The subject line of this poll was offered up in another thread as a solution to the notion that in the event of an accidental loss of an airplane that there is a need for a person to compensate for the replacement cost of the lost airplane if one can demonstrate that the loss was a result of another persons act.

Please, let's limit the conversation to reasonable instances of accidental loss of models, a let's leave malicious intent, or acts out of this thread. I think they're rare occurrences.

Sounds simple right? The "responsible" person replaces the airplane/equipment and all's fine.

In the old days this is exactly the way it was handled amongst fellow RC'ers. The old days are gone and there's been much talk about litigation, etc.

The problem is further muddied when one starts thinking about the replacement cost of some models, which can be literally in the thousands of dollars.

Now, given that the out of pocket replacement costs can be well beyond the means of some Seniors on fixed income, and certainly some youngsters and their families, it seems that the very fact that these models cost so much to replace, unfairly, and inadvertently exposes these people to liabilities that they cannot afford to assume.

My guess is that most of these people are unaware of the notion, and sentiment, that some people that fly multi-thousand dollar airplanes subscribe to. Some of these people that it's a non-issue. You simply will have to replace their airplane.

Now much has been argued, through the use of analogies, that our model accidents can be thought of as similar to automobile accidents, yada, yada, yada.

The simple fact is this. There's no insurance coverage for such instances, and unlikely to be offered any time in the future.

And so it was suggested that, as a condition to membership to a club, that all applicants sign a waiver limiting the liability of replacement cost to $1000 or less, if there's a dispute over the loss of any model, for any type of accident. Keep in mind that we are only discussing replacement costs of the model, and no other types of occurrences such as injury. Those are covered by various insurance policies.

Some believe that my suggestion unfairly shifts the financial burden on the owner of an expensive airplane in the event of loss due to a midair, out of control aircraft that crashes in to the pits, or an accidental shoot down. Perhaps this is so, but those of us that fly multi-thousand dollar airplanes share the same resources, the field, the runways, and the pit areas with the majority of the membership that are casual flyers, flying airplanes that have replacement costs much lower.

Imagine the liabilities to instructors, as well as students, for midairs, crashes, etc. It really gets messy when you start to think of some of the possiblities.....

My contention is that given we are the minority (those of us flying multi-K airplanes), that we should indeed assume the risk of loss of our airplanes at these Club Fields as a condition of membership.

In other words, if you don't want to sign the waiver, fly elsewhere........Simple solution to a very complex problem.

Now of course this is my idea and others may feel differently so the poll questions attempt to reflect the various sentiments expressed in the other thread.

Please keep it clean.

You're allowed to answer multiple questions.
Have fun!

Which came first, the threat of litigation, or the people who shot someone down wanting to shirk doing the right thing?



When people own up to what they have done, there is no need to drag them into court is there?

Branded

Very well thought out post. I think the waiver could very well work. Great idea! Of course all clubs would not see it that way tho.

I would never want to burden someone with trying to replace one of my expensive models...but many at my club would... and in fact have replaced a model due to pilot error while flying some one else’s model. Any the rule I live with is to never fly a model I cannot afford to lose.

That's totally untrue.

My homeowners policy and my PUP both provide insurance in the event that I am held liable for issues such as this. As I pointed out right at the start of that thread, I am also aware of an incident in which an actual shootdown occurred and the homeowner's policy paid out.

I brought this point up several times in the prior thread. Those who simply want to avoid taling responsibility for their actions conveniently ignored this point.

Gordon

Gordon, I don't think anyone's ignoring your response. I simply don't think that anyone knows what you state to be true, one way or the other, particularly involving "toy" airplanes.

This is to ignore the fact that many young fellows, particularly apartment dwellers don't have home insurance, and are unlikely to purchase it just to cover instances such as this.

Remember, we are the minority in most R/C Clubs.

Most of my fellow clubmates are Children, Dads of those children, Seniors, and simply a mix of others whose interests run the spectrum.

I'll wager that very few of the 125+ members in my club are aware of the sentiments expressed by you and your ilk concerning "responsibility", etc.

