Kevin Greene

My Feedback: (85)

Although I have never taken a dime to train a newcomer there was a point in time that I wished I had....

I once belonged to a club that had around 125 members. The rules of this club stated that each member had to pass a proficiency test before being given the privilage to fly at the premises. Novices had to fly with an instructor at all times and were not permitted to fly solo until the proficiency test was passed. I was approached and asked to be an instructor which I gladly accepted as I was eager to promote the hobby. There were around 35 or so novices in the club and I was one of about 10 instructors. To recognize each member as to whether they were a novice, a passed flier, or an instructor, all of us had a different colored sticker on our AMA cards to easily see who was what. When I went to the flying field I pulled my frequency pin and inserted my AMA card. After I flew I was ambushed by at least ten individuals wanting my time to learn to fly. You can see where this is going...After not getting any stick time on my own birds I reluctantly turned in my instructor rating. At least getting some compensation would have taken some of the sting out of not being able to fly my own planes. I eventually helped to enact a plan so that each instructor had a limit of three novices. It still was not perfect as some instructors flew more than others.

Kevin

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I guess there is something wrong with me (don't go there!). I enjoy flying other people's airplanes because I don't have to clean them up! We used to pick days where some instructor was whacked and NEVER even got to get his plane out of the car. We made it FUN which is what this HOBBY is supposed to be.

I guess there are those who feel it should be a source of income, but not many who are not in a hobby support industry (LHS, hobby manufacturer or the like). Maybe that is why AMA had to create a captive for the insurance. Too many interested in making money in the hobby?

Bill Vargas

My Feedback: (5)

Since there are "those" that or provide instruction for a fee,,, Are they now considered to be a "Professional Instructor"?

Websters difinition-Professional; engaged in by persons receiving a finacial return.

Is there any place in the AMA Rule book or bylaws about these these types of "Professional" people?(instructors)

If its not covered in the AMA Book or bylaws or in Black & white somewhere,,, are they covered?(insured by AMA) YES or NO?

I am still having a hard time trying to find the right answer.



BV

J_R

Bill,

Your not alone in having a hard time finding an answer about insurance. As far as I know, the actual insurance policy is nowhere to be found (not made available to the membership). Carl Maroney at HQ is the guru on insurance. If you ask him a hypothetical question, he normally will not answer it. If your question is about a real situation, you will usually get a quick answer if he is in his office at HQ. I suspect he is off this week, I still have not received an answer from him on the question raised earlier on this thread. He is very good about answering e-mails and normally picks up the phone himself if he is at HQ.

In answer to your question, take a look at Post #5 in this thread. Horrace wrote to Carl and got an answer that covers the question. Carl's answer was no, there is not coverage for a commercial venture. The AMA has a very unusual (manuscript) policy that allows them to set some of the terms and to write actual policies in certain situations, such as for landlords.

Because there are literally an infinite number of situations that could arise, there is no way to foresee and answer all the questions about insurance in the by-laws or elsewhere. It is all a matter of interpretation of the policy. That is one of Carl's areas of expertise. He also acts as a liaison to the AMA lawyers.

For most "normal" questions, the Safety Code is a list exclusions to the coverage.

JR

J_R

BV

You may also want to check out this statement from Carl in the What's New Achieves on the AMA site http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...urance0801.asp
It raised a lot of questions when it was issued.

In addition, there is a summary of coverage in the documents section on the AMA site. Doc #503 titled 2003 Insurance Summary.

JR

Bill Vargas

My Feedback: (5)

Insurance Coverage and Sponsorship

The AMA policy is designed to insure members while engaged in aeromodeling activity. The coverage issue revolves around the issue of monetary gain for the member and the sponsor.

Sponsorship does not preclude coverage, but receiving monetary compensation for demonstrating a sponsor's product implies a business relationship between the pilot and the sponsor, which is not insured by the AMA policy.

If the AMA member receives sample products or is allowed to use the model or product for pleasure-flying and demonstrations, there is no significant monetary gain for the member, and the activity is considered solely in the furtherance of the sport. In such cases, AMA insurance provides coverage.

The issue is not whether the pilot is flying a model with a brand name being advertised for a sponsor or if someone is in the hobby business. The coverage question revolves around the compensation any third party pays a pilot for "services rendered."

