AMA and Disabilities
01-28-2005 | 07:33 PM
#76
My Feedback: (15)
RE: AMA and Disabilities
if you tell them, they will.
and if any of yall had ever had a dog from outa nowhere try to catch yer landing model like it was his favorite frisbe, then the spotter idea would make more sense to ya.
then to have to explane to his owner, who let him off the required, in this city, leash, that yer not gona be responsible fer his dead pet. it was no fun, and ultimately involved a partol car and officers, who held up my side of the arguement.
now, when a guy is at the field, all by his lonesome, then the only rules he has to obey, are the one he wants to. that is as it has always been, and probably always will be.
and if any of yall had ever had a dog from outa nowhere try to catch yer landing model like it was his favorite frisbe, then the spotter idea would make more sense to ya.
then to have to explane to his owner, who let him off the required, in this city, leash, that yer not gona be responsible fer his dead pet. it was no fun, and ultimately involved a partol car and officers, who held up my side of the arguement.
now, when a guy is at the field, all by his lonesome, then the only rules he has to obey, are the one he wants to. that is as it has always been, and probably always will be.
01-28-2005 | 08:28 PM
#77
My Feedback: (9)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sarasota,
FL
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Africanmike...Ill need to look over the bylaws, but our bylaws (SRQ) state that a 2/3 member vote is required to boot a mamber..BOD cant do it on its own...this is the way it should be...prevents fifedom rule problems....
What the hell..Im a blatant rule breaker..tell him to just go fly, and if anyome sez anything tell em to screw off,lol..
What the hell..Im a blatant rule breaker..tell him to just go fly, and if anyome sez anything tell em to screw off,lol..
01-28-2005 | 08:52 PM
#78
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Who wants to play Solomon?
First, I have a question. Strictly out of curiosity: what happened to the plane being flown at the time of the incident?
As I understand the series of events, it goes something like this. Please correct me if I am wrong. The gentleman had a deliberator implanted. Some club members must have known, but, no one was concerned… including the BOD. The gentleman flew, or attempted to fly. It is not clear whether this was his first attempt or one of many since the implant. Then, the incident takes place. Emergency medical assistance is summoned to the site, and official documentation now exists.
Now, the BOD becomes concerned. Discussions are held. The BOD begins to be concerned about their personal liability should they do nothing and another incident takes place where someone, or something, is harmed. Talks continue. Someone on the BOD decides to contact the AMA (presumably Carl). Carl is looking to protect the AMA from liability should something happen in the future. He is not about to so-sign letting this gentleman fly solo, in the event there is another incident. No body is going to be able to say Carl and the AMA said it was OK to let this gentleman fly, should a future suit be filed.
The BOD is, we are told, to have someone stand with him during flights. At some point, and it is not clear just when, the Intro Pilot program is injected into the situation. (Forget for a minute that this program is not applicable to this situation). This implies more than someone standing near; it requires using a buddy box. This appears to have been more than a quick conversation. Possibly several conversations, or letters sent back and forth?
Now a letter is requested from the Doctor. The Dr. writes a letter, but leaves himself an out. He does not say unequivocally that there will be no further incidents. He covers his own self interest, with respect to future liability. No body is going to be able to say he said it was OK to let this gentleman fly. The letter is presented to the BOD, who then passes it on the Carl. Carl sees that it is not a clean bill of health, and refuses to reverse his position. The BOD is now in a position where, they too, can not back down.
Bottom line: Everyone involved is covering their collective butts.
The next item is on page 4 in the charter/recharter application:
“I attest that my club has an open membership regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, or disability.†It is not OK to discriminate if you are an AMA chartered club, as some implied in this thread. It might be a good way to have a charter revoked. This is part of a signed contract where money and the application change hands for an AMA charter and insurance.
I won’t pretend to know what a jury might decide is discrimination. Having said that, was discrimination what Carl told the BOD to do? Did he tell them to do something in violation of their charter? Was what the BOD did discrimination?
IIRC, there is another thread where a club member brought a potential safety issue involving the layout of a field to Carl’s attention, in writing, and Carl wrote to quit flying there. Is there a lesson to be learned here?
Under the club by-laws, which we are not familiar with, did the BOD have some possible way to justify it’s action? How many clubs have a mechanism to remove someone for medical reasons from the club, much less from the flightline? Don’t most clubs require some kind of cause to expel a member?
Who among the members of this forum want to be in the position this club BOD is currently in and how did they get there?
