Re: Easy for some ...

Re: Easy for some ...
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Re: Easy for some ...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 9:03:37 PM

Posts: 2163
Joined: 9/13/2002
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rcflier_gi

$58 here, $58 there. It all adds up. Everyones financial situation is not the same, so even though $58 is not a lot to you it may be a lot for someone else.

[/QUOTE]

Hmm! All I can say to that is that I know that $58 isn't as much as $1,000,000, which is what it will cost you (at least) if you don't get insured, and have an accident.

Using your logic, we shouldn't insure our lives, or cars or houses. Is that really what you are advocating? If so, I hope I don't come across you driving your car, as it makes it that much more difficult to get money out of an individual than an insurance company if we were unfortunate enough to have an accident.

More diffricult, but not impossible. Can you really afford to spend $1000 per month for the rest of your life, even if you are saving $58 now?

As for the monopoly, you don't have to use the AMA, but I bet any other insurance company would change a lot more than $58 for the same coverage.

David C.

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/2/2003 9:49:16 PM

Posts: 196
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: St. Peters, MO, USA
Status: offline

Well, I told you it'd be a can of worms . . . and, unfortunately, a very sensitive issue for some.

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 10:08:21 PM

Posts: 465
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Grand Island, NY, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Cutler

Hmm! All I can say to that is that I know that $58 isn't as much as $1,000,000, which is what it will cost you (at least) if you don't get insured, and have an accident.

Using your logic, we shouldn't insure our lives, or cars or houses. Is that really what you are advocating? If so, I hope I don't come across you driving your car, as it makes it that much more difficult to get money out of an individual than an insurance company if we were unfortunate enough to have an accident.

More diffricult, but not impossible. Can you really afford to spend $1000 per month for the rest of your life, even if you are saving $58 now?

As for the monopoly, you don't have to use the AMA, but I bet any other insurance company would change a lot more than $58 for the same coverage.

David C. [/QUOTE]

All I'm saying is that $58 here and $58 there it all adds up. And I never said insurance wasn't necessary so stop misquoting me. But in this "sue you" crazy world we live in soon we will need to get kite flying insurance, golf insurance, softball/baseball insurance, Frisbee insurance, sledding insurance, bicycle insurance. All these sports/hobbies as most have inherent risks to yourself and others. It's crazy when a community park has to close because they can't afford insurance because when some kid falls off a swing or slide they get sued by the parents.

And when all flying sites in my area require AMA then there is NO choice. If there was an alternative to AMA most sites would offer the choice as they did in the late 80s early 90s. And going to your standard insurance company and asking for model airplane insurance (if they even offered it) is NOT an option as it would not be accepted at the flying sites.

_____________________________

Current airworthy planes :
SIG Mayhem 3D w/OS 1.20FS pump

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 10:13:56 PM

Posts: 465
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Grand Island, NY, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by P-51B

Once again, this is not true. You only need it to fly at an AMA field! [/QUOTE]

And when legally there is no other place to fly in my area what choice do I have except to not fly.

_____________________________

Current airworthy planes :
SIG Mayhem 3D w/OS 1.20FS pump

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 10:35:47 PM

Posts: 2163
Joined: 9/13/2002
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rcflier_gi

All I'm saying is that $58 here and $58 there it all adds up [/QUOTE]

I can't believe this heated thread is about a true price for insurance.

What would you consider the fair annual cost for $2,000,000 insurance, a monthly magazine, and all the administration involved should be? It is the difference between that figure and $58 we are really talking about.

-DC

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 11:36:19 PM

Posts: 465
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Grand Island, NY, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Cutler

I can't believe this heated thread is about a true price for insurance.

-DC [/QUOTE]

It's not. I agree $58 for $2,000,000 insurance is a good deal. It's the fact that in todays world we need insurance for everything we do, even to just have fun and that just plain sucks.

_____________________________

Current airworthy planes :
SIG Mayhem 3D w/OS 1.20FS pump

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/2/2003 11:56:17 PM

P-51B

Posts: 6176
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rcflier_gi

And when legally there is no other place to fly in my area what choice do I have except to not fly. [/QUOTE]

Various options have been discussed in numerous threads. One of the better ideas is to buy some land to fly on! If you search the various threads you will find some interesting solutions.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/3/2003 12:11:45 AM

Posts: 2163
Joined: 9/13/2002
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rcflier_gi

It's not. I agree $58 for $2,000,000 insurance is a good deal. It's the fact that in todays world we need insurance for everything we do, even to just have fun and that just plain sucks. [/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with you.

