 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / July 2004A Solution....Yes its about AMA
Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be checked out first by the clubs officers/instructors to see if they meet the saftey requirements and can fly. If they need training, they can get it by the instructor at a reasonable fee. Non AMA members get limted benifits from the club. Club members...AMA card holders... get a full benefits from the club, free lessons, ect. ect. ect. 1. For the AMA whiners.....you can quit but can still enjoy to fly, Of corse you will be paying alittle more to fly....but a resonable fee. You need not gripe about the AMA since you have nothing to worry about. Your not a member. You will still be able to fly :-) 2 For non AMA members......you will pay a resonable fee to fly. If you think maybe latter on you would like to join the club...and get full benefits, ect. ect. ect......then join the AMA and the club. If not interested, then dont. You will still be able to fly :-) 3 For the Club......You make some extra $$$$$ and probally get some non members to join aswell. EVERYBODY GETS TO FLY Mike paragraph 5 of the AMA Club charter - To participate in flying activities..... MUST be an AMA member. I can't fault them for that, that is a good rule, otherwise people would not be members, and there would be no income and no AMA. Phil > Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Mike >Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee >to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Mike Ummmm........ahhhhhh.......Good Idea. Give it a go at your club and come back and tell us how it worked out. I would be as happy as a pig up to his ears in Bandini mountain to hear that your plan was well received by your club and successfully implemented. Abel > >Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > >to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Abel ROFLOL! Able, you crack me up with your understatement. Talk about an easy way to loose a flying field! Let the club landlord find out that they are allowing unisured to play there and guess what happens next. Who said uninsured? Original poster didn't specify. Home owners insurance should be primary anyway. mk > > >Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > > >to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > out that they are allowing unisured to play there and guess what happens > next. > Who said uninsured? Original poster didn't specify. Home owners insurance > should be primary anyway. Homeowners IS primary, but are you going to patrol the flying field to make sure everybody's homeowner's polcies cover R/C, and are paid up? Dunno about you, but I want to fly when I'm at the flying field, not play insurance agent. Hmmm...... MY homeowners does NOT insure the landlord, does yours? > Who said uninsured? Original poster didn't specify. Home owners insurance > should be primary anyway. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > out that they are allowing unisured to play there and guess what happens > > next. And just who in hell is going to keep track of who's who and all the paperwork when trying to find a volunteer to simply cut a patch of grass or come to a meeting is almost impossible? And when a mistake is made, and an accident happens, who THEN is going to do all the footwork to try to get a claim paid? MJC > Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Mike >Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee >to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > EVERYBODY GETS TO FLY > Mike About as lame-brain as an AMA EC member. AMA membership means that THE OTHER GUY CAN COMPENSATE ME- ME-ME WHEN HE PUTS ME IN A WHEEL CHAIR OR WORSE. The average HO insurance is a drop-in-the-bucket when it comes to real accident potential liability expense. I carry umbrella ins. to help those that I might hurt. DO YOU?? If someone wants to fly at my club's field, he has to be AMA. Whether he ever gets to fly cheap-skate is beyond any care of mine. AMA load or hit road. HC <snip? >About as lame-brain as an AMA EC member. >AMA membership means that THE OTHER GUY CAN COMPENSATE ME- ME-ME WHEN HE PUTS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >HC C'mon Hoss - whether you like it of not, Mike has proposed a new thought into what has has been for far to long a very stale subject. Screw your self-centered bavo sierra about how every other participant in model aviation owes it to you to pay for insurance coverage to provide for your welfare in case of an accident. Nobody pays for insurance coverage to compensate you, except in socialist states that mandate it as for automobile drivers. Except for for those instances where the free market has been preempted by the socialists, insurance is provided to protect those that pay for that protection. Buy you own damned insurance, and wheelchair too if you're that paranoid about it. Else sit at home and fret about the 18-wheeler that will careen through your bedroom while you are sleeping and leave you dependent on the nurse-from-hell to change your diapers. . And as for the crap about about umbrella insurance, you carry it to protect yourself, just as I carry it to protect myself. The notion that you would have have it to protect others is about as absurd as trying to convince the rest of of us that you are Mother Theresa. Abel SNIP > The notion that you would have have it to protect others is about as > absurd as trying to convince the rest of of us that you are Mother > Theresa. > > Abel ROFLOL! He couldn't be, he is too short and ugly! . . . . . . . . I just couldn't pass that one up. It is like pulling the flaps up before taxing to parking. Well here ya go....Cain and Abel at it again. ;-) Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" Good one!! > Well here ya go....Cain and Abel at it again. ;-) > > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" The insurance is not about the modelers, its about the flying site property owner and other people that maybe visiting/watching, flying technically is not even a requirement. Hypothetical, your club is an ama club and allows this one day non ama flyer (John Smith) fly at your clubs site. Joe's plane goes astray and hits a visitor causing him serious injuries. The visitor requires a 100K operation becuase of the injury. John Smith has no assets to speak of, works a minimum wage job, has no net worth. So the visitor sues the club. AMA can legally bow out because the club didn't enforce the rule. That leaves the club and potentially the property owner liable. The property owner probably is ok becuase your club said it had AMA insurance. So guess who it costs, you and all the rest of the membership. In all probablility your homeowners or umbrella policy won't do you a lick of good because you knowingly broke the AMA's rules. YOUR ON YOUR OWN! I'm not saying the AMA would bow out, but their insurance company could, just as easily as your homeowners. > <snip? > >About as lame-brain as an AMA EC member. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Abel <snip> > In all >probablility your homeowners or umbrella policy won't do you a lick of good because >you knowingly broke the AMA's rules. YOUR ON YOUR OWN! Phil- Neither my HO nor umbrella policies make any mention of compliance with AMA rules while I am engaged in activities involving model airplanes being a condition of coverage. Do your's? FWIW, the umbrella policy does specifically mention that coverage is excluded if the model airplane is carrying human passengers. I can live with that, Limiting the passenger manifest to hamsters and other critters that are subhuman (inclusive of lawyers, I assume - that would be real fun and who would object?). Abel Abel, Just because it doesn't say anything about model airplanes doesn't mean it will cover. There are plenty of "outs" if you read you policy thoroughly. Phil > <snip> > > In all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Abel >Abel, > Just because it doesn't say anything about model airplanes doesn't mean it will cover. >There are plenty of "outs" if you read you policy thoroughly. Phil- I thought I made it clear that my PUP does say something about model airplanes, to the effect that I'm specifically covered while flying model airplanes with vastly fewer (as in one) specified conditions than are imposed by AMA's coverage. What it doesn't say anything about is AMA and its rules, and I assure you I've read the policy thoroughly enough to be quite certain of that. Abel >> <snip> >> > In all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Abel What insurance company? Maybe I need to change homeowners! > >Abel, > > Just because it doesn't say anything about model airplanes doesn't mean it will cover. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> > >> Abel >What insurance company? Maybe I need to change homeowners! Phil- HO is Farmer's Ins Grp, PUP is GEICO. I doubt either has anything unique about their offerings - seems simple enough in any case to ask the agent selling you the policy(ies) to point out where your model airplane flying activity (as well as any other avocational interest you have) is specifically included in the coverage, and what exclusions apply for those specific activities. Insurance companies are reluctant to insure activities they consider high risk, and the risk assessment is logically enough based on payout statistics (for real insurance companies, that is). The high risk activities the insurers are most leery of are listed on a web page of the American Insurance Institute. The top things that make you a pariah in the eyes of the HO insurance underwriters are owning a dog of a breed with a reputation for agressiveness (dog bites are #1 in liability claim $'s), own a trampoline (attractive nuisance lawsuits), or are a writer (exposure to libel claims). Flying model airplanes doesn't even make the list. Abel > The insurance is not about the modelers, its about the flying site property owner > and other people that maybe visiting/watching, flying technically is not even a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm not saying the AMA would bow out, but their insurance company could, just as > easily as your homeowners. Hey Phil, if what you just said is 100% correct.......then read the very top line I wrote in my first post.......You would not need AMA insurance at all!! Mike Ok, let me try to go thru again. Assuming the club doesn't own the property, they lease it. Most landlords require the club to have insurance to cover any accident involving club activities. If there is no agreement written or verbal, on insurance, then I can't speak to that, but if I were the landowner I sure as he.. would make sure that was a written requirement. If something happens on that property as the result of modeling activity that insurance kicks in. Now if the club is insuring it in a method that has nothing to do with the AMA, then what you say maybe fine. It would depend on the insurance policy. But most homeowners policy prohibit commercial activity. Leasing the land for an RC Club would be considered commercial. If the club pays the AMA for the landowner insurance coverage as part of the club charter (which is optional, btw) the AMA requires any flyers at that site to be AMA members. (there is a couple of exceptions, the AMA does recognize some other foreign institutions, and there is a buddy box training program that has a specific set of rules.) If the modeler is not AMA and that modeller causes an accident that is of a nature to cause a significant claim, the AMA is not obligated to cover. The landowner is not liable because the club was supposed to operate by AMA rules for coverage. The club is in violation and liable. If the club is incorporated, then it gets more complicated but better for the club members. A club can and some do elect commercial insurance, and that may become more and more standard practice as the cost of AMA dues and property owners insurance costs increase. i.e. $57 dollars in ama dues times 100 members would reap $5700, I seriously doubt is commercial coverage is anywhere near that for a lot of sites. Phil > > The insurance is not about the modelers, its about the flying site property owner > > and other people that maybe visiting/watching, flying technically is not even a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mike ><snip> If the modeler is not AMA and that modeller causes an accident that is of a >nature to cause a significant claim, the AMA is not obligated to cover. The landowner is >not liable because the club was supposed to operate by AMA rules for coverage. The club >is in violation and liable. If the club is incorporated, then it gets more complicated >but better for the club members. <more snip> Thre you go, Phil. If the landowner is not not liable for the reason stated, he didn't need the insurance. ???? If I were the landowner I'd want some assurance that any risk exposure to me that arises because I allow the model flyers to use the property should be covered by them at their expense. I would be most uncomfortable if that insurance that is supposed to protect me contained conditions to the effect that it could be voided because the club did not follow the rules made up by AMA or anyone else. If in fact there are exclusions that would make my coverage dependent on the good behavior of the modelers according to AMA, then I'm afraid I would have to ask them to go find another place to fly. My copy of the AMA insurance policy appears to have been inadvertently left out of the renewal package they sent me, so I am unable to check it for any such exclusions. Would you mind looking at your copy and quoting what it says? Ohhhh, you didn't get one either...........that happens a lot. What did you show the landowner of your club field regarding the insurance coverage you are providing to protect him from liability that may arise from your use of his property? Abel > ><snip> If the modeler is not AMA and that modeller causes an accident that is of a > >nature to cause a significant claim, the AMA is not obligated to cover. The landowner is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thre you go, Phil. If the landowner is not not liable for the reason > stated, he didn't need the insurance. ???? Anybody willfully violating laws and rules that are conditions of insurance, insurance companies are more and more opting out. Your driving down the street at 25 miles an hour which is the posted speed limit, a kid runs out from behind a parked car in front and you hit him you try to stop, your insurance is contractually obligated to back you. Same situation only your driving 50 and there is proof of your excess speed. The insurance company these days will runs so fast it will make your head spin. Same scenario as above. Remember it an isurance company behind the AMA making the decision, not the AMA. My kid boke his hand playing hockey this year. Puck hit him at a bad angle from a shot. Insurance company paid, but contacted us because they wanted to reclaim their loss thinking somebody broke it intentionally. It was a total accident, no maliciousness or intent involved, but they were looking. My point is insurance companies are looking for every avenue not to pay out. They just can't afford to anymore. Look at AMA document 509: http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/PDF-files/509.pdf Phil > Same scenario as above. Remember it an isurance company behind the AMA making the decision, > not the AMA. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > involved, but they were looking. My point is insurance companies are looking for every avenue > not to pay out. They just can't afford to anymore. The two are inextricably intertwined just by their nature. Ask the insurance guy who sold you the policy if they will cover your kid's hand getting broken. He'll proudly tell you how great they are and how fast they pay claims and it won't ever be a problem. Ask the person at the billing department at the hospital why-in-the-heck are they charging you $125 for an aspirin. She'll say "Don't let that worry you, your insurance will cover that". Both of these entities are feeding each other money by operating on a dollar scale that is 180 degrees removed from what a person should logically have to pay in premiums. A good friend of mine is involved in administration at a 'public' hospital. The number of people who can't/don't pay...often with insurance but can't even pay the deductibles...has skyrocketed in recent years. So, they (the industry) keep raising costs. Ask the insurance professionals and they will allow as to how their customer base is rapidly disintegrating as major companies drop group plans, lay off workers, deal with malpractice claims, etc. So they charge more in premiums to cover that plus the rising health care costs that the guys at AMA get pushed thru. Its no wonder that the insurance guys use private dicks to investigate claims. They should. As much of a capitalist as I am the situation has run amuck because neither side wants to be the first to try the idea "what if I lowered my prices and got back a larger chunk of the market?" Nobody on either side is getting particularly fat with all the inflated numbers because the remora-type network has grown so large (and is unregulated) and that big piece of pie gets diced up right down to other pigs like the pharmaceutical outfits and auto repair shops. Why does one Viagra pill cost as much as 20 bags of M&Ms?. Why does a tailight lens for a new model car cost as much as a complete and running older model beater on a used car lot?. Well, pooh-hoo. Everybody knows the scenario but where does it stop? Does it simply continue until the whole medical-insurance system falls under its own weight? Could the Gubmint really do anything about it if they approached the issue seriously rather than passing out more gimmes to the suffering entities? Should they tax somebody? Should they reduce taxes on somebody? Should they just butt-out entirely? I, like most people, see the problem and I can't see the solution. I think its much bigger than the politicians want to grapple with and it seems incumbent on the major players to take the necessary action...unfortunately holding costs down to the consumer has never been high (if at all) on their list of priorities. -BM Bill, I think several things have to happen to fix the medical system. One there has to be true competition between providers. To do that you need information on the quality of services, i.e. good vs. bad. There is some glimmer of hope there, a number of large companies and some free web based projects are springing up. The second part of the true competition is cost comparison. My only suggestion there would be for the feds to come up with a half dozen standard insurance plans that business, insurance companies, and medical system providers can sell, but it has to be voluntary to the system and consumer. The feds would do nothing but work with the industries to develop the plans and publish them and create a law around them. A Bronze, Silver, Gold, Plantum type variety. Consumers would then decide who had the best cost and quality. To make that work, people would have to be able to switch plans and providers with no issues i.e prexisting conditions. Medical providers and insurance companies could go ahead and offer other plans, but if they offered the Bronze thru Platnum plan they would have to be to the letter of the plan. But they could offer their plan A that is equavilent to Bronze but with stated differences. Can you imagine going into a medical office, tossing them your Platnum card, and they would immediately know what was covered and what wasn't, regardless of the insurance company or business or plan number or provider number! Second, Tort reform is a must. Lawyers are the ones getting rich, and it's on the backs of consumers, Dr's, businesses and insurance companies. Third, companies that provide health insurance have to make is so consumers pay some percentage for each visit. There is to much demand because its cheap to those who have, verses need. Hey I'll admit I work for one of them. I work for a big company that has great health insurance benifits. I see it all the time, employees or their families have all kinds of tests run, dr visits that are not necessary. While it should be there decision to run the test or visit the DR. not some HMO, but they should have to bear cost to themselves to help them decide if it's necessary or not. If it's free or virtually free is will get abused. Ever go to an all you can eat smorgassboard and eat very little. Same concept. You do above, prices come down. Phil > > Same scenario as above. Remember it an isurance company behind the AMA making the decision, > > not the AMA. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > -BM Greed greed greed............ > I, like most people, see the problem and I can't see the solution. I > think its much bigger than the politicians want to grapple with and it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -BM Phil, I am aware that AMA membership is the good way to go. I created the post because I was involved in other hobbies and sports. One in particular was kart racing. Racers just signed a waiver and paid the entrance fee. For it to work the land must be privitely owned as the kart track was. Dont get me wrong I am not anti AMA.....as a matter of fact I am not AMA at all.....just a non member who agrees clubs and the AMA are a good choice if it will benifit him/her. $58.00 bucks is a drop in the bucket.....but all the whining complaining posts about it!! ............They just do not realize that you just pay it and ignore the rest of the AMA functions and just be happy flying. Its all matter of choices...... Mike (Snipped the pearls of wisdom by HC) > C'mon Hoss - whether you like it of not, Mike has proposed a new > thought into what has has been for far to long a very stale subject. Not true, this idea has been batted around several times this I can remember. As others have stated.... keeping track of who has insurance, when they have it, and when it expires would be more work than those that volunteer are willing to do. This has been stated, by said individuals every time this idea comes up for discussion. One of the greatest problems, we face in America is that people want what they want, even if they can't afford that particular desire. The very bottom line, is that if you can't afford the AMA membership, then you can't really afford to fly R/C. The whole proof of insurance has been hashed out before. At this point, the only way to know for certain that coverage exists is with the AMA, or at this point the UMA. However, my bet is on the AMA at this time. They have a long history whereas the other does not, and could likely go the way of SFA. This would leave those members in limbo for certain. > Screw your self-centered bavo sierra about how every other > participant in model aviation owes it to you to pay for insurance > coverage to provide for your welfare in case of an accident. Right back at you. I should not have to protect myself from some other person. I should be able to live life knowing that if an individual does cause me harm, they have the means (personally or via insurance) to protect me. You may think that you only look out for yourself, which sort of looks bad on you, but maybe you ought to look out for others instead. Might make for a better place....... but then again this will never happen as long a people only care about themselves first! So, I carry insurance to protect others, AND I carry insurance to protect me in the event some jack-a.s without the insurance or means causes me injury (material or personal). Robert > very bottom line, is that if you can't afford the AMA membership, then > you can't really afford to fly R/C. No....its not that I cant afford them its just that the AMA is an option now a days.......ELECTRIC. Mike > > very bottom line, is that if you can't afford the AMA membership, then > > you can't really afford to fly R/C. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike Mike, You are right, but the exact same problems exist but they appear to be hidden today. Wait until the LiPoly stuff gets widespread and see how easy it is to find a flying site without AMA insurance. Remember the REAL benifit of the AMA insurance is the landlord protection. > > RBarkus <robar1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<uh0Kc.267559$Gx4.75920@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it is to find a flying site without AMA insurance. Remember the REAL > benifit of the AMA insurance is the landlord protection. Six, I 100% agree with you on the LIPOs.......Im gonna stick with NiCd and NiMh for alittle untill < pardon this pun> "the fire dies down on the LIPOs" Mike > Mike, > You are right, but the exact same problems exist but they appear to be > hidden today. Wait until the LiPoly stuff gets widespread and see how easy > it is to find a flying site without AMA insurance. Remember the REAL > benifit of the AMA insurance is the landlord protection. OK Six! I'm protected and AMA is not required! Your point? My point is, it can be done without AMA! That makes AMA an option! That also makes Muncie nervous. Something you AMA reformers might want to think about. > > Mike, > > You are right, but the exact same problems exist but they appear to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also makes Muncie nervous. Something you AMA reformers might want to think > about. ONE more time. The issue is N*O*T whether or not YOU are insured, but is the landlord insured? No landlord because it is a park? How many injuries do you think the politricians will tolerate before they outlaw these things in community parks? > ONE more time. The issue is N*O*T whether or not YOU are insured, but is > the landlord insured? No landlord because it is a park? How many injuries > do you think the politricians will tolerate before they outlaw these things > in community parks? That's my point. In my case I am the landlord! In the case of a public park it would be the governing authority and/or the residents of that community. Depending how one cares to look at it. As for injuries? Little Leaguers get killed every year being struck by a ball. Not to mention the variety of other injuries involved. But the ball fields still go up. Not to mention all the other dangerous activities communities "sponsor" for the their kids. I guarantee that more blood is spilt on a little league field per 1000 participants than on a flying field. And baseball is one of the safer sports we allow. So gather your statistics and point them out to the powers that be. Then watch their expressions! Accidents will happen regardless of how much insurance there is. Insurance will not prevent accidents or prevent you from being injured. How many drivers do not have insurance that drive daily. Safety depends on people practicing it. > So gather your statistics and point them out to the powers that be. Then > watch their expressions! > > > Mike, > > > You are right, but the exact same problems exist but they appear to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > do you think the politricians will tolerate before they outlaw these things > in community parks? > How many injuries <self inflicted..."oooppps finger got caught in the > prop > occur at a club????? Lets take a look at the risk factor of > "clubflying" vs "parkflying" : Clubflyer-15 to 20 guys/gals at the club all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mike Anyway...... those politicians would not mind the " environmently friendly" electric.... <snip> >OK Six! I'm protected and AMA is not required! Your point? >My point is, it can be done without AMA! That makes AMA an option! That >also makes Muncie nervous. Something you AMA reformers might want to think >about. OMIGOD!! Kevie might have a option to not join AMA? AAARRRGHHH!! AMA is DOOMED! | Not true, this idea has been batted around several times this I can | remember. As others have stated.... keeping track of who has insurance, | when they have it, and when it expires would be more work than those | that volunteer are willing to do. You'd be surprised what volunteers are often willing to do. In any event, I doubt it would be so bad if somebody decided to do it this way. | The very bottom line, is that if you can't afford the AMA | membership, then you can't really afford to fly R/C. Ooh, I like this reasoning! If you can't afford to send me $55 dollars each year, then you really can't afford to fly R/C. It makes just as much sense as your statement, right? Well, I don't see a large number of checks in my mailbox. Just because somebody can afford to do something, that doesn't mean they want to or that they have to | The whole proof of insurance has been hashed out before. At this | point, the only way to know for certain that coverage exists is with | the AMA, or at this point the UMA. Or to inspect a policy. Yes, it could be forged -- just like an AMA card could be. | Right back at you. I should not have to protect myself from some other | person. I should be able to live life knowing that if an individual | does cause me harm, they have the means (personally or via insurance) to | protect me. Sounds like a fantasy world to me. Certainly, I don't live in such a world. The state (TX) only mandates something like $40k in auto insurance -- so that could easily be all I'd ever see if somebody who was legally insured hit me with their car. And yet car accidents are much more likely than R/C accidents. | You may think that you only look out for yourself, which sort of | looks bad on you, but maybe you ought to look out for others | instead. Might make for a better place....... but then again this | will never happen as long a people only care about themselves first! ... and that will not be changing any time soon. | So, I carry insurance to protect others, AND I carry insurance to | protect me in the event some jack-a.s without the insurance or means | causes me injury (material or personal). And even with all this insurance, you still have the capability to become the jackass that causes more damage than your insurance can or will cover.  SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com If Bill Gates had a penny for every time Windows crashed... .oh wait, he does. > | Not true, this idea has been batted around several times this I can > | remember. As others have stated.... keeping track of who has insurance, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > event, I doubt it would be so bad if somebody decided to do it this > way. Doug, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The fact is, the last time I checked, not one person stepped up to the plate to volunteer to check out every individual club members insurance and verify that same insurance. On the other hand, every person in the club that handles insurance (AMA) compliance that has frequented this group has stated that they WOULD not do any such verification. > | The very bottom line, is that if you can't afford the AMA > | membership, then you can't really afford to fly R/C. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you can't afford to send me $55 dollars each year, then you really > can't afford to fly R/C. Doug, again, argue to argue. The simple fact is, if you want to fly RC and you come on this group complaining about the expense, or how you want to save money and only get the insurance with the mag. etc.... truly you either can't afford the hobby, or are penny wise and pound foolish. The problem is, the AMA is not the only game in town. It is however, usually the easiest game in town. If you want easy, it usually costs money, so pay up. If you don't want to pay, then find your own, or build your own sandbox. That is however harder to do, and for that reason, people would rather B&M about insurance rather than do the work to secure a site for themselves. > It makes just as much sense as your statement, right? Well, I don't > see a large number of checks in my mailbox. Well, Doug, I do get checks in my mailbox, but then again I do offer a service which people will gladly send me a check! Try it sometime, it is kind of neat how it works. > Just because somebody can afford to do something, that doesn't mean > they want to or that they have to True, then they ought to have the common sense to not picket that which they really don't want, or need. > Or to inspect a policy. Yes, it could be forged -- just like an AMA > card could be. Could be, but it all cards can easily be verified with one call and I think even on line. One stop shopping. Can't beat it. Honestly, I have known several individuals that used to get auto insurance (binder) to get insurance and then never make a payment. Now, in Fl. at least the Ins. Co.'s are required to report this type of activity to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Dl is then suspended. On