Changing sides
 

This should get :eek:
How can a santioned AMA club let none members fly and still get coverage for flying field:eek:
People change their mind about AMA and want more people to participate and they are the ones that set the rules???????????????:D:D

RE: Changing sides
 

It's up to the land owner, not the club who decides who can fly and who can't at a flying site. AMA membership is only a perceived requirement, but is only required for a CLUB (a group of fliers) but not required for a flying site unless the site is owned by the club.

RE: Changing sides
 

Better wording is "....the site is controlled by the club." Keep that old wishful thinking concerning public sites cannot require AMA to yourself as I know the Harris County, TX park system require AMA, and unless big changes have happened the same applies to the RC sites in Cook and Lake counties in the Chicago area. There should be someone from one of those clubs that can confirm or deny what is currently in force there.

RE: Changing sides
 

I know in Houston at Scobee field, which is part of the largest park in Harris County, the signs as you enter says; AMA or equivalent insurance. It seems, according to signage, that a HAMCI badge is sufficient to fly there. Otherwise, I guess due to AMA requirements and stuff like that, the public hobby activity seems to be fairly retarded in most regards there (Harris County) overall. Hardly even a mention in Houston Area Park guides about model airplane flying.

Oh well… Back to previous programming.

RE: Changing sides
 

As soon as one person threatens to sue for not being allowed to fly without having to join AMA, those localities will change and accept proof of other forms of coverage.

RE: Changing sides
 

FWIW,

here around Nashville, I've been told by the Parks & Rec directors in two separate counties that a city who manages a "public facility" can NOT, by law, require membership in any particular organization, club, or group...nor can they prohibit use of those facilities based on membership or non-membership in any such organization. So, they can not, technically, require AMA membership.

Now, what they CAN do is require proof of a certain amount of liability protection...and they may choose to accept (or not accept) whatever form of documentation from whatever source of said coverage they wish. So, they can certainly say "Your AMA card demonstrates proof of satisfactory insurance coverage." They also, as it happens, will accept homeowners or renters insurance with satisfactory documentation that the activity of flying RC Airplanes is specifically covered.

I freely admit, I have no idea if this is a local, state, or broader set of rules, nor have I done the research to know, specifically, which section of whose codes applies here.

RE: Changing sides
 

Here's a twist. In general, if a public entity, like a Parks Department has a model facility on public land then they cannot require AMA membership. However, IF an AMA club LEASES land from the Parks Department, THEN the club can require AMA membership to be a member of the club (in fact they have to do so) and since they have a lease, they control who can access a site.

RE: Changing sides
 

Well, our club is on public land. It's not leased,(it doesn't cost us a thin dime) we are tolerated as long as we maintain an AMA charter and all pilots are AMA. I'm willing to bet that the Parks Dept anywhere could do what they please as far as requirements. If you think public land can't be restricted, you can look around for many examples.

RE: Changing sides
 

I believe restriction on usage is different than a requirement to pay a fee to a non-government agency.

RE: Changing sides
 

P-51B, to be honest, I imagine that it's different everywhere. Like I say, we are required to maintain that level of insurance. If there were an alternative, we might even be able to use it, but there's not a cost effective alternative. So, it's AMA or don't fly.

RE: Changing sides
 

Also note that not paying rent doesn't mean that you don't have a lease agreement in effect with the government agency. Obviously I don't know anything about your or your club, but if you aren't one of the club people who work with the government about your location, you might want to find out if there isn't actually some kind of lease on file anyway.

RE: Changing sides
 

of course, if all the above is true, the land isn't any longer a park but merely leased public property.

RE: Changing sides
 

but we know public entities all the time require Insurance, and last time I checked, Alstate/StaleFarm wasn't goverment either.... so you can get Alstate/StateFarm/AMA/Farmers/whoever to insure you as demanded by public control freaks.

The hard part is when they pick just 1 insurer to be acceptable, turning away folks that may have better coverage by another company just cause it wasnt StateFarm/AMA/"just the one approved insurer"

RE: Changing sides
 

Most parks require a permit to fly which is given with proof of insurance, the permit is only as good as the term of your insurance. If your insurance is paid monthly, then you'll have to get a new permit every month. The good thing about the AMA card and why the parks dept likes it, is because it's always an annual subscription that starts and ends on the first of each year. Your premium is always paid. Parks departments know all the games and tricks, they deal with the EXACT same situations with Soccer and Baseball leagues long before a RC field hit their park, it's no different. Soccer and Baseball leagues also have their National sponsor/insurer programs as well. Also who said a public park was public? The public park is only "public" to it's residents if that's what they want to do. Municipalities could put fences around their parks and only allow their local taxpayers to use the land and in some parks they do just that. A permit just to use the park. They can also institute as many rules as they wish as well as long as they are not discriminating within their community. Now federal parks, that's a different story.