Me? I like mongo’s plan, at least for this club.
First, I have a question. Strictly out of curiosity: what happened to the plane being flown at the time of the incident?
As I understand the series of events, it goes something like this. Please correct me if I am wrong. The gentleman had a deliberator implanted. Some club members must have known, but, no one was concerned… including the BOD. The gentleman flew, or attempted to fly. It is not clear whether this was his first attempt or one of many since the implant. Then, the incident takes place. Emergency medical assistance is summoned to the site, and official documentation now exists.
Now, the BOD becomes concerned. Discussions are held. The BOD begins to be concerned about their personal liability should they do nothing and another incident takes place where someone, or something, is harmed. Talks continue. Someone on the BOD decides to contact the AMA (presumably Carl). Carl is looking to protect the AMA from liability should something happen in the future. He is not about to so-sign letting this gentleman fly solo, in the event there is another incident. No body is going to be able to say Carl and the AMA said it was OK to let this gentleman fly, should a future suit be filed.
The BOD is, we are told, to have someone stand with him during flights. At some point, and it is not clear just when, the Intro Pilot program is injected into the situation. (Forget for a minute that this program is not applicable to this situation). This implies more than someone standing near; it requires using a buddy box. This appears to have been more than a quick conversation. Possibly several conversations, or letters sent back and forth?
Now a letter is requested from the Doctor. The Dr. writes a letter, but leaves himself an out. He does not say unequivocally that there will be no further incidents. He covers his own self interest, with respect to future liability. No body is going to be able to say he said it was OK to let this gentleman fly. The letter is presented to the BOD, who then passes it on the Carl. Carl sees that it is not a clean bill of health, and refuses to reverse his position. The BOD is now in a position where, they too, can not back down.
Bottom line: Everyone involved is covering their collective butts.
The next item is on page 4 in the charter/recharter application:
“I attest that my club has an open membership regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, or disability.†It is not OK to discriminate if you are an AMA chartered club, as some implied in this thread. It might be a good way to have a charter revoked. This is part of a signed contract where money and the application change hands for an AMA charter and insurance.
I won’t pretend to know what a jury might decide is discrimination. Having said that, was discrimination what Carl told the BOD to do? Did he tell them to do something in violation of their charter? Was what the BOD did discrimination?
IIRC, there is another thread where a club member brought a potential safety issue involving the layout of a field to Carl’s attention, in writing, and Carl wrote to quit flying there. Is there a lesson to be learned here?
Under the club by-laws, which we are not familiar with, did the BOD have some possible way to justify it’s action? How many clubs have a mechanism to remove someone for medical reasons from the club, much less from the flightline? Don’t most clubs require some kind of cause to expel a member?
Who among the members of this forum want to be in the position this club BOD is currently in and how did they get there?
Me? I like mongo’s plan, at least for this club.
01-28-2005 | 09:31 PM
#79
My Feedback: (9)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sarasota,
FL
RE: AMA and Disabilities
This club should be restructured, and have its bylaws updated..I will not join this club, as it seems to be run by a few, and the membership dosent count..here is a quote from the website...I cant find a set of bylaws there tho...
this does not allow Due process to happen, and is blatantly unfair..
Fliers that fail to conduct themselves in a courteous manner, or in accordance with the rules may be suspended or expelled at the discretion of the Board of Directors
01-28-2005 | 09:31 PM
#80
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth,
TX
RE: AMA and Disabilities
JR, Hoss, Abel, Jim, all you guys:
What this appears to me, on the face of it, is that the local BOD has ejected the guy from the AMA. If what has been described is true, AMA HQ has agreed.
Now, my AMA application asked nothing about handicap, or ability to even remain vertical whilst attempting to guide a model aircraft through the air by any of various methods. It also says somewhere in amongst all that stuff exchanged between my home and AMA HQ that if I am a member and abide by the Safety Code, I am insured. Period. If I give them my money and I get a card, I am a member.
The only way I know of to rescind that coverage is to make me not a member.
Now, if this local BOD rewrote their local safety rules (Which become part of the code) to reflect that 1) only "Solo Certified" members may fly solo, and 2) that members with defib/pacemakers implanted may not be "Solo Certified", then their Southerrn exposure is covered for liability. It is hanging waaaayyyyy out and exposed for a discrimination lawsuit.
edited to correct "Apperas"
What this appears to me, on the face of it, is that the local BOD has ejected the guy from the AMA. If what has been described is true, AMA HQ has agreed.
