Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336

Old 09-01-2016, 05:08 PM
  #476  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
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 porcia83
You already knew the answer to those questions, in fact you gave it with your response to Silent in post 470. You summed it up rather nicely.
So individual members get to decide? Wow!
Old 09-01-2016, 05:19 PM
  #477  
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 franklin_m
Agree 100%. I know you're right. I thought the challenge to "prove it" was unfair given that there's no way you'd have access to that info. I'm guessing only the EC does.
Something else to take into account is the AMA is "self insured" for the first $100,000.00 (I think that amount is correct). So the insurance would only get involved after that amount. Maybe they might have paid a few claims that might not have passed the scrutiny of the insurance company. None of us will ever know.
Now take this for what it worth.
I wonder how many claims have been paid under that 100,00.00 point just to sweep it under the rug or avoid litigation or bad press? If claims are paid when someone is violating the Safety Code than our legal team stinks. I sure hope it's not the same bunch handling the lawsuit against the government.

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 09-01-2016 at 05:49 PM.
Old 09-01-2016, 05:46 PM
  #478  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
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 rcmiket
Something else to take into account is the AMA is "self insured" for the first $100,000.00 (I think that amount is correct). So the insurance would only get involved after that amount. Maybe they might have paid a few claims that might not have passed the scrutiny of the insurance company. None of us will ever know.l

Mike
Good point. I mean that's good of them to do that, but it is our money they're spending. I'd rather see them be firm about it. If not following the code, then no $$.
Old 09-01-2016, 05:56 PM
  #479  
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
So individual members get to decide? Wow!
Are you confused, that's not the answer you gave.

"...Also, it's not the AMA deciding whether to pay the claim or not (largely), it's the insurance company. And the insurance company is accountable to their shareholders, so they don't pay claims just to be nice...."
Old 09-01-2016, 05:59 PM
  #480  
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
Something else to take into account is the AMA is "self insured" for the first $100,000.00 (I think that amount is correct). So the insurance would only get involved after that amount. Maybe they might have paid a few claims that might not have passed the scrutiny of the insurance company. None of us will ever know.
Now take this for what it worth.
I wonder how many claims have been paid under that 100,00.00 point just to sweep it under the rug or avoid litigation or bad press? If claims are paid when someone is violating the Safety Code than our legal team stinks. I sure hope it's not the same bunch handling the lawsuit against the government.

Mike
It's worth the same thing the rest of the wag's, inuendo, and rumors over the past decade are worth. Now we wonder how many claims are swept under the rug to avoid bad press or litigation? Rather than guess or wonder, pick up the phone and ask the AMA.
Old 09-01-2016, 06:06 PM
  #481  
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 point. I mean that's good of them to do that, but it is our money they're spending. I'd rather see them be firm about it. If not following the code, then no $$.
Ya, that would be interesting. If Mike was concerned about bad press and litigation, see what happens when claims are denied. I can imagine the complaints now, look how much we're spending on litigation, and look how our premiums are increasing because of all this litigation. Why isn't the AMA working to resolve these claims!

It is "our" money that's being spent, but luckily "we" don't have a say in how it's spent. We've elected the pros to take care of that, or in some instances pay people to do that. Specialists in the field and area, not 150,000 people. Thank god the AMA doesn't govern by membership polling. If we don't like the way our elected and paid EC folks are doing their job, we can remove them from office in the manner afforded to us as members, we vote them out. CHANGE! No more samo samo, we get new folks in.
Old 09-01-2016, 06:18 PM
  #482  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
I'd love to hear about it.

