400 foot? NOPE
#351
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.
#352
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
There isn't a company out there denying claims for rc airplanes, or excluding them from all coverages based on the FAA's definition. It's just not happening. Spreading this kind of misinformation is not helpful to anyone in the RC community. Folks should call their agent or carrier (exactly as BH did above) to get the correct information.
#353
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
On the insurance issue you haven't argued anything similar to my point. Claims and coverage get denied for a whole host of reasons, usually after a close review of a policy and a specific loss. In this particular case you've continued to indicate your carrier is not affording coverage for your RC planes because of an FAA definition of them. With 99.99% certainly this just did not happen. If you want to scan a copy of the language of your policy, I'm sure it would clear the issue up. But to continue to say this happened is either a disservice to others here, or you have the only company in the world who is taking this position. As I indicated previously, if that's the case, you should be lead plaintiff in a class action. Big bucks!
#354
Again wrong. One cannot just follow a CBO's rules, and not be a member, to qualify for the mentioned section of 336.
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;"
It is very clear, AMA's programming is not exclusively about following rules, it is about interactive member participation.
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;"
It is very clear, AMA's programming is not exclusively about following rules, it is about interactive member participation.
I'm afraid you're wrong my friend...it was the FAA's UAS Integration Office that said in an email to me that they do not interpret PL112-95 Section 336(a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO.
Go read post #225 this same thread. I post my question to the FAA UAS Integration Office and their reply.
So, no matter what you think it means, the FAA said explicitly that membership is not required.
#355
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
#356
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 .
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-25-2016 at 05:07 AM.
#357
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As a CD I can ( and have) done inspections for members along with the other CD's and LM's in my club. We take this very seriously but I am comfortable doing them for the people I know since I also know how they build and fly. That's the only reason I'll sign off on them. The fact that I've watched these being built I'm very sure about construction and everything else that's gone into the air frame. This makes a big difference on my end.
Mike
Mike
#359
As a CD I can ( and have) done inspections for members along with the other CD's and LM's in my club. We take this very seriously but I am comfortable doing them for the people I know since I also know how they build and fly. That's the only reason I'll sign off on them. The fact that I've watched these being built I'm very sure about construction and everything else that's gone into the air frame. This makes a big difference on my end.
Mike
Mike
When we make assumptions about who the builder is, how much experience they have, or who their sponsor is is when bad things happen.
#360
Whether AMA or not, I still have to prove I'm complying with them, so that part is a wash. Just because someone is an AMA member does not mean they're following the rules, nor is it a "force field" against FAA action. So, on the "cheap" part, an AMA membership is $75 a year (for now). Two pages printed in my inkjet is at most $1.
Looks to me that my way is at least $74 a year cheaper....
Looks to me that my way is at least $74 a year cheaper....
And we know you don't have a field or club within a driving distance you care to travel, so for you it would be a good option.
But for many others like myself like the idea of a dedicated facility for flying. The AMA comes in handy when approaching property owners for use of their land. Makes it simple too, in comparison to having to find other alternatives.
#361
My Feedback: (29)
While I agree that airworthiness inspections should be carried out the same regardless of who the builder is, they are effective in vastly reducing incidents. I have been appointed as an inspector in many events that I have gone to and have deemed a few airplanes not flight worthy. I truly beleive I have prevented a few crashes. These were mostly at pylon races where linkages are checked, hinges, engine mounts, wing attachments, I look for any part of the airplane that could be ejected in flight. I have seen things like so much slop in the aileron torque rods that the ailerons had 1/8" play, I found one airplane where the rudder throw was backwards, one that the vertical fin was cracked at the attachment point, I have found loose servo trays. All these had the potential of property damage and injury. Obviously impossible to say exactly what was prevented other then the potential of a serious accident.
#362
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
While I agree that airworthiness inspections should be carried out the same regardless of who the builder is, they are effective in vastly reducing incidents. I have been appointed as an inspector in many events that I have gone to and have deemed a few airplanes not flight worthy. I truly beleive I have prevented a few crashes. These were mostly at pylon races where linkages are checked, hinges, engine mounts, wing attachments, I look for any part of the airplane that could be ejected in flight. I have seen things like so much slop in the aileron torque rods that the ailerons had 1/8" play, I found one airplane where the rudder throw was backwards, one that the vertical fin was cracked at the attachment point, I have found loose servo trays. All these had the potential of property damage and injury. Obviously impossible to say exactly what was prevented other then the potential of a serious accident.
