ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
ORIGINAL: aeajr
You somehow see the concept of the club as separate from the members. The members are the club. If the club restricts the members it is because the members voted it to be that way. The club has no power or authority over members unless the members grant it. Members acquire a field for themslves and form a club to help obtain insurance and create a group method for funding and managing the field.
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.
I have no idea what this means
aeajr,
I apologize for my poorly conveyed message. I seem to always have people misunderstand my intent or message. I will try again.
As it stands now all AMA members contribute to a pool that works to offset direct costs of insurance to clubs. Reportedly about half of the AMA members do not belong to a club at all. Also at this time all club members
must be AMA members.
The alternate AMA hypothetical operating strategy I have so poorly tried to convey would be quite different. In this alternate reality, clubs would have to burden the whole costs of chartering and site insurance depending on their
unique needs. Also they would be allowed to have non-AMA members if desired.
In this alternate strategy it might be possible to allow some clubs to utilize city parks in partnership with the city and reap reduced costs since city parks do have their own insurance that could be used to some extent.
Thanks for the further explaination. I believe you are mistaken about the funding of insurance. What you would like to have is is basically how it works today.
AMA chartered clubs pay "club site insrance" which is separate from individual AMA membership. So what you suggested is what exists today. My AMA membership includes personal liability insturance and medical insurance to cover only me and has NOTHING to do with insuring the club or the site or the land owner.
The site insurance that club buy, as a club, covers the club and usually the land owner, if I understand the coverage correctly. This is paid for separately, out of club membership dues. When you pay your $25 or $200 cub membership dues, some of that money goes to pay for the club's insurance. So individual AMA members are NOT paying for site insurance as part of their annual AMA membership.
What you asked for is what you get today.
As for utilizing city parks in partnership with local governments, that is EXACTLY how many AMA clubs get their field. My AMA chartered club uses a Nassau County park as our flying field, in cooperation with the County. Our cost for the field is small so our membership dues are small. The COUNTY mandates that the club have AMA site insurance and that all members be AMA members. In addition they require that anyone using the flying field have a Nassau County flying permit. Again, this is a County requirement not an AMA or a club requirement.
Nassau County has 3 flying fields which are the home of about 5 AMA clubs.
Now, if the County did not mandate the AMA component, we could form a non-AMA club if we wanted, obtain club/site insurance from Allstate, or Geico or someone who offers something like that, and not require the members to be AMA members or have any kind of insurance. If the land owner is good with that, why not? While I very much favor the AMA approach, there is nothing from keeping you or anyone else from following an alternate path. I am sure there are lots of flying clubs our there that are not AMA clubs.
My point is that 90% of what you asked for already exists and is exactly how it works today. The other details are about whether we are talking about rose red, bright red or apple red. Shades of the same thing.
I hope I have been able to clarify these points. What you want is pretty close to what exists today.