400 foot? NOPE
07-24-2016, 04:45 AM
#326
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.
07-24-2016, 04:50 AM
#327
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.
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.
In 1956 Cessna produced the first 172. In the 60's they made structural changes to the fuselage. In the 90's they changed the engine. Yet they're all the same type model series from a licensing perspective.
The B29's might have changed slightly from crash to crash, but they were all fundamentally the same. It's not like one was foam and powered by four .40's, the next by four .60 size electrics with a solid wing, and the third by four VW motors with metal spars and fuselage. They were all LMAs. They were all B29's. They were all powered by large IC engines. They were all built using the same general construction methods.
I maintain they were the same type model series, or close enough that it's a distinction without a difference.
Interesting you point out that there was a different reason for each crash. Yet each one passed the LMA inspection. As I recall one failed due to mechanical failure of the main wing spar. Apparently the inspection did not evaluate whether the main spar was strong enough to withstand flight loads. Another inspection did not catch that the failure of a single servo on one engine would result in total loss of the aircraft? Was there no evaluation that the aircraft had enough directional control to maintain centerline with the failure of just one engine? Apparently not (as it couldn't). Or, maybe it was pilot error. Three times. Of a pilot specially authorized by AMA to fly a LMA. Maybe the standards for special designation need review?
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-24-2016 at 04:52 AM.
07-24-2016, 05:10 AM
#328
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
07-24-2016, 05:13 AM
#329
In 1956 Cessna produced the first 172. In the 60's they made structural changes to the fuselage. In the 90's they changed the engine. Yet they're all the same type model series from a licensing perspective.
07-24-2016, 05:59 AM
#330
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"From the NTSB decision, Order No. EA-5730, " ...we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative."
For the purposes of traffic laws and defining careless and reckless motor vehicle operation, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle just as is a commercial truck and a private automobile. I've yet to see any insurance carrier that sees them as all the same! The connection that Order No. EA-5730 lumps manned aircraft with model aircraft, for the purposes of any insurance policy, is false.
07-24-2016, 06:12 AM
#332
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“This additional coverage is important for those who inspect model aircraft systems forairworthiness, and those who are responsible for sanctioning, coordinating, and directingaeromodeling events,” .... “The EC recognizedthat these groups of AMA volunteers deserve to have primary vicarious liability coveragebecause they help to reduce the risk, frequency, and severity of accidents. Their effortshelp keep insurance premiums from increasing.” "This includes, but is not limited to,Contest Coordinators, District Safety Officers, Contest Directors, Event Directors, LeaderMembers, Large Model Aircraft Inspectors, Air Show Team Managers, Associate VicePresidents, Contest Board Members, and World Championship Team Leaders.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...ge-release.pdf
07-24-2016, 06:14 AM
#333
And your source for documenting this assumed change by insurance carriers is??????? The NTSB decision was very narrow.
"From the NTSB decision, Order No. EA-5730, " ...we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative."
For the purposes of traffic laws and defining careless and reckless motor vehicle operation, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle just as is a commercial truck and a private automobile. I've yet to see any insurance carrier that sees them as all the same! The connection that Order No. EA-5730 lumps manned aircraft with model aircraft, for the purposes of any insurance policy, is false.
"From the NTSB decision, Order No. EA-5730, " ...we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative."
For the purposes of traffic laws and defining careless and reckless motor vehicle operation, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle just as is a commercial truck and a private automobile. I've yet to see any insurance carrier that sees them as all the same! The connection that Order No. EA-5730 lumps manned aircraft with model aircraft, for the purposes of any insurance policy, is false.
07-24-2016, 06:35 AM
#334
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-24-2016, 07:54 AM
#335
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
336 States:
" (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community basedset of safety guidelines and within the programmingof a nationwide community-based organization;"
One cannot operate within the programming of AMA, for example, unless they are a member. Among other things, the programming of AMA includes:
1. Receiving TFR's/NOTAM's from AMA
2. Receiving important member communications, notifications, updates, etc. from AMA
3. Receiving Model Aviation magazine ( AKA AMA's newsletter)
4. The ability to participate as a Leader Member
5. Applying for AMA's various grant programs
6. Applying for AMA scholarships
7. The ability to qualify as an AMA Contest Director.
8. Ability to participate in AMA club events and competition
9. etc. etc. etc.......
