KE, why do you always hafta make a federal case outta everything.


Ron

AMA is a National Org with one HQ in control,
so any cases made should be federal

Please keep this thread on topic about the dilemma at the field, do not drag it down into a hypothetical insurance argument.

Ken

I have to say that it looks like a sweatheart deal. If the county is willing to assume the risk then let them. The non-AMA fliers will have to pony up for the $20 park pass which the county puts back into the field.

No way you guys loose and several ways you guys can win.

LEts put it all together for a sec, OP says:
Lets hear a bit more about this 2) The Aeromodelers advisory board.
Is this a couple local private citizens (AMA members) or a County Employee group?
What local ordinances / orders are in place that give these private guys power to charge for using the park, and how does the county get the money from them for improvements?

What do we normally call a group that
has control over field access
charges folks to be included to fly
pays for field improvements
and everyone involved must be AMA members.
...... but lets not confuse that with an AMA club,after all, AMA clubs are all that but mail a check to Muncie


Seems when the OP says the County wants No-AMA on M-W-F
there will be no County Enforced $20 to some private citizenry AMA Required slip.

'This board is made up of club members and collects an annual fee of $20 from all flyers for a "park pass" '
But when 'all flyers' is really NonClub AMA Members Only
it sound like its just a way for the AMA clubs to have a $20 Visiting AMA flyer fee paid to the clubs posing as a separate entity.



Its one thing for the County to Issue $20 Flying Permits to folks with proof of insurance,
its another thing altogether for a private gang to do it accepting only THEIR BRAND of insurance (AMA).
And from what we hear the County is proposing,
it sound like the county is trying to break someones monopoly of using that public land
by suggesting No AMA Req M-W-F for the public to use county land.


Are these guys trying to promote Aeromodeling in America,
or just promoting AMA by wanting to restrict public aeromodeling.
This is the "Before" picture of a club that sits by and let Public RC Bans happen, just to find out too late that they too are part of the Public when they lost their field.

The Aeromodeling advisory board is a citizen staffed board set up by the county when the field was built. They have a golf advisory board, a tennis advisory board ECT for the other types of county park facilities.

I am requesting that the moderator close this thread please.

Having served on a county government I offer this tid bit.

If the county allows you to use public property, they can not specify that you must be AMA or what ever. What they can do, is specify the requirements that you must meet to get a pass to use the property. For example, they can say you must show proof of insurance and it must have coverage of these liimits. If AMA meets the requirements then you are good to go. However, you may use any insurance that meets the requirements. Typically, AMA is the least expensive way. This prevents governments from favoring certain factions.

If you lease the property from the government as a sole lessor and user of the property, then you can make the rules anyway you want. That type of lease is the same as owning the property for the duration of the lease.

And who is to say that non AMAers are not just as safe as any AMA members are? Just because someone is not AMA does not mean non safe. Heck I see unsafe stuff at the flying fied everytime i go. Someone is doing something usually deemed unsafe and they are AMA. Sounds like a great deal aslo. Does not mean if you are AMA that you can't fly on those days does it. IF so throw your membership away on those days. Wish our County or City would get behind the club here.

Some of these posts appear as coming from those who already have their own fishing hole and don't want anyone else using the lake. If we can't fly on AMA sponsored club fields because those are reserved for the chosen few, and we can't fly on public fields because someone wants to clost them also, I guss flying in the yard next to your house is the next best thing.

Sorry for the misspelled words. I just finished a 500 word diatribe, as comming from one who ran a public off road park for years, and saw first hand what "user groups" did to those who didn't fit their ideals, and got timed out from the server. Had to start all over. My "hunt and peck" isn't what it once was. The AMA is a good organization. However, some of the people in it who think that the people who do not meet their particular standards are somehow sub human just gets my goat. How about leave us uncleansed a place to play. If we can't learn in a public airfield, maybe we should learn in our kids playground. Just a thought.

It sounds like the OP has abandoned the thread, which is both unfortunate and unsurprising. It's so rare that real issues get discussed here.

The field where I fly is much like the OP's in some ways. It's in a county park reserve, and the county does all of the maintenance for us. In fact, it sounds like his field is exactly as mine used to be.

The field I fly at was created as a joint venture between a neighboring club and the county. The club was in the process of changing locations, and was apparently without a field. This was perhaps 15 years ago. They approached the county, and were able to get a field set up in a somewhat popular park reserve. By the time I started flying there in 2000, the club had their own field again and had pretty much vacated the county field, with the exception of one event every summer.