The AMA policy is not intended to, and does not, provide coverage for members' business pursuits. Your homeowner's insurer may also decline coverage on the basis of the business exclusion in the homeowner's policy. Request coverage from the sponsor during demonstrations for the sponsor's benefit.

Providing commercial coverage would jeopardize coverage for all AMA members.
—Carl Maroney
Special Services Director



Thanks Jr, I hope nobody has to find that out the hard way!

Happy Holidays

BV

X-Cellant

My Feedback: (1)

JR, Then they return, They have had all week to mess up everything that was set right the previous day. I am sure you know what I mean.

This is why I gave up on instructing several years ago. A young students, Christmas gift, that took 3 trips to the field before everything was airworthy enough too fly. I Had ground checked everything and all was OK. I was finally able to connect it up the B-Box. So I decided to have a flight on my one plane to get some cobwebs out. Somewhere in that time he had managed to get the Aileron switch moved. I took off and after lifting off it was apparent and I went to the rudder to compensate. Then it happened about 350' out the radio just quit, destroying his plane. I never did find out what happened, but the LHSO replaced his plane and he eventually learned to fly.

I will never forget the look on his, and his moms face. My adrenaline was so high, I thought I was going to have hart failure.

I now help others but not as the primary instructor...

If something is not fun, then why do it.

I think there is a need for a paid instructor, for those with the money. We have 3 club fields in my airea and they all have free instructions. One LHSO also provides paid instructions, I bet he doesn't know that he is not insured by AMA.

If this is the policy they should let us no!!!




JR wrote

>>

Kevin Greene

My Feedback: (85)

Jim,

Don't get me wrong----I've helped and introduced numerous people into this hobby, both as a flier and a magazine columnist. (I used to write the jet column for R/C Report Mag.) Since I fly primarily jets and back it up with a little giant scale I would get a little frustrated when 10 modelers are all jockeying for my help. If I just needed an "R/C fix" I could have gone to the field with nothing of my own to fly and instructed all day. (Which I have) I was just relaying what happened to me at this particular field and wondered if anything like this ever happened to you. I actually belonged to three clubs at that time (I was President at one) and visited each of them regularly. Each of the sites offered different types of flying....When there was a crosswind at one I would fly at another that had the wind down the runway, etc., etc. Also, I had different friends at each to pal around with. I think that my situation at the one club was a severe case but not unique I would imagine. Anyone that has flown jets can attest to their periodic stubborness. Trying to figure out a problem while passifying the numerous novices can get frustrating...That's all that I was conveying.

Kevin

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Kevin,
I didn't get or take you wrong but I WAS sort of poking fun at a club that took all the extra steps to have another special bureaucracy involved in the control of who may or may not have fun in our hobby. Hope it did not hurt your feelings as that was not my purpose.

The issue of instruction is one that we can all talk about but nobody seems to be able to do anything about. JR makes some very valid points, as I know Clarence does but valid points do not solve the problem. This is a hobby and while I invite others to participate, I DO NOT GUARANTEE THEIR HAPPINESS! That approach seems (to me) to be the implied task many who think the instructor should be compensated appear to be taking on.

If we are to encourage AMA to provide commercial insurance, something tells me that we will have bitten off much more than any of us are ready to chew. We had better have a set of standards the instructor MUST measure up to and implement with each and every student. Worse, we had best find a way to PROVE both the testing of the instructor and the implementation with the student. In other words we will need ways to prove the measurements are adequate, proper, and WERE met both in practice and with each and every student. Can you say FAA?

Sorry guys, but I am firmly in the corner of free instruction no matter what. I openly and freely admit that there are large problems with not having a commercial program available for a few, but the other problems far out weigh the benefit of providing everything all the time for all checkbook modelers out of dues monies. Unless you think we should raise dues again.

Hossfly

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
//SNIP//
If we are to encourage AMA to provide commercial insurance, something tells me that we will have bitten off much more than any of us are ready to chew. We had better have a set of standards the instructor MUST measure up to and implement with each and every student. Worse, we had best find a way to PROVE both the testing of the instructor and the implementation with the student. In other words we will need ways to prove the measurements are adequate, proper, and WERE met both in practice and with each and every student. Can you say FAA?

Sorry guys, but I am firmly in the corner of free instruction no matter what. I openly and freely admit that there are large problems with not having a commercial program available for a few, but the other problems far out weigh the benefit of providing everything all the time for all checkbook modelers out of dues monies. Unless you think we should raise dues again.
__________________
Jim Branaum AMA LM 1428

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Horrace,
Lets keep it simple and away from personalities.