the other hand, I have never heard of any one ever forging an AMA card...... Anyone else care to comment on this? Does anyone know of anyone who forged an AMA card (not copied, but forged) > | Right back at you. I should not have to protect myself from some other > | person. I should be able to live life knowing that if an individual [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > insurance -- so that could easily be all I'd ever see if somebody who > was legally insured hit me with their car. Damn you don't even make sense. It was not until the recent past that this changed (I never said it was currenty this way). But, make no mistake about it, whether it is this way or not, that is how it should be. It is called responsibility. Something many in this country, and others don't understand too well! > | You may think that you only look out for yourself, which sort of > | looks bad on you, but maybe you ought to look out for others > | instead. Might make for a better place....... but then again this > | will never happen as long a people only care about themselves first! > > ... and that will not be changing any time soon. With that I agree. Very few people will go back to a better way of life as they are too afraid to give up that which they have gained. > And even with all this insurance, you still have the capability to > become the jackass that causes more damage than your insurance can or > will cover. Difference being, is that I carry a prudent amount of insurance. In an extreme, could I surpass that amount? Yes, but given the average cost of an accident.... I am well covered. Robert > > | Not true, this idea has been batted around several times this I can > > | remember. As others have stated.... keeping track of who has insurance, [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Robert Will either one of you guys tell me the name of your HO insurance company so we can find out if they also cover the land owner whose land you fly on? | Will either one of you guys tell me the name of your HO insurance | company so we can find out if they also cover the land owner whose | land you fly on? My home owner's policy is provided by USAA. Not that I really see that as being relevant. They will cover damages caused by me (and my family), and will cover me if I'm sued for something I did. I don't know if they'll cover somebody else who is sued because of something I did (because as somebody else mentioned, nobody sues one person when they can sue that person, the land owner, the club, the neighbors, the guy who delivered their pizza, etc.), and they certainly won't cover somebody who is sued for something I'm not even involved in. Ultimately, what it boils down to is that a club (or site?) can get very cheap insurance ($60/year) through the AMA, apparantly as long as the club 1) agrees to follow all AMA rules and 2) only lets AMA members fly there. Obviously the majority of the cost of insurance is subsidized by the AMA fees of all the members. I've heard that most of the claims made aren't even flying related - they're more `slipping and falling' types of claims. (But maybe I'm wrong there.) In any event, the land owner/club could get insurance elsewhere. It would cost more than $60/year, but probably wouldn't come with all the requirements that AMA insurance does. And the flying members would be free to find their own sources of insurance, not being forced to go AMA. It might even be a better overall deal to do it that way, but the AMA way is certainly simpler, which is probably part of why it's so popular. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- for better or for worse, whomever in the AMA decided to offer insurance as part of it's membership has done more to increase the size of the AMA membership than anybody else. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com "I had a fortune cookie the other day and it said: 'Outlook not so good'. I said: 'Sure, but Microsoft ships it anyway'." > | Will either one of you guys tell me the name of your HO insurance > | company so we can find out if they also cover the land owner whose [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > membership has done more to increase the size of the AMA membership > than anybody else. Doug, Those are ALL my points, exactly. Roger that, but do we need all the bricks and mortar in Muncie to pull it off! Never used to be that big. Reston, Va I think. > Ultimately, what it boils down to is that a club (or site?) can get > very cheap insurance ($60/year) through the AMA, apparantly as long as > the club 1) agrees to follow all AMA rules and 2) only lets AMA > members fly there. Obviously the majority of the cost of insurance is > subsidized by the AMA fees of all the members. > Roger that, but do we need all the bricks and mortar in Muncie to pull > it off! > Never used to be that big. Reston, Va I think. Is there even a club in that area anymore? Reston I mean! What county is it in? > Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Mike When I read this endless string of AMA bashing under the guise of "sanctioned club insurance requirements" (that appears almost weekly on every RC flyers group on the net), I can guess that the majority of these contributors have less than 10 or 20 years in the hobby and so have no appreciaton for the tremedious strides that AMA has brought to the hobby over the years, by bringing us, the manufacturers, and the FCC together at the same table. The insurance fee is a necessary part of the overall AMA budget needed to maintain this organization. If you read enough of these complaints, you can see that the majority of these folks fall into two rough categories: 1)can't stand to be told what they hafta do. or, 2) just cheap. Phil AMA609 <snip> >If you read enough of these complaints, you can see that the majority >of these folks fall into two rough categories: 1)can't stand to be >told what they hafta do. or, 2) just cheap. > >Phil AMA609 Phil - The cited part I agree with (in part). Your category 1) is right on the mark. If you need somebody to tell you what to do.....that's your problem. Abel > Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 3 For the Club......You make some extra $$$$$ and probally get some > non members to join aswell. Do I have to pay more if I fly higher than AMA card holders? After all, I am Using extra AMA air. > > Clubs can have non members sign a waiver and charge a reasonable fee > > to fly for that day ....no AMA card required, of course they must be [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Do I have to pay more if I fly higher than AMA card holders? After all, > I am Using extra AMA air. Well hell yhaaa......but I see you fly a an electric. I would be carefull around clubs I heard they have micro radar guided SAM's to shoot down parkflyers......they had to switch because they used to use micro ir guided SAM's, but they found out they would lock onto there own planes due to the heat from the glow engine..... SUCKS for them :-) Mike Nashville, TN has several public fields and requires you to have "metro" permit to fly. AS part of that permit, you have to provid proof that you have AMA insurance or a minimum of $200k of home owner insurance for accidents. Works well for the city -- cadconversion I've been flying since the late fall of 2001. What a hobby Sure, but there are two obvious issues: First, it's a LOT easier to simply whip out your current AMA card rather than to bring out a zillion page insurance policy that people would have to wade through in order to determine coverage, because; Second, since flying model airplanes is almost never done at the home of the homeowner who has "home owner's" insurance, it is NOT automatically going to be covered by a homeowner's policy. Just because your homeowner's policy says $200K or more doesn't mean that you will be covered. Would your homeowner's policy cover you while skydiving?.. or at an archery contest where you skewer somebody?.. or if you run over someone with a boat while water skiing? MJC > Nashville, TN has several public fields and requires you to have a > "metro" permit to fly. AS part of that permit, you have to provide > proof that you have AMA insurance or a minimum of $200k of home owners > insurance for