Are there double standards with Jets?
10-18-2007 | 10:25 PM
#26
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: N/A,
AE, US MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
While we're at it- the twin 50lb thrust rule needs to be changed also, so we can have jets like seba's in the usa.. not so much to go super fast but to help let us get our 3D thing on.-- IMO
10-19-2007 | 01:07 AM
#27
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
ORIGINAL: Ray Davis
This is the way I understand it:
Firstly, no one has to belong to the AMA to fly anything......but generally speaking, to fly models in the USA you need a site....you want a site, the owner needs to be insured. The AMA can provide that site insurance and does so thru it's Chartered Clubs. But, in providing that service, the AMA requires all participants be be Members, and for good reasons: Members individually are aware/agree to abide by the Safety Code to reduce accidents/claims...only makes senses from a insures standpoint. Good for me, too....if I'm flying somewhere...I want to know for certain the other pilot is insured for his liability....he is if an AMA Member.
So, the AMA has requirements if you want to avail yourself of their insurance. Period. But here's the kicker: if you are an AMA Member, then you are insured anywhere you fly...insured site or not...site insured by someone else, or not. And the AMA is saying that since your insurance is always in effect you may not violate their rules (heavy planes, fast jets over 200, etc.) and make them liable for behavior they don't permit. And if you do, then certainly it is within their rights to no longer include you. Loss of Membership.
Apparently, the AMA/carrier cannot just 'turn on/turn-off' their insurance when you want to violate the conditoins you contract for w/ Membership. Yeah, pisses many off because the AMA has a lock on us for site isurance, particularly......but you wanna fly in violation, and jeopardize the AMA program, why shouldn't they want ya out?
Ray
This is the way I understand it:
Firstly, no one has to belong to the AMA to fly anything......but generally speaking, to fly models in the USA you need a site....you want a site, the owner needs to be insured. The AMA can provide that site insurance and does so thru it's Chartered Clubs. But, in providing that service, the AMA requires all participants be be Members, and for good reasons: Members individually are aware/agree to abide by the Safety Code to reduce accidents/claims...only makes senses from a insures standpoint. Good for me, too....if I'm flying somewhere...I want to know for certain the other pilot is insured for his liability....he is if an AMA Member.
So, the AMA has requirements if you want to avail yourself of their insurance. Period. But here's the kicker: if you are an AMA Member, then you are insured anywhere you fly...insured site or not...site insured by someone else, or not. And the AMA is saying that since your insurance is always in effect you may not violate their rules (heavy planes, fast jets over 200, etc.) and make them liable for behavior they don't permit. And if you do, then certainly it is within their rights to no longer include you. Loss of Membership.
Apparently, the AMA/carrier cannot just 'turn on/turn-off' their insurance when you want to violate the conditoins you contract for w/ Membership. Yeah, pisses many off because the AMA has a lock on us for site isurance, particularly......but you wanna fly in violation, and jeopardize the AMA program, why shouldn't they want ya out?
Ray
chartered site and it can be proven that what you were doing at the time of said
mishap was outside of the scope of the AMA safety code then the AMA would not
be libel for said mishap.
Common sense would dictate that if a AMA member can be employed in a
commercial setting and fly models for the movies and such without being
booted from the AMA, then it would be wrong to bother a member for flying
something outside of the safety code if not at AMA site.
10-19-2007 | 07:45 AM
#28
My Feedback: (18)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New City, NY
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
ORIGINAL: ira d
I think the point here that some cant seem to grasp is that if you are not at a AMA
chartered site and it can be proven that what you were doing at the time of said
mishap was outside of the scope of the AMA safety code then the AMA would not
be libel for said mishap.
Common sense would dictate that if a AMA member can be employed in a
commercial setting and fly models for the movies and such without being
booted from the AMA, then it would be wrong to bother a member for flying
something outside of the safety code if not at AMA site.
ORIGINAL: Ray Davis
This is the way I understand it:
Firstly, no one has to belong to the AMA to fly anything......but generally speaking, to fly models in the USA you need a site....you want a site, the owner needs to be insured. The AMA can provide that site insurance and does so thru it's Chartered Clubs. But, in providing that service, the AMA requires all participants be be Members, and for good reasons: Members individually are aware/agree to abide by the Safety Code to reduce accidents/claims...only makes senses from a insures standpoint. Good for me, too....if I'm flying somewhere...I want to know for certain the other pilot is insured for his liability....he is if an AMA Member.
So, the AMA has requirements if you want to avail yourself of their insurance. Period. But here's the kicker: if you are an AMA Member, then you are insured anywhere you fly...insured site or not...site insured by someone else, or not. And the AMA is saying that since your insurance is always in effect you may not violate their rules (heavy planes, fast jets over 200, etc.) and make them liable for behavior they don't permit. And if you do, then certainly it is within their rights to no longer include you. Loss of Membership.
