I have had my own personal flying field for several years now.
It sits on a property close to my residence.
I personally maintain it year round, etc.
It is large enough for giant scale or ?????.

Great place to fly without a doubt.
It's nice and would make a perfect public flying area.



So

I am pondering opening it up to public flying and insuring it with AMA.

Looking for opinions whether to keep it like it is or change it to an AMA covered field.



Right now I have no headaches, no problems, and no other pilots flying unless I allow them on the property.

Is it worth the headache to possibly make this move?

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. AMA doesn't infer public; AMA chartered clubs are private. That is what AMA promotes, exclusive private clubs even when operating on public property, as most are.

Abel

only you can answer that but I'd say if you really like hanging out with others that fly...what the heck...go for it.

Wait a minute partner...It is my understanding that an AMA chartered club flying site can allow non-AMA flyers and still maintain it's insurance coverage provided to private land owner via the named insured policy obtained by the club.

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. AMA doesn't infer public; AMA chartered clubs are private. That is what AMA promotes, exclusive private clubs even when operating on public property, as most are.

Abel


Let me rephrase.
My property is private as I own it.

Thinking about starting a AMA charter here.
Looking for pros and cons of a move like this.

hope this helps

i wouldn't take it chartered, if i had something like you describe.
but, that is just my natural anti social nature coming through. having only the folks i invite there is a good thing, from my point of view.

Pro is basically that you as site owner could be covered by a $2.5 mil liability policy to cover your butt if you are sued as result of actions by club members and guest flyers that you allow to use your property. Of course that isn't a 'pro' argument in and of itself. It is just an offset to the risk exposure to your fiscal well being that you will take on if you open up the use of your property to others. The real pro side has to come from your personal motivations, e.g., camaraderie with others sharing like interests, a service to the community, etc. Can't comment on that as you have not said anything about why you are considering doing it.

Con is that AMA mandates all chartered club members and guest flyers must be AMA members. That may cramp your style if you want to retain control over who may use your property to fly a model airplane. AMA members ONLY, and that exclusivity applies to you, family members, and guests. AMA provided insurance won't cover you as site owner for liability resulting from the actions of a non-AMA member. Again, can't really know if that is a downside without knowing anything about what is motivating you to consider an AMA charter.

Tell us what you want/expect to gain from an AMA charter and you'll much more likely get the kind of answers that will help you arrive a decision.

Abel

News to me, bud. [sm=confused_smile.gif] Is there some dusty, arcane scripture in Munchie archives you are at liberty to reveal that will illuminate what led you that alternate reality?

Abel

I wouldn't let anyone fly on my private property without ensuring the other flyers had some way of protecting me (insurance).
AMA is easy. "show me your AMA card and you can fly".
Private insurance is hard. "Bring me your policy and show me where it covers an airplane accident on my property, I may need my attorney to look it over and, oh, and when does your policy renew"???????

Well here is something you posted in another thread:
From the AMA Club Charter Kit:

"To preserve the availability of low cost insurance to your club and its site owner, the people who fly with your club should contribute their share of that cost. They can do so by becoming dues paying members of your AMA charter club as well. In the same vein, if the landowner for your club’s chartered club field has granted the club exclusive flying privileges, the club should ONLY allow AMA members and current members of the Model Aeronautics Association ofCanada (MAAC) to fly at the field. If your club is flying on public land and it has not been granted exclusive flying rights by the public agency in charge, your club activities should be confined to AMA members, and you are not responsible for other (non-AMA) flier’s actions. Should the public agency be named as an additional insured, it has coverage only for the actions of your club, its members, and other visiting AMA members who are considered guests."

Now, If the land owner does not grant exclusive use to the club then others are allowed...the policy as I understand it covers the land owner for all model flying...members of AMA or not...otherwise a land owner might be at risk from otherwise and unknown model flying use...the policy would be of little comfort unless bullet proof.

