Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

400 foot? NOPE

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

400 foot? NOPE

Old 07-23-2016, 04:26 AM
  #276  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
+100. The chances that a carrier has excluded RC airplanes for coverage (either first party coverage, or liability for 3rd parties) because they don't insure full sized aircraft are slim and none. There are manuscript (specifically written custom policies) but it's just not something that's done regularly. Sport's carrier would be investigated and probably fined by the state for that type of coverage denial.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Old 07-23-2016, 05:24 AM
  #277  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

.. .

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:27 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 05:44 AM
  #278  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
When that happens, the modeller is buying HO insurance from the wrong provider. Insurance providers that comply with ISO standards cover operation of model airplanes. Why buy from any insurer that doesn't?

Read your policy! It is a common exclusion.
Old 07-23-2016, 05:46 AM
  #279  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
+100. The chances that a carrier has excluded RC airplanes for coverage (either first party coverage, or liability for 3rd parties) because they don't insure full sized aircraft are slim and none. There are manuscript (specifically written custom policies) but it's just not something that's done regularly. Sport's carrier would be investigated and probably fined by the state for that type of coverage denial.
Wrong, nearly all policy's have an exclusion for airplanes. Before model airplanes were not considered airplanes, now thanks to the FAA they are.
Old 07-23-2016, 06:05 AM
  #280  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
+100. The chances that a carrier has excluded RC airplanes for coverage (either first party coverage, or liability for 3rd parties) because they don't insure full sized aircraft are slim and none. There are manuscript (specifically written custom policies) but it's just not something that's done regularly. Sport's carrier would be investigated and probably fined by the state for that type of coverage denial.
Here is a typical paragraph from a homeowners policy. Per FAA model airplanes are now aircraft.

2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover:

a. articles separately described and specifically insured
in this or any other insurance;

b. animals, birds or fish;

c. any engine or motor propelled vehicle or machine,
including the parts, designed for movement on land.
We do cover those not licensed for use on public
highways which are:

(1) used solely to service the insured location; or
(2) designed for assisting the handicapped;

d. devices or instruments for the recording or reproduction
of sound permanently attached to an engine or
motor propelled vehicle. We do not cover tapes,
wires, records or other mediums that may be used
with these devices or instruments while in the vehicle;

e. aircraft and parts;
Old 07-23-2016, 06:28 AM
  #281  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:26 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 06:36 AM
  #282  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:25 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 06:39 AM
  #283  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:25 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 06:47 AM
  #284  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Franklin , I would like to hear your thoughts on who would do the inspections of +55# models . Do you think only the FAA should do it ? If the FAA doesn't have enough inspectors (and won't hire more) should the FAA defer these inspections to a private entity ?

At least as far as motor vehicle law goes in the state I live in , you most certainly are legally bound to pay a private company to inspect your car , in other words the government forcing you to do business with a private company if you want to drive legally* . Why would it be any different for the FAA to say you need an inspection of +55# models and send you to a private company for that inspection ?

* My state does not have state run inspection facilities . A driver must take his car to the local auto repair shop that has been subcontracted by the State to do inspections .

Sure. That's a good question a very good example to use for comparison.

I say mirror what we see already works for vehicles. Inspections for sUAS >55lb would be done by private organizations authorized to do so by the government, but with the items to be inspected and pass / fail criteria established not by the organizations but rather by the government. Prices for such inspections would be set by the government and CBOs would not be permitted to refuse inspections. This provides the consistency and equal access to the public's airspace that will be necessary should other CBOs arise.

That's the same model that works pretty darned well for motor vehicles in many states. It's also pretty similar to what works for most pilot certifications.
Old 07-23-2016, 06:55 AM
  #285  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
When the insurance company excluded "aircraft" , they were excluding man carrying aircraft only , since they didn't specifically mention MODEL aircraft in the list of exclusions .
The policy says aircraft, it does not specify. At least one poster has said he was denied his claim because of this exclusion.
Old 07-23-2016, 07:46 AM
  #286  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:24 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 08:28 AM
  #287  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Wow , see what just happened there ?

I actually agreed with a Porcia viewpoint !

