I am fairly new at this flying and at our club we had a bad accident where a plane flew into a new truck and the plane was not his but he was testing it for another person,The AMA rules say that the person holding the transmitter is responsible for the accident.
What is the rule if you are on a buddy box is the instructor or the student responsible.
This has probably been discused before but I'm new and would like to know.
Thanks Jim

Actually it doesn't matter as for as the AMA is concerned...the bottom line remains the same.

Since, in this crazy tort country of ours mostly controlled by x!#&(*) liberal courts, I do not claim to be either judge or jury so I only state my opinion. My opinion results from 41 years of professional aviation where the Pilot-in-Command is always responsible for any problem, incident, and/or accident. In RC the Instructor on the primary transmitter is responsible for anything that happens.
As a RC pilot, I firmly believe in the same call. There are times when the pilot cannot exercise any control when things go bad in the system, yet the pilot is still responsible.

Hi,

I would like to echo Horace's comments 100%. Pilot in Command is ALWAYS responsible. When instructing w/a buddy box, that is the instructor w/control over the buddy box switch.

I would admit the area gets cloudy when a buddy box isn't available but in this case instantaneous "command" isn't possible and having been an instructor for over 20 years I've seen everything from having the Tx thrown at me to the "Death Grip" till the plane goes in the ground. In that case where an instructor is "assisting" I view the student as responsible as he/she IS the pilot in command until that command is given to another (the instructor). As Horace said, given the legal system as it is today I'm sure somebody will want to argue this, but then again, if they couldn't argue, what fun would it be and how would they keep up their BMW payments?

Deadstik

[8D]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Since the AMA insurance is secondary, it might mean a LOT to the AMA, since it would determine which flyer to go after (their home owner's insurance, that is).

Mike,
You are right. This is why 'we' have a "one time rule" for infecting, er encouraging new try outs at the flying field where the guy on the other end of the buddy box is NOT an AMA member. At almost any field run by an AMA Chartered Club I have ever heard of, BOTH must be AMA members or an Introductory Pilot with properly papered student.

Thanks for the replys,
Yes it is a screwed up world where if you shoot someone with a Smith&Wesson
pistol they sue Smith&Wesson?????
Keep em flying!!!!!!!!!!!!! JIM

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

Mike you are so right and MY answer is a very POOR attempt to answer a good question.

Please excuse my half baked answer to your question Jim. Sometimes I type before I think things thru.

My opinion would be one of a probable comparative responsibility but variables not discussed in the example would have great impact on the monetary responsibilities of each. FWIW I think the instructor should be accountable to the full extent but the law may not find that way.

Just wonder if anyone can cite an actual case for reference?

My opinion is the instructor is at fault. If a student has trusted me to help him learn to fly, I need to be careful and not let "him/her" crash the plane. It is my responsibility.

although not a answer to the question directly

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...-files/522.pdf

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...-files/523.pdf

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...-files/524.pdf

I recently talked to a local ranking club member, who told me that at their club, beginners could fly on a BB system before attaining ama membership. This, he stated, was due to the fact that the trainer, not the trainee, was responsible in all aspects with-in this system and therefore the duo was covered. He went on to add that, in his opinion, it was better to have your ama first.
I fully agreed!!

Brian

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.

Sorry JB, but as usual you have things turned 180* around. You are definitely EC material.

The one time orientation by an AMA member to a non-AMA-member person must be on the AMA member's -- or someone else's -- machine BUT NOT THE NON-AMA PERSON'S MACHINE. (WHY? damnifiknow)

The Intro Pilot can train using the potential RC pilot's machine.
One important NOTE: The Intro Pilot is only an Intro-Pilot with the Club that so designates him. I can do Jetero, but not Bayou City Fliers where I also belong.

Still, the Intro Pilot is, IMO, Pilot-In-Command and totally responsible for whatever happens. As an intro pilot I have no problem with sending newbies home to correct deficiencies in an an aircraft that I think need correcting, regardless if it's new out of the box and RTF.

Horrace Cain, AMA 539
Introductory Pilot, Jetero RC Club, Inc.

Horrace,

I NEVER said anyone could fly a non-members equipment. So why do you say I did?

Abel addresses why non-members equipment is rarely covered by AMA insurance no matter who is flying it in post #8. Go back and read it for an education.

I do not understand why you insist on building yourself a bad reputation by putting the wrong words in other peoples mouths. You have done it once again here.

JB, again you display your inability to comprehend the basics. I never said you said anything other than screwing up the information about the Intro-Pilot and I also provided the correct information plus added some background information.

Give you a year in office and the D-5 people will think they are in Heaven as McN. will look like a saint compared to you. YUCK!! [&o]

The suspense mounts...Will JB admit that he was wrong or will he...

Tune in tomorrow same time same channel for "As the Word Turns"


jdoyle

Hopefully things will get better after the election in D8...maybe then someone will be able post a question or a concern and actually have it addressed but right now it seems the jousting prevents real discussion.

Well at least some idiot hasn't labeled this thread a troll yet so maybe there is hope for a definitive answer...I would like to know the answer myself.

O.K. guys this is what *I* SAID:

To most competent in the English language, the word believe has multiple meanings. It is clear that some would rather use the definition that fits their intent to attack rather than clarify the meaning in an attempt to carry on a meaningful and useful conversation that others may benefit from.

Where do YOU stand?

I used the word "believe" because I was not POSITIVE on that one issue.

well Mr. Hossfly, as a former or present full scale pilot. you must remember that when a student and instructer climb into a full scale plane, the instructer is always pilot on command.
why would it be different in this case??? wiggle,wiggle

stalspin

You may want to re-read the thread. I believe Hoss concurs with you. But that is just my belief so there is no way I can be wrong.

Way to go Hoss. Keep digging for any little thing. When are the votes counted? Keep looking for that election eve bombshell, cause this ain't it. Mike Krizan

Where in _ell do you come up with such an idea as that I would think it different? The InstrucTOR is always the PIC, be it 1 to 1 or RC.

Your reading 101 skills and ability to keep up with the discussion are as bad or worse than JB's.

Perhaps your local high school has a Primer Reading night school. Check it out.

there is only one thing that cast any doubt on the PIC issue.
that would be the safety code requirement for pilot's ama number on the aircraft or his name and adress in the aircraft.
would seem to point to the owner being responsible, over the pilot.

See #22 and read the revision. This is the type of person we want as our rep. Imagine if you were to contact the rep with a question and read something wrong. Will the response be to take a high school reading primer then get back to him when you are smart like him. Mike Krizan

Horrace's reply was consistent with the tone in which the responder had for him.

You know wiggle, wiggle.[X(]