Now, my AMA application asked nothing about handicap, or ability to even remain vertical whilst attempting to guide a model aircraft through the air by any of various methods. It also says somewhere in amongst all that stuff exchanged between my home and AMA HQ that if I am a member and abide by the Safety Code, I am insured. Period. If I give them my money and I get a card, I am a member.
The only way I know of to rescind that coverage is to make me not a member.
Now, if this local BOD rewrote their local safety rules (Which become part of the code) to reflect that 1) only "Solo Certified" members may fly solo, and 2) that members with defib/pacemakers implanted may not be "Solo Certified", then their Southerrn exposure is covered for liability. It is hanging waaaayyyyy out and exposed for a discrimination lawsuit.
edited to correct "Apperas"
01-28-2005 | 09:51 PM
#81
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: J_R
Who wants to play Solomon?
First, I have a question. Strictly out of curiosity: what happened to the plane being flown at the time of the incident?
As I understand the series of events, it goes something like this. Please correct me if I am wrong. The gentleman had a deliberator implanted. Some club members must have known, but, no one was concerned… including the BOD. The gentleman flew, or attempted to fly. It is not clear whether this was his first attempt or one of many since the implant. Then, the incident takes place. Emergency medical assistance is summoned to the site, and official documentation now exists.
Now, the BOD becomes concerned. Discussions are held. The BOD begins to be concerned about their personal liability should they do nothing and another incident takes place where someone, or something, is harmed. Talks continue. Someone on the BOD decides to contact the AMA (presumably Carl). Carl is looking to protect the AMA from liability should something happen in the future. He is not about to so-sign letting this gentleman fly solo, in the event there is another incident. No body is going to be able to say Carl and the AMA said it was OK to let this gentleman fly, should a future suit be filed.
Who wants to play Solomon?
First, I have a question. Strictly out of curiosity: what happened to the plane being flown at the time of the incident?
As I understand the series of events, it goes something like this. Please correct me if I am wrong. The gentleman had a deliberator implanted. Some club members must have known, but, no one was concerned… including the BOD. The gentleman flew, or attempted to fly. It is not clear whether this was his first attempt or one of many since the implant. Then, the incident takes place. Emergency medical assistance is summoned to the site, and official documentation now exists.
Now, the BOD becomes concerned. Discussions are held. The BOD begins to be concerned about their personal liability should they do nothing and another incident takes place where someone, or something, is harmed. Talks continue. Someone on the BOD decides to contact the AMA (presumably Carl). Carl is looking to protect the AMA from liability should something happen in the future. He is not about to so-sign letting this gentleman fly solo, in the event there is another incident. No body is going to be able to say Carl and the AMA said it was OK to let this gentleman fly, should a future suit be filed.
I'm surely no Solomon, but I'll play Devil's Advocate. Nobody will object to me being associated with the devil.
As for protecting the AMA from liability, that obviously is not an absolute mandate. AMA has agreed to accept risk on our behalf and for a price, and probably would no longer exist if they didn't agree to that - providing insurance and thus accepting risk is the lifeblood of AMA. AMA has defined terms for accepting that risk, and has not excluded anyone for medical reasons in general terms, ergo to do so in a specific instance is discrimination, in the plain familiar meaning of the word, regardless of what lawyers may twist it to mean.
The BOD is, we are told, to have someone stand with him during flights. At some point, and it is not clear just when, the Intro Pilot program is injected into the situation. (Forget for a minute that this program is not applicable to this situation). This implies more than someone standing near; it requires using a buddy box. This appears to have been more than a quick conversation. Possibly several conversations, or letters sent back and forth?
Now a letter is requested from the Doctor. The Dr. writes a letter, but leaves himself an out. He does not say unequivocally that there will be no further incidents. He covers his own self interest, with respect to future liability. No body is going to be able to say he said it was OK to let this gentleman fly. The letter is presented to the BOD, who then passes it on the Carl. Carl sees that it is not a clean bill of health, and refuses to reverse his position. The BOD is now in a position where, they too, can not back down.
Bottom line: Everyone involved is covering their collective butts.
The next item is on page 4 in the charter/recharter application:
“I attest that my club has an open membership regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, or disability.†It is not OK to discriminate if you are an AMA chartered club, as some implied in this thread. It might be a good way to have a charter revoked. This is part of a signed contract where money and the application change hands for an AMA charter and insurance.