Mike
Just as I would love to hear about your cases. Amusing how you answered my direct question with a deflection. Please, show me an example that supports your original statement that insurance coverage is absolutely contingent upon following the safety code.
Old 09-01-2016, 06:22 PM
  #483  
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 Silent-AV8R
Just as I would love to hear about your cases. Amusing how you answered my direct question with a deflection. Please, show me an example that supports your original statement that insurance coverage is absolutely contingent upon following the safety code.
I believer Franklin just criticized the AMA for doing that, calling that a "classic media thing". O/K for folks here that agree each other to do it, but not the AMA.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a specific example, at best it will be a "a friend of mine told me ...",
Old 09-01-2016, 06:39 PM
  #484  
Tipover
My Feedback: (44)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

There's often no apparently clear indication as to whether a safety violation caused an accident. So how do you suppose a clubs officers would report such an incident? There's obviously grey area's as there are with all insurance claims, and at some point someone has to make a judgement call.

Last edited by Tipover; 09-01-2016 at 06:42 PM.
Old 09-01-2016, 06:44 PM
  #485  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=rcmiket;12253449]
Originally Posted by franklin_m
How in the world could Mike possibly answer that. AMA wont' share membership demographics with members, let alone detailed claims history and results of litigation. Also, it's not the AMA deciding whether to pay the claim or not (largely), it's the insurance company. And the insurance company is accountable to their shareholders, so they don't pay claims just to be nice.[/QUOTE

I've dealt with enough insurance claims and companies to have a clear understanding of how and why they operate the way they do. They are by no means a charity or Non-Profit.

Mike
No sense to the argument here until there is some understanding about what it means when "AMA rejects a claim." AMA never rejects a liability claim when a court decides in favor of a claimant and the insured was involved in a covered activity when liability was incurred. They can't, nor can any other insurer or they would soon be out of the insurance business and in hot water with the law. AMA like any other insurer can refuse to settle with claimant when they feel their client's case will prevail in civil court. That's not a rejection of the claim, but simple a refusal to settle without a court order. Then the claimant must sue to make his case in court. Refusal to settle is simply a business decision, weighing the cost involved in defending in the court and the projected cost of the possibility of judgement against their client, versus the cost of agreement to settle out-of-court with the claimant. Most of the liability claims against AMA clients are for fairly petty amounts, not worth the cost of defending and so settled. When damage to person or property is substantial, plan on going to court to get compensation. No different whether the insurer is AMA or your HO or PUP provider. Point is AMA doesn't reject claims, only a civil court can do that.

Question remains as to whether the AMA client was covered for the activity he was involved in (as in was it in accord with safety guidance) when he allegedly caused harm to claimant, and whether claimant was himself at least in part responsible for his injury. A case of AMA member getting hit and injured by another AMA member flying at Sepulveda Basin is a case where the primary insurer (not AMA, as is the usual case when the insured also has HO) refused to settle and the case went to trial in civil court. Defense argued that claimant was responsible for his own injury because he was standing too close to the runway. With expert testimony provided by an another AMA member (not sure if he had standing as an agent) the defense prevailed and claimant was denied any compensation by the court. AMA was off the hook, because they are only responsible for amounts awarded after limits of the primary insurer are exhausted, which they weren't since thre was no award to claimant.

In another case also in the Los Angeles area, a UAL pilot that was participating as a mechanic in a u-control race was hit by the model while he was positioned just outside of the circle in order to service it when it broke free of the lines hitting him in the leg causing serious injury. AMA denied his claim, going to court using the "assumed risk" defense, i.e., as a participant the claimant knew the risk but decided to take part in the activity anyway. Claimant's lawyer(s) upped the ante by suing AMA itself (rather than their client), on the claim that the AMA mandated pull test weakened the attachment of the control line to the model aircraft and this was the proximate cause of the incident. Claimant won his case, over $1 mil awarded.

Except for the one case where claimant lost because he wasn't following safety protocol and the second case which was won because AMA's insured did follow the safety rules promulgated by AMA, I'm not aware of any where the safety rules were a factor. Of course as Franklin pointed out, there is paucity of claims data available to make any kind of value judgement about the worth of the insurance. It seems prudent to be mindful of the exclusions in the insurance policy. They are in lettered paragraphs in the policy docs available online at the AMA site and run through nearly the entire alphabet.