That's obviously not the AMA's fault though, just the fact that some people feel the need to make a quick buck.

Did you hear about the old lady who sued McDonalds, because she said the hot drink scalded her? There are many instances like that, including the famous one that did involve the AMA. I don't know the full details, but it was about a man's family claiming insurance because his own model hit him while he was flying it.

David C.

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/3/2003 12:20:26 AM

P-51B

Posts: 6176
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Cutler

I absolutely agree with you.

That's obviously not the AMA's fault though, just the fact that some people feel the need to make a quick buck.

Did you hear about the old lady who sued McDonalds, because she said the hot drink scalded her? There are many instances like that, including the famous one that did involve the AMA. I don't know the full details, but it was about a man's family claiming insurance because his own model hit him while he was flying it.

David C. [/QUOTE]

That about sums it up.

I can't wait to see the outcome of the suit the fat guy filed claiming it was Burger King's fault he's fat. (may be McDonalds, I don't remember)

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/3/2003 1:24:16 AM

FLYBOY

Posts: 8696
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Missoula, MT, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Cutler

I can't believe this heated thread is about a true price for insurance.

-DC [/QUOTE]

As is with most of the posts in this section, the point is not $58 being high for insurance, it is the fact that we are paying for insurance, and they are using a small portion of the $58 for insurance, and another portion for a multi million dollar flying field that we have to pay for and can not opt out of. We are building a new flying field here. Can we get help from AMA? Yes, a whoppin 10% of the cost if we are willing to fill out a lot of paperwork and jump through some hoops. Its not worth it. They should separate the two, and make the flying field part optional! OPPPSSS, they can't do that. Noone would pay it and they couldn't have their big field. Thats the point a lot of people keep missing.

< Message edited by FLYBOY-RCU -- Jan 2 2003 11:32PM >

_____________________________

Fly it till the wings come off.

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/3/2003 3:01:19 AM

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/4/2002
From: Cottonwood, AZ, USA
Status: offline

People seem to be more content when they have choices. AMA already has more than one category of membership- perhaps they could add some more, with the respective dues set to reflect the amount of AMA staff resources used. Maybe it would make sense for there to be a category for competition-oriented flyers at sanctioned events, another category for sport flyers, etc.

I am one of those sport flyers who only gets out to the flying field maybe 20 times a year, if that.

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/3/2003 4:22:36 AM

Posts: 1669
Joined: 10/22/2002
From: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrocker
People seem to be more content when they have choices. AMA already has more than one category of membership- perhaps they could add some more, with the respective dues set to reflect the amount of AMA staff resources used. Maybe it would make sense for there to be a category for competition-oriented flyers at sanctioned events, another category for sport flyers, etc.

I am one of those sport flyers who only gets out to the flying field maybe 20 times a year, if that. [/QUOTE]

Does this mean you view the rest of us (who care) as 'high maintenance' members who should pay more for the privilege of making sure things are near the right track? That is a serious question.

This "membership classification" keeps coming up and it is clear that there are no powerful people (read that as having a vote on the AMA EC) with any interest in spreading the costs only to those willing to pay it. I suspect it is another "strawman" arguement used to create smoke where there is no heat. Lets look at it a bit more.

On one hand it makes sense for those who want to play mangler, er manager, games with AMA should pay more. However, it also is clear that they are the very same players who are going to stick (have stuck?) it to the general membership. They are playing the old numbers game. A few dollars from a great many and no one notices that we are speaking in millions. This 'factoid' is what drove the last EVP contest and what drives those who claim money is the problem.

The real problem is that when the "OUT's" discover that the "IN's" control those millions, they get rambunctious. The problem extends so far into our hobby as to include the creation of new safety code rules to 'protect AMA assets' so the empire grows. (Sorry, my bad attitude #67). Some of the rules adopted have been pr oven to be stupid and so they get changed. Some of the rules we needed, but it should be clear to all that the AMA cannot legislate common sense which is what they are trying to encourage with the safety code.

The 'problem' with membership classification is control and utilization. How do you allow Charlie Controlliner the chance to fly R/C with his C/L limited ticket? As a side question please explain how that helps model aviation grow. Another interesting question is exactly how do you THINK a competitor gets into competition? How do you move Sammy Sportflyer into a throw together contest his friends invite him to? Those are some of the issues that limit the classification of membership to OPEN rather than SPORT and COMPETITOR or CL and RC.

