frankp

My Feedback: (34)

A few months ago I had a conversation with a friend who happens to be on the AMA EC. The topic of that conversation was the lack of AMA insurance coverage for those members who engage in activities that have a direct bearing on Safety Standards, in terms of ensuring compliance by AMA members and clubs to these standards. At this time District Safety Officers/Coordinators, Contest Directors and Large Aircraft Inspectors are NOT provided primary insurance coverage under the AMA general Liability Policy while performing their safety related duties.

I would urge that all AMA District Safety Officers/Coordinators, Contest Directors and Large Aircraft Inspectors contact their respective District VP and ask that this matter be resolved immediatly prior to the 2011 flying season. It is my understand that this matter had been brought before the council but was not resolved.

Frank P

Hossfly

Several years ago when IMAA provided that the inspection and determination of safe-to-fly would be by the Pilot, then AMA followed with the process that any contestant/entrant in a sanctioned event had to sign an AMA form that both he/she and the aircraft were safe to fly. I stopped all safety checks at my events.

I have no intention of being in a position where I am declaring either or both the pilot and aircraft IS safe to fly. The entrants say they can, then so be it. They sign off to the fact. No longer my problem, and I will neither confirm or deny such.

Just like the new Safety Code removed the time frame in the alcohol provision for pilots. Use to if I saw a pilot with a beer within 8 hours, I had no problem in stopping his flying. Now I would have to be in the position of a licensed medical person to make such a call as to whether the person is "under the influence.... which could adversley affect the pilot's ability to safely control ..." Well, I am not such and I have no intention to take that responsibility.

I well remember back in the old days that a "Spotter" was only to hold the pilot's beer while he/she was flying. Back in the '70s good beer was as much required as fuel in the tank.

Those guys up in that EC make all kinds of rules and never give the membership anything to think about before the rules/s is/are made. As my parents told me when I misbehaved, "You made your bed, now sleep in it." So, AMA, that is the way it is. [sm=49_49.gif]

frankp

My Feedback: (34)

Horrace,

I think your response goes directly to the reason why the EC must correct this issue now. Why should anyone assume the additional liability without the additional insurance protection.

Frank P

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

Frank, do you think there is no insurance coverage at all?

frankp

My Feedback: (34)

Keith,

Not Primary. The Club Safety Officer was added to the AMA primary but that was it.

Frank P

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

Sorry Frank, I should have been clearer. I meant to ask if you thought there was no coverage from a person's primary insurer ... e.g. Homeowners liability, tenant's policy, personal injury protection policy or umbrella coverage?

frankp

My Feedback: (34)

Keith,

What and how much is covered under a members personal liability coverage is not what is in question. The question is why the AMA has primary liability coverage for the EC and other employees, club officers, including the recently added Safety Officer but does not supply the same insurance coverage to CD's, AVP's, Large Aircraft Inspectors, and District Safety Officers. I suggest that the reason is money. I would also suggest that if you are one of the people not covered by the AMA primary insurance and are actively performing one of the above mentioned services, that you contact your District VP and ask if he supports providing the coverage. I would let him know that if he does not support the purchase of the insurance, you may be forced to withold your services.

Frank

cj_rumley

Frank-

I think you are right, it is about money. I appreciate that somebody is watching to see that it isn't wasted. I'm a club SO, and I have more than adequate coverage from from HO, PUP, and in a remote fringe case AMA secondary insurance to cover the minimal risk that entails. AMA already pours several multiples of the annual insurance payout into premiums paid to a liability insurer that rarely pays out a dime. Enough is already too much.

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

I agree it is about the money, but I am probably thinking about different money. Since AMA insurance carries a $250,000 retention limit (deductible) your proposal would shift the burden of paying for these potential losses from private insurance directly on to the membership of the AMA. If there is a premium increase due to losses of this nature now being primary, the membership pays for that too. We all do literally 100s of things in our private and recreational life that expose us to liability, and virtually none of them are covered by anything other than personal liability insurance. I understand where you are coming from as on the surface it seems unfair that these groups have primary coverage and many other who perform administrative duties on behalf of the AMA have to use personal insurance first (the list is actually longer than you have outlined), but what is good for the general membership might actually be to move the existing groups to secondary coverage rather than continuing to load up the membership dues of the AMA with more exposure.