We don't require AMA where I fly. We have no chartered club. The county has two requirements for flying there. The first is that a person purchase a permit. I think we're at $40 this year. We'd been at $15-$20 for many years, but we encouraged the county to up the price. We've all felt like we were getting too good of a deal. The second requirement is that a person either have an AMA membership or that they have a rider on their homeowner's insurance that specifically deals with RC flying.

There are perhaps 15 of us that are "regulars" there, and I'm pretty sure we're all AMA members. We've never had to form a club, as the county is self-insured. We've offered to form a club so that the county can take advantage of the AMA's insurance program, but the county's attorneys have never felt that it was necessary.

I have no problem with flying with anyone at my field. So long as they have a permit, I'm satisfied that they're covered in some way, shape, or form. The county has always been good about checking this. Not having to have a club certainly eases our workload. The county maintaining our two runways, pit area, parking lot, picnic area, and toilet sure is nice, too. We're quite spoiled.

Unfortunately for us, progress and the popularity of the park are endangering our field. The county has had plans for several years to relocated the field to some undesignated location. Thankfully the parks budget hasn't allowed them to make the changes that would require our relocation yet. We've also worked hard at forming a positive relationship with the maintenance supervisor, the crew, and the parks planning manager. Our site is really on a year by year basis, but they've been willing to work with us. Not as much as some of my fellow flyers would like at times, but the county has gone so far as to re-route a planned bike path so as not to require our field to close.

Taking the time to form relationships with the people involved has really benefitted us. We aren't a strong lobbying group in terms of numbers. We'll never have the clout that the horse riders, dog walkers, and hikers have. What we do have is an almost complete lack of problems for the parks department and a unique attraction within their park.

Whether or not a site is mandatory AMA or not is really up to the land owners. All one can do is lay out the risks, make them aware of the services the AMA offers, and let them make informed choices. There's nothing to say that a club can't co-exist on public land with non-club flyers. It's just a matter of communication and courtesy.

Uncle Rick,

You have hit on the exact reasons I post here and also oppose the PPP.

A little background; When I first found this forum, even though I was an AMA member, I was appalled by the apparent disdain many here had of non-AMAers. BTW I have been posting on RCU since the time the user name could only be 15 letters... hence no T at the end of my user-name.

One of the biggest dangers of the PPP is the way it could be used to retard model aviation with the very same mechanism that causes so many here to blindly pledge allegiance to the AMA while degrading non-AMAers with terms such as rouges or outlaws and the like...completely and totally deplorable. I am ashamed for them.

Lately, many of the AMAers themselves have been labeled bottom-feeders by it's own org...simply hard to understand how such a great hobby and "promoting organization" is inundated by such despicable mindsets.

Three situations with which I have experience may help you.

1) The Sepulveda Basin/Apollo Field site in Los Angeles, CA. It is on land owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department. They allow both AMA and non-AMA pilots to fly. If you belong to one of the several clubs that use the site then you are required to be an AMA member. There is no requirement to demonstrate proof of insurance if you are a non-AMA member. They do ask the AMA clubs to sort of police the field rules and have posted the AMA safety code and stated taht pilots should abide by that. Many do and some do not and there is little that can be done under that arrangement.

2) The Whittier Narrows field is located in the Whittier Narrows park operated by the Los Angeles County Parks Department. They do require AMA membership. They also require NAMBA membership of those that use the lake in the same park for RC boating.

3) The City of Costa Mesa requires a permit to fly electrics or gliders in their Fairview Park site. To obtain the permit you must either show your AMA card or proof of liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 (I believe this is the amount). You do not have to be an AMA member, but you do have to prove you have insurance.

So there are three different situations all operating happily on public lands. I might add that all three of these situations are on sites with unrestricted access by the public and not under the control of a single club by way of a lease agreement. A fourth example is Prado Regional Park in Chino, CA. There is a very nice flying site but it is operated under lease to a club. That club controls access and requires AMA membership. In the same park there is a lake where you can run RC boats. No club controls that site and the Parks Department absolutely requires NAMBA membership to run boats there. SO they go both ways!!

You Got It LCS.

This isn't about yea AMA, Boo AMA. It is about control. Who wants to control what others do. It is really bad here. I am a newbee to RC. I am not a newbee to the whole "user group" thing. User groups do some good things. However, like most things, they usually degrade into us v. them. Once they drive those who don't fall into their idea of the perfect "prospect" everyone else goes away and they have the whole place to themselves...at our expense of course. Using AMA as a tool to limit everyone elses enjoyment is no different than sayin if you dont ride a Suzuki, you aint s##t. Or if you don't do what I say, you can't play. I'll be willing to bet that of all the RC'rs out there, about as many have actually either used or got reimbursed from the AMA insurance as have actually seen the Loch Ness Monster. However, as I said before, it is about control. We will control the horizontal, and we will control the verticle. Most people now a days, have plenty of special interest groups controlling things. That, IMHO is why the sport is growing, but the AMA membership is dying off. It ain't about todays kids, it's about the old farts who want things to stay as they are. They've got theirs. Why should they give any of it up to some kid who they either don't understand or don't care to understand.