If Teacher Ted does his instruction for pay at MY club's field, M*Y dues paid for his main salable commodity, the flying site. I have not even mentioned the AMA insurance company formed from MY dues that will have to write the COMMERCIAL LINES insurance policy necessary to cover Ted. I must be kind of stupid because I cannot find a good reason that MY dues should provide the employment venue for someone else. I guess it is a bad attitude on my part, but it IS my money!

Please explain how any commercial carrier is going to insure any instructor in any aviation endeavor without some measurement standards in place. They won't insure drivers with no Drivers Licenses and you DO have to pass a test to get that 'ticket'. I seem to be suffering from overwhelming stupidity because ALL the commercial lines carriers I have ever spoken to look for some definable terms to write insurance coverage for. I cannot find those in our discussion of "Commercial Instructor".

You might try calling your local State Farm agent and taking him out for lunch. Ask him what the historical standards of conduct are for liability insurance for individual commercial activity. Make sure he is not discussing Errors and Omissions coverages. Pump him well and you will get an education. Do a poor job and your comments will show it.

J_R

From: Carl Maroney: AMA Special Services Dir.

The AMA member and club liability insurance policy does cover instructors paid by the club to teach new members to fly. Although the policy does not insure commercial enterprise or business pursuits, instruction by members compensated by the club for that instruction is covered in the situation you describe.


The policy does not insure any business owned or operated by a member under any circumstances. Only the individual instructor is insured.

DR.B.S.

I would like to inform anyone who might disagree with paid flight instruction and anyone who is complaining about the dangers of the newcomer to the flying field.
Alot of what should be said about paid flight instruction is not, maybe because it is so obvious. When I was younger and living in Tampa Bay, I would ride my bike for miles to watch the r/c airplanes fly. Everytime I WOULD MAKE AN ATTEMPT to find out any info. about this hobby/sport I was always told"get away kid you bother me(, W.C. Fields not flying fields). When I was older and took my family to the local fields here in NY. I recieved much of the same mantality and I always wonderd why? Well after opening a hobby shop it all became very clear to me.All these club members were trying to do is hoard the field so they can get together and complain about this that and the other, almost like a old lady tea party. alot of them do not want newcomers because it will take thier time to fly. Well guess a public field is just that,PUBLIC. This mantality does more to kill the sales at hobby shops and NEW memberships to the A.M.A. THAN ANY ONE THING. I am writing from experience at the field as a onlooker wanting to fly and a hobby shop owner!
As far as paid flight instructers go, if it wasnt for my instructer,friend and newfound partner Clarence Ragland, I would not be flying safe or making sales, as far as r/c aircraft. People that are complaning about the dangers at the field about the new comers make the best case for paid flight whether they no it or not. As far as the idot box is concearned its prehistaric. It is so lame that every time a person makes a mistake one gets cut out and doesnt know one made a mistake,we learn by making mistakes but Mr. Ragland takes the danger and crashing out of the experience by his technique. In under 8 hrs. I have taken off and landed an enewmorus amount of times aswell as solo flight,flying my bi-plane and flying a helecopter without crashing anything or putting anyone in danger
I challenge anyone who is in doubt to come to my shop, with anyone who does not no how to fly, or does and watch Mr. Ragland work his brand of teaching and see what he can do for the hobby shop owner or the industry. 5844 Ontario St. Olcott, NY 14126. If one has anything to write come her first or your words have no facts. Visit Mr.Ragland at www.kites.org/rc_instuctors or [email protected] or e-mail me at Jjosefus@aol.
Thank you,
J.B.

pinball-RCU

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think you're somehow missing the fact that many (maybe most) flying fields are NOT paid for by club dues. They are paid for by tax payers. Where I fly, taxpayers ponied up close to $2 million dollars so that 200 club members could fly. They probably wouldn't mind if a few instructors made a few bucks as well. But, as has probably been said many times, Hossfly's proposal does not require that a club accept paid instructors. If your dues indeed bought your field, and you don't think the instructors are paying their way, then don't have paid instructors. But it would be nice if you could be open minded enough to allow that other fields might be different, and actually benefit from paid instruction.