Accidental shoot-downs, crashes into the pits, and midairs are a part of the risks associated with flying our models, and most of us accept the risk, and have since the beginning of this hobby.

Liability only seems to have become an issue with the advent of multi-thousand dollar airplanes flown by a few.

I fly them, but I realize that some of my fellow club members don't.

They either don't have the wherewithal, skill level, or they're simply recreational flyers a lot less serious about this hobby than we are.

This thread is not about "avoiding responsibilty" as you state, but rather about reasonably dealing with the fact, and it is a fact, that accidental occurences happen at the field.

It's a matter of whether or not you want to share the same risks with your fellow fliers, or you want special dispensation because you fly expensive airplanes. That's the issue.

If you commit a mistake and midair with an Avistar, the impact of the liability is far less, unfairly so, for you for the same infraction that may be committed by the fellow that you just hit.

So you see, you're unfairly exposing these people to unreasonably high out of pocket replacement costs just because you choose to fly expensive airplanes.

And you, and I, are the minority of users at most flying fields.


So be it........[8D]

Did You sign a waiver stating you would not hold another AMA member liable for the loss of you're property?

when I have to pay for coverage ins. in the event of damage, then the coverage should be applied to the field it was designed for.

Damage caused by my aircraft to another parties property!!

The only Shirking here is on the current carriers (AMA) part to fully cover personal property losses.

Your position generalizes when the issue that has raised controversy is not.

Shoot downs from someone being negligent by turning on thier transmitter is the issue.


I believe that keeping your transmitter OFF when it needs to be OFF is one of the things that is clearly under direct control of the owner of the transmitter.

I'd like someone to show differently.

Thats fine.

But why should I be forced to have to make the decision of not flying something I can't afford for YOU to destroy.

I, and a couple of others demonstrated that even under these circumstances, what appears to be obvious "neglect, or negligence", is a simple mistake.

That's the point to this thread.....

example:
I observed, and witnessed, a fellow that had walked over to the transmitter impound stand, put his pin up, grabbed a 9C Futaba, turned it on, and then realized it wasn't his transmitter!

Realizing this, he promptly put the transmitter back into the stand and grabbed his own transmitter. He left the other transmitter switched on.

Well, do I need to say more? If I hadn't observed this entire snafu, the owner of the transmitter that had been turned on by this yahoo would have been blamed for being "negligent".

And this is just one such story. I'm sure there are others. S**t happens at the field, and the best we can do is make sure that all our friends conduct themselves as we do. But accidents do happen.

It's just a fact of R/C Flying.

You're not Paul.....If you want to fly amongst your peers, and sahre their resources, amenities, etc., then perhaps you should rethink your position.

The point to the 'conditional' is to give you the choice of flying amongst your fellow r/c'ers with the realization that if something happens, you have equal responsibilty, or fly elsewhere.

You're absolutely correct! Why should you?

BS, that is just of case of not being able to prove who was negligent, does not relieve the guy who turned on the TX and put it back from fault.

As I have said before, you need to keep this argument isolated to a case where you know ABSOLUTELY who was at fault. I could come up with 100 examples of questionable fault.

And I have also said for every time you can prove it, there are probabaly 20 that you can't. Does not change who is responsible that 1 time that you KNOW who is responsible

And I agree to me the only responsiblity worth talking about is a turn on...everything else has too many variables to pin down EXACTLY who is at fault.

Matt, the point is this. If I hadn't been watching what he was doing, nobody would have known one way or the other.

I just happened to be waiting behind him to get my transmitter, that's all.

If I wasn't there, nobody would have seen this happen.

Who are you going to blame?

THE GUY WHO TURNED ON THE RADIO AND PUT IT BACK!

How much clearer can I get. I already said there are hundreds of cases that could not be proven. But these case have NO BEARING on the ones that CAN BE PROVEN.

Why do you obfuscate the argument with this type of example....clearly the question is what do you do when someone turns on when they do not have the pin? They turn on, ADMIT they did it...now what should they do?

Huh? I thought I said what to do. It's a mistake. One that anyone can make, and therefore, if you, and the other guy cannot come to terms, you're obliged to accept ,$1000, as you signed a waiver saying so, remember?

