insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
02-28-2003, 08:17 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Keep writing polls. Maybe you will eventually ask a question with meaning. The AMA does not determine whose insurance you may use. That is up to you. My homeowners stands first with the AMA policy secondary. If you want to have UMA you can have it stand primary, unless they or your homeowners policy are in conflict.
Heck, buy as many policies as you like. The AMA condones and loves it.
If you don't want to be an AMA member, that is your decision to make.
LOL, maybe the question should be "if you were in my scope, would I pull the trigger."
JR
Heck, buy as many policies as you like. The AMA condones and loves it.
If you don't want to be an AMA member, that is your decision to make.
LOL, maybe the question should be "if you were in my scope, would I pull the trigger."
JR
02-28-2003, 05:42 PM
#3
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 7,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The AMA is NOT a governing body.
AMA membership is not necessary to be able to fly at any field you like. You just need to have proper insurance from any source your heart desires, and permission from the landowner. Most people find that applying for AMA membership is much easier, and less expensive.
If you wanted to do an "end run" around the local club in order to fly at their field, you can. One of our club fields is on a small private airstrip and farm. The owner allows us to use the place for free. There's no reason you, as a non-AMA member, couldn't approach this guy and ask him if you could use his airfield to fly R/C airplanes. Our club would be a little peeved because we mow the grass and maintain some equipment there, but we really couldn't say anything.
Another field we have is on county park land. The agreement our club made with the county was that you needed to be an AMA member to fly there. There's nothing saying you can't go to the county government and work out an agreement with them under which you could also use this field without being an AMA member. Our club wouldn't have a bit of trouble with that. We mow and maintain the field, but anyone with AMA can use it.
We as a club CHOOSE to make AMA mandatory because it's easier to deal with at the club level. We, as club officers, are not paid. We want to do as much flying as possible, and as little bookwork as possible. It's that simple.
AMA membership is not necessary to be able to fly at any field you like. You just need to have proper insurance from any source your heart desires, and permission from the landowner. Most people find that applying for AMA membership is much easier, and less expensive.
If you wanted to do an "end run" around the local club in order to fly at their field, you can. One of our club fields is on a small private airstrip and farm. The owner allows us to use the place for free. There's no reason you, as a non-AMA member, couldn't approach this guy and ask him if you could use his airfield to fly R/C airplanes. Our club would be a little peeved because we mow the grass and maintain some equipment there, but we really couldn't say anything.
Another field we have is on county park land. The agreement our club made with the county was that you needed to be an AMA member to fly there. There's nothing saying you can't go to the county government and work out an agreement with them under which you could also use this field without being an AMA member. Our club wouldn't have a bit of trouble with that. We mow and maintain the field, but anyone with AMA can use it.
We as a club CHOOSE to make AMA mandatory because it's easier to deal with at the club level. We, as club officers, are not paid. We want to do as much flying as possible, and as little bookwork as possible. It's that simple.
02-28-2003, 07:44 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
I don't think AMA should accept third party or independent insurers. If you join AMA you need the insurance provided with the membership. This will greatly reduce the red tape.
02-28-2003, 08:41 PM
#5
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
i said, back when clemments and co were instigating the secondary ins stuff, and still say, insurance is not something the AMA should be in the business of.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
02-28-2003, 10:15 PM
#6
My Feedback: (3)
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by mongo
i said, back when clemments and co were instigating the secondary ins stuff, and still say, insurance is not something the AMA should be in the business of.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
i said, back when clemments and co were instigating the secondary ins stuff, and still say, insurance is not something the AMA should be in the business of.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
As others have noted, the AMA has done little for the average modeler since the 1991 frequency acquisition. I noticed that dues have gone from $38 to $58 in the same time period to pay for things that the average member never sees.
