d. If AMA cannot sanction events, that has NOTHING to do with individual AMA members and their insurance coverage which protects the site owners - as long as those AMA members follow the AMA safety code.
yup, that is correct
however
Muncie can and will say certain sites are unsafe and not charter clubs to fly there (or 'pull insurance' of existing club).
While that dont effect the pilots Member Insurance,
all members are required to fly within the SafetyCode or risk loss of insurance.
When the SC says you cant fly unsafe, and relys on the pilot to figure what is safe or reckless,
your district Safetyguy, DVP, and muncie can explicitly identify to the membership a particular unsafe or uninsured activity.
(sales demos ring a bell?)
Such as wanting to use the I40 median as a grass strip for non-club AMA member flying with member insurance,
or right next to the I40 as an equally unsuited, unsafe, and uninsured by ama-member-insurance , site for non-club flying
What leg would those 4 pilots have to stand on
if their ama sent each of them a registered letter
informing them that site was unsafe and will not be covered by AMA Member Insurance?
A letter sighned by both the muncie AMA Safety Committee Chair, as well as the AMA District VP (potentailly the president of AMA)
we have identified by quotation the AMA guy that said in future tense
Dont Build It (a person of 'clout' in the matter)
just what 'ama guy' gave this thing the green light to the city?
We need to hold that person accountable for their actions.
I dont know who it is, I dont care, whoever should be held accountable
... If it was DVP Rice, then point the finger at him, if it was someone else then point that guy out: it aint politics its accountability