Tiered Insurance Poll
07-08-2003, 04:57 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
The cost of insurance in 2003 will be about $15 per member including the cost of the commercial policy and self-insurance by the AMA. Half of this will go toward "trip and fall" type claims. That leaves about $7.50 per member to tier, should tiered insurance become a reality.
If we were to charge the indoor rubber members $1 per year insurance, and the perceived highest risk to jets at double the cost, or $15 a year, the effect would be to lower the indoor members dues to $51.50 and raise the jet members to $65.50. These two would be the extremes with most members lying somewhere between and closer to the current $58 a year.
It would fall to the clubs to enforce the tiered insurance.
Other issues would involve CD's having to check for the proper insurance at sanctioned events and the possibility that administration costs at AMA headquarters might go up.
If we assume that these numbers are reasonable, please cast your opinion in the poll.
If we were to charge the indoor rubber members $1 per year insurance, and the perceived highest risk to jets at double the cost, or $15 a year, the effect would be to lower the indoor members dues to $51.50 and raise the jet members to $65.50. These two would be the extremes with most members lying somewhere between and closer to the current $58 a year.
It would fall to the clubs to enforce the tiered insurance.
Other issues would involve CD's having to check for the proper insurance at sanctioned events and the possibility that administration costs at AMA headquarters might go up.
If we assume that these numbers are reasonable, please cast your opinion in the poll.
07-08-2003, 06:30 PM
#2
Tiered Insurance Poll
I have a hard time believing the insurance amount is so small. It has to be more than that to justify the last dues increase. IMO the trip and fall claims may be more numerous, but I doubt they represent half the dollars spent, the individual claims would be smaller.
07-08-2003, 06:48 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
Sport_Pilot
The numbers for insurance in 2002 are in the financial statement on the AMA web page in the Members Only section. In 2002 the commercial policy cost $768,191 which amounts to $2.72 per adult member (about 140,000). If anything the estimates for 2003 are high. The balance is for the self insured portion of the insurance. The numbers for 2002 are in the financial statement as well. If you figure the self insurance was $5-6 per member in 2002, you are about right.
The rationale for raising the dues $10 was to avoid having to do it again anytime soon. Not a bad idea with the estimated increase in the commercial policy in 2003 of about 70%. Nobody ever said that the entire amount of the increase was for insurance.
There have been several large 'trip and fall' claims. When it involves the health of a child, that is to be expected. Example: a couple of years ago a child was crushed to death by a windsock pole under construction. You can imagine the cost of that type of settlement. Of course, the agreement for settlement requires that the exact terms not be disclosed. You may also recall the incident where a child fell on some re-bar sticking up on the flight line, or the incident where a club member was expelled without just cause. These settlements are not cheap and do, indeed, account for about half of the insurance claims.
JR
The numbers for insurance in 2002 are in the financial statement on the AMA web page in the Members Only section. In 2002 the commercial policy cost $768,191 which amounts to $2.72 per adult member (about 140,000). If anything the estimates for 2003 are high. The balance is for the self insured portion of the insurance. The numbers for 2002 are in the financial statement as well. If you figure the self insurance was $5-6 per member in 2002, you are about right.
The rationale for raising the dues $10 was to avoid having to do it again anytime soon. Not a bad idea with the estimated increase in the commercial policy in 2003 of about 70%. Nobody ever said that the entire amount of the increase was for insurance.
There have been several large 'trip and fall' claims. When it involves the health of a child, that is to be expected. Example: a couple of years ago a child was crushed to death by a windsock pole under construction. You can imagine the cost of that type of settlement. Of course, the agreement for settlement requires that the exact terms not be disclosed. You may also recall the incident where a child fell on some re-bar sticking up on the flight line, or the incident where a club member was expelled without just cause. These settlements are not cheap and do, indeed, account for about half of the insurance claims.
JR
07-08-2003, 07:59 PM
#5
Tiered Insurance Poll
You mean that if the AMA is to represent you and your expensive turbine planes, you are going to have to pay more for that as well? Not sure I agree with that.