Apparently, the AMA/carrier cannot just 'turn on/turn-off' their insurance when you want to violate the conditoins you contract for w/ Membership. Yeah, pisses many off because the AMA has a lock on us for site isurance, particularly......but you wanna fly in violation, and jeopardize the AMA program, why shouldn't they want ya out?
Ray
This is the way I understand it:
Firstly, no one has to belong to the AMA to fly anything......but generally speaking, to fly models in the USA you need a site....you want a site, the owner needs to be insured. The AMA can provide that site insurance and does so thru it's Chartered Clubs. But, in providing that service, the AMA requires all participants be be Members, and for good reasons: Members individually are aware/agree to abide by the Safety Code to reduce accidents/claims...only makes senses from a insures standpoint. Good for me, too....if I'm flying somewhere...I want to know for certain the other pilot is insured for his liability....he is if an AMA Member.
So, the AMA has requirements if you want to avail yourself of their insurance. Period. But here's the kicker: if you are an AMA Member, then you are insured anywhere you fly...insured site or not...site insured by someone else, or not. And the AMA is saying that since your insurance is always in effect you may not violate their rules (heavy planes, fast jets over 200, etc.) and make them liable for behavior they don't permit. And if you do, then certainly it is within their rights to no longer include you. Loss of Membership.
Apparently, the AMA/carrier cannot just 'turn on/turn-off' their insurance when you want to violate the conditoins you contract for w/ Membership. Yeah, pisses many off because the AMA has a lock on us for site isurance, particularly......but you wanna fly in violation, and jeopardize the AMA program, why shouldn't they want ya out?
Ray
chartered site and it can be proven that what you were doing at the time of said
mishap was outside of the scope of the AMA safety code then the AMA would not
be libel for said mishap.
Common sense would dictate that if a AMA member can be employed in a
commercial setting and fly models for the movies and such without being
booted from the AMA, then it would be wrong to bother a member for flying
something outside of the safety code if not at AMA site.
I think with the letigous nature in this country, an insurance company especially knows that they will be dragged into a suit when one of their clients is getting sued for damages. The lawyers will find every last bit of coverage you have and try to suck it out of you. As far as the commercial setting that you mention, the insurance coverage specifically states you are not covered for "business pursuits".
Marty
10-19-2007 | 10:08 AM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: East Falmouth, MA,
MA
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
Yeah, Ira.....the AMA does wish 'to control' your behavior re the requirements they feel are necessary for safe flying under their insurance umbrella (now...how we view those requirements are a diffenert subject altogether 
!). But...the extent of that 'control' is solely limited to, "can't abide...then get out". And only after the fact.
Why the surprise/why the indignation there...that's any private organization's option...get out if you can't abide. Duh. Try this w/ your auto/homeowners: Let them 'off the hook' for your heart's desire speedfest thru the neighborhood this evening....nope, doesn't work that way, does it
? Drunk driving....you kill someone...your insurance is still in effect even though you so egregiously violated every safe driving/'legal'/insurance suggestion/'requirement there is. Even if you 'opt out' w/ a 'weekend-binge release', they cannot deny the claim short of an outright cancelation previously in effect...though you are likely finished w/ them afterwards ! Same w/ homeowner's......keep piles of gas soaked rags around......they still pay. THAT is the way it works, so even if you are somehow covered by another party, the AMA is always secondarily liable...always in the loop for claims unless you cancel. Cancelation....that's how you must 'opt out'. Re-apply...maybe/maybe not they will let ya back...no one says they have to...
But wait(!)....AMA even goes a step further! Right up front it's spelled out, you actually agree to abide the rules w/ Membership....a contract, in effect.... a step beyond your auto/home insurance. No gray area, here.....you gave your word(!), you said you wouldn't knowingly violate the 'gentleman's agreement' (as Steve Ellzy put it..)! Yet, you want to opt out, at your convenience, for the weekend Tiano-fest (for example.)?! Sure...but the mechanism for that is canceling Membership. Period. C'mon, your word is no good/you were 'forced' to join? Please!
OK, the AMA is a monopoly, maybe that's the true source of irritation...no competition. And, at fault, perhaps, in not making things crystal clear: Join us...but you make reasonable efforts to abide by our rules; we pay regardless, anywhere/anytime for a modeling activity claim as long as you are a Member (unless maybe all prove/agree your behavior is so egregiously at fault/in violation...though even that has not/does not save the AMA from liabilty). And all we can do is indicate what we feel is safe, or after the fact, cancel your Membership......that's our only 'control'.
That's a hell of a deal/not much of a burden for your annual dues! Don't like it...don't join....and get out if you won't live up to something you pledged your word to. But, don't expect to be welcomed back, either!
