khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I,too, think he should be allowed to fly. The medical condition for which he has his device IS serious, and potentially life threatening, but more than likely controlled by the defibrillator, else he would NOT be allowed to drive. As has been stated, there is a lot of variation in the severity of that condition between individuals, and if his cardiologist feels he can safely drive, he should as well be capable of safely flying an r/c plane. After all, he has the potential to harm himself, property and others to a greater extent in a car wreck, than he would crashing his plane, regardless of the reason for the crash. The potential to lose control of his plane is no worse than if he tripped out at the flight line.

The device may malfunction when new, due to the need to fine tune it to the specific needs of the individual patient. Once fine tuned, changes in the patient's condition may require changes to the device's programming later. I used to be a clinical specialist with the company that invented the first pacemaker, and is a leader in this technology (pacing /cardioversion / defibrillation). These devices are truly amazing and have given back a quality of life to so many; it's a damn shame that the BOD of that club can be so short-sighted.

abel_pranger

Jon-
I really hope you get some straight answers. AMA sells insurance on faith. You may be able to get a copy of the policy for the cost of making a copy and depending on your timing, but for the vast majority of us that depend on it, it's a matter of trusting in the word-of-mouth testamonials of others that AMA has never denied a claim. When somebody insists on knowing a priori whether some aspect of modeling activity is covered or not, after some discussion he will be told that the only way to get the actual scoop is to call Carl Maroney. In some cases the question is of a general nature, and the response is that each case is different and has to be evaluated on its own merit. The evaluation criteria is never disclosed, so we assume it involves some occult practice beyond comprehension of us mere mortals. You have to have faith that AMA will 'do the right thing,' because you don't have a written contract to refer to. The reason stated on prior occasions as to why you don't have it is that the language is too complicated and you wouldn't understand it. So you buy in on faith. Faith that the one person in the world you would be dependent on to protect your future if you were involved in a major liability situation will come through for you. And he's the same individual that would spring an exclusion from coverage like this right out of the blue.

Keep the faith, Baby. I'll keep my PUP.

Abel

SSRCCPREZ

Hi Guys,

Issues like this make me sad... As the President of my club, I would have to agree with the actions of the BOD in this scinario. If they did their due diligence and called the AMA and received a ruling, as far as I am concerned their hands are tied if they are a chartered club.

However, my personal feelings may or may not be different but a good BOD checks personal feeling at the door and does what is best.

Remember sometimes doing what is right is not neccessarily doing what is easy.

Hossfly

Well that certainly does make a difference. Yet, it is even worse when the designated Insurance Person knows zilch about that which he speaks. [:@] Definitely not a new experience in my history.

BTW DB is aware of my post above. As usual he sidestepped the real issue and rambled on about clubs and the Intro pilot program like I had never heard of it. YUCK!

CDignition

My Feedback: (9)

The worst part about this is that tha AMA insurance is secondary..the man likley owns his house outright, and has Homeowners on it (possibly more than one home), and the AMA would not pay out anyhow if something happened......

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hoss,
Just sent DB an e-mail, I know he does come to RCU, to set the record straight.
Again, I apologize for the error.
Jon

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Well, with all due respect to the BOD, I hope they, and Carl, had competent medical advice to refute the member's Doctor report.
I know first hand the problems associated when unqualified people make these kinds of decisions.
BRG,
Jon

GrnBrt

My Feedback: (5)

Ok let me chime in here. the whole scenario really does tick me off, why you ask?? I had a pacemaker/defibralator put in last Oct 6th and I am fine and can drive and do whatever I want to do. they discovered that under stress my heart can go into arrythimia and when that happens a defib is right behind it and then death all happening in a matter of seconds, it's called sudden cardiac arrest and it's what uaually is to blame when you here a person just keeled over dead. Now am I unsafe to fly my planes? hell no and as a matter of fact I am safer because of my unit stuck in my chest. It controls my heart rate monitoring it all the time and only if it drops to below 30 beats does it come into play and the defib only comes in play if the heart starts to beat weird, quiver is a good word. You take a person that has had a bad heart attack and now is a prime candidate for another one, will we also have him/her on the list of those that needs a co-pilot while they fly?? How about a diabetic??? heck we can go into insulin shock quicker then you can Saito is great so do we now require a co-pilot for them also??? where is all this big brother stuff going to stop and when will we quit running around like chicken little yelling the sky is falling! I'll see you at the flying field and I dare you tell me that I can't fly, double dog dare ya![:@]

