I was visiting some relatives over Christmas when we had occasion to visit the local park. There is one large field with kids playing and a group of people playing soccer. Additionally, this park runs along a MAJOR highway (actually at the corner of 2 major streets). While I was there, some guy showed up with a decently constructed model (a Kiwi, I think he called it) sporting an OS .46 FX.

Now for the good part. He takes off over one of the major roads! Then, he continually does high-speed low passes over an occupied field! In talking to him, he said he was AMA but the local club was too crowded. In my judgement, he was a decent pilot, but what if something goes wrong? What if the old kit was not designed for the modifications and the wings give in one of his high-speed dives? Is there something I should have done? I am not one to cause trouble, but I think this guy was exhibiting EXTREME poor judgement.

Looking for input,

Zee

sorry that you have witnesed one of the many examples of stupidity i guess if you wanted to make a issue of it you could send name and number to ama but i doubt that would help,
happy new year and fly safe

dennis1943
ama7030

No rules for stupidity.....they are just too stupid to think "What if...."

Jerry

Unless there was a local law prohibiting his flying, or he was within three miles of the local club, I don't think he did anything "wrong". So, I wouldn't lose any sleep over "what can be done."

Obviously the best judgement wasn't used. Next time maybe mention to him some of the "what ifs", he could be one of those people with no common sense.

You also might mention to him that his AMA insurance is only good when flying at an authorized flying site and that if a local lawyer could make an argument for negligence (flying a high powered airplane in a crowded space around people who are unaware of the danger does seem negligent to me) that his home owners may be off the hook too which means that any damages would be paid by him personally out of his pocket.

Is this true? It seems that if an AMA member is flying on his own property (not an AMA club) he is still covered, I think....True or not? If true, why would a park be any different with respect to
AMA insurance?

Seems like this guy is in obvious violation of the safety code and therefore not covered, correct?

it has to be a approved site to be covered just because he owns it doesnt mean it is approved

dennis

Sorry Jerry,
The comment about AMA coverage is not exactly correct.

Any AMA member is always covered as long as the Safety Code is not broken. If you are flying at an organized (chartered club) site, the rules of THAT organization become an extension of the AMA Safety Code. Your coverage is not limited to prior approved (chartered) sites, but the LANDOWNER may not be covered. The club charter process insures the specific landowner as does a sanction (supplemental insurance certificate).

That means that if I fly on MY land, I am covered by my HO policy AND my AMA coverage as long as I stay within the Safety Code. You might read it to see what it has to say about flying around crowds.

Thanks for the clarification, this is pretty much what I thought.

What would y'all do if y'all saw this guy disregarding safety? You know that he would be sueing the AMA when they denied to pay for the person he injured or the cars that he damaged. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that the AMA had to defend itself would cost it a lot of money.

You do not need to worry about the AMA. When you, and every other member, applied for an AMA license, you agreed to follow the Safety Code. Virtually the first line of the Safety Code states that you must follow it or there is no coverage. When you received your license, you received another copy of the Safety Code with it, and again almost every time the AMA contacts you.

If he is flying in violation of the Safety Code, he has no coverage. It is cut and dry.

If, after talking to him, you feel that he will continue to do what he is doing, take yourself out of the situation. If you truly believe that he is putting people or property at risk, as with low passes over people, call the police, assuming you are not a law enforcement officer. Let them do their job, and make a decision if what he is doing is unsafe. You do not have the authority to do anything yourself. The last thing in the world you want is an altercation with him.

JR

If he were flying over me, my kids or freinds I beleive that I would politely inform him that it is not safe, not funny, and if he crashes and hurts someone for ANY reason, I will come back over here and tie you in a knot!

I then would wish him a nice day and go about my business.

That sounds like a great way to end up in jail on an assault charge, hope you like the view through the bars!

At least I can stand up for what I believe needs to be done when I believe it prudent. Otherwise the whole country would be run by a bunch of wuss types on the look out for the lawyers.

Come to think of it...kind of looking that way now huh.

Not necessarily. In fact, not much is cut and dry when it comes to law suits. If this guy injured someone, and their lawyer found out the flyer had AMA coverage, it doesn't really matter much what the AMA says. What matters is what a court says, and they just might say the AMA was liable, perhaps just because they are the only one with assets to compensate the injured person.

