Hmm! All I can say to that is that I know that $58 isn't as much as $1,000,000, which is what it will cost you (at least) if you don't get insured, and have an accident.

Using your logic, we shouldn't insure our lives, or cars or houses. Is that really what you are advocating? If so, I hope I don't come across you driving your car, as it makes it that much more difficult to get money out of an individual than an insurance company if we were unfortunate enough to have an accident.

More diffricult, but not impossible. Can you really afford to spend $1000 per month for the rest of your life, even if you are saving $58 now?

As for the monopoly, you don't have to use the AMA, but I bet any other insurance company would change a lot more than $58 for the same coverage.

David C.

Well, I told you it'd be a can of worms . . . and, unfortunately, a very sensitive issue for some.

All I'm saying is that $58 here and $58 there it all adds up. And I never said insurance wasn't necessary so stop misquoting me. But in this "sue you" crazy world we live in soon we will need to get kite flying insurance, golf insurance, softball/baseball insurance, Frisbee insurance, sledding insurance, bicycle insurance. All these sports/hobbies as most have inherent risks to yourself and others. It's crazy when a community park has to close because they can't afford insurance because when some kid falls off a swing or slide they get sued by the parents.

And when all flying sites in my area require AMA then there is NO choice. If there was an alternative to AMA most sites would offer the choice as they did in the late 80s early 90s. And going to your standard insurance company and asking for model airplane insurance (if they even offered it) is NOT an option as it would not be accepted at the flying sites.

And when legally there is no other place to fly in my area what choice do I have except to not fly.

I can't believe this heated thread is about a true price for insurance.

What would you consider the fair annual cost for $2,000,000 insurance, a monthly magazine, and all the administration involved should be? It is the difference between that figure and $58 we are really talking about.

-DC

It's not. I agree $58 for $2,000,000 insurance is a good deal. It's the fact that in todays world we need insurance for everything we do, even to just have fun and that just plain sucks.

Various options have been discussed in numerous threads. One of the better ideas is to buy some land to fly on! If you search the various threads you will find some interesting solutions.

I absolutely agree with you.

That's obviously not the AMA's fault though, just the fact that some people feel the need to make a quick buck.

Did you hear about the old lady who sued McDonalds, because she said the hot drink scalded her? There are many instances like that, including the famous one that did involve the AMA. I don't know the full details, but it was about a man's family claiming insurance because his own model hit him while he was flying it.

David C.

That about sums it up. :thumbup:
I can't wait to see the outcome of the suit the fat guy filed claiming it was Burger King's fault he's fat. (may be McDonalds, I don't remember)

As is with most of the posts in this section, the point is not $58 being high for insurance, it is the fact that we are paying for insurance, and they are using a small portion of the $58 for insurance, and another portion for a multi million dollar flying field that we have to pay for and can not opt out of. We are building a new flying field here. Can we get help from AMA? Yes, a whoppin 10% of the cost if we are willing to fill out a lot of paperwork and jump through some hoops. Its not worth it. They should separate the two, and make the flying field part optional! OPPPSSS, they can't do that. Noone would pay it and they couldn't have their big field. Thats the point a lot of people keep missing.

People seem to be more content when they have choices. AMA already has more than one category of membership- perhaps they could add some more, with the respective dues set to reflect the amount of AMA staff resources used. Maybe it would make sense for there to be a category for competition-oriented flyers at sanctioned events, another category for sport flyers, etc.

I am one of those sport flyers who only gets out to the flying field maybe 20 times a year, if that.

Does this mean you view the rest of us (who care) as 'high maintenance' members who should pay more for the privilege of making sure things are near the right track? That is a serious question.

This "membership classification" keeps coming up and it is clear that there are no powerful people (read that as having a vote on the AMA EC) with any interest in spreading the costs only to those willing to pay it. I suspect it is another "strawman" arguement used to create smoke where there is no heat. Lets look at it a bit more.

On one hand it makes sense for those who want to play mangler, er manager, games with AMA should pay more. However, it also is clear that they are the very same players who are going to stick (have stuck?) it to the general membership. They are playing the old numbers game. A few dollars from a great many and no one notices that we are speaking in millions. This 'factoid' is what drove the last EVP contest and what drives those who claim money is the problem.

The real problem is that when the "OUT's" discover that the "IN's" control those millions, they get rambunctious. The problem extends so far into our hobby as to include the creation of new safety code rules to 'protect AMA assets' so the empire grows. (Sorry, my bad attitude #67). Some of the rules adopted have been pr oven to be stupid and so they get changed. Some of the rules we needed, but it should be clear to all that the AMA cannot legislate common sense which is what they are trying to encourage with the safety code.