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Abel,
THIS is the issue, not the smoke about the specific equipment in use. Now the REAL question is will the NEW policy have even more restrictions than the current one? More importantly is the simple question of WHY.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi everyone,
Here's Dave M reply to an e-mail I sent last night:

Morning Jon,
I've scanned my copy of our policy twice and I couldn't find any reference to this. I'll be out in Muncie in a couple of days and I'll ask Carl to point out the specific clause in the documents to me. I guess I have to wonder if Carl understood exactly what you and the club officers were asking, because I'm not sure how our Intro Pilot Program plays a part in this... and Carl's as familiar with that program as anybody.

Dave

I'm going to write a more in depth e-mail to Dave when I get a chance and get his feedback before I call Muncie and again talk to Carl.
I'm not letting go on this issue; even forgetting all the legal stuff, it's fundamentally unfair what they did to this guy!
BRG,
Jon

Silent-AV8R

There are no AMA requirements, restrictions, or anything else that deal with who may, or may not, fly model aircraft. Period. The only thing that even comes close is that in order to receive coverage under the AMA policy you must be an AMA member and follow the safety code. The safety code says nothing about pilot qualifications.

One question, would we be having this discussion if the plane the fellow was flying when he passed out had gone into the pits and killed someone?? I also wonder what the DMV would have to say if it had happened while he was driving and plowed into a school bus or something. Sometimes it is more prudent to prevent a possible incident than it is to try to deal with the consequences of that incident. Kind of like preventing a fire rather than fighting a fire.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
IMHO, yes we would, even more so.
I just love the way people pick the most extreme example and try to make it the norm: crashing in the pits and killing someone.
It can happen any time to anyone, medical condition or not, but there sure isn't a history of this happening very often. Reminds me of the politicians that want a tax increase and say that if it's not passed there'll be no money to transport handicapped kids to school. They just want to inject a little fear into the discussion.
The question is: does a local club, and by extension the AMA, since they provide insurance, have the right to unilaterally exclude/limit a member from flying based on a perceived or actual medical condition, and if so, under what authority of the by-laws, policies, etc. can they act. And what about the rights of the accused, does he have any at all?
No one has answered that question to my satisfaction, except to say the BOD was being "proactive". If local clubs, and the AMA, want to get involved in this area, then they should have a formal mechanism in place to deal with the problem, instead of a case by case basis as it seems to be now.
If you remember a while back, there was a big discussion about due process that was brought about a member getting kicked out of a club. Well, due process applies here too. This fellow brings a statement from his Doctor, and according to Carl, it was rejected because it had to many "maybe's" in it. Well, medical science is not always an exact science, as many of us know. Even the FAA has procedures to get back your medical!
The fact is this, if a case like this ever went to court, and since there appears to be no medical exclusions with the policy or AMA's policies, the first question that the defense attorney is going to ask the BOD and Carl is where they graduated from Medical School and their qualifications to make their determination.
With our aging membership, this whole area is ripe for abuse with members with an agenda; I'm talking at the local level, not the EC.
To those in favor of the BOD action, the question is: How far do you want to take this? I had a small stroke about 3 years ago, do I need someone to stand by me while I fly? You never know, I might have another one. My friend has kidney stones, does someone need to stand by him in case of another attack? Might flare up again. On and on ad nauseum.
The idea that all the people need to be protected all the time from everything is just plain stupid! There's risk that we face everyday that have far more serious consequences than crashing a model airplane.
It's called life and it's full of risks.
BRG,
Jon

scottrc

I've read through this thread and have this to add: The clubs and the AMA are setting themsevle up for trouble if they think they can deny a paying member services due to a medical condition that HAS BEEN CLEARED BY A PHYSICIAN.

We are not the DOT or FAA, which has certian critieria that allows them to deny granting LICENSES to people with medical conditions and disabilities. But a club that endorses PUBLIC ACCESS AND USAGE CANNOT DENY SERVICES TO SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY HAD ONE MEDICAL EVENT.


