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 07-24-2016, 04:02 PM
  #351  
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
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.
Actually I was arguing the same point as you. But after reading my policy, I could see an insurance company denying a claim on that basis.
Old 07-24-2016, 04:05 PM
  #352  
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
Good point, it is too early to tell. I suspect most companies are not aware of the FAA's claim that model airplanes are aircraft. Others may, and this poster may not have been an AMA member. So it is too early to tell.
It's not to early to tell, the premise is ludicrous, and so far you're the only person here or elsewhere that's keeping this going.

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.
Old 07-24-2016, 04:10 PM
  #353  
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
Actually I was arguing the same point as you. But after reading my policy, I could see an insurance company denying a claim on that basis.
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!
Old 07-25-2016, 04:52 AM
  #354  
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 Dokesflyer
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.

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 04:58 AM
  #355  
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 Dokesflyer
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
Good for them! What's the coverage limit?
Old 07-25-2016, 05:05 AM
  #356  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 .
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

Last edited by rcmiket; 07-25-2016 at 05:07 AM.
Old 07-25-2016, 05:25 AM
  #357  
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 rcmiket
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
No inspection is perfect, nor does it matter sometimes how well the aircraft is built. Nor for that matter would I ever sign of on a plane just because I know how someone builds and flies. If you have an event and someone from another club comes to yours that you don't know, are you not going to sign off on the plane because you don't know how they fly or how the build? The fact is you inspect the plane and if everything looks the way it should, you sign off on it. That doesn't in anyway preclude a mishap, either with the aircraft failure of some type, or the pilot doing something stupid. Nothing is perfect, nothing is guaranteed.
Old 07-25-2016, 05:28 AM
  #358  
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 franklin_m
Good for them! What's the coverage limit?


It's a perk for actually getting involved and doing something for the hobby, and not just chronically complaining.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	27325109.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	98.4 KB
ID:	2174372  
Old 07-25-2016, 05:57 AM
  #359  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
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
A good inspector should have the confidence and skills to inspect anyone's aircraft whether they know them or not. Most of the inspections I have done are at events and I don't personally know the individuals whose aircraft I'm inspecting.

When we make assumptions about who the builder is, how much experience they have, or who their sponsor is is when bad things happen.
Old 07-25-2016, 06:43 AM
  #360  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
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....
Only if you know for sure that your Homeowners insurance will cover your toy airplane liability.

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 06:48 AM
  #361  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 07:09 AM
  #362  
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 speedracerntrixie
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.
Absolutely on point. You can't say 100% you prevented something, but in all likelihood you did. So to follow up on that how did the folks take the news? I haven't had any significant issues but I've seen others have a tantrum when turned away post inspection.
Old 07-25-2016, 07:36 AM
  #363  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 07:39 AM
  #364  
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

Rules are rules, but I am not sure a Z bend is more secure unless something is attached to the end of the rod, especially if the rod is fairly flexible.
Old 07-25-2016, 07:59 AM
  #365  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

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.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	42
Size:	2.73 MB
ID:	2174387   Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	41
Size:	1.68 MB
ID:	2174388  
Old 07-25-2016, 08:06 AM
  #366  
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 speedracerntrixie
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.
I'd ban the guy from the event just for saying that! LoL.
Old 07-25-2016, 08:20 AM
  #367  
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
I'd ban the guy from the event just for saying that! LoL.
Might be a tad safer if he actually used the rudder!
Old 07-25-2016, 09:01 AM
  #368  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

I agree but we all know that on a good day maybe half the guys at the field use rudder while in flight. For the other half its ground steering only.
Old 07-25-2016, 09:32 AM
  #369  
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 speedracerntrixie
I agree but we all know that on a good day maybe half the guys at the field use rudder while in flight. For the other half its ground steering only.
And of that half, half of those are taxing right into the pits and set up area....
Old 07-25-2016, 10:27 AM
  #370  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

Very rare that I have see that. The most common safety issue I see at the field is a lack of take off and landing skills coupled with poor airplane setup that has the airplane hitting the safety fence.
Old 07-25-2016, 12:11 PM
  #371  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
The most common safety issue I see at the field is a lack of take off and landing skills coupled with poor airplane setup that has the airplane hitting the safety fence.
This is 90 percent of the problems I've noticed.
Old 07-25-2016, 04:12 PM
  #372  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 04:24 PM
  #373  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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.
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

.

Last edited by rcmiket; 07-25-2016 at 04:34 PM.
Old 07-25-2016, 05:17 PM
  #374  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-25-2016, 05:29 PM
  #375  
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 rcmiket
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

.
it shouldn't be beyond you, you were the one who started talking about being a CD and how you feel more comfortable signing off on some planes since you knew how the plane was built, and how the pilot flew. To me it's irrelevant how the pilot flew in the past, and to some degree at all. My concern in the plane in front of me, and if it's looks safe, and performs appropriately.

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

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.