07-08-2003, 08:58 PM
#6
Tiered Insurance Poll
On a previous thread, it was mentioned the very low count of jet fliers versus the rest of the AMA population. If so, increasing the AMA cost in this manner, and reducing the cost of the "rubber powered" groups, (and I'm sure they will all come out of the woodwork!), well, won't that reduce the total income in dues to the AMA???
Example: of 170k AMA members (or whatever it is), we might have 800 jet people paying $10 more, and we'll have 5000 "rubber" people paying $10 less, for a dues income of $42000 less now?
This is based on a loose (but probable) assumption there are many more rubber (or lightweight power) fliers than jet fliers in the AMA. But if true, then adjustments would have to be made to make up for possible shortfalls. One with better AMA demographic info could possibly shed some light.
I'm not necessarily against a tiered system...
Example: of 170k AMA members (or whatever it is), we might have 800 jet people paying $10 more, and we'll have 5000 "rubber" people paying $10 less, for a dues income of $42000 less now?
This is based on a loose (but probable) assumption there are many more rubber (or lightweight power) fliers than jet fliers in the AMA. But if true, then adjustments would have to be made to make up for possible shortfalls. One with better AMA demographic info could possibly shed some light.
I'm not necessarily against a tiered system...
07-08-2003, 10:29 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by Ron S
Example: of 170k AMA members (or whatever it is), we might have 800 jet people paying $10 more, and we'll have 5000 "rubber" people paying $10 less, for a dues income of $42000 less now?
Example: of 170k AMA members (or whatever it is), we might have 800 jet people paying $10 more, and we'll have 5000 "rubber" people paying $10 less, for a dues income of $42000 less now?
[tongue-firmly-in-cheek]
Nah .... you forgot a large part of the equation. There's more than just the jet guys that you can charge extra...
Newly soloed beginners are high risk due to their lack of experience, so a properly set up tier system will charge them a higher rate too. (Just as in auto insurance). Lots of beginners to charge.
Race planes are high risk too (even inside a pylon cage, you aren't safe, as was demonstrated by a fatality some years ago) - lots of race guys to charge...
Big airplanes are high risk too - lots of them to charge...
(Do Big raceplanes get double-dipped ?)
Elderly folk with diminishing reactions, eye-sight etc are high risk too (e.g. the elderly gentleman in Arizona who killed himself by flying his plane into himself when he lost sight of it in the sun) - lots of them to charge....
Pattern planes are high risk (after all, there's at least one fatality with a pattern plane in recent history, and that's more than several of the other supposedly high-risk categories have had).
Novelty airplanes are high risk too (e.g. just look at the flying lawnmower that killed a guy in a sports stadium). Not quite so many of them to charge, but by now the shortfall should have been more than addressed anyway.
[/tongue-firmly-in-cheek]
Too bad the poll doesn't have an option of "Yes, but only if the actual risks of each category are properly and fully assessed". That would also help address the issue that the number of "No" choices is double the number of "yes" choices.
Gordon
07-08-2003, 10:34 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by mongo
jr, i really believe that you have made a basic assumption that is wrong. that is that the ec will base the tiers on the actual cost of insurance. i do not see them doing this, but rather arbitarily assigning values instead.
jr, i really believe that you have made a basic assumption that is wrong. that is that the ec will base the tiers on the actual cost of insurance. i do not see them doing this, but rather arbitarily assigning values instead.
The point of this poll is to let the EC see what RCU members think. Remember, several of them do monitor this group. If I were to place a bet, I think that we will not have tiered rates in the foreseeable future. I am under the impression that Dave Brown floated this idea on his own and had not had any substantial discussion with the EC members before he did. He has been known to take the pulse of the membership in this manner before.
JR
07-08-2003, 11:10 PM
#10
My Feedback: (3)
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by J_R
mongo
The point of this poll is to let the EC see what RCU members think. Remember, several of them do monitor this group. If I were to place a bet, I think that we will not have tiered rates in the foreseeable future. I am under the impression that Dave Brown floated this idea on his own and had not had any substantial discussion with the EC members before he did. He has been known to take the pulse of the membership in this manner before.
