I have to look this Kevie guy up. He seems to have quite the following here!
- Vote on answer
- posted
18 years ago
I have to look this Kevie guy up. He seems to have quite the following here!
Actually Red, you simply are not worth the trouble. In fact, I find little worth in you at all other than some light entertainment.
It's a matter of degree. To you the status quo means getting stuck with Dave Brown. To me the status quo means trying to nurse the AMA dinosaur back to health rather than finding a new and different solution. Perhaps both of us are looking for a better deal in different ways? Maybe our actions here in Kansas City will eventually provide an incentive for better service to be given to everybody else. You never know. At any rate, the more that you and I look for improvements, the better the chances of finding them.
In the criminal courts this is certainly true. In civil courts, you just never know. The comment about O.J. and Michael was a cheap shot and not relevant.
Well, you gotta figure that *somebody* is smart enough to figure it out. Maybe I'm not such a goofball after all.
I notice that you are always consistent. You still address only the parts that you can argue with, but no comment about the inherently weasely insurance agreement and ample opportunities for "interpretation". That's OK, I just think it's funny.
You do have a mirror don't you? Do you need an introduction?
What's going down in KC related to the AMA? Is this something that could catch on in other areas?
Both of them are worth wasting a bullet. :-)
One should choose his battles carefully, losing sucks!.
opportunities for "interpretation".
Here is a case where I have not found it all that important, no solid evidence that indicates the AMA has taken advantage of the "weasely agreement". You know as well as I that there is no insurance policy that doesn't leave some wiggle room. Think of all the lawyers and judges that would be out of business if they didn't. In the case stated in another thread the AMA did the right thing in fighting that one - but you lose some/win some. IMHO that case was simply one of who has the deepest pockets as interpreted by the jury.
Red S.
As mentioned in my other posts, we're not just AMA bashers, we're talking to the county park bureaucrats about insurance requirements in an attempt to create a more favorable environment for RC. Rather than saying "AMA is standard operating procedure in RC, so let's do that," we're suggesting more practical requirements for the county to set for flying permits, to best serve the public as well as the county government. The county permit costs $15 per calendar year, and there are basically no requirements other than proof of $1 million in personal liability coverage. If they would consider standard homeowners coverage to be adequate, then AMA's $1 million secondary coverage would be unnecessary. Standard homeowner's liability coverage is generally half a million dollars around here. The county's own secondary liability coverage is $25 million, which means that AMA is currently covering only a relatively minor gap.
We made the point with these guys that hundreds of local hobbyists have begun flying mini electrics from schoolyards and parks, some very close to the three county flying fields, and a lot of them on non-flying field county property. This poses some level of risk to permit holders and by extension to a smaller extent, the county. Given the fact that automobile drivers are legally required to carry $25,000 liability insurance, we made the case that it is reasonable to sell permits to non AMA members who have $500,000 primary coverage through homeowners policies or other insurance, thus enticing more non club oriented fliers with tiny airplanes to buy park permits and reduce the risk to the entire modeling community, while putting a few more dollars in the park's fund via permit sales. Currently, these park flyer guys would have to pay $73 for AMA plus the permit to get into the flying field. We want it to cost $15 for any homeowner to fly at the flying field.
The park officials were also surprised to note that although AMA site owner's coverage is primary, AMA's coverage to the modeler is secondary. Because they do not require permit holders to belong to a club, the vast majority of us are not even covered by the primary "site owner's coverage" offered by AMA. The park officials were also surprised that the AMA insurance agreement clearly states that they do not have to pay for incidents occuring while the AMA safety code is being violated. Lawsuits being what they are, this clause poses a risk for the county because they are the next in line to be sued after a modeler who was buzzing the pits or some such. By comparison, automobile liability insurance covers a driver who breaks traffic laws, and even county bureaucrats could see the inherent silliness in a policy that claims immunity for an insurer when the insured does something outside the rules. I agree that none of us can think of an incident where AMA refused to cover a member who didn't have his name in the airplane, was flying out of bounds, or didn't do a range check, but in common sense terms it just isn't right for the local government to require us to do business with an insurer who claims this exemption. And the park officials agree.
AMA insurance is not considered to be a bad thing per se, just a trivial thing not worthy of being required by the park for a permit. The park already does not actually require AMA membership, but based on what the local club told them years ago was the RC modeling standard, they require the "AMA standard" one million dollars coverage. We are merely trying to get them to set the minimum at $500k so we can use widely available alternatives. This would get more guys at the county fields, sell more permits, and save a lot of us $58, but would otherwise not change a thing at the county park flying fields.
