littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ok, before some know-it-all type weighs in with “AMA does not charter, sanction, approve, bless, ordain, or otherwise recognize flying site in any manner” The words “Flying at a Chartered Site” are AMA’s not mine.

Now, the question is to see if anyone here knows the answer and yes I fully realize I could contact the AMA instead, for their definitive answer but what good is this forum if we can not exchange information…otherwise one admonishment “contact the AMA for all questions” would suffice here as a sticky and the forum locked.

I have read document 911 and although somewhat informative it seems to stop short of being absolutely clear. Maybe it is just me...get over it.


After reading the document, it seems to suggest that the primary policy purchased by an AMA club for the site owner would cover the site owner's liabilities even for non-AMA flyers use but specifically precludes public entities, such as municipalities, from the non-AMA flyers use liability insurance coverage.

Question: Is my interpretation correct?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Good question.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Ah ... I just read 911. The words "Flying at a Chartered Site" are not in that document, anywhere. But what is in that document is "Flying at a Chartered Club Site". It could be arguably stated as Flying at a Chartered Club's Site.

But either way, if the AMA's English is not proper, it still does not matter, there is no such document that pertains to chartering a flying site, so no flying site charter. This is only meant to clear up the first part of your statement.

Afterall I don't want to be the only labeled on this site as the only guy giving false information, since everyone else is right about everything.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

The key words are "exclusive use" by an AMA club. Neither the private or public land owner are covered for non-AMA flyers.

Red S.
AMA 951
Leader Member

Montague

As I understand it, the owner is covered for anything that occurs as a result of having a flying site on their property.

So, if a non-AMA member is at the site watching, and they step in a hole and brake their ankle, it's covered, I'm fairly sure about that one.

If a non-AMA member flys a model when no club member is there to stop them, and someone or something is injured as a result, and the injuried party sues the land owner, I really don't know if the AMA would cover. I suspect (guessing here, and I'm not a lawyer), that in this case, the land owner, club, and non-member pilot would all be named in a suit. I'm going to guess that the AMA would cover the club (and officers) and the land owner, but NOT the pilot for damages. (that's assuming that the club did everything reasonable, had "members only" signs posted, had a gate or other access control locked, etc. Also, in this case, the club and landowner should hit the non-member pilot with "trespass" charges in return if that's doable in that area. But I'm really at the limit of my experience with this senerio). It might come down to "who has the best laywer".

If a non-member is allowed to fly by the club, then I suspect the AMA will wash it's hands of any accident caused by the non-member. They might cover the land owner, but I'd actually be surprised if they did. Instead, the landowner would probably need to sue the club and club officiers (assuming a "normal" agreement between the landowner and club that only covered pilots will be allowed to fly).

Any lawyers in the house? Personally, if I was really worried, I would, in fact, call the AMA with a specific senerio. And even then, it may not hold up in court. Funny things happen when lawyers, judges and juries get involved.

KidEpoxy

"cover the site owner's liabilities even for non-AMA flyers use but "

We all pretty much agree that innocent pedestrians/objects would be taken care of if damages occured from clubmember(w/ama) flying, I belive he was asking specificly about Non-AMA Flyers.

Although it does provoke though on one non-member causing non-flight related damage to another non-member while on Club property....

Way too many lawyers in this country- they turned hurting yourself into a form of lottery jackpot. If they had their way, every floor tile in america would have "Slippery When Wet" stamped into them, then next year another lawyer would sue manufactures for having a Known Hazzard (Slipperiness)- 'they knew all along we could slip & still sold them out of greed'



LCS-
Nice disclaimer at the top, I should paste that into a lot of post I make to cut down on the semantics monkeybusiness.

model.flyer

The following phrase from 911 shows that you are looking at the wrong document for a definitive answer.

“While it is not possible to state a policy that addresses every scenario imaginable, AMA has, for several decades, stressed to clubs the importance of conducting flying site activities in a manner that minimizes the risk of an accident which might result in “uncovered” liability to an AMA club, member and/or site owner.”

The answer to your question lies in the insurance policy which covers liability. Document 500-L

Silent-AV8R

Being that I am the "know it all" who was quoted allow me to point out the misinterpretation you have made (on purpose??).

The referenced document (#911) is titled "Flying At AMA Charted CLUB Sites" (emphasis mine). The term "AMA Charted Site" appears in the link text to that document. Clearly this was done for brevity and it is the terminology of the document itself that clearly states the point. I do apologize to you for continuing to annoy you with the facts.