JR
mongo
The point of this poll is to let the EC see what RCU members think. Remember, several of them do monitor this group. If I were to place a bet, I think that we will not have tiered rates in the foreseeable future. I am under the impression that Dave Brown floated this idea on his own and had not had any substantial discussion with the EC members before he did. He has been known to take the pulse of the membership in this manner before.
JR
You have to admit he does have the courage of his convictions and best interests of the hobby and the AMA when he leads on an unpleasant subject just to see who is going to follow. I am sure he does this strictly to stir the pot and see if someone has a viable alternative to his straw man solution.
I wish my DVP was 1/2 as good.
07-08-2003, 11:31 PM
#12
issue
Actuallyeven after all my griping abt the insurance and the large small plane complaining the insurance is the itty bittyiest part of your dues. they could even do an across the board insurance increase and not get any complaints from the membership. The answer is simple, instead of increasing dues all the time why not cut down on the amount of your dues that goes to fund these BS projects and the other needless things and just put that part of each persons dues towards the insurance. Why do we have to pay more for insurance because the AMA wants to build new hq flying fields and all kinds of other unnecessary stuff. How much insurance would that 10 million or whatever they spending on the new HQ would have bought without increasing dues. If anything they should drop back to the 45 a year rate.
Joe
Joe
07-08-2003, 11:59 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: issue
Originally posted by ProfLooney
Actuallyeven after all my griping abt the insurance and the large small plane complaining the insurance is the itty bittyiest part of your dues. they could even do an across the board insurance increase and not get any complaints from the membership. The answer is simple, instead of increasing dues all the time why not cut down on the amount of your dues that goes to fund these BS projects and the other needless things and just put that part of each persons dues towards the insurance. Why do we have to pay more for insurance because the AMA wants to build new hq flying fields and all kinds of other unnecessary stuff. How much insurance would that 10 million or whatever they spending on the new HQ would have bought without increasing dues. If anything they should drop back to the 45 a year rate.
Joe
Actuallyeven after all my griping abt the insurance and the large small plane complaining the insurance is the itty bittyiest part of your dues. they could even do an across the board insurance increase and not get any complaints from the membership. The answer is simple, instead of increasing dues all the time why not cut down on the amount of your dues that goes to fund these BS projects and the other needless things and just put that part of each persons dues towards the insurance. Why do we have to pay more for insurance because the AMA wants to build new hq flying fields and all kinds of other unnecessary stuff. How much insurance would that 10 million or whatever they spending on the new HQ would have bought without increasing dues. If anything they should drop back to the 45 a year rate.
Joe
Since it is obvious you don't like to do any research before you post, read through this older thread that explains, in depth, including an analysis of the 2001 financial statement done at RCAmin's request (that's Marc, he owns/owned RCU), where the money goes and why. Marc was looking for the AMA's head when he requested help. It's the most 'hit upon' thread in this forum.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...34&forumid=211
JRR
07-09-2003, 12:19 AM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
I live in Atlanta and I pay over $6000 a year for four cars. Paying an additional $25 for insurance for my planes is nothing!
