Can of Worms
01-04-2003 | 04:06 PM
#77
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Can of Worms
Originally posted by TheSollyLama
"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.
"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.
Maybe the fact that you are not an AMA member, as you stated in another thread, explains it.
As with bikes, you can participate with a few hundred dollars in equipment or thousands. Your choice.
As someone pointed out, you can fly without belonging the the AMA. Just make a detailed search of all the federal, state, county and local laws in your area. Then get the permission of a landowner that is not in a restricted area and you can fly. Of course, as a non-AMA member, your homeowners insurance will cover you. That might not be enough to satisfy the landlord, because as you pointed out, they are the ones that get sued. Maybe you can use that $58 you saved by not being an AMA member to buy a $2,500,000 policy to cover the landlord.
Because you are not an AMA member I can't point you to the Financial Statement that the AMA has in their Member's Only section. I will tell you this, in case you have an illusion of the AMA as a small organization financially: the AMA has assets in excess of $18,000,000. Take that and compare it to the $407,000 of unrealized losses in the market in 2001. Now add the other sources of income the AMA has. The unrealized loss was not good, but, it was certainly not a death blow or anything near it. The AMA has substantial cash reserves. The money has to be put somewhere, and that 'where' is what we elect our officers to determine. If you don't agree, elect someone else. Oops, you can't elect anyone, your not a member, sorry.
JR
01-04-2003 | 08:25 PM
#78
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Re: right
Originally posted by TheSollyLama
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 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.
01-04-2003 | 09:41 PM
#79
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: KS
Clubs
If you are required to be an AMA member to fly at a field it is because that club choose to charter with AMA. There are other Alternatives but the fact is the AMA provides the most benefits for the money, JR has already outlined why membership is then required by AMA.
Spend the $58 to-wards more homeowners insurance ?
because the cost of bringing my homeowners coverage up to 3.5 million which is what I believe to be a comfortable amount would cost considerably more than $58 per year . My wife was home owners insurance agent for 16 years , now in risk Mangement for multi million dollar projects. Her opinion is that 58 a year is a bargan even as secondary dispite everything AMA provides.
Plus I would not get my Clubs events published in a Nationally distributed Mag.
I would not get the sanctioning by AMA which makes sure other AMA clubs in our area are not having events on the same day. We have 10 clubs in the Kansas City area.
My club dues would be higher because the cost of insuring the field , club and owner would be higher.
I would not have access to the back issues of M.A. mag.
The list goes on , Obviously some are not doing any research into AMA , just making assumptions.
Spend the $58 to-wards more homeowners insurance ?
because the cost of bringing my homeowners coverage up to 3.5 million which is what I believe to be a comfortable amount would cost considerably more than $58 per year . My wife was home owners insurance agent for 16 years , now in risk Mangement for multi million dollar projects. Her opinion is that 58 a year is a bargan even as secondary dispite everything AMA provides.
Plus I would not get my Clubs events published in a Nationally distributed Mag.
I would not get the sanctioning by AMA which makes sure other AMA clubs in our area are not having events on the same day. We have 10 clubs in the Kansas City area.
My club dues would be higher because the cost of insuring the field , club and owner would be higher.
I would not have access to the back issues of M.A. mag.
The list goes on , Obviously some are not doing any research into AMA , just making assumptions.
