If a land owner allows a chartered AMA club to fly on his land, can the land owner fly at the clubs site (that is on his privately owned land) w/o AMA membership?

Just curious.

It all depends if the club has exclusive rights to use his field, no different then renting a room out in your house. Once you give someone a lease and a key to an apartment in your home, or plot of land to park a boat, the landowner can't enter the space or touch the boat without permission, as per a contract and a whole bunch of tenant laws. If the price the club is paying for the lease is cheap or free, then they should at the very least give the land owner the courtesy for a free club membership. Give a little, get a lot. If the land owner wants to be part of the AMA club, then he/she needs to be an AMA member. But you don't have to be a member of the club to fly at the site, only to partake in club activities.

So it really depends if there is a lease/contract or not. If the club holds a lease, they make the rules, they are paying for it and they should decide. As far as insurance or having and AMA card, nobody "needs" it to fly on your own land. But would be in the best interest for the land owner that flies with an AMA club to have AMA insurance just in case there is an incident between an AMA member and non AMA member, makes things a whole lot safer and smarter, especially in time of need.

The AMA does allow dual charters/insurance at a flying site, the AMA is not exclusive nor is it a monopoly. So to answer your question, yes, the person can fly there without an AMA card, just not the smart and responsible thing to do. If I was the land owner, I would just tack the $58 and the club fees into the price of the lease if there is one, problem solved. But like I said it would behoove the club to be the generous ones first.

Thanks for your comments, STL. I did not want to go through all the AMA small print myself to find out!

What all that meant is, its his land and he could fly on it, if he were to have an accident that resulted in someone elses injury or property damage he or his homeowners insurance would be on the hook for it.

Dion -

Maybe you should remind AMA of your facts and advise them to remove [link=http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-Files/909.pdf]this[/link] from the AMA web site.

Abel

After reading the link given by AP it seems there is a simple solution. Use XYZ R/C Club for one name that you charter under, and XYZ Model Aircraft club for the any other. It was done rather easily when the SFA was around.

It would all depend upon how any contract was be written.

"Rather easily" compared to what, herding cats?
When clubs that were dual-chartered got the letter from Carl Maroney threatening to pull their AMA charter if they did not require all club members to be AMA members, their choices were rather limited: (1)comply with AMA's demand or (2) "rather easily" break off a new club inclusive of all the non-AMA members, and inform the site owner that he now had another club to deal with for use of his property. I heard of several clubs that caved to the threat and opted for (1), but none that went for option (2).

Abel

The AMA tells its chartered clubs not to let non AMA members fly at their sites and most
clubs wont buck the AMA, however I dont think the AMA has the legal right to demind
that all flyers belong to the AMA that use that site nor do they in my opinion have the
right to refuse a claim the club are another member may file solely because a non AMA
was somehow involved.

Im not a lawyer just my opinion, however the best thing might be if the club gave the
land owner free membership and paid his AMA.

Sorry Abel, but this time you're wrong. There is a difference between a flying site and a chartered club.

By golly, you're right! With parkflyers sprouting like weeds, there are vastly more flying sites than chartered clubs, so the terms clearly don't mean the same thing. I still need you to set me straight on what dual charters you were referring to when you said that AMA allows them. Does AMA charter flying sites and allow other organizations to charter them too? This is all so confusing........[]

Abel

Please recall that AMA only charters clubs and does not recognize a flying site in any way other than providing supplemental insurance to the site owner if the chartered club requests it. For this reason it is entirely possible for two AMA chartered clubs to use the same flying site and for BOTH to have the site owner insured. AMA will not do this if the site is used by two clubs, one of which is an AMA club and the other chartered by some other organization (none of which exist right now as far as I know).

AMA can, and does, require that all members of a club be AMA members as a condition of that club receiving an AMA charter.

Read this document for more info: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-Files/911.pdf

Obviously you did not understand that PDF. It says you can't use the same name for dual charters, but said nothing of an AMA club being exclusive at any flying sites for obvious legal reasons. When 2 clubs with the same name wind up in the courtroom, that's when it becomes a little more clear why the AMA does not allow it. This is why Michael Jackson got in trouble, he has a common name, after all he did Thriller, how could he have touched those kids? Another Michael Jackson maybe?

This is where a lot of people get really confused about the AMA being a so called "monopoly" and your misunderstanding is no different. The AMA most certainly allows dual charters, one or more of which does not have to be an AMA club, at a flying site and a "charter" is nothing more then a document that contains an outline of the formation of a club. Any group of flyers can simply throw together a charter on a single piece of paper, give it a name, assign ranks (from now on your Delta Tau Chi name is ... Flounder) and create their own club charter. As far as their rules go, it can be as simple as "fly safe guys". Then simply call someone like The Hartford for flying site insurance. You now have an insured and chartered club, which CAN fly side by side with an AMA chartered club at the SAME site.

