In a recent response to a query about model pilots liability coverage, it seems the basis most clubs/fields/events use to exclude other model pilots is commonly overlooked for high profile modelers.


http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...&mpage=2#13016

"The Westchester liability policy has a specific exclusion for commercial enterprises and/or business pursuit for individual members. The policy does not provide coverage for any business entity. Whether or not noon-time demo flights fit into the business pursuit is difficult to determine and there is no “one answer fits all” response. As with any other claim, final determination would be up to a claims adjuster/insurance company based on the specifics of each individual claim. The situation is obviously a bit more transparent when a major manufacturer holds a noon-time demo utilizing their own employees as the manufacturer's insurance would apply. Generally, when we receive inquiries regarding sponsored (non-employed) pilots doing demo flights for manufacturers/distributors, we advise that they should not rely on AMA coverage. We cannot guarantee that the policy would respond and we don't want anyone to be caught by surprise in case of an accident."



Now, I am not against having those pilots fly at AMA fields and events, since my contention has always been that the pilot's liability is his and his alone, but there seems to be an accepted double standard.

Why do we do that??? The answer to that question is a insight to our inherent and overwhelming misconception of "real personal responsibility" as applied by most members of the AMA... if not just a real intent to exclude some....

Funny, with over 50 years of flying models at both club sites and elsewhere this has never surfaced as a significant issue, or any kind of an issue for that matter. AMA insurance is secondary to any other insurance the individual may have that covers his modeling activity, this would include insurance for "factory demo" fliers. I think it is safe to say however that this thread will no doubt develop a life of its own if nurtured with enough what ifs and how comes. Now lets try to figure out what the OPs objective was in starting it in the first place.

Now let's look at the facts................................

Clubs ...... AMA Clubs are required under AMA rules to require membership in the AMA. Weather or not non AMA members can fly at the field is up to the landowner/lease.

Fields...... again it is up to the landowner/lease as to what insurance he will accept.

Events...... If the event is AMA Sanctioned event you must be an AMA member to fly. That is a separate issue as to which if any insurance applies.

Brad

well, clubs are required to have their club MEMBERS be members of AMA,
not that AMA mandates that clubs require AMA membership to fly at the club site.... they just (obviously) dont have AMA insurance for that

and that is the double standard that LCS is talking about:
Folks get all uptight when it is suggested
that non-AMA members bring their own insurance and fly at ama clubs without AMA insurance

Yet the same folks dont see anything wrong with
commercial/demo/etc pilots bringing THEIR own insurance to fly at AMA clubs without AMA insurance

Right, because commercial/demo flyers are a daily occurance at thousands of fields, everyday. Yeah, I see the similarity.

You're r-e-a-l-l-y reaching now. Slow day?

kbob

I dont understand.
If you disagree with the OP's observation of a Double Standard.
why are you posting at me for understanding his point.
If you want to disagree with him, the you should be doing that instead of focusing on me.

The way I read your post (and it being at me rather than the OP),
you dont seem to be disagreeing with the OP's observation that there IS a double standard
but you are just concerned with establishing the frequency that AMA clubs exhibit that double standard.


Where do you stand on the subject: Which (or both) standard do YOU use-
When a pilot with their own insurance wants to do something at an AMA club that AMA wont insure,
do you have 1 standard response of OK, or 1 standard response of No,
or a double standard response of it being ok for some(commercial) but wrong for others(hobby)

Look at your AMA Aircraft Safety Code card.

A model aircraft is intended exclusively for sport, recreation, and/or competition.

If you are being paid to fly it then it ain't a model aircraft.

If you are only sponsered, then its a grey area. And Westchester gave a grey answer about sponsership.

I wouldn't equate a grey area to a double standard. We are talking about an area that isn't exactly "A" and isn't quite "B".

Just to try to keep things straight,
The question to AMA that LCS linked to
asked about commercial vs. non-commercial flying at an AMA field,
not about whether the demo flyer was an AMA member or not.