I guess this is why I wish we still published our rule book for everyone instead of handing it out only if you knew enough to ask for it. We have raised dues some 65% and not shown the membership anything of value. Unless you think those metal foil stickers are of value. If we assume that MA is worth (work with me here a little, O.K.?) about $24 and the insurance coverage about $12, there is over $20 left over for 'them' to play with.
Johnny would be embarrassed that the membership is being abused so much by the AMA. We have gone from a fraternal organization to (what someone else observed) a self aware organization only interested in its long term health and wealth. Proof of that can be seen when a DVP says the AMA has nothing to offer the park flyer, but the club should find something.
I think that if the AMA were to drop the secondary insurance, lower the dues SIGNIFICANTLY, and encourage a primary carrier to work through us, membership would grow. Clubs could still say no AMA approved insurance, no fly. Events could still require AMA membership to compete, or even general fly-ins. Those issues would keep the AMA alive along with those of us who care and understand all the intangible benefits.
But others have claimed that I need professional help.
02-28-2003, 11:08 PM
#7
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by J_R
LOL, maybe the question should be "if you were in my scope, would I pull the trigger."
JR
LOL, maybe the question should be "if you were in my scope, would I pull the trigger."
JR
03-01-2003, 02:09 AM
#9
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
no corporation is a democracy. they are autocracys. self governed by a board.
and yeah jim, all these folks that say "ama wouldn't be what and where it is today without the insurance addition", are actually right iguess, it would most likely be something even bigger and better.
ya see, that is the beauty of prognosticating varriable futures, no one can actually prove ya wrong<G>.
and yeah jim, all these folks that say "ama wouldn't be what and where it is today without the insurance addition", are actually right iguess, it would most likely be something even bigger and better.
ya see, that is the beauty of prognosticating varriable futures, no one can actually prove ya wrong<G>.
03-03-2003, 05:01 PM
#10
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 7,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
What we need is a serious threat to our hobby/sport to show the value of the AMA to the average modeler. We've been living in a sort of "golden age" since the 1991 frequency acquisition, and the only tangible benefit the average modeler sees is the insurance. The magazine is seen as a voilation of their civil rights, and they "don't want to fly in competitions or events."
Maybe the Federal government needs to take a long, hard look at banning R/C airplanes outright in the name of national security.
Maybe the Federal government needs to take a long, hard look at banning R/C airplanes outright in the name of national security.
03-03-2003, 05:23 PM
#11
My Feedback: (3)
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by mkirsch
What we need is a serious threat to our hobby/sport to show the value of the AMA to the average modeler. We've been living in a sort of "golden age" since the 1991 frequency acquisition, and the only tangible benefit the average modeler sees is the insurance. The magazine is seen as a voilation of their civil rights, and they "don't want to fly in competitions or events."
What we need is a serious threat to our hobby/sport to show the value of the AMA to the average modeler. We've been living in a sort of "golden age" since the 1991 frequency acquisition, and the only tangible benefit the average modeler sees is the insurance. The magazine is seen as a voilation of their civil rights, and they "don't want to fly in competitions or events."
Originally posted by mkirsch
Maybe the Federal government needs to take a long, hard look at banning R/C airplanes outright in the name of national security. [/B]
Maybe the Federal government needs to take a long, hard look at banning R/C airplanes outright in the name of national security. [/B]
03-03-2003, 08:23 PM
#13
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by mkirsch
and the only tangible benefit the average modeler sees is the insurance. The magazine is seen as a voilation of their civil rights, and they "don't want to fly in competitions or events."
and the only tangible benefit the average modeler sees is the insurance. The magazine is seen as a voilation of their civil rights, and they "don't want to fly in competitions or events."
I know there are those that will throttle me for that statement, and give me your "just shut up and pay" attitude, but that is my point, there are some who don't belive in some of the stuff and don't like supporting it. The only choice is don't belong and don't compete or fly at most of the flying fields in the country. Thats not a choice.