Ray
!). But...the extent of that 'control' is solely limited to, "can't abide...then get out". And only after the fact.Why the surprise/why the indignation there...that's any private organization's option...get out if you can't abide. Duh. Try this w/ your auto/homeowners: Let them 'off the hook' for your heart's desire speedfest thru the neighborhood this evening....nope, doesn't work that way, does it
? Drunk driving....you kill someone...your insurance is still in effect even though you so egregiously violated every safe driving/'legal'/insurance suggestion/'requirement there is. Even if you 'opt out' w/ a 'weekend-binge release', they cannot deny the claim short of an outright cancelation previously in effect...though you are likely finished w/ them afterwards ! Same w/ homeowner's......keep piles of gas soaked rags around......they still pay. THAT is the way it works, so even if you are somehow covered by another party, the AMA is always secondarily liable...always in the loop for claims unless you cancel. Cancelation....that's how you must 'opt out'. Re-apply...maybe/maybe not they will let ya back...no one says they have to...But wait(!)....AMA even goes a step further! Right up front it's spelled out, you actually agree to abide the rules w/ Membership....a contract, in effect.... a step beyond your auto/home insurance. No gray area, here
.....you gave your word(!), you said you wouldn't knowingly violate the 'gentleman's agreement' (as Steve Ellzy put it..)! Yet, you want to opt out, at your convenience, for the weekend Tiano-fest (for example.)?! Sure...but the mechanism for that is canceling Membership. Period. C'mon, your word is no good/you were 'forced' to join? Please!OK, the AMA is a monopoly, maybe that's the true source of irritation...no competition. And, at fault, perhaps, in not making things crystal clear: Join us...but you make reasonable efforts to abide by our rules; we pay regardless, anywhere/anytime for a modeling activity claim as long as you are a Member (unless maybe all prove/agree your behavior is so egregiously at fault/in violation...though even that has not/does not save the AMA from liabilty). And all we can do is indicate what we feel is safe, or after the fact, cancel your Membership......that's our only 'control'.
That's a hell of a deal/not much of a burden for your annual dues! Don't like it...don't join....and get out if you won't live up to something you pledged your word to. But, don't expect to be welcomed back, either!
Ray
10-19-2007 | 12:35 PM
#30
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
I have never heard the AMA tell anyone to get out I dont know why
some on this forum would even suggest such.
Someone posted a reply from the AMA on the question as to their
stance on turbine flying without a waiver and their answer said
nothing about kicking someone out of the AMA if they were caught
flying without a waiver.
Also has been brought out previously many times their are a lot of
AMA members that fly outside of the AMA rules because of their
employment all those flyers would have to be kicked out as well.
some on this forum would even suggest such.
Someone posted a reply from the AMA on the question as to their
stance on turbine flying without a waiver and their answer said
nothing about kicking someone out of the AMA if they were caught
flying without a waiver.
Also has been brought out previously many times their are a lot of
AMA members that fly outside of the AMA rules because of their
employment all those flyers would have to be kicked out as well.
10-19-2007 | 03:01 PM
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: East Falmouth, MA,
MA
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
Revoking Membership, would be their option as I understand these things. And apparently that's just what may have been 'threatened' re TN flying Jim Weigle's Concorde. But I've no first-hand knowledge of that.
Waivers have been suspended for violations...but nope, I haven't heard of Memberships being revoked either...who knows? But, I think the mechanism has to be in place, no? The 'fact' that it's never been done only underscores how ambiguous and tough to enforce all this is. I've heard the AMA just pays the claims regardless of circumstances...tries to learn from it and educate the Membership...and moves on. Somehow cheaper, I guess.
But, bottom line....our insurance is vital and a hell of a deal....and in return, we are only asked to fly their (ours, really) interpretation of 'safely'...which we've contracted/ageed to do. Yep, unless/until change to allow temporay 'opting out' is acceptable to our carrier, our obligation is to reasonably attempt to live up to that agreement. All the time....because we are covered all the time....so they are liable all the time.
Eddie Weeks almost-speed event almost-tested things....FT's will be real interesting if it actually comes off. Maybe his whole purpose. I do agree, in principle, that there ought to be that 'release' form to allow Members to fly outside the AMA regs ocassionally....paperwork in place, etc. But logistically/practically/insurance-wise it may be tough to do....and I understand the AMA's posture: A claim in that instance (bandit event...allowing heretofore 'unsafe' ops) would be bad for modeling, indeed...one possibly caused by behavior outside of what the world's expert modeling body and carriers have agreed should be permitted. What a field day the lawyers would have...and certainly a black eye for the AMA if they didn't do all to discourage it!
Need an insurance expert, here......!
