• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Question on AMA insurance

#1
Don’t get me wrong Flite test is doing a great service getting folks into the hobby but Why in all of your newbie instructional videos have you not mentioned AMA insurance or liability insurance to folks getting in the hobby? I have over 40 years in the hobby and would not fly without insurance. I don’t own stock in the AMA. I am just another RC addict that has seen property damage and injuries in this hobby.
 
Last edited:

CarolineTyler

Well-known member
#2
Don’t get me wrong Flite test is doing a great service getting folks into the hobby but Why in all of your newbie instructional videos have you not mentioned AMA insurance or liability insurance to folks getting in the hobby? I have over 40 years in the hobby and would not fly without insurance. I don’t own stock in the AMA. I am just another RC addict that has seen property damage and injuries in this hobby.
That's very true! First thing I did before joinging my local RC club (which required it) was join the BMFA which includes liability insurance.
 

rockyboy

Skill Collector
Mentor
#3
I do believe that AMA membership is a good thing, and worth the expense. Have been an AMA member for the last 4 years and became a leader member this year.

However, AMA Insurance does come with a little gap that people should be aware of. If you own your home, the AMA insurance only kicks in after your home owner's insurance policy finishes paying it's piece. So if you rent or are a student then the AMA insurance is a great deal! If you're a home owner, especially one with a decent umbrella coverage on your policy, not so much.

This isn't a reason in my mind to not get your AMA membership - but people should understand what's going on with the coverage.
 
#5
And unless they changed recently, it also doesn't cover member to member
So don't crash into somebodies expensive car at the flying site

Used to be # 44581
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
Mentor
#7
I only have a membership to be able to fly at Flite Fest.

If anything get it to support younger pilots in the programs and scholarships as well as the assistance to flying fields they do.

As with ALL insurances any claim will be auto denied until an "investigation" is completed. THEN there is the battle between them and other insurers who will pay.

While all that is happening you are on the hook for any and all claims including court and lawyer costs.

Insurance is the biggest running scam on the planet no matter what type.
 

JennyC6

Active member
#11
I'm not AMA and I don't plan on becoming AMA unless I don't have any say in the matter. IF I have to have an AMA card to fly at FPV Fest 2019, then I'll begrudgingly get one, but I don't forsee myself getting one otherwise. I just don't see any reason to pay some nameless faceless insurance company in another state $120 a year or whatever the premium has jumped to by now just to fly my own private property over my own private property.

There's no clubs convenient to me and I live so far out in the sticks that there's minimal chance a crash landing will damage someone else's stuff, so I have no need for it.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#12
I only have a membership to be able to fly at Flite Fest.

If anything get it to support younger pilots in the programs and scholarships as well as the assistance to flying fields they do.

As with ALL insurances any claim will be auto denied until an "investigation" is completed. THEN there is the battle between them and other insurers who will pay.

While all that is happening you are on the hook for any and all claims including court and lawyer costs.

Insurance is the biggest running scam on the planet no matter what type.
I will agree on all counts. :)

I know there are some who severely dislike the AMA, and want another community-based organization to be out there so they can use them instead of the AMA. I'm kind of in agreement with that mindset, just for options.

That said, the reasons a lot of people that I know that don't like the AMA is that there are "rules" that they don't agree with and don't want to follow, like "Don't fly over people," "Don't fly over cars,", "don't fly in the landing path of airplanes," - basic safety rules. And I'm not talking about accidental flyovers, I'm talking about deliberate flights...

But I digress. I think there are a lot of good things that the AMA is doing. CAP support, junior aviation programs, Model Aviation Day, support of Maker Faires...It's really to get the kids breathing life into a (as much as I hate to say it) stagnant, LITERALLY dying hobby, because the vast majority of the hobby is guys in their retirement age.
 

JennyC6

Active member
#13
I will agree on all counts. :)

I know there are some who severely dislike the AMA, and want another community-based organization to be out there so they can use them instead of the AMA. I'm kind of in agreement with that mindset, just for options.

That said, the reasons a lot of people that I know that don't like the AMA is that there are "rules" that they don't agree with and don't want to follow, like "Don't fly over people," "Don't fly over cars,", "don't fly in the landing path of airplanes," - basic safety rules. And I'm not talking about accidental flyovers, I'm talking about deliberate flights...

