JR-
I have no objection whatever to putting common sense rules in place. On the contrary, I think the AMA EC should act to allow clubs to do just that, without shooting themselves in the foot by adding further exclusions to their insurance coverage. The first action the EC should take is a no brainer; strike from the Safety Code the following:

"3) Where established, I will abide by the safety rules for the flying site I use, and I will not willfully and deliberately fly my models in a careless reckless and/or dangerous manner."

This rule serves no purpose in the interest of safe flying at club sites, nor is in AMA's interest of avoiding liability. It is only an impediment to clubs establishing common sense rules that address safety issues peculiar to their flying sites.

Secondly, the EC should recognize that risk comes in shades of grey, but the way AMA currently handles it only allows for black and white. If an activity is proscribed by the Safety Code, your insurance is void if you do it, period. There is no way of accomodating good safety practice that advises against activities that may increase risk of injury to people or property, but to a lesser degree that does not warrant the draconian measure of exclusion from insurance coverage. The misuse of the Safety Code as a list of exclusions from the insurance should end. Activities that are deemed to carry risk beyond what is acceptable should be listed in 'Exclusions from Coverage' in the insurance agreement. Call a spade a spade, and let the Safety Code address safety rather than than AMA's exposure to payout for liability.

Thirdly, separate safety from the insurance business of AMA. I don't know who chairs or is on the Safety Committee, but it is apparent that insurance czar Maroney has the major voice in any of its recommendations to the EC. As it is, in a conflict of interest between safety and the welfare of AMA members vs. liability avoidance and the welfare of AMA insurance reserves, the latter will always win, as it always has.

Those are few steps AMA could take that would improve our position with respect to both safety and avoidance of liability. I agree that the actions they have taken to date aren't likely motivated by mean-spiritedness. I do think there is some ego involvement in the reluctance to move from the status quo, however. I'm pessimistic about seeing even the first item that I listed above actually implemented. I know you are much more optimistic than I about where AMA is headed. In our difference of opinion on that, I hope you win.

Abel