Shallow AMA members/complainers

I have been a member of the AMA off and on for 30+ years. I used to think it was just for the insurance. And did up until about 3-4 years ago. If you read up what goes on in the AMA you will find out that there is much more than you think. It seems to me that the ones who do the most complaining, usually, are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. I don't pay much attention to them just as they won't bother reading all of my post. (most likely) If you think AMA is about nothing but insurance you are dead wrong. However that is what most people think it's about. I advise you to read your AMA magazine from cover to cover. Go to the website and look around a while. Is the AMA perfect? Absolutely not!!! But it's way ahead of anything else you can get for anywhere near the money. Oh and BTW, you won't fly at my/our club without it. Eddie Fulmer AMA 63713

Reply to
Efulmer
Loading thread data ...

Since you are up to date on the AMA's activities, maybe you can answer a question, because I'm curious (and I honestly don't know the answer). What is thier reputaion for honoring claims? Is there a stat somewhere on the ratio of claims to denials? Really it comes down to this, because the insurance is the main draw, how good are they after the accident? I have two complaints, and one isn't their fault. First, I wish there were viable alternatives. A monopoly is never good, never. Second, is this magazine. It's not very good, and if I could lower my membership fee by opting out of the rag, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Reply to
Frank Costa

Have you ever seen anyone post on this forum that they were or know of someone that was denied a claim? We have had two claims in our club - both resulted from the claimants causing the accident. One individual was notorious for starting the plane while directly in front of it and then hugging the prop. It bit him and the AMA paid the medical that his own insurance didn't cover. The other incident was a guy breaking his own windshield when he was operating the glider winch (operated from same car battery) for a novice and wanted to give him a thrill by holding down the switch.

RS

Reply to
Red Scholefield

Reply to
Roger

You are going to get several answers.

I have not been able to find anyone who had a proper claim against the AMA denied. I have heard of more than one who were told to contact their homeowners FIRST. THAT has been misreported as the AMA refusing to pay, which it is NOT. The AMA insurance is secondary. That means that it pays AFTER your homeowners or renters. However, I know of more than one who has filed a medical claim with no problem.

The magazine contains your (IRS required) 'newsletter'. If it were sent directly with no magazine, more dues money would be needed for the function. There IS some discussion right now about trying to do something to make MA more nearly self supporting.

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

The more I read about this the more confused I get.

The way I see this is ; if your homeowners takes care of the bills then you dont need AMA.

BUT AMA seems to control wether or not you can fly at a club field because the old saw is "ya gotta have ama". It should be "ya gotta have home owners insurance"

There used to be a box you could check if you wanted their magazine. What broke down?

Whenever there is a great pile of m> I have been a member of the AMA off and on for 30+ years. I used to think it

Reply to
jim breeyear

Have you checked your home owner's policy limits? Are you sure that no accident will ever push beyond those limits?

Reply to
Mark Hansen

Ed, I agree with you that the AMA is a lot more than about insurance, BUT, the REASON that AMA membership is mandated by every RC club in the nation is FOR the insurance. I really do try to read the magazine cover to cover, but I usually fall asleep around page 5 or so. Beyond the insurance, however, we all really should encourage everyone in the hobby to join because of the AMA's involvement in EVERYTHING that has to do with protecting our interests in the hobby.

MJC

Reply to
MJC

No I haven't, I was just asking.

What about folks with no primary insurance (i.e. young guys). Does the AMA take care of the whole deal then? I honestly think that a club should have an alternative, that is, if a member can provide proof that he has sufficient insurance, then no AMA card required. I know of a local field that goes this route. Pretty much everyone gets the AMA card anyway (easier) but those few who have hangups with the organization are satisfied as well. Make it a strict requirement, a hassle that only a few will take adcantage of. Just my .02. Otherwise, forced membership nationwide in one organization to be able to fly at just about every club field just doesn't sound right.

Reply to
Frank Costa

But what about the guy flying at your field that has NO insurance? The AMA covers you, the land owner, and the club itself.

Have you ever considered the burden on club officers to make sure everyone has some insurance . . . . and is it still current? (you could show an insurance policy and then after you have satisfied the club cancell it the next day). People would have insurance policies expiring through out the year. With AMA ALL insurance is for the calendar year.

So few ever checked the box that they discontinued the practice. I would have cost more to send the few that didn't want the magazine the required AMA news letter.

Whenever there are a great number of people that simply don't see the big picture, watch out !

Red S.

Reply to
Red Scholefield

Reply to
jim breeyear

Your home owner's policy will cover only to a point. For example, if your policy allows for $350,000US liability coverage, then that is all it will cover. If the accident causes more damage than that, you will be on the hook for the balance - this is where the AMA coverage would come in.

Reply to
Mark Hansen

I personally have NEVER heard a modeler IN PERSON say he was denied a claim. My car was hit once way back in '77 and the modeler who paid my repair bill said he was reimbursed by AMA.