A related aside, be cognizant of the fact that local rules made by the club are incorporated into the AMA Safety Code for the site involved. Don't water down your liability coverage with club rules that "somebody just thought was a good idea."
Old 09-01-2016, 06:44 PM
  #486  
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 Tipover
There's often no apparently clear indication as to whether a safety violation caused an accident. So how do you suppose a clubs officers would report such an incident? There's obviously grey area's as there is with all insurance claims, and at some point someone has to make a judgement call.
+1. A safety violation isn't usually the cause of the accident, it's usually a technical issue, or pilot error. It's doubtful any claim has ever been reported by saying "a safety rule violation was the cause of the loss". And yes, there is lot's of grey area, sometimes that's intentional, sometimes not.
Old 09-01-2016, 06:50 PM
  #487  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=cj_rumley;12253507]
Originally Posted by rcmiket

No sense to the argument here until there is some understanding about what it means when "AMA rejects a claim." AMA never rejects a liability claim when a court decides in favor of a claimant and the insured was involved in a covered activity when liability was incurred. They can't, nor can any other insurer or they would soon be out of the insurance business and in hot water with the law. AMA like any other insurer can refuse to settle with claimant when they feel their client's case will prevail in civil court. That's not a rejection of the claim, but simple a refusal to settle without a court order. Then the claimant must sue to make his case in court. Refusal to settle is simply a business decision, weighing the cost involved in defending in the court and the projected cost of the possibility of judgement against their client, versus the cost of agreement to settle out-of-court with the claimant. Most of the liability claims against AMA clients are for fairly petty amounts, not worth the cost of defending and so settled. When damage to person or property is substantial, plan on going to court to get compensation. No different whether the insurer is AMA or your HO or PUP provider. Point is AMA doesn't reject claims, only a civil court can do that.

Question remains as to whether the AMA client was covered for the activity he was involved in (as in was it in accord with safety guidance) when he allegedly caused harm to claimant, and whether claimant was himself at least in part responsible for his injury. A case of AMA member getting hit and injured by another AMA member flying at Sepulveda Basin is a case where the primary insurer (not AMA, as is the usual case when the insured also has HO) refused to settle and the case went to trial in civil court. Defense argued that claimant was responsible for his own injury because he was standing too close to the runway. With expert testimony provided by an another AMA member (not sure if he had standing as an agent) the defense prevailed and claimant was denied any compensation by the court. AMA was off the hook, because they are only responsible for amounts awarded after limits of the primary insurer are exhausted, which they weren't since thre was no award to claimant.

In another case also in the Los Angeles area, a UAL pilot that was participating as a mechanic in a u-control race was hit by the model while he was positioned just outside of the circle in order to service it when it broke free of the lines hitting him in the leg causing serious injury. AMA denied his claim, going to court using the "assumed risk" defense, i.e., as a participant the claimant knew the risk but decided to take part in the activity anyway. Claimant's lawyer(s) upped the ante by suing AMA itself (rather than their client), on the claim that the AMA mandated pull test weakened the attachment of the control line to the model aircraft and this was the proximate cause of the incident. Claimant won his case, over $1 mil awarded.

Except for the one case where claimant lost because he wasn't following safety protocol and the second case which was won because AMA's insured did follow the safety rules promulgated by AMA, I'm not aware of any where the safety rules were a factor. Of course as Franklin pointed out, there is paucity of claims data available to make any kind of value judgement about the worth of the insurance. It seems prudent to be mindful of the exclusions in the insurance policy. They are in lettered paragraphs in the policy docs available online at the AMA site and run through nearly the entire alphabet.

