Should AMA fields require pilots to have a FAA number to be permitted to fly?
01-06-2016, 08:40 AM
#51
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Originally Posted by HoundDog 
Hey Guys (ALL of ya Here)
DITTO for any NEW R/C (DRONE) Toy U got for Xmas .... Hey another question ... Say Santa bought it on DEC Twentieth but U didn't take possession till the morning of the 25 th....is it considered New Or OLD? just for Legal purposes. huuuum
Maybe U misunderstood me again .... It was purchased by someone else before the 21st of Ddc 2016 but not in your possession till after the deadline for the purpose of FAA registration does it need a number on/in of new RC/toys i.e.does it have to have an/someones FAA number in/on if flown in the NAS? Kapich? Yes Or NO will suffice OK?
Man hate to see anyone go to Federal prison over the Placement of a piece of paper. U think the Feds will let ya Post here from Leavenworth?
....you should know that by now...ha
01-06-2016, 09:00 AM
#53
Tim is correct .
The agreement page of the registration process couldn't be clearer . No flying over 400 feet . With that wording in place , I will not cast blame on anyone who refuses to comply with the registration . I know we have one gent out here (Sport) who keeps insisting the 400 foot rule is but a mere "suggestion" , but I guess he's just not been around enough aviation to know what happens to those who do not follow the FAA's "suggestions" !
01-06-2016, 09:08 AM
#54
Originally Posted by init4fun Hi Franklin , You and I share similar thoughts on the insurance issue . My belief is that any illegal activity will void the coverage and so anyone not registered by feb 19 will be at risk of having coverage denied in the event of a accident .
What about the FAA Requirement for flying NEW R/C TOYS ... Ain't that breaking the law and makes U ineligible for AMA insurance? Just ask'n, better get clarification be for your Next flight in the NAS of a NEW R/C TOY.
Yeah I can see it now. FAA inspector visits airfield (very unlikely), he sees you cleaning up your brand new Tower Kaos (or whatever) you maiden'd and he asks hey nice model did you get that for Christmas!
Nooo! You reply. FAA man asks for receipt. You tell him you don't have one you got it a year ago!
So how does the FAA man prove otherwise?
01-06-2016, 09:09 AM
#55
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, first thing is the insurance question. I called the AMA around 30 days or so ago and talked with Tony, I think that was his name.
The. AMA takes the stand of register with the FAA or not will not effect our AMA insurance.
Now to the FAA overreaching 400 feet rule.
When you sign up you are agreeing not to fly over 400 feet. Yes the FAA put in writing you my fly higher in some locations but that is not changing the FACT you have agreed to not fly over 400 feet. If you do than are you not breaking your agreement with the FAA?
If that is correct would you not be guilty and could face the same punishment as a person that did not register? Or would you face a harsher punishment due to you knowing broke your agreement?
The. AMA takes the stand of register with the FAA or not will not effect our AMA insurance.
Now to the FAA overreaching 400 feet rule.
When you sign up you are agreeing not to fly over 400 feet. Yes the FAA put in writing you my fly higher in some locations but that is not changing the FACT you have agreed to not fly over 400 feet. If you do than are you not breaking your agreement with the FAA?
If that is correct would you not be guilty and could face the same punishment as a person that did not register? Or would you face a harsher punishment due to you knowing broke your agreement?
01-06-2016, 09:16 AM
#56
When you sign up you are agreeing not to fly over 400 feet. Yes the FAA put in writing you my fly higher in some locations but that is not changing the FACT you have agreed to not fly over 400 feet. If you do than are you not breaking your agreement with the FAA?
01-06-2016, 09:34 AM
#57
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not register so I have not seen the screen but, if you log in and it says I agree to fly 400 feet or lower, you click on agree, that is no difference than you signing that on paper.
Welcome to the digital age. You have heard the term I am signing into my computer.
Welcome to the digital age. You have heard the term I am signing into my computer.
01-06-2016, 10:08 AM
#58
I have not register so I have not seen the screen but, if you log in and it says I agree to fly 400 feet or lower, you click on agree, that is no difference than you signing that on paper.
Welcome to the digital age. You have heard the term I am signing into my computer.