How much clearer can I get?

Some points make sense.


So your saying that a "No fault" waiver would NOT include proven acts of negligence?


That I can agree with.

Ah, the falicy of arguing such matters on the internet. Paul, perhaps so, but who would hear such an argument? My intuition says that such matters would simply be dismissed as unprovable as it doesn't seem practical to pursue the issue.

Am I making sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is this. We fly model airplanes, and however important the loss of one airplane may be to us, the importance of the loss won't be experienced by an outsider, and having said that, it's important to address this topic from a practical perspective.
Let's not go off on tangents.

I happen to think that Branded's proposed solution is a viable one. It certainly would remove the liability issue, cover the concerns of the majority of fliers at a given field, and let everyone know exactly where they stand in terms of replacement costs, and risks.

I know how many automobile analogies have been offered up, but humor me one more time.

If you driving a NASCAR race car in a race, you accept the possibility that an accidental nudge from behind by another car may put you into the wall, and wreck your race car, completely.

And so, if you fly your expensive airplane on our track, you must accept the possibilty that someone may "put you into the wall" accidentally.

It's just part of the Sport of Radio Control Modeling.

I disagree. It has been an issue since the advent of the hobby, and IMO it only became a contentious one when people started deciding that they could be as careless, and do as much damage as they like without having to bear the consequences of their negligence.

Nope. There is no special dispensation required. Everyone assumes responsibility for their own mistakes, with no dispensation.


Nope.

As already pointed out over, and over, and over again, you can get insurance to ensure that you don't have to deal with high payouts.

If you can't afford thousands of dollars out of your pocket to pay for replacing a model you shoot down, or repairing the car that you shot it down into, or dealing with the medical or other costs that your negligence may cause when the shot-down aircraft hits someone, then you hedge that risk by paying an annual insurance fee. My PUP costs me less than $200 per year for about a half million coverage.

You pay the smaller amount of money for insurance, or you decide not to bother with insurance and instead take the gamble that you will have to personally find the larger amount of money if the worst happens. Your choice. It's no different than the third-party liability aspect of car insurance.

There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about expecting people to make right, that which their screw-up broke.

If you expect me to pay for it when you destroy my airplane - can I then rely on you to pay for it when I destroy my own airplane ? Seems fair...

Telling people that they don't have to bear the costs of their screw-ups, just encourages them to not bother being adequately careful. The fear of the potential consequences (especially for the risk to life & limb) is what makes me extremely careful.

I've seen plenty of people who have the lackadaisical attitude of "Oh heck - my plane's only worth a few bucks, so I can't be bothered spending $10 to fix it - I'll just go fly it until it comes apart" - not even bothering to think about the cost or the risk to life if it hits something or someone when it comes apart. Telling them that they don't need to worry about the cost of an airplane they shoot down (or the person that gets maimed or killed by the shot-down aircraft) just further promotes that kind of attitude IMO.

Gordon

The problem with trying to make someone pay for someone else plane is proving
who is at fault what caused the crash ect . we dont have the FAA NTSB or black boxes as in full scale ,no maint record as to if a plane is airworthy

ira d I disagree, when negligence is involved the few times I have personally witnessed it it was very apparent who was at fault. example the moron that continuously flies against the pattern and causes a mid-air, the parent that lets their 5 year old run wild at the field and he falls on a 1000 + dollar plane destroying it in these cases regardless of what others may think these people should reimburse the person the full cost of the planes no matter if they are $100 trainers or $3000 aerobatic planes. negligence should not be tolerated.

OK Branded,

Let's try this one again.....it did not seem to resonanate the first time

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11...tm.htm#1181406

According to this guy (former AMA District VP), you guys might want to be more careful turning on your radios.

If I read this correctly, if you shoot someone down (by mistake or on purpose, no matter), and that plane does damage (maim, kill, whatever) the pilot of the shot down plane is covered by AMA insurance.....

...but the "shooter" is not covered, whether it was an "honest" mistake or not. So the least of your worries is the plane you shot down but rather the bus full of nuns and orphans you caused the plane to crash into..