Scott

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

NO-ONE HAS DENIED HIM ANY SERVICE. HE MAY STILL FLY ANYTIME HE LIKES. THE CLUB HAS THE RIGHT TO RETURN HIS MONEY AND KICK HIM OUT IF THEY CHOOSE. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DISABILITY AND IT IS NOT PROTECTED. THERE IS LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT SHOWS THAT.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

His activity is being restricted.

Hossfly

Whoa thar' Boy! "There are no AMA requirements, restrictions, or anything else that deal with who may, or may not, fly model aircraft. Period." NAY, NOT SO!

Passing that kind of information will get you hired into AMA staff. Or at least well qualified!

AMA SC Gen. #9 and #10 each place restrictions on WHO is qualified/unqualified to fly. In addition the Safety Code has portions now separated from the main body of the code and placed with the specific disciplines. Included are Giant Scale Racing, Doc. 515-A and Gas Turbine Operation, #510-A which each have specific pilot restrictions and/or qualifications.

Reference the subject of this thread, In My Opinion based on strictly a biased choice, any club, through a 2/3 majority vote of the members present, at a regular scheduled meeting should be able to determine any restriction and/or qualification that they desire. No BOD or such group should be allowed to prescribe such. AMA limitations should be restricted to skill levels and nothing more.

As far as having a "Spotter", H_ll, IMAA requires it at any event. Personally, I think it's a good thing although I seldom use one for small airplanes. When flying a 100"er, I won't fly without one.

J_R

My opinion; take it for what it is worth:

F106A has raised a valid point. He is also pursuing the facts in the best possible ways. Horrace, also is trying to chase down the facts.

Several statements made in this thread are arguable. Some are thought provoking. All need the correct information to answer the questions raised.

Elsewhere in this forum, someone correctly raised the point that the liability policy purchased by the AMA sets forth coverage. Everything that is not excluded is included. The AMA may not change that. At the same time, there is the Safety Code, which may or may not include any of those exclusions. I am sure Horrace is relying on the fact that when Royal had the policy, there was an exclusion that stated violation of the Safety Code was an exclusion. I have previously been told that is no longer the case with the new policy. I still maintain that the only prudent thing to do is to VIEW the Safety Code as exclusions to coverage, in normal circumstances. In a situation such as this, something more explicit is required to resolve the issue.

Since, in my view, Carl Maroney and Larry Johnson are the only ones that have a good handle in what is in the policy, any resolution must lay in their hands. In order to find out the facts is going to require intervention on the part of someone in authority. F016A has taken that approach by asking directly and asking for input from his VP. It is unlikely the resolution will appear quickly, but I bet it does appear, whether through F106A, or in a post directly from someone from HQ or EC. Carl has posted here previously and there is no reason he can not do so again. Whether he chooses to or not is another matter.

Each club has a different set of by-laws, and what is true for one may not be true for others. IF IF IF the facts are as presented, the officers of the club in question are between a rock and a hard place. If they have been told by the AMA that they may not allow the individual to fly unassisted, they have no recourse, other than the AMA. To do anything else puts those very officers at risk in a suit should anything happen. At the same time, taking action not authorized by the club by-laws put them in a precarious position as well.

I will be watching for a resolution with the rest of you.

Live Wire

It would be nice just to have people looking up it the sky. But we have more walking around with thier head in thier!!!!!!!!! Soon there will be people un plugging OF's at the field and they will have to learn how to JUMP START them. As most people know it is harder to put up with BS than fly and some people would rather be carried away rather than quite or be treated like they are!

[8D]

Silent-AV8R

I suppose you could interpret the code this way. SC-G-9 deals with flying under the influence. SC-G-10 deals with flying under the influence of drugs.

Neither one stipulates or defines WHO may fly or what qualifications they are required to have or meet. All these two items do is tell people who choose to fly that they are not flying in accordance with the safety code if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

True enough, but this clearly does not apply to the situation under discussion. In addition, it only applies to AMA members.

africanmike

So far the only thing I've learnt for sure is the correct spelling of "deffiber........AAAHHHHHH the thing that kick starts your heart back into coesion LOL.

