RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   Insurance - AMA dues - Are we paying our fair share (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11617683-insurance-ama-dues-we-paying-our-fair-share.html)

crash99 05-26-2015 09:25 AM

Insurance - AMA dues - Are we paying our fair share
 
While flying at the field yesterday I saw the normal for our field. Warbirds, sport, Giant, small, Foamy, heli and balsa planes. All of us at the field has paid in our $58.00 to the AMA for our insurance, Mag and other items that comes with the $58.00 dues.

But is it fair or right that the guy flying the heavy wardbirds are paying the same as the multi rotor flyer? both are not within the park flyer limits so why should the much higher risk warbird flyer pay the same for their insurance that the multi rotor pilot? That seems unfair. Compaired to the other flyers the 3D and Multi rotor has most likely been in much less amount of AMA claims compaired to Warbirds or even sport or trainers. I would not be shocked if the real number was 0.

So if a AMA members wants to fly those higher risk warbirds then maybe they should have to pay their fair share. I am not saying ban the warbird guys but they should pay their fair share. Maybe if you fly warbirds then your dues should be raised and the rest of the membership should stay at the $58.00 for 2016.

Crash99

MajorTomski 05-26-2015 09:30 AM

So, what should i pay when I fly my 14 gram Bostonian, indoors, with nothing but modlers present? It's bad enough that we have the two tier system with the park flyers.

crash99 05-26-2015 09:53 AM

It should be based on if your flying aircraft larger than the park pilot will allow, and then if you fly a warbird. Did that answer you Q?

bradpaul 05-26-2015 10:39 AM

obviously 3d planes should pay a heavy premium over all other types

crash99 05-26-2015 11:04 AM

You would have that so BradPaul but it is shocking to all but 3D pilots that they are the safest flyers over all. As far as AMA claims is concerned I understand the number is 0 from 1999 - 2013. 1999 was the first year I asked the question. I'm still waiting on the 2014 responce.

So it appears if you only fly 3D or 3D and anything other than warbirds, trainer, jets and gliders your in the group that are the safest flyers in the AMA. The question is why that is? It could be the skill level of 3D is at a higher / quicker responce.

Crash99

ira d 05-26-2015 12:18 PM

The system has worked fine the way it is for many years why complicate things, Who would police who flies what? Is there any data to show that the larger warbirds have more claims?

Also we don't want to start down the road of charging by perceived risk the auto insurance companies are IMO ripping off a lot of drivers by doing this for example a driver in one
zip code with no tickets can find himself paying more than a similar driver in another zip code with tickets.

porcia83 05-26-2015 01:15 PM


Originally Posted by crash99 (Post 12044399)
While flying at the field yesterday I saw the normal for our field. Warbirds, sport, Giant, small, Foamy, heli and balsa planes. All of us at the field has paid in our $58.00 to the AMA for our insurance, Mag and other items that comes with the $58.00 dues.

But is it fair or right that the guy flying the heavy wardbirds are paying the same as the multi rotor flyer? both are not within the park flyer limits so why should the much higher risk warbird flyer pay the same for their insurance that the multi rotor pilot? That seems unfair. Compaired to the other flyers the 3D and Multi rotor has most likely been in much less amount of AMA claims compaired to Warbirds or even sport or trainers. I would not be shocked if the real number was 0.

So if a AMA members wants to fly those higher risk warbirds then maybe they should have to pay their fair share. I am not saying ban the warbird guys but they should pay their fair share. Maybe if you fly warbirds then your dues should be raised and the rest of the membership should stay at the $58.00 for 2016.

Crash99

We're already paying our "fair share", no matter which of the two groups were in. The risk has been spread out accordingly, and is predicated on tons of historical data. What is "heavy"? And "warbird"? Is a Carbon Z Cub done up in camo to look like a L-19 Bird Dog a heavy warbird? Does someone flying that assume that much more risk/responsibility than someone flying a Parkzone T-28 "warbird" foamy? Either one can set in motion a chain of events that could lead to significant property damage and/or bodily injury.


Originally Posted by crash99 (Post 12044452)
You would have that so BradPaul but it is shocking to all but 3D pilots that they are the safest flyers over all. As far as AMA claims is concerned I understand the number is 0 from 1999 - 2013. 1999 was the first year I asked the question. I'm still waiting on the 2014 responce.

So it appears if you only fly 3D or 3D and anything other than warbirds, trainer, jets and gliders your in the group that are the safest flyers in the AMA. The question is why that is? It could be the skill level of 3D is at a higher / quicker response.

Crash99

I've never seen stats that show any one group of fliers is safer or not safer than others. One might think turbines are extremely unsafe and could do all kinds of person injury or property damage, and yet it might actually be the weekend flier of foamy planes that wreak the most havoc. If anything I've seen more 3D planes eat dirt due specifically to the type of flying they do. Warbird pilots in my experience are far better pilots, and rarely crash. The tend to fly the racetrack pattern and might throw an aileron roll in every now and then, but that's it. I've never seen a P-51 do 98% of the tricks a 3D pilot does. But that is just my opinion and experience, and it's completely speculative and anecdotal.

