Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
 Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field? >

Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Old 09-20-2010, 09:58 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Kbob
Well, I suppose if we want to leave out pertinent facts we could say
that AMA is your primary insurance and we would be correct.

No, you say?

If you don't have homeowners insurance then AMA brand is primary.
If your homeowners insurance excludes RC vehicles then AMA brand is primary.
If you have a $10,000,000 deductble on your homeowners policy, AMA brand will kick in to the limits.

So you see when you leave .... stuff .... out and shill for the USAMA you look dishonest sneaky.
so, is AMA insurance primary or secondary
when a members model destroys an $8000 model of another member?
Cause USAmA is primary when... well, its always primary.

Or did you leave that part out
... maybe you didnt intentionally leave that particular set of circumstance out... just like maybe Cisco didnt intentionally leave out your particular set of circumstances out
Old 09-20-2010, 10:05 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Anytown
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: dbcisco

This is a place to discuss AMA services, not to promote it.
Discussion might include comparison to other orgs and services or things that may supplement AMA services.
In any case, product bashing and personal insults are not supposed to be done here.
Re: personal insults

A shill (I assume that is the offending term) is not always a bad thing. Folks who like the AMA in this forum are referred to as shills and sometimes cheerleaders and at other times sock-puppets so don't you go getting your knickers all in a wad. It's all good.

If you bring "other orgs and services" in to the discussion then they are fair game for discussion, both pro and con. The AMAis quite regularly "bashed" and even accused of potentially being tax cheats among other atrocities.

Be more strong.
Old 09-20-2010, 10:13 PM
  #28  
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

ORIGINAL: redbiscuits

I really enjoy the company of the fellow flyers at this site, but am I risking to much flying there?
Thanks,
Red
That is a question only you can answer.

Bottom line...insurance isn't a 'permit' to take risks on another's well being and should never be used as a basis to rationalize the endangerment of people.

Property on the other hand is infinitely variable and replaceable...up to you the amount of risk to take.

AMA charter or not, makes little difference...If you are uncomfortable flying there, then you shouldn't. Simple as that.
Old 09-20-2010, 10:15 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

so, is AMA insurance primary or secondary
when a members model destroys an $8000 model of another member?
Cause USAmA is primary when... well, its always primary.
Sneaky question, KE. [>:]

AMA insurance is neither primary nor secondary in that situation. It is zip, zero, nada, 'cause that risk is excluded by AMA insurance. Best have other coverage if you can't cover that sort of liability out of pocket.
Old 09-20-2010, 10:20 PM
  #30  
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,794
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

The original question was

My question is, if anything is to ever happen, which there have been a few close calls, does the AMA insurance cover anything.
This makes it an AMA issue. The ONLY reason I allowed the post about the USAMA insurance because the OP did ask about homeowner's being primary insurance. In hindsight I may have made a mistake by leaving that post in the thread. However, this thread is NOT going to turn into another knock down drag out fight as many of the recent threads here have been where members say one thing, then deny they ever said it, and then everybody starts picking each other apart. The USAMA has been mentioned and now it's over, that's not what this discussion is about.

Now, with that being said, I am going to leave this thread open in hopes that a reasonable intelligent discussion may come about to deal with the OP's concerns about the AMA insurance. Now, in light of the fact that the "Official" answer from the AMA has been transferred and posted here this thread has technically served the purpose for which is was started. So with that in mind, if some individuals try to drag this out and mutate the thread into their own little platform to spout off from I will remove the posts in a heart beat. This thread is NOT going that direction, no matter what a few may think.  RCU provides this forum for members to discuss AMA issues, and we pride ourselves in allowing ALL viewpoints about the AMA are allowed to post their viewpoints. However, in recent days there have been some that have tried to hijack this these threads so that they can turn them into personal arguing matches. I am sorry to tell them that those days are over. This Forum will still remain open to all viewpoints about the AMA to be discussed, but the actions of a few over the last few weeks will no longer be tolerated here.

I do apologize to all the Forum members that I had to post this in the open, but I need to get the message across that what's been happening recently is going to come to a stop.

