sfaust

My Feedback: (11)

Do all manufacturers put a speed limit on their airframes? The few I am familiar with have a manufacturers recommended limit, mostly BVM. I have no idea what the others do. But I did forget about it even though I read it just before posting. Its tough getting old

Daryl Martel

My Feedback: (3)

I don't agree with the jet waiver either, but... IMO, the truth is there is an element of danger with operating RC aircraft and helicopters. We've all been involved in crashes or seen 'em. Some worse than others, some life threatening, some not. I've seen some stuff happen with real nasty potential, real close calls if you will, and I have never been to any of the really big events or flown at fields with more than a few guys flying at the same time. I was at one fun fly where 8 planes were lost over the weekend! With all of that said, bigger faster planes do have more energy and the damage potential goes up accordingly. If a little trainer hitting you can kill you, imagine what a 200 mph jet or 40 lb IMAC type plane can do! Something like that can (and has!) gone straight through the roof of a house neighboring a flying field. Let's not fool ourselves here. We've moved well beyond the "toy" stage in our hobby. You wanta play with the big an fast stuff, there are consequences.

Gordon_Dickens

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Tony,

Over the past two weeks I have been investigating the UMA. I have received a complete copy of their insurance policy and have come to a few conclusions, however, several questions remain outstanding as well.

The UMA has made the following representations:

The liability insurance policy is an annual policy that is primary to all other liability insurance owned by the member with coverage limits of $1M per incident and $2M overall. In contrast the AMA’s coverage is secondary but includes coverage of $2.5M/$5M.

The UMA liability Insurance is underwritten by Gulf Insurance Group. Gulf Insurance Group is rated as "A" by A.M. Best and as "A+(strong)" by Standard & Poors. Gulf Insurance Group is a subsidiary of the Travelers Property Casualty which is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TAP.A and TAP.B).

The UMA includes a $10,000 accidental medical policy that is included in the membership fee and that is underwritten by Nationwide Life Insurance Company.

The UMA offers pilot, site owner, club officer and event liability insurance.

The UMA has been operating for four years.

The UMA will not tell me the size of their membership, however, they have said that there membership exceeds 1000 members.

The UMA does not have a problem insuring jet events and will sell jet event insurance coverage.

Hobby vendors are not excluded from the UMA policy so they are also insured. (The AMA excludes hobby vendors and hobby vendor employees so BV, Tom Cook, etc. must fly without AMA insurance although they are AMA members).

The UMA coverage is available in all 50 states and all US territories including Puerto Rico.

Several RC clubs are already using UMA site insurance including the Muroc club at Edwards AFB in California as Tony mentioned. I have already had an email dialogue with the President of the Muroc club and he seems pleased with the UMA program.

I am currently working with an insurance consultant who is also a turbine pilot and JPO member. We are evaluating the UMA policy to determine if it is truly a good alternative for pilots, clubs and events. I believe that we will need higher coverage limits than $1M/$2M and the UMA is currently working with their underwriter to quote higher coverage limits for me.

On a personal note, I have already purchased UMA memberships for my son, Lee, and myself. This insurance is cheap and basically adds an additional $1M/$2M of coverage to what I already have purchased which includes my home onwers, umbrella and AMA insurance policies. I have also re-upped my membership with the AMA for 2004 as well.

It is too early to tell if this insurance is a viable alternative to the AMA. I have some concerns about the wording of certain aspects of their policy in addition to my concern with the coverage limits. Also, lets not forget that the AMA serves other purposes for modelers in addition to being an insurance provider. As an example, we probably would not have the 72Mhz band right now if the AMA hadn't been lobbying the FCC in our behalf over the years so lets not give up on the AMA just yet. I continue to hope that the AMA will eventually enact the November 1 regulations that have since been suspended and which would result in a reasonable set of regulations for us to live by. I am also concerned that the UMA safety code may not be adequately focused on the prevention of loss/jury. I do think that a certain level of regulations are necessary and that would hopefully reduce the risk of an accident that could put the turbine segment of the hobby out of business entirely as happened with general aviation in the late 70's.

Gordon
http://www.gajets.net

sfaust

My Feedback: (11)

Excellent Gordon. Good information, and we appreciate your efforts!

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Gordon,

Great research! I do have a few comments.

If I understand the UMA regs, wouldn't the so-called Heavy Jets be covered right now? I believe the UMA has a heavier weight limit then the AMA and no limit on the use of turbines for those heavier models.