A related aside, be cognizant of the fact that local rules made by the club are incorporated into the AMA Safety Code for the site involved. Don't water down your liability coverage with club rules that "somebody just thought was a good idea."
Well said, a great explanation including specific cases. Litigation is always a gamble, you never know what a judge or jury will decide.
Old 09-01-2016, 07:11 PM
  #488  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,493
Received 79 Likes on 69 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=cj_rumley;12253507]
Originally Posted by rcmiket

No sense to the argument here until there is some understanding about what it means when "AMA rejects a claim." AMA never rejects a liability claim when a court decides in favor of a claimant and the insured was involved in a covered activity when liability was incurred. They can't, nor can any other insurer or they would soon be out of the insurance business and in hot water with the law. AMA like any other insurer can refuse to settle with claimant when they feel their client's case will prevail in civil court. That's not a rejection of the claim, but simple a refusal to settle without a court order. Then the claimant must sue to make his case in court. Refusal to settle is simply a business decision, weighing the cost involved in defending in the court and the projected cost of the possibility of judgement against their client, versus the cost of agreement to settle out-of-court with the claimant. Most of the liability claims against AMA clients are for fairly petty amounts, not worth the cost of defending and so settled. When damage to person or property is substantial, plan on going to court to get compensation. No different whether the insurer is AMA or your HO or PUP provider. Point is AMA doesn't reject claims, only a civil court can do that.

Question remains as to whether the AMA client was covered for the activity he was involved in (as in was it in accord with safety guidance) when he allegedly caused harm to claimant, and whether claimant was himself at least in part responsible for his injury. A case of AMA member getting hit and injured by another AMA member flying at Sepulveda Basin is a case where the primary insurer (not AMA, as is the usual case when the insured also has HO) refused to settle and the case went to trial in civil court. Defense argued that claimant was responsible for his own injury because he was standing too close to the runway. With expert testimony provided by an another AMA member (not sure if he had standing as an agent) the defense prevailed and claimant was denied any compensation by the court. AMA was off the hook, because they are only responsible for amounts awarded after limits of the primary insurer are exhausted, which they weren't since thre was no award to claimant.

In another case also in the Los Angeles area, a UAL pilot that was participating as a mechanic in a u-control race was hit by the model while he was positioned just outside of the circle in order to service it when it broke free of the lines hitting him in the leg causing serious injury. AMA denied his claim, going to court using the "assumed risk" defense, i.e., as a participant the claimant knew the risk but decided to take part in the activity anyway. Claimant's lawyer(s) upped the ante by suing AMA itself (rather than their client), on the claim that the AMA mandated pull test weakened the attachment of the control line to the model aircraft and this was the proximate cause of the incident. Claimant won his case, over $1 mil awarded.

Except for the one case where claimant lost because he wasn't following safety protocol and the second case which was won because AMA's insured did follow the safety rules promulgated by AMA, I'm not aware of any where the safety rules were a factor. Of course as Franklin pointed out, there is paucity of claims data available to make any kind of value judgement about the worth of the insurance. It seems prudent to be mindful of the exclusions in the insurance policy. They are in lettered paragraphs in the policy docs available online at the AMA site and run through nearly the entire alphabet.

A related aside, be cognizant of the fact that local rules made by the club are incorporated into the AMA Safety Code for the site involved. Don't water down your liability coverage with club rules that "somebody just thought was a good idea."
CJ, ya done good here.

now
for whoever said self insured for 100,000, close but too low, the ama is self insured for 250,000. we do pay the ins company an administration fee for handling those claims for us.

if yer willing to look it up in the MA archives, there is a presidents column from a decade or so ago, where he says that the AMA would not ever deny a claim because the modelers AMA number or name and address, a safety code item, were not on or in the model. other officers, DVP- financial, have made similar statements from time to time as well.

actually, that was, has not ever and will not ever deny a claim because of the AMA number/name address thing.