Ken

Old 09-20-2010, 10:52 PM
  #31  
My Feedback: (349)
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,798
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Landings are NOT mandatory ... some of my planes preferred to crash!
Old 09-21-2010, 05:36 AM
  #32  
My Feedback: (21)
 
Luchnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Amelia, VA
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


I believe there is much that can be gained from these threads. I notice at times it boils down to a few posters splitting hairs over words and sentence structures and I do realize how important the right words are, but we just don't all get that at times. We are scattered out accross the world and have all sort of different barriers that separate us. We perceive what is written, in this case typed, in many different ways and this is a real problem when dealing with forums. I have been on forums since back in the days of bulletin boards and floppy disk. People even use terms like, "I told you" and "I was talking to you." Well, you ain't hearing any verbal anything on a typed chat board

One thing is for sure there are those of us that appreciate the posts and attempt to glean out as much as we can. I never knew about the problems with AMA insurance (and a few possibly questionable things) until I read the threads stating various problems that people were having when doing claims. Now maybe not backed 100% by facts, but I do think it is worth looking into because insurance is very important for an RC flyer like me (at least to me I believe it is).

There are rules and rules are there for a reason. We may not like how certain threads are handled, but we can get over it. It is a privilege to have RCU forums to share insight and experiences among hundreds of other things.

The OP had a good subject and well worth discussion. I wonder if someone came along and saw them flying that wanted to cause troubles for the county? Now that would get a hard blow to RC flying.

RCKen, good work as far as I am concerned
Old 09-21-2010, 07:56 AM
  #33  
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (6)
 
redbiscuits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CEDAR CREEK, TX
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Holy Smokes! Didn't mean to open a can of worms. I didn't know it could get like this in here.
So would it be a good idea to go over my home owners insurance policy if I keep flying there? Maybe I need to give my agent a call.
Red.
Old 09-21-2010, 08:02 AM
  #34  
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

Are you an AMA member? If so, I wouldn't worry about my home owner policy so much if I were you.
Old 09-21-2010, 08:03 AM
  #35  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

If you are concerned about how much insurance you have, how much you need, and whether it will cover various circumstances, your best bet is to download and print the AMA Insurance documents on the AMA website, and then have the discussion with your insurance agent. Discuss the activity, the potential risks, and all the circumstances. If you're insurance agent says you'll be covered up to $xxxx, get his opinion in writing and keep in filed with your insurance policies.

Anything stated in this forum, beyond the official response from Illona is speculation, opinion, and subject to the differing laws of your state.

Brad
Old 09-21-2010, 08:18 AM
  #36  
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

ORIGINAL: Luchnia
I never knew about the problems with AMA insurance (and a few possibly questionable things) until I read the threads stating various problems that people were having when doing claims. Now maybe not backed 100% by facts, but I do think it is worth looking into because insurance is very important for an RC flyer like me (at least to me I believe it is).
This is very troubling. What problems have you seen?? Of the many actual claims of which I have personal knowledge there have been very few problems, if any. Worse, it seems that you are basing this statement by your own admission on non-factual posts.

So again, let me ask, what actual problems have you heard about?

My concern here is that this seems to be a popular opinion, that the AMA insurance is "worthless". Yet when you ask why people think that the insurance is worthless, there is nothing there to support the opinion.

Keep in mind that there are actually four different types of coverage or situations:

1 - Liability coverage in case you injure someone else or damage their property ($2,500,000)
2 - Medical coverage ($25,000) in case you get injured
3 - Fire/theft/vandalism ($1,000) basically requires a police report. For theft there is usually a requirement of showing forced entry.
4 - Site owner coverage obtained by clubs to cover the land owners ($2,500,000) This is a primary coverage policy.

Keep in mind that for most people with homeowner's policies that their policy limits may be fairly low for hobby related incidents. I know of several cases where it was only $250,000 to $300,000. Get sued and that is gone in a heartbeat if you lose.

Also keep in mind that the cost to defend a liability suit is separate from the policy limits. Generally whichever insurance is primary covers the costs of litigation. For instance, I know a group of glider pilots who flew off a slope where some homes got built. Most all the people had no issues, but one did. After a couple of years of escalating incidents the homeowner came after the guys. They got served papers and had a court date. Their AMA insurance policy was primary, the AMA secured legal consul and quickly got the suit dismissed by a judge. Legal fees ran close to $100,000. The AMA guys paid zero and they still fly today at the site with no problems.

