Indeed, and, at slightly over one dollar per week, we get a lot.

Somebody used the word 'principle' in this thread. . . .

One dollar per week? I have to admit my principles aren't so finely honed and 13 cents per day expenditure is overtaken by other more pressing issues.

Jeez! It's a hobby! I wish other elements of it were as cheap!

David C.

Don't forget the clubs.

I think the local clubs do the majority to promote the hobby. I don't ever recall a new person coming to the field saying "I saw this story or heard about the AMA". Usually its "I see you guys flying here all the time. How does someone get started ? " And usually their next question is "How much does it cost to get started?" And honestly it is really tough for me to tell them it is going to cost $300 - $400 for a trainer plane, radio & related field gear PLUS $40 club membership and $58 AMA.

I didn't say clubs weren't important, just left 'em out since everyone is talking about the AMA, sorry.

I agree it is an expensive hobby. Are you suggesting that clubs should not have dues in order to reduce costs?

Actually, it is no different than golf. You pay $800.00 bucks for a set of clubs, $20.00 for balls, $100.00 for shoes, then there's tees, a glove, etc. Then you go out to the local course and find out that someone has the audacity to charge you $50.00 per round...+cart fees, and if you hit someone with a golf ball there's no insurance provided!!!! There's no end to the madness.

I didn't mean to disparage R/C planes by calling them 'toys'. I have a fancy for them after all. But I also called my MX bike a toy and I had well over $9000 in it. Semantics. And no, I did not travel halfway across the US to ride my MXer - and I got paid to race. I sure ain't doin' it to fly a model.
So- thanks for that airfield in Muncie!
As for injuries from R/C planes. Someone have any solid statistics out there? More people die on golf courses every year than by R/C anything (except maybe Hellfires from a CIA Predator UAV!!!) and I don't know of a single golf club mandating supplemental insurance. Nor on a GUN SHOOTING RANGE!!!
The AMA insurance is a red herring.
You don't want to imagine the injuries I've seen racing motocross, and yet no track or club I raced in ever required supplemental insurance. Not at the amatuer level. Heck, even when I raced a few Arenacross events (PACE Motorsports sanction), all I had to do was display a PACE sticker on my bike to have coverage for the event. wasn't a member of that AMA or PACE.
Do people suffer badly from R/C injuries on rare occasions? Sure, but c'mon, what is there, like 1 fatality you have for evidence? And remember about who would actually get sued- not likely you but the property owner or club. Even the manufacturer might get named in a lawsuit, but proving you were negligent, in the legal term, is almost impossible. A lawyer will not chase Joe Tentpeg with a mortgage and kids (doesn't play well to judges) when he can go after clubs and land-owners instead- then it's a simple matter of liability instead of proving negligence to win.
Spend that money on increasing much more useful insurance like homeowners. That will cover your whole life, not just a single hobby. My homeowners would already cover my planes if say, my house went up in flames. AMA would never even pay out on it! And Homeowners will replace MY HOUSE while they're at it. Thanks but no thanks, AMA.
I'm not hung up on $58, but I don't feel like pissing away money for something that affects the few elite of the hobby. Someone with a 70 pound jet doing 150mph every weekend may need the AMA to argue for bigger and faster limits. He very well may need insurance, if just for the cost of the model itself. But I'm a hobbyist- I do other things like play bass. Why should I pay the same insurance premium, flying my 6 lb 25mph trainer maybe a dozen times a year, as the jet jock? I don't drive a Ferrari, and consequently don't pay Ferrari insurance premiums.
My wife is an insurance agent with Progressive (with absolutely no interest in R/C). I asked her to take a look at the AMA insurance deal. She agrees that the cost is low for the amount of coverage, she agrees that the insurance is really nearly useless with some very specific and extreme exceptions. Better to bump your regular homeowners policy. Homeowners may cost a little (very little) more and not cover $2,000,000, for the same price, but it covers close to it, and it covers EVERYTHING, not just this one hobby.
So will I join the AMA? It depends on how hard it is to find a place to fly outlaw. I have the entire Rocky Mountains and plains East of them. Doesn't look good for the AMA....
I'm just glad I can say that the AMA palace in Muncie didn't get built on my dollars. Nor will the next selfish project. They should have spent that money on subsidizing local clubs to pour hard runways, establish facilities, and run events- or keep that membership fee down. Instead a priveliged few got a shiny new flying park.