Thanks everyone for your opinions and inputs.

F106A If I had your typing skills I would of expressed my feelings exactly the way you did above. I don't even know how to use this site properly and cannot put your post here as others do to show to which post they are refering.

I feel in my Gut that WHAT the BOD did was wrong, And more worrisome the WAY they went about it was wrong.
While talking to them privately and in general meeting they gave me the impression that they believed, or at least wanted me (us,membership) to believe that if they allowed this man to fly while knowing about the deffib, and he had an accident that caused personal or property damage, then They (the BOD) would be personally liable.
The issue of getting a insurance policy to cover them was brought up but they insist that such a policy would be full of holes.

BTW I had no idea this thread would generate the response it has , with guys e-mailing and calling the big-wigs at AMA and some Realy informative people posting their ideas here, I only hope I dont cause any embaressment to my club or any of its members, it is obvious that at least one person here knows of the event we are discussing. I respectfully ask that no-one posting in this thread use any personal names , if they are aware of the individuals and groups or club which we are discussing.
The person concerned , whose solo status was recinded has no idea that I started this thread. I will inform him ASAP thouugh.

J_R

africanmike

One of the biggest advantages of being an AMA chartered club is that they are covered with insurance. Your BOD needs to become aware of just what the coverage is. Perhaps whoever contacted Carl Maroney initally may want to talk to him again about this coverage. The only major exclusion to that policy, that I am aware of, is that they are no longer covered for slander or lible.

In spite of everything else, these are real insurance policies that offer real protection. On top of that, the AMA by-laws require the AMA to provide a defense for chartered clubs if necessary.

Hossfly

No, JR, Horrace was NOT relying on history. Horrace was addressing the unfounded words of one aresti2004 as were quoted in the post. Aresti2004 made a statement concerning AMA that was not true in all facets. I addressed that statement as of the CURRENT information without any consideration of old policies, insurance or otherwise, and if you read well, you might even notice that I made NO remark about the second quoted sentence and "COVERAGE". I only addressed 1st and 3rd sentences concerning the pilot restrictions/ qualifications.

I then added my comments/opinions reference the thread subject.

JR, if you cannot comprehend my statements, then please either refute what I say, or ask for interpretation. However, in the future please try to refrain from broadcasting what you think I mean OR -- what you would like for others to think what I mean.

Thank you.

edited to correct the quote structure.

abel_pranger

Mike-

Just want to say thank you for the stand you've taken, and thanks for asking.

Abel

Hossfly

Well, arresti, YOU spoke of only AMA in your post #35. I addressed that post with TRUE and more accurate information.
The statement you made "There are no AMA requirements, restrictions, or anything else that deal with who may, or may not, fly model aircraft. Period." as I read it, is ALL encompassing. Actually the stated SC items do definitely provide qualifications for flying under certain parameters. Yes it is for AMA members, however that was the subject YOU initiated.

In the big quote above, your last statement, "True enough .......not apply to the situation.......applies to AMA members" is again another factor YOU added to the SUBJECT that was under discussion reference to YOUR post #35.

My reply to you concerned only the errors of your statements reference the AMA Safety Code.

The final part of my post specifically stated that the subject was changed and not to you, but to the thread subject, and it was my biased opinion.

africanmike

Mr. Cain can you perhaps tell me of any instance where AMA coverage was denied to an individual with similiar circumstances as our club member?

Do you know of any AMA policy that will deny anybody coverage because of medical conditions or mechano-electro devices they may have to wear?

Our BOD has justified its actions by saying they would be liable if this individual crashed while flying solo.
I would like to hear your comments on that.

Abel, Thank you
F106A, Thank you

Thank you one and all for opinions and inputs
The gentleman who is the subject of this thread, is now aware of it . His reaction was very positive and he thanked me and said he may post some things himself

I would also like to remind everyone that what happened to this guy could happen to each and every one of us.
At some point in time we will all have to stop flying as our health deteraites , I would bet my life that this man could go to any club and pass a solo test, only an idiot would fly if he didn't feel well enough to do so. Do any of us have the right to impinge our beliefs on another?