That's one of the questions, and a good one: who has the authority to deal with the goofball that is acting stupidly? Might transfer responsibility/control back from CD to the club, if it's a club field, but if it isn't, then what? Montague in post #16 said CD obtains the sanction. If that is so, I presume the owner of the event site would reasonably expect that individual, as an agent of AMA, to be responsible for the duration of the event, from the time the gate is opened until the last participant leaves.
Is it SOP to inform him that the CD and AMA are not responsible for what occurs on his property when the CD is not there? Is he informed that the liability risk he is exposed to is not shared by AMA when the CD is off-premises? Is he told that activities may occur during the event that are against AMA policy and rules (e.g., flying of untested models), and when that is a part of the program, AMA has told the CD he must leave the premises so as to isolate themselves from liability that may arise from those activities? I would like see just what 'standard form' representations are made to event site owners concerning their liability. Pointer?

Abel

Abel

First, see post #18, this thread.

I made a mistake and did not listen to a conversation that I should have, considering I made the call. When I make a mistake, I try to correct it as soon as possible. I wish I did not make mistakes, but, I am sure I will again.

JR-

I saw your post #18 and have no desire to rag you about making an error. It doesn't have much to do with my last post though, which I assume is what you are replying to.

The essence of it is, how does AMA rationalize giving themselves the option to walk away from liability risk at an event site that may arise from activities not allowed by their own rules and assessment of risk, absolve themselves of the responsibility for anything that may happen outside the 'official events' time frame but still within the overall time frame of the sanction, and knowing that the site owner has no such option?

"Sorry Mr. Landowner, but the incident you are being sued over happened after our agent left the site. We have no responsibility for what happens then, you understand. We have to protect ourselves from a lawsuit like this that could bankrupt our organization, you see. We do hope the insurance coverage we provided for you under terms of our site use agreement will cover your legal costs and the amount of the judgment against you. Good luck."

Abel

I guess post #18 is not clear. The landlord has 24 hours of coverage on the date of the sanction.. period.

It is NOT subjet to the comings and goings of the CD. It is NOT subject to the safety code. It is NOT subject to the sanction being in place.

Yes, Horrace. When I make an error I will do my best to correct it. I will take responsibility for what I have posted in error.

Will you?

JR, I'm neither a politician or a social liberal. That simply means that I am too d_mn dumb to know how to NOT be responsible for whatever I say or do, be it right or wrong or somewhere in-between.

It's quite clear to me and has been since Jim B posted the same information way back in post #12. It still doesn't relate to my last post, repeated, which stipulates that the landlord has coverage, as you now say. What I asked is (trying different words):

Is it fair and equitable that he is at risk of being sued for property damage/personal injury, during periods when AMA has opted to make themselves lawsuit-proof in the course of an AMA event by simply walking away from any responsibility for the actions of event participants?

AMA 'walks away from any responsibility' when the CD leaves the premises, either at his own pleasure, or at the behest of AMA.

Abel

ABEL, JR cleared it up very well. Now you have me confused about what are you asking.

WHEN or how is there a time for AMA to opt out? There isn't any time. The CD is not part of the equation reference the sanction days and the landowner.

Darn, I'm thick-skulled today. I don't understand your question with the info. as presented.

i think able is refeering to ama being able to excuse themselves from being an actionable party in any lawsuit that occurs when the "CD" is not on site, reguardless of the status of the landowner.

Is it fair and equitable? I think so. The AMA (actually the insurance) can not walk away. The policy is in force for 24 hours... period. No exclusions based on the actions of anyone relative to modeling. If the CD is in town eating lunch, the landowner is covered. If the participants stay till 9 and the CD left at 5, the landlord is covered. Sanction in place, he is covered. Sanction not in place, he is covered. If the CD never showed up, the landlord is covered. If there is an event, he is covered. If there is no event, he is covered. He is covered for a 24 hour period on the date of the sanction.

Each contestant is an AMA member by the definition of a sanctioned event. Each member has AMA coverage in place, subject to the safety code, regardless of the state of the sanction.

The landlord is covered at all times, without being subject to the safety code for 24 hours.

I fail to see the issue.

Thank you mongo!

I was wondering if I had gone crazy, given the utter failure to communicate that concept. Either I'm bonkers, or both of us are.

Abel

Both of you are close, very close. The AMA is always on deck at a sanctioned event during the dates of the sanction, for the LANDOWNER. However, the CD is only covered for HIS liability when he is present. I am not exactly sure how the CD has liability if he is not present.