Plumberdeluxe, I will offer these thoughts simply to inform you of a case history. Background information strictly to use as You may see fit.
I fully owned a 100 acre flat farmland property held in a self-directed Trust. 13 years ago, I leased 30 acres to a club. 2 years later the club purchased the 30 acres at the price I had originally paid for it and I held the mortgage, originally at 6% for 5 years then to an annual interest of Prime-1, based on the Sep. yearly prime. Therefore I was simply a club member with no real say in how they managed it, except for some deed restrictions that I levied such as no flight patterns over the adjoining highway, no full-scale aircraft operations without specific permission from me one-on-one, AMA Charter with my Trust account as an insured, and a couple minor safety operations. For about 8 years things were fine.
Then a group of buddies joined the club and things have never been the same. They quickly jumped in and became the Board for the club. The club became their private flying site with 100 others paying the dues. For the past 4 years the club has been in membership decline. Now mind you this club enjoyed 5000 sq. ft. of steel over concrete shelter, water, electricity, and indoor toilets with a large kitchen area, along with paid mowing. The surrounding 70 acres were leased to a Hay farmer, along with 25 of the club's 30 acres which kept most taxes in agriculture, with no upkeep on either of our parts.

2&a1/2 years ago I was offered an attractive price for 20 acres adjoining the 30 acres all with highway frontage. I informed the Board that I was in a position to earn a neat profit, that if they wanted the 20 acres it was theirs for 70% of the offered price. The Board would not even bring the item before the club for discussion. Things got really tense. Finally I forced the issue, making myself a kind of enemy of most of that faction of the club. The club came up with a new "banker", paid me off, bought the 20 acres and the new banker really took them to the cleaners by manipulating both notes into one which gave him 50% of the equity in their old purchase.
This past fall, "Ike" traveled through, demolished all the shelter except the kitchen. In Nov. the club authorized $15,000 to rebuild the shelter. The Pres. in early Dec. gave a contractor $13,000 up front for a shelter to be done before Christmas. In Houston, TX, giving a contractor cash-up-front is about the same as using it for toilet paper. No shelter, no contractor efforts as of this past Wed.
Of course there was no insurance on the buildings.

Enough of that. All I do say is that if you own property and allow flying then YOU are the boss. If you try to be nice and allow a club to do something for themselves, then you may well be forced into an unpleasant situation. To protect yourself, I do suggest you be all business in dealing with toy-airplane folks and no matter what you give, most will not think it is anywhere enough.

Their liability insurance is of little use to you...you will need your own in the case as you mentioned...I know you must know that.

Why dont you contact your insurance agent and a lawyer and find what needs to be
done in order to let people use the field as far liability is concearned.
It may be you can charge a fee of the flyers to cover your insurance cost and other
cost's you may incur but if not if it was me I would leave it as is, because once you
start to charge to use the site it becomes a business with different rules as far as
insurance goes.

Yes, that is self-evident.
That is not stated in the insurance policy (AMA PDF Doc 500-1), and that is why I asked for the source of information that led to your understanding. There may be something germane to the question in the Certificates issued to landowners, but there are no examples that I could find on the AMA web site. Have you ever seen one?
That is reasonable argument for how things should be, but not evidence of how things are. Why should private site owners be covered for risks that public site owners are not? The insurance policy makes no such distinction, at least none that I could find.

Abel

Since The policy is primary for the land owner.

AND

As the maker of the contract... err... policy, it is all about the exclusions installed by the insurance company.

The evidence is the exclusions that are in the policy.

It is apparent that the land owner policy covers more than just flying associated liabilities such as a typical trip and fall...which likely would be a non-AMA person. So, no exclusion for that type of incident.

Now, we just need to look for any other exclusions of non-AMA use...flying or otherwise.

If the exclusion is not there, it does not exists.

Without the certainty that the landowner would be covered for model flying ( i.e. an otherwise AMA club member with an expired AMA is just one the many possibilities) the policy would be of little comfort since it is reasonable to assume a flying site might attract other than AMA current cardholders.



So...the owner's policy may not say it covers non-AMA flyers but I or anyone else could only bring forward what the policy excludes... Now, where do we find that exclusion? I can't find it...

Well, in the snippet from the Club Charter Kit that you posted, AMA is unambiguously stating that coverage provided to public entities that allow clubs the use of flying sites excludes coverage for liability incurred by actions of non AMA flyers. Where do you find that exclusion in the insurance policy? I suggest that if you can find it, you will likely find that it does not distinguish between public entities and private landowners. Again, your argument "Without the certainty that the landowner would be covered for model flying...." seems reasonable, but why would it not apply to public entities as well as private?

