Buddy box responsibility?????
10-31-2003 | 06:03 PM
#27
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: new york, NY,
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
I'm going to be contrary to the other respondents (that almost never happens
).
I'm a volunteer instructor at my club, one of two. There's a lot to go wrong with new model, especially when it has been built and trimmed by a newbie. I'm willing to assist with getting a new model/pilot through his first flights, and I'll give it a good ground check. Some things I can't see though - like the ARF wing joined with a thin smear of 5-min epoxy on wing halves that didn't get joined until 10 min later....... I always tell the owner of the plane that it remains his responsibility, and I accept no more responsibility for it than he has paid for. If that isn't satisfactory to him, he has the option of finding the other instructor.
Abe
I'm going to be contrary to the other respondents (that almost never happens
).I'm a volunteer instructor at my club, one of two. There's a lot to go wrong with new model, especially when it has been built and trimmed by a newbie. I'm willing to assist with getting a new model/pilot through his first flights, and I'll give it a good ground check. Some things I can't see though - like the ARF wing joined with a thin smear of 5-min epoxy on wing halves that didn't get joined until 10 min later....... I always tell the owner of the plane that it remains his responsibility, and I accept no more responsibility for it than he has paid for. If that isn't satisfactory to him, he has the option of finding the other instructor.
Abe
As for the blanket statement that the PIC is always "responsible", that's simply absurd. Accidents happen due to all kinds of reasons, and the PIC is not responsible until it is determined that human error was the primary contributor to the accident, and the accident wasn't caused by mechanical failure.
Let's apply a little common sense here.
10-31-2003 | 06:29 PM
#28
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
ORIGINAL: haven_angelo
As for the blanket statement that the PIC is always "responsible", that's simply absurd. Accidents happen due to all kinds of reasons, and the PIC is not responsible until it is determined that human error was the primary contributor to the accident, and the accident wasn't caused by mechanical failure.
Let's apply a little common sense here.
As for the blanket statement that the PIC is always "responsible", that's simply absurd. Accidents happen due to all kinds of reasons, and the PIC is not responsible until it is determined that human error was the primary contributor to the accident, and the accident wasn't caused by mechanical failure.
Let's apply a little common sense here.
oh this ought to be good!!!
11-04-2003 | 11:24 AM
#29
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Waynesburg,
PA
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum
Brian,
I think you need to have another conversation with him. There are only 2 ways I know of to be covered by the AMA when the student is NOT an AMA member.
The first way is when it is a familiarization flight the instructor is giving to encourage someone to join our hobby. This is when you get to infect others with your approach to fun.
The second way is only good for 30 days and can only be done by a club appointed (and PAID for) AMA Introductory Pilot. He can train a student who has no AMA for 30 days, but I believe it has to be on HIS equipment rather than the students. Lots of paperwork and more questions than answers at the flying field, but it is approved.
Anything else is a risk being taken towards the instructors AMA secondary insurance coverage.
Brian,
I think you need to have another conversation with him. There are only 2 ways I know of to be covered by the AMA when the student is NOT an AMA member.
The first way is when it is a familiarization flight the instructor is giving to encourage someone to join our hobby. This is when you get to infect others with your approach to fun.
The second way is only good for 30 days and can only be done by a club appointed (and PAID for) AMA Introductory Pilot. He can train a student who has no AMA for 30 days, but I believe it has to be on HIS equipment rather than the students. Lots of paperwork and more questions than answers at the flying field, but it is approved.
Anything else is a risk being taken towards the instructors AMA secondary insurance coverage.
Hi Jim,
Maybe you mis-read me. I guess by me saying 'student', you assumed that I meant an on-going training regiment. Not at all!! Better term would be 'newbie', I guess...lol. I didn't really get into the flight-specifics behind the scenario I spoke on with the local club-leader. I should have, I guess,
but it wasn't explicitly discussed in our conversation. My assumption from the tone of things while talking was that the intro BB session I spoke on would be on the trainers gear, and that it would be just that....an INTRO flight. You yourself know of some times that these type of flights would be ok, as you've stated. I wasn't suggesting anything other than these circumstances. 
Maybe you read that somewhere in my post?? Again, the conversation consisted of him telling me that "you could come up to the club and fly with a BB set-up before you got your AMA. In this way the trainer is resp., so they allow it at the club." That's pretty much the gist of it. I really assumed, within the scope of this conversation, that this was an offer for me to come up to the club, take a flight (one) on a BB set-up with this member, and just 'check it out'. That was it. Both he and I thought that although this was ok with-in club 'policy', anyone would be better off just getting their AMA first.This is really a moot point for me, as I'm now a brandy-new AMA member
Now I can take my old 'self-made' (no RTF here boy!!!!) trainer to the club, get her checked out, and comence with some 'wet' flyin' fun!! I still love my lil' e-parkfliers though!! hehe
Brian
11-07-2003 | 11:51 AM
#30
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
As we are living in a world of a forum:instead of the real world, we can all guess who is at fault and who should pay etc.[X(] I believe several somewhat valid views have been posted but in the real world I believe things would be quite different than discussed.
