Originally posted by Capgains
Okay, then tell me what if pbannier were to show up at your field, with his UMA insurance, as a guest of one of your club members? Is he allowed to fly? The site owner insurance should cover him right? I'd almost bet not, and that was one of the problems AMA was bringing forward. So unless the field is a publicly owned entity with it's own policy (IE a county or state park) you need the AMA site owner's coverage, and it is only compatible with AMA members. I would hope it covers the site owner against non-insured members that show up and hurt themselves. Otherwise the insurance is kind of useless. Then you would have site owner insurance that only covers the people that are all ready insured by AMA, and since the insurance company is not going to sue itself if a claim is made, everything is under control.
It would seem to me the only reason to have site owner insurance is to protect the site owner against people not covered by AMA who try to sue. Therefore you would think the UMA guy could fly there. But I still bet not.
AMA is promoting AMA membership with these tactics. How can it be promoting flying when it creates a barrier to exclude other flyers?
I am coming to this late but here is my $.02. I have flown at two different county parks, in different states/timezones, in addition to belonging to four different clubs in four different states in the last 27 years that I have been an AMA member.
One park required AMA insurance as a condition to fly there, it was checked every year, I never really looked into why they required it but that was the way it was. Even with that requirement, they had to institute a requirement to fly for a check pilot before you got the big red P on your permit that said you were a pilot who could fly alone. It wasn't a big deal, take off, fly a figure eight, make an approach downwind, then and approach and landing into the wind. Took three minutes. Why do this? Because folks showed up (with AMA/permit no less), that tried to fly without knowing how! I had personal experience, I crashed while trying to E & E from a 1/2A sized airplane launched from behind the pits with the radio off.
The other park (which I still fly at), requires AMA now, but SFA was perfectly acceptable also when it existed. I don't fly there much because the controls that were put in place at the first field are not present, and it can be dangerous to me and my aircraft to fly there if there are more than about three other flyers present.
Neither field has/had a chartered club, but the requirement was still there to have insurance coverage.
The park commissions are trying to limit liability. Sort of a spread the wealth deal. From lawsuits I have seen in aviation, everyone involved in a mishap gets sued, in our case it would be the pilot, the landowner, possibly the designer/producer/builder of the airplane (it happens with full scale homebuilts), and the various manufacturers of components. The siteowners policy doesn't protect them from us, it protects them from others who may be affected by activities on their property. You are correct, why would a company sue itself?
I would have to say I don't see where AMA is broken, either. Is it perfect? Far from, but is any process or material created by man perfect? I belong to several social and/or professional organizations, in addition to being in a union (ALPA). I am most active in the union, because without it, I wouldn't have the money to fly model airplanes, own a home, etc. CAUTION, SOAP BOX MODE: If you don't like how things are going, get involved, and make a difference. AMA is non-profit, much like many groups we belong to in model and full scale aviation. It is nothing without its members. I am happy with the way things are going with AMA so I am not active in affairs beyond voting (you did vote, right?) END SOAPBOX MODE.
For now, it is below 32F/0C outside and I have balsa and ply just waiting to be turned into and airplane for next year! Everybody build straight and strong, and fly the pants off it when it is done.
Jim