It is very clear, AMA's programming is not exclusively about following rules, it is about interactive member participation.
Last edited by Dokesflyer; 07-24-2016 at 08:04 AM. Reason: added text.
07-24-2016, 08:51 AM
#337
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Oh hey, he gets massive credit for doing what he's doing. There weren't many that wanted to take that step, in fact you could count them all on one hand. Absolutely fantastic that he is stepping up to do more. Now the question is, what does he want to do. So far he's speaking through proxies (people, not computers) at different sites. I'm interested to see what his platform is, but we already know what the thrust of it is going to be....one only has to look at the letter from last year he was the first to sign to get a good idea of where he wants to go (hint...in a time machine to the past). So far some platitudes and what he wants to do (in general) in the future. As of today, not a single thing that he did or try to do when he was a AVP to change the AMA (sorry, I am wrong there, he worked on a prize committee), but he talked about money he donated. Honestly, it reminds me of Horace Cain's run. BUT...at least he's doing it, so kudos to him. I'm waiting to see the backgrounds and more importantly some specifics as to what each candidate will do.
07-24-2016, 08:57 AM
#338
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Did you read what he actually wrote, or just jump to a conclusion to try to keep going on about what your carrier has decided to do (which actually they have not). He said he called his CARRIER....which is not the same as his AGENT.
RC planes will be covered, subject to some limitations (value, usage), but there isn't a carrier out there right now that is excluding them. If anyone doubts that, they can contact their state's Department of Insurance Divisions and speak to someone about that.
RC planes will be covered, subject to some limitations (value, usage), but there isn't a carrier out there right now that is excluding them. If anyone doubts that, they can contact their state's Department of Insurance Divisions and speak to someone about that.
07-24-2016, 09:01 AM
#339
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And your source for documenting this assumed change by insurance carriers is??????? The NTSB decision was very narrow.
"From the NTSB decision, Order No. EA-5730, " ...we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative."
For the purposes of traffic laws and defining careless and reckless motor vehicle operation, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle just as is a commercial truck and a private automobile. I've yet to see any insurance carrier that sees them as all the same! The connection that Order No. EA-5730 lumps manned aircraft with model aircraft, for the purposes of any insurance policy, is false.
"From the NTSB decision, Order No. EA-5730, " ...we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative."
For the purposes of traffic laws and defining careless and reckless motor vehicle operation, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle just as is a commercial truck and a private automobile. I've yet to see any insurance carrier that sees them as all the same! The connection that Order No. EA-5730 lumps manned aircraft with model aircraft, for the purposes of any insurance policy, is false.
07-24-2016, 09:05 AM
#341
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You said:
Is the statement other "companies" denied claims, or one poster said they were denied based on a homewoners policy exclusion? There are 100 homeowners insurance companies just in the state of Texas alone! So just how widespread is this reported epidemic of denied homeowners insurance claims? And BTW, what was AMA's response to the claim?
Is the statement other "companies" denied claims, or one poster said they were denied based on a homewoners policy exclusion? There are 100 homeowners insurance companies just in the state of Texas alone! So just how widespread is this reported epidemic of denied homeowners insurance claims? And BTW, what was AMA's response to the claim?
07-24-2016, 09:40 AM
#342
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asked and answered by AMA 5 years ago.... yes!
“This additional coverage is important for those who inspect model aircraft systems forairworthiness, and those who are responsible for sanctioning, coordinating, and directingaeromodeling events,” .... “The EC recognizedthat these groups of AMA volunteers deserve to have primary vicarious liability coveragebecause they help to reduce the risk, frequency, and severity of accidents. Their effortshelp keep insurance premiums from increasing.” "This includes, but is not limited to,Contest Coordinators, District Safety Officers, Contest Directors, Event Directors, LeaderMembers, Large Model Aircraft Inspectors, Air Show Team Managers, Associate VicePresidents, Contest Board Members, and World Championship Team Leaders.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...ge-release.pdf
“This additional coverage is important for those who inspect model aircraft systems forairworthiness, and those who are responsible for sanctioning, coordinating, and directingaeromodeling events,” .... “The EC recognizedthat these groups of AMA volunteers deserve to have primary vicarious liability coveragebecause they help to reduce the risk, frequency, and severity of accidents. Their effortshelp keep insurance premiums from increasing.” "This includes, but is not limited to,Contest Coordinators, District Safety Officers, Contest Directors, Event Directors, LeaderMembers, Large Model Aircraft Inspectors, Air Show Team Managers, Associate VicePresidents, Contest Board Members, and World Championship Team Leaders.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...ge-release.pdf
07-24-2016, 09:56 AM
#343
[QUOTE=init4fun;12238224]
Andy , I wish you well here .