Also the AMA cannot dictate who can fly with or without insurance or with or without an official charter at ANY flying site, unless the site owner granted exclusive rights to AMA members for his/her own protection and that would have nothing to do with the AMA, that's the site owners call. This means if a bunch of uninsured, unchartered beer slugging Delta Tau's wants to fly at a site along side an AMA chartered club and that AMA chartered club does not have exclusive rights to use the field, then so be it. Read the 911 PDF link which was posted above, it's clear as day. In fact if you want to get technical about it the AMA says you SHOULD only allow AMA members to use an AMA exclusive field, that is because the AMA CANNOT dictate or enforce what goes on at a flying site EVER. Unless of course they want to carry the liability of the flying site at all times.

Sure they will, the AMA states they will allow it in doc 911. Also a charter does not have to be created, overlooked or controlled by any higher bodies or organization other then "the club". 911 does mention "club activities" SHOULD remain in the AMA family but that has nothing to do with flying at the site.

This is yet another misconception about the AMA being this so called "monopoly". (Not aimed at your Phadraes). Remember when you had to buy your phone service from AT&T? Of course you could run some twisted pair from your house to everyone elses house if you had the resources, however AT&T held all the permits to do such a thing. That is a monopoly. In this case you can simply just grab a few sheets of paper, a pen and draft away. Heck if your really that lazy, Google finds all.

You gotta give the AMA credit for making people believe that they are this cotrolling monopoly, power too them. I wish I had the marketing and brand power like the AMA has to making people believe that you can only buy model planes from my company. The AMA only provides a simple set of "guidelines" at a fair price, period.

ROFL!

What don't you understand about this?

From doc 911: In the same vein, if the landowner for your club’s chartered club field has granted the club exclusive flying privileges, the club should ONLY allow AMA members and current members of the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) to fly at the field. If your club is flying on public land and it has not been granted exclusive flying rights by the public agency in charge, your club activities should be confined to AMA members, and you are not responsible for other (non-AMA) flier’s actions. Should the public agency be named as an additional insured, it has coverage only for the actions of your club, its members, and other visiting AMA members who are considered guests.

You do know what "should" means don't you? I mean how can you be not responsible for other (non-AMA) fliers actions if they do not allow dual charters at flying sites??? If you read the entire document from start to finish you'll understand why it does say "should" and does not say "must", multiple times. They give you a nice sales pitch in the entire 911 document and they should, that's sales 101. I agree that it may be a bit confusing, but it's in the best interest of the AMA to preserve and grow the AMA, that's their job and mission. Kudos to them for making you think this way. The AMA does not control us or our flying sites, they are only providers of suggested guidelines, insurance and a really cool magazine, along with other perks that some use and some don't. The AMA does have it's limit on how we live and breathe.

Again I see your confusion with this comment as well. Who did Carl call? The site owner? You're right maybe the AMA will pull the charter is all members of the AMA "club" were not club members, but what does that have to do with a dual charter at a flying site, nothing. You're right an AMA club cannot be dual chartered, but a flying site CAN be.

Repeating my query from post #11 above, does AMA charter flying sites and allow other organizations to charter them too?

AMA's usage of 'dual charter' is quite clear to me, so you can stop citing PDF docs from the AMA web site to me. It also seems to be quite different from usage of that terminology in your world.

No the AMA does not charter flying sites, I think we all know this by now. But a flying site can have a dual charter. The AMA does allow their AMA chartered clubs (a group of RC enthusiasts, not limited to flyers) to coexist with other clubs, both AMA and non AMA on the same flying site. Like I said, the AMA's clubs are not exclusive at any site unless the site owner says so, but that has NOTHING to do with the AMA's decision. This is where you initially shot me down and was wrong.

STL Try to understand...when you type something like the above it adds to the confusion. Can't you see that? Don't make me put this image up!

I think the club should pay for the landowner's AMA membership. Cheap way to keep everything simple.

Dan

Sure that would be great but really not necessary.

It is often overlooked that your AMA membership and its benefits are for you as a member and if others wish not to have the benefits offered by an AMA membership, that is up to them and has little to no effect on you and your benefits derived through AMA.

MY benefit would be not hassling with the whole thing and I think it would be a sign of good faith to the landowner to give him an AMA membership and a club membership. I have heard of a club doing this with a guy that was flying off their own land near a model field. The brought the guys into the club at no charge. The next year the guy paid for his dues to the club and the ama.

Dan

Why is it that some of you are saying the club should pay for the land owners AMA when it is not required? Is that so it does not rain on your parade? Are you so ingrained with this "must have AMA to fly" attitude that nothing else should be considered? If the only reason to get AMA is to not ruffle the club members feathers, than maybe those club members need to 'take a chill pill' and loosen up a bit.

You cannot charter a site, but the site can have more then one chartered club utilizing it. Does that help?

It's simpler than that, Dan (and teookie, after all it was your question). The property owner is automatically covered for liability by the terms of the club charter and the supplemental insurance provided to him. Part of the essential reason for obtaining a club charter. Dunno why we seem to have lost that with the discussion going off on the tangent of 'dual charter' and such. sorry

Abel