[NSRCA-discussion] off topic: electric parkflier does not allowtofly at the park !

[Del K. Rykert]

Wait till the incidents that get people to hire lawyers get going then places that have been allowing park flyers will be banned and they will become cowboys flying wherever they can  whether legal or not. Parents turn 7 and 8 year old children lose in park to fly their new toy and hit infant lying on blanket at local park. The majority of park flyers may chose to fly responsibly but many will not and those are the ones that can make it bad for all modelers.
 
                 Del 
          nsrca - 473
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: mike mueller 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:33 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] off topic: electric parkflier does not allowtofly at the park !


   If the average park flyer doesn't get insurance coverage form the AMA because they fly at non sanctioned fields then why would they join the AMA? I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of AMA members do it because their clubs require it.
   Sofar I have never had a problem with park flying. I guess I've been lucky. Mike

  Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com> wrote:
    I suspect the bigger problem is the average park flier would rather not be bothered with dealing with the AMA, let alone paying them any money for very little perceived value.
     
    -Doug
     
     

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
    Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:12 AM
    To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] off topic: electric parkflier does not allow tofly at the park !
     
    I recently received a note from AMA regarding the paraphrased issue Wayne brings up below: insuring the Park Flier Pilots. They proposed a fee of about half what it costs the typical Open Member.
     
    In my view, I saw no study done by the AMA looking at rates of occurences of these model types, per capita, or the degree of damage of those occurences to property owners. I saw therefore, no basis for AMA's suggested charge for bringing this faction of Aeromodeling into the whole of AMA. 30 dollars seems inappropriate considering the damage potential especially when one considers the new battery technology. But a larger amount seems difficult to swallow for models that cost only a couple hundred bucks in general.
     
    Having said that, I agree that the AMA must do something to help protect these pilots (many of whom may be inexperienced and are potentially quite dangerous to themselves and others). Considering how the manufacturers have embraced (they, afterall created it) this extremely fast growing part of the Hobby, they need to help AMA by bringing the AMA message to those that have no knowledge of the possible dangers and potential insurance required. Some are doing some minor things (Horizon is one example) but more must be done.
     
    I am concerned that unless this is properly managed right now at this early stage of this unprecedented growth, we may all suffer in the end. This is going to be tricky, moving forward.
     
    MattK


     
    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060426/256b7e23/attachment-0001.html