Originally Posted by astrohog

Yep. Typical reply. Instead of acknowledging that I presented a reasonable approach for a club to go out on their own, you refute it by saying it hasn't been done. Instead, why don't you provide a reasonable statement as to why my proposal is unreasonable? Perfect example of logical fallacy type argument.

I do belong to a group that owns a flying field. We lease it to an AMA chartered club and are quite happy with the arrangements. I suspect that now the AMA has proven they offer no advantage or exemptions to its membership, that said club will be looking into other options. To answer your question (you would've seen where I posted this before, had you not just jumped on recent threads and started the same conversation that has been covered countless times), we were able to obtain a private, additional insurance policy that provides coverage at a reasonable cost. It only stands to reason that if more clubs were to pursue this, eventually they could group together to get even better volume rates. It is one of the reasons I endure these merry-go-round threads; to break down the paradigm that the AMA is the only option.

Astro