But I digress. I think there are a lot of good things that the AMA is doing. CAP support, junior aviation programs, Model Aviation Day, support of Maker Faires...It's really to get the kids breathing life into a (as much as I hate to say it) stagnant, LITERALLY dying hobby, because the vast majority of the hobby is guys in their retirement age.

Some of it is a bit more nuanced, though. Their rule against pyrotechnics rules out rocket planes, accurate afterburner simulators on ducted fan jets, and RATO packs, for example. The intent is to prevent people from flying bombs and guns on their models, which is agreeable, but it also puts a damper on legit uses of pyrotechnics on RC aircraft.

And we've seen FT do all three IIRC. I know they have done both surface launch rocket planes with David, air launched with Peter, they've done accurate afterburner sims(David melted the tail feathers of a Venom this way). And I'm pretty sure they've done RATO on the guinae pig as I have seen excerpts in montages but I cant find the full vid. These things...awesome, and can be done safely, yet fly against AMA rules.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#14
Some of it is a bit more nuanced, though. Their rule against pyrotechnics rules out rocket planes, accurate afterburner simulators on ducted fan jets, and RATO packs, for example. The intent is to prevent people from flying bombs and guns on their models, which is agreeable, but it also puts a damper on legit uses of pyrotechnics on RC aircraft.

And we've seen FT do all three IIRC. I know they have done both surface launch rocket planes with David, air launched with Peter, they've done accurate afterburner sims(David melted the tail feathers of a Venom this way). And I'm pretty sure they've done RATO on the guinae pig as I have seen excerpts in montages but I cant find the full vid. These things...awesome, and can be done safely, yet fly against AMA rules.
Yep. They certainly are. I myself don't agree with them doing that. And, if you've noticed, they haven't done it recently; my guess is that they took flak for it.

In Southern California, we don't allow it, in part because of the AMA rules, but for the most part that it is a fire hazard in what is a huge, dry tinder area. We've had multiple firestorms over the past decade and we're not to anxious to have any more, so we're VERY cautious with flammables.

If you really want to have bomb drops, there are better ways to simulate it than with actual pyrotechnics. We have a guy at our field that is using talcum/baby powder bombs; dropped from a height over 30 feet, when they hit the ground, they pop open and leave a giant cloud behind. That's one example you can do. I think there are reasonable other options, instead of using pyrotechnics, that can be done. We have many pilots out there who are flying in dry areas; several years ago the entire state of Colorado outlawed fireworks or open pit fires for the summer because the state was so dry and already at risk from fires. Arizona's much the same way.

I think it's a safety issue, and one that should be adhered to. I understand that there are some who won't agree, simply because "Someone else did it"; I'm not going to argue that today. It's not worth the time, stress, and headache for me. The people who want to argue it with the AMA are more than welcome to step up and do so to the AMA; maybe the rules will change if the people who want a change can provide a clear, safe, and sane reason to allow it.
 

JennyC6

Active member
#15
Yep. They certainly are. I myself don't agree with them doing that. And, if you've noticed, they haven't done it recently; my guess is that they took flak for it.

In Southern California, we don't allow it, in part because of the AMA rules, but for the most part that it is a fire hazard in what is a huge, dry tinder area. We've had multiple firestorms over the past decade and we're not to anxious to have any more, so we're VERY cautious with flammables.

If you really want to have bomb drops, there are better ways to simulate it than with actual pyrotechnics. We have a guy at our field that is using talcum/baby powder bombs; dropped from a height over 30 feet, when they hit the ground, they pop open and leave a giant cloud behind. That's one example you can do. I think there are reasonable other options, instead of using pyrotechnics, that can be done. We have many pilots out there who are flying in dry areas; several years ago the entire state of Colorado outlawed fireworks or open pit fires for the summer because the state was so dry and already at risk from fires. Arizona's much the same way.

I think it's a safety issue, and one that should be adhered to. I understand that there are some who won't agree, simply because "Someone else did it"; I'm not going to argue that today. It's not worth the time, stress, and headache for me. The people who want to argue it with the AMA are more than welcome to step up and do so to the AMA; maybe the rules will change if the people who want a change can provide a clear, safe, and sane reason to allow it.
Those substitutions are fine for bomb drops but you can't fly an accurate representation of an X-15 under power using talcum powder.

The fire risk where you are is also perfectly understandable; FT is in ohio and I'm in Tennessee where that is far far less of a concern. And also not really an AMA problem, if you live somewhere where model rocket motors could start forest fires you'll probably earn the ire of the forest service long before the AMA even figures out it happened at all.