Ray
Waivers have been suspended for violations...but nope, I haven't heard of Memberships being revoked either...who knows? But, I think the mechanism has to be in place, no? The 'fact' that it's never been done only underscores how ambiguous and tough to enforce all this is. I've heard the AMA just pays the claims regardless of circumstances...tries to learn from it and educate the Membership...and moves on. Somehow cheaper, I guess.
But, bottom line....our insurance is vital and a hell of a deal....and in return, we are only asked to fly their (ours, really) interpretation of 'safely'...which we've contracted/ageed to do. Yep, unless/until change to allow temporay 'opting out' is acceptable to our carrier, our obligation is to reasonably attempt to live up to that agreement. All the time....because we are covered all the time....so they are liable all the time.
Eddie Weeks almost-speed event almost-tested things....FT's will be real interesting if it actually comes off. Maybe his whole purpose. I do agree, in principle, that there ought to be that 'release' form to allow Members to fly outside the AMA regs ocassionally....paperwork in place, etc. But logistically/practically/insurance-wise it may be tough to do....and I understand the AMA's posture: A claim in that instance (bandit event...allowing heretofore 'unsafe' ops) would be bad for modeling, indeed...one possibly caused by behavior outside of what the world's expert modeling body and carriers have agreed should be permitted. What a field day the lawyers would have...and certainly a black eye for the AMA if they didn't do all to discourage it!
Need an insurance expert, here......!
Ray
10-19-2007 | 03:58 PM
#33
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
ORIGINAL: rhklenke
I think the AMA put the kibosh on that one too. Then the plan was to make it a "UAV event," but then the FAA gets involved...
Bob
ORIGINAL: Patrick Frost
Has anybody heard from Eddie Weeks lately? Is he still planning the "Speed Run" Event?
Has anybody heard from Eddie Weeks lately? Is he still planning the "Speed Run" Event?
Bob
10-22-2007 | 12:00 PM
#34
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: East Falmouth, MA,
MA
RE: Are there double standards with Jets?
Hey Gordon...I shoulda said "recognized authority", I guess...they'd certainly be painted that way in courst ....after all, who is greater in that respect, certainly in the US?
Ian...never said the AMA stopped anything(!), they can't.....they don't have the authority/wherewithal to do that. But "discouraged", yes, within their limited means, which were heart-to-hearts and peer pressure on Eddie, directly or indirectly, I understand....and that of informing the sponsor/airport/etc. of the AMA's posture...attempting to convince it is a correct one. Their right, our right/anyone's right.
And maybe they did convince....fire ban just let everyone save face......perhaps just postponed the inevitable 'next time': FT's event. He's much more formidable...be most interesting to see how effectively the AMA combats that one! Who knows....maybe a workable/acceptable temp insurance suspension is possible/will result as a compromise. Nothing wrong w/ that from our POV(!)....opens the door to real alternatives and real competition for the AMA, though...if we have such 'freedom' w/o penalty.
Certainly the AMA does not want it for obvious reasons, even if possible. Who can blame them....and, would we....if rates climb due to a smaller base, etc.? Crux of the question, seems to me, then, is whether it is possible/workable/economical to enact such a program ('opting' out at convenience....opting back in at convenience) and still maintain an effective insurance program. Difficult question, likely not an easy answer.......but if so, then the AMA maybe is punitive, even if for self-preservation (and insuring our sites so cheaply). But, if not, as I suspect, then I have to agree w/ their present posture of self-presenvation of a system that, overall, works so well to our advantage.
Insurance guys...your turn!
Ray
Ian...never said the AMA stopped anything(!), they can't.....they don't have the authority/wherewithal to do that. But "discouraged", yes, within their limited means, which were heart-to-hearts and peer pressure on Eddie, directly or indirectly, I understand....and that of informing the sponsor/airport/etc. of the AMA's posture...attempting to convince it is a correct one. Their right, our right/anyone's right.
And maybe they did convince....fire ban just let everyone save face......perhaps just postponed the inevitable 'next time': FT's event. He's much more formidable...be most interesting to see how effectively the AMA combats that one! Who knows....maybe a workable/acceptable temp insurance suspension is possible/will result as a compromise. Nothing wrong w/ that from our POV(!)....opens the door to real alternatives and real competition for the AMA, though...if we have such 'freedom' w/o penalty.
Certainly the AMA does not want it for obvious reasons, even if possible. Who can blame them....and, would we....if rates climb due to a smaller base, etc.? Crux of the question, seems to me, then, is whether it is possible/workable/economical to enact such a program ('opting' out at convenience....opting back in at convenience) and still maintain an effective insurance program. Difficult question, likely not an easy answer.......but if so, then the AMA maybe is punitive, even if for self-preservation (and insuring our sites so cheaply). But, if not, as I suspect, then I have to agree w/ their present posture of self-presenvation of a system that, overall, works so well to our advantage.
Insurance guys...your turn!
Ray
