the problems come from those short sighted clubs that wrote into their lease/use agreement that each flyer would be required to have 2.5 mil of personal liability insurance.

Major Tomski clearly indicates the club lease is with Oklahoma City, thus it's public property. You would not need to get a lawyer, just go before the city board. If that wouldn't work, then I'd get a lawyer. Fortunatly I think people like the above are rare in our hobby.

In my opinion, CP's shyster comment would apply to anyone who would spend a lifetime's worth of AMA dues in attorney fees to sue, and most likely close down, a public flying site merely to right some perceived wrong.[:@]

Understanding cause and effect, I believe if the site would be shut down it would be because of descrimination by the club. The blame game would not work in this situation.

804-

Cuppla things:

1. Who do you think would end up paying "a lifetime's worth of AMA dues in attorney fees" if the issue were not resolved before it got into a civil court?

2. We aren't talking about a public flying site, but rather public property that has been privatized via a use agreement between a private entity, an exclusive AMA chartered club, and and a public entity that has been entrusted with administering to the interests of the general public.

Abel

I wonder how many years of AMA open membership you could get for all that money paid to a lawyer?

I wonder how many years of AMA open membership the PPP members could have got for all that money muncie spent on PPP

JJ, public land is a totally seperate issue. Our regional public field has a "home club" that is supposed to chaperone the activities. I don't know to what extent they are to provide maintenance, or if the City of Redmond takes care of that. Anyway, anything can and will happen at that field....all you need is an AMA card and you've "got yer wings".
I have never seen a PPPer there or at any other club field. Zero effect, zero impact. Next case, bailiff .

You might wish to look up the definition of the word Discriminate. Your choice of what level of membership that you chose when you became a member does not qualify you for using that doctorine. Discrimination occurs when one is excluded due to his circumstances that were not selected by him.

The clubs to which I hold memberships all require that all flying members of those clubs hold either Life or Open memberships in the AMA. If you choose to purchase a lesser membership, then you do not qualify to be a flying member at these clubs. It's not discrimination, but a matter of personal choice.

If anyone has trouble figuring that one out, the they don't need to be flying anything except maybe a paper airplane. Of course, writing with crayons would probably work well in their circumstances as well.

Bill, AMA 4720

One other thing. Once the lease on a piece of public land has been executed, it is no longer public land. It may belong to the city, county or state in question, but they have leased the property to the Leasee, and the control of the property has transferred over to that entity, whether it is a private organization, club, or a single person.

You cannot force them to accept a lesser level of membership than what is required by their charter, or by-laws.

If you can prove that they won't allow you to become a member because you have a disability, or because of race, creed or national orign, then you might have a case to pursue. If you can't then good luck, you will need it.

Bill, AMA 4720

We have had a couple of PP members join. I belive both upgraded to full membership within the same season. They were exposed to bigger planes and wanted to play with those too.

No problems, no issues.

The term "discriminate" is yet but one more victim of our PC world. It is a good idea to discriminate when allowing new members in. As long as it's not on the basis of race, sex, religion or handicap status that is.

Abel,
Earlier in this thread, you made the point that if a club using public property allowed open members, but not PPP, and not stating requirements for minimum liability, it could be at risk for a discrimination suit.
This is a fair item for discussion, and something AMA should consider. Not arguing that at all.

But in this case, Major Tomski clearly states that required minimum, $1,000,000, is in the lease.

jrjohn's position is that his(or others') discount membership, along with his primary insurance, should be honored. And if not, he'd be willing to file suit. Over $29 ??? There's principle, and then there's common sense.

Do you really think this is productive, and in the best interests of our hobby?

I think such a position is frivolous and petty.

Call me judgmental and irrational(you have before, but maybe I deserved it), but man, I just can't see the logic.

Good thing Muncie left all this up to the local clubs to try to figure out.

Maybe we should hash these problems out in the lead time before PPP goes live

Perhaps it is.

While AMA created the issue for club's to have to deal with, ya really gotta ask yourself if you want the same group telling you who should/shouldn't, can/can't be a member of your local club.

for once, i think i agree with bob.

Oh my.

804-

You ask me why somebody would take an action you consider irrational and expect a rational answer. No can do. Like, I could ask you "what is rational about grown men messing around with model airplanes?"
Since I can't give you the sort of answer you seek, I'll turn it around and fire it back at you:

Is turning a fellow modeler (and AMA member) away from your field because he got a discount deal from AMA that you didn't anything but petty and frivolous? What business of the club is it how he meets the personal insurance requirement of the land owner, and do you really find it rational to feel strongly enough about forcing his compliance with your will to jeopardize losing your flying site?

I won't call you anything but consistently one of the more level-headed people that post here. Don't fret missing the logic - the issue involves emotion, and logic being limited to a rational thought process doesn't cover it. Maybe it shouldn't - remember that The Law, our system of social order, is not logical but rather based in causal reasoning.

Abel

Are AMA clubs going to have to create a new "Insurance Officer" position? He's the guy who will determine if your home owners policy has high enough limits and whether or not you are current on your policy premiums. These are the type of problems that a poorly conceived program like the PPP will cause. The AMA EC should carefully review the "Law of Unintended Consequences" written by Murphy.

Nope.

It works very simply. When you show up, and present you AMA card, the officer looks and if it says that you are a Full (Open) or equivelant member, then it's welcome in. If it says that you have a lower level membership, See ya.

We had someone show up at a club field, where I'm a member. Presented his PPP card, and was sent packing. It's Open or watch from the bleachers.

Our By-laws require AMA membership. The Membership requirment specifies at least an Open membership. Leader members, and Life members are superior to Open memberships. PPP is not. These By-laws were put in place way back when there was an attempt being made to form a parralel orgainzation to the AMA. This organization was shaky at best, and we didn't want a situation to arise, that would cause a Liability claim and have no clear cut insuror to provide coverage. The same logic applies to someone showing up with an insurance policy that shows coverage by an independant insurance company. It's much simpler to comply with our rules, which again are: AMA Open or better, or watch from the bleachers.

Bill, AMA 4720

Rufcut
Since Muncie said it is on the clubs to enforce PPP restriction on PPP members,
you can have the clubs PPP Enforcement Officer handle the insurance checking.

Perhaps I missed it in the previous posts. Has anyone had any BAD situations resulting from the PPP? Things have been smooth here.

Nope. All is well.

Ed
look 2 posts above yours:

Is that what we want more of, or less of?
If we want more, we can fairly well assume we consider it a good thing,
however, if we want that to happen less, that would make it a bad thing.

So Ed,
is it a bad thing to turn PPP guys away from a AMA flying club
or do we want more of that to happen cause it is ok or good to do?

What do you consider bad? Bloodshed, or stuff less bad than that?

Given that the program was not designed for PPP members to fly at existing sites, but rather to create new clubs with flying rights at smaller venues, I think it's neither good nor bad. (With perhaps the exception of needing to better educate PPP members as to the purpose of the program.

For a club with specific requirements, either in their bylaws or their land agreement, to turn away flyers who don't meet those requirement isn't "bad". They have to. It would be just as "bad" for them to turn away a non-AMA member who had the requisite amount of insurance coverage through another provider.