It's doubtful there would be any realistic or practical way of breaking out differing rates for different types of planes other than what we already have in place. If carriers could make money doing this, and the AMA could save money doing it, trust that it would have been done already.

Actuaries and underwriters are the only ones who could compile any reasonable sets of data points to look at, and even then it's doubtful the results would point to one over the other. Sometimes numbers are just numbers and you can't extrapolate meaningful data from them.

Sometimes we don't need to change what's working "good enough".

crash99 05-26-2015 01:17 PM

If you have humor here is a video that was made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK3-...ature=youtu.be But there is data on warbird and heli type aircraft.

Crash99

bradpaul 05-26-2015 01:51 PM

I believe the incident a few years ago between a RC aircraft and a full scale involved a 3D plane hovering over the runway.

FLAPHappy 05-26-2015 02:03 PM


Originally Posted by crash99 (Post 12044525)
If you have humor here is a video that was made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK3-...ature=youtu.be But there is data on warbird and heli type aircraft.

Crash99

I watched the first 1:00 minute of this video, and that Sir is TRASH. First off, everyone is supposed to be behind the Safety Barrier Fence when Taking of or Landing. These Stupid Sh**'s are on the Runway!!!!!! How dumb is that?
They have violated every rule the AMA is trying to enforce, and this is a typical example of their failure in this respect.

I have witnessed numerous Stupid acts by so called Pilots and this just fit's the mold of Stupidity. Oh, they have AMA cards, Cudo's to them, that's why we pay for Insurance to begin with. And I just wonder how much money the AMA actually pays off when a real accident happens? So how do we rectify a stupid pilot VS. a good pilot, should the good pilot pay the same amount as the dipsh**
pilot. I don't think so, but we do. So on it goe's.

FLAPHappy 05-26-2015 02:14 PM


Originally Posted by bradpaul (Post 12044436)
obviously 3d planes should pay a heavy premium over all other types

Brad, if a Pilot is doing 3d and performing without any problems, obiviously he is much more than, above the general sport pilot in his expertise. So why do you think he should pay more than a Risky Pilot, who dosen't know right from left? Yes the is more risk when performing 3D, but these pilots set up their aircraft so precise, measure everything, twice, and do a great job doing it.

BrightGarden 05-26-2015 03:40 PM

Well, the fact we are talking "insurance" in this thread means we are talking about a subject cloaked with "nuance" and "you wouldn't understand" from the providers. i am totally content with the approach you don't really know what you have for insurance until you need it. Then, do you want to make a claim and have your rates hiked? I had a dark room in the early 90's and someone broke in and stole a good deal of my camera equipment. Of course, I didn't have the "camera equipment rider" (as I was authoratatively informed) and got nothing for that equipment.

If the $58 AMA membership fee was much higher I might unsubscribe and just fly lekkies in the corner of a local park. As it is, I have, in the last year, seen a couple of wild fly-aways of aircraft at AMA-sanctioned meets and I was happy to know there was insurance behind those birds and pilots. In one case, the age/physical/mental limitations of the pilot might want to have been looked at in advance.

I like to believe that a caring AMA brass does actually work hard at understanding the insurance terms and does serious push-back on the carrier. How does a feet-of-clay flyer like me get to hear a presentation on the subject from said brass? Is there a videotaped presentation, meeting or document that I can look at? I do this for other parts of my life, maybe when I am stricken with a strong case of insomnia I would page through or review the video.

Get out and fly,
Cheers - Poughkeepsie Pete

littlecrankshaf 05-26-2015 08:07 PM

Crash, as a proud circle flyer I think that video was awesomely funny!

paulsf86 05-26-2015 09:43 PM

If you check the media, all of the issues these days involve multi rotor/drone type of vehicles. They could in fact involve AMA claims. You will also be happy to hear that AMA dues for next year appear to be headed up for all of us. Most of the increase is the result of the extra work required to keep our hobby as we know it and moderate the FAA control for our traditional model aviation hobby.

bjbellino 05-27-2015 01:03 AM

Just a couple of thoughts on this. One, why not make the $58 due, the higher end and let the smaller aircraft rcers pay less. I have heard that AMA insurance is secondary any, your home owners insurance always pays out first?? Not trying to bash AMA, they have dozens of great programs, They are a great asset when trying to secure and keep a flying site.. We could ask for some type of rewards program. I, along with millions of rcers have Never file a claim, in essence not costing AMA anything. Lets say I am a member for two years, not claims. Third year, $58.00 buys me 13 months of coverage. I go two more years and no claims, the $58 dues buys me 14 months of coverage, up to when I get to 16 months and it maxes out then, and starts over if I file a claim?? As long as I don't file a claim, it would seem we would be win. Just a thought, and yes I understand, nothing is as simple as we want it anymore.

airega1 05-27-2015 03:29 AM


Originally Posted by crash99 (Post 12044399)
While flying at the field yesterday I saw the normal for our field. Warbirds, sport, Giant, small, Foamy, heli and balsa planes. All of us at the field has paid in our $58.00 to the AMA for our insurance, Mag and other items that comes with the $58.00 dues.

