ORIGINAL: F106A
Hi everyone,
Well, it looks like big brother is looking out for us after all.
I talked to Jay Mealy and he confirmed that the only way the member can be covered under the AMA’s insurance is under the Intro pilots program, which requires some one to be next to him while he’s flying.
Gee, wonder where this is covered in the AMA’s charter and how Due process fits into this whole scenario.
So, AMA is now in the medical evaluation area making medical evaluations/decisions. Trust me, it won’t be long until they start mandating vision and other medical requirements, especially since the average age of the AMA is 58, in order to be covered under their policy.
So, all you old timers, you better get your vision and cardiology reports together before next year’s renewal so Dr. Brown can review the info before he grants you a license.
I really feel bad for this guy, being singled out and having to ask someone to stand by him before he can fly. I wonder how DB would feel if he had to do it. D’oh, forgot, Dave doesn’t fly.
And people ask why AMA is losing members.
Here’s the answer: This stuff from AMA just never ends.
BRG,
Jon
F106, You have just really hit the BIG ROOT of AMA's real problem. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE UP THERE THAT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND/OR SAYING.
The Introductory Pilot Program is for one purpose and one purpose only: That purpose is to allow clubs to introduce non-AMA Member persons to RC flying with insurance coverage. ANY PERSON OPERATING UNDER THE DESIGNATED INTRO. PILOT PROGRAM IS LIMITED TO 30 DAYS AND ONLY ONE 30 DAY PERIOD PER INDIVIDUAL.
Just how Jay Mealy could come up with that B/S answer is beyond both a wild imagination and the purpose the program is specified for. It's ironic since just last night, I revised my Intro. Pilot notebook with all the current forms and the latest documents from the AMA Web Site. Methinks Mr. Mealy is, mildly, either confused with his terms or simply *uninformed* on the subject he so discussed.
This is so much in parallel with the Document 537 Fiasco of last year where terms and requirements were published that were very different to the original Motion, Voted and passed by the EC, when they themselves were ignorant of the Document 537. Therein lies AMA's major problem: Knee-jerk reactions to every little incident by an EC (BOD) that seldom investigates details prior to action, combined with a staff that doesn't really care a lot about other than building the bureaucracy can well result in one sad operation! [&o]