Anyhow the guy in the thread never mentioned a park anyway ... why did it go this direction?

RE: Changing sides
 

Parse it any way that you desire, but that is the way it works in many cases. My home club leases land located inside a county park. The check goes to the parks department. We have exclusive use on weekdays, and we open the field to any AMA member on weekends (they pay a day use fee). But, we still control the field and as such require AMA membership to fly there. Nobody gets hung up if it is still a "park" or "leased public land". However, it is STILL located in the park, on the land designated by the county as park land, and it is patrolled by the park ranger.

But I am sure you are right, it is not a park anymore.

RE: Changing sides
 

Our club is in a county park...no lease...just an agreement that we maintain that part of the park.. mowing etc.

You do not have to be a club member to fly at the field... but the county requires that you are an AMA member to fly there....
We have been given permission to call the local authorities to have someone removed if they are flying without AMA..... we have never done this.....

I don't know how all the legaleeze reads, but that is what it is at our spot

RE: Changing sides
 

I am sure as a fair minded club, as yours most likely is, your club wouldn’t try to prevent folks(tax paying... you know...the ones paying for the park Rangers and such) from using the park or willfully maintain an erroneous position that one must belong to the club to fly there if it were actually a park... Your club may very well have met all prerequisites to acquire the sole use of public property and would be paying for a substantial lease. If so, your club is contributing to the actual costs involved but many other clubs only pay a token fee for a non-exclusive use lease, which is common.

It would be hard to fathom ( detect a note of sarcasm here) a club that would try to take advantage of Joe Q. Public’s ignorance and try to dupe him into believing he can only use a park flying field under the clubs conditions.

RE: Changing sides
 

You really don't need permission to call who ever you like.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of the incident where someone is removed from the site because of not belonging to AMA and decided to contest the policy…Hard to believe a city authority would make that mistake unless fully backed by some law or laws that are extremely unusual.

RE: Changing sides
 

Making the AMA mandatory is to force AMA membership more so than providing insurance. Depending on the state's laws, in most states you can not be forced to join a private organization to use a public park. Even the lease agreements can be challenged. Many muni's don't like the AMA covering the first $250,000 as they see it as a deductible dependent on the solvency of the organization.

RE: Changing sides
 

And yet many public entities still recognize the value of AMA, San Diego and Los Angeles among them. As far as "forcing" membership, that is a gray area. Los Angeles does not require it (AMA Membership) to fly at Sepulveda Basin. San Diego does to fly at Torrey Pines. San Bernardino County does as well to fly at Prado. So does Phoenix to fly at the Cave Buttes site. I am sure there are others.


I am curious what is the basis of your statement above. You seem to speak from some sense of authority and knowledge. Yet the facts seem to contradict your sense of the situation.

RE: Changing sides
 

It always amazes me that when these type exchanges take place, in this forum, no one ever asserts that the city or muni has liability insurance in place to cover themselves and the policy may not and IMO should not specifically excluded model airplane flying. That would simply leave each person responsible for himself...so buy some insurance to cover yourself...your liabilities or otherwise (life, health, property…) or don’t.

RE: Changing sides
 

Since you are clearly an authority in this area I suggest you immediately contact the San Bernardino County Parks Department, The City of San Diego, The City of Phoenix and on and on.

Please share your depth of knowledge and obvious expertise in this area with them. These poor agencies and public entities are unaware of the true situation as elucidated in your incisive evaluation of this area of law. They have all foolishly, and apparently incorrectly, required clubs or other groups to require AMA membership to use a site located on public lands AND in parks. Beyond that, many of them have also granted these same clubs the right to control access to these same public park lands!! The depth of their ignorance clearly has no bounds. It is a sad testament to the caliber of people that these cities must be hiring that their own people are so incapable of knowing and enforcing the law.

So rather than waste more band width preaching to a bunch of modelers, why not do something, and get out there and set all these fools straight. Their attorneys clearly are not up to speed on this. John Q. Public will thank you for your service!!!

