400 foot? NOPE
#276
+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.
#278
#279
+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.
#280
+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.
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;
#284
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 .
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.
#285
The policy says aircraft, it does not specify. At least one poster has said he was denied his claim because of this exclusion.
#288
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
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.
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;
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;
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.
#289
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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?
#290
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 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.
#293
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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 ....
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.
#295
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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 ...
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 ...
Is really being done out of concern for safety? In my opinion, it doesn't look to be done for that reason.
#297
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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 .
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.
#298
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 ....
#299
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.
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.