Ha Ha , just don't get too used to it
See.....SEE....it's totally possible. And it's fun, so there's that.
Old 07-23-2016, 08:42 AM
  #288  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Read your policy! It is a common exclusion.

No it's not. Untrue, incorrect, wrong. False. In the context you are trying to twist and spin to fit your "point", there is no such exclusion.


Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Wrong, nearly all policy's have an exclusion for airplanes. Before model airplanes were not considered airplanes, now thanks to the FAA they are.

Well duh, of course they do. They are insuring a home and the insured's for negligence, not aircraft. They also don't cover autos in HO policy. Duh again. At best what you are trying to do is read the word airplane literally, and applying what you think is common sense, based on what the FAA said. So let's take that to the extreme and see if your logic holds out. An "airplane" as defined by the FAA doesn't have to be registered until it's over what weight? So lets take a 6 ounce foamy, no reg required. Does that mean it's no longer an "airplane" because the FAA said it didn't have to be registered? Of course not.

Stop already with the silly word games, nobody is buying it. This is all you interpreting a word, an FAA reg, and a HO policy and trying to draw a conclusion from that.


Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Here is a typical paragraph from a homeowners policy. Per FAA model airplanes are now aircraft.

2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover:

a. articles separately described and specifically insured
in this or any other insurance;

b. animals, birds or fish;

c. any engine or motor propelled vehicle or machine,
including the parts, designed for movement on land.
We do cover those not licensed for use on public
highways which are:

(1) used solely to service the insured location; or
(2) designed for assisting the handicapped;

d. devices or instruments for the recording or reproduction
of sound permanently attached to an engine or
motor propelled vehicle. We do not cover tapes,
wires, records or other mediums that may be used
with these devices or instruments while in the vehicle;

e. aircraft and parts;
Are you doing this to try to drive a point home? You're conclusion is completely absent logic. You created an answer, then backed into the question.

Your carrier or agent did not exclude this from their standard policy, it absolutely didn't happen. There is no filing on record with the state requesting this modification, nor to ISO. Who is your carrier, and when did they do this? If you have something in writing from them, you literally have the golden ticket to a massive settlement, and if they sent it to others you can be the lead in a huge class action suit. Run, don't walk to an attorney.
Old 07-23-2016, 08:47 AM
  #289  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
The policy says aircraft, it does not specify. At least one poster has said he was denied his claim because of this exclusion.
That just didn't happen. Words like "aircraft" are specifically described, and if for some meanging is not crystal clear, the courts allow the broadest most general terms or meanings the average person would understand the word to be.

I asked earlier but you didn't respond. Did your carrier also exclude toy boats, cars, and trains as well? The feds already have definitions for all of those means of transportation, if what you are saying is true your carrier would have excluded those from coverage as well.

Who is your carrier?
Old 07-23-2016, 09:07 AM
  #290  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Sure. That's a good question a very good example to use for comparison.

I say mirror what we see already works for vehicles. Inspections for sUAS >55lb would be done by private organizations authorized to do so by the government, but with the items to be inspected and pass / fail criteria established not by the organizations but rather by the government. Prices for such inspections would be set by the government and CBOs would not be permitted to refuse inspections. This provides the consistency and equal access to the public's airspace that will be necessary should other CBOs arise.



That's the same model that works pretty darned well for motor vehicles in many states. It's also pretty similar to what works for most pilot certifications.
I agree you are 100% correct on how the inspections should be handled.
Old 07-23-2016, 09:15 AM
  #291  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:24 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 09:21 AM
  #292  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:23 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 10:56 AM
  #293  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
The only remaining question being would be , how much would a fair inspection fee be for inspecting such a model airplane ? My car inspection takes 15 minutes and costs $30 , so in the car world inspections are $120 per hour , coincidentally the going labor rate in most of the small garages near me . Now , if it's gonna take a reasonable hour to affirm a large model safe , how much would be out of line ? $25 ? $50 ? I wonder what the threshold would be for folks to really begin squaking at the cost ....
The threshold for modelers....lol, I think it would be from dollar one! Having some outside company inspect their plane for a fee? Are we looking for the Govt to be more involved now in the hobby to tell us how to operate? Has there been some issue with 55lb plus planes, or is one person looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. And if so, for what purpose?

