Are you a member of AMA and why?

[SilentAV8R]

Easiest way to keep it straight is:

AMA Charters Clubs (gives official recognition to the club)

AMA Sanctions contests/events - provides geographical/date protection, provides additional insurance for the site owner, and ensures that the event is conducted in accordance with the rule book if it is a competition.

AMA will supply (at an additional cost) a certificate of insurance to the site owner of a chartered club flying site, but it does not otherwise inspect, approve, sanction, charter or otherwise recognize that flying site.

AMA individual insurance (liability, medical (for the member), theft/fire/vandalism) is in effect at all times and everywhere for the individual member. It is secondary (or in addition to) any other insurance and is primary in the event of no other coverage.

 

[SteveMann]

Sorry, this is incorrect. The AMA insurance covers you anywhere anytime as long as you are following the safety code.

" ... following the safety code" is virtually impossible:

"B. 1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures"
So, you can't take photos of your house? You can't fly FPV over a lake because there *might* be a boat on it? You can't fly over a road because there *might* be a car on it?

"B. 3. At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.)"
Seriously? I have seen a number of drones flying, I assume some by loyal AMA members, but never any kind of "safety line".

"B. 3. (d) Intentional flying behind the safety line is prohibited."
This, of course, assumes there is a safety line.

"B. 7. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch an outdoor model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual."
So, hand catching your phantom during landing to protect the camera and gimbal is prohibited?

How many faithful AMA members fly their Phantoms in strict compliance with these rules? All of the rules. There are too many loopholes for the insurance to be denied for the majority of Phantom flyers. Insurance is worthless if the conditions for coverage are impossible to achieve. These "rules" look like they were written in the 1960's when RC flight was in its infancy and crashes were likely. AMA - get a clue. The technology has moved on and your rules to keep everyone on AMA fields just don't fit.

 

[SilentAV8R]

There are too many loopholes for the insurance to be denied for the majority of Phantom flyers. Insurance is worthless if the conditions for coverage are impossible to achieve. These "rules" look like they were written in the 1960's when RC flight was in its infancy and crashes were likely. AMA - get a clue. The technology has moved on and your rules to keep everyone on AMA fields just don't fit.

I've been an AMA member for about 45 years. I served as an Associate District VP for 11 years and I have been an expert witness in two legal cases involving model aircraft, and specifically the Safety Code. So that's my background in this subject.

Now, I have NEVER seen or heard of an insurance claim being denied due to "violating" the safety code. It is not an absolute but rather a set of guidelines. For instance, I fly gliders. We hold the AMA Soaring Nationals at the AMA HQ flying site in Muncie, IN. AMA is fully aware that gliders do not fly with an established flight line as is written in the Safety Code. Yet that has never been an issue. AMA is not going to nit-pick an incident to look for trivial "violations" to the safety code.

You seem intent on trying to put forth an argument that the insurance is worthless. You can argue in the abstract about the "loopholes" you think exist. I'll argue from my 45 years of direct experience which says otherwise. The basic idea is don't fly recklessly or like an idiot and you'll be fine.

 

[DrD]

With all due respect to specialized AMA background, it would be far more telling to see the list of actual claims FILED against the AMA insurance provider vs. its settlement OUTCOME.

Being associated at any level of the AMA, with experience as expert witness twice, is still all about only TWO incidents. What was the outcome of those two cases? What was the basis for those two cases? The judicial oversight required in each of those two cases may reveal something about the difficulty of pursuit of the claims process, since two claims were involved and each claim resulted in a trip to court, because the insurer declined to settle.

A flying field near my location IS an AMA sanctioned flying field. Any use thereof requires an AMA membership, and your AMA membership card is your permit to use the facilities. That's the kind of "sanctioning" example wherein the AMA insurance policy is targeted.

My background is that I'm a professional consumer. I've been consuming for a LOT of years, and have purchased insurance for decades. With very few actual claims ever filed, I quickly learned how insurance claim adjusters scam the insured. Each year, we see disaster all around the world. Each year we hear of folks that say they are insured. Months, years perhaps, later we hear how folks are still litigating their claims for settlement. Read policies, be forewarned.

All that notwithstanding, one could do a lot worse with ones resources, than supporting the AMA. If AMA insurance seems to be the major reason for joining, not considering the details of the insurance and its limitations, could lead to disappointment. Beyond that, join AMA if you like. There's safety in numbers, the AMA has the numbers.

 

[SilentAV8R]

With all due respect to specialized AMA background, it would be far more telling to see the list of actual claims FILED against the AMA insurance provider vs. its settlement OUTCOME.

As with any insurance claim, those are confidential. However, members can see a summary of claims by the number and type for the past couple of years along with totals amount paid for each category.

A flying field near my location IS an AMA sanctioned flying field.