I won’t pretend to know what a jury might decide is discrimination. Having said that, was discrimination what Carl told the BOD to do? Did he tell them to do something in violation of their charter? Was what the BOD did discrimination?
IIRC, there is another thread where a club member brought a potential safety issue involving the layout of a field to Carl’s attention, in writing, and Carl wrote to quit flying there. Is there a lesson to be learned here?
Under the club by-laws, which we are not familiar with, did the BOD have some possible way to justify it’s action? How many clubs have a mechanism to remove someone for medical reasons from the club, much less from the flightline? Don’t most clubs require some kind of cause to expel a member?
Probably few or none.
Yes, per club charter requirements mandated by AMA.
Who among the members of this forum want to be in the position this club BOD is currently in and how did they get there?
Me? I like mongo’s plan, at least for this club.
Abel
01-28-2005 | 09:53 PM
#82
My Feedback: (22)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, TX
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Good points there JR
Disability law is largely regulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. This Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, housing, education, and access to public services.
Since we are not concerned with employment, housing, education, or public services the ADA just doesn't apply.
Normally discriminating based on disabilities could be cause for revoking the charter of an AMA club. But not if the AMA instructed the club to do so.
Discrimination is not in the equation.
Disability law is largely regulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. This Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, housing, education, and access to public services.
Since we are not concerned with employment, housing, education, or public services the ADA just doesn't apply.
Normally discriminating based on disabilities could be cause for revoking the charter of an AMA club. But not if the AMA instructed the club to do so.
Discrimination is not in the equation.
01-28-2005 | 10:00 PM
#83
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
rw Guinn
From what was written in this thread, he was not ejected from the AMA. Whether he is being discriminated against is another matter.
The AMA has a long history of allowing members with disabilities. There is/was a member by the name of Ralph who flies/flew at the Sepulveda Basin that is/was blind. Admittedly, he got help with take-offs and landings. The LA Times featured him in an article some time back. The details are in the Sepulveda Basin thread in the Club House forum. I found out about him when another vision challenged gentleman was looking for help from Ralph in taking up the hobby.
I am sure most of us can recount several people we know or have seen that have disabilities.
This case has become a mess.
If I were on the BOD of this club and wanted an out, I would IMMEDIATELY hold a telephone BOD meeting and make a rule requiring a spotter with solo status to stand next to every pilot on the line. If the gentleman has as much support as it appears he does, there should be no problem with the club members in implementing the rule. I would then get in touch with Carl, IMMEDIATELY, and let him know of the action taken. He has a cell phone 24/7 for reporting emergencies. It might circumvent the EC taking action that many would not like to see, regardless of which side of the issue it is settled on.
From what was written in this thread, he was not ejected from the AMA. Whether he is being discriminated against is another matter.
The AMA has a long history of allowing members with disabilities. There is/was a member by the name of Ralph who flies/flew at the Sepulveda Basin that is/was blind. Admittedly, he got help with take-offs and landings. The LA Times featured him in an article some time back. The details are in the Sepulveda Basin thread in the Club House forum. I found out about him when another vision challenged gentleman was looking for help from Ralph in taking up the hobby.
I am sure most of us can recount several people we know or have seen that have disabilities.
This case has become a mess.
If I were on the BOD of this club and wanted an out, I would IMMEDIATELY hold a telephone BOD meeting and make a rule requiring a spotter with solo status to stand next to every pilot on the line. If the gentleman has as much support as it appears he does, there should be no problem with the club members in implementing the rule. I would then get in touch with Carl, IMMEDIATELY, and let him know of the action taken. He has a cell phone 24/7 for reporting emergencies. It might circumvent the EC taking action that many would not like to see, regardless of which side of the issue it is settled on.
01-28-2005 | 10:07 PM
#84
My Feedback: (3)
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Roger,
I agree with you. They be hanging 20 which is well beyond 10!
Abel, go ahead and just call MY DVP. He will even help you file a formal complaint against my Leader Membership. He won't even give me two minutes of his precious time that had been reserved for District VIII members.
Situational awareness is not something the new flyer has. I tell newbies that they have tunnel vision for at least 2 years and can show them pictures of folks parking planes in trees because of that problem. I try to teach them how to get over it sooner, but it is a struggle. Sort of like leading a horse to water. However, having a spotter is a judgment call that many clubs make for visitors at events so I see no reason not to have some sort of procedure in place to provide that kind of help to any member of any club. Do they need to be 'codified'? I don't think so, but with respondants like Horrible, I don't know anymore.