Welcome to the digital age. You have heard the term I am signing into my computer.
01-06-2016, 10:44 AM
#60
It says "Acknowledgement of safety guidance.", thus it is a guideline. And below it say's "I intend to follow". It does not say it is a rule or regulation, not does it say you will always adhere to the rule. An intent is not the same as to comply. It is as loose as a goose.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 01-06-2016 at 10:47 AM.
01-06-2016, 10:58 AM
#64
What ifs aren't the best way to go..but..as noted above its extremely unlikely there would be any cause for a denial. The main thing missing in your example is the policy. We don't know the effective dates of the policy nor the exclusions or endorsements. In most cases going into 2016 a policy in force in 2015 will be guiding decisions. They can't go back and retroactively insert language. Also keep in mind very few claims make it past the underlying level of h/o coverage..but there are some. Unless it's specifically addressed in the policy courts have almost always sided with policy holders in terms of coverage disputes and denials.
But what about the site owner, where AMA insurance is primary? I find it tough to believe that there isn't a clause that excludes coverage for illegal acts.
01-06-2016, 10:58 AM
#65
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until a full size aircraft goes right through your model about 400 fee, causing an emergency situation. When the investigation proves the incident happened over 400 feet, you will then be liable. And there will not be any wiggle room because you acknowledged and agreed to NOT fly above 400 feet.
01-06-2016, 11:05 AM
#66
Until a full size aircraft goes right through your model about 400 fee, causing an emergency situation. When the investigation proves the incident happened over 400 feet, you will then be liable. And there will not be any wiggle room because you acknowledged and agreed to NOT fly above 400 feet.
01-06-2016, 11:32 AM
#67
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
For the individual, I agree the risk is low as it has to make it past HO first (and therein lies my argument that for individuals AMA insurance is largely low value).
But what about the site owner, where AMA insurance is primary? I find it tough to believe that there isn't a clause that excludes coverage for illegal acts.
But what about the site owner, where AMA insurance is primary? I find it tough to believe that there isn't a clause that excludes coverage for illegal acts.
01-06-2016, 11:40 AM
#68
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but the same would be true if you did not agree, and also true if a full scale helicopter was flying at 200 feet. It would be called failure to see and avoid. If I was a contractor bidding on a spec written this way I would bid one dollar and then ask for a million dollar change order after winning the bid. That would be after signing a contract, BTW.
01-06-2016, 12:46 PM
#69
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a tough one. I don't think that the burden should be on the club reps to card check any pilot that shows up. However, if the FAA stuff becomes law, then the club should be able to require proof to be submitted upon membership, or resub. It would be appropriate for the club leaders to comply, in order to protect themselves and the membership.
The process of inspecting documents every day and each outing would be cumbersome and frankly obstructive to the enjoyment factor. I think that if a new pilot arrives, it should be handled according to that clubs current rules. However, in order to be a member, and a flying member, then I accept that the club has the responsibility to its members, to ensure you are in compliance.
The process of inspecting documents every day and each outing would be cumbersome and frankly obstructive to the enjoyment factor. I think that if a new pilot arrives, it should be handled according to that clubs current rules. However, in order to be a member, and a flying member, then I accept that the club has the responsibility to its members, to ensure you are in compliance.
01-06-2016, 12:58 PM
#70
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
It's a tough one. I don't think that the burden should be on the club reps to card check any pilot that shows up. However, if the FAA stuff becomes law, then the club should be able to require proof to be submitted upon membership, or resub. It would be appropriate for the club leaders to comply, in order to protect themselves and the membership.
The process of inspecting documents every day and each outing would be cumbersome and frankly obstructive to the enjoyment factor. I think that if a new pilot arrives, it should be handled according to that clubs current rules. However, in order to be a member, and a flying member, then I accept that the club has the responsibility to its members, to ensure you are in compliance.
The process of inspecting documents every day and each outing would be cumbersome and frankly obstructive to the enjoyment factor. I think that if a new pilot arrives, it should be handled according to that clubs current rules. However, in order to be a member, and a flying member, then I accept that the club has the responsibility to its members, to ensure you are in compliance.
