This statement by Dave Brown really raises the hackles on my neck:
******
"It is obvious to most that some costs—such as those of providing insurance—are not the same for all types of models. When I addressed tiered membership in the past, it was as a way to allow less restriction at the upper end of the aeromodeling spectrum (turbines, large-scale aircraft, racing, etc.) without that advancement increasing the dues of the members who fly lighter, lower-performance models.
The case for tiered membership now is more obvious as our sport has expanded in both directions. The popularity of turbines is increasing, while the appeal of small models—sometimes flown indoors—is exploding. The diversity makes the possibility of a tiered membership a reasonable alternative."
******
Why is it obvious? Over the last 5 years, when new rules have been in place, is it obvious because of the deaths caused by these "upper end" aircraft caused? Well, no, every death we know about was caused by a lower end model. Is it because the turbines and other upper end models have created more or larger claims? Well, no, not as reported to the membership in the claims disclosures from the Special Services Department. Is it obvious from some unshared claims data that is objective? I don't think such data exists over all claims by AMA members to all insurance companies. Is it because of some perceived risk that these models represent, unsupported by facts? Sure looks that way to me.
If we look at the facts surrounding this idea, we find that we know insurance costs roughly $22 per year per adult member (2003 financial statement). We also know, from Dave Brown's prior column that about 50% of the liability claims, on a dollar amount basis, are generated by clubs and not by flying type accidents. That means we have approximately $11 to tier.
If such a program was to be done in any sort of fair way, even on the perceived risk, you could charge the most risky models $11 + $10 for a total of $21 dollars, and, at the same time reduce the least risk models to $1. The net affect is to raise the dues to some to $68, with a reduction at the other end of the scale to $48. I somehow doubt that a $48 membership is going to cause the park flyers to flock to the AMA. Also keep in mind that there are only about 1000 turbine waiver holders to tier. Small numbers probably apply to the other groups highlighted by DB as well. I can't figure out how he plans to subsidize the "exploding" number of small models.
I suppose, since Dave Brown, has never actually mentioned numbers, that the AMA could raise the membership for turbines to, say, $500 a year and have the 1000 turbine waiver holders subsidize $9.95 memberships for a few thousand park flyers, or some other nonsensical numbers.
If something like that were to happen, some guy in Florida might start a new organization. We know the UMA admitted to having a 1000 members. They went out of business, charging $48 for a membership. Presumably, because the cost of the policy had become prohibitive. They were a for-profit organization. Suppose the policy doubled and allowed a new organization to charge $100 to $150 per member (make your own guess). In this scenario, we now loose the turbine flyers. Who do you think now subsidizes the park flyers? As I said, nonsensical.
I prefer the stance of Don Koranda, in his March column: "That's good, because we're all in this together, and the more members we have, the stronger our organization will be."
On the other hand, I can see a bright side. This type of tiering would require clubs to constantly be checking memberships against what is being flown. Maybe such duties could be added to the position of Club or District Safety Coordinator.
To Dave Brown: Dave, the last time you raised this idea, it was a bad idea, and, in my opinion, nothing has changed.
JR