#363
My Feedback: (29)
Depends on the person, some take the advise as a learning experience as when I point out an issue I always like to offer a solution as well. Some like to argue and tell me how many flights the airplane has on it with the discrepancy. One of the rules we have in racing is that no EZ connectors be used. You know the little barrel deal that goes on the servo arm with a plastic or metal press on peice then the pushrod is set screwed into place. A guy had one on his rudder. When I pointed it out and informed him that they are not permitted on a " flight surface " he proceeded to argue that the rudder is not a flight surface because it is never used in flight. I just smiled, reached in my tool box, handed him a pair of Z bend plier and informed him that he could either use the pliers or I would be more then happy to refund his entry.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
#365
My Feedback: (29)
While I am not particularly fond of Z bends myself, they are the most reliable means of attaching the end of the pushrod to a servo. Zero parts to come loose and the pushrod must be angled close to 90 degrees to the servo arm. Pushrod flex is something completly different and I do check for that as well although I haven't had to deal with any issues there as of yet.
#366
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Depends on the person, some take the advise as a learning experience as when I point out an issue I always like to offer a solution as well. Some like to argue and tell me how many flights the airplane has on it with the discrepancy. One of the rules we have in racing is that no EZ connectors be used. You know the little barrel deal that goes on the servo arm with a plastic or metal press on peice then the pushrod is set screwed into place. A guy had one on his rudder. When I pointed it out and informed him that they are not permitted on a " flight surface " he proceeded to argue that the rudder is not a flight surface because it is never used in flight. I just smiled, reached in my tool box, handed him a pair of Z bend plier and informed him that he could either use the pliers or I would be more then happy to refund his entry.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
#371
#372
My Feedback: (49)
We all have different skills and some are great Pilots and some will never be good competent pilots. Makes no difference except when they are UNSAFE. I mean the people that can not keep put the plane where they want it and allow it to get close or over the safety fence contingency. Then there are the people that do all or 90% of the crashing. If they can afford it I don't care either. That is until such time they become a danger to them selves or to the rest of us. That's one thing I won't tolerate, I've been almost Australoid at one of the clubs I belong too. I was told we are all here to have "FUN". Well it's not "FUN" when some person is continual crashing in the pits land and taking off right nest to the safety Fence and flying close to others in the flight stations. We all know who are the Poor flyers in our own clubs, But we also do nothing about till it's too late till some one is hurt or God Forbid is Killed. Safety is Not a Joke, It's an on going thing and must be continuall be at the fore front of any clubs operations. NUFF SAID.
#373
While I agree that airworthiness inspections should be carried out the same regardless of who the builder is, they are effective in vastly reducing incidents. I have been appointed as an inspector in many events that I have gone to and have deemed a few airplanes not flight worthy. I truly beleive I have prevented a few crashes. These were mostly at pylon races where linkages are checked, hinges, engine mounts, wing attachments, I look for any part of the airplane that could be ejected in flight. I have seen things like so much slop in the aileron torque rods that the ailerons had 1/8" play, I found one airplane where the rudder throw was backwards, one that the vertical fin was cracked at the attachment point, I have found loose servo trays. All these had the potential of property damage and injury. Obviously impossible to say exactly what was prevented other then the potential of a serious accident.
How this went from over 55lb inspections and who should do them to this is beyond me.
Mike
.
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-25-2016 at 04:34 PM.
#374
My Feedback: (29)
Very easily, we have migrated over to safety. I myself have never seen first hand a 55 lb plus model airplane. I have seen many average size airplanes flown in an unsafe manner. More injuries can be directly linked to a poorly built .40-.60 size models then any other size range. Personally I would not be opposed if my club had inspection requirements for every new airplane.
#375
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Inspecting at a fly in or contest is not the same as a over 55lb inspection. Just talk a look at the paperwork. Not only is the air frame inspected but the pilot must fly several flights in front of the inspectors to prove competence to be signed off. Even with all this anything can happen and does all the time. A guy who spends the time and money on a over 55 lb air frame has minor BS addressed long before asking for the inspection and waiver.
How this went from over 55lb inspections and who should do them to this is beyond me.
Mike
.
How this went from over 55lb inspections and who should do them to this is beyond me.
Mike
.
As a CD I can ( and have) done inspections for members along with the other CD's and LM's in my club. We take this very seriously but I am comfortable doing them for the people I know since I also know how they build and fly. That's the only reason I'll sign off on them. The fact that I've watched these being built I'm very sure about construction and everything else that's gone into the air frame. This makes a big difference on my end.
Mike