Easytiger - the hurdle is (fwiw) that most public places like parks require the AMA proof of insurance. In this case a township is the "site owner". Enter red tape syndrome. To convince the clerk there that your own homeowners insurance is primary would be an interesting task not to mention that you have UMA insurance and that it is just as good. Question becomes how many hurdles, town council meetings and such would you need to have to get yourself approved to fly with just your homeowners or UMA?

When it comes to private property fields that is correct that you need only convince the property owner that you are covered.

Still begs the question that if 2/3 to 90% plus of AMA members primarily only want and need insurance why is a disproportionate share of the $58 dues going to purposes that they don't want or serve them little or no purpose? This is what my biggest problem is.

Why not spin off 3 companies and everyone pays for whichever ones they want to be a member/subscriber of? One for the magazine, one for the insurance and one for the contests? A joint committee can be formed to handle issues with Washington DC or flying fields if that function is still preferred by many. It can even stay under the largest arm of the 3 separate companies (insurance) as the overhead the AMA has in saving fields and lobbying is typically insignificant in terms of dollars. So many possible solutions exist to improve the AMA.