07-09-2003, 01:49 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
JR-
The list of choices in your poll is long, but still managed to dodge a firm yes or no from me! I think tiered rates could/should have a place. That place is insurance for categories of models/activities that the EC has deemed too risky to insure under their present, seemingly occult, criteria. Case in point is big racers (yeah, Gordon, that one's for you). Giant scale racers were left hung out to dry for several years while the EC pondered how to deal with them. Not faulting the EC, I had some queasy feelings about them as a spectator. At least early in that game when Madera, CA was the primary venue, there were many crashes. There were also many spectators. The organizers did a reasonable job of keeping potential out-of-control racing models separated from the crowd. So did the competitors: I recall a real beauty of a Tigercat that experienced a high-speed stall after rounding a pylon, sending it toward the crowd with too little altitude to allow for reasonable certainty of regaining control. The pilot had the guts and skill to spin it in before it could reach the spectator area - it probably cost him in excess of $10K and months of labor. It was apparent to me that the mass, speed, and wing loading of these models, along with a large crowd of spectators, made for a level of risk that would be very hard to assess intuitively as of similar order of magnitude that we experience in our usual club flying environment. Is it worth the risk, i.e., is it an 'acceptable' risk? I think it is. These events draw in many non-modelers, some fraction of which are inspired to become modelers by what they see. In that sense, it is a great promotion for our hobby and sport, and so AMA as well. Point of this long story is an example of an activity that AMA might have turned it's back on (and it appeared they did for quite a long time) due to liability risk. It might have been handled more expediently if AMA had a mechanism in place to provide insurance coverage at a special rate commensurate with the greater risk. I don't know what else may come down the pike, but I'd like to see some avenue of accommodation open to new aspects of our hobby/sport, as well as some current ones you have mentioned that are threatened with curtailment, due to a perceived risk that exceeds the comfort threshold of the EC in the current one-size-fits-all packaging of insurance. Some form of tiered rates would seem to be a viable way to do that.
BTW, I don't think AMA needs to bear all of the load re administration of special or tiered rates - SIGs like the JPO and GSRA , for examples, could be players representing the particular interests of their members. Administration at the club level isn't as big a deal as some have made it out to be either. For jets, they already have to check that pilots have the necessary AMA waivers. What's the big deal if more than one waiver level were involved, e.g., under and over 55 lbs? I submit that it wouldn't be a big deal, if it came down to a go/no-go ruling by the EC re those exceeding 55 lbs, wet.
The real bugaboo that I and others have brought up here previously is the prospect, or lack thereof, for realistic assessment of risk, and so apportionment of insurance premium cost. Don't have a ready answer to that one. Maybe the risk assessment consultants AMA has allegedly hired to investigate will.
Abel
The list of choices in your poll is long, but still managed to dodge a firm yes or no from me! I think tiered rates could/should have a place. That place is insurance for categories of models/activities that the EC has deemed too risky to insure under their present, seemingly occult, criteria. Case in point is big racers (yeah, Gordon, that one's for you). Giant scale racers were left hung out to dry for several years while the EC pondered how to deal with them. Not faulting the EC, I had some queasy feelings about them as a spectator. At least early in that game when Madera, CA was the primary venue, there were many crashes. There were also many spectators. The organizers did a reasonable job of keeping potential out-of-control racing models separated from the crowd. So did the competitors: I recall a real beauty of a Tigercat that experienced a high-speed stall after rounding a pylon, sending it toward the crowd with too little altitude to allow for reasonable certainty of regaining control. The pilot had the guts and skill to spin it in before it could reach the spectator area - it probably cost him in excess of $10K and months of labor. It was apparent to me that the mass, speed, and wing loading of these models, along with a large crowd of spectators, made for a level of risk that would be very hard to assess intuitively as of similar order of magnitude that we experience in our usual club flying environment. Is it worth the risk, i.e., is it an 'acceptable' risk? I think it is. These events draw in many non-modelers, some fraction of which are inspired to become modelers by what they see. In that sense, it is a great promotion for our hobby and sport, and so AMA as well. Point of this long story is an example of an activity that AMA might have turned it's back on (and it appeared they did for quite a long time) due to liability risk. It might have been handled more expediently if AMA had a mechanism in place to provide insurance coverage at a special rate commensurate with the greater risk. I don't know what else may come down the pike, but I'd like to see some avenue of accommodation open to new aspects of our hobby/sport, as well as some current ones you have mentioned that are threatened with curtailment, due to a perceived risk that exceeds the comfort threshold of the EC in the current one-size-fits-all packaging of insurance. Some form of tiered rates would seem to be a viable way to do that.