accidents. Works well for the city. | Second, since flying model airplanes is almost never done at the home of | the homeowner who has "home owner's" insurance, it is NOT automatically | going to be covered by a homeowner's policy. Just because something happens at your home, it doesn't mean it's covered. If I run over somebody with my car in my driveway, my homeowner's policy isn't going to cover it. My auto policy will -- as long as it wasn't done intentionally, anyways. | Just because your homeowner's policy says $200K or more doesn't mean | that you will be covered. Would your homeowner's policy cover you | while skydiving?.. or at an archery contest where you skewer | somebody?.. or if you run over someone with a boat while water | skiing? You've chosen poor examples -- usually when giving this sort of list, your examples are stuff that's obviously not covered, but two of your three examples probably *are* covered by most homeowners or renters policies. If you're skydiving and smash through somebody's roof, or hurt somebody while you land, your liability is probably covered. And if you shoot somebody accidently with an arrow, that's probably covered too. Running over somebody with a boat probably isn't, because it's a motor vehicle and they generally require seperate insurance. Nashville's required metro permit (as described by cadconversions in <cadconversions.19ro4b@rcgroups.com>) seems a good compromise to the difficulties of proving insurance. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com `Every man has his price. Mine is $3.95.' This debate constantly comes up. The AMA offer a cheap, easily verified solution that no other company seems to have yet. It is specific to the activity and recognized nearly everywhere. The one thorn in it all is the rabid insistance of everyone being an AMA member before a club can get coverage. I wouldn't be opposed to public sites not requiring AMA as long as there were provisions for EASILY verifying some other form of insurance that SPECIFICALLY addresses model aircraft operation. Problem is, most homeowners policies don't specifically address it and you probably would NEVER get them to put it in writing. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > | Second, since flying model airplanes is almost never done at the home of > | the homeowner who has "home owner's" insurance, it is NOT automatically [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- > Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com `Every man has his price. Mine is $3.95.' > I wouldn't be opposed to public sites not requiring AMA as long as there > were provisions for EASILY verifying some other form of insurance that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- I would not say never.......they would if you get a large number of people whom are interested. The insurance comp. probally would even draft up a policy for them addressing model aircraft. Mike As it stands, the liklihood of getting an insurance company to specifically address model aircraft flying in their coverage (other than to exclude it) seems very remote. Both homeowners companies I had refused to put it in writing even though they told me "no problem" over the phone. They were Farmers and AAA. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > I wouldn't be opposed to public sites not requiring AMA as long as there > > were provisions for EASILY verifying some other form of insurance that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mike >As it stands, the liklihood of getting an insurance company to specifically >address model aircraft flying in their coverage (other than to exclude it) >seems very remote. OTOH, USAA addresses flying model airplanes specifically in their policies as insured. Been a USAA member since 1956. Had a letter OKing model airplanes many years ago. For some years now, the specific item is in the paperwork. > Sure, but there are two obvious issues: > First, it's a LOT easier to simply whip out your current AMA card rather > than to bring out a zillion page insurance policy that people would have to > wade through in order to determine coverage, because; No! I'll whip out my State Farm insurance card and show them! I'll even offer to dial the phone to my agent since his name and number is also listed on the card. > Second, since flying model airplanes is almost never done at the home of > the homeowner who has "home owner's" insurance, it is NOT automatically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where you skewer somebody?.. or if you run over someone with a boat while > water skiing? Well it's quite obvious you've never read your home owners policy! I require everyone who boards horses at my barn to have a minimum 300,000 liability (That's in addition to what I have). Most homeowners insurance will cover this either automatically or with a modest rate increase. The boarder must certify (signature) on the contract that they have this coverage and produce either a letter from their agent or the policy itself (I photo copy the pertinent info and keep it on file). My lawyers are satisfied with this arrangement. But the point is, the homeowners insurance covers the horse even though the horse doesn't and may never set foot on the property (home) the policy covers. When in doubt, ask your agent! Your state farm insurance card does not prove that your policy covers model aircraft flying activities. Neither can a phone call to your agent prove this. Only the written words in your policy can prove this. That is where the AMA card is so much easier for a club or landowner to administer. The AMA membership automatically comes with the specific insurance as well as a definite, verifiable expiration date. A homeowners policy can be cancelled at any time but I have not heard of anyone cancelling their AMA insurance as it is an annual purchase. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > Sure, but there are two obvious issues: > > First, it's a LOT easier to simply whip out your current AMA card [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > horse doesn't and may never set foot on the property (home) the policy > covers. When in doubt, ask your agent! In the same vein the AMA card doesn't guarantee the individual will adhere to the rules! Nor does it guarantee the AMA will continue the coverage in the event he doesn't follow the rules. Nor does the AMA card state what the persons claim history might be! The point is, sooner or later you have to simply trust the person and carry on. If you can't do that, then you have bigger problems that a stupid secondary insurance coverage for toy airplanes. > Your state farm insurance card does not prove that your policy covers model > aircraft flying activities. Neither can a phone call to your agent prove [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > horse doesn't and may never set foot on the property (home) the policy > > covers. When in doubt, ask your agent! When you are simply talking about a simple way to verify coverage, the AMA card is the best. Period. You can throw all kinds of what-ifs into the equation, but all of them apply to any scenario. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > In the same vein the AMA card doesn't guarantee the individual will adhere > to the rules! Nor does it guarantee the AMA will continue the coverage in [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > > horse doesn't and may never set foot on the property (home) the policy > > > covers. When in doubt, ask your agent! > In the same vein the AMA card doesn't guarantee the individual will adhere > to the rules! Nor does it guarantee the AMA will continue the coverage in > the event he doesn't follow the rules. Nor does the AMA card state what the > persons claim history might be! All this nonsense about the AMA. I can fly my foamy park flyer in full view of your club/field/nazi camp without AMA or have no insurance at all. And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it. That is a REAL FINE attitude! Sure to win friends everywhere. Why not do it sometime and see how long you and your little foam toy last. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > In the same vein the AMA card doesn't guarantee the individual will > adhere [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > view of your club/field/nazi camp without AMA or have no insurance at > all. And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it. | That is a REAL FINE attitude! Sure to win friends everywhere. Why not do | it sometime and see how long you and your little foam toy last. What's wrong with his attitude? He's absolutely right, as long as local regulations don't prohibit flying outside the AMA field. And as long as he takes care to make sure that the frequency he uses doesn't interfere with anybody else, there's not even anything morally wrong with him flying near the AMA field. | > All this nonsense about the AMA. I can fly my foamy park flyer in full | > view of your club/field/nazi camp without AMA or have no insurance at | > all. And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com Happiness is just an illusion, filled with sadness and confusion. What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check to make sure he isn't interfering with other users? -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > | That is a REAL FINE attitude! Sure to win friends everywhere. Why not do > | it sometime and see how long you and your little foam toy last. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com > Happiness is just an illusion, filled with sadness and confusion. "Paul McIntosh" <paul@mcintoshcentral.com> posted message ID<41030ec2$0$63401$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:37:37 +0100 >What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check to >make sure he isn't interfering with other users? You feel free to interfere with other users of this newsgroup, Paul. Why? Signature"you use diversion and name calling."Paul McIntosh "twat!"Paul McIntosh "Gee, just like Shrub?"Paul McIntosh "You have your head so up a hole that you can't see the world in front of you."Paul McIntosh "...blind following of a group of crazy people."Paul McIntosh "No, YOU are a waste of time."Paul McIntosh "YOU linked to it you dipshit!"Paul McIntosh "It was the link to the ACTUAL report, dipshit."Paul McIntosh "You are a dope."Paul McIntosh "For the dense among you"Paul McIntosh "What the F**k is he saying"Paul McIntosh > "Paul McIntosh" <paul@mcintoshcentral.com> posted message > ID<41030ec2$0$63401$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>on Sun, 25 Jul [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You feel free to interfere with other users of this newsgroup, Paul. > Why? When did this become an AMA newsgroup? Now you claim the right to all frequencies and this news group? If you and you're AMA buddies don't like it here then you leave. > What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check to > make sure he isn't interfering with other users? Where in the AMA bible does it say YOU will check for and be courteous to other, non-AMA flyers in your area? No! It doesn't Paul and that's part of the problem. The AMA and you seem to think that the AMA and you rule the roost when it comes to R/C! There are other people in this world and you had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? >>What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed > sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? You obviously do not know what you are talking about. If you're going to make statements about the AMA rules, you should invest the time to read them first. It took me 10 minutes to find the text on this subject. It is in document 551. The rules start by saying "I will not knowingly operate my model within three miles of any pre-existing flying site...". They go on to list the guidelines for frequency sharing agreements. These agreements can be between AMA clubs or members and other AMA clubs, members, on NON_AMA members. The AMA wants to avoid problems between anyone, not just AMA members. The same can be said for just about anyone flying. Only a fool would want to fly somewhere where they might get shot down by a radio conflict. One of the biggest risks is actually someone who has never heard of the AMA and ends up flying near an established field. > You obviously do not know what you are talking about. If you're going > to make statements about the AMA rules, you should invest the time to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreements. These agreements can be between AMA clubs or members and > other AMA clubs, members, on NON_AMA members. On the contrary, I knew they were there. But I was hoping Paul would point out the error as only he can! That way I would know he was intentionally ignoring AMA guidelines. No doubt for his own ego boost! > The AMA wants to avoid problems between anyone, not just AMA members. > The same can be said for just about anyone flying. Only a fool would > want to fly somewhere where they might get shot down by a radio > conflict. One of the biggest risks is actually someone who has never > heard of the AMA and ends up flying near an established field. I would suggest there are a great many fools in this hobby! Both inside and outside the AMA! I'll bet you have no idea whatsoever how ignorant you prove you are to all of us by your little word game. Do you really believe that anyone buys your load of crap? You never had a CLUE about that rule, and in true a.shole style, attempt to assign your own ignorance onto someone else. It ain't workin', and in fact, there IS a huge overinflated ego at work here, and we all know who's it is. Here's a clue; it ISN'T Paul's. MJC > On the contrary, I knew they were there. But I was hoping Paul would point > out the error as only he can! That way I would know he was intentionally > ignoring AMA guidelines. No doubt for his own ego boost! OK! So maybe the ego is you? I knew an MJC once! Cheated on his wife left and right. You wouldn't be the one would you? Buy hey! Just to stay on topic, it takes me about three minutes to get to my flying site! And I don't have to worry about ignorant clowns like you who can do no better than name call! Sticks and stones and all that! Now fly away little boy! You bother me! NOT! > I'll bet you have no idea whatsoever how ignorant you prove you are to > all of us by your little word game. Do you really believe that anyone buys [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > out the error as only he can! That way I would know he was intentionally > > ignoring AMA guidelines. No doubt for his own ego boost! But that is all beside the point to the anarchists. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > >>What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > conflict. One of the biggest risks is actually someone who has never > heard of the AMA and ends up flying near an established field. I think that there should be information given at the time of a purchase (local hobby shops) of an electric or fueled airplane as to where the local clubs fields are and who to contact to discuss interference, and frequency usage. I should think people would like to know if they could be shot down. Maybe new pilots think their signals are heard by only their receiver. On a lighter note, I overheard a conversation in a shop where a newbie wanted another of those electric airplanes like he bought last week. Shop owner wanted to know if he crashed the first one, and pilot replied , no, the wind got it and it was blown out of sight. WWWTP? The shops might not want to do it. Once I asked a local Vet to give handouts to dog owners regarding the leash laws and he said "no way, none of my business". >> Where in the AMA bible does it say YOU will check for and be courteous to >> other, non-AMA flyers in your area? No! It doesn't No, I'm not a republican. