Maybe this will help you..................http://www.modelaircraft.org/members.../overview.aspx
<h2><u>SERVICE</u></h2><ul>[*]Liability Coverage for the Operation of Model Aircraft, Boats, Cars, and Rockets[*]$2,500,000 Comprehensive General Liability Protection for model activities for members, clubs, site owners, and sponsors[*]$25,000 Accident/Medical Coverage for members[*]$10,000 Maximum Accidental Death Coverage for members[*]$1,000 Fire, Theft, and Vandalism Coverage for members[/list]Did you vote yet?<br type="_moz" />

Nope. The choices are poorly worded and offer false alternatives, hence I choose not to participate.

BTW - neither of the two main boat racing sanctioning bodies accepts AMA insurance, so it really only covers casual recreational boater. IMPBA and NAMBA both require membership, and hence their own insurance, in order to enter a race they have sanctioned.

There are RC boats that can do over 100 mph and weigh 15 pounds or more. I guarantee they can do some damage.

What happened to America the freedom to chose? if we allow government to rule us to death than thats our fault. take a stand and fight for your rights, I wont let go with out a fight! and yea I gonna fly what ever I want when ever I want at what ever speed it will fly!! there is power in groups of people. stay focused and dont let government rule you to death! Yea I voted!!!!

The choices of the OP's thread are simply worded, and the poll registers simple responses.

You may have chose not to vote, but your debate speaks to the OP's opening remarks.

Thanks for your participation!

yes i did

they can have my airplanes when the pry them from my cold dead hands

Silent,
maybe I can help by tailoring a different question for you:

Yes, or No-
Is there any conceivable current or future environment
that you would be operating an aircraft without an onboard pilot for noncommercial purpose
in violation of a federal regulation?

Which is the reason, AMA insurance is not much good or "sanctioning bodies" want to monopolize/capitalize on the hobbyists they prey on????

Just my 2 cents and I know I don't belong in this discussion but as far as being an American and the freedom that belongs with it, I will not belong or be a slave to any organisation that is or turned sour beyond reason and furthermore if I fly INDEPENDANTLY I am by no means" A RENEGADE" and I will not be judged as so either. Just so sad that no one or organisation see's their own transparency. For every action there is a reaction....

In most cases the AMA insurance is actually better, in fact IMPBA was looking a couple of years ago at some way to merge with the AMA so their members had AMA coverage. That did not work out for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was that they wanted to keep paying what they did at the time which was far less than the AMA dues.

I will continue to fly safely. I will fly under the current safety code of the AMA.

There's no way I will stop, and I dont think it will come to that anyway.

I would be nervious though if I had some jets.

Jimmy</p>

But will you volunteer to obey federal restrictions while doing so?



>>
It may useful to make note of the fact (from FAQ on the AMA website) that compliance with the COB rules would be voluntary. We all know how that worked out for compliance with FAA's AC 91-57.

>>

You seem to think there is something unusual about "voluntary" compliance. Why? Most laws, rules, and regulations rely on voluntary compliance. Nobody stops you from speeding, from robbing a bank and so on. As members of a civil society we choose to voluntarily comply with the laws we live with. So I really do not get why you seem to think this is a big deal in this case.

I often wonderif allof thecontributorsto the AMA Forum within RCU are actuallydues paidcard-carryingmembers ofthe Academy of Model Aeronautics?

Silent
You are comparing apples and volkswagons.

The difference is in whether the enforcement of such a compliance incurs penalty or not,
in that the rule itself does or does not allow noncompliance.

AC91-57 asks for voluntary compliance with no penalty for non-compliance.
AMAs stand on fed regulations seems to ask for voluntary compliance with no AMA penalty for non-compliance.
Where as your example of voluntary compliance of 'speeding, from robbing a bank and so on' DOES incur penalty for noncompliance. Same with my earlier example of tax evasion and murder, there is severe penalty for chooseing not to comply and no builty in 'I choose not to comply' exemption from that penalty like the AC and AMA have


So when a guy says he will comply with the voluntary nature of AC91-57
and fly at thousands of feet above the 400'EverywhereAlways because the AC is voluntary compliance rule,
do you see that as the same as
a guy saying he will not comply with a 100mph fed speed limit and just hope he is not caught and punished for failing to comply?

When a guy says he will obey the AMA
that dont mean he wont rob a bank: Cause the AMA dont have a rule against bank robbin.
Just as AMA looks like it wont be enforcing some other laws, like say the ones in that FAQ that was cited.
So just saying one will obey the AMA dont mean they will be obeying the Fed all the time
(I point to WestcoastFlyer for reference)

Did you vote yet?

Are you suggesting non-members should have no say about AMA business?

If so I disagree, since AMA has made regulation of model aircraft at the federal level their business.

If you plane on flying out of visual range, without a spotter, without a buddy box it will be illegal if you aren't licensed. There you go, now you don't need to worry anymore, you know the answer.

As far as the original question posed in this thread goes the answer is it depends on what regulation. 100mph? Heck yeah, I'd break that. If they outlawed turbine jets would I go out and buy one? No. It would be difficult to fly that without catching someone's attention. If they limited models to 55lb or less? Maybe I would go over by a few pounds, but I wouldn't bother building a 120lb plane hoping no one would catch me.

So it's not a simple yes or no. It's a matter of the "chilling" effect the regs would have on the hobby as a whole. With so many people depending on ARFs for all their models, they might find it a lot more difficult to buy a model that violates any of the regulations. For anyone that likes to build and fly giant models at aerobatic or scale comps or meets it would be difficult to show up with a 100lb plane and not get busted by the organizers who will most likely be concerned about the regs.

It's just a question, much like this one...

Did you vote yet?

Yes

Ditto

Cottco
yes I have voted

I've broken feds law before,
and I can easily see even more fed laws in the future that run against things I like to do
... heck, folks even consider the n'virementle protectin act to be a fed law

Any reply to Cottco's question does require some presumption about 'new rules.' They could be innocuous or draconian, or somewhere in between. I suspect replies are generally to an oppressive rules scenario, as that is the picture painted by our representatives that are interfacing with FAA. Not to agree with those that infer his question is invalid, though. I find the answers interesting, especially when comments are included.

One last note beforethe sabatical, somethreads were edited because my responses suggested a one-way ticket into supposition-ville.</p>