rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

You know what I meant, don't troll for trouble.

Muroc1

What do you mean? I don't understand it when folks say "The AMA." That's a lot of people with a lot of different jobs and responsibilities. It's no different than saying "They said" when you said "What's the AMA done for me." It's confusing when people speak in generalities like that.

Frank

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

Frank, why even reply to a post that confuses you? AMA apparently was understood by the one who started the thread with
Would you pay $78.00 a year for AMA if they offered PRIMARY insurance?

Do you get $78 personally? Are you ready to jump and do something out of the 150,000 you speak about? If you're confused, I can't help you.

AMA doesn't earn their keep. Maybe they're confused too.

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_91...tm.htm#9134623

We have a troll, all he does is post smart remarks to all AMA complaints, yes, he's not contributed anything out of 10 "confused" comments as this other thread he's posting on.

Muroc1

I'm just trying to understand who were you referring to when you said "AMA"? Did you mean the person that works at the museum? Or perhaps Rob K, Director of Publications? It helps to be specific instead of saying "The AMA." That's a lot of people. And it's confusing.

Frank

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

Would you pay $78.00 a year for AMA if they offered PRIMARY insurance? Talk about an easy question that Frank is confused by...you're not confused. I'm not confused. My answer is no.

I wouldn't pay AMA a penny for anything, not their far away museum, not their boring publication, and wouldn't you know, half of the RCU members polling this thread, say they wouldn't pay $78 for AMA even with PRIMARY insurance either, so I guess someone else can simplify it for you from here, I'm done, Frank.

Muroc1

Fair enough. Now I see where you are coming from. Have a nice evening.

Frank

NuttyPilot

My Feedback: (1)

Honestly the biggest concern or question I have from "new" pilots IS... WHAT IS AMA? My best reply? I dont honestly have one, other than, "you get a free magazine.. um you have to follow their rules or you piss off the old guys.. err... oh yah, if you dont have this little card, you cant fly here. WELCOME TO THE HOBBY!! and go fly at the local park, everyone that watches is dazzled, no one complains about the way you fly!! And when you tell them what I told you, they will buy a plane and fly at the park with you."

AMA... Just another way to suck in the money.........and get a mag. I only have it to fly with the others that have it. Im sure our privately owned field would go on just as well without it.

My answer is NO as well.

NuttyPilot

My Feedback: (1)

One other thing..

Most of the people I know that do have AMA, only have it for the comradery and frienship and to not be the "guy flying at OUR AMA FIELD without it." New members to AMA or introducing a different insurance, is usally the last thing on their minds when it comes to that....

apriliamille

My Feedback: (1)

i voted yes. right now i have insurance through my own insurance company and AMA (my ama was to participate in our ama field and the ability to travel and fly at other fields)
i think what ever primary policy could be provided i think a substantial deductible should be required
enough that someone would not be able to justify wiping out their moderate priced plane for the sake of an insurance policy to get a new plane
in my case which is not everyone else's case, i would think 400-500 would be a fair deductible (due to me only having 2 of my 6 planes and 2 helis that exceed that price and i cherish them enough to not write them off.

GerKonig

I, for one, would not. Life has risks. Nothing you do is free of risks. Vaccination has saved thousands of lives, same as the hospitals, and doctors, but some patients did not fair that well. I also pay the IMAA fees because I like to fly at Giant Scale Meets in our area, and it is a requirement. So, if I add IMAA and AMA yearly dues, it still is less than dinner out with my wife.
I am surprised people whine about dishing out this cash and I wonder how much do they have invested in this hobby. Since most are not new to the hobby I have to assume: a lot of cash:-)
I never had to use the insurance, and, let's face it, the chance you will have to are like hitting the lottery. Very slim. OK maybe not that slim, but you get my point. I agree with the person that said thet he is an ATA member because to fly at the local clubs you have to be a member. And quite frankly do you like to fly alone? I do not, it is not as much fun, nor can you learn as much.
As far as the AMA magazine (or any other RC magazine) being boring. I know many people that think that way, and guess what, they have other hobbies... If you think it is boring, perhaps you shoul look into another hobby.

My 2 cents.

