Originally posted by Jim Branaum
<snip>
Earning my attention and my efforts in their behalf involves little things, like making the corrections I have pointed out without abusing my F*R*E*E* time. If the beginner comes up with a buddy box and cord, I already have a known measure of the commitment and am much more willing to go out of MY way spending MY free time helping. Yes, I will LEND some things (tools and a very little equipment I have BOUGHT for my personal use), but not very much as the last muffler I lent out had disappeared as has the last crankshaft weight and several ounces of Prather lead segments and countless glow plugs.
No, I think having the AMA support commercial operations will simply transfer the cash flow from the AMA and chartered clubs provided by the checkbook modeler to the business operations we all will take on as needy step brothers. Your observations about the club being involved in litigation are accurate, but the rate of legal involvement goes up when a business operation is the source of an incident rather than a hobbyist.
Sorry, maybe it is selfish but I think we have it right now and do not need to change that rule.
Jim,
The things that I could see changing might be along the lines of having the student bring his plane to the instructor's home before going to the field. Most modifications could be made there, without the expectation on the part of the student, that he is going to fly. It normally takes less time for such modifications when the proper tools are at hand. The issue of a buddy box could be addressed at the same time. A compensated instructor would probably have boxes for all the major brands in relatively short order. In other words, the running in of an engine would be left to do at the field, assuming that it could not be done at the home. That would leave more time for instruction at the field, enhancing the enjoyment of the student AND reducing the time necessary for the instructor to actually train the student. Maybe the biggest single change would be that the instructor would not be out looking at golf clubs at the end of the day.
My suggestion would be to make the coverage available. Why shouldn't the AMA try it for a year or two and get some actuarial data before dismissing it out of hand, on the basis of prejudice? Debating the legal issues without data is less than productive. As Bill Robison pointed out, our prejudice FOR "Professional" pilots allows them to be covered. Should this issue be decided by the AMA on a prejudicial level? The AMA should at least be consistent.
I don't think that the AMA should dictate to any club that they make their field available for compensated training. Each club could then make the decision as to whether they would allow a compensated endeavor to use the club facilities. Some clubs have very aggressive and proactive training programs, including the Pilot Intro Program and club airplanes. At others, virtually no one wants to train a newbie. Most probably fall somewhere between.
Don't forget that two good things could come from this. More AMA members and more club members. I know, I know, some clubs will not want new members. No club would be forced to participate.
JR