Insurance - AMA dues - Are we paying our fair share
07-08-2015, 12:25 PM
#152
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Man, thank you so much for your comedy for the day. I still can't stop laughing at your post. Thanks.
07-08-2015, 02:03 PM
#154
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Hudson Valley. New York. USA
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Where's the error in reported AMA membership versus reverse-engineered estimate.
I think all the comments in this thread are valuable, even the ones that say all the comments in this thread are stoopid.
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
07-08-2015, 03:10 PM
#156
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
I find this suggestion to be a big steaming pile of rubbish. Giant Scale Warbirds go through more scrutiny than your 3D or multi rotor pilot and aircraft. Giant scale Warbirds have to be inspected once a year, the pilot has to prove him/her self competent to fly. Going by your logic it is the Multi Rotor and 3D pilot that should be paying more due to higher risk.
Man, thank you so much for your comedy for the day. I still can't stop laughing at your post. Thanks.
Man, thank you so much for your comedy for the day. I still can't stop laughing at your post. Thanks.
I firmly believe that every club should have a formal Student Training program. There should be Instructor Pilot(s) and a student should be approved to solo only after proving they are able to complete a number of flights where the prove them selves to be competent in Take Off, Landing Especially with cross winds. Fly straight and level. Put the plane where they want it by doing Loops Roles and other maneuvers to prove they are competent to fly
07-08-2015, 03:26 PM
#158
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think all the comments in this thread are valuable, even the ones that say all the comments in this thread are stoopid.
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
07-08-2015, 03:30 PM
#159
I can show U one exception that .01% that fly only giant scale and probably shouldn't be allowed to fly a kite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXxCaupAQ8Q
07-08-2015, 04:04 PM
#160
I think all the comments in this thread are valuable, even the ones that say all the comments in this thread are stoopid.
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
07-08-2015, 04:10 PM
#161
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Hudson Valley. New York. USA
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by HoundDog
Both of U are WRONG it's not the model that is more dangerous ... It's the PILOT. U all know who he is ... every club has at least one. U know the guy that is always flying over the pits over the pilot stations (By accident) of course. The guy that crashes all the time. The guy that is just plain UNSAFE. If any ones dues should be more it should be these types.
I firmly believe that every club should have a formal Student Training program. There should be Instructor Pilot(s) and a student should be approved to solo only after proving they are able to complete a number of flights where the prove them selves to be competent in Take Off, Landing Especially with cross winds. Fly straight and level. Put the plane where they want it by doing Loops Roles and other maneuvers to prove they are competent to fly
I firmly believe that every club should have a formal Student Training program. There should be Instructor Pilot(s) and a student should be approved to solo only after proving they are able to complete a number of flights where the prove them selves to be competent in Take Off, Landing Especially with cross winds. Fly straight and level. Put the plane where they want it by doing Loops Roles and other maneuvers to prove they are competent to fly
I think the chatter about AMA dues increase is bringing out good issues like this. We might as well have AMA recognized trainers, and a basic capabilities/knowledge regimen.
Maybe this is getting ad hoc.
But doesn't seem like it after that vid. Seemed like everybody ran for the clubhouse when this guy flew, notice that - the peanut gallery?
07-08-2015, 04:21 PM
#162
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Hudson Valley. New York. USA
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Roughly, the increase in dues upon the 122,000 AMA members = $1,805,417. Within two years the dues revenues will be increased by that much, disregarding membership growth. Or shrinkage.
There are lot of attorneys, insurance, and accounting types among us who can be chiming in with perhaps some deeper insights.
Anyone listening?
07-08-2015, 05:13 PM
#164
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Good catch.
Roughly, the increase in dues upon the 122,000 AMA members = $1,805,417. Within two years the dues revenues will be increased by that much, disregarding membership growth. Or shrinkage.
There are lot of attorneys, insurance, and accounting types among us who can be chiming in with perhaps some deeper insights.
Anyone listening?
Roughly, the increase in dues upon the 122,000 AMA members = $1,805,417. Within two years the dues revenues will be increased by that much, disregarding membership growth. Or shrinkage.
There are lot of attorneys, insurance, and accounting types among us who can be chiming in with perhaps some deeper insights.
Anyone listening?
I'll dig on that table for a while....you make some interesting points.
07-09-2015, 05:28 AM
#165
My Feedback: (7)
I find this suggestion to be a big steaming pile of rubbish. Giant Scale Warbirds go through more scrutiny than your 3D or multi rotor pilot and aircraft. Giant scale Warbirds have to be inspected once a year, the pilot has to prove him/her self competent to fly. Going by your logic it is the Multi Rotor and 3D pilot that should be paying more due to higher risk.
Man, thank you so much for your comedy for the day. I still can't stop laughing at your post. Thanks.
Man, thank you so much for your comedy for the day. I still can't stop laughing at your post. Thanks.
07-09-2015, 07:09 AM
#166
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I'd like to see that too..especially the part where there is a distinction between warbirds and the 3D model's criteria. Sounds like another anti 3D post to me....but that's old hat now...we are supposed to be attacking only the really new types of aero modeling here...Attacking 3D is almost like attacking free-flight now...ROTFLMAOPIMP. talking about comedy....
