RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of accidental loss of model. A condition of Club Membership? AMA?  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> The Clubhouse >> RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of accidental loss of model. A condition of Club Membership? AMA?
Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

[Poll]

"No Fault" liability in the event of accidental loss of model. A condition of Club Membership? AMA?
A condition of Club Membership should require a signed a waiver.
  46% (116)
No, an accidental loss of model neccessitates full reimbursement.
  6% (17)
Leave things the way they are now- This is a non-issue
  16% (41)
AMA/IMAA should require a signed waiver as conditional membership
  16% (41)
No AMA/IMAA involment is required.
  5% (13)
I would sign a waiver but would not honor it.
  2% (6)
I would fly elsewhere if such a waiver was required.
  6% (16)


Total Votes : 250
(last vote on : 1/17/2006 3:04:23 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 4:03:10 PM   
Gordon Mc



Posts: 6865
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: San Jose, CA,
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike in DC
I don't understand the attitude that because it's been there for 20 years, it can't be improved, because somebody would have already. What if all the "somebodies" took the same attitude that it can't be improved because somebody else would have?


I couldn't agree more.

I also can't help but notice the apparent contradiction in the two positions here...

1) The fact that the frequency control has not been changed for 20 years somehow shows that it can't be / doesn't need to be improved. (If improvements were needed, someone would have already done it.)

2) The fact that the 'waiver' idea is not already in place somehow doesn't show that it isn't needed. (An improvement is claimed to be needed, but somehow the someone who would have already done it, didn't ?).

Seems inconsistent.

BTW Branded - regarding your complaint that this topic of frequency control is derailing the discussion ... weren't you yourself the first to bring up the way that your frequency control "works" ? (See http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1207110/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1207282).

Later,
Gordon

_____________________________

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak." - Michel de Montaigne

(in reply to Mike in DC)
       Post #: 251

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 5:03:02 PM   
FLYBOY



Posts: 8692
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Missoula, MT, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: branded



If your pin is removed, knocked off the board, or moved by mistake, another person can put his pin in its place and turm on his transmitter fully believing that the channel is unoccupied.

The whole system is based on whether or not a pin is placed over the appropriate channel number.


And that is exactly why everyone keeps saying it is bad. There are so many ways this system is flawed, you yourself even say it is flawed without realizing you are saying it.

Bummer for you. Glad noone I know uses it. That is just plain scarey.

_____________________________

Fly it till the wings come off.

(in reply to branded)
       Post #: 252

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 5:18:59 PM   
FLYBOY



Posts: 8692
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Missoula, MT, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: branded


No reason to respond to FLYBOY. I've come to realize that he's a "Jeckl/Hyde".... He's one those that believe somehow he's going to have his way in these forums if he engages in a war of attrition in some of these threads.
The more he posts, the more I ignore him.

Some of these guys probably haven't ever traveled outside of 100 miles of their own flying field and wish to assert themselves here as though they know all situations, everywhere, affecting everyone.
The problem is, the more they go on, the more the rest of us realize the worth of their opinions.



Thanks branded, I appreciate that. Someone trys to help, and you get really defensive. We have all been trying to help you with your shootdown problem. The only negative comments I made toward you were that you could solve the problem or whine about it more, and you chose to whine more. Just proved my point not that it matters. I personally would rather help you fix the problem with your current system because I hate to see people get shot down for any reason. Guess you are offended when people try to help you though. Its going to be a long tough journey for you.

As far as the distances people traveled out of their home towns, maybe you should research a little bit more before you start flapping. You never really know who you may be talking about.

_____________________________

Fly it till the wings come off.

(in reply to branded)
       Post #: 253

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 5:51:22 PM   
PJC


 

Posts: 101
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: Princeton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		I've been to back-woods impound fields, I usually refuse to fly. The card on the spot system is full of loopholes. Regardless if you shoot me down you will feel my wrath. I will not let it be an termed an accident. To me it is black and white. Taking a clip is far superior to clipping an AMA card up on a board. Personally I would duct tape mine to the board, and maybe lay staple or two into the spot as well.

An example came to mind-

One morning at 8am I was Fiberglassing Elevators, and Ailerons, with CA Glue. I had the window and both doors open along with two fans for ventilation. Well After that I lost about 3 hours worth of time, no idea what I did during that period. What I do know is that I had a new fishing pole, new hooks, new bobbers, and a bait bucket (with Shiners). So I found myself on one of my favorite lakes, fishing at about 11pm. Confused to say the least I went home, and went to the hospital with a headache like no other I have ever had (felt like I had been hit in the head with bat). Turns out the CA + the wicking agent in the fiberglass made a toxic gas which got me really stoned, and could have killed me. Now the kicker is I already have fishing tackle out the Wazoo a stones throw from my shop, and I drove 20 miles!!!