So where is this double standard you talk about being demonstrated?
"bring their own insurance" that Illona talked about was over and above AMA insurance
so that the demo flyer is definitely covered and not rely on the Westchester policy.

804
well, if you have a problem with BradPaul dragiing membership into the discussion,
then take it up with HIM rather than focusing on me disagreeing with him on that
(hmm, if we both disagree with BP, then we agree that it has nothing to do with membership, right?)



The goal is not to make sure that folks have double insurance,
but to make sure they have ANY insurance,
and Ilona was pretty clear in her vaguery that clubs CANNOT count on AMA insurance so those folks should bring their own.
You know who else we cannot count on having AMA insurance,
non-members, so THEY should bring their own too.

How can a club ask for proof of insurance
if the AMA card is not a guarantee of them being insured
.... so we have some folks presenting a card that is no guarantee of insurance
and others presenting a PayPerDay$5bill that ALSO is no guarantee of insurance.
Using one standard we would say that both are ok or both are wrong,
using a DoubleStandard we would say one is ok and the other is wrong

Simple test: Y/N- It is ok for AMA members to have no guarantee of AMA insurance when club flying
due to operating outside AMA safetycode (CommercialDemo/Autonomus/shootingprojectiles/beerflying),
as long as those AMA members bring their own insurance in addition to the no-guarantee AMA insurance

PilotFighter
no, its not about the vague gray answers about coverage,
because the new info from Ilona is that we simply cannot count on AMA coverage: no guarantee of AMA insurance

The double standard comes into play
when I show you two guys that have no guarantee of AMA insurance
and clubs say its ok for one of them to fly without AMA insurance coverage as long as they have their own insurance,
while saying its wrong for the other guy to fly there without AMA brand insurance coverage

If clubs are going to say only AMA brand insurance is accepted,
then they should apply that standard to EVERYONE equally,
not just ignore their rule to allow some in without it while using that rule to keep others out
... I am pretty sure THAT is what LCS is talking about as a double standard

We have known for months that models can only be flown for 1.) sport, 2.) recreation and 3.) contest

If you are flying your model for any other reason, (such as earning a living), then you are not flying a model aircraft. And soon you will not be part of the FAA exempted CBO known as the AMA. (and this thread becomes a mute point)

If clubs have been allowing professional demo teams to fly at events and those lcubs had the impression that these pro demo teams were insured by the AMA then they were mistaken. But, I do not believe that clubs knowingly applied a double standard. They simply believed the pro demo pilots were covered by AMA. The demo pilots probably believed the same thing.

So now we know. Let the world know from this day forward that pro demo pilots are not covered by AMA, and depending how much free swag a unpaid demo pilot recieves, he might not be covered by the AMA either. Well, there is only one way to be absolutely certain. Don't allow any demo pilots at all. That would be my recommendation to any club concerned about this matter.

I did not see anything about clubs. She was speaking more about the individual person who was doing the possibly commercial activity.

The insurance for a land owner is always primary as well. So my take is that if the person is an AMA member then in the event of an accident the club's owner insurance is still there, but the individual's insurance may not.

But she was specific in saying that her answer pertained to the sponsored pilot not some more generalized "we". So it is incorrect to give the impression that in general the AMA insurance coverage is questionable.

Well, I see the usual suspects have been using a lot of smoke and mirrors as per their normal SOP to divert the discussion. It seems only the Kid has kept the topic in his sites...

Just to clarify a bit... as it pertains to insurance...that is; pilots liability insurance...which is the basis often cited for not allowing modelers other than AMA to fly at a club fields... Why do we allow some pilots with a non-guarateed or no otherwise apparent insurance pilot's liability insurance fly at our events but exclude those that we say we are trying to promote???


Should we;

A: change current policy to include commercial interests by specifically naming sponsored pilots and/or model aviation business's flying employees even if at a substantial increase to our premiums?

