aeajr,


Great post. Your summation of AMA's intents and benefits are generally accepted and therefore so is the rational that perpetuates that widely held philosophy.

The only quandary is the fact... as you say... "it buys me acceptance on top of coverage". Of course, you could buy yourself a PUP... that would cost you a few more bucks...but isn't all those things you mentioned worth it? Sure they are!

The real issue becomes the acceptance aspect.

All too often, in this forum, the main theme of the staunch AMA defense team is “everyone should pay their fair share”. Well that is fine and well but how is $58 fair to a modeler that flies rubber powered free flight when compared to a jet jock flying a 200 mph $15,000 model? Therein lays the point of contention in my mind. It has been discussed to no end in this forum about a tiered system and the complexities that make it not feasible.

So what would be an alternative answer? Event and site insurance costs could be at the producer or club level instead of essentially at a collective membership level. Then AMA memberships at large would not be a basis to fund the entire liability exposure. Each and every flying site could have insurance dependant on use type, location, and experience quotient. Nothing new here…basic and standard for most intents and purposes in the insurance world. AMA memberships could then reflect a due structure in keeping with a real individual need basis, therefore opening the door for growth, especially the park flying crowd.

It is even conceivable that the strategy could be turned around so that it is the collective fees from clubs and events might help fund the membership benefits that would have the effect of promoting the hobby to magnitudes only imagined before.

One of the things that always strikes me as odd is the fact, that collectively AMA members help clubs to acquire flying fields with the implied “acceptance” theory but most clubs return the thank you to those members by severely limiting their use of the field they acquired. Wait… I know what you are thinking! Just why should a club just open its gates to any AMA member? Well… they shouldn’t…unless the precepts of “all for one and one for all” is the mantra… they should have any limits they desire but by the same token they (the club) should not rely on others to insure their particular endeavor either.

In the current system clubs do get a free ride, comparatively speaking. A few more bucks more and an individual member would pay what a club is charged for its charter.

In the end, in this alternate concept model type, the club could have absolute control of its membership, AMA members or not, and decide for it’s self just what it desires within the constraint it adheres to.