BTW, I don't think AMA needs to bear all of the load re administration of special or tiered rates - SIGs like the JPO and GSRA , for examples, could be players representing the particular interests of their members. Administration at the club level isn't as big a deal as some have made it out to be either. For jets, they already have to check that pilots have the necessary AMA waivers. What's the big deal if more than one waiver level were involved, e.g., under and over 55 lbs? I submit that it wouldn't be a big deal, if it came down to a go/no-go ruling by the EC re those exceeding 55 lbs, wet.
The real bugaboo that I and others have brought up here previously is the prospect, or lack thereof, for realistic assessment of risk, and so apportionment of insurance premium cost. Don't have a ready answer to that one. Maybe the risk assessment consultants AMA has allegedly hired to investigate will.
Abel
07-09-2003, 02:19 AM
#17
Re: Re: issue
Originally posted by J_R
How about ONE million on a new HQ building.
Since it is obvious you don't like to do any research before you post, read through this older thread that explains, in depth, including an analysis of the 2001 financial statement done at RCAmin's request (that's Marc, he owns/owned RCU), where the money goes and why. Marc was looking for the AMA's head when he requested help. It's the most 'hit upon' thread in this forum.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...34&forumid=211
JR
How about ONE million on a new HQ building.
Since it is obvious you don't like to do any research before you post, read through this older thread that explains, in depth, including an analysis of the 2001 financial statement done at RCAmin's request (that's Marc, he owns/owned RCU), where the money goes and why. Marc was looking for the AMA's head when he requested help. It's the most 'hit upon' thread in this forum.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...34&forumid=211
JR
If they were so short of cash that they needed to borrow money it shows even more how ridiculous the $10 million dollar land/building at Muncie actually was
Joee
07-09-2003, 02:45 AM
#18
Tiered Insurance Poll
Example: of 170k AMA members (or whatever it is), we might have 800 jet people paying $10 more, and we'll have 5000 "rubber" people paying $10 less, for a dues income of $42000 less now?
I'm pretty sure it will be more like $100 more, maybe more than that. Lessee, a rubber model probably cost's $50 with a few extra's such as contest rubber, high perf prop. A Jet costs maybe an average of $10,000 10,000/50=200 so maybe $2000 more.
Not that I agree with it, but that maybe what Mr. Brown was thinking.
I'm pretty sure it will be more like $100 more, maybe more than that. Lessee, a rubber model probably cost's $50 with a few extra's such as contest rubber, high perf prop. A Jet costs maybe an average of $10,000 10,000/50=200 so maybe $2000 more.
Not that I agree with it, but that maybe what Mr. Brown was thinking.
07-09-2003, 02:53 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by Sport_Pilot
I'm pretty sure it will be more like $100 more, maybe more than that. Lessee, a rubber model probably cost's $50 with a few extra's such as contest rubber, high perf prop. A Jet costs maybe an average of $10,000 10,000/50=200 so maybe $2000 more.
I'm pretty sure it will be more like $100 more, maybe more than that. Lessee, a rubber model probably cost's $50 with a few extra's such as contest rubber, high perf prop. A Jet costs maybe an average of $10,000 10,000/50=200 so maybe $2000 more.
Huh ? Since the issue at hand is liability insurance, not comprehensive insurance for replacement of a lost model, what does the cost of the aircraft have to do with it ?
Gordon
07-09-2003, 03:06 AM
#20
My Feedback: (3)
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by abel_pranger
SNIP
BTW, I don't think AMA needs to bear all of the load re administration of special or tiered rates - SIGs like the JPO and GSRA , for examples, could be players representing the particular interests of their members. Administration at the club level isn't as big a deal as some have made it out to be either. For jets, they already have to check that pilots have the necessary AMA waivers.
SNIP
Abel
SNIP
BTW, I don't think AMA needs to bear all of the load re administration of special or tiered rates - SIGs like the JPO and GSRA , for examples, could be players representing the particular interests of their members. Administration at the club level isn't as big a deal as some have made it out to be either. For jets, they already have to check that pilots have the necessary AMA waivers.
