RCU Forums - View Single Post - Park Flyers Vs MAAC Insurance.
View Single Post
Old 11-08-2009, 12:07 PM
  #11  
Revy
My Feedback: (1)
 
Revy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Revelstoke, BC, CANADA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Park Flyers Vs MAAC Insurance.


ORIGINAL: Deerslayer

Yes, they can. In our Club, we have registered a specific location where we have one or two Club float fly's each year, plus a location for indoor flying (may change, year to year, so we have to re-register).

Unlike bashing around in public parks, etc., the flying at both locations has some controls, i.e., following safety guidelines (as explained in the Pilots' Meeting prior to flying that day), frequency control for 72 MHz, separating incompatible kinds of flying activities, limitations on size/power when appropriate (such as maximum size heli allowed for indoor flying) and just plain common sense. I think that is what having reasonable insurance coverage, at affordable prices, requires. It is not that hard to do. Everyone has fun.

As for flying elsewhere, check your home-owner policy. They MAY cover you. Or, they may say something like, "Are you nuts?"
That defines a a club meet, which I know you can get coverage for. Its the "bashing" (I use that term when I'm kickin' the snot outta my monster truck, not flyin') at a public park by yourself when the oportunity to get a few flights in arises. We all can't get to our clubs to fly as busy schedules dictate other priorities. Why do we get lil foamies and park-flyers then? Admit it we've all flown where MAAC wouldn't cover us if there was something to happen. Has it? Not to me, yet. The chances are there, but slim, especially w/2.4gHz and proper care of equipment. Who here has been hit by an indoor job? Does it hurt? Only in the wallet.

Now a certain type, weight and power as well as operational guidlines is what I would like to see from our governing body. Not allowed period is too easy for them. We want and can make it safe, so lets make them change the policy. Do we make a list of the parks that would be acceptable as to avoid the non-sanctioned clause? I'm refering to baseball diamonds, football and track and field fascilities, not congested busy parks. Ones with some control, ie a fence etc.

Obviously if something were to happen, there would be some sort of official investigation by the police. MAAC's underwriter could base their decision on that claim by said investigation.