[quote]ORIGINAL: J_R

<snip>
As I have posted before, there is no doubt that the financial well being of the AMA is tied to the insurance coverage provided landlords by the policy covering clubs. That being said, I have never been able to figure out your concern with the AMA, or for that matter, any business having risk management (or liability avoidence, as you prefer to call it) as a major goal. I have also posted that I think the President of the AMA is overly concerned with risk management. Can you give me an example of any business, that is still in business, that does not have a concern over risk management to some extent? I can't think of even one.

There was an AMA, and AMA clubs, before the landlord coverage, and, my guess is that they would exist now if there were no landlord coverage now. I would agree that they would not exist in the numbers that they do now.

None of this excuses the inital poster in this thread, who never even looked at the existing threads on the first page of threads in this forum. Many have not been happy with the DVD. The large majority, but not all, that have posted at least took time to look before posting, and posted in existing threads.

Hi JR-

Maybe I'm just grumpy about AMA insurance because I don't need it: have plenty of insurance coverage that is primary, and AMA insurance would never come into the picture. Not so much a matter of having to pay for it, but more a gripe about having to conform to restrictions placed on modeling activity by terms of 'sombody else's insurance policy.' My PUP specifies one exclusion: my models cannot carry human passengers. Further, nobody dictated to me that I had to buy the PUP.
If the insurance coverage was limited to what you cited, I would have little or no problem with it. That's only part of it though. Not clear how much a part, because the actual cost of it is subsidized by the personal liability insurance AMA sells and demands that every individual that flies at an AMA insured club must have. I believe that has been stifling the growth of model aviation for a number of years, and as you know model aviation is more important to me than AMA. I'm pleased with the growth of park fliers, as they have opened up model aviation to a lot of people that were shut out by the closed-shop nature of AMA and the mandates put on clubs to conform with that policy. Add the paranoid level of concern with the current administration of AMA over liabiility risk, and I see far too much influence of this 'benefit' to members on our national organization and in turn most of the club flying scene.
It bugs me that the same individual that would place draconian restrictions on our modeling activity to avoid liability risk is lobbying government agencies that have the ultimate control over everyone, AMA members and not. I don't want DHS, FAA etc. making rules based on what DB is and is not willing to have AMA insure. I said this before and you strongly disagreed, but I don't think the AMA insurance czar should be on the Safety Committee. Insurance has nothing to do with safety - it takes effect after safety measures have failed to preclude a liability situation. Feedback from insurance claims can help identify safety risks, but that doesn't demand insurance interests be represented on the SC. The issue of a CD being on-site during an incident is an example from recent discussions. Most would agree that it is in the best interest of safety for the CD or his rep to be on-site during all times when flying is going on, but the insurance interest is in conflict; AMA wants the CD to leave the site when activities considered risky are to take place, to avoid liability.
Anyway, that's enough of my gripe with the insurance situation, and as to your query, you're right, businesses need to consider risk management. They do not however have to be dominated by it. Any that are dominated by it end up losers. Most of our businesses are based in capitalism - no risk, no gain.

Abel