jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I maidened a 52% scratch built giles today and a p51. All went great! No food though lol

Duncman

Good job, gorgeous plane.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Looks great!

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

Thanks. It's not my plane. I'm just lucky enough to get to do a lot of test flights. James who is in the picture is the scratch builder. He did a great job on it. The 3w 275 really has a growl!

Duncman

Well he certainly did a nice job and kudo's to you for a successful maiden.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Yes. “Most” members, I agree. This is not the first time at this rodeo. Remember the Park Pilot program? As much as many in the AMA HATE to admit, much of the (perceived) value of the AMA membership is insurance. And in the end, after a very disappointing rollout, the AMA was forced to market the Park Pilot program mainly as insurance. As many here have said, if they can fly anywhere, there is little incentive to join. When and if Park Pilot guys wanted to fly at an organized, traditional RC club field, they had to join AMA.

Same thing with drone guys. If they don't need or want to fly at a traditional RC club field, why join the AMA? For those of us that know, the individual AMA insurance is not that great, many people are covered by their PUP, homeowners or renters liability. What many (myself included) need like air to breathe is the first dollar landowner insurance for the field. That is the most important thing (to me) the AMA offers. So do most drone guys need this? I don't know but I doubt it.
We did host a multirotor race event recently and it was a big hit. These guys are classic modelers in my judgement, they fly for the fun of flying and the multirotor/FPV technology is an enabler. it happens that they also need a field in the same way traditional modelers need one and I am sure they will be embraced and we will have more events for them. Just like heli, scale, jets, IMAC etc.



Same here, I would say more than 1//2 don't belong to the AMA and never will join.

Yes I agree. I actually have no problem with raising the dues, in fact I think they will end up being raised a lot if the AMA does not get the costs way down. Demographics are going to reduce our membership, and to me there is very little value to a lot of what AMA does if there is no site insurance. I spent the equivalent of 3 years of AMA dues on wheel and tires for my new plane, so the money is not the issue for me, it is long term viability of the AMA and our field.

Most members I have spoken to agree with you especially when they know the facts. By the AMA's admission expenditures for Federal lobbying are way up, government relations expenditures are way up. FPV/photography social media drone users are not joining (we know that with our own eyes in Los Angeles) so why are we fighting for them again exactly??

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

There is no "us" versus "them", the tactic of division doesn't work in this situation. There is "us", and I don't know that I would call anything a "fight" anymore. Quads are part of the hobby, end of story. Rules/regs/statutes, etc etc would have been passed regardless of whether they were part of the hobby or not. At least now "we" have a say to some degree in how those are crafted with our hobby in mind. I'm sure some of the funds for UPCOMING dues increases will be used for further efforts in this regard, but lets not forget this has been ongoing for some time now.

rcmiket

'What many (myself included) need like air to breathe is the first dollar landowner insurance for the field. That is the most important things (to me) the AMA offers."

This is probably the one and only reason I'll continue as a member.

Mike .

jw4h

I'm sure glad I live in the high desert. I have no need for AMA. I fly on a dry lake bed no people no traffic. take my toy hauler out and stay two or three days. you guys who fly on a field need AMA just for the ins. you would be nuts if you didn't. Now if AMA would pay for the planes I crash I would be the first to pay whatever they wanted

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sounds nice...just you or others as well? It's nice having the place all to yourself, but nice to have some buds along as well (not the bottle kind).

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Ain't safe or any fun to fly or drink alone.

rcmiket

Cans are better than bottles.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You speak the truth...

carriontrucking

My Feedback: (24)

if they spent 1,000,000.00 on government relations them do the math 175,000x25.00 is 4,375,000. if one million is needed then why not increase it 5.75. 175,000x5.75 is 1,006,250

Dreddi

My Feedback: (3)

I have seen no real benefit for the AMA insurance coverage provided. The one real accident at my club resulted in a massive brush fire that took out a fence and a couple power/utility poles. The incident was covered by the pilots Home Owners insurance policy up to his limit and the $5,000 left over had to be paid out of pocket. The AMAs policy wouldn't cover any of it. I have since let my membership lapse and have no intention of renewing. Whats the point in having the coverage if it cant be used.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Claims are denied for a reason. Why was the claim filed with the AMA denied?

Duncman

Yep, that is half the experience. I used to live in the high desert also and tried the 3 day campout by myself on a dry lake bed. Flew a lot, crashed a lot, but was ready to call it quits after the first day, and I consider myself not all that social. That lone flying is overrated, besides not being safe.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Ask not what the AMA can do for model aviation, ask what the AMA can do for me.

Dreddi

My Feedback: (3)

The reason he gave was because the AMAs policy is secondary. However it still wouldn't cover his remaining out of pocket. I could understand if there was negligence by any party involved but that was ruled out by the Fire Marshals investigation and report, including several dozen witness interviews. I'm not 100% privi to every detail but him and a few of us have stopped paying the AMA dues for "Coverage" that we apparently have no real benefit of. If we fly now we fly under our home owners insurance protection, sadly at non-AMA sanctioned fields (read empty fields or friends with large tracks of land). luckily for several of use we have that as an alternative.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

AMA insurance coverage is detailed here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/I...aryMembers.pdf

I don't see where his out pocket would not have been covered, although I do realize these plans do change over time.

Duncman

Insurance: Sold to you by a kind caring person, Claim denied by an S.O.B.

rcmiket

Bingo. After hail damage to my roof along with water damage due to it I had a interesting experience. The initial settlement from my insurance was $8100.00 when I questioned the amount I was told that they were being "generous". My contractor experienced in dealing with insurance had me go to mediation with them. We got $15000.00 and all the repairs done. I had no clue you could even go through that process. He also schooled me in the fact that you never meet with the adjuster alone just just blow you off and tell you your not covered.
We had a theft with over 4 grand in equipment stolen and we were not covered by the AMA.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So this is kind of a second hand story, which many insurance claims stories are. I had a friend, I heard from a buddy, etc etc. Details are important. I've never heard of a persons liability coverage requiring them to pay anything out of pocket on a third party property damage claim. One doesn't have "out of pocket" expenses on third party claims, property of bodily injury. Something from that story/claim is missing. If it lead to you leaving the AMA, you might want to circle back and revisit that decision with all of the relevant facts. Sounds like you guys cut off your noses to spite your face, and are now sad finding random fields to fly in. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to be in the AMA to have fun flying, plenty of people do exactly what you do and are perfectly content.

FWIW, many states require an adjuster to be tested and licensed by the state the operate in, some to even hold performance bonds. Yes insurance policies are long boring documents, but they do contain the provisions that guide each parties duties and responsibilities. Having an agent certainly helps guide you through the claims process. It's also a heavily regulated field of business, even in those states that don't require an adjuster to have a license, the state is heavily involved in their operation (they must approve all policies and the language contained therein). As with any job, you will have some bad apples, but in those cases attorneys and departments of insurance should be able to set the situation straight.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Of course the contractor doesn't have any incentive to help "school" homeowners in inflating their claim right? This is the same guy who said never meet with an adjuster alone because they blow you off and say you're not covered? Odd advice. I've often heard the same kind of generalizations when dealing with contractors, especially roofers. Just a tad bid of irony in a contractor badmouthing a claims adjuster..a good morning chuckle.

rcmiket

Once again I say it's black and you say it's white. I'm starting to get a grip on why you where asked to leave the other forums.

Mike.