Re: [RCSE] Maybe I'm miss understanding

[Martin Usher]

1) The AMA does indeed pay out. Don't take my word for it, ask them.   2) I don't recollect any combat incident at TP. I know that R/C planes have "collided" with other fliers at least once because a couple of months back there was a RCSE post referencing a picture of a paraglider returning with a model that it had caught. I don't think anyone thought it was dangerous, just amusing.   3) AMA is secondary insurance and the coverage is $2M5 these days. (Secondary means that they pay out when your insurance doesn't.) If you've got assets to protect make sure you've got some kind of umbrella coverage in addition to your standard homeowner's policies. Don't rely on the AMA. They provide a nice looking certificate for the site owner but you really need something a bit more concrete.   4) All activities involve risk. Usually the more fun the activity, the more risk. Work at managing the risk, don't wait for someone else to do it for you. If you're not happy about something don't do it.   Martin Usher     ----- Original Message ----- From: Maurice Podder To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: [RCSE] Maybe I'm miss understanding Maybe I'm miss understanding and I hope someone can clarify.  It sounds like because of the slope combat incident and now Torrey Pines that AMA does not cover most standard glider sites.  If my assumption is correct, that most glider sites do not and can not comply with present rules and guidelines pertaining to sanctioned AMA flight, then changes must be made in those rules and guidelines and those changes must be made as soon as possible.  How terrible it would be for an individual or a club to have a major incident and find out, because of the present rules, there is no coverage.  Foot dragging in a case like this, by AMA officials, could cause devastating loss to any of us.   By the way I'm going flying tomorrow at our AMA club sanctioned site but am I really covered? Maurice