BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

According to our club Pres., after having a conversation with Carl Maroney, he was informed that at our non AMA public field there is no way to maiden a plane and be within the safety code. Here is a link to the June newsletter where he states this (fourth paragraph)

http://www.valleyflyers.com/pdfs/062005.pdf

I have a feeling it is because of the circumstance of our field, public and not AMA, that creates this situation but it strikes me as somewhat nitpicky and makes me wonder if it would be used as a way to avoid having to pay a claim. After a recent incident at the field I have learned that our AMA coverage is not the panacea I once thought it was and this is further evidence of that position.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Could you enlighten us about the claim history? Since the AMA never publishes any information about specific pay-outs it is hardto know how the insurance really works. Please fill us in on the particulars of this case.
Thanks for sharing it.
TOmmy

pettit

My Feedback: (23)

I was under the impression that a "flight demonstration" was something like an organized flying event or contest. Making the first few flights on a new plane should be fine at your local field during normal flying conditions, ie, Sunday Flying.

I think that what AMA doesn't want you to do is take a brand new, unflown and untested model out to an organized flying event and see if it flys in front of lots of people, or large crowds.

I have no problems with test flying my planes at my field with several people watching. Sometimes they can be of considerable help, especially when other planes are in the air.

I would never consider taking a brand new plane to an organized event to "see if it flys".

Just my thoughts...

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Doc,
I don't want to sidetrack this conversation so I started a new thread to answer you.

aviti

My Feedback: (54)

Rules are often left to interpretation. In this case I think a reasonable person would interpret the rule something like this: Don't test fly a new aircraft in front of a large group of people, especially if the airplane has the potential for a large amount of damage to persons or property. In other words a foamy is not as dangerous as a 50 lb turbine jet test flight. When I have a new plane to test, I try to do it at a time where there are not many people at the field. Perhaps a weeknight, early morning on weekends, etc.

AMA or other liability insurance may deny a claim based on this rule, but hopefully a jury will find coverage should a serious injury occur. Juries tend to be more sympathetic to innocent bystanders than big bad rich insurance companies (insurance companies aren't necessarily bad but juries often see it this way).

I think this will all be ok....now back to work on my new airplane....

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Oh gosh, if you say it will all be OK I'll stop thinking about it, thanks!

Juries are more inclined towards innocent bystanders and that's the problem. If you injure one during a maiden flight at our field you may very well NOT be covered by our AMA liability that we all take for granted will protect us if there is a mishap. The interpretation comes directly from the person at AMA who helps decide these issues.

So go back to your plane and happy obliviousness.

aviti

My Feedback: (54)

Well BasinBum, I was staing my opinion on the matter. Not an attack on anyone. But now it appears you want to attack my opinion. Good job. You were right...I think I'll no longer maiden any planes. Thanks for your interpretation of the rule.

rcmiket

Please.... this kinda stuff is killing me. If you feel like there's no way to fly than stop and go find something else to do. Will common sense ever prevail. I really am having a hard time dealing with this Mickey Mouse, Armchair lawyer crap. Go fly and have some fun. Mike

Rick K

My Feedback: (6)

Hello, not sailplane stuff but I couldn't ignore the pic of you dog! Oddly enough a month or a little longer ago I stopped at the local gas/convince store and much to my suprise found a small box sitting in front of my van when I came out. . . a puppy that looks just like your dog, well your's looks grown up. I hope my new little mutt looks as nice as your's when grown, it's caused enough greif between the wife and I .
Rick K
LSF 6493

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Hey guys, it's not my interpretation or arm chair quarterbacking but that of Carl Maroney's. I'm not going to do anything differant than I have in the past but just think the AMA is out of touch and that it is not as great a thing to have AMA coverage as I once thought it was.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

It appears your club president has led you down the path in his effort to denigrate the AMA insurance.

From: Carl Maroney
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:39 PM
To: George Finch ([email protected])
Subject: AMA Safety Code clarification

George, you and I spoke for over an hour and on a number of subjects.
There has obvious been a misunderstanding after reading your June 2005
club newsletter I was sent a link to. . Let me set the record straight
---

The two Safety Code rules which would seem to be at the root of our
misunderstanding are General #4 and Radio Control #2. Addressing them
individually, consider the following.
In the case of General #4, the intent is to prevent unproven model
aircraft from being flown in the presence of spectators at sanctioned
events, air shows and demonstrations. This is interpreted to mean that
where the public is invited for a special activity of some type, beyond
that of the normal flying which occurs at a club field, the model
aircraft will have been previously flown. Certainly, a model may be test
flown or "maidened" in the presence of club members and the occasional
non-modeling spectators who may be present!

In regard to Radio Control #2, you have managed to link it in an
interesting manner to General #4. The intent in #2 is to indicate that
flyers who are not yet proficient will be assisted by an experienced
pilot. The terms "proficient" and "experienced" are specifically not
defined in the Code in an effort to keep it from becoming extremely
large. Last year, in addition to the work done to simplify the Code, a
Safety Code Glossary and an Intent Document were developed and approved
by the Executive Council for Headquarters and Officer use in
circumstances such as our discussion. The Glossary defines those words
as follows:

"Proficient flier - An individual who has demonstrated an ability to
safely control a model aircraft from takeoff through landing. In the
case of some clubs, this individual will have met the standards set by
the club for solo flight."
"Experienced pilot - An individual who has been engaged in the activity
and is familiar with specific field rules, overall model aircraft
operations, and can safely and consistently control a Radio Control
model aircraft."
RC #2 is directed at individuals who are learning to fly, not toward
those who are proficient. It does not preclude those who are proficient
from utilizing spotters, helpers, callers etc. who are not pilots.