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check > to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed > sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? Even though you are full of uneducated nonsense, I'll still come in and answer your stupid comment with the obvious: The AMA has rules that govern frequency control at flying fields. So no, the AMA doesn't care if you are "courteous", but only that you follow rules. I'll count on a group of guys following a set of rules anytime before I'll count on people who are "courteous" when it comes time to fly safely. MJC > > What's wrong with his attitude? Where in there does he say he will check > to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed > sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? Ah so! The AMA approves of you being an a.shole! That does explain much! > Even though you are full of uneducated nonsense, I'll still come in and > answer your stupid comment with the obvious: The AMA has rules that govern [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed > > sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? this is why I bought a monitor/scanner with all the channels programmed. I listen to it before I fly. Hopefully the signals I hear match the pin board. Yes I am on the ground but at least it is one data point. (CYA) Belonging to AMA doesnt give anyone rights to frequencies. Everything they give out seem to be guidelines/recommendations. Has anyone ever experienced their control surfaces going nuts(xmitter off) while the guy in the next pit is running his electric fuel pump? > Where in the AMA bible does it say YOU will check for and be courteous to > other, non-AMA flyers in your area? No! It doesn't Paul and that's part of > the problem. The AMA and you seem to think that the AMA and you rule the > roost when it comes to R/C! There are other people in this world and you > had best learn to live with them! Or are you one of those with the bed > sheet robes that hide under a pointy hood? >Has anyone ever experienced their control surfaces going nuts(xmitter >off) while the guy in the next pit is running his electric fuel pump? With no controlling signal on the correct frequency, receivers and servos will respond to almost any spurious electrical signal. It's the performance with the TX turned ON that's important. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" It is a Federal Offense to intentionally interfere with a radio signal. The Attitude of "Me First and to Hell with you" is typical of the Me Generation, primarily those born between 1975 and the present. Their parents forgot that Discipline must come from within, but it must be taught. > | That is a REAL FINE attitude! Sure to win friends everywhere. Why not do > | it sometime and see how long you and your little foam toy last. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > | > view of your club/field/nazi camp without AMA or have no insurance at > | > all. And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it. | It is a Federal Offense to intentionally interfere with a radio signal. | The Attitude of "Me First and to Hell with you" is typical of the Me | Generation, primarily those born between 1975 and the present. Their | parents forgot that Discipline must come from within, but it must be taught. I missed it where anybody mentioned `intentionally interfering with a radio signal' (besides you, of course.) You'll have to show us exactly where it was described. I'll go ahead and not trim the message so you can find the relevant part. Also, the law is a bit more complicated than that. Deliberate interference is generally illegal, as far as I know, but the R/C bands are not guaranteed to be free of interference for you or anybody else. *Nobody* is guaranteed use of a particular frequency in that band, and merely being an AMA member, being in an AMA club or at an AMA field does not give you any more rights to a given frequency than anybody else has. http://www.vantec.com/FCCregs1.htm and http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr95.pdf may be of some assistance in understanding the rules and regulations that apply to the use of R/C radio equipment in the US. In particular, pay attention to this passage -- (b) You must share the channels with other R/C stations. You must cooperate in the selection and use of the channels. You must share the Channel 27.255 MHz with stations in other radio services. There is no protection from interference on any of these channels. And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I do know what I'm talking about here. | > | That is a REAL FINE attitude! Sure to win friends everywhere. Why not do | > | it sometime and see how long you and your little foam toy last. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | > | > view of your club/field/nazi camp without AMA or have no insurance at | > | > all. And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com, AD5RH An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. Until it happens to you. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > | It is a Federal Offense to intentionally interfere with a radio signal. > | The Attitude of "Me First and to Hell with you" is typical of the Me [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.vantec.com/FCCregs1.htm and http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr95 > may be of some assistance in understanding the rules and regulations > that apply to the use of R/C radio equipment in the US. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com, AD5RH > An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. | Until it happens to you. Until what happens to me? I become a lawyer? FCC regulations change? My R/C plane experiences interference? And suppose one of these things happens? Then what? Face it. If you're using one of the R/C bands, you don't own your frequency, and if a park flier wants to fly right outside your nice AMA club, legally you're going to have to share frequencies with him, like it or not. The only recourse you have is the possibility of local regulations prohibiting R/C flying outside of your club -- some places do have these, but most don't. In fact, since he's flying at a site next to yours, that would make it a flying site, and so your AMA regulations would require you to not fly until you've made a frequency sharing arrangement wih his site (or just him, I guess.) Failure to do so would put your AMA insurance in jeopardy, not to mention your plane. The AMA does have contracts set up for these arrangements, but I imagine that a short term, verbal agreement would be acceptable for the day. Of course, since he's not an AMA member, he has no such restrictions. But he must `cooperate in the selection and use of the channels', so the most reasonable interpetation of that rule means that he should walk over to your field and work out who's on what frequency and take turns if needed. If you fail to cooperate so, *you* are breaking the law, and the AMA isn't likely to do much to help you. | > (b) You must share the channels with other R/C stations. You must | > cooperate in the selection and use of the channels. You must share | > the Channel 27.255 MHz with stations in other radio services. There | > is no protection from interference on any of these channels. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicke I have no problem sharing frequencies as long as it is done in a mature manner. For someone to say they can just start up and fly anywhere they want (just because they CAN) is an immature and unreasonable attitude. The feeling I got from the poster was that he could show up with whatever transmitter channel he wanted and start flying. I didn't see any mention of civility or checking for interference or frequency sharing. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > | Until it happens to you. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation. > Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicke | I have no problem sharing frequencies as long as it is done in a mature | manner. For someone to say they can just start up and fly anywhere they | want (just because they CAN) is an immature and unreasonable attitude. Perhaps, but the law is on his side if he does decide to do so. You could ask him to leave, or ask him to at least try and coordinate frequencies with you, but you can't force him to do either. The law says that he (and you) must share the frequencies, but doesn't give any more specifics than that. | The feeling I got from the poster was that he could show up with | whatever transmitter channel he wanted and start flying. I didn't | see any mention of civility or checking for interference or | frequency sharing. I didn't see you mention how you'd be civil |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message