MinnSpin

My Feedback: (40)

With all of the scuttle being tossed about,
and so many willing to scream and shout
What are the logistics, could one self insure?
Privatized flying, perhaps that's the cure?

Let's say, for example, I own 100 acres
No houses, no roads,no development takers
Just flat rural ground, with a runway or two
Heck for that matter a shelter for you.

By invitation, only, I meant to say
You sign a waiver, you can fly any day
I also need a copy of that personal umbrella
Just in case you're acarelessdumb-fella

Oh there's probablydues, gas for themower
We'll call it rent, since I am the airstrip owner
No, there's not a lot of mind-bending rules
Pleasebe gentlemen,don't act like fools

For you each are responsible, each for yourself
What's that?AMeeting?How 'bout the twelfth?
I amsure there is stuff thatwe candiscuss
There may be children, so please don't cuss.

The airstrip will be flanked by sectioned-off pits
A place to ready an airplane with fits
And you will take your place on the flight line to fly
No, not by your car, don't even try.

At the end of the day,when flying is done
We'll pack up our planes, one by one
Glad you could make it,Hope you had fun
See you next time, under the sun.

Any reason thiscouldn't work?

bogbeagle

You can certainly do this in the UK.

I know, because I am one of those who does "self-insure".




The British Model Flying Association offers the usual insurance package ... but the same insurance product can be bought by the individual. Relative costs are £30 pa for the the BMFA package and £15.50 pa for the individual package. Of course, the BMFA package also includes membership and a quarterly magazine.

The difference between the two fees only amounts to about $20, which is hardly significant for most of us. Myself, I'm one of those "awkward sods" who opposes the authoritarian types that always infiltrate such organisations. I'd be surprised to find that your AMA is any different in kind. And, the best way to oppose them is to cut off their finances. A bit like Government, really.


In the UK there is no legal requirement to hold third-party insurance unless you are flying on Crown Land (such as military airfields). Of course, most flying clubs do insist that you hold 3rd-party insurance; and that is their privilege.

Silent-AV8R

Only one that I can think of. Lawyers.

beepee

Silent is right. A signed waiver does not divorce you from liability. It only helps. You will still be exposed to real damages. In the event of death (pray tell, this does not happen), the waiver does not mean diddly. The departed party cannot sign away the rights of his/her family.

Even a plot of land can be taken away from you. Not to mention your other assets.

At least in the US, you better have decent liability coverage.

Have fun.

Bedford

bogbeagle

Ah, I see that I have misunderstood the term "self-insured".

Well then, the situation, as it stands here, is thus ... there is no legal requirement to hold 3rd-party insurance. But, you cannot evade your responsibilities under the Common Law.

So, in the event that you cause injury or loss, you will be held to account by a Court. Certainly, your assets can be forfeit. Possibly, your future earnings may be sequestered, too.






There are some people who choose to fly "uninsured". Now, if those people take every reasonable precaution to avoid causing injury or loss ... well, they cannot be held responsible for an accident. So, they are no worse off than a person who holds 3rd-party insurance, because the insurance would not pay out where there is no fault on the part of the insured.

What I'm saying is that, from the point of view of the "victim", there is no difference between being struck by the aeroplane of a "reasonable and insured pilot" and being struck by the aeroplane of a "reasonable and uninsured pilot". In neither case would the pilot be held to be at fault, so there would be no case for a claim.





There is also the argument from "moral hazard". This states that the "behaviour of the insured pilot is likely to be modified by the very fact of his feeling shielded from the consequences of his actions". For example; my neighbour regularly leaves his bike in plain sight in his yard, overnight. He openly states that, "Well, it's insured."

Moral hazard is well -recognised in the insurance industry as being a behaviour-modifier. So, you could argue that an "insured pilot" is more likely to behave irresponsibly than is an "uninsured pilot". We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the purpose of insurance is to protect the insured from the consequences of his actions.

Insurance cannot protect a third-party from either injury or loss. The best that it can do is offer some financial compensation.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

The trouble with this argument is that it's up to the jury to decide whether the defendant acted "reasonably," and juries tend to be very generous with other people's money. So you can never be sure that all your precautions make you "reasonable." A while ago we had a thread here on flying without spotters. Almost all the replies said something like "I often (or always) fly without a spotter." I, too, fly without a spotter except at events that require one. So does everyone else I know. But there's nothing that stops a jury from saying that it was negligent of you to fly without a spotter if someone gets hurt and makes an argument that having a spotter might have prevented an injury. The fact that what you are doing is common, even universal, doesn't mean a jury can't decide that "reasonable care" made your actions negligent.

A lot of the flak that lawyers get really ought to be directed a juries. And a lot of the flak that juries get ought to be directed at the many people who find ways to get excused from jury duty, leaving it mostly to people who don't have anything much to do with their time.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Thread moved from All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions

to

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> The Clubhouse

Reason: Thread not related to the AMA.

bogbeagle

I agree that a jury would have to decide. But, that could still be the case even if you are insured.

All that is required is that the insurance company or plaintiff "decides" that you have not been reasonable and the case could end up before a court. I think.

My own policy has the following disclaimer ... Models must be driven, flown or operated with reasonable care for and attention to the safety of other persons and property and to comply with any statutory enactment or instrument, bye law or other regulation.

That pins me down to operating within the provisions of the Air Navigation Order and the Bye-laws which are in force at my flying site. Beyond that, we come back to the definition of "reasonable", as you say. Wherever that definition is oontested, a Court must adjudicate, I reckon.

One of the reasons that I keep a log-book; it provides some evidence that I have been flying for X years with few mishaps.


I have heard tell of insurance companies which are alleged to have settled with an injured party ... and then attempted to recoup their outlay from the insured. Dunno whether such things really happen.