Originally posted by Jim Branaum
[B]Let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that these checkbook modelers who are unhappy about having to pay AMA dues and follow AMA rules are going to pay another organization? Wanna bet? <lol>
A couple points here. The reason we are hearing so much about the weight and turbine rules these days is because the barriers to entry for the NORMAL modeler are decreasing. These are not "checkbook modelers" as you unfairly stereotype them. I can speak for myself as an example. I recently got into turbines. I am not a rich man. I sold a collection of about 20 planes that I had built up over the last 10 years along with items from other hobbies to purchase two airframes, engines, sets of servos, and accessories. I added some income from side jobs to build up the turbine fund. I then set out to research all my available options. I ended up purchasing everything I needed for two complete turbine planes for under $2,000 each including the engines. That's a lot of money for sure but if most modelers who have been in the hobby for a decent length of time truly take an inventory of what they have then I doubt that is out of line. There are more like me out there. Heck right now on RCU you can purchase a ready to fly turbine trainer for $2300 here:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...361&forumid=10
You can build that airframe yourself for under $500 and save up for servos and engine.
That plane weighs about 17lb, flies under 140 mph, has a wing loading of under 25 oz/sq ft, carries about the same amount of fuel as a large gas plane, and the airframe is plywood with sheeted foam core wings. I can go fly a $7,000 54lb 170 mph gas burning warbird right now with no instruction or waiver and be fully insured. If I touch that thing in the air without a waiver (even on buddy box) then I'm uninsured under the AMA system. If UMA can treat them both the same why can't AMA?
Second point - I am NOT saying that anyone is unhappy about paying the AMA. I am unhappy about the rules that have been made and the prospect that they want to raise dues under the auspices of a higher insurance risk. They restrict a narrow band of the hobby while other more dangerous aspects are left unchecked. The AMA has more exposure as an organization from the individual who buys a $300 trainer rig and proceeds to "train" himself than they do from the experienced modeler who wants to get into giant scale or jets. As Max Stanley
sort of said "The Trainer is the safest airplane in the world: it can just barely kill you."
I see the real problem as being people's wanting to belong without the willingness to pay the price of membership. That price includes some onerous rules. I think the UMA has a reasonable approach, as possibly the SFA folks did at first. The problem comes when an AMA club tries to have a sanctioned event. Then the UMA guys are excluded or they have to join the AMA.
That is the point where the real grief lies. Not liability, not cost, but the different rule set and an unwillingness to accept the rules of Rome when in Rome. There you go P-51B another one to confuse you! (grin) Read that as "or play by AMA rules at AMA club sites. That is also why AMA has implemented the sanitized membership for chartered clubs and sanctioned events.
When the price of membership includes restrictions on my activity without facts to back up the reason for those restrictions then yes I have a problem. If the UMA can offer this coverage without the restrictions, then why is it a problem for the much larger AMA. Does our EC lack a good negotiator? I don't think so. I think there is more at work here than insurance rates and potential liability.
The rules between AMA and UMA are mostly similar. A club would have to enforce the UMA safety rules if they are a UMA chartered club. If an AMA member were participating then that member would be responsible for abiding by the more restrictive rules just as they are when flying alone or away from a chartered club.
Keith Hollifield
AMA 5220300