init4fun

...

cj_rumley

Enjoy the laugh.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I shall, and do, as much as possible. There are few things that feel as good as a hearty LOL..even better if someone is enjoying one along with you. Agree?

Do you think AMA is primarily in business for insurance purposes?

init4fun

...

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

There were at least 10 others following along in the AMA blog too. The reason I don't think you've seen much hullaboo about the issue is perhaps that most already realized that membership in the AMA wasn't required. Franklin has been whipping that issue up over and ever, and I believe Chad even noted 11 or 12 times where the issue had been addressed but Frankin wouldn't accept it.

And again we see Frankin's intent to "challenge" the AMA's perceived (Franklins) hold on inspections. The CBO red herring was caught, and turned out not to be a non issue, so now we're going to move on to the inspection issue. Is this going to be another issue he takes to his closely held contacts of people in power, or politicians? He's already threatened to do that previously. To what end? To wrestle away some "power" and give it to whom? A for profit entity? Or say, someone or some company that is primarily focused on say, safety, and aviation safety practices?

I think this might fall under the "be careful what you ask for" category. Do we really want to invite the FAA to be more involved with the hobby?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Lemon products are fantastic, shipping times are hit or miss. I've received stuff from them in 4 days, and in other instances several weeks. I've purchased at least 10 6 channel units from them, as well as 4 of the gyro set ups. They do sell direct to public via their website, that's the cheapest option. Ebay sales available too, but are a touch more expensive.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

What level of coverage have acquired elsewhere for the same premium?

init4fun

...

franklin_m

I'm whipping the issue? Are you denying that Chad made this explicit statement? "We've made it clear, that to operate within our safety program, you must join the AMA? [emphasis added]" In case you missed it, his comment starts at about the 35 second mark. I listened to it four times to make sure I go the quote correct. "You must join the AMA." That's unambiguous. Anyone that wants to check for themselves, it's here: 35 second mark here in case anyone wants to check for themselves...http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx ... another link on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaONsheXj1g

Thankfully the FAA UAS Integration Office made it abundantly clear: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO ... You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]"

franklin_m

Irrelevant. It's coverage I already obtained for my home. So the marginal cost was zero (since it pays first).

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

So if it's irrelevant, why do you have it?

franklin_m

Duh...required by mortgage company. And why is that germane?

My point was I get zero marginal value of AMA "coverage" for the $75 "premium" - as AMA "insurance" pays last after all my other coverage. Zero $$ coverage for a $75 premium? That's all but worthless in my economics class.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

..

franklin_m

You've asked before and the reason still hasn't changed. I needed it to fly at an AMA club near my home, which is the only place nearby to fly .40 size and above. Since I hadn't flown there in two years, I dropped the club membership and decided to retain AMA for one more year in the event I flew at the club even once as a guest. I'm still doing all my flying at a local park and school - neither of which requires AMA. So, as I told you before, if I get through all of 2016 w/o needing AMA to fly anywhere, I'll drop that too. $175 a year pays for a lot of supplies and kits.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Uh ya, I do believe it's been you on this issue. Repeatedly You've commented here, and repeatedly tried (12, 13, 14 times perhaps) to try to corner Chad into saying and/or admitting to something he didn't say, fitting it into your specific narrative. It's just like that thing you do where you take someone's comment than say "so you admit to blah blah blah" when it's not even close to what was beings said. You are interpreting something one way, and trying to get Chad to agree with you, and the reason for that is pretty transparent. Based on the comments here, and in the AMA blogs, there are very few people who have the lack of understanding or clarity that you seem to have. Asking the same question over and over isn't producing the total response you are after, but it does allow you to say "my god I've asked Chad this over and over and I can't get a straight answer out of him".

So we've passed the 400 foot issue....we aren't held to it. We've passed the "AMA trying to trick people into joining" issue, it's simply not true. Now we're on to the dues might be increased (sure, anything is possible) and now something about the AMA inspecting aircraft over 55 pounds....ie why can't someone else other than the AMA?

At least we have a new topic or two or conspiracy to sink our teeth into every week, it's like As the AMA turns.

LoL (I'm laughing again CJ...)

Sport_Pilot

The AMA is not vouching for members so why should they for non-members. A member organization is not liable for its members action. A liability dodge is not required. I don't believe the FAA. I don't see how a judge would find that someone is following a CBO set of rules even if they carry a set of rules with them. Remember the laws says "within the programming of a CBO". I don't see how you can be within the programming without being a member. The FAA doesn't want to say this, so I guess it is for the courts to decide if it ever comes up. Let's hope it doesn't come up.

Sport_Pilot

Actually insurance doesn't always transfer liability. Only if the injured or damaged party signs a waiver could this happen. You may be thinking of subrogation, but this is actually the opposite of what you describe.

Sport_Pilot

You get what you pay for I guess.

Sport_Pilot

Like the way you phrased the question for the 400 foot rule? It didn't change the truth did it?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Duplicate post.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Sounds familiar, but one question you've never answered is whether or not you have written permission to fly at the local park/school you fly at?

Sport_Pilot

Most homeowners insurance have exclusions for airplanes which makes the AMA the primary and only insurance I expect either a court order clearing that up in the future, or if not our dues will likely double or worse.

cj_rumley

When that happens, the modeller is buying HO insurance from the wrong provider. Insurance providers that comply with ISO standards cover operation of model airplanes. Why buy from any insurer that doesn't?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

+100. The chances that a carrier has excluded RC airplanes for coverage (either first party coverage, or liability for 3rd parties) because they don't insure full sized aircraft are slim and none. There are manuscript (specifically written custom policies) but it's just not something that's done regularly. Sport's carrier would be investigated and probably fined by the state for that type of coverage denial.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

no, that's just not true. You may have been unlucky to find the only carrier in the world who won't cover toy airplanes because they don't cover real airplanes. Either the carrier or your agent has done a huge disservice to their customers. There won't be a court case to clarify that issue because it doesn't exist in that construct.

Does your carrier also refuse to cover toy boats, toy trains, and toy rockets because.....