Question on AMA insurance

[Okiflyer]

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.

 

[CarolineTyler]

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]

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.

 

[Merv]

They should also include a note about AMA in the kits.

 

[Piotrsko]

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

 

[OliverW]

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

But it's ok to crash into their cheap car.😜

 

[PsyBorg]

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.

 

[Piotrsko]

But it's ok to crash into their cheap car.😜

Nope, it's more like crashing into the only rock in the center of a 600 acre freshly plowed field. A Mercedes between two Hondas will be the one hit.

 

[clolsonus]

Nope, it's more like crashing into the only rock in the center of a 600 acre freshly plowed field. A Mercedes between two Hondas will be the one hit.

That's why I wish my club would plant a tree in the parking lot ... because if there's one tree within 1000 meters of where I fly, I'll most likely hit that before anything else. Cars would be totally safe.

 

[makattack]

http://www.amaflightschool.org/tags/flite-test

The ama and flitetest are partners from long ago. They go to each other's events as sponsors. I guess there aren't any recent videos featuring the ama, but at all the flitetest events, you'd be hard pressed to not find the ama. I even have a ama/flitetest ball cap.

 

[JennyC6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[OliverW]

Nope, it's more like crashing into the only rock in the center of a 600 acre freshly plowed field. A Mercedes between two Hondas will be the one hit.

Mmmmmm high bills

 

[subman631]

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.

I've been flying U Control and RC since it was introduced so I have about 50 years of flying. I've been an AMA member for most of that time (11422). My clubs wherever I lived required AMA insurance as part of the membership. Now, with all of the drones being flown irresponsibly, the FAA has had to step in despite heated debates from AMA trying to protect ALL our rites and institute news rules for not only 'commercial' fliers but also recreational fliers. Commercial fliers (those making money with the sport), which should include the Flite Test crew, have to take and pass tests and get licensed. Recreational fliers must register their planes with the FAA and display the numbers on all their planes. Very stiff penalties are imposed. Also, recreational fliers must fly from AMA approved fields. There are some exceptions. The next step they are contemplating is actually having the receivers transmit an identification number like full scale planes do! That's nuts. Thanks again to idiots flying drones around neighborhoods! Lastly, you can't fly within 5 miles of ANY airport of any size, even private fields without getting permission each day.
To fly any type of pyrotechnics is not allowed for obvious reasons to reasonably sane people, given the chance of brush or forest fires.
Just fly responsibly!

 

[moret]

FT had a video awhile back that talked about taking part 107 and that the guys there had to take the 107 test and have a Remote Pilot Certificate because flying was part of their jobs.

But you do not have to fly from AMA fields. A land owner can fly all he wants to from his land. He can permit anyone else to also fly there. As far as I know Edgewater is not a AMA field.

I fly from a private full size airfield. Also just under 5 miles from a non-control tower busy city field. You do not have to get permission to fly. That is just for areas under the LAANC system.

A recreation flyer must register with the FAA and get a number and use that one number on all their planes ( over .55 pounds). A part 107 pilot must register each plane.

 

[subman631]

''
Letters of Agreement Between Clubs and Air Traffic Control

In the near future, hobbyists and drone operators will no longer have to notify every airport within a five mile radius before an operation. When this provision is removed, it will be replaced by a new requirement that operators in controlled airspace will be required to seek authorization from towered airports, unless flying from a charted flying site. We successfully championed that if you are flying at an AMA flying field or sanctioned event, you can continue flying as you always have following AMA’s safety program and within the existing agreements your club or contest director has with nearby airports.''

 

[subman631]

LAANC Available to Recreational UAS Users

On July 23, the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) became available to recreational UAS operators. LAANC is an important resource for AMA members who wish to fly in controlled airspace near airports. We are writing to provide you with information about LAANC, including an overview of the various service providers you can choose from, in order to receive near real-time authorizations to fly in certain airspace.
Why is LAANC relevant to AMA members?
Under the FAA bill that Congress passed last year, all model aircraft and drone operations within controlled airspace (Classes B, C, D and E) must be authorized by the FAA. For members operating at AMA club flying sites with established Letters of Agreement, the Letter of Agreement serves as your authorization.
When flying in controlled airspace, but outside of AMA club locations, all recreational operations, including those by AMA members, need the FAA’s approval. This is where LAANC comes in. LAANC makes it easy to apply for, and quickly receive, approval to fly. This can be done through a mobile app or desktop computer.
What is LAANC?
LAANC is an automated service to apply for, and quickly receive, approval from the FAA to fly outside of AMA club locations while in controlled airspace. LAANC is accessible through companies called service suppliers, who are working with the FAA to establish different mobile apps and online portals to access LAANC.
For example, say you want to fly within four miles of an airport, outside of an AMA club location. With LAANC, you can open an app, make a request and receive approval in near-real time – typically 60 to 90 seconds. It is important to note that LAANC can only be used for daylight operations at or below 400 feet.
How do I use LAANC?
LAANC is essentially the backend system that automates requests and authorizations to fly in controlled airspace near airports. To access LAANC, you need to sign up with a service provider – one of the several companies that has developed the mobile and online portals that interface with LAANC. While the basic service that each company offers is the same, there are pros and cons to each. You need to determine which company works best for you.