Alternative proposal to AMA tiered memberships * EC agenda item

So the implication is to fly at an AMA sanctioned field with all the other Dickhead misfits like you?

zara crystal ball predicts: "some of the Dickheads here, will not appreciate your post".

I understand the difference between recommended and required. I also know of one case where an assistant VP required changing the location of parking by ten feet as the recommended set back as original was not in compliance. The alternative to changing was he would recommend AMA not charter the field. Now I am sure AMA would have still chartered the field. But it was a lot easier to keep peace and make the small change. I also realize clearly that situations may exist such as slope flyers that require changes to the set back rules. It is perfectly easy for any club to clearly identify such factors and cover required modifications in club by laws such that safety is preserved.

I think you miss my main point thou. Namely safety in the hobby is vital for our future. Every time there is a major accident like the one a year or so ago where a guys leg almost got cut off by a prop or someone gets killed it is big time negative headlines. We need and AMA needs to do what can be done to prevent accidents. Both need to do what can be done to protect participants, spectators and neighbors as I am sure no one wants any of these people to get hurt. But also we need to protect the hobby or the bad publicity just gives the anti airplane crowd another arrow in the quiver to shoot at us. If we do not do this none of us will be flying short of an FAA permitting process. And maybe not even then if the locals will not allow us to have fields.

I agree that it is important that we fly in a safe manner. I think we have all seen flying that does not meet that criteria. Typically, those violations are also violations of the Safety Code. It is fairly rare that I have seen unsafe flying that was within the constraints of the Safety Code.

There has been a tendency to make too many rules, both by the AMA and by clubs. It is my opinion that if a rule truly needs to exist, it should be made. If there is any doubt to it's value, it should not be made. Rules that are just fluff are the things that drive many away from clubs. In addition, there are many "facts" that appear on the internet that are not facts when they are chased down. As I understand, when Casey was hurt, it was not at an AMA club field. Most deaths AMA reports among it's members for insurances purposes are heart attacks at events.

Now, the fact is that we are involved in a hobby with some risks. It is pretty unlikely that putting a shroud around every prop, or putting a heat sink behind every turbine is going to take place. There are just some risks that are part of our hobby. Sitting around trying to eliminate risk completely is not helpful. That is the reason one carries insurance... to mitigate risk.

Dave Brown, the AMA president, in particular, has become obsessed with looking at every possible situation and trying to eliminate all risk. It was his views that caused problems with the turbine flyers, and the same is true of those that wanted the infamous "rule #9" eliminated. When the EC looked at the rules they had made, in retrospect, they agreed with the turbine pilots and those that wanted to hover and changed the rules.

The case in point is made by the fact that clubs generate 50% of the dollar amount of all liability claims handled by the AMA. These are not flying accidents, but, trip and fall accidents. Time might be better spent in looking around our flying sites for potential problems. A few years ago, a small child was crushed to death by a windsock pole being erected and left in place for the weekend.

Sure, we would love to eliminate every cut finger. Heck, we would like to totally eliminate crashes. It just ain't gonna happen, and there has to be good sense used. Making too many rules has more detrimental effects than too few, in my opinion.

Not bad JR.

One thing.............DB is not obsessed with eliminating all risk. He is obsessed with eliminating AMA insurance liability for claims that may arise from risk. The difference is more than nit picking. Exclusions from insurance coverage don't alter the risk exposure, they just relieve the insurance company from having to pay when a loss due to an excluded activity occurs. Something clubs should bear in mind, too. Club rules are incorporated into the Safety Code by reference (Gen rule 3), so violation of them may void AMA insurance coverage. Better be sure you really need that rule and are prepared to enforce it vigorously, as you may have done little more than provide another out for the insurance company.

Abel

Abel, That last sentence is a real killer unless your group is so far out of the ordinary as to be angelic. I have fought stupid rules that cannot be easily enforced and I have fought silly rules that just make someone play policeman. Unfortunatly, there are days when I am sure that is exactly what my "betters" in the AMA want me and my club to do.

There is no such thing as an AMA sanctioned field.