03-03-2003, 09:33 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
FLYBOY
There is some truth to what you have to say. Just as I am part of a very small minority that supports most of what the AMA does, you are a part of a very small minority that voices an opinion in opposition. The fact is that the huge majority simply does not care. If you look at the number of people on RCU and the number that look at threads in this forum (be sure to discount the number of views by people that visit a thread more than once), it is pretty obvious that most just pay the dues and don't care what they get as long as it allows them to fly. If you watch at the field that you fly at, you will not often see discussions taking place about the AMA. Even when you do, they are not passionate.
Aside from that, you do have choices. They are just not choices you are willing to make. You can do as lilcrankshaft has done and buy a piece of land and fly on it. The AMA has an election system, you can try to change it with that. You can go to your local government and try to convince them to allow you to fly on some of their land. You could even try to start a rival organization. All of those choices take a lot of work.
The 15 people on the EC give their time to run an organization that they believe in. There are a lot of volunteers within the AMA that give a great deal of their time, so that others do not have to. This is a sixty year old organization. I don't understand why anyone thinks things are going to change radically.
There are things about the AMA that I would like to see changed. Most are not likely to happen. I would love to see the NATS travel around the country, as an example. Some things can be changed. The EC is not deaf to input. But... you have to keep in mind what the AMA was organized to do. It is not going to change those principles, at least not in my opinion.
JR
There is some truth to what you have to say. Just as I am part of a very small minority that supports most of what the AMA does, you are a part of a very small minority that voices an opinion in opposition. The fact is that the huge majority simply does not care. If you look at the number of people on RCU and the number that look at threads in this forum (be sure to discount the number of views by people that visit a thread more than once), it is pretty obvious that most just pay the dues and don't care what they get as long as it allows them to fly. If you watch at the field that you fly at, you will not often see discussions taking place about the AMA. Even when you do, they are not passionate.
Aside from that, you do have choices. They are just not choices you are willing to make. You can do as lilcrankshaft has done and buy a piece of land and fly on it. The AMA has an election system, you can try to change it with that. You can go to your local government and try to convince them to allow you to fly on some of their land. You could even try to start a rival organization. All of those choices take a lot of work.
The 15 people on the EC give their time to run an organization that they believe in. There are a lot of volunteers within the AMA that give a great deal of their time, so that others do not have to. This is a sixty year old organization. I don't understand why anyone thinks things are going to change radically.
There are things about the AMA that I would like to see changed. Most are not likely to happen. I would love to see the NATS travel around the country, as an example. Some things can be changed. The EC is not deaf to input. But... you have to keep in mind what the AMA was organized to do. It is not going to change those principles, at least not in my opinion.
JR
03-03-2003, 10:52 PM
#15
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Yea, I hear you. Thats why I quit *****ing about them. I still do give an opinion here and there. I am not against AMA and am a contest director. I help as many people in the hobby as I can because I live this hobby. It is more to me than just a hobby. I too get sick of the *****ing about it and $58 will by no means break anyone. I did enjoy flying in the nats when it got to this side of the country. Last time was about 14 years ago in the Tri Cities. I will never go to it in Muncie though. Not worth the time it would take. I did fly over Muncie last month. Was going to shoot a picture with our aerial camera but I was in the middle of a snow storm when we went over. Couldn't see the ground. I just can't see sacking the members with a $9 million flying field that few will ever get to use. Seems like such a waste.
03-04-2003, 04:42 PM
#16
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 7,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
People complaining about the national flying site fail to see the big picture. All they see is the fact that they're never going to fly there. In other words, they're complaining about "intangible" benefits of being an AMA member.
The purchase and development of the Muncie flying site was a political move, plain and simple. Owning property that's been developed to support the interests the AMA is representing lends a HUGE amount of legitimacy to our cause. It's saying, "We're here to stay. We're serious. We're a force to be reckoned with." Rented commercial space in the business district of D.C. doesn't have the same kind of clout. In fact, it reeks of fly-by-night, here-today-gone-tomorrow-so-we-can-ignore-these-jokers.