The 'problem' with membership classification is control and utilization. How do you allow Charlie Controlliner the chance to fly R/C with his C/L limited ticket? As a side question please explain how that helps model aviation grow. Another interesting question is exactly how do you THINK a competitor gets into competition? How do you move Sammy Sportflyer into a throw together contest his friends invite him to? Those are some of the issues that limit the classification of membership to OPEN rather than SPORT and COMPETITOR or CL and RC.

No, if we are going to classify the membership I think we need to charge the 'care-for-nothing' bunch 95% of the new dues structure that will raise the dues for the rest of us by about 15%. But, again, that is MY bad attitude showing.

In short, I am convinced that money is not a problem with the AMA rather it is a visible symptom of a much deeper problem. Too many !QUOT!let George do it!QUOT! members with NO interest in controlling the future of the organization. No interest in voting, but lots and lots of other negative input.

Just my opinion (yeah, I know - again)

In this forum, see the thread "Recent RC death and AMA claim".

This is post #60 if you just want to cut to the chase.


" No suit has been filed and none is anticipated.


__________________
Carl P. Maroney
Special Services Director
Academy of Model Aeronautics"

JR

See? Typical of the BALONEY you read around here about AMA! Look...do not beleive this garbage!
There is no great big conspiracy of people getting rich off of AMA!
It's all a lot of hooey!
Even the McDonalds coffee cup thing is baloney! Go do some research, learn what REALLY happened!
You know what? I have never seen ONE of these anti-AMA cranks cut up their AMA card! All talk, no action. They all want to enjoy the BENEFITS of their AMA membership, and still ***** at the same time.
Okay...put your money where your mouth is...cut up your AMA card. Go ahead. If you don't need AMA, prove it.
Because AMA certainly does not need YOU. What we really do NOT need is members constantly badmouthing everything we do, making up lies, and doing their best to tear down what others work so hard to build up.
So...put up or shut up. Cut up your card. Or quit whining and do something productive for AMA instead.

Spoiler. Jeez. That one takes the cake. A guy loses an election by a country mile. The THIRD candidate gets more votes from him. And people have the temerity to say "it was rigged, the third candidate was a SPOILER." No...you just LOST. It's so silly. And it makes me so angry.

EASYTIGER

Although I agree with your basic sentiment, I do take exception to a couple of your points.

I believe we need every member in the AMA we can get. If the field at my club comes under attack, I want all the numbers, i.e. all the political power that can be brought to bear on the situation. When we try to maintain our frequencies, I want this same political base behind the effort. In this respect, the size of the AMA is very important.

Only about 15% of the membership votes. That means that 85% just want to fly, and that they belong to the AMA to achieve that goal. There is nothing wrong with that. Obviously, a lot of them that are in that great silent majority are taking the opportunity to make posts here, giving opinions that they would not normally voice at the field. The fact that the dues increase is not popular was to be expected. It's better that we try to educate them as to the facts than to push them away. We can not do without that 85%.

My wish is that when someone says something is wrong with the AMA that they would identify the problem. You can not fix something unless you know what you are fixing.

Some of the facts are not pleasant. The investments in the stock market did not do well in 2001. That is a fact. At the same time, it is not a fact that the EC is trying to 'line their pockets', or at least no one has been able to substantiate that. Most of the folks that run the AMA are doing so for the benefit of the rest of us, in my opinion. The EC in particular does that without compensation.

The election process IS suspect. There are things that have happened over the last two years that are not to the advantage of the image of the AMA. As I have posted before, it is my opinion that Horrace Cain made a strategic error with his Campaign Statement and lost the election because of that. Having said that, there are issues that need to be addressed by the EC in the last two elections where the allegation of placing "spoilers" on the ballot is concerned. Although the practice is not against the rules, it most certainly violates the spirit of the rules for our elections. There is more to the story than meets the eye.

JR

Wow Easytiger, this thread seems to have you really riled up, never seen you (o.k. read you)this worked up.

However, I think you may have been better to say, "If you don't want to be part of the AMA," rather than "If you don't need the AMA." The reason being that membership is a matter of choice. For those who say they need it to fly, well that is just wrong. I am a member (actually life member)in order to help promote the hobby. I also flew several years without belonging to the AMA on private property! So, other than that little point, I agree with about stopping the whining.