Gerry

init4fun

Hi P51-B , I voted yes because ive never heard of someone loosing their house during a lawsuit because they had TOO MUCH insurance

KidEpoxy

I just dont follow the logic that
When a $300 sporty plane and $6000 Scalester plane collide,
the insurance will buy the Scalester guy a new $6000plane for $500
and the insurance will buy the sporty guy a new $300 plane for $500.

Just how is that punishing the fraudulent guys trying to get new planes for free?
All a high deductible does is bend over the guys with planes that cost less than the deductible, while keeping the intentional destruction of a $6000 plane a smart thing to do.

Silent-AV8R

I've lost you guys here. AMA insurance does not cover planes, except for theft. So in the above instance AMA covers nothing. We have no idea what the USAMA policy will cover, but they say liability, so that seems to indicate that they too will not cover the loss of planes while flying.

bradpaul

Yeah, I can't wait for this magical no questions asked $20.00 policy that will buy me a new planes when I crash......

wait.... it might not pay for me crashing my plane, so it may be smart to have at least one pilot in the club with USAMA, then when you are tired of a plane just have the USAMA guy crash it........... he would be liable for destroying your property.

KidEpoxy

Silent,
yeah, the current AMA policy dont cover planes.
However, the current AMA policy is Secondary, and we are being asked about some new undefined Primary AMA Policy.


I guess we really need some hard definition of what this $78 AMA Primary concept really is.
Cause in the simplest implementation of it, Muncie will just buy the $78 members a $20 USAmA policy ontop of the $58 Open standard secondary member stuff.

So, if that is the case, we would have to look at all the listed restrictions for the new Primary provider (and usama hasnt listed many restrictions at all)

bradpaul

It is secondary only if you do not have other insurance, for many younger AMA members IT IS PRIMARY.

KidEpoxy

hey, I can adapt to meet your semantics:

yeah, the current AMA policy dont cover planes.
However, the current AMA policy is Secondary/Primary, and we are being asked about some new undefined PrimaryOnly AMA Policy.

Silent-AV8R

I fail to see how it is semantics. You appeared to think that the AMA policy covered the loss of a model due to a collision, etc. It does not and never has. So your whole point fails since it is based on a non-existent coverage.

And there has never been any secret that the AMA policy is in excess of any other coverage, if any exists.

The USAMA policy is a total unknown at this point. All that has been said is what the limits are and that there is no deductible. Until the USAMA publishes the details of their coverage there is very little more to be said.

KidEpoxy

yes, exactly!
We are indeed talking about something that is not what is or has been,
but something new and different.
And as different, it is not the same.

Is it the same?
Well, what is and was had Secondary(primary for uninsured) payout,
and what we are talking about has Primary.

So No, not the same.
Now that we have established that,
it is very valid to say we need to know what is changing and what aint with the new & different $78 stuff.

If you really want to prove your point,
cite some text of the theoretical $78 Primary policy rather than the old existing $58 Secondary

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

LOL, another reason AMA is a waste of money, not many know what's it good for. You don't need AMA.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

My thought is: If the AMA introduces another insurance policy, they should be the one to state it, give specifics, costs etc.
All the rederck is unreasonable without concrete papers telling you what they can offer and cannot offer. It has to come directly from the AMA, nobody else. Introducing this subject without evidence and factual statements by the AMA, is dismissed. Insurance covering anything has to be factual, give exact costs, dedutibles, loss of payee, general conditions, medical coverage, accidental coverage, it goe's on and on. If the AMA has intorduced a new coverage, I and many others here have not heard about it. I do not think they would subject themselves to be a Primary, I won't say the word although it passed numerous times to generate my negative feelings on this frivilious Thread.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hmmm....did you make a mistake??? AMA liability insurance is secondary to any other applicable insurances you have.

bradpaul

[quote]ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


Hmmm....did you make a mistake??? AMA liability insurance is secondary to any other applicable insurances you have.


Golly gee I made a mistake replace "do not" with "do".

Score one for Littleshaft

The point being that AMA IS PRIMARY for many AMA Members. Why would a 18 or under flyer pay $20.00 to USAMA when they have PRIMARY insurance from AMA for $1.00?

KidEpoxy

BradWhat are you talking about?
What does some other company with a $20 product have to do with the $78 AMA product this thread is about?

But to answer your question:
You are correct, it makes no sense for a $1 AMA Yute to switch to $78 AMA Primary Open