In a full scale airplane the instructor may be responsible for a crash but that does not necessarily mean he is financially responsible. In other words the truck suffered the financial loss by the model airplane crashing into it; correct? If the full scale plane crashed into my truck the instructor may well have caused the accident but the owner of the plane is responsible for repairing my property! Assuming he has the asset's or insurance to take care of the financial loss I sustained to my truck he or his insurance company can pay to repair the truck end of story.
However if the owner of the plane causing the damage does not have asset's or insurance to cover the financial loss to my truck I will look further to find a responsible party and low and behold an instructor was training the student. Thank God I now have another party who can pay for the damages to fix my truck! Assuming the instructor has asset's or insurance I will most likely be reimbursed by him or his insurance company. If he doesn't have either, the next person responsible in the real world may be the manufacture of the plane, on and on and on.
In model planes it may be the property owner who allowed the activity to take place WHO becomes responsible next. He may have asset's or insurance to cover the loss (AMA field insurance)
if so end of story.[8D]
Many of the things we believe about our insurance won't hold water in real court case. So what if the modeler didn't have his name in his plane and the plane killed my wife who is the mother of my five small children. Do you think the judge or a jury would disregard this when seeking a monetary award. Well in the real world these small things that have no bearing on the outcome are disregarded routinely.
Well thats my nickel.
Jay Manion
In a full scale airplane the instructor may be responsible for a crash but that does not necessarily mean he is financially responsible. In other words the truck suffered the financial loss by the model airplane crashing into it; correct? If the full scale plane crashed into my truck the instructor may well have caused the accident but the owner of the plane is responsible for repairing my property! Assuming he has the asset's or insurance to take care of the financial loss I sustained to my truck he or his insurance company can pay to repair the truck end of story.
However if the owner of the plane causing the damage does not have asset's or insurance to cover the financial loss to my truck I will look further to find a responsible party and low and behold an instructor was training the student. Thank God I now have another party who can pay for the damages to fix my truck! Assuming the instructor has asset's or insurance I will most likely be reimbursed by him or his insurance company. If he doesn't have either, the next person responsible in the real world may be the manufacture of the plane, on and on and on.
In model planes it may be the property owner who allowed the activity to take place WHO becomes responsible next. He may have asset's or insurance to cover the loss (AMA field insurance)
if so end of story.[8D]
Many of the things we believe about our insurance won't hold water in real court case. So what if the modeler didn't have his name in his plane and the plane killed my wife who is the mother of my five small children. Do you think the judge or a jury would disregard this when seeking a monetary award. Well in the real world these small things that have no bearing on the outcome are disregarded routinely.
Well thats my nickel.
Jay Manion
11-07-2003 | 12:02 PM
#31
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Waynesburg,
PA
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
Hi Jay,
Having recently been on the jury of a civic law-suit, I'd just like to say that there are some things a jury may dis-regard, true.
But there are also rules and guidelines that a jury must adhere to also. I.E.-If you find that such-and-such occured, then you must decide/rule under such-and-such a way.
Don't know how this would directly affect AMA policy exclusions, ect, with-in that 'real-world' trial we seem to be missing in this forum. But some food for thought. I am by no means a litigating lawyer, can only speak from my personal experiences.
Brian
Having recently been on the jury of a civic law-suit, I'd just like to say that there are some things a jury may dis-regard, true.
But there are also rules and guidelines that a jury must adhere to also. I.E.-If you find that such-and-such occured, then you must decide/rule under such-and-such a way.
Don't know how this would directly affect AMA policy exclusions, ect, with-in that 'real-world' trial we seem to be missing in this forum. But some food for thought. I am by no means a litigating lawyer, can only speak from my personal experiences.
Brian
11-08-2003 | 12:29 AM
#32
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: someplace,
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
Hossfly, maybe I did missread your post.
But because of your primal attitude I sure as H_ll won't apoligise.
As for these post as to who is responsible, pure conjecture.
Oh yes, by the way Hossfly's tirade scared my computer so bad it only half crashed. Thats why this reply is late.
But because of your primal attitude I sure as H_ll won't apoligise.
As for these post as to who is responsible, pure conjecture.
Oh yes, by the way Hossfly's tirade scared my computer so bad it only half crashed. Thats why this reply is late.
11-08-2003 | 02:35 PM
#33
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Waynesburg,
PA
RE: Buddy box responsibility?????
As for these post as to who is responsible, pure conjecture.
Who is responsible?
I think the trainer is, per Jim B's scenario, as well as mine, with-in ama guidelines. No? [
]Brian
