quote:

ORIGINAL: The Toolman

I still believe that the ama is like the govt. Its a biz to them, an they are interested in what is the least risk an most profit they can make.


Ronnie

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Toolman

I still believe that the ama is like the govt. Its a biz to them, an they are interested in what is the least risk an most profit they can make.


Ronnie

The gov't ... profit? Last time I looked at the gov't ticker board it said 10.3 trillion in debt. Doesn't sound like they are interested in making a lot of profit, like say China is doing. Seems to me the gov't is more interested in spending dollars than making them. I sure hope the AMA doesn't run their business like that.

But as far as the AMA running their org like a "business", well ... I certainly hope they are running the AMA like a business because the AMA is a business. The only thing that separates the AMA from say ... Microsoft ... is that Microsoft has to pay taxes on profit. The AMA is a corporation and should always be run like a corporation. If AMA makes 10 million in profit next year GREAT, power too them. They STILL won't be able to get stock options, dividends or really any compensation for a job well done. The only place that money can go is BACK to the organization, period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger

Thanks, Ken. It turns out that I had left the window open last night, and so saved a copy. As it wasn't you that closed it, I'll just repost it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: busted2props

Abel
Help me! Help me! My AMA does not cover me hitting you with the exception of $25k medical. (considering we both are AMA members) Oh yeah, here comes my saying Send lawyers, guns and moneylots of money. Ya know today's society, me me me, more, more, more, now, now, now,...

Monte, it does cover you if you hit me. That's what liability insurance is all about, nothing exceptional about AMA provided insurance (except that it it doesn't begin to pay until any other insurance is exhausted, including that provided by non-existant competing model airplane organizations). If you hit me causing injury, then my recourse is to sue you for damages and hopefully prove in court that my injury was caused by your negligence. AMA's obligation is to you, and they will provide you with a defense against my claim, and if that defense is unsuccessful, will pay any award of the court to me up to the limits of coverage. LCS was right on when he said you will be in an adversarial position with AMA if you are injured by someone else in a model airplane accident. The tort system is adversarial, and AMA and their insurance provider are going to be on the side of the party accused of being liable for causing the injury. Not because they are bad guys, but because that is what they are contractually obligated to do and that's the way the tort enterprise works in this country.

quote:


Without making light of the subject, it is pretty pityful that we don't cover each other. I knew this bucket of worms was coming and was hoping it did not get kicked over. Oh well, it did. LCS and HOSS has it nailed. It seems to me, it should be reversed, pay AMA member to AMA member cause that is who is usually flying.
I will always believe that the so called insurance should be for AMA to AMA to spectator. Oh well, I guess I'm just a singer in the choir.

Then you might find it rather perverse that you are probably in a worse position as an AMA member and fellow modeler if you sustain an injury than you would be as a non-participant. One of the more common (because it is more often than not successful) defenses against lawsuits arising from injury in recreational activities is the "assumption of risk" theory. As a participant, you are presumed to to have known what the risks were, and chose to participate anyway ergo, you bear responsibility for any injury you may sustain. If you are injured in a modeling accident, you stand a much better chance of being compensated if you are just a passerby oblivious to the risks associated with model airplanes. If that seriously bothers you, prolly best to fly at an outlaw site and urge others to join AMA.

quote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no problem with PPP members but is it really a viable program? How many new members are there with the PPP vs full AMA members dropping down to the PPP level? Huh? I would like to see real numbers, not shuffled numbers.

I'd like to see those numbers too, but not holding my breath. One of the 'features' cited in the PPP fluff is that the AMA* members only pay for what benefits them. Sounds fair at first glance..........but...........all the rest of us pay a lot of overhead for stuff that we don't want or need, and we don't get a shot at an ala carte menu. The party line has long been that what we pay for but don't receive goes to the general welfare of model aviation. Okay, I can understand overhead, but see a lot it in the difference between $30 and $58. We'll see if more folks have something to say about what they perceive to be their fair allocation of the overhead is soon - the $10 'seas

_____________________________

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!

(in reply to abel_pranger)

quote:

I'd like to see those numbers too, but not holding my breath. One of the 'features' cited in the PPP fluff is that the AMA* members only pay for what benefits them. Sounds fair at first glance..........but...........all the rest of us pay a lot of overhead for stuff that we don't want or need, and we don't get a shot at an ala carte menu.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufcut

My club doesn't have an AMA sanctioned field.
Rufcut