Another Drone Pilot does it Again
#678
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The notion that our secondary liability insurance is some kind of member to member coverage is preposterous... The AMA could have provided real first person coverage if that was the real intent.
#680
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Just wondering how much a primary first person insurance and not having to rely on the crap shoot of some legal action to determine liability would be worth to you?
The notion that our secondary liability insurance is some kind of member to member coverage is preposterous... The AMA could have provided real first person coverage if that was the real intent.
The notion that our secondary liability insurance is some kind of member to member coverage is preposterous... The AMA could have provided real first person coverage if that was the real intent.
I personally know a doctor, as in MD doctor who owned his own home, and two rental home properties. Goes out one night, has a few pops, goes to drive home and ended up hitting a pedestrian and breaking her leg and hip. No worries right, he's loaded and has insurance. Well, it was much cheaper to get the minimum coverage of 20,000 for liability insurance. Fast forward two years. His insurance company pays the 20k of course, he had to sell both of his investment homes AND take a note out on his primary residence in order to resolve the claim. He's lucky it wasn't more serious, his home and practice could have been exposed.
paying for insurance sucks, paying out of pocket sucks more.
#684
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here is the message that has just been posted by Bobby McGee:
While on the topic of insurance coverage, if anyone has had FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE regarding their claim with the AMA for the "coverage," please post your experience as to the bureaucracy involved with the submittal, and the outcome. Since AMA 's insurance is merely secondary, I'm sure there are many conditions that need to be met as well as many reasons for the denial of this insurance.
Not much of a bureaucracy. You report the claim and it gets assigned to an adjuster. They basically monitor the underlying claim while the other carrier attempts to resolve the claim. We've only had one, and it resolved well under the primary layer of coverage that this person had, which was 250k (90k for a broken leg). Have never seen a denial of coverage here, or anywhere else. All policies have provisions in them that have to be met, but it's rare that a coverage denial is sent to a policy holder that hasn't been blessed by an attorney. It's also rare to see a third party claim denied based on the insureds policy issues (since the 3rd party is typically the innocent party). Yes people complain about insurance companies all the time, but it's a highly regulated industry, usually subject to state oversight, and many times requires individual licensing for adjusters. As with most things, there are exceptions.
While on the topic of insurance coverage, if anyone has had FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE regarding their claim with the AMA for the "coverage," please post your experience as to the bureaucracy involved with the submittal, and the outcome. Since AMA 's insurance is merely secondary, I'm sure there are many conditions that need to be met as well as many reasons for the denial of this insurance.
Not much of a bureaucracy. You report the claim and it gets assigned to an adjuster. They basically monitor the underlying claim while the other carrier attempts to resolve the claim. We've only had one, and it resolved well under the primary layer of coverage that this person had, which was 250k (90k for a broken leg). Have never seen a denial of coverage here, or anywhere else. All policies have provisions in them that have to be met, but it's rare that a coverage denial is sent to a policy holder that hasn't been blessed by an attorney. It's also rare to see a third party claim denied based on the insureds policy issues (since the 3rd party is typically the innocent party). Yes people complain about insurance companies all the time, but it's a highly regulated industry, usually subject to state oversight, and many times requires individual licensing for adjusters. As with most things, there are exceptions.
Last edited by porcia83; 12-14-2014 at 04:51 PM.
#685
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was on MSN.http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...ers/ar-BBgIo1k
Here comes change.
Here comes change.
#686
Well, I guess we can now kiss any kind of innovation on the part of the United States "goodbye". People are going to fly their toys, in complete disregard anything the AMA puts out. There is no CBO, so might as well bet on everybody doing what they did back in the '60s and '70s with control-line flight: Any school yard or baseball diamond was game back then.
#687
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article is already outdated. The FAA decided to wait a couple more years to decide on this issue.
#688
There is no CBO, so might as well bet on everybody doing what they did back in the '60s and '70s with control-line flight:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/
#689
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, I guess we can now kiss any kind of innovation on the part of the United States "goodbye". People are going to fly their toys, in complete disregard anything the AMA puts out. There is no CBO, so might as well bet on everybody doing what they did back in the '60s and '70s with control-line flight: Any school yard or baseball diamond was game back then.
#690
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot's of CBO's out there. Its a legal term, not a legal requirement or certification.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/
#691
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot's of CBO's out there. Its a legal term, not a legal requirement or certification.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/
#692
#693
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#694
"He said the case has cost him more than $7,000 to defend"...I suspect that was the DA's real goal, ramp up the pain (i.e. $$) so that it sends a signal to all the others around that contemplate the same type of action. The DA's office maintain a number of lawyers who get paid whether they're prosecuting cases or surfing the internet at work. So if they have time and proprietorial resources, then guys like this will find themselves charged.
#695
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
#696
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
1500' - no problem as there is no AMA limit on altitude
See and avoid - appears he dropped the machine's altitude like a rock to avoid conflict
Unobstructed view - nothing the way such as FPV goggles.......oh wait.....that's FAA rule, not AMA
What else?
#697
My Feedback: (49)
Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
What AMA rules did he break?
1500' - no problem as there is no AMA limit on altitude
See and avoid - appears he dropped the machine's altitude like a rock to avoid conflict
Unobstructed view - nothing the way such as FPV goggles.......oh wait.....that's FAA rule, not AMA
What else?
1500' - no problem as there is no AMA limit on altitude
See and avoid - appears he dropped the machine's altitude like a rock to avoid conflict
Unobstructed view - nothing the way such as FPV goggles.......oh wait.....that's FAA rule, not AMA
What else?
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
#698
Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
#699
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html
Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s
Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it
Now quit restraining yourself and let it hang out if you know of anything this guy was doing that a LEO could take any action against him for. I'm not taking a stand on whether he was right or wrong flying where and when he did, just that it appears he wasn't breaking any law.
My answer regarding my reply to the NPRM is the same as it was when I told you yesterday.
#700
My Feedback: (49)
ya and the IRS wants your money by the 15th ... do it now the next thing it will be the 24th of April and U'll be saying O well it wasn't important ..... What do U mean I can only have a 40' string on my KITE?
Ya pamster it's to important to let people forget their obligations to our hobby/sport ....Now go coment PLZ...