I believe it is important to put this discussion in the context of our
conversation. You were concerned about the club hosting an SAE weight
lift event. The discussion centered on whether the models in that event
would need to have been flown prior to the actual event. The answer is
yes! Certainly, that does not mean that they would have had to be flown
carrying some magical amount of weight! Rather, they simply need to
reveal some ability to fly in a satisfactory manner. You will find
exactly the same type of rule within the AMA scale Competition
Regulations and other Academy activities.
By suggesting that the event not be sanctioned by your club the
discussion moved into the description of a "model demonstration". The
simple fact is, that if you are holding the event and the intent is to
have the public attend, then it fits the description alluded to in
General #4, sanctioned or not!

In your newsletter comments, you have taken a tact which is unfortunate,
but also quite common among our membership. The Safety Code is a very
general document, intended to cover F1D models under an ounce to 55
pound high speed models. It cannot be all things in all respects! In
addition, to dissect the Code by taking each word at its most literal
meaning is equally awkward. Perhaps you took advantage of the
opportunity last year, as a Leader Member, and provided comments to the
Code rewrite which was done for 2005. If so, I am certain that you
understand why it so difficult to keep the Code brief and yet
meaningful.

My recommendation would be that you hold the SAE event. In years past,
these events were sanctioned through AMA and often held at club fields.
In fact, the very first one, held in the late 1980's, followed rule
wordsmithing between the organizers and AMA and was held at a Kansas
City, MO club field using proxy flyers from the club. As I mentioned
previously, the models entered in the SAE event must be flown prior to
the actual event and I see no reason why this could not be accomplished.

I am certain that, if your newsletter comments were meant to create some
controversy, they probably did. Unfortunately, the controversy arose
from a misunderstanding of my comments to you on the phone. Hopefully,
we can correct the misconceptions which have been generated.
I trust this comprehensive explanation has officially cleared the air as
to the AMA position. I suggest you print this in your next club
newsletter.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Well, that settles that.
You know something, Basin? No offense intended by this, really...
You may NOT know all the particulars of the case of that guy getting hit, not by a long shot. Just because one of the prinicpals in the matter told you so does not mean you know, either. Remember, they are part of a lawsuit.
In cases like this it's totally normal for insurers to fight over who has to pay, it does not matter who is in the right, they will fight to get out of whatever they can, it's totally normal, it's how they do business. I don't want AMA's insurer(that's who this is up to, in the end...not AMA) just throwing in the towel and cutting a check if there is another insurer involved...let THEM take a hit, too. They would do it to US!

Consider this:
You may really not know all the facts about this case, even if you know some of the guys involved.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Red,
Thanks for alerting Carl and posting his response, I think George (our club Pres.) reacted without thinking it out and I tagged along. I guess ultimately, posting here helped clear the matter up and shows the value of this forum in a round-about way.

Easy,
No offense taken, you are absolutely right that I probably don't know or have included all the facts and circumstances of the case. I have spoken to two attorneys involved as well as some witnesses and I still concede that I don't know all the facts and understand that insurance is a business and minimizing expenses is part of business.

I guess I always assumed if two parties were AMA members and there was an accident within the conduct of the code than everything would be covered such as medical expenses. The notion of assumed risk negating liability which both insurance companies are claiming was superceded in my mind by the notion of assumed coverage. We all know what happens when you assume. It seems there are legal ways to get around the claim of assumed risk and the person who got hit is now forced to go that route and the legal expenses will grow for everyone.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Thanks for not taking that the wrong way, you are a good guy.
It's tough when you get involved with these legal and insurance issues...each side has something to lose or gain, nobody is telling the whole truth, just how it is.
These things get tricky and "unfair". I dodged a big legal bullet last year over something simple...a guy working on a job for me banged up his leg on a liftgate on a rental truck. He sued my company and my insured AND he sued, of all people, the truck rental agency. They settled right away for a fair amount and the problem went away. It was as simple as this...the rental company was large and well-insured, and a good client to their insurer, so the easiest thing for them to do was settle, it was just not worth fighting. Just? Not really. But a practical way out.
The insurers on a case like this, where there are potentially disabling, long term injuries, they are going to fight and then probably settle with each other and the plantiff...lots of posturing, perhaps, but they will work it out.

submikester

My Feedback: (6)

Carl actually sent that messsage to all of the club board members believe it or not...seems George misinterpreted the conversation - fair enough.

As far as the legal battle goes - I don't know that it helps to spread conjecture about it so I won't say anything about it until it's settled or unless one side or the other asks me to. I was there when it happened and I think I'll leave it at that.

vtwinguy

My Feedback: (3)

I haven't read all the post in this thread, but from what I did read, nobody has mentioned that the AMA coverage is secondary to your homeowners, or some other appropriate coverage anyway. the AMA is nice to have as a backup but other types of insurance are where flyers need to be sure they have enough coverage. I never knew of any real concern about it except when hosting a meet of some type or as a property owners liability requirement for a flying site. Incidents I have seen over the years resulted in homeowners insurance taking care of the claim, without the AMA insurance being involved.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

I'm once again happy to live in the West.