My personal experience proves to me that the AMA coverage is an effective and meaningful benefit so I am always curious when others say it is not.
Old 09-21-2010, 09:21 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

..... have the discussion with your insurance agent the AMA. Discuss the activity city land, the potential risks illegality/city-schoolrules, and all the circumstances. If your insurance agent the AMA says you'll be covered up to $xxxx, get his opinion in writing

cause when I tried that discussion, it didnt end very definitively
Old 09-21-2010, 10:23 AM
  #38  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: redbiscuits
Maybe I need to give my agent a call.
That is the best idea yet.
Old 09-21-2010, 12:12 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: hometown, AZ
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

ORIGINAL: RCKen
And the Official Answer from Ilona Maine from the AMA's Headquarters
Ken, based on discussions on the AMA's forum, the poster you quoted has actually said that NOTHING posted on that forum is 'official'. This based on using the legal speak
in the forum disclaimers.

Seems silly to me, as it does seem to be quite 'official' .. but that is just one more silly debate going on, and getting shut down, over there.
Old 09-21-2010, 01:08 PM
  #40  
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,794
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: Arbo

ORIGINAL: RCKen
And the Official Answer from Ilona Maine from the AMA's Headquarters
Ken, based on discussions on the AMA's forum, the poster you quoted has actually said that NOTHING posted on that forum is 'official'. This based on using the legal speak
in the forum disclaimers.

Seems silly to me, as it does seem to be quite 'official' .. but that is just one more silly debate going on, and getting shut down, over there.
I am not going to get into the argument that is going on over at the AMAforum about what it "Official"and what isn't. The answer that Iquoted is from Ilona Maine and she ISthe official contact at the AMAfor anything that has to do with the insurance. So Iam going to consider that an official source for the information. That is why Iquoted it here.

Ken
Old 09-21-2010, 01:26 PM
  #41  
My Feedback: (349)
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,798
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

How about the benefits of flying at a non AMA field ...

No hassles.
No rules. Just common courtesy as most already do anyway.
No fees.
Peace of mind.
No politics.
Peace of mind.
No tattle tales.
No club BS.
A more relaxed atmosphere.
No obligation.
No pressure.
Same insurance ... your homeowners policy (doesn't matter if you have it or not, you can still fly).
No politics.
FREE, Free, Free!!!
Old 09-21-2010, 02:10 PM
  #42  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

For those that missed it, Ilona's very clear response was:

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

Ilona Maine
Safety & Member Benefits
AMA HQ Staff
Old 09-21-2010, 02:41 PM
  #43  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Aurora, NY
Posts: 428
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

I phoned the AMA to ask about a similar situation where I often fly. In my case I have a pristine fly area which is part of a local school. For the days that I can fly (where no other activities going on) this works well. Of course it only takes a single loose nut to mess things up and so it happens that someone tried flying during an event in a remote part of the field and flying later became a concern so the school stopped all flying on the grounds... In order to convince the school officials to allow a group of us to use the field, I got on the phone with the AMA to inquire about the details of the coverage and was told that the policy covers you wherever you fly which I conveyed to the officials who saw our reasoning and reopened flying. According to the person I spoke to this is a liability policy which covers you wherever you fly. I asked the person if I needed written permission and was told there is no such requirement. Just that you have the insurance. I know this may differ from what others are saying or may have heard which is why anyone with a quesiton should call the AMA directly. After all if you are going to pay for insurance you ought to figure out what you are covered for (and what you are not) before the need to use it arises. Kind of like seeing if your home owner's policy covers damage from a hurricane before you build one by the water...

Andy F.
Old 09-21-2010, 03:12 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: hometown, AZ
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: RCKen

I am not going to get into the argument that is going on over at the AMA forum about what it ''Official'' and what isn't. The answer that I quoted is from Ilona Maine and she IS the official contact at the AMA for anything that has to do with the insurance. So I am going to consider that an official source for the information. That is why I quoted it here.
Oh, fear not. I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, anything an AMA official says on their own forum is official, no matter what the fine print says.


Old 09-22-2010, 12:06 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

the meat of Ilonas text-
Please note that habitual trespassing in direct violation of a land owner's request due to an inherent danger could imperil insurance coverage.
COULD?
As in
Maybe/Maybe-not, who knows, try it and see ??????

Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring models over 100lb.
Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring the guest for 1Time Buddybox ride.
But we do see the answer for trespassing is not a Yes or a No, but its a maybe.
Old 09-22-2010, 04:43 AM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

the meat of Ilonas text-
Please note that habitual trespassing in direct violation of a land owner's request due to an inherent danger could imperil insurance coverage.
COULD?
As in
Maybe/Maybe-not, who knows, try it and see ??????

Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring models over 100lb.
Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring the guest for 1Time Buddybox ride.
But we do see the answer for trespassing is not a Yes or a No, but its a maybe.
What's your point?

Frank
Old 09-22-2010, 05:20 AM
  #47  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

COULD?
As in
Maybe/Maybe-not, who knows, try it and see ??????

Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring models over 100lb.
Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring the guest for 1Time Buddybox ride.
But we do see the answer for trespassing is not a Yes or a No, but its a maybe.
Model weight is specifically identified in the AMA documents - anything over 55 lbs requires a speciial waiver.

1-time buddy box is specifically identified in the AMA documents as being allowed under the identified conditions.

The AMA does not define trespassing - that would be interpreted by local laws and statutes. The AMA is not the authoritative source, therefore Ilona's statement is simply a heads up that if you don't have specific permission, or a landowner has specifically told you not to fly, that the insurance company may make interpretations of the specific circumstances, and may decide not to cover you. For the self insured part of the AMA coverage, the AMA, as the insurer, is leaving room to interpret by the specific circumstances, which is to our (the members) benefit.

For example, if said flyer is flying a 55 lbs gasser on a school soccer field and the plane crashes into a group of people that has gathered to watch. I can think of several specific reasons why that person should be covered, and several why that person shouldn't. I think its appropriate for the AMA and the insurance company to be able to consider and weigh all the circumstances. I'm not going to list all the considerations I can think of because that would simply draw out debate on each of the particular circumstances.

Suffice it to say, Ilonas answers clearly reflect where the AMA has drawn a line, and where they are leaving room for interpretation. Appropriately in my opinion.

Brad
Old 09-22-2010, 05:48 AM
  #48  
My Feedback: (21)
 
Luchnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Amelia, VA
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?


ORIGINAL: bkdavy


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

COULD?
As in
Maybe/Maybe-not, who knows, try it and see ??????

Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring models over 100lb.
Didnt see any ~maybe when talking about insuring the guest for 1Time Buddybox ride.
But we do see the answer for trespassing is not a Yes or a No, but its a maybe.
Model weight is specifically identified in the AMA documents - anything over 55 lbs requires a speciial waiver.

1-time buddy box is specifically identified in the AMA documents as being allowed under the identified conditions.

The AMA does not define trespassing - that would be interpreted by local laws and statutes. The AMA is not the authoritative source, therefore Ilona's statement is simply a heads up that if you don't have specific permission, or a landowner has specifically told you not to fly, that the insurance company may make interpretations of the specific circumstances, and may decide not to cover you. For the self insured part of the AMA coverage, the AMA, as the insurer, is leaving room to interpret by the specific circumstances, which is to our (the members) benefit.

For example, if said flyer is flying a 55 lbs gasser on a school soccer field and the plane crashes into a group of people that has gathered to watch. I can think of several specific reasons why that person should be covered, and several why that person shouldn't. I think its appropriate for the AMA and the insurance company to be able to consider and weigh all the circumstances. I'm not going to list all the considerations I can think of because that would simply draw out debate on each of the particular circumstances.

Suffice it to say, Ilonas answers clearly reflect where the AMA has drawn a line, and where they are leaving room for interpretation. Appropriately in my opinion.

Brad
One problem may be AMA's interpretation of the insurance. It would be best to get the info from the horse's mouth (insurance company). There always seems to be a level of interpretation when concerning insurance of this type. It is the fine print that can hang you with insurance companies. "Oh, it says here on line so-and-so that a plane involved in xyz is not covered." (no official quote, just for emphasis).
Old 09-22-2010, 03:03 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

BKD
Model weight is specifically identified in the AMA documents - anything over 55 lbs requires a speciial waiver.
I didnt say 55lbs,
I was talking about the insurance No Way Jose on 100lb.


1-time buddy box is specifically identified in the AMA documents as being allowed under the identified conditions.
Allowed? yes.
Covered? Well, the club and member PIC are covered by insurance, what about the guy trying it out? There is no shortage of clarity in the answer. No terms like might be covered or something like could be covered but could be in peril of no coverage.

They didnt say your insurance could be in peril, they say Not Insured.
AMA is capable of saying things ARE covered, and they say things ARE NOT covered,
but the text we just saw says Meh, maybe its covered
Old 09-23-2010, 02:54 PM
  #50  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kingsville, MO
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Consequences of flying at a non-sactioned field?

I have just this one point to make and then you can get back to your discussion. The AMA does not sanction fields. It sanctions clubs. [>:]

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.