400 foot? NOPE
#301
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
#302
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Thank You Ira , this is along the lines I was thinking .
Now , as far as porcia's "There is however only so much that can be done" statement , In my opinion the fact that the AMA does require inspection is good enough for me , and I have no problem with the AMA's large model inspection program . My main question centered around non AMA members , shouldn't their over 55# models be required to be inspected also ? Now , if they do have to be inspected and they aren't AMA members , and it's an AMA member that's contracted by the FAA to do that inspection , then the AMA member who does the inspection deserves to get paid for that inspection just as the guy who puts the inspection sticker on the car's windshield gets paid .
Now , as far as porcia's "There is however only so much that can be done" statement , In my opinion the fact that the AMA does require inspection is good enough for me , and I have no problem with the AMA's large model inspection program . My main question centered around non AMA members , shouldn't their over 55# models be required to be inspected also ? Now , if they do have to be inspected and they aren't AMA members , and it's an AMA member that's contracted by the FAA to do that inspection , then the AMA member who does the inspection deserves to get paid for that inspection just as the guy who puts the inspection sticker on the car's windshield gets paid .
#303
Three total loss crashes of the same type-model-series, all flown by the same pilot, all specially certified by the same organization. It's a design failure, a manufacturing failure, a pilot failure, or an inspection failure. What it's not is a coincidence.
#304
I wonder if AMA indemnifies its LMA/LTMA inspectors? They are after all acting as agents of the organization within a program managed by the organization.
#306
AMA asked for that legislation, and in doing so put itself in position of certifying the safety of sUAS greater than 55lbs under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3). Should there be an accident involving one of the those aircraft, and investigation shows negligence in the program or in the execution of the inspection - you can bet that inspectors and/or the organization can be held liable.
If LMA/LTMA inspectors are not indemnified...I sure hope they have umbrella policies!
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-23-2016 at 04:48 PM.
#307
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
More spin and parsing of words. Three crashes of three different airframes, at different times, in different places. The plane was no doubt inspected,but you have no evidence it was done by the same person (doubtful it was). At least you added one more option. The only factor that is similar is that it was the same pilot. Crashes happen, and there isn't a doubt in my mind you have crashed three different aircraft over 10 years. What isn't a coincidence is you taking one persons crashes and somehow managing to tie it into some shortcoming of the AMA. Reminds me of the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, only in this case it always leads back to blame, and the AMA.
#308
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I would argue the AMA is on the hook already. They specify what is to be inspected, and they certify the inspectors. If an AMA certified LMA crashes, and the feds determine the inspection was inadequate or the inspector missed something - I can't think there wouldn't be some liability there for AMA if not the inspector themselves.
I wonder if AMA indemnifies its LMA/LTMA inspectors? They are after all acting as agents of the organization within a program managed by the organization.
I wonder if AMA indemnifies its LMA/LTMA inspectors? They are after all acting as agents of the organization within a program managed by the organization.
#309
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
What's the famous saying? Oh yeah. "Be careful what you wish for, as you just may get it."
AMA asked for that legislation, and in doing so put itself in position of certifying the safety of sUAS greater than 55lbs under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3). Should there be an accident involving one of the those aircraft, and investigation shows negligence in the program or in the execution of the inspection - you can bet that inspectors and/or the organization can be held liable.
If LMA/LTMA inspectors are not indemnified...I sure hope they have umbrella policies!
AMA asked for that legislation, and in doing so put itself in position of certifying the safety of sUAS greater than 55lbs under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3). Should there be an accident involving one of the those aircraft, and investigation shows negligence in the program or in the execution of the inspection - you can bet that inspectors and/or the organization can be held liable.
If LMA/LTMA inspectors are not indemnified...I sure hope they have umbrella policies!
#310
I would argue the AMA is on the hook already. They specify what is to be inspected, and they certify the inspectors. If an AMA certified LMA crashes, and the feds determine the inspection was inadequate or the inspector missed something - I can't think there wouldn't be some liability there for AMA if not the inspector themselves.
I wonder if AMA indemnifies its LMA/LTMA inspectors? They are after all acting as agents of the organization within a program managed by the organization.
I wonder if AMA indemnifies its LMA/LTMA inspectors? They are after all acting as agents of the organization within a program managed by the organization.
The AMA Safety Code specifically states:
1.
Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
When a member signs their AMA membership application they agree to follow the AMA safety code.
#311
My Feedback: (15)
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 .
#312
My Feedback: (15)
What's the famous saying? Oh yeah. "Be careful what you wish for, as you just may get it."
AMA asked for that legislation, and in doing so put itself in position of certifying the safety of sUAS greater than 55lbs under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3). Should there be an accident involving one of the those aircraft, and investigation shows negligence in the program or in the execution of the inspection - you can bet that inspectors and/or the organization can be held liable.
If LMA/LTMA inspectors are not indemnified...I sure hope they have umbrella policies!