Why would this need to get done again...because Frankin doesn't want the AMA involved in something having to do with big RC planes? This talk of eating crispy bacon is confusing and enticing me, I'm might need to go back and look at the logic for this again.
Old 07-23-2016, 11:25 AM
  #294  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:23 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 11:51 AM
  #295  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
So far , folks such as Franklin , AND ,

Mike , Crispy , and myself that I'm sure of , have put forth the idea for the need of inspections of large models over 55# and the AMA agrees with us , such inspections are required of our members and it just makes good safety sense for a second set of eyes to look over the plane . Now , being AMA members , even if there is at present a small additional cost associated with the inspection* (along with paying your AMA dues) , that would have to be cheaper than the cost of hiring out such inspection on the open market . This is the threshold of which I refer , how much will a NON AMA member be willing to pay for the inspection that would ultimately be cheaper as another benefit of being an AMA member ? Sorry I didn't make the ; "how much will a NON member be willing to pay" part clearer .......

* I have no idea if there is a present day AMA fee for inspecting a +55# model , five of my models together don't weigh that ...
If the feds don't require someone to join a CBO, just operate via the safety rules and regs of one, why would anyone need to charged a fee for any inspection? I'm all for safety as well, even more so for a 55 pound plane, but again, this seems like a solution in need of a problem. And Franklin has already noted his motivation for this is to take something away from the AMA...the folks that have been doing this for how many years now? His suggestion seems to be to involved the feds even more so in the hobby. Now they will need to administer a program whereby vendors are selected to inspect airplanes for a fee? More administration, more bureaucracy, more layers.

Is really being done out of concern for safety? In my opinion, it doesn't look to be done for that reason.
Old 07-23-2016, 01:27 PM
  #296  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:22 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 01:35 PM
  #297  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
I guess only he can answer that , I will not speak of his motives since I don't know what they are . I can tell you with certainty , MY only concern is safety , and to be honest with you it was that crash he showed the video of quite some months ago , the one of the large RC aircraft at an event , that opened my eyes to the potential for injury should that model have gone a different path than it did . All I'm saying is that at some size point yes , an inspection by a second set of trained eyes makes good safety sense , and I myself have no further agenda in the matter other than wanting things to be safe enough that we never do end up hearing any stories of large numbers of injuries resulting from a large scale RC crash . All "Luck" runs out eventually if that's all a safety program is based on .
It was probably the crash at Warbirds over Delaware with the Mac Hodges B-29 crash. No injuries, just property damage.

I don't think anyone is against safety measures or anything reasonable that would help to stop injury or damage. There is however only so much that can be done. An FAA inspection doesn't guarantee that a scale plane won't crash, for a number of reasons. The degree that we should go, or the AMA, or the FAA perhaps is this issue (and the costs associated with that).

Incidentally, WOD just wrapped up last week, saw some great videos from it, no crashes that I'm aware of.
Old 07-23-2016, 01:54 PM
  #298  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
The only remaining question being would be , how much would a fair inspection fee be for inspecting such a model airplane ? My car inspection takes 15 minutes and costs $30 , so in the car world inspections are $120 per hour , coincidentally the going labor rate in most of the small garages near me . Now , if it's gonna take a reasonable hour to affirm a large model safe , how much would be out of line ? $25 ? $50 ? I wonder what the threshold would be for folks to really begin squaking at the cost ....
I belive that the people that do the inspections are not paid to perform said inspection, so the cost to the AMA is nil butI think for non AMA members to receive a inspection $25 would be a fair cost.
Old 07-23-2016, 02:06 PM
  #299  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

On the inspection issue, with just one CBO, it's kind of a moot point. If there's more than one, then standardization becomes an issue. I'd rather have a governmental agency setting the standards and pass / fail criteria, with execution left to private organizations / individuals.

Three full loss crashes of a specially certified plane/pilot combination is no mere coincidence... It's the plane's engineering and construction, pilot error, or weak inspection or certification - pick one.
Old 07-23-2016, 02:12 PM
  #300  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 08:20 AM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.