RE: Changing sides
 

Thanks people every time I try to respond it gets turned off:eek: Getting my answers and will pass it on to the one that asked the question at the meeting.
once an out law it seems that every one keeps you an outlaw:eek:[&o]

RE: Changing sides
 

Can you please substantiate your assertions or do we just take your interpretation as the gospel. Look Phaedrus-MMVI, You have made the claim so back it up...not just he said they said stuff but point to the document that supports your claim(s). If you can't back it up or don't want to, you get exactly 0 points for your argument. Keep in mind if the agreement stresses that a club will maintain AMA affiliation is quite different than requiring the club to acquire affiliation...small point but germane to the interpretation of said agreement.

RE: Changing sides
 

I dont know this for sure but i suspect the reason some of these cities or requiring AMA
is because some clubs made a pitch about the AMA to them.

I do think if someone was to cahallenge them in court they would have to back down
as long as that person could show they had liabilty coverage in force.

but on the other hand its really not worth hassel and expense just to fly a model to
go to court its easier to pay the 58.00 and go fly.

RE: Changing sides
 

You don't get a magazine for going to court.;)

RE: Changing sides
 

And consider that if you were to go to court and "win" the right to be free of the onerous requirement to be an AMA member that the result may be no place to fly, or perhaps proof of sufficient insurance to make the City happy.

I do a lot of work for City governments, they all, without exception, require a minimum of $1,000,000 in general liability, and some want more. Ask you agent what a MILLION dollars will cost to get added to your policy to cover model airplanes. I suspect that it might be just a touch more than $58.

RE: Changing sides
 

what if you get a Tertiary Insurance for $1mil, it might be cheaper than Primary, or Secondary for $58 (under$20 for ins)

RE: Changing sides
 

It is to be noted that the $1,000,000 is for ORGANIZED sports such as little league and youth soccer. Not for individuals just playing catch base ball or kicking around a soccer ball. Same could be demanded of an R/C club as it is an ORGANIZED activity demanding the same considerations as other ORGANIZED sports -- control of public property to facilitate their activities.

So the argument for the same liability coverage as the AMA to use a public facility as an individual is spurious and extremely questionable.

RE: Changing sides
 

You can't be coerced or forced into joining an organization to use public property. Demanding excessive liability insurance with out showing good cause for individual use of a public facility then offering a less expensive "alternative" is coercion. Note I said "individual use".

Challenge the elected officials that control the property first.

RE: Changing sides
 

Of course the post I was responding to was talking about clubs and not individuals, so my response was neither spurious or questionable.

ira d wrote I was simply saying that a club may choose to not use the AMA insurance benefit as a bargaining chip, but then either the club, or its members, would have to come up with something. Unless of course you are making the point that you think that there should be no insurance required by anyone, which is what you seem to be saying when talking about people playing catch in the park.

RE: Changing sides
 

Excellent advice. Be confrontational. Make the City see the light then watch them say no to you!!

If insurance is not an issue, then why is Costa Mesa requiring it? A better question is why isn't the requirement the same for everyone? AMA members have $2.5 million, but a non-member only needs $500,000. Hardly fair. I suppose you will argue that AMA members are more dangerous now!!

RE: Changing sides
 

Costa Mesa is not requiring it as the proposed ordinance has not passed. As you alluded to in a prior post it is the club with the backing of the AMA that foists excessive comparable insurance requirements without justifications. This is one of the means that AMA uses to coerce membership as it is usually cheaper to join the AMA than to bump your homeowners or renters to a half million and a club uses to control a flying site. Besides the park board is more concerned about moving or cutting down trees than digging into actuarial tables and civil liabilities. They didn't listen to the one person on the board that has been selling insurance for forty years.

RE: Changing sides
 

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Your selective reticence is well known when it comes to challenging your precious AMA.

RE: Changing sides
 

Once again, the AMA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE ORDINANCE IS BEING WORDED. I cannot make it more clear. While this is counter to your delusion that AMA is the root cause of this situation, it is, none-the-less, the truth. AMA simply reviewed the proposed agreement. AMA even agreed with the part where the City was NOT requiring AMA insurance. All of this was done BEFORE the AMA was even aware of the proposed agreement.


Somehow after all these years I still think that one day you will actually let facts enter into how you form your opinions. Silly me.

RE: Changing sides
 

I'll use the hard proof I have when the time comes.