And really- contorting Kennedy quotes? "Ask not what your hobby does for you."
Hey dude, it's a HOBBY! I want to kill a few hours a couple times a month. 99% of people flying fall into this catagory. It's not a nation, it's not my life.
The hobby did nothing to promote itself to me. I've had R/C cars for ages and wanted to try something else. Of course that R/C car didn't require me to shell out a couple hundred clams for membership dues just to play with it.
I think planes will be much more fun. But every extra dollar I dish out just to get into the playground saps my enthusiasm. As it must for a heck of alot of people.
Then to find out that it's really a wasted $58 (from my non-lifer status point of view) I really get frustrated. And oh yeah, it seems that a large chunk of the mandatory-to-join AMA membership dislikes it. Very encouraging.

No, but most people like to get "things, goodies or presents" for their money. Even though I know the benefits the club produces it's tough for the newbie to understand. Initially the only thing he/she sees for the membership fee is a membership card.

"Initially the only thing he/she sees for the membership fee is a membership card"
--Exactly. I already have a more important card (my personal insurance) in my wallet. Along with $58 I can use to increase my coverage.
I will give the lobbyists their due for keeping freq bandwidth.
I don't need another magazine.
I will never see Muncie, IN.

Geez SollyLama, for a new guy, you sure sound like you have been around a lot. You make great points, unfortunately, as I said in an earlier post, most people miss the point entirely. A lot of guys keep saying that there is competition and you can buy other insurance. Sure, you can, just don't ever try to compete or fly at a field that is AMA sanctioned. Sure, $58 is cheap for insurance, but get rid of the millions of dollars spent on a "National Flying Site" that very few will get to use and other wasted money spent by AMA, and the dues could be way less. Granted, $58 will not break any one of us that flies RC planes, but it is the principle of the wasted money. A lot of guys have a problem with the stock loss that AMA had last year. That kind of thing happens and unless you want the AMA to keep the funds in a no interest account, those are the chances we take. That is not a big deal to me that they loose it, because they will make up for it in the future. The point is, if you want to compete, you have to join, no choice, naada, none! You can't just buy the insurace, you have to support every other venture that AMA thinks they need to be in as well. That is what most of the guys don't like. If it was $58 for Just insurance, and all of it was used for insurance, probably, noone would complain. But as stated in other forums, it is more like $15 to $20 for insurance, and the rest just goes to support things other than insurance. Unfortunately, that will not change.

Hey duuuuude, once again, it is not mandatory to join the AMA to fly, only to fly at an AMA chartered field!

I think you have missed the point. The AMA is not an insurance company, the secondary insurance is merely a benefit of being a member. The AMA is about supporting model aviation!

I'm sorry but, can people quit using the analogy of comparing r/c to golf. Someone may pay through the nose for golf, but they physically see something for their "green's fees" - property in the form of a manicured golf course, club house, etc. And the money is locally spent.

As for the cost of r/c compared to other hobbies - some of us choose to invest only $200-$300 others, into the thousands of dollars. So why compare $800 clubs, when a person can still golf on a set of $95 Wilsons?

I'll be the first to admit that I compared the AMA to AOPA. Maybe it is apples and oranges, but it's still an avaition entity aimed at general aviation, not the pros. My point was, that lower fees can be done. Sure we don't have the population base as general aviation, but then respectively limit our scope. Forgive me for not knowing, but has the AMA ever come in with full guns (and congress) to keep an r/c airfield open; like Megis?

My honest opinion, is we just don't see anything tangible for a $58 a year AMA membership. Again, the insurance benefit is a secondary policy, not my primary. I don't like having to write my car insurance and homeowners checks out, but they are my primary policy. I don't carry a second homeowners policy or car insurance, just in case my primary doesn't cover it.

As for the magazine, make it self-sufficient. If it's coming from the HQs of r/c aviation, why shouldn't/couldn't it compete against RCM or MAN? Advertising from our favorite sources would obviously be there.

I would rather see the local clubs be responsible for the property and liability insurance and see AMA be concerned with national issues such as ensuring security of our frequencies and promoting/supporting (not forcing) the hobby on a national level.

Again, I'll still pay AMA because I'm required. But, comeon let's not hide behind the secondary insurance policy. Besides, when the AMA had good years on their investments, did the dues go down?