So how are the careless guys going to get everyone within the crash radius of the field to sign your little waiver? Might wanna check this guy's post with the AMA to see if he is right.

Wow, Branded....stirred this sh**-pot up again huh?? You just like the abuse...don't 'cha...feels so good when ya stop??
I see we have the same old players.......wait...WHERE'S JON?????????LOL
I see you may have shown Paul the sense of your arguments...cool!! Paul, I don't think Branded ever intended a no fault clause for anything other than pure 'accidents'. Sh** happens...ya know??plain n' simple. It sux...but it happens. Other n' that,
it's like reading the same story over, and over, and over.......
<robot tone>--There is no use arguing, resistance is futile!!

Seriously though, great thoughts/response once again Branded.
Very well thought out, makes a lot of sense.
[:-][:-]

Now I gotta go....feel that heartburn startin' again....
(you guys do know the last thread gave me an ulcer....don't you now??!![:@])

I will make my vote and leave the re-telling to you gentlemen with stronger stomachs!!
[8D]
B.

Why Brian,
Thanks for inviting me in. Why am I not out slurring you to everyone? Hmmmmm.

Branded,
According to your argument I'm going to try and show you that a person would be a fool not to vote that a 'waiver' is required under your specs. Your saying that everyone should have to sign a waiver so that If they are shot down (for example) the limit of compensation is $1000. Now according to you, in your club there are only 3-5 out of 150 members that own anything over $1500

That means that over 95% of your club flies planes under $1500 and probably a majority of them are $1000 and under. What you've created is a 'legal document' that if the loss is up to $1000 the person is liable under the waiver to fully compensate the person for their loss. So, to sum up. 95% of the club flies planes under $1500 (probably $1000) so legally if they are shot down etc per the waiver will be compensated in full. You just guaranteed that the 95% will receive full payment which is something that they don't have now. The 95% would be crazy not to vote for the waiver as you've stated it.

Now if you really believe in what you are trying to do and what you've said.
If you're really worried about the person that can't afford it (which is why the waiver was brought up)
The people that you have listed would feel a burden at $200 and would be devasted at $1000. The waiver shood read that everyone should sign a waiver to the effect that 'no one' is liable to replace anyone's plane. After all I think you were right in this quote

Edited at 5am est. Nothing was taken away, only content was added...B

Good argument jon except that I don't promote the enforcement of any such dealings. Never have I said that the club would engage in any kind of arbitration between the two parties.

The purpose of the waiver is to preclude litigation in amounts of money greater than most sport flyers have to shell out, and limit the person being sued, if it comes to that, to $1000 payout maximum.
As I said, this would be a condition of using the facilities.

It's business as usual in the event of an accident. The two parties come to an agreement (hopefully) and all's well thereafter.

The waiver is no more than a document that states that Joe Blow agreed to limit his losses to $1000 or below in exchange for membership priviledges, and all that comes with it.

Nowhere did I ever state that the club would engage in any arbitration, or enforcement of any kind.

In fact, I stated in the other thread that the document would simply be kept on file. This is the only responsibility that the club has. If two members find they need to go to court to settle a dispute, then, and only then would this waiver be used.

One last note. There's nothing that says, nor do I suggest, that if the person "responsible" has the ability to replace the model entirely, that they do not do so.

It all comes down to the two parties involved in the end.

I see your point but I think that by tying it into the club/ama/imaa requirements they are also put into the position of enforcing/regulating it. Not to mention that by having the agreement of $1000 it really opens the door for legal action as there's a cut and dry contract now. If it "It all comes down to the two parties involved in the end" then there really shouldn't need to be a waiver in the first place. I know it's extreme but if there's a 'no fault' policy at the field, period, then there's never anything expected reguardless and nothing to sue about! It really comes back to the principal that has been quoted so much "If you can't afford to wreck it then....."

I need clarification on the subject of the poll please.

Are we talking about someone turning on a radio while someone else has the pin, OR are we talking about mid-airs collisions?

It seems to me that there are two VERY different subjects here. One is accidental, or routine occurance that occur while flying, vs. Negligence of turning on a radio...which is the poll about?