Abel

Good point... public entity vs. private and stated exclusions(or not stated) . The answer may (maybe not a factor for all States) be in the law books some where as it relates to Public Entities and their insurance interaction/subrogation. i.e. IIRC California does not allow such protections for the policy.



In this case, the OP is concerned about his private land interests.





BTW I am not a "Guard House Lawyer"...and I am not giving legal advice. Like someone pointed out earlier...get advice from your lawyer to find out if the AMA policy is good for you and what you are trying to get done. If you a truly worried about your exposure to liability, that is the only real answer as a responsible land owner. For someone to come here proclaim AMA offers a silver bullet to liabilities would be less than accurate. I only offered some other things to consider/question in light of the OP's inquiry...that's all. Here in Texas, we have more protection from recreational activities liabilities on our land than most others do. Your mileage may vary depending on where you live.



You and only you can make the determination for yourself...it is endlessly variable.

LCS-

I think at this point we agree that we do not know whether or not AMA insurance provided to private landowners would cover liability incurred due to the actions of non-AMA flyers.
Given that uncertainty, it would be prudent to assume coverage is not provided unless/until AMA provides clear indications that it will be covered. For some of us with backgrounds in engineering it's SOP; we generally plan/design to deal with worst case scenarios. YMMV, especially if you are involved in sales/marketing.

Abel

As I said earlier...it is my understanding that it would. We will probably never find absolute conformation to that fact(if it is a fact) disseminated by the AMA BUT The land owner's lawyer might be able to divine the answer for him.



Just for everyone's info: While this debate took place Dave Mathewson looked in on this forum. If I am/was indeed wrong it would have been a good time to set me straight and educate us all. He didn't...make what you want of that fact.

Plumberdelux, I had a flying field on my property. Once we had the required number of bodies, we became an AMA Club and never looked back. I flew on my flying field alone only a few times and thought it was sorta boring being out there by myself! With my flying buddies there, it was much more fun! I equate the hobby thusly: 50% building model airplanes, 40% BSing with the guys and 10% flying! These people became some of the best friends I've ever had, so my recommendation would be to "have at'r"!

Plumberdelux, you haven't said if other people are there when you fly and if not, there are safety considerations to think off when flying alone! I've seen enough prop cuts to say it can be dangerous flying by yourself. I know, I just admitted above that I have flown by myself. I will admitt, sometimes I have done stupid things!

What I'm inclined to make of it is he probably doesn't know, at least not to a degree of certainty that he would intervene in the discussion without first checking up on the facts. Remember, Carl Maroney built a lot of job security into his insurance czar position. The whole of the insurance business of AMA was handled as an occult matter, and he was Merlin. I'm still surprised that Ilona was able to take over that job and manage to do it so well, in a transition that appeared seamless from the POV of the members. Bless her li'l heart!

Abel

As mentioned briefly by LCS.

It is my understanding that Texas severly limits the liability of landowners who allow others to use their land for recreational purposes. In fact landowners are no more responsible than if the recreational users were trespassers.

Your state may have similar recreational use laws. You should consult a lawyer to determine what if any liability you would be exposed to if you allowed AMA or non-AMA members to use your property.

Yes, that is a fact:

"HB 1183 would limit the liability of landowners who provide safe
locations for radio-control aircraft enthusiasts to practice their hobby.
Radio-control flying is a popular and worthwhile activity. When model
aircraft flying groups stage tournaments and events, they often donate all
profits for to charitable organizations within the community."

Gov Perry signed it into law mid-2007

Only state I have an attachment to that has a similar law is CA, and it only applies to recreational use of publicly owned property, while the TX law protects private landowners as well. Hopefully the good example set in TX will catch on.

Abel

IMO if the AMA insurance only cover liability in connection with AMA members its
not worth the paper its printed on however I dont think that is the case.

Thanks for the input fellas.

My attorney is close friend and a student pilot I'm training.
He says go for it, that is if I choose to grow it.
I'll have him dig into all the liability issues and give his recommendations.

Yes Mode, I fly alone here and also with other guys as long as I'm here. They are invited of course.
Your input is valuable since you have been through my situation.
Sounds like you came through it fine.

Been flying for 27 years so I feel safety is second nature.