I don't really see any difference between this and golf, tennis or ski instruction. In all cases, the instructors are seen as benefitting the "field". Do you think any of these instructors could buy a golf course, a ski area, or even a tennis court? Of course not. They are subsidized, in effect, either by taxpayers or paying customers, because they are seen as useful to the sport. Paid R/C instructors would be the same.

pinball-RCU

I don't think that normal AMA member dues should subsidize the insurance of paid instructors. They should pay their own way. But my thinking is probably the same as Hossfly's, that if the insurance was part of AMA, it wouldn't cost a lot. It seems to me that instructors teaching folks to fly trainers is one of the safest activities in this sport.

I would start with Hossfly's proposal and the dollar amounts. But all claims would need to include information about whether a paid instructor was involved. The AMA would track the claims against paid instructors and if they had a higher rate of payments, then the AMA would adjust the rates up. If lower, down. If the rates got too high, then paid instruction would not be feasible, and the program would die on its own.

Personally, I think there are such serious issues with AMA insurance that this controversy would be a drop in the bucket. We just had an increase in dues to cover insurance payouts, and I don't see our society getting any less litigious, and I don't see population declines, and I don't see flyers getting any more safety conscious on their own. Therefore, I see insurance fees goingup to the point of pushing a lot of people out of the hobby, paid instructors or not.

Highlander

maybe Hossfly's Idea is not so bad , maybe an interprising person like myself could broker the activity , then I could still fly my planes and make money from all the paid insructors.

or better yet maybe the club could charge runway fees of the instructors along with all the other extra costs that they will incur supplying funds for the instuctors insurance and licensing ,trainers to be built and repaired regularly with club inspections to insure that they are flight worthy, regular radio inspection certificates so that the club knows that they are in good condition seeing as how they will get used more , all this directed at showing that the paid instructors are serious about this paid instructor program.

I mean if the yard stick for paid instruction is to promote only the serious hobbiest then its only fair to determine a yard stick to promote only serious instructors .

more babblings from highlander !!!!

by the way , I sent a short email to my district rep concerning this topic. just in case its not clear , IM OPPOSED TO IT.

Highlander

Crashem

Why??

You already know how to fly so you wouldn't need to use the service. Or are you against it because someone might be making money doing it?

Highlander

Crashem

If the reason for such,(paid Instructors) is to take pressure off the folks in the clubs , then the answer is not paid instructors within the club, but outside the club, if all instruction was done thru private instruction then the club would not be training anyone , they would join already certified and ready to fly.

so if someone wants to instruct for pay , they could either be hired or start their own school, train the folks and send them to a club to join, zero pressure on the club, and club instructors. whcih would eventually become a thing of the past as the instruction schools spread across the country .

but within the club paid instructors ,I oppose this approach.

Highlander

nascarjoe

Ironically, it is very legal within AMA's rules, infact, AMA officially condones clubs paying members to teach. Beginners who desire extended instruction pays the club the extra fee and the club takes a percentage and pays whoever they deem qualified to give that extra [paid] instruction. Win-win for everyone.

nascarjoe

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

Of course the AMA should cover the liability insurance of ANY instructor (commercial or not). Why? Because it's in the AMA's interest to create more pilots (and dues-paying AMA members). The more instructors, the more pilots to pay dues to the AMA.

As to the private club, it's the business of that club to decide if they want to have a commercial instructor join them and use their facilities. If they don't want a commercial instructor sharing their field, then so be it. The club members can continue their pleasure in explaining how many rubberbands are needed to hold the wing on a trainer. On the other hand, the club can always say to the commercial instructor that they want a piece of the action and charge him dues that make sense to the club members. The club might decide that the commercial instructor's presence is so valuable to the club that they don't charge him dues, or even decide to pay him money.

There is a simple solution to handle the liability insurance. Require all instruction to be done on the buddy box. If the student gets into trouble, the instructor lets go of the switch and takes over control. That way, the instructor is really in control during the entire flight, minimizing the risk to the AMA.

nascarjoe

With the advent of RC on TV, the idea of paid instruction may well become all but mandatory. The people at Inside RC made projections of possibly having 35,000,000 viewers by next year. I've recently opened a hobby shop and even though I've only been open 9 months, my business is booming. The majority of these newcomers told me they had seen RC planes on either Inside RC or the DIY channel.
Wonder what took the RC industry so long? After all, how many millions of people watch TV?