Hoss-

Go back to post #15 and read lines a) and b) and please tell me you understand that. Then try again.

Abel

At the risk of having both feet in my mouth, I still don't see the issue. There is a $5,000,000 aggregate per site per policy period (year) on the AMA policy.

I now know what it was like at the Tower of Babel.

I concede. There is no distinction between being sued and being the insurance provider of somebody else that is being sued.

Still makes me wonder why Maroney wants AMA's agent, the CD, to leave the premises when something not allowed by AMA rules is planned, such as a maiden flight by a turbojet at a sanctioned event. Let's see what it means in terms of $$$. AMA insured gets sued, AMA risk is up to $250K, with commercial carrier picking up the rest to $2.5 mil limit. What if AMA is named in the lawsuit also????? Too hard, makes head hurt. Bye

Abel

Abel

It is in violation of the safety rules to fly an aircraft that has not been test flown in competition. The contestant must sign a statement to the effect that he has test flown the aircraft. If the CD is present, he must enforce the safety rules, because a sanction is in force. If he is not there, the sanction is not in force and the contestant is breaking no rule.

The turbine guys are of the opinion that several sets of eyes are more effective than two when spotting errors in construction, etc. and that it is safer to do a maiden when many turbine waiver holders are present. That is a situation that is often hard to duplicate outside of a jet event. There aren't a lot of wiaver holders and some see no other waiver holders except at events.

What is in the best interest of safety? Doing a maiden at event seems to be the conventional wisdom.

I think Carl's suggestion was simply a way to promote the safe operation of turbines at events, without breaking rules.

Just my opinion.

So, as long as its an "event" and not a "competition"... ???

If I'm understanding you right, then this seems like the wrong "solution" to me.

If someone brings a previously unflown aircraft to an event (regardless of whether this is a jet event, or giant scale fly-in, or whatever) in order to benefit from the nucleus of talent available at the site, the larger than normal runway, the fire-crew that's present at the event, or whatever - then it seems to me that the sensible thing to do in order to minimize risk is to ask that the test flight simply be done before or after the event's core hours ; in this way the model is not being flown "in the event", and more importantly the crowds of spectators that show up at the more popular events will have either not shown up yet, or substantially dispersed.

If instead of the above sensible approach (which has been used at MANY events with great success), the AMA is saying "just have the CD step off-site momentarily, and all is wel for you to do the maiden", then they create the option for increasing the risk ... Now, instead of doing the maiden flight when the site is less populated before or after hours but while he is still there to ensure that things are done as safely as he wishes, it seems that the CD may instead elect to run down to the local McDonalds for a burger during the event's busiest hours, and have a maiden flight take place in front of thousands of spectators (aka potential victims) ???

Just doesn't make any sense. Do the maiden when the risk is minimized, not just when the CD is removed from the site.

BTW, often the event CD is THE most knowledgeable and most capable pilot around, such that insisting that he get lost during the maiden removes the option of using the person who is most able to perform the maiden with the least risk. If they care about minimizing risk, shouldn't AMA be advocating the use of the most capable pilot, rather than prohibiting his use ?


On a slightly different but related topic - how exactly should we define "maiden flight"? If the AMA is going to try to control details like whether the CD is present during an after-hours maiden-flight, then presumably they should at least define for us what constitutes "maiden" ? If it is the very first time that aircraft has ever flown, then it's a maiden - pretty obvious. What about if it already flew once, but unsuccessfully (e.g. got 2ft in the air, then crashed). Is the 2nd flight a maiden (because the aircraft has not been successfully flown (and landed) ? What if it was previously flown ok by a prior owner, but it now has a new owner who has installed completely different radio gear, changed all of the throws and the CG, and a whole host of other "untested" modifications ? What if the aircraft was recently crashed, and has been substantially rebuilt ? Is its first post-repair flight another maiden, or not ? If it is, where do we draw the line between major & minor repairs ?

The above may sound picky, but if the intent of the "no maiden flights during event hours / while the CD is present" idea is that the AMA needs to tightly control all of the activities in order to reduce risk, then the above should perhaps be considered. I know that when I was involved in the giant-scale race scene, not only did you have to show video of three flights and three successful landings of your aircraft before being allowed to fly in the event, and were subjected to airframe and rabnge-check inspections etc - you also got a 'fix-it' ticket assigned to any aircraft that sustained damage, and had to have the fix-it ticket signed off by an inspector before flying in the event again - and quite often the ticket did not get cleared until you took the aircraft off-site to another location and did another "test flight" to confirm airworthiness before being allowed back into the event. So, just how far do we want to take this concept of the AMA trying to control the minutae rather than allowing the event CD to exercise his judgement about what is permitted to fly and when ?

