No, nothing but payments of $58/yr (soon to be $75) will.

Just wondering how much a primary first person insurance and not having to rely on the crap shoot of some legal action to determine liability would be worth to you?

The notion that our secondary liability insurance is some kind of member to member coverage is preposterous... The AMA could have provided real first person coverage if that was the real intent.

:-) lol!

Sure they could, they could also pay for our auto insurance too, but then people would complain about that as well. The intent is to provide a safety net, and that's exactly what the coverage does. Plenty of people don't carry any insurance at all, or minimal insurance. It's not going to happen to ME...so let's roll the dice. My uncle owns a multi million dollar home in the FL, but doesn't carry h/o insurance. The 10k premium is to much for him. Yes, he can take the hit financially if the place gets blown away, but jeez...talk about penny wise and pound foolish.

I personally know a doctor, as in MD doctor who owned his own home, and two rental home properties. Goes out one night, has a few pops, goes to drive home and ended up hitting a pedestrian and breaking her leg and hip. No worries right, he's loaded and has insurance. Well, it was much cheaper to get the minimum coverage of 20,000 for liability insurance. Fast forward two years. His insurance company pays the 20k of course, he had to sell both of his investment homes AND take a note out on his primary residence in order to resolve the claim. He's lucky it wasn't more serious, his home and practice could have been exposed.

paying for insurance sucks, paying out of pocket sucks more.

That's the point.

Your insurance is there to protect you FROM the other guy.

When I buy flying insurance, my intent is to ensure that "the other guy" gets as little as possible from any claim against me.

An interesting perspective, except it's rare that the policyholder has any say in what is paid out to 3rd parties. That's the carriers job.

............

Here is the message that has just been posted by Bobby McGee:

While on the topic of insurance coverage, if anyone has had FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE regarding their claim with the AMA for the "coverage," please post your experience as to the bureaucracy involved with the submittal, and the outcome. Since AMA 's insurance is merely secondary, I'm sure there are many conditions that need to be met as well as many reasons for the denial of this insurance.


Not much of a bureaucracy. You report the claim and it gets assigned to an adjuster. They basically monitor the underlying claim while the other carrier attempts to resolve the claim. We've only had one, and it resolved well under the primary layer of coverage that this person had, which was 250k (90k for a broken leg). Have never seen a denial of coverage here, or anywhere else. All policies have provisions in them that have to be met, but it's rare that a coverage denial is sent to a policy holder that hasn't been blessed by an attorney. It's also rare to see a third party claim denied based on the insureds policy issues (since the 3rd party is typically the innocent party). Yes people complain about insurance companies all the time, but it's a highly regulated industry, usually subject to state oversight, and many times requires individual licensing for adjusters. As with most things, there are exceptions.

This article is already outdated. The FAA decided to wait a couple more years to decide on this issue.

Well, I guess we can now kiss any kind of innovation on the part of the United States "goodbye". People are going to fly their toys, in complete disregard anything the AMA puts out. There is no CBO, so might as well bet on everybody doing what they did back in the '60s and '70s with control-line flight: Any school yard or baseball diamond was game back then.

You are correct. I was not aware of this until you pointed it out.

Lot's of CBO's out there. Its a legal term, not a legal requirement or certification.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/com...-organization/

Actually it's innovation itself that has put is where we are today. Not sure why the US is getting a hit here for not innovating though, not following that a bit. You are right in that people are going to disregard safety and common sense, but that's not a new issue, it's been something to deal with all along. One thing that will probably happen though is more of those kind of fliers are going to find themselves in a world of hurt legally and financially when there actions cause problems. What's so wrong with that?

Agreed. The FAA does not designate who is ans who is not a CBO. I am pretty confidant that the AMA meets the criteria of a CBO, and would therefore be defined as such, de facto.

Yes , it is a term used, like the AMA. Only thing is, they publish rules to abide by when operating a model aircraft. I do believe that if a registered member violates the rules set by the AMA, their insurance is no longer valid. The offender picks up the tab.

Charges droped against Ohio drone pilot
 

Good for Stanley! Too bad he wasted a lot of money and had to attend a class by a local college professor, on how to fly his drone safely...Imagine that, one?!

"He said the case has cost him more than $7,000 to defend"...I suspect that was the DA's real goal, ramp up the pain (i.e. $$) so that it sends a signal to all the others around that contemplate the same type of action. The DA's office maintain a number of lawyers who get paid whether they're prosecuting cases or surfing the internet at work. So if they have time and proprietorial resources, then guys like this will find themselves charged.

OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html

What AMA rules did he break?

1500' - no problem as there is no AMA limit on altitude
See and avoid - appears he dropped the machine's altitude like a rock to avoid conflict
Unobstructed view - nothing the way such as FPV goggles.......oh wait.....that's FAA rule, not AMA
What else?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FLAPHappy http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
OK, Here it is again today on the News. I guess they don't get it????
http://news.yahoo.com/video/alarming...013849222.html


Flying over houses and People for one ... But the real crime here is that he called attention to an already exacerbated problem that the News Media and the general public sees is that our TOYS are dangerous and a if not dangerous a general newsence. Not to mention the perceived intrusion on peoples privacy .....
CJ Baby ask me what rules this guy broke when the Only thing U and the rest of that want to continue to fly our toys. The only thing we'll be flying in the NAS Maybe a KITE with a 400' maxuim long string, but it will have 12" high registration numbers an air worthiness certificate an annual inspection and a clearance to fly from ATC .... then tell me he didn't break any rules man I'm restraining my self from not calling u both Du**^%s

Did U reply to the NPRM yet??????????? get with it

Is that why you are called HoundDog because you Hound everybody about commenting on the NPRM. The deadline isn't until the 23rd of April. Chill out Hound Doggie.

HoundDog, there is nothing for any LEO responding to answer a citizen's complaint to charge the guy with. People don't get arrested or cited with an infraction or misdemeanor for flying in ways that get us bad public attention or generally pissing you off, but only for breaking laws. I don't see even a failure to follow safety guidance from AMA, much less break any laws. It would not be in compliance with guidance from FAA in AC 91-57, but there is no penalty for that.
Now quit restraining yourself and let it hang out if you know of anything this guy was doing that a LEO could take any action against him for. I'm not taking a stand on whether he was right or wrong flying where and when he did, just that it appears he wasn't breaking any law.

My answer regarding my reply to the NPRM is the same as it was when I told you yesterday.