Hey Gordon...I shoulda said "recognized authority", I guess...they'd certainly be painted that way in courst ....after all, who is greater in that respect, certainly in the US?

Ian...never said the AMA stopped anything(!), they can't.....they don't have the authority/wherewithal to do that. But "discouraged", yes, within their limited means, which were heart-to-hearts and peer pressure on Eddie, directly or indirectly, I understand....and that of informing the sponsor/airport/etc. of the AMA's posture...attempting to convince it is a correct one. Their right, our right/anyone's right.

And maybe they did convince....fire ban just let everyone save face......perhaps just postponed the inevitable 'next time': FT's event. He's much more formidable...be most interesting to see how effectively the AMA combats that one! Who knows....maybe a workable/acceptable temp insurance suspension is possible/will result as a compromise. Nothing wrong w/ that from our POV(!)....opens the door to real alternatives and real competition for the AMA, though...if we have such 'freedom' w/o penalty.

Certainly the AMA does not want it for obvious reasons, even if possible. Who can blame them....and, would we....if rates climb due to a smaller base, etc.? Crux of the question, seems to me, then, is whether it is possible/workable/economical to enact such a program ('opting' out at convenience....opting back in at convenience) and still maintain an effective insurance program. Difficult question, likely not an easy answer.......but if so, then the AMA maybe is punitive, even if for self-preservation (and insuring our sites so cheaply). But, if not, as I suspect, then I have to agree w/ their present posture of self-presenvation of a system that, overall, works so well to our advantage.

Insurance guys...your turn!

Ray