Okay take the above morning If I had CHOSEN to go to the field (in my obviously confused state). If at the field I had CHOSEN to turn on my radio. If those CHOICES shot someone down, I would hold myself personally responsible for my CHOICES.

Words to the wise-

-Turning on a radio is choice, if you turn it on without ownership of the frequency you are wrong, and should pay the consequences.

-If you fly at a field with a back-woods impound, you risk your equipment, your life, and the lives of others.

-If you happen to shoot me down, and want to shirk your responsibilty, you better change your name, SS#, address, cars, and family structure. (It's good to know people)

Okay I step off the Soap Box and copy and post this to the not my fault whiner's poll!!!!

***copied from the other Yes-No post

(in reply to branded)
       Post #: 254

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 6:13:15 PM   
P-51B



Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: branded

Some of these guys probably haven't ever traveled outside of 100 miles of their own flying field and wish to assert themselves here as though they know all situations, everywhere, affecting everyone.
The problem is, the more they go on, the more the rest of us realize the worth of their opinions.


Interesting.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to branded)
       Post #: 255

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/21/2003 7:00:20 PM   
taxman232ex



Posts: 149
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: East Coast,
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: P-51B

quote:

ORIGINAL: branded

Some of these guys probably haven't ever traveled outside of 100 miles of their own flying field and wish to assert themselves here as though they know all situations, everywhere, affecting everyone.
The problem is, the more they go on, the more the rest of us realize the worth of their opinions.


Interesting.


I would be willing to bet that I travel the country and abroad more in a year than most do in a lifetime.

(in reply to P-51B)
       Post #: 256

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/22/2003 11:12:07 PM   
zxcv11



Posts: 380
Joined: 9/11/2003
From: Glenshaw, PA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I only took quotes from this thread. Not the 'shot down' brian. + that is what you said right? As far as taking responsibility. You are willing to take responsibility as long as there's a limit to how much you'll pay which means you aren't taking responsibility at all. If you break it you fix it, all or nothing. I just came back from a big flying event today. Bet you can't tell me one of the first things that they said in the meeting for the event :^) Think it had something to do with, you turn the radio on without checking the frequency........... you bought it!!!!!


Yes Jon, I said it and stand by it...S&*t does happen...every day. Ask somebody.
The problem I have with you taking my quote out of context, which you never addressed, was that you stated in the intro before quoting me
"These are people who WOULD NOT take responsibility"
You are wrong in my case. Period.

The other point you make, that I am 'willing to take responsibility only if there is a limit.'
Well Jon....since you seem to be so fond of quoting this particular thread, and ignoring other threads with similar ideas when it suits your purpose, try this one on for size.
Do you remember how I voted in this thread??
We spoke to one another about it here earlier, you should remember, you tried telling me how I felt.
I stated that my vote was for no change. NOT for a limit.
So you are wrong in this case too. Period.

To clarify my stance on this, for those who might be mis-lead by Jons statements:
I would take full responsibility for any/all of my actions and would pay any amount the injured party felt was fair.
My argument all along has been with how the situation was handled by big $$ plane fliers.....assuming responsible people owned up to their mistakes. And maybe if I wasn't so jaded by all the name-calling, dis-respectful sh*&e that has been ruining these fine boards for the past how-ever long, I would post a thread asking just how big $$ fliers would handle an accident with someone less fortunate, who took full responsability and offered full compensation.
I have seen many examples of how most would and have been equal gentlemen in those certain circumstance.
Mr Jon.... please resist the urge from now on to try and color others opinions of certain people you have a problem with, and present your facts a little clearer next time sir.

Brian

(in reply to jonkoppisch)
       Post #: 257

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/23/2003 12:45:17 AM   
jonkoppisch



Posts: 1955
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Wilmer, AL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

origonal: zxcv11 (Post No. 21)

I see you may have shown Paul the sense of your arguments...cool!! Paul, I don't think Branded ever intended a no fault clause for anything other than pure 'accidents'. Sh** happens...ya know??plain n' simple. It sux...but it happens.


There we go, did I get the quote right now? Can we be happy again. I'm glad you would take full responsibility. I think most of the attitude is coming from the small plane fliers as they want a limit to the amount of restitution right? The way that you've argued thought I stand by my fly with statement though.
quote:

My argument all along has been with how the situation was handled by big $$ 'plane fliers'.....assuming responsible people owned up to their mistakes
It's not just the big plane fliers. The 'big plane' fliers aren't the ones not wanting to make restitution, it's the small plane fliers according to this that don't want to feel obligated for the large amount of the big planes.
quote:

Mr Jon.... please resist the urge from now on to try and color others opinions of certain people you have a problem with, and present your facts a little clearer next time sir.
Speaking of other threads. I've seen where you managed to color all by yourself with no help.