Sorry, there just is simply no such thing. It is likely the club field for an AMA chartered club. Belonging to a chartered club requires AMA membership. But once again, AMA simply does not "sanction" or in any other manner approve or pass any other such recognition to a flying site.

That's the kind of "sanctioning" example wherein the AMA insurance policy is targeted.

And once again, AMA insurance coverage is NOT contingent on flying at an AMA chartered club flying site.

Please feel free to contact Ilona Maine at AMA HQ to get verification of the facts as I have stated them since you seem unwilling to accept what I have stated.

[email protected]
(800) 435-9262 X251

 

[GoodnNuff]

Sorry, this is incorrect. The AMA insurance covers you anywhere anytime as long as you are following the safety code.

" ... following the safety code" is virtually impossible:
nah, it is very easy to follow.
"B. 1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures"
So, you can't take photos of your house? You can't fly FPV over a lake because there *might* be a boat on it? You can't fly over a road because there *might* be a car on it?
These rules pertain to all RC models, regardless of weight and size. So No, if you fly a 12 lb gas powered war bird over a parking lot and crash into a car, AMA insurance may not cover you. Same if you fly a glider with an 8ft wingspan over a park full of children and hit a child - insurance may not help you. Yes, you can fly your phantom over your home and film it. Yes you can film your family reunion. And yes, you can fly over a lake. Buzz a boater or a water skier probably won't win you AMA safety points, but they won't stop or fine you.

"B. 3. At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.)"
Seriously? I have seen a number of drones flying, I assume some by loyal AMA members, but never any kind of "safety line".
Perhaps you're confused by the term "safety line?" It is an imaginary boundary that the RC pilots stand behind when flying at the field. You fly out in front of that imaginary line or boundary, not over your head or around over and behind you.

"B. 3. (d) Intentional flying behind the safety line is prohibited."
This, of course, assumes there is a safety line.
There is always a safety line at a flying field. And no, you don't fly behind it, over spectators, etc. This is never a problem. Keeping your RC plane, copter, drone in a defined area of the field, and knowing every other pilot will also be flying on that area avoids confusion and distraction and makes for safer flight for you and your toy.

"B. 7. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch an outdoor model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual."
So, hand catching your phantom during landing to protect the camera and gimbal is prohibited?
The AMA do not police fields, there is no enforcement of their guidelines. However if you submitted a claim for stitches to your hand or the surgical amputation of a finger due to a bad drone catch, you would be denied since you weren't in compliance. Will you be kicked out of the AMA for hand catching? No, not at all.

How many faithful AMA members fly their Phantoms in strict compliance with these rules? All of the rules. There are too many loopholes for the insurance to be denied for the majority of Phantom flyers. Insurance is worthless if the conditions for coverage are impossible to achieve. These "rules" look like they were written in the 1960's when RC flight was in its infancy and crashes were likely. AMA - get a clue. The technology has moved on and your rules to keep everyone on AMA fields just don't fit.

The AMA is NOT trying to confine you to their fields. How silly. You know, 99% of the time I am flying I am in full compliance with their rules and I don't even think about it - it's just common sense. And the majority of flying I do with my drones or my small fixed wing park flyers is outside of AMA affiliated flying fields. I don't understand your hostility towards the AMA? It seems to be based in ignorance or confusion. I've seen you say that they are enemies of FPV and multirotors - simply not true.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Personal story. When I was in college I had a flying buddy. He too was a college student and lived in a small apartment. He decided to tune his engine one day, in his apartment kitchen, not the brightest move, but so it goes. Long story short, he was badly cut by the prop and took a large number of stitches. He had no other insurance but was an AMA member. AMA covered his medical bills (minus the modest deductible). I'm pretty sure his kitchen was not an AMA "sanctioned" flying site.

 

[amorrison]

I joined AMA a few weeks ago because of the insurance mainly, but also because of its lobbying efforts. Before I joined though I called them and asked who I could talk to about the insurance. I was transferred to a lady (can't recall her name) but I wanted to make sure I would be covered flying a MR. It seemed incredible to me to get that much coverage for the cost of membership. She said yes, providing you follow the safety guidelines and have permission to fly by the property owner. AMA of course always has the option to pay a claim if they want, but based on what she told me, they could also decline to pay depending on the circumstances.

I think it would be a mistake to assume a claim will be paid regardless of the circumstances. You always want to be as safe as possible, and follow the safety rules to the extent possible.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Here's a claim I know was not paid. Back in the late 70's a guy flew into the Goodyear blimp, on purpose. He tried to get AMA to pay for the damage AND his legal fees. AMA said no. So it can happen. Just like your auto insurance or homeowner's etc. can decline a claim if it is bogus or outside the coverage.