I'm surprised ANYONE can find fault with real estate investments in today's economic climate. It's the only thing that's guaranteed to be worth more when you sell it than when you bought it.
The purchase and development of the Muncie flying site was a political move, plain and simple. Owning property that's been developed to support the interests the AMA is representing lends a HUGE amount of legitimacy to our cause. It's saying, "We're here to stay. We're serious. We're a force to be reckoned with." Rented commercial space in the business district of D.C. doesn't have the same kind of clout. In fact, it reeks of fly-by-night, here-today-gone-tomorrow-so-we-can-ignore-these-jokers.
I'm surprised ANYONE can find fault with real estate investments in today's economic climate. It's the only thing that's guaranteed to be worth more when you sell it than when you bought it.
03-04-2003, 05:33 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Matthew
I have no complaint about the real estate investment value of Muncie. I also think that you are correct in your assertion that the average member does not think that Muncie should exist because he will never fly there.
Having said that, I think that the NATS could be used to promote the hobby in a much more effective manner if it were moved around the country each year. My concern is in trying to grow the AMA. It might very well cost more to move the NATS around than to keep it in one place. Having the best of the best show their stuff on a rotating basis has, in the past, served to recruit new members into aeromodeling.
I am not even saying eliminate Muncie. It just seems to me that it would be much more effective if the President of the AMA could say "I represent 1,000,000 modelers" than to say "We are the AMA, you know, those guys with a place in Indiana with a HQ that kinda looks like an airport tower. We have an average of a whole 2800 members per state that are old enough to vote." Political clout comes from the number of members, not from the site of the organization.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having land that is developed and can be used to promote aeromodeling. Hosting a World Championship or a local fly-in has advantages too. The HQ and the Museum need to be somewhere, and I guess the expenses in Muncie are a lot less than some other places. I do think we should have left a display at the Smithsonian in DC. I just can't understand moving that to Muncie. The museum is one thing, the Smithsonian is another and I don't see why we don't have both.
Maybe some other place should have been selected. It wasn't and we have Muncie. Why do I say that? Take a look at the schedule of the International Aeromodeling Center on the AMA page.
JR
I have no complaint about the real estate investment value of Muncie. I also think that you are correct in your assertion that the average member does not think that Muncie should exist because he will never fly there.
Having said that, I think that the NATS could be used to promote the hobby in a much more effective manner if it were moved around the country each year. My concern is in trying to grow the AMA. It might very well cost more to move the NATS around than to keep it in one place. Having the best of the best show their stuff on a rotating basis has, in the past, served to recruit new members into aeromodeling.
I am not even saying eliminate Muncie. It just seems to me that it would be much more effective if the President of the AMA could say "I represent 1,000,000 modelers" than to say "We are the AMA, you know, those guys with a place in Indiana with a HQ that kinda looks like an airport tower. We have an average of a whole 2800 members per state that are old enough to vote." Political clout comes from the number of members, not from the site of the organization.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having land that is developed and can be used to promote aeromodeling. Hosting a World Championship or a local fly-in has advantages too. The HQ and the Museum need to be somewhere, and I guess the expenses in Muncie are a lot less than some other places. I do think we should have left a display at the Smithsonian in DC. I just can't understand moving that to Muncie. The museum is one thing, the Smithsonian is another and I don't see why we don't have both.
Maybe some other place should have been selected. It wasn't and we have Muncie. Why do I say that? Take a look at the schedule of the International Aeromodeling Center on the AMA page.
JR
03-04-2003, 05:47 PM
#18
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
I agreee, we should have left stuff at the smithsonian. More people will see it there. I just had to fly back and have my plane worked on in DC and spent a couple days wandering around the smithsonian. The museum at muncie is fine, but will draw people already interested. A lot more go to DC to see the smithsonian.