Gordon

So the AMA safety rules prohibit people from operating in the safest way they know how, and instead of changing/waiving the safety rules to promote safe operation, AMA says get the CD (their agent) out of the way so the safety rules (their rules) that apply during a sanctioned event (their sanction) don't have to be enforced. Interesting; a different kind of reasoning than the logic I am accustomed to. I am gaining a better understanding of why some CDs have a bit of difficulty in interpreting the policies they are expected to apply.

Aabel

Do what the turbine guys have always done since managing to have the rule against turbines waived. The turbine wiaiver holders have their own saftey code. Get after JPO and get it changed for turbines. For other forms of aircraft, it is probably a darn good rule. Personally, I don't want to see fun fly planes, or anything else doing maidens when spectators have been invited and there are an abnormal number of targets present. Perhaps you might also suggest that no spectators be allowed at jet events until after the maidens are done. If you truly want to be safe, that is a necessary arrangement.

Don't ask every other form of aircraft to conform to rules they don't want or need.

A fair point. Require that maidens be done the day before an event, that solves your complaint. If it's not convenient, too bad.

If you want to write more rules, knock yourself out. You can submit them to the AMA or the JPO. In the meantime, the contestant (sorry if that word bothers you, it describes events and competion when you move into the language of the CD) must sign a flight safety declaration in any contest (event for you) they fly in. For the wording see this form: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/314.pdf
What has worked for years is just fine. If you don't like complying with rules that have worked well for other aircraft, submit a proposal to the JPO or your VP and try to get in on the agenda to change the rules for turbines. Why should everyone else change what works to suit the waiver holders?

If you don't want the reasoning behind things, I can quit posting it and let you just bash on. Would you prefer that?

JR

Hey, I just supply information. I am all for compliance with the rules. As far as I am concerned, the turbine guys can comply and do their maidens the day before the event. That's what others do and it is safer than doing maidens in front of a crowd. I didn't create the technicality. I didn't recommend using it. As far as I am concerned, if everyone complied with the intent of the rules, I would be perfectly happy.

I try to post two things. Facts, and my opinions. If it's not clear which is which, let me know and I will make it very clear.

JR-

Not shooting the messenger, just commenting on the message.

I can't help but imagine the situation the CD is in IF something really bad happened while the CD 'stepped out." You know as well as I and anybody else here that the very first words heard will be, screaming, "Where in Hell was the go^%*$# CD!!!"
You probably know this too. In management circles, the vernacular definition of Hell is having responsibility without authority.

Abel

I did and it all seems OK as stated. A couple things may be being overlooked here.

#1. The CD at any sanctioned event, be it a demonstration, fly-in, get-together, contest or whatever, is required to ".... be present at all times when the event he is responsible for is taking place. It is his responsibility to find a suitable replacement if he is unable to fulfill his responsibility."

Point: In large contests there is an overall CD, but the different disciplines may have different Category Directors, then subdivided down to Event Directors. The overall CD can't be everywhere all the time. Not even JR, or AMA can do that!
The highest I ever got up that food chain was Assistant CL Director at the '73 Oshkosh Nats.

#2. If anyone has some reason to sue the landowner, then the for the AMA insurance to be activated also requires that the suit also names the AMA, OR the landowner files a claim against AMA, wherein AMA's liability insurance comes into play to protect AMA. Just like if I run over your dog, you file a suit against me, then I notify my liability insurance carrier and they take it from there, usually settling out-of-court.

Point: AMA PROVIDES insurance, they do not sell insurance. For our level -- all same, for IRC, charitable organizations, not same.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about this crap anymore. I only CD at my club. The Club is the Landowner. I have a Trust account that holds the Club's mortgage and that trust account is additionally insured on the club charter. Sanction or no sanction, it's all covered.

edit-spelling

Horrace

Serious question for you. Is the landlord (your club) subject to the Safety Code? As a club, of course, it is. But as a landlord?

On what factual basis do you assume that pilots of other aircraft types don't want or need similar provisions ?

I've seen giant scale guys, helicopter guys, etc. who did not have sufficient available help at their home field, bring their models to an event where they can get some after-hours help from the "experts" who are in attendance.

I'm all for reasoning - so feel free to stick to reasoned and logical debate here instead of hysterical or emotional outbursts.

Gordon