"Geez SollyLama, for a new guy, you sure sound like you have been around a lot. You make great points"

Thanks. I've been a member of many organizations in racing motocross and worked closely with a track owner. I know who gets sued- and it is almost always the property owner. I've seen good organizations and ones that mis-spend money and have silly requirements.
R/C flying stands alone in it's restrictive nature of paying AMA or not flying. At the amatuer level, and on a sanctioned field, there should be no reason to demand supplimental insurance.
Part of the problem is local clubs demanding it (even though thier own insurance is far more likely to have to pay out than the AMA) in addition to thier own outrageous fees.
Like I said, if I got memberships this year, I'd lay out close to $200. That's ridiculous. I barely spent that in practice fees for two years at a supercross track. Which I dare say needs more expensive equipment and insurance!
I don't even complain about the price of the equipment. Hey, pay it or don't. But I chafe at dropping a couple C-notes just to play with a toy I already dopped hundreds on.
I have known people that were turned off to flying almost singlehandedly when told to add a couple hundred (or even another $58) to the hobby bill just to participate.

I would have to say that almost nobody joins the AMA because they want to, they have to for the insurance coverage as it's required by the local club and local flying field. The AMA has a sweet deal since they have most clubs and flying fields locked due to their basically useless insurance scam (the AMA is gooood the AMA will protect yooou). When all local flying fields are AMA locked and you don't have the luxury of owning your own field what can you do ? Do you think if people actually had a choice to join AMA they would ??? Really ???

Yours is one of the more lucid posts on this thread. Sorry about the golf analogy, but I have seen it used and thought it was a good one. I will see if I can't be more original in the future. I thought $800.00 golf clubs was a pretty fair average. I saw a set of clubs at Sams for about $190.00, and have seen "name brand clubs" at pro shops for over $1500.00, so I thought that $800.00 was pretty middle of the road.

On the "secondary insurance" issue, it is secondary for the flyer, but PRIMARY (based on what I have read in the other threads) for the landowner of the club...which according to Sollylama is the one who will be sued. Thus the requirement of being an AMA member to fly at the AMA insured field.

As for your point on the AMA magazine, maybe they should put in hobby shops and on newstands.

I don't think any of the $58 goes to pay for the magazine. The ads most likely cover the cost to produce it. Just like any magazine the ads are the money makers not the cover price.

"Hey duuuuude, once again, it is not mandatory to join the AMA to fly, only to fly at an AMA chartered field!"

I am under the impression that it is illegal to fly most any place other than at designated airfields. On this, I just don't know the laws (mostly because I really don't care- I'll fly anyway).
If we can fly anywhere, where will that increase the relavance of the AMA for me? I only considered joining mandatory because the local club makes it so. I thought that was pretty much the only place the FAA would let me fly. I fully intend to fly anywhere I want, at least until the cops kick me out. But I was under the impression that to remain legal, I would get stuck flying at a designated R/C airpark.
If I can fly legally at other locations, then the AMA is absolutely useless to me beyond thier political lobbying for bandwidth.
Now that's me. Your mileage may vary. But the vast majority of folks in the hobby are not die-hards, they do not log hundreds of hours a year flying, they are not impressed with museums and airfields that they will only ever see in the self-promoting magazine. Most do not have huge, fast planes that will demolish whatever they hit or easily get out of control in the first place, requiring high insurance assessments and hence, premiums. Most aren't in it to make the world hold hands and fly planes.
Most don't have the money to invest in the stock market- but the AMA had no problem losing their money for them on it.
If you want the hobby promoted, don't lay it on me to do, tell the AMA to spend money on advertising and events to draw in new people, rather than playing Wall Street Tycoon wannabe. Or building itself castles in Muncie.

Not for the (guessing here) probably 80% that join because they have to join in order to compete or fly at a sanctioned field. I would be willing to bet that AMA would loose over 75% of its members if it was not for the insurance.