Same thing I hafta deal with in the Ham Radio hobby.



Ron

A little more info:

Our field at present requires AMA and a park pass of $20/yr. The contract we have with the county was signed in 1985. The county had lost their copy years ago and had to borrow a copy from us.
The original contract says AMA or equivalent insurance and laid out the rules which were identical to the AMA rules in 1985.

The county is deciding next week whether to drop AMA requirement and or the park pass.

I started this thread to get Info not listen to the usual AMA haters rant on and on.
If you don’t have constructive comments regarding my clubs dilemma please leave this thread.

Constructive TO WHAT END?

Are you trying to get them to let everyone fly there 3days and AMA Only 4days,
or are you trying to stop them from letting everyone fly there 3days and AMA only 4days?

If you tell us your agenda,
it will be easier to tell what would be counter-productive for it.

Not to be insensitive, but what exactly is the dilemma? If the county requires some form of insurance or another in order to fly, the exact form the insurance shouldn't matter too much. As an individual, all you need to know is that the people you're flying with are each covered, so that if you're involved in a mishap with them there will be coverage for all parties. If the county chooses to forgo the benefits of the AMA's landowner policy, that's just their choice to make.

So long as the county has proof of adequate insurance before they issue a field permit, nothing much should change. That's the situation the field I fly at has been operating under, and we have no problems.

One thing I would suggest is that your club recommend to the county that they not attempt to do the AMA days/non-AMA days schedule. That sort of thing leads to a compromise that only works on paper. Somebody will show up on the day that isn't theirs, and who enforces that rule? It creates an artificial "us vs them" and creates the potential for an artificial conflict as well.

At this point my ultimate agenda is to get the County to keep the $20/year park pass that the advisory board (the club) uses for field improvements, but the argument to eliminate the AMA requirement is linked to the park pass in the minds of the county. I’m looking for a logical argument to use on the county bureaucrats and lawyers to keep the fee. The suggestions from the AMA are to stress the AMA insurance.
But after reading the original contract the county was ready then to accept equivalent insurance.
If the county sticks to the equivalent insurance concept I would rather keep the fee more than the AMA requirement.

I had an AMA member drop an egg from a model on my new truck causing paint damage and a dent, no body did anything and I don't care! I figure if I won't to play things can happen much like parking at Wal-Mart and having a buggy hit the side of my truck. If you want a perfect world then you must be perfect. From reading your post I know you are not perfect since you are very concerned about what will happen when you decide to fly into a Escalade that nobody had insurance on. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

I asked the AMA the following on 7 Feb 2009:

"If the county declares M/WE/FR as NON AMA days, Would AMA members still have AMA coverage if they flew on the NON AMA days?"

The AMA responded 7 Feb 2009:

"Yes, as long as they belonged to the club"

That's great! Make all days non-AMA then![8D]

I gotcha. I think that's a very reasonable approach. I'd suggest telling the county that many of the field users are nervous about the prospect of flying with uninsured individuals. Equate it to auto insurance, and the no-fault laws that require everyone to carry it. Part of the purpose of those is to reduce conflicts at the scene of accidents. In the same way, knowing that the county has verified the insurance (be it AMA or other) for each of the participants at the flying field sure does add a certain comfort level. It also reduces the chances of conflict, and removes the need for any self-policing by people using the site.

I'd suggest that the issuance of county permits (they don't have to be anything special, ours are just little construction paper slips that we hang on the frequency board) can address that, and the fees can go towards the office time required.

What conflict are you talking about? We are just flying models not seeking conflicts. If you don't like the risk don't go out there! We
don't need more control in this hobby just as we don't need big government ruining/running our lives! We already have that in DC now![:'(]

ahhh I see
The club wants to be able to charge non-AMA'ers the ole Pay Per Day use of the field
(packaged as a yearly pass with any adequate insurance )
via a standoff AdvisoryBoard to launder the fees for using the club's field.
Does AMA even allow clubs to charge PayPerDay (PayPerYear) fees to let non-AMA use their field for flying?


Well, you stumped me.
I cant think of any way offhand to convince the county
to give up their plan to let folks use public land without paying some private club.
I have a few ideas on getting folks to pay the county for using county land,
but that dont help your PPD(PPY) non-member club fees situation. If you check out the old Pay Per Day threads you'll see that I am actually on your side: I would like to see clubs be allowed to charge non-AMA guys a PPD/PPY fee to fly at the club field.