Horrible, YOU are the only person I know of speaking of MANDATES.
Kingwoodbarney,
ADA lawyers will hold the position that 'we' are engaged in the public service of having fun. Sort of like they did for the park system. Now, I happen to think that IF the AMA position is exactly as was quoted and came from Carl we had better be ready for another dues increase to pay the lawyer fees and final settlement because discrimination IS the question in this equation. Like Roger implied the club BOD the club threw this guy out with no due process and are looking to AMA to cover their posteriors. Wonder if THEY are going to be covered when this one comes out of court.
I agree with you. They be hanging 20 which is well beyond 10!
Abel, go ahead and just call MY DVP. He will even help you file a formal complaint against my Leader Membership. He won't even give me two minutes of his precious time that had been reserved for District VIII members.
Situational awareness is not something the new flyer has. I tell newbies that they have tunnel vision for at least 2 years and can show them pictures of folks parking planes in trees because of that problem. I try to teach them how to get over it sooner, but it is a struggle. Sort of like leading a horse to water. However, having a spotter is a judgment call that many clubs make for visitors at events so I see no reason not to have some sort of procedure in place to provide that kind of help to any member of any club. Do they need to be 'codified'? I don't think so, but with respondants like Horrible, I don't know anymore.
Horrible, YOU are the only person I know of speaking of MANDATES.
Kingwoodbarney,
ADA lawyers will hold the position that 'we' are engaged in the public service of having fun. Sort of like they did for the park system. Now, I happen to think that IF the AMA position is exactly as was quoted and came from Carl we had better be ready for another dues increase to pay the lawyer fees and final settlement because discrimination IS the question in this equation. Like Roger implied the club BOD the club threw this guy out with no due process and are looking to AMA to cover their posteriors. Wonder if THEY are going to be covered when this one comes out of court.
01-28-2005 | 10:08 PM
#85
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: kingwoodbarney
Good points there JR
Disability law is largely regulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. This Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, housing, education, and access to public services.
Since we are not concerned with employment, housing, education, or public services the ADA just doesn't apply.
Normally discriminating based on disabilities could be cause for revoking the charter of an AMA club. But not if the AMA instructed the club to do so.
Discrimination is not in the equation.
Good points there JR
Disability law is largely regulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. This Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, housing, education, and access to public services.
Since we are not concerned with employment, housing, education, or public services the ADA just doesn't apply.
Normally discriminating based on disabilities could be cause for revoking the charter of an AMA club. But not if the AMA instructed the club to do so.
Discrimination is not in the equation.
You appear to be very opinionated on many things. The last discussion we had was over whether autonomous models are covered by the AMA. You were sooo adamant. Well, here is the answer:
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Jean and Debbie Rondot
Subject: RE: autonomous models
Yes, the policy covers UAVs at this time.
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto:xxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: autonomous models
Hi Carl
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
01-28-2005 | 10:31 PM
#86
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Hi Abel
I was wrong about the Intro Pilot program. Buddy box is recommended, not required, just as you state. I am only surprised fliers1 did not jump down my throat
As for the rest, you are not much of a devil's advocate.
If you want to see the form, it is in the club renewal package on the AMA site:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/2004clubkit.pdf
I was wrong about the Intro Pilot program. Buddy box is recommended, not required, just as you state. I am only surprised fliers1 did not jump down my throat
As for the rest, you are not much of a devil's advocate.
If you want to see the form, it is in the club renewal package on the AMA site:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/2004clubkit.pdf
01-29-2005 | 12:41 AM
#87
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum
Abel,
I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are speaking of the PF crowd not needing spotters, I still disagree.
//SNIP//
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
For what you fly, YES. For what most of us fly NO.
Abel
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Mongo said it, just mandate spotters for everyone, problem solved.
I think flying without a spotter is very dangerous in any case.
Mongo said it, just mandate spotters for everyone, problem solved.
I think flying without a spotter is very dangerous in any case.
Abel
I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are speaking of the PF crowd not needing spotters, I still disagree.
//SNIP//
Now JB, here YOU HAVE QUOTED MR.MATT'S REFERENCE TO MONGO SAYING TO THE EFFECT OF SPOTTERS FOR ALL, yet you make such a statement as:
//snip//
I don't think so, but with respondants like Horrible, I don't know anymore.
Horrible, YOU are the only person I know of speaking of MANDATES.
I don't think so, but with respondants like Horrible, I don't know anymore.