I agree, the document is a bit vague, as these types of documents typically are. The first thing to remember is that this document is talking ONLY about the insurance that AMA provides to a chartered club to cover a landowner of their field. It is not the normal liability policy that we all love to talk about so much.

A chartered club first gets a policy worth $2.5 million that covers the club, its officers, etc. That is a primary policy. A club may then, for an additional fee, request that a certificate of insurance be issued naming their field's landowner as an additionally insured. This extends that primary liability coverage to the landowner as well. These policies cover non-AMA persons for liability. In other words, the land owner, who is likely NOT an AMA member is covered by the policy. It will also extend coverage for claims against the landowner by non-AMA members. Like a spectator who is injured at the chartered club's site (like a slip, trip, fall, or similar). It would also cover the landowner for an accident where say a spectator runs over another spectator, both non-AMA, and the injured spectator sues the landowner for not having a stop sign up or something like that.

It also covers the landowner in a situation where say a non-AMA person is flying at the field and causes an accident. It does not cover that person, but it does serve to protect the landowner.

The point of the document 911 is to make it clear to clubs that it is in their own best interest and that of the AMA to make sure that Non-AMA members are never allowed to fly at a chartered club site (except as outlined in the intro flight and training exemptions). The insurance policy will still cover the landowner, but why would a club allow people who have not shared the cost of that benefit to benefit from the policy? And again, the policy does NOT cover that person, only the landowner. So say worse case, a club member allow a buddy of his who is not an AMA member to be his guest for a day at the club field. His buddy loses control of his plane and kills someone. The family of the dead guy sues the club, the landowner, and the guy. The club and the landowner are covered by the policy that covers them. The non-AMA member who caused the accident is NOT covered by the club's policy, the landowner's certificate, or the personal policy of the AMA member who invited him. And this points out why it is important for clubs not to allow non-AMA persons to use their fields.

Now for the twist on public lands where the club does not have exclusive access, like the Sepulveda Basin. The AMA policy provided to the City of Los Angeles only protects the City for actions that result from the actions of members of the AMA chartered clubs that use the site. In other words, if the Sun Valley fliers has an event and allows non-AMA members to participate, and there is an accident caused by one of those people, then the policy covers the City. It does NOT cover the City for an accident caused by a non-AMA member who is just using the site.

Does that help?

(also take a look at documents #305 and 306)

model.flyer

Just for clarity

There is only one policy. (Well, actually two, one for 1 mil and one for 1.5 mil)

The difference is in the terms set forth in the areas of additional insureds and exclusions. All the same document, but different coverages depending on the insured.

Silent-AV8R

True enough. The real point I was trying to make is that it is primary for the club and landowner and operates separately. In other words say an AMA member caused an accident. He and the landowner get sued. The coverage is $2.5 million for the AMA member/pilot and also $2.5 million for the land owner. The member pilot coverage is secondary and the landowner coverage will be primary.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well... you are the one and you earned the credit. Why guys like you purposely rub that innocuous hump escapes me...

Even though you seem to be wrong about my misinterpretation since your explanation paralleled my thoughts... I believe... I really do appreciate you elaborating and clearing things up a bit more. I often wonder why that could not have been done to begin with. Oh well... but thanks are in order and since it is from you it carries more than a Joe Shmoe weight.


You’ve cast aspersions with "misinterpretation (on purpose??)" and that is out of line. You freely admit the document was vaguely written... maybe THAT vaguely written document was "on purpose" and if so, that is inappropriate to say the least.

model.flyer

Any kind of abstract or synopsis is going to be vaguely written, by its very nature. In the case of an insurance policy, you might even make a case that the policy itself is vague since the exact meaning winds up in court so often.

The actual policy has been mentioned hundreds of times in this forum, yet most have not read it and would rather rely on a summation such as 911. Seems to me no complaint about vagueness is valid for anyone that knows the existence of the policy and won’t at least make an effort to read it. Although you might call the policy vague, it is certainly more detailed than 911 can be just on the basis of length.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

model.flyer


I agree and I think you may know that I have made attempts to read and understand the policy... although I could be wrong about that. I think you may have even given me a little push before. I really have a hard time digesting the policy and I am sure many others do as well. For instance I have looked for the $25,000 medical coverage details and have yet to find them in the policy.