I've been an AMA member for nearly 40 years. I do believe that the AMA has accomplished some great things for modelling, and I will probably continue to join and support the AMA. However, I do believe that the turbine regs are way too involved and in many cases unnecessary. And IMHO, the new regs did nothing to improve that. In fact they added additional pilot requirements that will make life even more difficult. Especially if you are a single turbine pilot isolated by some distance.

It just seems that now is the time to find an alternative to the AMA, at least for turbine operation.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

The biggest obsticle really isn't so much the insurance but the availablility of a field to fly at. If you're not an ama member with the turbine waiver you can't fly at an ama sanctionied field even if you have adequate insurance coverage. That's why at one time the ama reminded me of a monopoly. Probably 99% (of the ones that I've flown at) of the fields across the US are ama sanctioned and 99.5% of the events are ama sanctioned. No ama membership, no fly!!!!

Jon

Ehab

My Feedback: (44)

It may be a good idea for us to support the AMA and the UMA for better protection to our turbines jets segment of this hobby.

For the $45 for the UMA, I am going for it. I like their simple rules, it makes sense at this time. Hopefully, the competition between the AMA and the UMA will give us better products. Time will tell if the UMA will provide the needed coverage, although somehow I do not wish it to happen!!!!

sfaust

My Feedback: (11)

jonkoppisch is exactly right. Its the fields and events, not the insurance which is their biggest issue. Its great that we can now fly unregulated for the most part as an UMA member. But, there are no events to sign up for. No fields for me to fly at. So to participate in jet rallies, I still need to be an AMA member, and operate under their regulations so that I may fly at their events and fields. I've personally gained almost nothing I don't already have.

When the UMA has a couple high profile national events, and some smaller regional ones, then I can see the UMA gaining some ground. Until then, who is willing to kiss off Superman, Florida Jets, etc, and fly off a private field somewhat isolated from the jet community just to avoid the regulations? Some will, the majority I feel will not.

booker-RCU

My Feedback: (43)

Well, it seems to me to be quite simple. All we need is for someone who sponsors an event, say "Best of the West' for example , is to run the event under the UMA sponsorship. All participants would need to be members of UMA. Membership is $45.00 ($35 for me - senior citizen). You do not have to renounce membership in AMA to be a member of UMA. The event sponsors would the set up the safety and flying rules for the event. Things like Pit area, fueling, start up area, frequency control, speed limits, no flying over the spectators ect. would all be set up by the event sponsors. Upon registration for the event, the participants would sign an agreement to abide by those rules. If someone got careless and did not follow the event rules they would be asked by the event sponsors to pack up their toys and go home. Or at the very least to take a chair and watch. No reporting to the AMA, no investigation, no pulling of turbine waivers, no appeals, simply obey the rules or don't fly.
Anyone dare make the leap of Faith?

Galen

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Another crucial viewpoint that has not been considered is how the AMA treats foreign turbine pilots. Foriegn pilots do not have to be a member of the AMA or have an "ama" turbine waiver in order to participate in flyin's. So from a legal perspective I would imagine that one could take the AMA to court and force the AMA to allow US citizens who have alternate forms of insurance(UMA) to be able to fly at AMA events. At least legally speaking I am sure that a lot of the AMA rulings would be considered a monopoly and could easily be overturned in court..... I mean if Bell has to share their phone lines I'm sure tha AMA could be made to share their fields.

J_R

mugenkidd

The AMA has a grand total of exactly one field.. the one in Muncie. The AMA charters clubs. Neither the clubs, nor the fields that the clubs have, are owned or controlled by the AMA. The AMA does not tell club members how to run their clubs. The decision by clubs not to let non-AMA members fly at their sites is normally based on the desire by the club to protect itself in the event of a lawsuit. Keep in mind that about 50% of all claims processed through the AMA are for non-flying accidents.. that is to say 50% are "trip and fall" type accidents.

The coverage that the AMA makes available is really three policies. One for members as individuals, which is secondary coverage and subject to the exclusions embodied in the Safety Code. The second is for the club. It is also secondary, although most clubs do not have primary coverage from another provider and is also subject to the Safety Code. The AMA also will defend clubs against claims as the AMA is required to do in the AMA by-laws. This coverage extends to meeting places as well as flying sites. The third, and probably the most important, is the coveage for landlords, which is primary and is NOT subject to the exclusions of the Safety Code. On the AMA web site under Membership Services is the 2003 Charter Renewal Kit, which explains the AMA coverage better than any other source I am aware of. http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...003clubkit.pdf

I am not very familiar with the UMA. It is primary coveage, with exclusions. When others have, in the past, asked about the coverage for landlords, they were told to buy him a policy. IF that is still the case, the policy still has limitations. As someone else posted, they also state that they have coverage for club OFFICERS, nothing is mentioned about the clubs themselves. The aggregate for the UMA policy is shown as $2 million. I am not sure if that is the overall policy, or per incident. The aggregate of the AMA policy is $15milllion. I would think these would be items of concern to anyone looking into chartering a club with anyone.