Long ago I came to the realization that there is no real "helping" of anything going on in any of these RCU AMA subforum threads , with the exception of the threads that announce actual AMA Emails and other AMA news . The real helping happens in places like the beginner's subforum and the crash & rebuild subforum , places like that . Here , after the opening theme has played out , It's all just arguing , folks saying things and then denying they said them , and of course the ; "My soapbox is bigger than yours so I'm RIGHT !" mentality being played out through oh so crafty wordsmithing .
Like I opened with , I wish you well and Happy Flying to ya ........[
/QUOTE]Long ago I came to the realization that there is no real "helping" of anything going on in any of these RCU AMA subforum threads
But yet U R still here. Why? If it is a useless Thread(s) then just WHY R U still here chastising the rest of us. We all have reasons and convictions of what and what the AMA is Not and their worth. These are Opinions and U well know what anyone's opinion is really worth. I guess I should ave prefaced this Post with Sorry but I'm not starting a fight, BUT OH WELL:
Andy , I wish you well here .Long ago I came to the realization that there is no real "helping" of anything going on in any of these RCU AMA subforum threads , with the exception of the threads that announce actual AMA Emails and other AMA news . The real helping happens in places like the beginner's subforum and the crash & rebuild subforum , places like that . Here , after the opening theme has played out , It's all just arguing , folks saying things and then denying they said them , and of course the ; "My soapbox is bigger than yours so I'm RIGHT !" mentality being played out through oh so crafty wordsmithing .
Like I opened with , I wish you well and Happy Flying to ya ........[
/QUOTE]Long ago I came to the realization that there is no real "helping" of anything going on in any of these RCU AMA subforum threads
But yet U R still here. Why? If it is a useless Thread(s) then just WHY R U still here chastising the rest of us. We all have reasons and convictions of what and what the AMA is Not and their worth. These are Opinions and U well know what anyone's opinion is really worth. I guess I should ave prefaced this Post with Sorry but I'm not starting a fight, BUT OH WELL:
07-24-2016, 10:12 AM
#344
Do U all suppose that there is anyway to get RCU to add the title of the Thread to the Blue line between the Post date and the Post number? Some of us O'L Geezers might have trouble remembering what post their in. If U don't believe me just wait till U get old.
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
Last edited by HoundDog; 07-24-2016 at 10:15 AM.
07-24-2016, 10:36 AM
#345
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do U all suppose that there is anyway to get RCU to add the title of the Thread to the Blue line between the Post date and the Post number? Some of us O'L Geezers might have trouble remembering what post their in. If U don't believe me just wait till U get old.
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
07-24-2016, 10:40 AM
#346
Originally Posted by HoundDog 
Do U all suppose that there is anyway to get RCU to add the title of the Thread to the Blue line between the Post date and the Post number? Some of us O'L Geezers might have trouble remembering what post their in. If U don't believe me just wait till U get old.
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
Where? .... some help here PLZ.
07-24-2016, 01:07 PM
#348
Do U all suppose that there is anyway to get RCU to add the title of the Thread to the Blue line between the Post date and the Post number? Some of us O'L Geezers might have trouble remembering what post their in. If U don't believe me just wait till U get old.
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
07-24-2016, 03:59 PM
#350
You said:
Is the statement other "companies" denied claims, or one poster said they were denied based on a homewoners policy exclusion? There are 100 homeowners insurance companies just in the state of Texas alone! So just how widespread is this reported epidemic of denied homeowners insurance claims? And BTW, what was AMA's response to the claim?
Is the statement other "companies" denied claims, or one poster said they were denied based on a homewoners policy exclusion? There are 100 homeowners insurance companies just in the state of Texas alone! So just how widespread is this reported epidemic of denied homeowners insurance claims? And BTW, what was AMA's response to the claim?