Keep up the patrol on this misinformation!!!

I'm a complete newbie at R/C planes, although I have a long history of R/C cars. This is my first post here.
I've read MANY threads now, pro-AMA and con. Honestly, I don't see much use in membership except to join a local club (while the price keeps going up just to put a plane in the air). AMA membership plus the outrageous local club fee will run me almost $200, all to fly a $100 Avistar.
The only other benefit I see is supplimental insurance, which I believe is of pretty dubious benefit anyway.
In reality, you'd have to fly a plane into a crowd or traffic to use up all your homeowners/health insurance in damages. Proving actual negligence on your part would be very difficult, especially for spectators at a sanctioned airfield. Far more likely is that the property owner or club will get sued, and they have their own insurance.
And the reason it's so cheap is because it does nothing but cover your planes and accidents stemming from that. It's much wiser to increase your standard insurance coverage- which will cover anything, not just toy planes. Like the drive to the airfield, battery charger sparks the house, etc.
Either way, you'd be effectively finacially ruined by the time the AMA insurance stepped up.
I raced motocross for many years and all this hokum about insurance never came up. And I promise you far more injuries at a MX track than at an R/C field.
Apparently, R/C clubs have never heard of a liability waiver either. A simple piece of paper solves liability issues real fast in court. I signed one everytime I went to a race track.
So I'm utterly unconvinced that the insurance is worth a damn to 99% of the flying population. Guys with ridiculously fast or large planes (ones that will do real damage even in a minor incident) might need it, but I'll be better off spending that money on raising my homeowners policy and covering my entire life, not just my toys.
The political lobbying in DC is worthwhile to save freqs, but I'm not at all happy to learn about a museum and airfield I'll never see. A waste of membership money. Instead, subsidize local clubs so those of us that don't live in Muncie can get something out of the AMA too. That facility seems too much like a private playground for AMA bigwigs. Yeah, it's open to all AMA members. Now ask me if I'm going to drive halfway across the US to fly a toy plane.
One common thought that I totally agree with is competition. Being the only game in town has gone to the AMA's head. If there were another flying association out there, I bet the AMA would miraculously find some new ways to keep membership dues stagnant. Amazing what creativity is spawned from competition.
Worse is speculating membership money in the stock market. Where is the escrow account the money should be in? When did Gordon Gecko become AMA pres? If there was a need for a huge liability settlement payout, where would the money come from if it's evaporated on Wall Street? If the AMA is non-profit, why are they risking (and losing) members money to gain finacially? To keep membership costs down? yeah, so far that seems to be working.
The AMA has it's good points, but for my needs, it's simply another check to write just to enjoy a hobby I'm already several hundred in the hole on.

If we are talking about insurance, competition with the AMA already exists... but most still choose the AMA. Your club and you personally can be privately insured. I know of a large club (150+ members) that is not an AMA charted club and they have their own insurance. Club members must have renters, homeowners OR AMA insurance.... the key is the AMA insurance is not required to join the club. Seems to works fine for them.

As for competition in general for the AMA, that seems like a bad idea to me. Our group is pretty small. This only hurts us when the FCC starts thinking about auctioning off our frequencies, or cities decide to shut down or not approve flying sites. Having a AMA and a AMA#2 only complicates matters, decreases our bargaining power and will probably make dues even higher... there is power in numbers.

The AMA and its controlling members should be held accountable for their actions. In hind sight, they have made some poor decisions on occasion, but who hasn't? If you have a concern, voice your opinion to your rep. If you don't get your way then you are probably in the minority... I know it sucks when you don't get your way, but that's life, deal with it.

In general, I think it is hard to beat the insurance, magazine and open ticket to compete and travel to other AMA events nationwide for $58. Its $58. Only $58. I don't mean any insult by this, but if the $58 AMA membership is too steep for you, then maybe this hobby is just too expensive for you. I realize that some are on fixed incomes, but we must choose hobbies we can afford.

Respectfully, the Monkey

Hey Sollylamma,

You may be a new member, but you make a number of excellent points. Competitiion is what makes things work most efficiently.
The AMA is in desperate need of competition.

OK. As a you are a 'complete newbie' it's worth learning that a 'toy plane' as you put it has, in the past, and no doubt will in the future cause enough damage in an accident to cost the owner many years of heartache and expense.