Horrible, YOU are the only person I know of speaking of MANDATES.
01-29-2005 | 12:49 AM
#88
My Feedback: (15)
RE: AMA and Disabilities
unfortunately, my "solution" will not work for that club, at this point in time.
folks have already been singled out, things said, and battle lines drawn.
i don't really see any real solution for them, short a vvote of no confidence in the entire board, then replacement with all new folks, and with egos being what they are, fat chance of that happening, anywhere, let alone there.
folks have already been singled out, things said, and battle lines drawn.
i don't really see any real solution for them, short a vvote of no confidence in the entire board, then replacement with all new folks, and with egos being what they are, fat chance of that happening, anywhere, let alone there.
01-29-2005 | 01:59 AM
#89
My Feedback: (22)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, TX
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: J_R
You appear to be very opinionated on many things. The last discussion we had was over whether autonomous models are covered by the AMA. You were sooo adamant. Well, here is the answer:
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Jean and Debbie Rondot
Subject: RE: autonomous models
Yes, the policy covers UAVs at this time.
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto:xxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: autonomous models
Hi Carl
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
You appear to be very opinionated on many things. The last discussion we had was over whether autonomous models are covered by the AMA. You were sooo adamant. Well, here is the answer:
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Jean and Debbie Rondot
Subject: RE: autonomous models
Yes, the policy covers UAVs at this time.
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto:xxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: autonomous models
Hi Carl
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
quote JR
"The AMA has already put a ban in place. A ban that many on the EC have admitted was not given due consideration. Rules may be in order, but the ban needs to be rescinded, IMHO"
JR, you are contradicting yourself now. Which of your quotes am I to believe ?
As for the ADA laws, don't take my word, read them yourself.
If you want to help this man, I suggest you try another tact.
01-29-2005 | 02:43 AM
#90
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: kingwoodbarney
But in the thread about UAV's, you said the following;
quote JR
"The AMA has already put a ban in place. A ban that many on the EC have admitted was not given due consideration. Rules may be in order, but the ban needs to be rescinded, IMHO"
JR, you are contradicting yourself now. Which of your quotes am I to believe ?
As for the ADA laws, don't take my word, read them yourself.
If you want to help this man, I suggest you try another tact.
ORIGINAL: J_R
You appear to be very opinionated on many things. The last discussion we had was over whether autonomous models are covered by the AMA. You were sooo adamant. Well, here is the answer:
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Jean and Debbie Rondot
Subject: RE: autonomous models
Yes, the policy covers UAVs at this time.
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto:xxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: autonomous models
Hi Carl
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
You appear to be very opinionated on many things. The last discussion we had was over whether autonomous models are covered by the AMA. You were sooo adamant. Well, here is the answer:
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Jean and Debbie Rondot
Subject: RE: autonomous models
Yes, the policy covers UAVs at this time.
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto:xxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: autonomous models
Hi Carl
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
quote JR
"The AMA has already put a ban in place. A ban that many on the EC have admitted was not given due consideration. Rules may be in order, but the ban needs to be rescinded, IMHO"
JR, you are contradicting yourself now. Which of your quotes am I to believe ?
As for the ADA laws, don't take my word, read them yourself.
If you want to help this man, I suggest you try another tact.
****
There are certain rights that individuals may not waive, as a matter of law. The right to discriminate is not among them.
The line was put in the charter application after a female filed a discrimination suit several years ago. The issue of the IRS status has also been raised, relative to discrimiation, although not by me. The contention was that the 501 (c) 3 status the AMA has prohibits discrimination.
If you think the ADA statutes are the only applicable statues on discrimination, realitive to disabilities, you had best start reading your municipal, county, and state statues. Then start researching other federal statutes.
The only law that I am concerned with in this case is contract law. When you sign a contract, you agree to it's terms. If you want have a club that discriminates, fine, but do it without an AMA charter.
01-29-2005 | 08:55 AM
#91
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clifton,
NJ
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Hi everyone,
ADA doesnot apply because this man does not have a disability as defined under the ADA.
Under the ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who:
has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
has a record of such an impairment; or
is regarded as having such an impairment
His "disability" has been coreected by the pacemaker/defibrillizer.
I hope to hear something next week and as soon as I do, I'll post it.
BRG,
Jon
ADA doesnot apply because this man does not have a disability as defined under the ADA.
Under the ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who:
has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
has a record of such an impairment; or
is regarded as having such an impairment
His "disability" has been coreected by the pacemaker/defibrillizer.