SNIP
Abel
I think we disagree on two points. Part of the reason is that our points of view and considerations seem to be different. Another part of the reason is that you appear to have forgotten that there are a great many clubs where the membership constitutes a thundering heard, not all willing to always play by the rules.
I very strongly suspect that there will be just a whole lot more planes in excess of X weight than there are turbines as heavy planes do not necessarily mean lots of money invested. That would make this issue much larger than you think and that is where the rub is.
The only true way to enforce the weight limit to support a tiered approach is for each club to appoint a field cop to carry a calibrated scale to the field each and every flying day and weight any plane that appears it MAY cross the weight line. I suspect that we probably need to do that now as I have heard conversations about some who probably did cross the line when the tanks were FULL, so this appears to be neutral. Until you start putting tiers in that provide for heavier birds.
Do you really think that Fred Flightpack is going to tell the truth about the weight of his plane and his tier ticket? I won't even begin to address the useless hoopla we get to jump through when Fred upgrades his ticket to a higher tier, and I certainly will not suggest the possible problems seen when Fred renews his ticket we have already checked but steps it down to the lower tier.
But all that is just MY opinion.
07-09-2003, 03:43 AM
#21
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Tiered Insurance Poll
Originally posted by abel_pranger
Case in point is big racers (yeah, Gordon, that one's for you). Giant scale racers were left hung out to dry for several years while the EC pondered how to deal with them
Case in point is big racers (yeah, Gordon, that one's for you). Giant scale racers were left hung out to dry for several years while the EC pondered how to deal with them
I remember turning up for the Madera races one year (86 ?) and finding Dave dealing with the problem of the AMA having just pulled the insurance, and an alternate source had to be found.
I'm with you on this BTW - I think tiers have a place as long as the assesment is done properly and not just knee-jerk. Given the range of stuff I fly, I'd pay the highest rates regardless, so it wouldn't affect me either way - but just on principle I don't think others should be hammered because of incorrect assessment.
Later,
Gordon
07-09-2003, 03:44 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
Jim-
You may well be right. I don't have enough practical experience to stand firm on this with a whole lot of confidence that it will work easily in all possible situations. I am experienced with a corollary situation at a club that flies in a very quiet neighborhood, and conformance with sound level standards is essential to our retention of the field. Every model is checked for conformance with our standard of 91 dBA at 3 meters, and rechecked if a configuration change is made (i.e., a different prop or fuel). It may be flown only if in a configuration that has been logged and checked off by a club member other than the owner of the model. It's worked well for the dozen or so years we have had this field, and I hear few complaints that it is an undue burden on club members. I don't see any real difference between this burden of regulation by club members and accommodating the relatively few models in any given club flying venue that might fall into a special rate category. I guess it would depend to a degree on the club members' understanding and acceptance of the rationale that underlies the need for such special treatment. Also a factor in our situation with noise abatement is that it is in every club member's interest to ensure compliance, and dealing with special rate categories probably wouldn't be. That may be the fly in the ointment.
Abel
You may well be right. I don't have enough practical experience to stand firm on this with a whole lot of confidence that it will work easily in all possible situations. I am experienced with a corollary situation at a club that flies in a very quiet neighborhood, and conformance with sound level standards is essential to our retention of the field. Every model is checked for conformance with our standard of 91 dBA at 3 meters, and rechecked if a configuration change is made (i.e., a different prop or fuel). It may be flown only if in a configuration that has been logged and checked off by a club member other than the owner of the model. It's worked well for the dozen or so years we have had this field, and I hear few complaints that it is an undue burden on club members. I don't see any real difference between this burden of regulation by club members and accommodating the relatively few models in any given club flying venue that might fall into a special rate category. I guess it would depend to a degree on the club members' understanding and acceptance of the rationale that underlies the need for such special treatment. Also a factor in our situation with noise abatement is that it is in every club member's interest to ensure compliance, and dealing with special rate categories probably wouldn't be. That may be the fly in the ointment.
Abel
07-09-2003, 12:28 PM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Montgomery, IL
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiered Insurance Poll
I've read through this, and other threads on this issue, and it seems to me that due to the fact that the majority of the claims against the AMA have nothing to do with the flying of the planes that the tiered rates system should be with the Club Charter Memberships fees.
