Flying at a state park or lake
12-06-2009, 03:08 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying at a state park or lake
will you be coverd flying at a state park or lake by the AMA there is no club there just some guys flying float planes in the winter months off the water
Theses are nitro planes
thanks Tim
Theses are nitro planes
thanks Tim
12-07-2009, 09:50 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
Tim
Remember that your AMA pilots insurance is good anywhere you are allowed to fly,
while it is the SITE insurance clubs get to protect the club and landowners.
Remember that your AMA pilots insurance is good anywhere you are allowed to fly,
while it is the SITE insurance clubs get to protect the club and landowners.
12-07-2009, 10:22 AM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
I think the key factor is whether you have permission to fly at the park. The absence of a specific restriction may not be interpreted as permission.
Brad
Brad
12-07-2009, 10:36 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
"The absence of a specific restriction may not be interpreted as permission"
I disagree.
Public use areas usually have a list of what not to do, even what not to drink sometimes,
if there is not a rule (or local/state/fed law) against it, why would we think it was not permitted?
I dont see a restriction on playing solitaire on the park bench, where does that fit in your interpretation of permitted?
Its the land of the free, with certain restrictions (which we have LOTS of),
not the land of the restricted with certain permissions.
I disagree.
Public use areas usually have a list of what not to do, even what not to drink sometimes,
if there is not a rule (or local/state/fed law) against it, why would we think it was not permitted?
I dont see a restriction on playing solitaire on the park bench, where does that fit in your interpretation of permitted?
Its the land of the free, with certain restrictions (which we have LOTS of),
not the land of the restricted with certain permissions.
12-07-2009, 11:42 AM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
The operative term was "may not", as opposed to "does not". "May not" is normally interpreted as either case could be correct, depending on the situation. In other words, the OP should ensure that the activity is not specifically prohibited, and further that park officials don't interpret other restrictiions (e.g., restriction about noise, restrictions about "hazardous" activities, etc.). AMA is pretty specific about ensuring you have permission to use the property. An assumption on the OPs part that they have permission may not be valid. Should something happen that might require the insurance, and there isn't a clear assurance that the activity was permissible, then the insurance might not cover it.
Its always better to have a clearly expressed permission to use the land for flying, particularly if you're concerned about the AMA insurance coverage, rather than assuming you have permission because its a park. As an example, in our area, park authorities have specifically told people not to fly airplanes in the parks, although there is no specific written prohibition. Should someone be injured as a result, if asked, I feel quite certain the park authorities would say the individual did not have permission to fly there.
Brad
Its always better to have a clearly expressed permission to use the land for flying, particularly if you're concerned about the AMA insurance coverage, rather than assuming you have permission because its a park. As an example, in our area, park authorities have specifically told people not to fly airplanes in the parks, although there is no specific written prohibition. Should someone be injured as a result, if asked, I feel quite certain the park authorities would say the individual did not have permission to fly there.
Brad
12-07-2009, 02:32 PM
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
well we have never asked anyone if it was ok to fly we juststarted doing it about 20 years ago . The park rangers would come by and watch . they never kicked us out or said we could not fly in the park. we only fly out at the lake from about late sept - first of may then the water comes up on the boat ramps and the boaters use the parking lot tp park there trailers
this is a picturewhere we fly
picture
this is a picturewhere we fly
picture
12-07-2009, 05:13 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
I would say if you've been doing it for 20 years, and the park rangers have watched you without kicking you out, there's a strong case for arguing the implicit permission. You'd still be on firmer ground getting explicit permission.
Brad
Brad
12-07-2009, 05:56 PM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
ORIGINAL: bkdavy
The operative term was ''may not'', as opposed to ''does not''. ''May not'' is normally interpreted as either case could be correct, depending on the situation. In other words, the OP should ensure that the activity is not specifically prohibited, and further that park officials don't interpret other restrictiions (e.g., restriction about noise, restrictions about ''hazardous'' activities, etc.). AMA is pretty specific about ensuring you have permission to use the property. An assumption on the OPs part that they have permission may not be valid. Should something happen that might require the insurance, and there isn't a clear assurance that the activity was permissible, then the insurance might not cover it.
Its always better to have a clearly expressed permission to use the land for flying, particularly if you're concerned about the AMA insurance coverage, rather than assuming you have permission because its a park. As an example, in our area, park authorities have specifically told people not to fly airplanes in the parks, although there is no specific written prohibition. Should someone be injured as a result, if asked, I feel quite certain the park authorities would say the individual did not have permission to fly there.
