ORIGINAL: J_R
Loubud
Interestingly, what you thought you read is what it says. The posted policy has errors and changes have been/are being made, including an elimination of the requirment for a written agreement with the landlord. Permission is enough, it does not have to be evidenced in writing, or so I have been led to believe. BTW, this stuff is in the current appendicies of the EC Minutes for the 10/05 meeting.
Why the AMA does not post this stuff for their membership is beyond me. I guess they enjoy RCU too.
Most interestingly, it appears that when AMA differs with what the written insurance contract says, the written contract has errors..........
That appears to have been the case regarding not being covered by AMA insurance in the case of a shoot-down due to switching on a transmitter on a frequency already in use. Hoss reported on this, citing what Maroney had said at a conference gathering (SWAC, IIRC). Hoss got shouted down and Maroney provided 'clarification,' but it appears what Hoss recorded was right all along, at least according to the written contract for insurance which states under Exclusions, Para T., page 13:
""Property damage" arising from from frequency interference of of any model airplane.
However the exclusion does not apply to AMA Inc. sanctioned events where there is a control transmitter impound area and the interference is the result of event organizer error."
My recollection is that Maroney's 'clarification' was that he was only talking about the situation where there was a transmitter impound, yet the contract clearly says that's the only situation where the exclusion does
not apply.
Tell people to call Maroney about insurance issues if you will, but I'm conditioned to relying on what it says in the contract. AMA apparently has a rather unconventional way of doing business in their relationship with Westchester, but I'm more comfortable with the old-fashioned pro forma business relationship I have with GEICO for my PUP.
Abel