Reply to
Lyman Slack

Ed, I know the AMA is much more than insurance and that is part of my beef. I concur with the insurance part of the AMA and representing the hobby as lobbyists with the government and FCC. Also that they stand behind clubs in case the club gets into legal or government issues. Beyond that is where I start to have a beef. Muncie as a site and the museum is starting to look like a bureaucracy. Years ago when the Muncie sight was proposed I was kind of indifferent, but more supportive than not. I've done a 180 on that. Administrative costs of the AMA have skyrocketed since. They blame it on insurance costs, but when you look at the figures the don't support that claim. Look at the percentage of the annual budget for capital and administrative costs, verses insurance costs. Take those percentages and multiply them against your dues, my last computation was that out of my last years dues, roughly $10 was insurance costs. And that administration was well over 50% of my dues. My concern is the AMA has lost it's focus on what they are. An organization to promote the hobby. I think they have raised their dues costs to where it is becoming prohibitive to the hobby. Not for many existing flyers, but for those occasional flyers, or those who fly something so small they do it in a park. Our club hosts and electric flyin each year. The numbers of electric flyers who would like to come but don't, are to increasing each year. Why, because they don't belong and can't justify the AMA dues for one event. We are an AMA club and require AMA membership to fly at our facility. I also know of flyers that are still interested in the hobby, still have equipment but don't belong because they can't justify the AMA cost for twice a year. The centralized Muncie facility is a place that the vast majority of AMA members will never visit, some due to distance, some due to other reasons. I personally think it should be sold, and the AMA museum become 100% voluntary funded. No money or support should come from your dues either directly or indirectly. When sold the AMA should work with each district to support a flying site central to their district. That flying site should be partially funded by the AMA but also funded and maintained by the local club(s) that considers it theirs, with a couple of exceptions. As an AMA district site two weeks each year the AMA should have exclusive use, and for that use they reimburse the flying site for improvements and maintenance. Have district and National events at those sites and rotate national events on a yearly basis. Hold national events in the winter months that districts support warmer weather, summer months in districts that have colder weather. At these district sites The AMA should use their financial ability to acquire the property and over flight area and the clubs should develop the improvements.

These two changes I believe would reduce the dues costs significantly each year.

I am not really bashing the AMA here, I just think they have lost touch with promoting the hobby verses promoting and institution in Muncie. They may not have, it's just my opinion. An you know what the say about opinions.

Phil

Efulmer wrote:

Reply to
Phil

That is not really right.

First problem is that there is NO way to verify your HO coverage INCLUDES R/C. Second problem is YOUR HO policy will not protect the club's landlord Third problem is that club officers make sure your insurance (AMA card) is up to date. Care to keep current proof of active and viable R/C coverage available for inspection? That is a heck of a lot of paper and usually only covers up to around $350K. AMA coverage takes over after that.

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

That is not really right.

First problem is that there is NO way to verify your HO coverage INCLUDES R/C. Second problem is YOUR HO policy will not protect the club's landlord Third problem is that club officers make sure your insurance (AMA card) is up to date. Care to keep current proof of active and viable R/C coverage available for inspection? That is a heck of a lot of paper and usually only covers up to around $350K. AMA coverage takes over after that.

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

| On 7/14/2004 05:34, jim breeyear wrote: | | > The more I read about this the more confused I get. | > | > The way I see this is ; if your homeowners takes care of the bills then | > you dont need AMA.

In theory that's true. But in practice, if the field you wish to fly at is run by an AMA club, you'll probably need AMA to fly there, period. | Have you checked your home owner's policy limits? Are you sure that | no accident will ever push beyond those limits?

Have you checked your AMA policy limits? Are you sure that no accident will ever push beyond those limits?

You will never find an insurance policy that has limits so high that nothing could possibly exceed them. Even a trillion dollar policy could be exceeded by certain really serious (and unlikely) accidents.

Liability insurance is generally (to the accountant, anyways) not about responsibility or `doing the right thing' -- it's about protecting your assets, or covering your ass. That's why clubs require AMA insurance -- it's a CYA thing.

Well, that and the AMA requires it, and the AMA requires it (and doesn't accept any other form of insurance) mostly to keep their membership up. The sooner people realize that the `AMA insurance required' thing's main purpose is to maximize the AMA's membership (and therefore financial and political power), the sooner they can get past it -- they're not going to change it. It's been too successful for the AMA.

And as for the $2.5 million dollars of AMA insurance vs. your homeonwer's $350k or so insurance, what about your auto insurance? Most people don't even have over $100k of auto insurance (Texas requires, what, $20k?), yet which is more likely to cause $100k of damage/liability -- your car or your R/C plane?

(Of course, the answer is `your car, of course' -- which is why it's insurance is so much more expensive, even for the low limit. And of course, everybody drives, so getting hurt in a car accident doesn't make people `see dollar signs' quite the way getting hurt by a R/C plane does.)

Now, some people do get lots of insurance not to protect their assets, but out of a sense of responsibility. And if you're one of these people, that's nice of you. But do be aware that you're in the minority. And if $2.5 million dollars of R/C insurance makes you like a responsible person, that's good, but how much car insurance do you have?

Reply to
Doug McLaren

Ahh, you bring up the Muncie fiasco. I hated the idea when it was floated and I hate the idea now because what I thought would happen has happened. A central location that incorporated a flying site for the AMA was NEVER necessary and still isn't today. Additionally, a single location was stupid from the get-go because very few of the AMA members who live out of state would be able to frequent the site, even for "special" events. It made much more sense to rotate the various big flying events around the country and get host clubs involved as had been done in the past. Now of course, the administrative costs of the AMA has skyrocketed, or more aptly put, "free flighted", and members get no more for their dues just because the top leadership needed to stroke each other's ego by pushing for the flying site. Of course, the AMA is still all we have so we have to stick with it, but we would have been much better served if the AMA had simply built a 5-story office building in some city and then leased out the other 4 floors for profit.

MJC

"Phil" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@msn.com...

organization to

Reply to
MJC

anything else

But I can fly my park flyer across the street from your big expensive plane:)

Reply to
AAA

I guess that might depend on how much you would like to spend in legal fees.

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

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.