards" found another place (all on their own !!!), where the owner was all for it, to create another airfield for RC use. Now the city stopped it for some really stupid reason. Go figure.

Actually I think AMA does serve a useful purpose in promoting safe flying practices among other things. If I was going to pick on them my gripe would be they do not go far enough. For example they publish rules on layout of a flying field. These rules have required set backs from the edge of the field to the pilots stations. Setbacks to the pits area. Setbacks to the parking area. They say the pilots should have some barrier in front of them. Things like that. Yet the AMA is perfectly willing to give coverage to fields that violate all these written rules. In the extreme I know of a club that parks ten feet from the pits area. The pits area is not defined in any way. It is simply the edge of the runway. It is also the area you stand in when you fly. The guys in that club routinely fly in 360 degrees from the point where they stand. The field is fairly square so they take off and land in any old direction. They do not have so much as a wind sock to tell wind direction. No one uses any restraints when starting engines. It is a great field to go to on Sunday if you like to watch crashes. I just suggest kevlar vests and a hard hat.

In my mind AMA should have a field inspection program where every field is inspected once a year and those that do not meet the written rules given the choice to upgrade or be denied any club or landlord insurance. As stated above the coverage for the pilot is minimal at best anyhow. Lawyers do not sue individuals for more then they have insurance as they can not collect the money. So more insurance = more chance of getting sued for more money. Short of an inspection at least a no cost, no work solution would be to require every club to sign a statement to the effect that the club flying field layout conforms to all written specifications of the AMA and that violation of any of these specifications invalidates the insurance coverage. Cost for this = zero. Possible savings to AMA and thus all of us that try real hard to live by the rules, simply because they make good safety sense, might be substantial in reduced insurance payments.

Manpower sure can not be used as an excuse to not do field inspections. We have more AMA assistant VP's then you can count. And getting even more should be no problem at all.

Of the five flying fields that I personally know well only one of them comes even close to meeting the AMA written requirements. That one qualifies in every respect. But perhaps I just live in a high risk area? Do not know.

Have a good holidays all.