As for the field, it is not just the fact that people will not get there to fly at it. The field is a huge waste of money. Sure, it will appreciate, but it is not needed. It can promote modeling in one place only, Muncie. It may draw people who are there already, but how many families are going to load up the car and drive across the country to see it. Maybe if they are going by anyway, but not likely.
As far as the traveling nats, It would be great to have them moving around. It used to be that way, and people all over the country got to see parts of it to raise interest. Again, it will draw interested parties in Muncie, but only if they are interested in RC already. That is not going to promote the hobby as far as I am concerned. The traveling nats would. It gets it out to places where people can see it.
I am not saying sell the field, we have it now and it is paid for. I just think buying it was a bad mistake.
The office building was a must. It is better to own that than pay rent as pointed out. Noone will argue that.
As for the field, it is not just the fact that people will not get there to fly at it. The field is a huge waste of money. Sure, it will appreciate, but it is not needed. It can promote modeling in one place only, Muncie. It may draw people who are there already, but how many families are going to load up the car and drive across the country to see it. Maybe if they are going by anyway, but not likely.
As far as the traveling nats, It would be great to have them moving around. It used to be that way, and people all over the country got to see parts of it to raise interest. Again, it will draw interested parties in Muncie, but only if they are interested in RC already. That is not going to promote the hobby as far as I am concerned. The traveling nats would. It gets it out to places where people can see it.
I am not saying sell the field, we have it now and it is paid for. I just think buying it was a bad mistake.
The office building was a must. It is better to own that than pay rent as pointed out. Noone will argue that.
03-04-2003, 06:45 PM
#19
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
how quickly some forget, or maby just never knew.
we, the ama, OWNED the property in reston virginia that "we" were in prior to the muncie thing. "we" already had a nice museum at that reston property. "we" were close enough to the movers and shakers in DC to be able to vist with them at a moments notice, when the situ called for it. now "we" are out in the middle of no where, at least a days travel from dc and with all the resultant expenses of that travel in order to meet with the folks that truely control our future.
after moving to muncie "we" rented that reston property to a church for a while, and eventually sold it to them.
we, the ama, OWNED the property in reston virginia that "we" were in prior to the muncie thing. "we" already had a nice museum at that reston property. "we" were close enough to the movers and shakers in DC to be able to vist with them at a moments notice, when the situ called for it. now "we" are out in the middle of no where, at least a days travel from dc and with all the resultant expenses of that travel in order to meet with the folks that truely control our future.
after moving to muncie "we" rented that reston property to a church for a while, and eventually sold it to them.
03-04-2003, 07:14 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
mongo
I was one of the folks that sent a few bucks to 'retire the debt on Reston'. I accept that it was not as nice as we would have liked and that we outgrew it. It still sticks in my craw that Muncie kinda appeared from the fog and we were there before most of the membership ever knew Muncie was in the state of Indiana.
Be that as it may, we are there. The land is a decent investment. Heck, we can always lease it to a farmer
JR
I was one of the folks that sent a few bucks to 'retire the debt on Reston'. I accept that it was not as nice as we would have liked and that we outgrew it. It still sticks in my craw that Muncie kinda appeared from the fog and we were there before most of the membership ever knew Muncie was in the state of Indiana.
Be that as it may, we are there. The land is a decent investment. Heck, we can always lease it to a farmer
JR
03-04-2003, 10:21 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sterling , CO
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Mongo
You caught me of guard !!!! I do not have a flying site in my back yard.
RC OUTLAW
You caught me of guard !!!! I do not have a flying site in my back yard.
RC OUTLAW
03-05-2003, 06:18 AM
#23
My Feedback: (3)
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by littlecrankshaf
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mongo
i said, back when clemments and co were instigating the secondary ins stuff, and still say, insurance is not something the AMA should be in the business of.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim's response:
Sorry guys. I know many dislike, including myself. those that copy previous post in their entirety but since from time to time they disappear or get edited and since this one is particularly poignant I could't resist.