No, if we are going to classify the membership I think we need to charge the 'care-for-nothing' bunch 95% of the new dues structure that will raise the dues for the rest of us by about 15%. But, again, that is MY bad attitude showing.

In short, I am convinced that money is not a problem with the AMA rather it is a visible symptom of a much deeper problem. Too many !QUOT!let George do it!QUOT! members with NO interest in controlling the future of the organization. No interest in voting, but lots and lots of other negative input.

Just my opinion (yeah, I know - again)

_____________________________

Jim Branaum AMA 1428

(in reply to akpilot)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy for some ... - 1/3/2003 9:43:03 AM

J_R

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Cutler

I There are many instances like that, including the famous one that did involve the AMA. I don't know the full details, but it was about a man's family claiming insurance because his own model hit him while he was flying it.

David C. [/QUOTE]

In this forum, see the thread "Recent RC death and AMA claim".

This is post #60 if you just want to cut to the chase.

" No suit has been filed and none is anticipated.

__________________
Carl P. Maroney
Special Services Director
Academy of Model Aeronautics"

JR

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/3/2003 9:58:15 AM

Posts: 7676
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: nyc, NY, USA
Status: offline

See? Typical of the BALONEY you read around here about AMA! Look...do not beleive this garbage!
There is no great big conspiracy of people getting rich off of AMA!
It's all a lot of hooey!
Even the McDonalds coffee cup thing is baloney! Go do some research, learn what REALLY happened!
You know what? I have never seen ONE of these anti-AMA cranks cut up their AMA card! All talk, no action. They all want to enjoy the BENEFITS of their AMA membership, and still **** at the same time.
Okay...put your money where your mouth is...cut up your AMA card. Go ahead. If you don't need AMA, prove it.
Because AMA certainly does not need YOU. What we really do NOT need is members constantly badmouthing everything we do, making up lies, and doing their best to tear down what others work so hard to build up.
So...put up or shut up. Cut up your card. Or quit whining and do something productive for AMA instead.

Spoiler. Jeez. That one takes the cake. A guy loses an election by a country mile. The THIRD candidate gets more votes from him. And people have the temerity to say "it was rigged, the third candidate was a SPOILER." No...you just LOST. It's so silly. And it makes me so angry.

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/3/2003 11:47:43 AM

J_R

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EASYTIGER

Because AMA certainly does not need YOU. What we really do NOT need is members constantly badmouthing everything we do, making up lies, and doing their best to tear down what others work so hard to build up.
So...put up or shut up. Cut up your card. Or quit whining and do something productive for AMA instead.

Spoiler. Jeez. That one takes the cake. A guy loses an election by a country mile. The THIRD candidate gets more votes from him. And people have the temerity to say "it was rigged, the third candidate was a SPOILER." No...you just LOST. It's so silly. And it makes me so angry. [/QUOTE]

EASYTIGER

Although I agree with your basic sentiment, I do take exception to a couple of your points.

I believe we need every member in the AMA we can get. If the field at my club comes under attack, I want all the numbers, i.e. all the political power that can be brought to bear on the situation. When we try to maintain our frequencies, I want this same political base behind the effort. In this respect, the size of the AMA is very important.

Only about 15% of the membership votes. That means that 85% just want to fly, and that they belong to the AMA to achieve that goal. There is nothing wrong with that. Obviously, a lot of them that are in that great silent majority are taking the opportunity to make posts here, giving opinions that they would not normally voice at the field. The fact that the dues increase is not popular was to be expected. It's better that we try to educate them as to the facts than to push them away. We can not do without that 85%.

My wish is that when someone says something is wrong with the AMA that they would identify the problem. You can not fix something unless you know what you are fixing.

Some of the facts are not pleasant. The investments in the stock market did not do well in 2001. That is a fact. At the same time, it is not a fact that the EC is trying to 'line their pockets', or at least no one has been able to substantiate that. Most of the folks that run the AMA are doing so for the benefit of the rest of us, in my opinion. The EC in particular does that without compensation.

The election process IS suspect. There are things that have happened over the last two years that are not to the advantage of the image of the AMA. As I have posted before, it is my opinion that Horrace Cain made a strategic error with his Campaign Statement and lost the election because of that. Having said that, there are issues that need to be addressed by the EC in the last two elections where the allegation of placing "spoilers" on the ballot is concerned. Although the practice is not against the rules, it most certainly violates the spirit of the rules for our elections. There is more to the story than meets the eye.

JR

(in reply to akpilot)

Can of Worms - 1/3/2003 6:18:23 PM