With so many TV viewers who will soon get into this hobby/sport, I think those who seem to have a personal problem with the idea of paid instruction, may just change their tune when large numbers of newbies show up on their beginner flight line.

nascarjoe

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, the paid instructor is one answer to that potential time bomb being planted by the TV works. Is it the correct one? Your guess is as good as mine. The point about paid instruction being insured by the AMA since it is a win-win for all is a very good one with one extremely serious caveat. If an instructor does not teach SAFETY first, a large disservice has been done for all. That is where my "standards" comments came from.

There are several problems I have with paid instruction at the club field, but almost all of them are not show stoppers but issues that each club must address in specific terms. They are operational issues rather than insurance related, as this thread started out.

Among them are questions like is who does what to make that club field 'happen'. In other words, who does the maintenance of the field and its equipment (bleachers, pitts area, grass mowing and the like)? Another very serious question is who has 'rights' to the pilot station and frequency and why? Does the club member who paid dues have equal standing to the commercial operation or not?

One of the issues driving paid instruction is access to instructors. That means Sam Student reserves a specific block of Imateacher's time at some agreed upon time. If Sam Student is paying I would be willing to bet his instructor Ivan Imateacher will want that frequency pin to be open as long as Sam has money to spend and whenever Sam shows up. That demand probably extends to flight stations at locations where access to the flight line is restricted for some reason.

Those things need to be worked out, nationally and locally before the first $ crosses hands for training at any club field.

Erich_F

Simple...club gets a cut, and puts it into field upgrades and maintenance. Commercial instructors have to pay the club "rent", in return for facilities and insurance through AMA. INstructor fees would have to be priced accordingly. If there's truely a need, it will work itself out.

Erich

nascarjoe

I remember at one time AMA would not cover anyone flying turbine powered aircraft, but although earning a turbine waiver is now a very complicated and involved process, if one can afford the cost of a turbine engine and the rest, jumping through all of the AMA red tape hoops to earn a waiver doesn't seem to present much of a problem. If AMA can work out all of these complicated details to cover those who want to fly turbine powered aircraft, it shouldn't be much of a problem to cover paid instructors.

Why does the subject of paid instruction always have to be involved with clubs? In the US alone, there are more than likely millions of acres of property that could potentially be used for commercial RC instruction. It took the MULTIBILLION DOLLAR RC industry many decades to sponsor RC on TV, how about them investing in paid instructon insurance coverage? BTW, there are some threads stating that it was too expensive, which is why the RC industry couldn't afford to advertise on TV. Like it has been said, it would be a win-win situation for everyone concerned.

Why does it seem that everytime someone presents an idea, it is like a reflex to hear how it can't work, rather than take a few seconds or minutes to come up with ideas on how it can work?

nascarjoe

Highlander

Why does it seem that everytime someone presents an idea, it is like a reflex to hear how it can't work, rather than take a few seconds or minutes to come up with ideas on how it can work?




Nascar

I believe that the reason for this ,completely normal behavior is based in the desire to succeed,rather than fail.

people tend to determine what if anything will cause failure in any given venture , with this insight preparation for success is much easier to assertain than blindly throwing dollars at something just to have to back track due to inadequate thought and preperation.

Now I oppose club sponsored ,,,,, flight instruction , in the form that it has been presented , and I based that opposition in several areas

some of which have been addressed in such a manner that I can see how they could be worked out and made to work adequately so those areas are no longer a concern at this time to me ,althought those answers are purely hypothetical ,which allows that in the future they could become concerns again.

other areas are still a real concern to me , one of which is the interaction of the club and the instructors and by who's regulation they will function, and by what standard they will be determined to be approved instructors?

the clubs have an informal approach to determining who is qualified ,to be a club instructor , I believe that a commercial approach should be much more involved and to a degree regulated thru standards that maintain excellence ,both in ability and equipment of any such instruction IE individual Instructors, I for one do not nor would I allow my children to (hypothetically speaking) to be instructed by someone who uses Illegal drugs or that would even on occasion mix airplanes and alcohol . I also would not decide to pay an inadequately experiance pilot , some form of certification would have to be viewable , I do not believe that this could be a club awarded certification!!!! but one that is earned from the AMA by attending and completeing an instructor course where the curriculum is designed to prove ability and quality of the individual.


as always just my opinion ,

Highlander