Further, it's not likely the AMA would fight it. That's because the AMA insurance is there to protect the *hobby*, not an individual. If this guy injures someone, and has no assets or liability insurance of his own, the AMA really doesn't want huge headlines in the paper about how some kid was killed by an R/C model, and there was no compensation, even though the big AMA has millions of dollars of insurance money. If that happens, then law makers start thinking maybe we ought to ban this hobby, since it's so dangerous, and the AMA doesn't want that to happen. And you don't either.

Sorry, but the courts cannot define an uninvolved party as liable for any action. If they could, the you would be liable for providing the local Stop-N-Go with money for the robber to take when he shot the store clerk. If the AMA Safety Code was violated, the coverage would be denied and the courts would accept that as factual and legal. Now PROVING the violation might be a trick, but lets not create a whole fabric of gloom and doom from bad wishful thinking.

I am frequently in trouble with my AMA DVP and his friends because they insist my crowd makes up stories to fit the few facts we are able to pry from them. At least when that bunch of alpha males have thumped me it is because we (AMA and membership) have a communications problem. The previous post is bad enough fiction to make me wonder which drugs the writer is on! There are enough facts available to show how out of unreal the entire entry is.

Are you sure about that Jim? As I recall in the infamous O.J. Simpson case, he was found not guilty (ha!), but the courts allowed him to be charged in a wrongful death case. If he was found not to be the murderer (ha ha!), and was supposedly not even there (ie UNINVOLVED), how could be found guilty of wrongful death??

I am sure there are other examples, but this one is famous and seems to fit.

Jim, I left the newsgroup rc.models.rc.air to avoid this kind of personal attack. The fact that you and I disagree does not give you the right to impugn my character. I have asked the moderator to remove your post.

Your analogy is not a good one. I never implied that totally uninvolved parties can be held liable. In this case the flier was an AMA modeler, and the AMA advertises that it insures its members. That sounds like a lot of involvement to me. A lot more than in this case, which put the association out of business: http://www.kkrlaw.com/changes/safety_standards.htm

Pinball

Since you have chosen to be completely anonymous, I fail to see how anyone can impugn anything about you. Perhaps you would do well to visit the Clubhouse Forum rather than the AMA Discussion Forum, or maybe one of the other RC related forums that are not as contentious as this one. In the AMA forum, so far, the moderators have pretty much taken a hands off approach. If you are going to post in this one, you had best be able to take as well as give. Your opinion and mine are ours alone and open to questioning from others, just as you have questioned mine . The day anyone can post and then hide behind the moderator's apron strings is the day I leave this forum.

Just my opinion.

JR

Mr. "PINBALL"

Sorry it took so long for a response, I was out flying and instructing today.

Your quoted post is wrong on two counts.

The first point in error was your citation. The case YOU cited does not involve an insurance claim which was what was being spoken about. I think it is unreasonable to compare apples to grapes in the same manner as the relationship between swimming pool standards and insurance coverage that you cited. YOU write the review that makes the connections and possibly it will become clear.

The second error was the personal attack issue you have raised. None of my remarks were intended to be such but I clearly cannot control what you decide to interpret them as. However you are welcome to take whatever action you feel is necessary to control opposing comments. That is why you have left the newsgroup as is clearly indicated by your lack of a real name and or AMA number.

In the future I suggest you avoid the writing of fiction about the AMA and the reasons various actions are taken. If that bothers you, I suggest you provide some proofs to go with the stories to make them more interesting and to reduce the negative reviews. If you feel that suggestion impugns you and or your character, then so be it.

I stand by ALL of my remarks and opinions, but I do reserve the right to be educated.

While we are allowing more latitude in this forum comments like this will not be tolerated.

The previous post is bad enough fiction to make me wonder which drugs the writer is on!

You can disagree with a statement that someone makes as that's what it's all about, but, to insinuate that a person is on drugs while making a statement is totally unnecsasary. Now stay on track.

I am sorry if I was out of order, but seeing all the false information shoveled out by the AMA bashers, I assumed the someone unwilling to publicly state his name or AMA number was writing more fictional trash.

I honestly apologize for the specific reference using my REAL name and AMA number.

way to go j_r thumbs up to you
dennis

I don't seem very welcome here. One guy says I must be on drugs to have the opinion I have, and the next implies I'm like a scared child "hiding behind [his Mother's] apron". Neither thinks these are insulting messages.

OK, I get it. I'm gone. But I still wonder if this is the sense of community Marc was trying to achieve when he built this web site.