I'm not trying to put anybody off this hobby of ours, like I wouldn't by pointing out that most sports have some form of risk to them, in the extreme circumstances, but these aircraft or far from being 'toys', as it mentions in the building instructions of most model kits.

Like any insurance, it's a matter of personal choice. It just depends how much of a risk you are willing to take, and how personally involved you have been in the results of an accident in the past. Have you spoken to a driver accused of drunk driving recently? They normally say they 'didn't think it would happen to them' and it was worth taking the risk.

I personally think it's irresponsible not to have insurance, and am grateful the AMA have arranged one that I can have confidence in. But then, that's just me.

David C.

Right on! I absolutely agree!

David C.

Funny thing. Why is it with all the hoopla, we never seem to hear anything from the people who have literally, collectively billions of dollars on the line, namely the global RC industry? If AMA wasn't there to fight for our frequencies and such, one would think that the RC industry with so much money on the line, would jump in their bigtime.

The industry does have organizations representing them, i.e., http://www.rchta.org/home.html and http://www.nrhsa.org/
Why are they so quite?

Take care,
CCR
http://www.kites.org/rc_instructors

$58 isn't too much for me to pay (the principal of it galls me) but it IS too much for the 3 or 4 guys I know that would dearly love to fly but won't because it costs way too much. Another $58 bill sure isn't going to help them now is it?. More folks that will never fly because of the cost and hoops to jump through.
And it sure seems like alot for what you get;
Magazine? No thanks, get a bunch already.
Insurance? Already told you why that's no selling point.
Lobbyists? Maybe. I'd like to see some documentation on that.
Million dollar airfield and museum? Oh gee honey, cancel our trip to Disneyland, we're going to Muncie! Enough said.

So what does my $58 get me? A hand wave and a "yeah verily, thou may fly" for a local club to rape me on membership dues. Yippee.

I also look at the percentage of the total hobby costs just for membership. Assuming you have all new equipment, you're looking at around $400-500 for a trainer set up and gear. $58 is more than 10% of that!
I couldn't imagine having to dole out 10% of the cost of say, my motocross bike (about $6000) just to be able to ride it somewhere. I paid less membership dues to supercross tracks, with all the heavy equipment and water they require- and they never cared if you were an AMA (American Motorcycle Assoc) member or not. The only difference is no insurance, and well, see above post....
Besides, for YOUR insurance to cover an accident instead of the club or property owner, negligence would have to be proven on your part, which is nearly impossible. The NTSB isn't going to investigate whether you installed old rubber bands on a wing or not. So you will have to be wontonly negligent to even be personally responsible. Does the AMA insurance cover that? I doubt it.
I just don't see any benefit to me. Maybe they do wonders for you. If I can't fly at an airfield, I'll fly outlaw where ever I can find room.
I just wanted to enjoy a new hobby, not have to join clubs and such just to fly. R/C flying is the only pastime I've been in contact with that is so restricted with clubs and memberships and insurance coverage nonsense. It's the exact opposite of efforts to bring in new (and maybe not terribly wealthy) hobbyists to R/C flying.
Think of the new guy on a budget that doesn't know about R/C. First he gets an expensive plane, an expensive radio and engine. He thinks he's ready to fly- but oh wait, what about that $100+ for flight line gear? More money. Now his plane runs, he's ready to fly- but no, first there's another hidden cost in an AMA membership, just to let you spend, yes, more money on the local club! Now the poor guy is in for what could be a down payment on a real car- just to participate in a HOBBY!
And he's left pondering the 10% he spent just for one membership, let alone all local club costs- which, in my case if I join AMA and a club, will cost nearly 40% of the total cost of the R/C equipment combined!

I believe it is true that the insurance AMA provides only kicks in when all sources of insurance present are completely tapped out if a liability incident occurs. So the benefit of the AMA insurance may not be as great as some think. Yet all local clubs and established flying fields in my area require AMA membership. It is not that $58 is a lot of money it just the idea writing another check for insurance coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there are many people who get a warm & cozy feeling when they write a check for insurance. Writing a $58 check for a case of fuel, now that is warm & cozy !

I think this about sums up part of the problem.

It is not what the $58.00 gets you. It is what the Hobby gets from your $58.00. The AMA is about promoting the hobby (model aircraft, not just RC) not providing insurance. I may not go to the national flying site, but I am glad it's there. I may not go to the museum, but I am glad its there. I have never been to the Louvre, but I am glad its there.

Ask not what your hobby can do for you, ask what you can do for your hobby!

(Note I left out the new office building, I am not glad its there)