To answer your question, it is difficult to imagine that our efforts will have a major effect in other areas immediately, or possibly ever, but it does make you think. Our local officials genuinely are not impressed enough by what AMA offers to consider it sacred. In the realm of insurance, liability and lawsuits, the contract looks kind of lame, and there are widely available alternatives that aren't any worse. We have a few AMA clubs at our county flying fields. These guys willingly pay over a hundred bucks to the club and $58 to AMA plus their park permits, and I doubt that this will ever change. The park officials will either see it our way or not, and then we'll do whatever it takes to fly our planes again next year. But if enough people around the country start thinking outside the box and look for other ways to do business, maybe the AMA will notice.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Insurance policies always say exactly what both parties have to do as well as what both parties are entitled to. I don't like the idea of doing business with somebody who exempts himself up front from major contingencies. In an automobile liability policy these clauses would be laughable. I know that neither of us can name a case when it was an issue, but why should I want such a policy? I would think that a guy like Red Scholefield would demand the most favorable terms up front, like setting up an argument you can't lose, right? Well that's what AMA has already done to you.
It will be interesting to see how the county responds to all the paper work involved. Who is checking the individual's insurance, and if it is still in effect 24 hours after the permit is granted?
Best of luck when some apartment dweller who's "renters liability" insurance has expired creams you or yours.
Thanks, but I'll fly at clubs where there is a known insurance coverage, albeit "poorly defined". At least until I hear that legitimate claims are not being paid
Red S.
That's pretty much the response I expected to a cogent presentation of reasonable ideas.
Red Scholefield wrote:
No! I need for you to explain to me why I should trust you? With my legit e-mail or anything else for that matter.
Avoiding the issue simply implies that you fear the truth!
What better way to help the AMA than to make it easier to attract people. Get the small electric, Sunday drive in the park flyers to hit a real model field for a change.
Naw! Better to hide behind the AMA banner, demand they join just to try it out! Deny them help when their family members are injured.
Yep! Squeeze them tight just like Red! And watch all that potential slip through your fingers!
Red's the man! Red has the answer to everything!
Why should I trust you Red?
$ 25,000!!!!! PA lawmakers need to copy Kansas !!! In PA R&L Reynolds when you are stoped at a traffic light with 3 cars in front you on the crest of an RxR bridge on a dark, misty night you need to be carefull because another driver can make things interesting when all of a sudden you find yourself the "bread", the car in front the "meat", and the 3rd car the other slice of "bread"......one big collision nightmare of a sandwich. Bottom line: Women claimed to hit a patch of oil, she had by law $5,000 in liabilty, caused $9,580 in damages, 3 insurance companies trying to figure how to divy $5,000 for 5 1/2 months, inspection coming up soon on my 1991 Pontiac awd sedan ( now a compact- but driveable ) with an estimate of $3,200 to fix. With inspection due 5/2005 and no check in mail, well I needed to do somethig. Suzuki dealer was more than happy to take my car as trade and I and my family are happy 2005 Forenza owners.........4 days later I get a check for $1,298. I should have cliked my heels 3 times from the getgo
Mike
insurance, we made the case that it is reasonable to sell permits to non
Without all of the sensationalistic bickering and hoopla, I have thought of some potential benefits to our plan to allow people to fly at a controlled field without AMA mebership. As you say (between insults), once somebody gets through the gate with a park flyer, they might just get into bigger things and eventually join AMA. Or it could be that if our idea catches on and other insurance plans become the norm, AMA might just get out of the insurance business. Can you imagine it? What if AMA were to dwindle to 10,000 members who join just because they like the heritage and lore of model flying? In all seriousness, I think that would be very cool. Lobbying and advocacy efforts could come from AMA as well as various manufacturers and industry groups, insurance could come from any number of providers, and AMA could return to a foundation built on the pure love of model airplanes, with a membership fee around $20. If that's what it was all about, I would probably join.
Chuck J>
Wow, that sucks. $5,000 liability requirement????? That's ridiculous. I suppose that you could sue the driver. As a landlord I've had to sue tenants and levy their wages, but people like that tend to keep switching jobs.
Thanks Robbie, for a very well thought out posting, and the work that you did behind it. Lots of ideas therein that could help shape and secure the future of model aviation, if people will only give you a listen instead of just saying "that's not the way we are used to doing it."
Abel
This is why I won't join the AMA, a few members told me I HAD to join just to fly, even on MY OWN LAND. They said well it's against the law to fly a plane w/o AMA insurance.
I found out I didn't HAVE to join and decided I wanted no part of the AMA.
| This is why I won't join the AMA, a few members told me I HAD to join just | to fly, even on MY OWN LAND. They said well it's against the law to fly a | plane w/o AMA insurance. | | I found out I didn't HAVE to join and decided I wanted no part of the AMA.
Well, to be fair, that's not really the AMA's fault, just a few misguided members. Though it does seem to be a common misconception.
Of course, the AMA does encourage it to a degree by putting the word `license' on their membership cards, so ...
Thanks for the reply. I ran into some new info tonight. Refer to new thread under the title New Insurance Ideas.
No reason at all Chuck. Or whatever.
As a full blown paranoid, no one here expects you to trust anyone.
Yes, it's what people keep telling you to do. Unfortunately, you don't seem to get it.
He doesn't want his family, probably the only ones who are willing to tolerate him, or aquaitances (it's doubtful that he has friends) to know what a jerk he is online.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.