07-09-2015, 12:15 PM
#168
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I'd like to see that too..especially the part where there is a distinction between warbirds and the 3D model's criteria. Sounds like another anti 3D post to me....but that's old hat now...we are supposed to be attacking only the really new types of aero modeling here...Attacking 3D is almost like attacking free-flight now...ROTFLMAOPIMP. talking about comedy....
07-09-2015, 02:14 PM
#169
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL...You mean Mr. Money Bags... Tim, I was just funnin around a bit.... Anyway, I might be the only one here that doesn't have a problem with any aspect of the hobby or anyone in general that enjoys the hobby provided they are considerate of others... Even ole six-pack Joe.... I pretty much believe anyone trying to fly whatever is going to be a pretty good guy... Of course there will always be a few that are a problem... Both sides of the spectrum... But I'll always look at them individually and try not say anything to harm the rest of us.... I really do believe in the long run that's our best strategy.... Sometimes we are our own worst enemies..Just oust the few and go on....
07-09-2015, 04:58 PM
#170
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL...You mean Mr. Money Bags... Tim, I was just funnin around a bit.... Anyway, I might be the only one here that doesn't have a problem with any aspect of the hobby or anyone in general that enjoys the hobby provided they are considerate of others... Even ole six-pack Joe.... I pretty much believe anyone trying to fly whatever is going to be a pretty good guy... Of course there will always be a few that are a problem... Both sides of the spectrum... But I'll always look at them individually and try not say anything to harm the rest of us.... I really do believe in the long run that's our best strategy.... Sometimes we are our own worst enemies..Just oust the few and go on....
07-10-2015, 03:24 AM
#172
I think all the comments in this thread are valuable, even the ones that say all the comments in this thread are stoopid.
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
There has been some good info brought out here - the AMA site has no area for members to beat out the truths. Once again, I maintain that I am pro AMA.
Probably we will discover that administration is doing a good job. In every way except maybe member relations.
When it comes to the AMA needing more transparency, the members can make a difference.
In response to the membership numbers, I reversed engineered the numbers using 2013 (latest) numbers from the 990 report.
I accounted for a 5% increase in membership/dues to 2014
I don't see how the purported AMA membership numbers can be real based on revenues from dues.
From my manual "pivot table" in excel (trial and error) the membership numbers are around 122,000.
That's 30% fewer than the 180,000 number being bandied about. That's a huge difference, folks.
A is a manual approximation of dues, accounting for the different types of AMA membership, of estimated 2014 dues over 2013 reported dues (form 990 info).
B is the estimated 2014 membership dues - my target for the approximation, A.
C is the resultant membership numbers.
Now, can anyone explain how this number can be so different than the 180,000?
All my best - Peter
Gerry
07-10-2015, 08:57 AM
#173
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL...You mean Mr. Money Bags... Tim, I was just funnin around a bit.... Anyway, I might be the only one here that doesn't have a problem with any aspect of the hobby or anyone in general that enjoys the hobby provided they are considerate of others... Even ole six-pack Joe.... I pretty much believe anyone trying to fly whatever is going to be a pretty good guy... Of course there will always be a few that are a problem... Both sides of the spectrum... But I'll always look at them individually and try not say anything to harm the rest of us.... I really do believe in the long run that's our best strategy.... Sometimes we are our own worst enemies..Just oust the few and go on....
07-22-2015, 10:26 AM
#174
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I have been away but life is busy and I have been flying my planes not the keyboard.
There is a simple reason scale warbirds is such a higher risk that 3D type aircraft. But a good point is the pilot is a factor on risk. Here is some simple math Inertia is P=MV and F=MA. So momentum
of the body at given velocity 
; so a 3D aircraft needing very little speed to fly and a scale warbird needs much more speed to fly, are you with me? both motors stop the 3D aircraft will fall down much quicker due to the force of gravity. F=MA would be force downward and MA will be the ground.
On a warbird keeping in mind P momentum moving forward at a higher rate than downward due to gravity at first and for a much longer distance than a 3D aircraft, Gravity will over take momentum at some point and the object will fall. The risk of going into a crowd of is much greater due to F=MA.
So simple math is simple math. That is why scale warbird pilots should pay a higher rate than a safer class of RC pilots. Don't get me wrong I love to watch wardirds.
Crash99
There is a simple reason scale warbirds is such a higher risk that 3D type aircraft. But a good point is the pilot is a factor on risk. Here is some simple math Inertia is P=MV and F=MA. So momentum
of the body at given velocity ; so a 3D aircraft needing very little speed to fly and a scale warbird needs much more speed to fly, are you with me? both motors stop the 3D aircraft will fall down much quicker due to the force of gravity. F=MA would be force downward and MA will be the ground.On a warbird keeping in mind P momentum moving forward at a higher rate than downward due to gravity at first and for a much longer distance than a 3D aircraft, Gravity will over take momentum at some point and the object will fall. The risk of going into a crowd of is much greater due to F=MA.
So simple math is simple math. That is why scale warbird pilots should pay a higher rate than a safer class of RC pilots. Don't get me wrong I love to watch wardirds.
Crash99
07-22-2015, 12:07 PM
#175
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I'd say that simple math is just that, probably too simple. The numbers don't add up. Way to many variables to calculate, and you've only listed a few. Most importantly, I'd rather see actual stats based on actual incidents, not hypotheticals. If your theory is correct, do turbines have a higher risk than warbirds?