Originally Posted by
crash99
While flying at the field yesterday I saw the normal for our field. Warbirds, sport, Giant, small, Foamy, heli and balsa planes. All of us at the field has paid in our $58.00 to the AMA for our insurance, Mag and other items that comes with the $58.00 dues.
But is it fair or right that the guy flying the heavy wardbirds are paying the same as the multi rotor flyer? both are not within the park flyer limits so why should the much higher risk warbird flyer pay the same for their insurance that the multi rotor pilot? That seems unfair. Compaired to the other flyers the 3D and Multi rotor has most likely been in much less amount of AMA claims compaired to Warbirds or even sport or trainers. I would not be shocked if the real number was 0.
So if a AMA members wants to fly those higher risk warbirds then maybe they should have to pay their fair share. I am not saying ban the warbird guys but they should pay their fair share. Maybe if you fly warbirds then your dues should be raised and the rest of the membership should stay at the $58.00 for 2016.
Crash99
We're already paying our "fair share", no matter which of the two groups were in. The risk has been spread out accordingly, and is predicated on tons of historical data. What is "heavy"? And "warbird"? Is a Carbon Z Cub done up in camo to look like a L-19 Bird Dog a heavy warbird? Does someone flying that assume that much more risk/responsibility than someone flying a Parkzone T-28 "warbird" foamy? Either one can set in motion a chain of events that could lead to significant property damage and/or bodily injury.
Originally Posted by
crash99
You would have that so BradPaul but it is shocking to all but 3D pilots that they are the safest flyers over all. As far as AMA claims is concerned I understand the number is 0 from 1999 - 2013. 1999 was the first year I asked the question. I'm still waiting on the 2014 responce.
So it appears if you only fly 3D or 3D and anything other than warbirds, trainer, jets and gliders your in the group that are the safest flyers in the AMA. The question is why that is? It could be the skill level of 3D is at a higher / quicker response.
Crash99
I've never seen stats that show any one group of fliers is safer or not safer than others. One might think turbines are extremely unsafe and could do all kinds of person injury or property damage, and yet it might actually be the weekend flier of foamy planes that wreak the most havoc. If anything I've seen more 3D planes eat dirt due specifically to the type of flying they do. Warbird pilots in my experience are far better pilots, and rarely crash. The tend to fly the racetrack pattern and might throw an aileron roll in every now and then, but that's it. I've never seen a P-51 do 98% of the tricks a 3D pilot does. But that is just my opinion and experience, and it's completely speculative and anecdotal.
It's doubtful there would be any realistic or practical way of breaking out differing rates for different types of planes other than what we already have in place. If carriers could make money doing this, and the AMA could save money doing it, trust that it would have been done already.
Actuaries and underwriters are the only ones who could compile any reasonable sets of data points to look at, and even then it's doubtful the results would point to one over the other. Sometimes numbers are just numbers and you can't extrapolate meaningful data from them.
Sometimes we don't need to change what's working "good enough".