You could base the chartering fee on the number of members, design or location of the field(I know very subjective) and its experience rating(number or value of claims in the district, area, or field)
This makes more sense that a tiered individual system, due to the fact that most of the claims are made against the clubs and not the flyer's.
You could base the chartering fee on the number of members, design or location of the field(I know very subjective) and its experience rating(number or value of claims in the district, area, or field)
This makes more sense that a tiered individual system, due to the fact that most of the claims are made against the clubs and not the flyer's.
07-09-2003, 01:18 PM
#24
Tiered Insurance Poll
Yes a tiered system is more managable with clubs as opposed to individual's. There could also be a seperate system for those wanting to exceed the 55 pound limit, or craft which could exceed a certain speed.
07-09-2003, 01:29 PM
#25
Tiered rates
Ok I posted part of this response on another thread and thought i would post it here. All this talk of tiered rates is bogus and doesn't even apply.
Some facts are common sense without needing any statistics to back them up one of these facts is what I posted and know as an insurance agent and that is the fact that the higher risk would not be with the jets and giants due to the lack of numbers of them in reguards to the overall picture ie 160,000 members with smaller models vs a miniscule amt of flyers with jets and the larger giants. common sense facts dictate the majority of claims and dangers presented is greater with the smaller models than the larger ones thus the risk factor for insurance purposes would not be put upon having a larger plane until such time as the quantity of them is more dominant on the group. If we were talking individual insurance then of course they would charge a higher risk rate but what you dont get is we are under a GROUP plan thus your risk logic (and it is correct) does not come into play. say you get on a group plan for insurance at work. now say there are 100 employees and out of them employees there are 10 ppl with heart problems thus they have a higher risk of heart attacks. those people do not pay higher rates for their insurance due to the fact the majority of the group is healthy. It works the same way here the potential damage risk caused by the smaller planes which is in the majority sets the insurance rates thus there is no reason to think the rates are going to increase and all the discussions on tiered rates, or the giant scale and jets guys paying more and others less is all bogus. we are talking GROUP insurance here and that is just the way insurance works the majority in this case the small planes set the rates. Now if we look at the facts (without need for any stats as it is common sense logic) small planes are the risk factor here and not the large scale or jets thus no need to be talking tiered insurance rates etc.
What needs to happen is the EC needs to come up with a plane to safely incorporate the bigger planes and jets into the community and AMA events.
Joe
Some facts are common sense without needing any statistics to back them up one of these facts is what I posted and know as an insurance agent and that is the fact that the higher risk would not be with the jets and giants due to the lack of numbers of them in reguards to the overall picture ie 160,000 members with smaller models vs a miniscule amt of flyers with jets and the larger giants. common sense facts dictate the majority of claims and dangers presented is greater with the smaller models than the larger ones thus the risk factor for insurance purposes would not be put upon having a larger plane until such time as the quantity of them is more dominant on the group. If we were talking individual insurance then of course they would charge a higher risk rate but what you dont get is we are under a GROUP plan thus your risk logic (and it is correct) does not come into play. say you get on a group plan for insurance at work. now say there are 100 employees and out of them employees there are 10 ppl with heart problems thus they have a higher risk of heart attacks. those people do not pay higher rates for their insurance due to the fact the majority of the group is healthy. It works the same way here the potential damage risk caused by the smaller planes which is in the majority sets the insurance rates thus there is no reason to think the rates are going to increase and all the discussions on tiered rates, or the giant scale and jets guys paying more and others less is all bogus. we are talking GROUP insurance here and that is just the way insurance works the majority in this case the small planes set the rates. Now if we look at the facts (without need for any stats as it is common sense logic) small planes are the risk factor here and not the large scale or jets thus no need to be talking tiered insurance rates etc.
What needs to happen is the EC needs to come up with a plane to safely incorporate the bigger planes and jets into the community and AMA events.
Joe