Maybe another way to look at it is if a jury finds that I am liable because I can't demonstrate I have exercised reasonable care in inspecting an airplane, why shouldn't I (and my personal insurance company) be responsible for that rather than pushing it off on the rest of the membership? I'm already paying for this anyhow.

One other point ... if the AMA is primary and that takes my personal insurance out of the picture, I might actually have less total coverage to apply to a loss than if my personal insurance is primary, cause I know the AMA insurance is there as secondary. I don't have the answer on this one, but I am researching this now.

I understand you may not agree and my intent is not to debate the issue ... just to show that there are "sub surface" considerations to this issue and perhaps alternate ways to think about it.

By the way, I am an experimental inspector, a turbine CD who signs off on waivers, a committee chair, a leader member and I have also had a hand in penning some the existing AMA regulations and I have no primary coverage. So if anyone should complain, I should be the guy.

Thanks Frank. Hope you don't mind the opposing view.

frankp

My Feedback: (34)

Keith,

I to am a CD, Exp Aircraft Inspector, AVP, Member of the Bi-Laws Committee and a Member of the STF. I don't profess to be and expert on insurance but I do know that the AMA put the club Safety Officers on the Primary Policy at n additional cost. That was a much larger than the people I am talking about. I do know that certain members of the EC are concerned about the cost even though they do not know what that cost may be if any. I suggest that the cancel the insurance coverage for the EC if they are so concerned about the cost. We all make our own decisions on how much risk we are willing to assume in the service of others

Be assured that I do not mind opposing views. We all can't agree on everything.

Frank P

KidEpoxy

Maybe another way to look at it is if a jury finds that I am liable because I can't demonstrate I have exercised reasonable care in inspecting an airplane presiding a club, why should I (and my personal insurance company) be responsible for that rather than pushing it off on the rest of the membership?

Why is the answer one thing when the person is doing their AMA duty presidenting a club,
but we get a different answer when the AMA duty is inspecting craft or directing contests?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

If I didn't know better I would think those the words of somebody advocating true personal responsibility. I often think that is a lost concept in this world where everyone is looking to defer their responsibility to some other "entity".

ira d

The wayI see is the AMA set up the rules and systems that require CD's and waiver signing along with inspections for large models and safety officers and then
they ask people to perform these duites. So IMO its only right that the AMA insurance should cover them when they are performing these duites.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The way I see it is that AMA should cover itself but make available as separate coverage for a fair cost to any agent of AMA... that cost of coverage could be a pay roll deductible expense...LOL

Hmmm... maybe the pay could just equal the insurance premium... that way we would be right back to real individual responsibility again... of course, the agent could just keep the money instead of buying the coverage.. and get a good meal at McDonalds instead.

frankp

My Feedback: (34)

Today I received a private message from someone who pointed out an error in my response to Keith. The response is shown below. Please note that in the second line of the text the o in no is missing. it should have read "at no additional cost". I think that most of the people who read the message understood my meaning.

I got the impression from the tone of the message that the person who sent the message had something to do with the AMA Insurance Program and was not too happy about my post.

Regards
Frank P



Keith,

I to am a CD, Exp Aircraft Inspector, AVP, Member of the Bi-Laws Committee and a Member of the STF. I don't profess to be and expert on insurance but I do know that the AMA put the club Safety Officers on the Primary Policy at n additional cost. That was a much larger than the people I am talking about. I do know that certain members of the EC are concerned about the cost even though they do not know what that cost may be if any. I suggest that the cancel the insurance coverage for the EC if they are so concerned about the cost. We all make our own decisions on how much risk we are willing to assume in the service of others

Be assured that I do not mind opposing views. We all can't agree on everything.

Frank P



Read more: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...#ixzz1A0k0L28x

cj_rumley

Frank,

Should have asked this before, duh. Now it's a question that has come up in another thread.

Why do you assign a higher value to AMA liability insurance that is primary, as opposed to the 'in-excess' coverage provided to the general membership?