The single reason why drones are causing such problems for the AMA
01-07-2016 | 04:23 AM
#51
An unknown number of AMA pilots who fly MR do not do it at their fields either by choice or prohibition,
they fly rogue, where ever they can without being seen.
I do not have a number of how many do this, but any number is too much, and in violation of the AMA safety code.
How would these AMA members caught flying at a non-approved AMA cite explain themselves if the AMA decided to pull their membership?
They knew the rules, they were educated about the rules, and at times practiced the rules but decided in this instance not
to follow the rules
That would be a hard position to defend wouldn't it?
they fly rogue, where ever they can without being seen.
I do not have a number of how many do this, but any number is too much, and in violation of the AMA safety code.
How would these AMA members caught flying at a non-approved AMA cite explain themselves if the AMA decided to pull their membership?
They knew the rules, they were educated about the rules, and at times practiced the rules but decided in this instance not
to follow the rules
That would be a hard position to defend wouldn't it?
Hi Jeffrey Back when the AMA had it's own chat forum , the question of insurance coverage when not flying at an AMA chartered club's field was asked of Illona Maine , the very nice and helpful lady who knows the correct answers WRT AMA insurance . She specifically stated that as long as the safety code is being followed , your AMA coverage will cover your operations wherever you fly , just as long as there is no pre existing restriction involving the site in question . Her exact words were something to the effect of "If your not trespassing and there are no bans on flying at that site then your coverage is in effect as long as the safety code is being followed" . I trust Mrs. Maine's information .
Now , as to the AMA revoking a membership ? I've been an AMA member for better than 50 years and the only one time I remember a membership being revoked was when the guy flew his model into the side of the Goodyear blimp . There may have been other less publicized revocations , but the only one I recall was the blimp guy .
01-07-2016 | 05:09 PM
#52
They're getting even easier to fly. And BIGGER, too. This one's almost the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. It only has TWO buttons! 
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/technology/ces-2016-ehang-drone/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/technology/ces-2016-ehang-drone/
01-07-2016 | 08:55 PM
#53
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Thank you so much for the information and sharing your experience.
I have only been flying planes and helicopters since 2001.
My reference was meant to describe prohibited areas, like a parking lot, school playground, any area where no permission has been given,
I do not think these areas could be umbrella ed under AMA coverage.
Regarding the coverage at a non-chartered club, I did not know of RC clubs that were not under AMA coverage. I was involved in an attempt at setting up a chartered helicopter club
in the Leonia NJ. My recollection was that the AMA has some very specific requirements regarding
distances and boundaries for fields for their clubs. That is to say, if the site and chartered club met these requirements ,and should
an accident occur then the policy would be honored, barring any other variables.
They had distance requirements for "distance of deadline to flight station" flight station to pitting area"
"pitting area to spectator area" safety equipment, and so on.
It was my understanding that failure to conform to these parameter could potentially void a policy should
an accident occur. So is Maine's reference to "as long as the safety code is being followed" is that to be interpreted as , if the club follows the
same parameters as required of chartered AMA clubs then you as a guest, would be covered at a non-chartered club.
What is take on this ?
To me it seems reasonable.
I have only been flying planes and helicopters since 2001.
My reference was meant to describe prohibited areas, like a parking lot, school playground, any area where no permission has been given,
I do not think these areas could be umbrella ed under AMA coverage.
Regarding the coverage at a non-chartered club, I did not know of RC clubs that were not under AMA coverage. I was involved in an attempt at setting up a chartered helicopter club
in the Leonia NJ. My recollection was that the AMA has some very specific requirements regarding
distances and boundaries for fields for their clubs. That is to say, if the site and chartered club met these requirements ,and should
an accident occur then the policy would be honored, barring any other variables.
They had distance requirements for "distance of deadline to flight station" flight station to pitting area"
"pitting area to spectator area" safety equipment, and so on.
It was my understanding that failure to conform to these parameter could potentially void a policy should
an accident occur. So is Maine's reference to "as long as the safety code is being followed" is that to be interpreted as , if the club follows the
same parameters as required of chartered AMA clubs then you as a guest, would be covered at a non-chartered club.
What is take on this ?
To me it seems reasonable.