I hope to hear something next week and as soon as I do, I'll post it.
BRG,
Jon
01-29-2005 | 02:31 PM
#93
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: CDignition
We have alot of armchair lawyers here..why dont someone actually contact a real one and see what they say??
We have alot of armchair lawyers here..why dont someone actually contact a real one and see what they say??
They generally don't say without Yankee $$$ held very loosely in their face.
In addition, what the _ell if they DO say? Have you not noticed that each Court Case has one or more on EACH SIDE of the DISPUTED issue?
If you got the money, and an opinion, then find one that will agree with you. Just takes $$$$! Go GIT 'em if you got the $$$$ fer the ignition!
01-29-2005 | 02:59 PM
#94
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Does the insurance policy cover autonomous flight? The question is not what the Safety Code says, but, rather what is covered in the policy.
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
Organizations Providing Insurance
An organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) may be exempt from tax only if no substantial part of its activities consist of providing commercial-type insurance.
Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
IMO that is why the Safety Code is now "....may endanger my liability coverage..." and that is found on the new member application. There is no mention of such either on the Web Safety Code or the latest (02/05) MA.
01-29-2005 | 04:34 PM
#95
My Feedback: (22)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, TX
RE: AMA and Disabilities
My opinion is this,
Since AMA is in Muncie and the gentleman is in another state, I first looked at the Federal laws concerning discrimination, the ADA. I couldn't find anything that appears to apply. And since other members here have stated that they fly with difibrillators, the AMA does not appear to have a policy , (yet) of disciminating against people with difibrillators. So if you do hire a lawyer to send a nasty-gram to the AMA, what would the lawyer threaten the AMA with? What is the AMA discriminating against ? Someone define it for me . I think they could easily defend themselves by simply saying the word "safety". True or not, that word works wonders in court.
And frankly, I have to believe this situation is temperary. I can't imagine the AMA would actually leave this man in a "non-solo" status. If he feels well enough to drive out to the field, he obviously feels well enough to fly.
Since AMA is in Muncie and the gentleman is in another state, I first looked at the Federal laws concerning discrimination, the ADA. I couldn't find anything that appears to apply. And since other members here have stated that they fly with difibrillators, the AMA does not appear to have a policy , (yet) of disciminating against people with difibrillators. So if you do hire a lawyer to send a nasty-gram to the AMA, what would the lawyer threaten the AMA with? What is the AMA discriminating against ? Someone define it for me . I think they could easily defend themselves by simply saying the word "safety". True or not, that word works wonders in court.
And frankly, I have to believe this situation is temperary. I can't imagine the AMA would actually leave this man in a "non-solo" status. If he feels well enough to drive out to the field, he obviously feels well enough to fly.
01-29-2005 | 06:00 PM
#96
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
ORIGINAL: kingwoodbarney
My opinion is this,
Since AMA is in Muncie and the gentleman is in another state, I first looked at the Federal laws concerning discrimination, the ADA. I couldn't find anything that appears to apply. <snip>
My opinion is this,
Since AMA is in Muncie and the gentleman is in another state, I first looked at the Federal laws concerning discrimination, the ADA. I couldn't find anything that appears to apply. <snip>
JR already pointed this out, but I'll bring it up again in the hope that it might prompt you to reseach discrimination a little further: the ADA does not comprise the entire body of public law regarding discrimination. OR
You might consider the issue in moral rather than legal terms. A moral response by AMA and the club BOD would be preferable to the fight that will ensue to arrive at a legal disposition of the matter, don't you think?
Abel
01-29-2005 | 06:26 PM
#97
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Hi Horrace
It was becoming obvious, some time ago, that he AMA was no longer relying in the safety code as a tool to control the actions of modelers. Many of us surmised it was for legal reasons. Ultimately, I asked. That was when I found that the safety code had, in the polices under Royal, been an exclusion to the policy. When the policy was placed with Westchester a couple of years ago, two things of note happened. The preamble to the safety code was changed from "must" to "may", and the safety code was no longer an exclusion under the policy. Some items may be exclusions, while others may not. Which are which? I don't have a clue. I only know if I ask about a particular exclusion. This could change with the next policy in March. What I know now may not be true then.
Again, unless someone knows what is covered, the only safe assumption is to believe the safety code, in it's entirity, is an exclusion. Where the safety code is ambigious, as is the case with autonomous aircraft, the only way to know is to ask.
