President's Perspective
Background
A couple of columns back I wrote about the possibilities of a two-tiered membership system, and it created a firestorm on the Internet and in my e-mail. Most respondents misunderstood the origins of that column and assumed that some such system was about to be enacted. This is not the case.
Many respondents took this "proposal" as a way for AMA to hide a dues increase, in spite of the column's revenue-neutral statement. The numbers reflected a guess at the increase in premium mentioned and were only a starting point for discussion. Ed McCollough was right when he suggested that I remove the numbers; however, I convinced him that without them as a starting point, the members would have no idea what the system's effect would be.
A system involving different dues rates for different "liability risks" has been suggested many times. Nearly every time AMA dues are brought up, someone who flies "small, slow, low risk" models suggests that their dues should be less than those who fly "big, fast, high risk" models. (It is often put as, "those rich guys who fly ...")
This attitude becomes fervent every time a dues increase is discussed. (No, no, no — one is not being considered now!) Nearly every time AMA tries to put restrictions on how "big" or "fast" the models on the other end of the spectrum are allowed to get, someone on that end suggests "some type of additional insurance charge" as an alternative to restrictions. This is also commonly suggested when a group tries to expand the limits of the AMA rules.
Membership proposals and arguments
One AMA Special Interest Group is advocating increasing the weight limit from 55 pounds to 77 pounds; another is suggesting increasing the maximum turbine size from 22 to 35 pounds thrust. The advocates make the point that AMA, in its charter, is dedicated to "the advancement of the art and science of model airplanes," and the present limits are limiting that advancement. Therefore, "AMA must increase the limits to fulfill its charter!"
Modelers who fly "more typical" models say, "don't allow any bigger or faster models; they will only increase the risks, and cause an increase in my dues!" The pro bigger/faster group will say, "our modelers have more experience; that makes them safer than those beginners with their small models." The anti-bigger/faster group will counter with ... you get the point.
I was attempting to present how such a system could be structured, after having to explain "hundreds of times" why such a system couldn't be done.
Claims and statistics
Based on the mail, most respondents agree that "the members need to see the claims history" before they support any changes. They want "statistical proof" that one type of model creates more claims than another. It's not that simple. There are too many model types and too few claims involving them to derive any meaningful data regarding relative safety. We should be thankful for that. If we had enough claims involving model airplanes to be able to statistically separate them by type, weight, size, speed, etc., our activity would have been shut down long ago.
In the last 20 years I recall six fatalities involving AMA members or clubs:
- Three did not involve a model airplane: two involved cables installed across entrance roads or runways and an ATV or snowmobile; the other involved a flagpole that fell on the victim.
- The fatalities involving model airplanes included a "flying lawnmower" at an airshow, an Aeromaster biplane being sport-flown, and a model flown in a "warbird" pylon race.
The biggest property damage claim was from a Free Flight model that dethermalized onto power lines and started a fire, which burned a large area. The biggest personal injury/liability claim involved a Control Line Speed model that crashed and hit an AMA member.
Someone will (has) pointed out that none of these are "giant" models, trying to "prove" that their models are safer, and someone will (has) pointed out that the warbird race wasn't a "real" pylon race, so their activity is safer than ... you get the idea.
Specialty insurance and how it works
Specialty insurance is not the same as insuring "regular" things like cars, homes, and lives, where numbers are large enough to derive statistically meaningful data. Specialty insurance involves more guesswork and gut feeling. In our case, which I think is typical, we take data to an insurance broker, who shops around to find an insurance carrier willing to cover our liability. The insurance companies look at our history of claims, decide if they want to take on our risk, and quote a price.
Sometimes they give you a few options, usually involving different Self-Insured Retention (SIR) levels, which is effectively a "deductible." Once an insurance policy is selected, the insurance company monitors claims against the policy. Usually they are not too concerned about claims paid out within the SIR unless the total is a large amount of money and/or shows a trend indicating an increased possibility of larger claims that would exceed the deductible. Insurance companies watch overall financial activity closely; they don't get too involved in how insured activity is regulated, and they don't really care about the specifics. They do, however, watch closely that regulation is effective in maintaining an acceptable level of claims.
If you have a large claim, the insurance company might decline your business in the future. If you have a good track record, they might just increase your rates. If you have been with the company for a long time, it might pay the claim and say nothing. If you had no claims, it might reduce the premium in order to keep your business.
Insurance companies don't want a situation where there is no risk, because there would be no reason for insurance. They want predictable risk, and that predictability is dependent upon massive amounts of statistical data, which actuaries assess to determine probabilities of occurrence and severity. We don't have that luxury, so we are more vulnerable to insurance industry cycles.
Tiered membership prospects
I don't think tiered membership has much chance of making it to the proposal stage, much less being passed. I do think it will continue to come up as an alternative to restrictions on model size/performance, and perhaps in the future the membership will give it serious consideration.
Member feedback and conduct
I've learned that while the membership voices a desire for open discussion of ideas, most who do so write in a way that conveys anything but discussion. The majority didn't read the whole article or make any effort to understand it before firing off their e-mail, and the responses contained more threats than suggestions ("I suggest you shove ...") or ideas.
Thanks to those who voiced opposition in a positive manner. I particularly enjoyed one response which started out, "You sure have kicked over a hornet's nest here in ..." then went on to say that his club seemed to see the merit in the concept, but had a problem agreeing where the dividing point should be — amen!
IMS show acquisition
AMA has purchased the IMS show from Bill and Anita Northrop and intends to operate it the same way it has been run. We hope to improve the seminar and symposium aspects of the show. It will also be a profit-making exercise for the AMA, to help reduce dues dependence. Many membership association conventions and trade shows are a profit center; now we have such an opportunity. I will report more in a later column. There is absolutely no connection between this acquisition and the tiered membership idea.
Dave Brown AMA President dbrown@dbproducts.com
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
