Bigger Issues

[Ron Van Putte]

On Nov 19, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Gene Maurice wrote:
>
> Why is insurance an issue? If I'm an AMA member, I'm insured. If I 
> hold a
> contest at my AMA Chartered club's field, I'm insured. I don't believe 
> there
> is anything that prohibits us from having a "non-sanctioned" event and 
> still
> being covered, as long as everyone meets the AMA's requirements for 
> coverage
> to be inforce. But that's true even if the event IS sanctioned.
>
> If I didn't post a sanction at the contest would anyone ask to see it? 
> If I
> advertised non-sanctioned would anyone NOT come?
>
>

The subject was reasons not to break away from AMA.  If you do that, 
you don't have AMA insurance.

Ron Van Putte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:18 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Bigger Issues
>
> On Nov 19, 2003, at 2:55 PM, Jerry Budd wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it was because the IMAC people were willing to break
>>> away from AMA.
>>
>> I'd love to hear directly from some of the IMAC community on this this
>> 'cause that's not the story I'm hearing (hindsight being 20-20 and
>> all).  I don't want to speak for them (IMAC), could someone who is/was
>> active in IMAC (and was witness to what actually happened) please
>> "back brief" us on the history of this?
>
> They may have been willing to break away from AMA.  We don't quite have
> the same choices that they did/do.  They don't have a World
> Championships option; we do.  If we want to participate in F#A on a
> World level, AMA is the conduit.
>
>>
>>> As long as we operate under AMA, we are subject to the AMA rules and
>>> regulations.
>>
>> Understand that we operate under AMA by choice, not by legislation (or
>> even necessity).  NSRCA is a Special Interest Group (SIG) recognized
>> by AMA, but NSRCA is not formally a part of AMA, nor does AMA have any
>> regulatory jurisdiction or direct control over NSRCA. It's an
>> affiliation, not a superior/subordinate type of arrangement.
>
> True.
>
>>
>>> My rule change proposal to have NSRCA control the maneuver
>>> descriptions and maneuver schedules was rejected by the AMA Executive
>>> Council.  Short of bolting AMA, I don't think NSRCA has any choice in
>>> this matter.  If that is a demonstration that "we (NSRCA) are willing
>>> to simply lie down and get run over on this by AMA", I guess we're
>>> stuck with it.
>>
>> Only if we choose to be.  We have options;  I just wonder if the NSRCA
>> Officers are cognizant of them and willing to consider them as such.
>
>
> I am an NSRCA officer and assume that the other officers understand our
> options as I do.  The first big stumbling block is liability insurance
> for contests.  The second is participation in F3A World Championships.
> We could handle our own rules and contest coordination, probably
> better/faster than the AMA.  Do we have the resolve and will to do it?
> Most pattern pilots probably don't care.  Otherwise, they'd flood the
> contest board and AMA HQ with letters and e-mails about the situation.
> They haven't done it so far.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#