"On the "secondary insurance" issue, it is secondary for the flyer, but PRIMARY (based on what I have read in the other threads) for the landowner of the club."
A club or property owner must have their own insurance. They cannot rely on yours to cover them if you kill someone on thier property. They would also be hosed on non-aircraft accidents like 'trip and fall' type injuries. To get YOUR insurance to pay, YOU would have to be proven negligent. That's unlikely unless you damn well deserve it for being dangerously stupid, in which case the AMA is going to disavow you anyway! And the club still let you be a member and fly at their field, so they are STILL responsible for what happens.
So two insurance policies should be covering you at a (AMA) club field; the property owner or club's policy and your own homeowners policy. Both would be exhausted before your individual AMA policy paid out.
And, the attorney would have to prove that you knowingly and wantonly endangered the victim to even make the claim against you. If your wing just fell off mid-flight and the prop decapitated someone's cat in the crash, the manufacturer will be sued before you. As will the club or property owner.
It's a matter of simple liability to sue the club or field owner. It is a much tougher matter to prove negligence on the part of a hobbyist, flying at a designated field where one can reasonably expect to get hit by a model plane (as opposed to say, at the mall) because of malfunction.
Quick example: at one motocross track I was involved with, a bike flew over a retaining barrier and slammed onto the hood of a car in the pits, slightly injuring a person. The track owner's insurance paid the bill, not the guy who owned the bike and went into the turn hot. It was even his fault. Stupid, but not Negligent (at least in the legal sense).
We've focused on insurance because pro-AMA folks bring it up as the no. 1 selling point for your $58. I don't believe it is.
None of the other benefits (except keeping bandwidth) described do much at all for me, or a vast majority of week-end hobbyists not dedicating our lives to it.
And certainly the AMA has made some very questionable moves- this entire board is lit up with them.
I feel like the AMA is catering to people with big, fast planes that cost a lot of money. Fine, I'm not one of them. I'll look elsewhere.
Having to pay them just to fly is like taxation without representation. I just don't think the average guy with a slow, cheap trainer is being represented very well by the AMA.

For those that despise the AMA and feel they are being forced into buying something they don't want:

Why all the whining? There is a very simple solution... don't join the AMA. You can still fly, just modify your existing club or start a new one. At your next club meeting, why not make a motion to ditch the AMA charter and get the club privately insured? All the club needs to do if verify each member is privately insured. Don't scoff and come up with reasons why this won't work. The largest club in Omaha , NE (well over 150 members, maybe even 200) is not a AMA chartered club and works this way. Many members still join the AMA, but some don't, and they just provide proof of renters or homeowners insurance.

Need proof? Here is thier web site.
www.omahawks.org

Thats all fine and good, till you want to fly a contest, which some of us still enjoy doing.

Where can I find the rules as to where I can fly a plane other than current airstrips?
You're right. Why bother with the AMA at all, so long as I can still fly? Don't say that too loudly though, or the AMA membership may just take you up on that idea.
I've spoken to several flyers at the hobby store and they universally pan the AMA. 3 out of the 4 I've talked to admitted they are AMA members only because the local club demands it.
What the AMA needs to do is design a membership that people WANT to join, with tangible benefits and far better steering from HQ. Right now it's pretty obvious that AMA membership offers nothing to interest people in WANTING to join rather than just forcing them to, to be able to fly.
And since we HAVE to join (to fly nearly anywhere), they don't really care if we like our membership, just that they get their money for playing Wall Street Mogul and build museums to thier own ego.
A magazine and insurance that will never pay out is all they have to offer at the moment to your average hobby guy. Not much for your cash. Try to scare you into believing you need their insurance to keep you paying dues.

It appears that there is some misunderstanding of what the fees paid by members to the AMA pay for.

1) the insurance coverage from the AMA for clubs and landlords is primary. In order to understand what this means, you need to realize that the club pays a $30 re-charter fee each year, which INCLUDES insurance. The fee for a certificate of insurance for the landlord costs the club $60, unless special wording is needed, in which case the fee is $80. In both cases, the amount of liability coverage is $2,500,000.

In case it is not obvious to anyone, individual membership fees subsidize the actual cost of those policies.

What is the actual claim rate? Dave Brown, in one of his 2002 columns in MA stated that about 50% of all claims were generated by clubs, not individual fliers.

If it were not for these policies, it is very likely that a lot of clubs would not exist because commercial policies for that amount would be prohibitive. Even in the case of government owned sites, the insurance policy supplied by the AMA often makes the proposition of having a flying field acceptable to the governmental authority.

2) Model Aviation Magazine serves as a newsletter as well as a magazine. Approximately half of the costs of MA are subsidized by the membership. That amount is about $7 per year. Although there has been debate over the assertion, the AMA position has in the past been that a newsletter to the membership is a requirement for the non-profit tax status of the AMA. That means that it is not likely to go away any time soon.

3) The actual cost for the commercial insurance policy with Royal for 2002 was about $550,000 or about $4 per year per open member (140,000). The Self Insured Reserve, which pays a lot of claims will cost somewhere in the range of $6 per member in 2002.