I am not trying to sway the arguments, just put the facts where they can be seen and suggest questions that should be raised.

JR

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

According to the 2003 club charter kit...rule 4 and 5 "4) Each and every club officer MUST be a current AMA member of Junior, Senior, or Open category; and
5) Each and every member of the club who participates in club flying activities MUST [per the AMA
Bylaws, Article III, Section 2.(b)] be an AMA member of Junior, Senior, Open, or Affiliate category, or is
a current Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) member."

Jon

rcFLYBOY14

"Step back for a minute. Turbines are no more and no less dangerous than a ducted fan, or prop jet."

Right on. Our hobby is a hobby in which the responsibility of individuals is shown. If you get a finger cut off on a prop while your neighbor jet buddy burns his finger off, what's the difference? You still lost one either way. My .0000000000000000001 cents. Now stop this stupidity and go fly.

J_R

You will note that it says that all flying club members must be AMA members. What it does NOT say is that a non-club member may not fly at the club site. It goes on to give several reasons that the club should not allow non-AMA members to fly there, but, does not prohibit it.

JR

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Jon:

I think JR was referring to the reason for not allowing NON-club member, NON-AMA members to use the AMA chartered field......exposes the entire club to un-insured liability.....happens not infrequently at our FunFlyins where NON-AMA members still show up, hoping to fly....no way.....

JR:

Clear, concise post.....along with the prior post by Gordon Dickens...

As Jet Flyers, if we get off this "Recall Dave Brown" mantra, and really deal with him for what he is, and does for OUR group of 700 waiver holders or so, i.e., quite simply, an agent, with an interest in model aviation, for an insurance company(s)....then we might begin to progress beyond the name calling........

Despite searching for a better insurance deal than the $58.00 individual coverage and the $160.00 Primary Landlord 5 Million coverage, with no Safety Rule exclusion for the Landlord, I have found it is just NOT available...While neither AMA policy provides seamless coverage for all casualties(but then what policy on your car, home, or health does?) it is the only reasonable game in town.....and I am really tired of dealing with insurance agents for quotes anyway.....

UMA, at this time, may satisfy the Feds at Edwards, but why would my County Airport Landlord, i.e. the County Board and Attorney, give up a 5 million Primary AMA policy in favor of UMA at less than 1/2 the coverage, just because I refuse to play ball with the AMA and install a speed limiter on my planes that are capable of exceeding 200MPH, or refuse to re-certify every year, if that turns out to be what it takes to maintain my turbine waiver in good standing, and qualify myself, my club, and the County for AMA coverage.....

I can guarantee that after the first major 1,000,000+ claim from a Jetster or Giant Scaler or Helicopter Incident, UMA's Gulf Insurance Actuaries and Attorneys will thoroughly review safety policies and codes, including the AMA Turbine Safety Code, and will demand similar, if not tighter Regulations....Insurance writing still is one of THE most competitive, often unjust, and definitely NOT corruption-free, markets in the world....Just ain't no free lunch in the insurance business.....

Tom

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

If you're a member of the club then you must be an ama member. If you're not a club member, unless it's a really strange flying site, you shouldn't be flying there at all! If the site is a publicaly leased site specifically for rc use then as our site I'm sure the person/institution that leased the site requires certain guidlines/regulations including insurance. Whoever the site is leased to has the authority to remove anyone not associated with the site/club by calling the police etc... So, if you're not a club member, and by the ama charter, you must be a member of the ama if you're a club member (rule #5) you can be asked/forced to leave the property.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I agree with the non member not being allowed to fly unless it was on invite, ie inviting a different club to a fun fly or... and if you don't have insurance, definately not!!! But, if you have insurance such as UMA or the old SFA, if you're covered in case of an accident then why not...... It's funny how it seems that a bigger issue is made out of someone having an alternate form of insurance than someone who has absolutely no coverage at all..

J_R

Hi Jon

There are several things that you touched on that I would like to comment about. Most clubs have some form of a guest program, where folks from out of town can fly at the club field, as the guest of a club member. Most clubs also require that the guest be an AMA member. The club makes that decision, not the AMA. As you pointed out, many times events, such as a rally or fun-fly are held and non-members are encouraged to attend and fly at the club’s site.

In addition, under the AMA insurance, anyone without an AMA membership may take one flight on a buddy box (once in a lifetime.. don’t ask me who keeps track). This was designed to hook the interested party to get involved.