AMA asked for that legislation, and in doing so put itself in position of certifying the safety of sUAS greater than 55lbs under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3). Should there be an accident involving one of the those aircraft, and investigation shows negligence in the program or in the execution of the inspection - you can bet that inspectors and/or the organization can be held liable.
If LMA/LTMA inspectors are not indemnified...I sure hope they have umbrella policies!
would take a call to ilona to find out for sure. who is going to make it?
mongo
#313
I can't speak to how the FAA handles it, but I can speak in general as to how the DoD handles indemnification.
If I did something in my official capacity, and I was acting within the scope of my duties (always except in case of gross misconduct), then if sued the US Attorney would ask for the US Government to assume liability. Given that FAA is federal, I think it's fair to assume they work the same way. If an FAA inspector is acting within the scope of his employment, in an official capacity, then the USG would similarly step in and assume liability.
I would hope the AMA would formally indemnify inspectors acting on behalf of the AMA in direct support of an AMA program that's only possible under a very specific section of law. Otherwise, AMA is allowing inspectors to assume all the risk should there ever be a suit. That hardly seems fair.
If I did something in my official capacity, and I was acting within the scope of my duties (always except in case of gross misconduct), then if sued the US Attorney would ask for the US Government to assume liability. Given that FAA is federal, I think it's fair to assume they work the same way. If an FAA inspector is acting within the scope of his employment, in an official capacity, then the USG would similarly step in and assume liability.
I would hope the AMA would formally indemnify inspectors acting on behalf of the AMA in direct support of an AMA program that's only possible under a very specific section of law. Otherwise, AMA is allowing inspectors to assume all the risk should there ever be a suit. That hardly seems fair.
#314
Holy cow! The government stepping into save us time, administrative burden, and money to boot!
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-23-2016 at 07:03 PM.
#315
#316
#317
Given that "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO ... You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO." --- nobody even has to go to the trouble of signing. One just has to follow them.
Holy cow! The government stepping into save us time, administrative burden, and money to boot!
Holy cow! The government stepping into save us time, administrative burden, and money to boot!
The AMA Safety Code specifically states:
1.
Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
When a member signs their AMA membership application they agree to follow the AMA safety code.
So you agree AMA members are not exempt from following the AMA safety code?
#318
Aircraft , at the time of that writing , meaning man carrying contrivances . Had they meant to include model representations of real aircraft , it would have said so . Now , since the FAA has exempted non man carrying copies of real aircraft from part 107 , they are not true aircraft in the eyes of the FAA , being copies or models of real aircraft in other words . Any Lawyer worth his pay would shoot down the model plane = real aircraft argument in a literal blink of an eye .
#319
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I've asked twice now about airplanes that fall under the weight limit, and how your carrier would deal with that? If your carrier took the time to define aircraft above the limit, they did so below the limit. You won't answer the question, why?
#320
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
nobody will make the call, because that would probably not fit the narrative they want to put out there. Interesting comment about extending insurance coverage to club officers (already happening), but there's someone running for AMA president that wants liability insurance extended out to sponsors of fly in events too. As if they aren't able to carry their own. Curiously he didn't mention membership dues. Just another instance of wanting more and more from the AMA, but I'm willing to bet he won't want to dues increased.
#322
I maintain they were three B29's, of the same size, configuration, power type, construction type, and capability. I argue that's the same type-model-series.
#323
What if you're flying at a park or school year and you hit someone? What if you assumed flying there would be okay, but you never actually got written permission to fly there. What happens then?
The AMA Safety Code specifically states:
1.
Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
When a member signs their AMA membership application they agree to follow the AMA safety code.
So you agree AMA members are not exempt from following the AMA safety code?
The AMA Safety Code specifically states:
1.
Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
When a member signs their AMA membership application they agree to follow the AMA safety code.
So you agree AMA members are not exempt from following the AMA safety code?
If there's a mishap involving one of my aircraft, the same thing will happen whether I'm an AMA member or not. There will be a claim against my homeowner's / umbrella policy. The AMA won't ever see a claim, let alone pay one. Hence my comment that if not needed for flying at a particular site, for folks like me the AMA is not much more than a $75 a year magazine.
#324
"...but there's someone running for AMA president that wants liability insurance extended out to sponsors of fly in events too. As if they aren't able to carry their own. Curiously he didn't mention membership dues. Just another instance of wanting more and more from the AMA, but I'm willing to bet he won't want to dues increased."
#325
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
Well let me correct some of your misconceptions.
They were NOT the same, each incarnation was different in size and build and incorporated lessons learned from building or operating the previous one.
And they each had a distinct root cause for each crash, Mac was very straight forward about what happened each time.
Also, I called my HO carrier and they have no heartburn about model planes. Infact the guy thought it sounded cool
They were NOT the same, each incarnation was different in size and build and incorporated lessons learned from building or operating the previous one.
And they each had a distinct root cause for each crash, Mac was very straight forward about what happened each time.
Also, I called my HO carrier and they have no heartburn about model planes. Infact the guy thought it sounded cool