AMA and insurance claims

That's all well and good if you can get the county to administer it. Our county government said, "Here's your land, YOU administer it, but we want everyone to have insurance." Well, AMA is the only PRACTICAL means to provide proof of insurance, considering none of our members are insurance agents, and none of our members are willing to stand watch at the county field and check insurance paperwork to make sure you're covered and your premiums are paid up.

AMA isn't the only "practical" way to provide proof of insurance by a long shot, and you seem to be making a big assumption as to what the county parks folks want by way of such proof. If a declaration by the model flying park user that he has the required minimum coverage, or a copy of the declarations cover sheet from his HO policy isn't good enough for them, it doesn't take a whole lot of brain strain to think up alternative ways to accomplish the required paperwork for less than $58 per head. I doubt that I'd have to walk the length of the block I live on to find a housewife that would be delighted to keep and update as needed a list of HO policy effective and expiration dates for $5 per line per year.

Abel

Good point. There seems to be a lot of defeatism going around lately. Don't any of us know people who like to get things done?

Robbie-

I'm pretty sure you know there is something more to it than defeatism. There is a peculiar irony here: Some people have argued ad infinitum that "AMA is not a monopoly, and nobody is forcing anyone to join. If you aren't satisfied with the value offered by AMA membership and/or don't want to be regulated by AMA policies, you are free to fly at another place that is outside of AMA's control." Then when somebody says to himself, "Well okay then, I'll go elsewhere," and begins to move on that course, it's those very same people that will argue just as ernestly why you can't.

Abel

A case of split personality, since COjones can only be referring to himself in the third person, here.

And here in lies part of the problem. AMA members in the field (so to speak) are spreading falshoods about many things. In particular the insurance. In the meantime the AMA pundits claim we're the ones trying to give the AMA a bad rap!

I do hope you informed that club of the error of their ways? Just to rub it in! :)

That was some of my problem. A local AMA club advised me that I HAD to have AMA insurance to sponsor a flying site on my property. I told them to pound sand. They came back and threatend legal action. I bought the land their site was on and told them to F.O. this time. That club is gone now. Some of the former members fly at my place now. They behave themselves and no, most of them are no longer AMA.

So intentional mis representation may come back to bite them in the ass! Should be interesting. Not to mention fun!

OK. But who says it has to be the only voice?

For that matter what alliances does the AMA have with other organization? Like in the aviation industry! How about the UAV industry? The hobby has a whole pot load in common with the UAV industry. Allied would make both sides that much stronger. And prevent the UAV industry from accidently on purpose pushing the hobby out of the national airspace picture.

Few! And just how many models are typically in the air at any given time at your club? I'll wager it's "just a few!"

Then do something to build membership!

So was Der Sturm back about 1939.

To a power hungry self centerd group not unlike the last one!

Then when by god is it going to start acting like a non profit EDUCATIONAL organization? And who the hell do they propose to educate?

In the horse business a lot of folks rely on their home owners. In these case I require a simple statement form their insurance agent that they are in fact covered for x amount for whatever their horse might do. I also provide the agent with my name and contact info (I trust him Red!) asking him to annotate the policy to let me know if the policy ever lapses.

To date only one policy lapsed, the agent did contact me and let me know. Turned out it was confusion factor on the part of the horse owner and the policy was re-instated the following day. But my system has worked so far!

And I also have my own insurance to back everything up.

Actually they already think Red is an asshole so if they think I'm a jerk, I'm good with that. Now if they thought I was an asshole too then I'd be pissed!

Hmmm! CG! I do believe you are a little tail heavy! That is, full of it!

| For that matter what alliances does the AMA have with other organization? | Like in the aviation industry! How about the UAV industry? The hobby has a | whole pot load in common with the UAV industry. Allied would make both | sides that much stronger.

But the goals are very different. Certainly, the UAV people need a lot more freedom than we do. All we need is to fly VFR up to perhaps

5000 feet up and away (and that's a lot further than most people can see or fly.) (But 700 or 1000 feet? Dave Brown needs to realize that not all flying is done with an engine up front!) The UAV people fly bigger planes and for hundreds of miles, generally with much bigger budgets than ours.

| > Without the AMA's hard work in the past, we would still be flying on just | > a few frequencies, if any at all. | | Few! And just how many models are typically in the air at any given | time at your club? I'll wager it's "just a few!"

I recall having 16 planes up at once at the local slope at one point, and slope flying isn't even that popular here in Austin.