I have however seen the error of my ways! The financial burden that I have instilled upon my fellow fliers has been disastrous to their health and wealth. All the While I thought that they were applauding my skill of flying,they were really applauding that I had landed for fear of being responsible. While I was flying inverted low, the yells were not for 'lower' but 'don't wreck so I'm not responsible for your plane'. I've decided to trade my 35% stadacher for a park flier to relieve the anxiety of my comerades. So If you have a park flier, ifo or.... please let me know. My club will be so relieved (JK)

Jon

_____________________________

xps and a flash = NO MORE FLASH...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2HxRNgkjpQ

(in reply to rw Guinn)
       Post #: 258

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/23/2003 12:54:08 AM   
jonkoppisch



Posts: 1955
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Wilmer, AL, USA
Status: offline 		I kind of wonder how this poll is viewed by Imac, giant scale warbird and even TOC fliers? Jon

Edited to add*** Hopeing this will be the last post. If you want a waiver fine, if you don't, fine.... :^)

< Message edited by jonkoppisch -- 10/22/2003 7:57:53 PM >

_____________________________

xps and a flash = NO MORE FLASH...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2HxRNgkjpQ

(in reply to rw Guinn)
       Post #: 259

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/23/2003 4:58:11 AM   
BoisePaul


 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/24/2003
From: Castanea17745, USA
Status: offline 		A variation of this topic that really makes one think is what happens when the person running the impound (i.e. at a fun fly) makes a mistake and issues a radio that should not have been given out, either because he misread the channel or any other reason which is not necessarily important here. One would think that neither the person who gets shot down, nor the person who turned on the offending radio are at fault. Does it then become the hosting club's responsibility? I can't see blaming it on the guy running the impound and making him pay for a new plane(s), because nobody would ever want that level of liability and as a result, nobody will want to run the impound. Should the hosting club be carrying insurance for just this type of incident?

(in reply to branded)
       Post #: 260

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/24/2003 8:25:28 AM   
Dave Bowles


 

Posts: 575
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: KS
Status: offline 		I believe I would like my Aircraft repaired or replaced should someone by their own negligence , accidentally damage it regardless of the value or cost of my aircraft. There are hundreds of !QUOT!what Ifs!QUOT! but the fact is if it can be determined that I or someone else did something that was negligent, it was most likely avoidable, and the offending party should be responsible for their mistake. The waiver would in fact discriminate against the owner of higher cost equipment. If I drop a Item in a retail store while holding it and inspecting it and break it I would most likely be required to buy the item no matter how much it cost . When I or anyone else go to a club or public field we assume a risk of a NO FAULT accident may happen and accept the loss. I do not believe a negligent act to fall under the No Fault category. Although I can see where the waiver may make some feel better should they make a mistake,it in fact penalizes the aircraft owner simply because of the value of his aircraft. Just because I drive a YUGO dosen't make me any less responsible to replace a Hummer should I be negligent and cause it damage. The waiver may be a nice Gesture on the aircraft owners part but should not be required just to make others feel easier about making a mistake. On the same token, I don't feel the person flying the big expensive plane has any exclusive use of the airspace, I have just as much right of way in the sky with my Duraplane , they also take the risk of loosing their Aircraft in a NO FAULT situation with much more to loose.

(in reply to rw Guinn)
       Post #: 261

RE: "No Fault" liability in the event of acci... - 10/28/2003 8:37:57 AM   
zxcv11



Posts: 380
Joined: 9/11/2003
From: Glenshaw, PA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Can we be happy again.

Aw shucks...sure

quote:

I think most of the attitude is coming from the small plane fliers as they want a limit to the amount of restitution right?

I don't know...haven't been following, just got to be too much. I'm a small flier and I don't see the need for a limit. Can only speak for myself. Everyone should be resp. for their actions, period.

quote:

The way that you've argued thought I stand by my fly with statement though.

<sigh>...and here I was gonna make the trip down to WV just to fly with you!!

quote:

It's not just the big plane fliers. The 'big plane' fliers aren't the ones not wanting to make restitution, it's the small plane fliers according to this that don't want to feel obligated for the large amount of the big planes.

I don't understand what this response has to do with what I said. Maybe you mis-understood me.

quote:

Speaking of other threads. I've seen where you managed to color all by yourself with no help.


Yes sir, I once did take a snip of one of your quotes in another thread. But I did not try to label you as a responsibility shirker either. You addressed it at the time ( as I did to you now) and I apologized. See the difference?
.

I'm done Jon. (I promise everyone