Should AMA Insurance Cover Commercial Training
Jim
You raise an interesting point. Just how much liability does ANY instructor take on? I have no statistics, but, from observation, it appears that more crashes take place per instruction flight than in any other circumstance.
With reference to your assertion that the claims might be for larger amounts if a commercial venture were involved, I would suggest that the club would certainly be involved if there were litigation. If the job of training a student is so dangerous, can mandatory certification of instructors be far off? Just wait until one of the "Professional" modeler's is involved in litigation. Jim, there is your closest comparison. If the AMA can cover a modeler who is compensated by a manufacturer, why not a compensated instructor?
As Horrace implied, this could lead to a lot of new rules before the captive insurance company is put into place. As you know, the EC is already looking at a reduction of coverage. It is going to be interesting to see what the effects on such things as the liability of inspection of 'experimental' planes weighing 55 to 100 pounds are, the liability of the CD for his role in safety inspections and enforcement of safety rules, the liability of turbine safety waivers, and the liability of just being a club officer, as more litigation takes place.
All this leads to.... nothing. The fact is that it comes down to a matter of principle, as Bill stated. There are a lot of members that think there should be no payment for instruction. Realistically, when was the last time you heard of a Hobby Shop owner being sued as a business entity for including flying lessons with the purchase of a plane when there was an accident? IMHO, the coverage could be extended without any noticeable effect on insurance claims or costs. It is only the prejudice of history that is holding back the coverage. Let's prohibit ARF's and reinstate the 'builder of model' rule. Those ideas have a basis in prejudice too.
JR