(this way we would rectify the double standard as applied and still be able to effectively exclude those that we always have) or;

B: change AMA's policy in regards member's liability insurance... Make it a separate...separable benefit that is purely elective and install clear verbiage indicating club's and land owner's are covered regardless of pilot's insurances thereby making all these type of contentious discussions moot?

C: some other real idea?


Now, if responders wish to only to side track this discussion or play the usual cover up in the name of AMA, I ask please don't... And it should go without saying, if you can't see the double standard we are discussing here, you certainly can't add anything positive to this discussion either...

Good post. Another work around that would work but I really would hate to do that...but your idea has real merit.

What I have a problem with is dragging non-AMA flyers into this when no mention of that occurred in the question to AMA or in Illona's reply.
As usual, I can barely make head or tails of your reply to me,
but again, what does BP's original question to AMA have to do with whether it is right or wrong for clubs to let non AMA members fly? Nothing.
If LCS, or you, have some specific evidence that non-AMA demo flyers have been operating at AMA fields or functions, let's talk about it.
All the paid, sponsored, or otherwise compensated demo-flyers I know of are top-level competition flyers who must be AMA to do so.

804

This thread isn't about AMA membership... it is about pilot's liability coverage at AMA events/fields. Your attempt to turn the discussion on that point is inappropriate. I hope you can see that...

For me the gray area in Ilona's response is what exactly "sponsored" means. It seems that most people think that "sponsored" pilots get everything they own for free, and frankly, nothing could be farther from the truth. I am sponsored by Great Planes/Hobbico as a member of Team Futaba. I receive no compensation and I am not an employee of the company. When I say I am not compensated I mean that in the legal sense. I do not receive a Form 1099 from Great Planes/Hobbico so I am not legally compensated. At least that is what my accountant tells me!
There are very few "sponsored" pilots who get a free ride. Even fewer who are paid anything directly.

My question is where is the line drawn. I am more or less an ambassador for Futaba. I use their equipment and help others with their questions, etc. So is the line drawn at the point I do a dedicated solo demonstration at a sanctioned event? Or am I "always on" in the eyes of the AMA? Am I covered as an individual by my AMA insurance when I am just out flying, despite that fact that I am showcasing the equipment I am using?

The answers to these questions will have a profound impact on how these programs operate.

Sorry, I guess I can't see what you are getting at.
Who are you talking about?
What pilots are flying at AMA events/fields without AMA pilot's liability coverage?

I am kind of in the same boat as Silent-AV8R. I receive a number of products to write about in my MA column. I frequently take these to AMA events where they can be examined by anyone interested. I even demonstrate them at times and where possible let them be tried out by the attendees. Some items, like ESCs, Winged Shadows' HOW HIGH, HOW FAST and RC REPORTER have been actually flown and shown at AMA meets. I do not get a 1099 form for the cost any of these items. Would this put me in the "commercial" category where my AMA insurance is in jeopardy. I think not. Or is this just another AMA red herring.

Not being a tax lawyer, but long time self-employed, I would say that as long as nothing shows up on a 1099 or W-2, you nor Silent would be seen as "commercial".
OTOH, all this "swag" has to be accounted for somehow, and if a dogged IRS guy somehow linked a name with this "promotional product", well, who knows? Crazier things have happened.
And it seems to me the insurance question would be answered by the IRS finding.

Your last question inspired me to poetry:
Herrings are red, profanity is blue;
Sadly this forum, allows one of the two.

Really??????? From your posts it seems to be about non AMA flyers being supposedly unable to fly at AMA Clubs, fields........... now when that "red herring" fails it is about "pilot liability coverage" at AMA events/fields ..............

Quote from Westchester:

Generally, when we receive inquiries regarding sponsored (non-employed) pilots doing demo flights for manufacturers/distributors, we advise that they should not rely on AMA coverage.

That is not a direct quote from Westchester, that is what Ilona wrote on the AMA forum thread about this subject.

Oops. Sorry. I thought Ilona was a Westchester employee.