And all it takes are nine people showing up on random 72 mHz channels to get a 51% change of a conflict. (Granted, in practice the odds are different, because channell assignments are not random.)

There's no guarantee that we'd not have the 72 and/or 75 MHz or equivilent channels without the AMA's lobbying, but I'm glad that we have the channels. Still, the sooner we can have practical spread spectrum stuff, the sooner. I wish the AMA was pushing harder for that. (And yes, I have suggested it.)

Certainly, the six 27 mHz channels are not going to be adequate.

| > Insurance works best with more members paying premiums. | | Then do something to build membership! | | > Model Aviation is a pretty good rag, considering its mission. | | So was Der Sturm back about 1939.

I don't get the reference. Judging from the language or the date, does this have anything to do with the dictator who rose to power in Germany before WWII or his political party?

What a pathetic response. You are truly a sorry individual.

Chuckie, time for you to be pissed!

One of the main focus of UAV's today is on the support of squads and scouts. To this end there are a whole lot of UAV's more or less the same size as our models. Do some research for yourself.

Gliders I'll agree with. However, I'd wonder how many glider duiders there are in relation to power?

Yeah! And how many here have spet a day at the field with just one other guy who is on the same frequency? I know I have. But you'r not going to fly the whole time.

No! No guarantee. And no reason why the AMA should be the only organziation lobbying for them. An alliance with the UAV industry might bring some more help to our cause. We'll never know unless someone tries. And right now the only somone is the AMA and I don't see where they're trying.

Yet another magazine that was pretty good considering its mission!

| > The UAV people fly bigger planes and for hundreds of miles, | > generally with much bigger budgets than ours. | | One of the main focus of UAV's today is on the support of squads and | scouts. To this end there are a whole lot of UAV's more or less the | same size as our models. Do some research for yourself.

What sort of research would you like me to do here? I'm aware that there's little UAVs. There's also big ones. When the public thinks of a UAV, they don't think of a little R/C plane UAV ... they think of the Predator UAV, and probably of one with a Hellfire missile, since that's what they've seen on CNN. 49 foot wing span ...

Or there's the UAV that flew across the atlantic years before Maynard did with his smaller model.

| > | > Without the AMA's hard work in the past, we would still be flying on | > just | > | > a few frequencies, if any at all. | > | | > | Few! And just how many models are typically in the air at any given | > | time at your club? I'll wager it's "just a few!" | >

| > I recall having 16 planes up at once at the local slope at one point, | > and slope flying isn't even that popular here in Austin. | | Gliders I'll agree with. However, I'd wonder how many glider duiders there | are in relation to power?

What difference does it make? You seemed to suggest that 6 channels was enough (in a round-about fashion, so maybe your point was lost somewhere.) I pointed out a real world example where it's not going to work.

There's a lot of glider pilots out there. You may not see them at your local glow field, because they can fly in a lot of places you can't, and so they do.

| > And all it takes are nine people showing up on random 72 mHz channels | > to get a 51% change of a conflict. (Granted, in practice the odds are | > different, because channell assignments are not random.) | | Yeah! And how many here have spet a day at the field with just one other | guy who is on the same frequency? I know I have. But you'r not going to | fly the whole time.

So what's your point? That we have too many channels? That we don't need the 72 or 75 MHz band channels?

| > | > Model Aviation is a pretty good rag, considering its mission. | > | | > | So was Der Sturm back about 1939. | >

| > I don't get the reference. Judging from the language or the date, | > does this have anything to do with the dictator who rose to power in | > Germany before WWII or his political party? | | Yet another magazine that was pretty good considering its mission!

I'm not aware of what it's mission was. Or was my guess right? (Are you _really_ trying to compare the AMA to the Nazi party?)

I like having lots of channels. I think it's a good thing. And it is probably true that AMA put forth a lot of effort to secure the frequencies for our use. However, it is not logical to assume that they were the only ones doing the lobbying. The manufacturers have at least as much at stake as the AMA. Furthermore, it is not logical to assume that if there were no AMA then there would be no lobbying on our behalf. We are all still here. If a sinkhole were to form in Muncie and take the entire AMA and its staff away, we could form new lobbying groups, and the manufacturers could as well.

Ho! Ho! There have been threads about that before. Sorry Robbie but way too many here think the hobby would dry up and blow away if the AMA disappeared. And few if any think a new organization would rise up and take the lead. Strikes me as not having a lot of faith in fellow modelers!