Jim I know this may cause you some distress but I can't help but agree with you.
If you would like I can refer you to my psychiatrist, maybe there is hope for you and I with some professional help.
(just kidding)
IMO I think that the secondary insurance could also be made available also for those that desire that method of insurance or as an optional supplement to another AMA approved primary policy to help keep costs down since the gears for the existing secondary insurance have already been forged.
IMO Membership fees could also allow "day"or "event" members with a fee such as provided for other sportsmen such as hunters and fishermen that travel outside their state. This could allow for more choices, more revenue for the AMA and hosting clubs, ultimately welcoming more full time members into the AMA. Some will say that would be too much work or complications but I don't really see it that way.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mongo
i said, back when clemments and co were instigating the secondary ins stuff, and still say, insurance is not something the AMA should be in the business of.
it is nothing more that a very large lever to use to force membership upon folks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim's response:
Sorry guys. I know many dislike, including myself. those that copy previous post in their entirety but since from time to time they disappear or get edited and since this one is particularly poignant I could't resist.
Jim I know this may cause you some distress but I can't help but agree with you.
If you would like I can refer you to my psychiatrist, maybe there is hope for you and I with some professional help.
(just kidding) IMO I think that the secondary insurance could also be made available also for those that desire that method of insurance or as an optional supplement to another AMA approved primary policy to help keep costs down since the gears for the existing secondary insurance have already been forged.
IMO Membership fees could also allow "day"or "event" members with a fee such as provided for other sportsmen such as hunters and fishermen that travel outside their state. This could allow for more choices, more revenue for the AMA and hosting clubs, ultimately welcoming more full time members into the AMA. Some will say that would be too much work or complications but I don't really see it that way.
Mark,
I don't have any problems with you agreeing or disagreeing with me as long as you are not throwing rocks. There are enough high maintenance people in my club that I have become a little intolerant. Some days that gets me and other days it gets them.
Now I might have a problem if your pshrink turns out to be "OUR" pshrink! He started telling me I need professional help whenever we disagree! Now he has his friends doing it!
To me the 'day' or 'event' membership idea appears to have at least one serious flaw that needs to be fixed. How is AMA going to find out that Freddie Electricpack flew at an organized AMA event unless we tell them? The post event notification may not ever show Freddie, unless there is an incident. By the way, this is a real problem even in today's environment! Maybe we should put a lower bound on numbers of participants on an event to maintain the integrity of the sanction. Say 10?
Oh, by the way I sent a direct question to Joyce Hagar a couple of years ago since we had a couple French guys with us for some time. The answer was that the ONLY country that AMA has any reciprocity with is Canada. If a guy from the Netherlands is active there and has the national organizations card, he can get a reduced membership in AMA for the same year. His foreign ticket is just that, foreign and not to be used instead of an AMA card. I noticed you and Heath kicking that one around.
03-05-2003, 07:20 PM
#24
My Feedback: (3)
insurers under current AMA standards retard or accelerate member growth
Originally posted by littlecrankshaf
Well I guess nothing is perfect and there will always will be some logistical problems to iron out. Since the AMA can find ways to make considerations for those that are not regular US AMA it should not be that far of a leap. With the will I suspect less of a leap actually. At every sanctioned event that I have attended I had to sign in and/or pay the appropriate fees anyway and since the AMA already allows same day membership it really doesn't seem to be that far fetched of an idea... to me anyway.
BTW I only throw the rocks that have been thrown at me
Well I guess nothing is perfect and there will always will be some logistical problems to iron out. Since the AMA can find ways to make considerations for those that are not regular US AMA it should not be that far of a leap. With the will I suspect less of a leap actually. At every sanctioned event that I have attended I had to sign in and/or pay the appropriate fees anyway and since the AMA already allows same day membership it really doesn't seem to be that far fetched of an idea... to me anyway.
BTW I only throw the rocks that have been thrown at me
