Appowner

Don't know about today but I recall back when the Sport Flyers came about, they charged $35 membership and that covered 1.5 mil in primary liability insurance. Even though it's some 30 years later, with the greater numbers I can't see the AMA cost per member being more than that. Especially since the AMA itself covers something like the first 250,000 and the whole thing is secondary coverage. Maybe Franklin has the current numbers?

Appowner

The insurance that comes with individual membership is individual liability. Secondary at that.
There is no insurance that comes automatically with a club charter.
Liability coverage for the site owner is additional coverage/policy which only a Club (not individual) can obtain. And it covers ONLY the site owner.

init4fun

Says the tireless crusader who posted a whole thread as a specific "hit job" on Franklin M !

"Late reports and Spread sheets" ...... Gee , who here posts about the AMA's failing to keep the members up to date on a regular basis ? Well of course ! Franklin M does ! Do you honestly think your fellow posters are SO clueless that it wasn't noticed that your sanctimonious drivel thread was nothing more than a direct slap at Franklin M ? You wanna talk here and speak your position ? Fine ! But don't you DARE to come in here whining again about folks throwing rocks at you all the while your throwing BOULDERS at others at the same time !!!! I got your number , I know your act , seen it a thousand times before and even watched a few of your fellow crusaders get themselves banned here for it (heard from porcia83 or crispy bacon lately ?) , so keep it up , keep trying to churn the drama all the while crying "they're picking on ME !!!" and maybe soon you'll get to join them ....

Now , with that taken care of , the thread topic IS the effect HR 302 will have on the AMA in specific and the hobby itself in general , any and all discussion of that topic will be most welcome here .

Appowner

I think that under the new rules the AMA is going to need to make some serious changes if it wishes to remain a viable organization. And the sooner the better. If they wait until new CBOs start to appear, especially if liability insurance is offered at competitive rates, it could prove to be too late for the AMA.

And should the AMA strike some deal where members fly under a different set of rules from the rest of us (as one of their latest e-mails suggests). I see a Constitutional question in the courts. One which the AMA would be best to simply walk away from.

init4fun

Hi Appowner , I agree with both of your points here ;

To be honest , I am surprised the folks who fly FPV haven't yet formed a "legitimate" (FCC recognized) CBO (unless there is one I don't know about ?)

And I also believe a set of government rules favoring the members of a private organization over the rest of the general public would never survive it's first ACLU challenge .

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

init4fun

Appowner

Yo!

Another thought occurred to me. Everyone is waiting to see the next AMA like CBO to pop up.
What if it never happens? What if, a year or two from now the AMA remains the only CBO in town?

Now aside from what that could mean for the AMA and membership, not to mention all those evil rogues. But what kind of statement might this be TO the RC community? And who is this message coming from? Industry? Or do people simply not care enough anymore?

geneh-RCU

My Feedback: (6)

I was a member of Sport Flyers years ago. The problem was that the AMA had all of the flying fields and as a SFA member I was not allowed to fly at any AMA field or attend any AMA flying event even though SFA had more insurance than the AMA did. This is the reason that another CBO will not survive. The only way it might make it is if it is for Quad copters only and not at an AMA field.

franklin_m

Yep. And perfectly legal to fly a turbine heli w/o any AMA "Mother May I?" Part 107 mentions not a word about type of power.

And, if you're willing to do the paperwork for a speed & altitude waiver, can do turbine FW as well. And no AMA required. Oh, and now the new law requires FAA to publish accepted and approved waiver justifications / mitigations, getting a waiver is even easier.

franklin_m

Honestly, I think there's market space for a CBO that's for larger/faster park flyers, or so. As well as for folks that don't want to fly at AMA fields. If they can do it for say half the AMA's PF cost, I could see it working. Law defining CBO doesn't say anything about magazines, staff size, or insurance. First two are major expenses. Cut those and cost of membership could be trivially low.

Appowner

My club chartered with both and anyone with AMA or SFA could fly at our field. It wasn't a matter of it being an AMA field. It was a matter of where in the food chain the real butt holes were.

Now I won't go into who did what to cause who to suit the other side. Bottom line was, the AMA did not have to pursue their legal actions against the SFA. But that was the only way they could get rid of the SFA so they ran with it. That said a lot to me at the time.

r ward

big fish - little fish ,........happens all the tme all over the place.

Stickslammer

I read the old thread about the SFA. Interesting reading and it never hurts to boost your vocabulary with a little legalese occasionally. A sad chapter in model aviation history, I think.
Sport Flyers Association had a nice ring to it. Oh the possibilities these days with the internet and all.

fliers1

Does anyone remember United Modelers of America way back?
Just out of curiosity I signed up. It was only $20 but never heard from them since.

Appowner

It rings a bell for me. Didn't they come about shortly after the demise of SFA?

Appowner

Fine example of the AMA promoting the hobby. By stomping the other guy into the ground.

Especially when a great many people of some notoriety in the hobby were calling for co-existence.

In the end it was obvious it had nothing to do with the hobby and everything to do with total control.

Stickslammer

Like The Big Three and Tucker.

init4fun

The name sounds familiar , I don't think they got as far as the SFA did , getting established wise .

fliers1

They had no problem cashing my check.
I think an ex AMA official tried to get it going. Can't think of his name.

Appowner

I think the timing was all wrong. IF they started shortly after the demise of the SFA as I seem to recall. The modeling public was probably tired of all the BS that went on before and simply did not want to play anymore. That and the AMA was still flush with its great victory that their lawyers were probably chomping for another go at someone.

fliers1

I'm could be wrong, but I think the name I remember who tried to create a new CBO (United Modelers of America) was Carl P Maroney.

Appowner

I remember the name but don't recall if he was connected to it. Didn't he also write for one of the magazines? RCM maybe? Might make sense since RCM backed SFA.

fliers1

I believe that Carl P. Maroney was in special services for AMA. I'm guessing here, but I believe he left AMA and created UMA.

Dave Mathewson and Gary Fitch retired in the same year. I gave a demo at Dave's club in 2004 and trained Gary how to fly way back when. Maybe they got out when they knew things weren't going all that well. Who knows?
2004-09%20Column.pdf

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/...5-62a600858715

fliers1

Double post.