But is it fair or right that the guy flying the heavy wardbirds are paying the same as the multi rotor flyer? both are not within the park flyer limits so why should the much higher risk warbird flyer pay the same for their insurance that the multi rotor pilot? That seems unfair. Compaired to the other flyers the 3D and Multi rotor has most likely been in much less amount of AMA claims compaired to Warbirds or even sport or trainers. I would not be shocked if the real number was 0.

So if a AMA members wants to fly those higher risk warbirds then maybe they should have to pay their fair share. I am not saying ban the warbird guys but they should pay their fair share. Maybe if you fly warbirds then your dues should be raised and the rest of the membership should stay at the $58.00 for 2016.

Crash99

Maybe you need to stop whining like a child and stop trying to push misery on someone else, or maybe just go to some park to fly your quad or whatever you're flying

corch 05-27-2015 03:51 AM

Simple solution.

First 10 years of your RC modelling experience you should pay a higher rate. Inexperience pilots are not very skilled, probably don't have the know how to assemble correctly or even build a kit.

For every failure or incident you have with your model aircraft, you must submit, in triplicate an incident report form describing the situation, signed by witnesses and notarized. Mailed via USPS certified to AMA, FAA, and Department of Homeland Security. Your rate will go up each and every incident.

When an RC modeller reaches the age of 40, he/she will also have to submit a yearly medical report, based on the examination chosen by AMA selected doctor, that the person still has the physical, visual, and mental capacity to fly. This examination is pass fail and there is no appeal process.

When an RC modeller reaches the age of 50, the physical, mental, visual exam will be monthly. BTW, cost of these exams will be out of your pocket, and not covered by any health insurance.

Your model will also have a rate based on country of manufacture. ARFs and or Kits made in some countries will have a higher rate than those manufactured in others.




I could go on, but my sarcasm tank is already on half and it's not even 8am yet......

DocYates 05-27-2015 04:23 AM

I always love an argument where someone tries to decide what is a "fair share". It is obvious from the argument that you believe you are overpaying for coverage and someone else is not paying enough. Turbine fliers already have to go thru a flight evaluation process, and I think if you check the number given by the JPO you will find that incidents are no higher than any other realm of rc flying. The idea behind a single payment system is that it prevents complicating a system that will require someone to monitor those who fly. What if I like to fly 3D, but also own a jet or warbird? What if I fly a warbird and also own a quadcopter? Most RCers I know have multiple interests and are not satisified just flying one type of aircraft. How do you decide to "rate" them in your new insurance plan?
Most of us predicted years ago that when the AMA took up a two tiered electric flier system that it would not be long until some yahoo proposed one that separated the other regiments. Congratulation, you won the prize. The AMA insurance program basically covers everyone for the same price. This allows you develop more interests and encourage you to explore different facets of the sport. For those flying aircraft of more than a certain weight, you have to get a waiver. The same goes for turbine fliers and those who fly turbine helis. That is a self policing type of action because it does involve a slightly higher risk, BUT the historical records have proven that this type of system appears to be working.

pkoury 05-27-2015 05:16 AM

Interesting observation regarding warbird vs multirotor pilots. How many Warbirds have been reported in the news involved in a near miss with full scale aircraft. How many videos have been posted of Warbirds flying and filming in public places. At the RC fly ins I attend I can't recall every seeing a Warbird flying over the pits or behind the pilot stations filming, can't say the same thing about multirotors. Basically the AMA insurance is secondary to your primary insurance so not everyone is paying the same anyway.

raptureboy 05-27-2015 06:32 AM

Does anyone even know of someone who has had to use their supposed AMA insurance? I think y'all have been trolled. How in the world would the AMA ever begin to regulate what you decide to fly at anyone time?:rolleyes:

oneaew@msn.com 05-27-2015 07:11 AM

if our dues go any higher i wont join ill just go to the desert and fly once a month i was 83 yesterday>> i dont get much money to spend anymore

littlecrankshaf 05-27-2015 07:15 AM


Originally Posted by oneaew@msn.com (Post 12044937)
if our dues go any higher i wont join ill just go to the desert and fly once a month i was 83 yesterday>> i dont get much money to spend anymore

Happy Birthday One!

Man, I am sure you have seen lots of changes in your lifetime... 83 and still flying...good for you!

oneaew@msn.com 05-27-2015 07:23 AM

LITTLE CRANK SHAFT thank you i do feel good so far only one crash in 5 yrs>> but ss money is tight>

oneaew@msn.com 05-27-2015 07:45 AM

what happens if you fly all kinds of planes do you pay insurance on each plane???????

k3 valley flyer 05-27-2015 07:48 AM

I know of 3 fatalities in the last several years from rotor type aircraft, none from warbirds. Your assumptions about which have the greater risks are ridiculous.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.