ORIGINAL: P-51B
On the tiered insurance idea, I have seen this one tossed around and maybe beaten up sometimes. Given the fact that AMA includes non-rc, would the tiered systems base rate include just non-rc, or rc up to 55 lbs, or...???
Given that the largest claim in AMA history is was supposedly caused by a free-flight model, does non-RC really belong in the base rate ?
I find it kinda interesting that whenever the topic of tiered rates is brought up, free-flight is always thought of as the bottom rung of the rate ladder, and turbine models are always considered the highest. Why is that ? Is the fact the the turbine community has fairly passively accepted tons more regulation than the rest of the hobby now working against it because all those extra rules must indicate that they are dangerous models ? Does the history of claims paid out by the AMA have no bearing on which aspects may be considered the highest risk ? Does the skill level of the individual have no bearing on the risk factor ? (The guy who just solo'd is probably at the highest risk of getting out of control). Have a look at what models have caused fatalities... the ones that I know of include a flying lawnmower, a small (40 sized ?) race plane, a high-wing trainer, a 60-sized pattern plane, and most recently a helicopter. Which of these categories would most people have intuitively put into the "high-risk therefore high insurance rate" bucket ?
I'd be quite happy to accept tiered rates, and I know that whatever rules were adopted I'd probably pay the highest rates since I fly everything I can get my hands on - from race planes to giant-scale to turbines to helicopters... but I'd hate to see other people being incorrectly charged a high rate that is based on someone's unsubstantiated prejudices rather than being based on any kind of actuarial analysis.
Maybe tiered rates should be based on the aircraft category (if suitable data can be gathered), or maybe it should be based on pilot proficiency, or maybe a combination of the two.... or maybe by the time all of the effort is put into figuring this out, it's cheaper to charge everyone one rate than to pay the non-trivial cost of trying to administer a multi-tiered rate. While a one-size-fits-all insurance rate means that invariably some people will subsidize others, it's not really much different than how those who never have the opportunity to visit Muncie subsidize those who do use it, or those who don't want the mag subsidize those who do, or those who own their own flying site subsize those who need financial assistance from the AMA in securing a new site, etc., etc. The majority of the membership probably has some part of their merbership services subsidized by others at some point, while simultaneously subsidizing another aspect of someone else's membership. What comes around, goes around.
Gordon