Why the change in the safety code as an exclusion to the policy? I don't know.
kingwoodbarney
You make the case for discrimination well, should the AMA leave the situation as it is. There is no across the board policy about these implants. If the AMA were to leave the situation in place where only one individual is involved, IMHO, that clearly shows discrimination against that individual.
The actions of the BOD are local to the individual as are the statutes.
The situation is a mess. I wish I had the faith you did in the AMA reversing the situation. I guess I veiw this a lot like throwing a case to a jury... anything can happen. It would be better if it could be resolved in some other way. I can't believe anyone wants to see this go to court, or even to an attorney.
It was becoming obvious, some time ago, that he AMA was no longer relying in the safety code as a tool to control the actions of modelers. Many of us surmised it was for legal reasons. Ultimately, I asked. That was when I found that the safety code had, in the polices under Royal, been an exclusion to the policy. When the policy was placed with Westchester a couple of years ago, two things of note happened. The preamble to the safety code was changed from "must" to "may", and the safety code was no longer an exclusion under the policy. Some items may be exclusions, while others may not. Which are which? I don't have a clue. I only know if I ask about a particular exclusion. This could change with the next policy in March. What I know now may not be true then.
Again, unless someone knows what is covered, the only safe assumption is to believe the safety code, in it's entirity, is an exclusion. Where the safety code is ambigious, as is the case with autonomous aircraft, the only way to know is to ask.
Why the change in the safety code as an exclusion to the policy? I don't know.
kingwoodbarney
You make the case for discrimination well, should the AMA leave the situation as it is. There is no across the board policy about these implants. If the AMA were to leave the situation in place where only one individual is involved, IMHO, that clearly shows discrimination against that individual.
The actions of the BOD are local to the individual as are the statutes.
The situation is a mess. I wish I had the faith you did in the AMA reversing the situation. I guess I veiw this a lot like throwing a case to a jury... anything can happen. It would be better if it could be resolved in some other way. I can't believe anyone wants to see this go to court, or even to an attorney.
01-29-2005 | 06:42 PM
#98
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sarasota, FL
RE: AMA and Disabilities
J.R. post # 78 The plane crashed.
We were told that the individual member called AMA first and was basically told it was an internal club matter.
the BOD then contacted the AMA and were advised not to let him fly solo.
conflicting messages from the AMA.
F106A seems to know more about who to talk to and what to say at AMA to get clarification , Hopefully we'll hear more soon
this thread is degenerating fast. . HORRIBLE UAV"S HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!
and what is discrimination and not.
Hopefully when this is all over we will still have a club to fly at and I'll still be a member
I know poop when I see poop and this aint mud!!!
We were told that the individual member called AMA first and was basically told it was an internal club matter.
the BOD then contacted the AMA and were advised not to let him fly solo.
conflicting messages from the AMA.
F106A seems to know more about who to talk to and what to say at AMA to get clarification , Hopefully we'll hear more soon
this thread is degenerating fast. . HORRIBLE UAV"S HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!
and what is discrimination and not.
Hopefully when this is all over we will still have a club to fly at and I'll still be a member
I know poop when I see poop and this aint mud!!!
01-29-2005 | 06:53 PM
#99
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sarasota, FL
RE: AMA and Disabilities
Kingwoodbarney
The AMA did not recind the mans SOLO status OUR BOD DID.
supposedly the AMA just advised the BOD not to let him fly solo
You seem determined for someone to define discrimination for you , maybe so you can correct them and make a fool of them?
I'm not a lawer so I cannot give you a legal description of discrimination. but I lived in South Africa For 23 years. if anyone here has more experiance with discrimination , speak now or forever hold your peace,
What the BOD did to this man was DISCRIMINATION. plain and simple
The AMA did not recind the mans SOLO status OUR BOD DID.
supposedly the AMA just advised the BOD not to let him fly solo
You seem determined for someone to define discrimination for you , maybe so you can correct them and make a fool of them?
I'm not a lawer so I cannot give you a legal description of discrimination. but I lived in South Africa For 23 years. if anyone here has more experiance with discrimination , speak now or forever hold your peace,
What the BOD did to this man was DISCRIMINATION. plain and simple
01-29-2005 | 06:59 PM
#100
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sarasota, FL
RE: AMA and Disabilities
You might consider the issue in moral rather than legal terms. A moral response by AMA and the club BOD would be preferable to the fight that will ensue to arrive at a legal disposition of the matter, don't you think?
THANK YOU ABEL
THANK YOU ABEL