4) None of the above insurance numbers includes any cost for administration, rents, or any other costs of doing business, and that number is not as readily available as the others. Administration of the AMA is pretty much lumped together in the financial statement and is not broken out.

JR

Thanks JR, good information.

So, you want rules? The AMA provides you with uniform rules. If you don't join the AMA you are only restricted by local laws... look them up yourself. More than likely you will be restricted to private property you own or have permission to fly on outside the city limits.

The AMA offers nothing of interest except forces people to join so they can fly? I think you got that backward... you join the AMA so you have a place to fly. Without the AMA you might not even have a flying site.

Since you have to join to fly nearly anywhere since most clubs are AMA charter? The clubs charter with the AMA by choice... ever wonder why that is?

Insurance that never pays out? I assume you have proof that the AMA has never paid a claim?

The option not to join the AMA has ALWAYS been available.

As far as I'm concerned this whole forum only serves one purpose... to keep this BS out of the Club House forum. Nothing productive ever comes out of this forum, on that I leave.

Let's try and look at this an issue at a time.

Personally, I don't like the golf analogy. However, it is not all that far out of line. Both use a rather large piece of property for the activity that they are designed for. The flying field needs several acres of land as over-fly area and as a buffer for noise. Land is expensive in most areas where flying takes place, as it is for a golf course. In both cases, you can participate with a minimum investment and you can participate with quite a large investment. In both cases, spending the money on equipment may or may not improve your game. Both sites may be government owned, meaning less fees to play, or privately owned, normally meaning that fees are higher. You can continue the analogy ad nausem and make a pretty fair comparison.

The AMA is prohibited from outright lobbing because it is a non-profit organization. It's political activities are limited by this fact. The efforts to keep fields open is one that the AMA spends a good deal on. Several people at HQ are dedicated to that endeavor. Part of the problem is that the membership does not care about the function of keeping a field UNTIL their field is under attack. If the club would immediately contact the AMA there is a much higher chance of maintaining the field. Normally, the club officers try to respond to the attack and make errors. Sometimes the errors are irreversible. I have been watching a local club get hammered in City Council Meetings that they thought they could handle. They brought in a trainer to support their position. The questions quickly became "well, how big CAN they get, how fast CAN they fly?" and the rout was on. By the time they contacted the AMA, it was time for the attorneys to take part. If they had immediately contacted the AMA, they could have had expert representation in the early part of the process, where things are easier and cheaper.

The secondary insurance issue is one that is very much like taking something out of context to make a point. The club insurance and the landlord's insurance are primary. THIS is the reason so many clubs choose to charter with the AMA. Where else are you going to get two $2,500,000 liability policies for about $100? The $58 that you pay covers that as well as the secondary personal liability insurance. The requirement in the club charter of all members being AMA members is there for this reason as well as the fact that not everyone has a homeowners or renters policy. Although you may not be concerned about the damage YOU can do, what about the damage the guy next to you can do? It gives YOU a certain amount of security to know that if you, or your car, or a spectator are struck by someone else, that the person that is liable has coverage.

The magazine may or may not be to the liking of members. It serves as a newsletter that the AMA needs to send to the membership to maintain their non-profit status. It currently costs about $7 per member. Can you put out a newsletter for less than that and mail it? The magazine covers about half of it's own costs. It could be put on news stands, and might or might not be worth the effort of doing so. The content of the magazine has changed through the years, but, it's basic newsletter format has remained.

The clubs are responsible for obtaining the property on which they fly. The AMA has taken on the responsibility of the insurance. The fact that so many clubs have availed themselves of the setup would seem to indicate that they are comfortable with it. There is certainly no rule that says your club must charter with the AMA and avail themselves of the insurance. I suspect that the cost of a liability policy might be considerable and have something to do with that decision.

If you never understood the facts surrounding the requirement to be an AMA member, maybe you now have a better idea. Normally, no one at the club makes it clear why an AMA membership is required when you join. The secondary insurance policy is not the major reason. In a lot of cases, I think that the club officers are no longer sure why they are chartered with the AMA. Someone, years ago, knew, but they may or may not still be active in the club and the process just continues 'because we have always done it'. In this case there is a good reason for that.

Is the AMA super efficient and perfect? Nope! But, then again, it ain't as bad as some believe, either.

JR