Brad
The operative term was ''may not'', as opposed to ''does not''. ''May not'' is normally interpreted as either case could be correct, depending on the situation. In other words, the OP should ensure that the activity is not specifically prohibited, and further that park officials don't interpret other restrictiions (e.g., restriction about noise, restrictions about ''hazardous'' activities, etc.). AMA is pretty specific about ensuring you have permission to use the property. An assumption on the OPs part that they have permission may not be valid. Should something happen that might require the insurance, and there isn't a clear assurance that the activity was permissible, then the insurance might not cover it.
Its always better to have a clearly expressed permission to use the land for flying, particularly if you're concerned about the AMA insurance coverage, rather than assuming you have permission because its a park. As an example, in our area, park authorities have specifically told people not to fly airplanes in the parks, although there is no specific written prohibition. Should someone be injured as a result, if asked, I feel quite certain the park authorities would say the individual did not have permission to fly there.
Brad
Not arguing, but where is this stated by AMA? I believe it used to be in the safety code, but no longer is. Any info?
12-07-2009, 08:44 PM
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
This is what I got from Ilona Maine
Thank you for your inquiry. AMA coverage is not limited to model flying at contests or at a club field. It also applies to flying on private property or at public parks. Please be sure to conduct your modeling activities in accordance with the current AMA Safety Code.
Best regards,
Ilona Maine
Safety & Member Benefits
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Thank you for your inquiry. AMA coverage is not limited to model flying at contests or at a club field. It also applies to flying on private property or at public parks. Please be sure to conduct your modeling activities in accordance with the current AMA Safety Code.
Best regards,
Ilona Maine
Safety & Member Benefits
Academy of Model Aeronautics
12-08-2009, 05:51 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
I also asked this question on the AMA forum and received a reply from Ilona.
Permission is not needed, but a charge of trespassing will void coverage.
Complete answer at:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...5&mpage=1#2524
Permission is not needed, but a charge of trespassing will void coverage.
Complete answer at:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...5&mpage=1#2524
12-09-2009, 12:02 AM
#12
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
//snip//
Permission is not needed, but a charge of trespassing will void coverage.
Complete answer at:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...5&mpage=1#2524
//snip//
Permission is not needed, but a charge of trespassing will void coverage.
Complete answer at:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...5&mpage=1#2524
On a more lighter reply, here in TX, trespassing is a serious item. Trespassing can certainly provide one with real "coverage" like some 6 feet of coverage. [sm=crying.gif] Any person that enters the private property of someone else without provable permission, IMO, deserves whatever he/she receives from the property owner.
12-09-2009, 12:59 AM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
Here is the wording (emphasis mine):
Brad,
The short answer is that you do not need the property owner’s permission for the AMA liability insurance to respond. Keep in mind, that any trespassing charges brought against an AMA member are not covered under the coverage provided to them by AMA. Please note that habitual trespassing in direct violation of a land owner's request due to an inherent danger could imperil insurance coverage.
I would strongly urge everybody to get permission before using any property for their modeling operation. This isn’t about insurance coverage, but about common courtesy and good public relations for Aeromodeling and the people involved in this hobby.
Ilona
The short answer is that you do not need the property owner’s permission for the AMA liability insurance to respond. Keep in mind, that any trespassing charges brought against an AMA member are not covered under the coverage provided to them by AMA. Please note that habitual trespassing in direct violation of a land owner's request due to an inherent danger could imperil insurance coverage.
I would strongly urge everybody to get permission before using any property for their modeling operation. This isn’t about insurance coverage, but about common courtesy and good public relations for Aeromodeling and the people involved in this hobby.
Ilona
12-09-2009, 07:22 AM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Anytown
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Flying at a state park or lake
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
On a more lighter reply, here in TX, trespassing is a serious item. Trespassing can certainly provide one with real "coverage" like some 6 feet of coverage. [sm=crying.gif] Any person that enters the private property of someone else without provable permission, IMO, deserves whatever he/she receives from the property owner.
On a more lighter reply, here in TX, trespassing is a serious item. Trespassing can certainly provide one with real "coverage" like some 6 feet of coverage. [sm=crying.gif] Any person that enters the private property of someone else without provable permission, IMO, deserves whatever he/she receives from the property owner.