The AMA also has the “Into Pilot� program. A club may appoint instructors that may teach a student, non-AMA member (thus not a club member either), for 30 calendar days. There is paperwork that must be filed with the AMA regarding the training of the student. Some clubs participate and some don’t.

At some fields, such as the one Mr_Matt flies at, which is controlled by the City of Los Angeles, there is no requirement for insurance, or AMA membership. Now, in fact, there are AMA clubs there. The AMA will make the first defense for the City in any suit regardless of the membership or non-membership in the AMA, whether it be a flying type accident or a trip and fall type accident. This is the type of thing the AMA does in an effort to get and maintain flying sites. There is another club, PVMAC, that flies at Prado Dam where the Best in the West event was held. The land is leased to the club from the Corp of Engineers through the County of San Bernardino. The club has exclusive use of the land and requires that all flyers are AMA members. Different governmental units handle these things differently.

Again, all of this is in the Club Renewal Kit.

AMA sanctioned events are an entirely different matter. All participants in any AMA sanctioned event must be AMA members. In an effort to keep from turning away pilots that are not members, a CD at such an event is authorized to process an AMA membership at the event. Of course, this does not set aside the need for a turbine waiver.

If the AMA were to tell clubs that only AMA members could fly at the club sites, then (pick a number) 70%? 80%? 90%? 99%? of all flying sites would be under control of the AMA and that might lead to legal problems with claims of a monopoly.

While I am at this, let me try to dispel some illusions that some AMA members seem to hold. There seems to be the illusion that the EC sits in their plush offices in Muncie, with their feet up on their desks, drawing a huge paycheck while trying to figure out how to spoil the fun of all AMA members. First, these guys are all elected UNPAID volunteer AMA members. The VP’s get a travel budget, depending on the size of the district, that ranges up to $15,000 for Dist X which has the most members and is the largerst, down to about $4000 for the smallest. Dave Brown has a travel budget that is somewhat higher. He turns back most of his. I am sure that many folks have visions of Dave Brown’s office being in the “control tower� at Muncie. The fact is that he had an office in the building for a couple of months before he was evicted to make room for Headquarters Staff. The rest of the VP’s have a beautiful office. One computer, one desk and two chairs which they all share. There is, of course, a conference room, and that is where the EC meetings are conducted. Each of the EC members, that I know well enough to ask, puts a substantial amount of money out of pocket each year to supplement the actual costs of the position. A couple admit to in excess of $10,000 per year out of pocket. All this is just to dispel illusions, not to take a position on the issues at hand.

JR

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

Hi JR,
The ama does do some good things but I have to admit I like the simplicity of the UMA http://www.unitedmodelers.com/safet_code.htm Here's from their website:

"Here are a few advantages with UMA:

Buddy cord or other UMA approved training is okay with non-members.

Complete coverage for fly-ins.

No restrictions as to who flies at your approved field.

No deductible

Family memberships available

Very few restrictions (see Safety Code)

Primary Coverage "

I like the fact that you can buddy box anyone with the buddy box, no restrictions for who flies at your field (as long as they have insurance, this is how I feel it should be, not just if they have 'your' type of insurance) and you don't need a turbine waiver.

Edited to add:

Why is all of this relevant to the thread: You don't need a turbine waiver to be able to fly jets. Just use some common sense and follow the '17 simple rules'


Jon

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Thanks Jon, I didn't get to reply eairlier but you said exactly what I was thinking.

vfr_rider2000

My Feedback: (1)

Anyone know of a UMA friendly field in WA state? After reading the AMA letter at the JPO site http://www.jetpilots.org/AMAletter.htm I doubt I will ever get involved in turbines and will stick with DF. I don't have to jump through any hoops, I don't have to recertify my flying every year. I don't know of any activity where I have to recertify. Neither my D/L for my car, my endorsemtn for my motorcycle or my Divemaster cert for scuba diving. IMO I think what the AMA is doing is pure &^%%. It's a shame as I really want to fly turbines. Having been doing RC for almost 20years I have seen good things and bad thing and the trubine certification IMO is going from good idea, but way to much regulation.

trumpetjet

My Feedback: (12)

Amen brother....

I will most likely go through the hoops just because flying a small turbojet powered RC aircraft is the coolest thing since sliced bread to me. And I want to fly at events. But I agree with everyone that this aspect of RC is WAY over regulated. Heck, its easier for a bunch of guys to go out and launch high powered rockets than it is for us to fly out turbines. Has anyone here ever seen an N2000 (rocket motor) fail, its a pretty dangerous scenario. Anyway, I guess we have to live with the cards we are dealt.........for now.