Last edited by mongo; 09-01-2016 at 07:13 PM.
Old 09-01-2016, 07:17 PM
  #489  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=mongo;12253516]
Originally Posted by cj_rumley

CJ, ya done good here.

now
for whoever said self insured for 100,000, close but too low, the ama is self insured for 250,000. we do pay the ins company an administration fee for handling those claims for us.

if yer willing to look it up in the MA archives, there is a presidents column from a decade or so ago, where he says that the AMA would not ever deny a claim because the modelers AMA number or name and address, a safety code item, were not on or in the model. other officers, DVP- financial, have made similar statements from time to time as well.

actually, that was, has not ever and will not ever deny a claim because of the AMA number/name address thing.
Another great post, clearly debunking this comment:

In order to be covered by insurance all the Safety Rules must be adhered too.

You were right about the part you edited too though.

"if yer willing to look it up in the MA archives, there is a presidents column from a decade or so ago, where he says that the AMA would not ever deny a claim because the modelers AMA number or name and address, a safety code item, were not on or in the model. other officers, DVP- financial, have made similar statements from time to time as well".
Old 09-01-2016, 07:46 PM
  #490  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default


Question remains as to whether the AMA client was covered for the activity he was involved in (as in was it in accord with safety guidance) when he allegedly caused harm to claimant, and whether claimant was himself at least in part responsible for his injury. A case of AMA member getting hit and injured by another AMA member flying at Sepulveda Basin is a case where the primary insurer (not AMA, as is the usual case when the insured also has HO) refused to settle and the case went to trial in civil court. Defense argued that claimant was responsible for his own injury because he was standing too close to the runway. With expert testimony provided by an another AMA member (not sure if he had standing as an agent) the defense prevailed and claimant was denied any compensation by the court. AMA was off the hook, because they are only responsible for amounts awarded after limits of the primary insurer are exhausted, which they weren't since thre was no award to claimant.
A couple of things. First, the plaintiff lost for more than merely standing too close to the runway. He lost because it was proven that he had a long history of disregarding the established safety protocols at that flying site, was standing in a location well away from the established pilot stations, as well as standing off the station and on the edge of the runway. He further was determined to be the actual cause of the incident due to the manner in which he was flying (overflew the other pilots) which caused a sufficient distraction that caused the defendant to lose control of his plane which then injured the plaintiff.

The jury determined that the plaintiff exhibited a history of disregard for safety and took three different actions any one of which had he not done the accident would not have occurred. The jury determined 100% liability on the plaintiff.

Had that not been the case the AMA would have been responsible not only for the portion of any award that exceeded the defendant's HO policy, but also a share of the entire amount. That is due because in California at the time if there are more than one insurance policies in effect they share according to the relative amounts of coverage.

The plaintiff did however recover costs up to the full amount of his member medical coverage despite the accident being his fault because he was flying in an unsafe manner. So violation of the safety code played no part in preventing him from recovering against the medical policy coverage.

Not sure what you mean by the expert having "standing as an agent" but the defense attorney and the court accepted his testimony as an expert. By the way, there were a fair number of other witnesses in the case, most all also AMA members, who testified for the defense. Something around 20 or so. Only 1 witness, a close friend of the plaintiff, testified on his behalf.

Of course as Franklin pointed out, there is paucity of claims data available to make any kind of value judgement about the worth of the insurance.
Which is exactly the same situation for any and all insurance of which I am aware. Call up your auto or HO company and tell them that you want a disclosure of the circumstances and awards history and basis of denial of coverage, etc. so that you can evaluate if their insurance is worth anything.
Let me know what they tell you.

It seems prudent to be mindful of the exclusions in the insurance policy. They are in lettered paragraphs in the policy docs available online at the AMA site and run through nearly the entire alphabet.

A related aside, be cognizant of the fact that local rules made by the club are incorporated into the AMA Safety Code for the site involved. Don't water down your liability coverage with club rules that "somebody just thought was a good idea."
Sound advice for any and all insurance you have.

But none of this bears on your original statement that AMA will deny coverage if you violate the Safety Code. In the first instance AMA was not even involved in the case and in the second they originally denied the claim (no doubt a decision by the actual insurance company) on the basis of assumed liability, which had nothing to do with the Safety Code being followed or not.

Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 09-01-2016 at 08:23 PM.
Old 09-01-2016, 07:51 PM
  #491  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

perhaps it's just on my end, but the quoting system seems a bit off tonight, from a technical standpoint.
Old 09-01-2016, 08:40 PM
  #492  
Tipover
My Feedback: (44)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm seeing that too. I think in some cases folks may have quoted from within the context of another quote.
Old 09-01-2016, 08:55 PM
  #493  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
....................
But none of this bears on your original statement that AMA will deny coverage if you violate the Safety Code. In the first instance AMA was not even involved in the case and in the second they originally denied the claim (no doubt a decision by the actual insurance company) on the basis of assumed liability, which had nothing to do with the Safety Code being followed or not.
Cite my original statement in my post where I said that.
Old 09-01-2016, 09:45 PM
  #494  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Cite my original statement in my post where I said that.
My comments were directed at rcmiket who said in post #448:

In order to be covered by insurance all the Safety Rules must be adhered too.

Mike
Old 09-01-2016, 09:47 PM
  #495  
Tipover
My Feedback: (44)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Cite my original statement in my post where I said that.
Also rcmiket was reinforcing that claim back in post 457. There's been so many quotes posted from within others quotes, and then somehow the original quote gets assigned to the wrong poster. Kind of hard to follow.
Old 09-01-2016, 09:53 PM
  #496  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,493
Received 79 Likes on 69 Posts
Default

kinda???
Old 09-02-2016, 03:38 AM
  #497  
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 Tipover
Well I'm not sure what you're getting at in regard to a member having to follow rules, because there has never been any enforcement by a CBO of their safety guidelines, or whatever you wish to call them. And if I'm not mistaken the AMA specifically calls theirs a safety code. Back when I was president of our local club, we were always told by the AMA that they set guidelines and made recommendations, but that ultimately they left final say up to the discretion of the clubs officers. But here again is what was quoted earlier that the FAA states must be met for option 1 hobby operations:
The FAR says guidelines as well, but the word guideline does not mean the same as rule or code. Poor choice of word IMO.
Old 09-02-2016, 04:00 AM
  #498  
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

I suspect an accident where the pilot had been violating the safety code but it was not a factor would still be paid. Say he was flying over 400 feet when the club is near an airport would not have been a factor in say getting hit by another plane, or getting his fingers cut off next time he started the engine. In that case violating the safety code would not matter because it was not a factor.
Old 09-02-2016, 04:12 AM
  #499  
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
I suspect an accident where the pilot had been violating the safety code but it was not a factor would still be paid. Say he was flying over 400 feet when the club is near an airport would not have been a factor in say getting hit by another plane, or getting his fingers cut off next time he started the engine. In that case violating the safety code would not matter because it was not a factor.
Yes, correct, the violation of the rules is rarely the cause of the loss, and is not really a valid reason to deny a claim. Specific cases noted here debunk the previous assertion, which was based on nothing more than opinion and when pressed for evidence, he gave none, just deflected. This was just another instance in a long line of misinformation and doom and gloom being spread, sort of like the AMA is really just an insurance scam.
Old 09-02-2016, 06:12 AM
  #500  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I suspect an accident where the pilot had been violating the safety code but it was not a factor would still be paid.
I have never seen an instance where the insurance coverage was contingent upon compliance with the Safety Code. AMA strongly implies this is the case, but in practice it does not seem to happen that way. Much like your auto insurance still applies even if you are speeding and cause an accident.

Say he was flying over 400 feet when the club is near an airport would not have been a factor in say getting hit by another plane, or getting his fingers cut off next time he started the engine. In that case violating the safety code would not matter because it was not a factor.
Plus, flying over 400 feet "near an airport" is not prohibited by the Safety Code. All the AMA Safety Code requires is notification of doing so when within 3 miles of an airport. Given that Part 101.41 requires notification already when within 5 miles of an airport I suspect that we will see the Safety Code changed to reflect the requirements of the law.

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.