If we are going to have the pdfs they should be as clear, concise and informative as possible IMO. I fully understand most hypothetical situations cannot be entertained but there are always absolutes that can be relayed.

Silent-AV8R

Many would consider the label "know-it-all types" as not being a flattering term. If you meant it as flattery, then I apologize.

In addition, my reference was to your mention that AMA uses the term "AMA Chartered site". It was clearly meant to show that my previous statement was less than accurate. After opening the document you referenced it is immediately apparent that the AMA document itself refers to AMA Chartered Club Sites and not AMA Chartered sites. You surely saw this as well, yet took pains to open your post with a derogatory reference to know-it-all types and then proceeded to present what you obviously thought was evidence that contradicted my previous statements.

Again if this was all done in error, I apologize.

I made no statement about your reference that the document was vague in areas. In fact I agree and that is why I took great pains to present my best understanding of the documents, as well as others that are applicable.

I am glad that it appears to have helped.

Silent-AV8R

The two policies that are posted on the AMA site are the general liability policies. People need to remember that there in fact three types of coverage that you get as a benefit of membership:

1 - The much talked about liability (as presented in the above 2 referenced policies). This is the $2.5 million coverage with the AMA paid $250,000 self insured deductible.

2 - Medical. This is the $25,000 coverage for injuries that YOU sustain, regardless of fault.

3 - Theft/fire/vandalism.

I am not aware of the specific policies being posted for the last two. However, they are very straight forward and are not the ones where you typically end up in court. Prove the loss/costs and you are done. The summaries of coverage do a good job of telling you the how and what of the last two. It is the liability policy that gets the most attention however.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well, at the risk of belaboring the point… It is no big deal when the term AMA chartered site is used...we know the intent of the user… don’t we? I have witnessed the same type of admonishments here in regards to “sanctioned fields” or “sanctioned clubs”. I have seen almost simultaneous posts from responders racing to correct the errant post term(s) usage…man…we waste a lot of bandwidth and time on pettiness IMO. Just a respectful correction is all that is needed if in fact anything at all is.

Silent-AV8R

I'm fine with that. It does amuse me that you would bring this up since I have observed that you are a person very prone to splitting hairs. Oh well. I've been know to split a hair or two myself

The main reason I bring it up and make the correction is simply in the interest of being completely accurate. Since so much of what we discuss regarding the AMA seems to hinge on the nuances of verbiage in often difficult to read documents it seems worth taking the time to ensure that we are using terms as correctly as possible. Plus, I guess it is just one of my pet peeves.

LuftwaffeOberst

Bingo! I couldn't fly at my Club without the Blue Card and Number. And to stay at my club I had to obey the AMA and Club rules. And I like that.


Peter Dowling aka Luftwaffe Oberst
AMA District II # 865404
Aero Modelers Club
Pulaski, NY

Silent-AV8R

The 2007 card is a lovely shade of taupe!!

LuftwaffeOberst

Oh dear... It matches my eyes![sm=lol.gif] Yes I know I only have a week or two left. I'll re-new it online before the time runs out.



Peter Dowling aka Luftwaffe Oberst
AMA District II # 865404
Aero Modelers Club
Pulaski, NY

KingCrash

So that's what it is. On my old 74 ford it was called "chicken poo brown"

Greg S

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

I think it's funny how the assumtion here is that it will be the NON AMA person that causes an accident. I don't think AMA or NOT it makes a difference. I'm sure just as many (if not more) accidents happen with AMA members as non members.

At least that is most likely the case with the Reno Radio Control Club. One of their own tried numerous times to take out their fence and no one seemed to care. On the other hand if I was out there as a non club member, but AMA member (which I refuse to be) without enough time in the club to properly be included in the group of cronies I would have been tossed out. After all they tossed out a intro pilot for having clevises that were included in the kit on his plane instead of metal ones.

I guess I just want to point out the irony and hypocracy that runs rampid in RC as well as every where else for that matter now days.

But then again what do I know I'm just a freeloading rebel.

SoCal GliderGuider

"I'm just a freeloading rebel." I prefer the moniker of rogue.

model.flyer

I bet you do.

There are a lot of perfectly good folks out there flying models that are not AMA members. Certainly nothing wrong with that.

YOU on the ohter hand, have gained the moniker, internet wide, of TROLL. It certainly befits you.

It is no wonder you would prefer to be called a rogue.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

We've only been refered to as freeloader by HossFly. I always like to give him credit for it.