Here's another case I have personal knowledge of. A group of slope glider guys had a place they flew. Homes were later built near the slope and one homeowner had it out for the model guys. This was a city park they flew from with a permit from the city. Guy was a real jerk. Shot pellets at the gliders, harassed them, etc. He finally tried to take them to court. AMA stepped in, found the AMA pilots legal help, paid for said help, and the case was thrown out by the judge. AMA paid legal fees up around $75K, which is not part of the actual coverage. The coverage is only if you lose a liability claim in court or there is an actual settlement. Pretty good deal for $58 if you ask me.

 

[Mario_SB]

No, they sued the FAA to stop the them from cancelling AC 91-57, which forms the framework for the AMA rules. It would take an act of Congress to regulate the hobby flyers because Congress expressly forbid the FAA from promulgating any rules on hobby model aircraft. I am not sure what the FAA was thinking (the FAA has since backtracked, saying it was a mistake). Initially I was surprised to see the AMA joining this lawsuit since the AMA is historically hostile to drones and particularly hostile to FPV flight, but cancelling AC 91.57 could be a back-door attempt to regulate all hobby flight - Aircraft, helicopters and multi-rotors.

AMA Response:


AC 91-57 Cancelled in Error:
AC 91-57 Cancelled in Error | AMA Government Relations Blog

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012:

I THINK THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY and AMA's BOTTOMLINE...PERIOD. If AMA has been so "historically hostile to drones and particularly hostile to FPV flight" then why are they gladly accepting new $75 memebership fee from new and unexperienced quadcopter pilots? It looks to me that AMA is certainly trying to do the right thing in catching up to the direction in which the hobby is going (quadcopters + FPV) and at the same times trying to protect it's turf and bottomeline in the form of membership dues.

 

[DanWyns]

Regarding personal liability insurance... are there any other options available?

 

[tcope]

Regarding personal liability insurance... are there any other options available?

Yes but it's not cheap.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I THINK THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY and AMA's BOTTOMLINE...PERIOD. If AMA has been so "historically hostile to drones and particularly hostile to FPV flight" then why are they gladly accepting new $75 memebership fee from new and unexperienced quadcopter pilots? It looks to me that AMA is certainly trying to do the right thing in catching up to the direction in which the hobby is going (quadcopters + FPV) and at the same times trying to protect it's turf and bottomeline in the form of membership dues.

Actually that is Steve Mann's take on the AMA. They are not hostile to drones.
Some chartered clubs do not like drones or drone pilots, but I have never experienced that. I own a couple of dozen fixed wing planes and belong to 3 different flying clubs/fields in my area (Seattle), and all welcome drone pilots. In fact one club allows drone racing and will allow us to set up courses on the field to race through. It is actually pretty boring to fly a drone at a flying field in my opinion, but for maiden flights or testing out new mods, the club is the best place to fly.
All three clubs I belong to also have no problem with BLOS flying - we do it often at the field.

I know of a at least two people who took their drones to a club's field after joining the AMA and were turned away because they simply could not fly safely among fixed wing planes - you need to have the ability to maneuver your rig out of another aircraft's flight path. All fields require you to demonstrate your proficiency in the air before you can join. This is a simple test - take off, fly an oval, fly a figure 8, land.
These gentleman had not learned to fly a simple oval/circle or do a figure 8 with their Phantoms and failed the field test. They both felt that they were discriminated against and not allowed to join because they had drones. They failed to realize it was their lack of basic skills, not their rigs of choice that excluded them.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I forgot to add that the AMA's monthly publication has a multirotor section. I would imagine an organization that was "hostile" to drones would not dedicate a portion of their member's magazine to drones, or lobby for us like they have done.

 

[Mario_SB]

Actually that is Steve Mann's take on the AMA. They are not hostile to drones.
Some chartered clubs do not like drones or drone pilots, but I have never experienced that. I own a couple of dozen fixed wing planes and belong to 3 different flying clubs/fields in my area (Seattle), and all welcome drone pilots. In fact one club allows drone racing and will allow us to set up courses on the field to race through. It is actually pretty boring to fly a drone at a flying field in my opinion, but for maiden flights or testing out new mods, the club is the best place to fly.
All three clubs I belong to also have no problem with BLOS flying - we do it often at the field.

I know of a at least two people who took their drones to a club's field after joining the AMA and were turned away because they simply could not fly safely among fixed wing planes - you need to have the ability to maneuver your rig out of another aircraft's flight path. All fields require you to demonstrate your proficiency in the air before you can join. This is a simple test - take off, fly an oval, fly a figure 8, land.
These gentleman had not learned to fly a simple oval/circle or do a figure 8 with their Phantoms and failed the field test. They both felt that they were discriminated against and not allowed to join because they had drones. They failed to realize it was their lack of basic skills, not their rigs of choice that excluded them.

This is interesting but nowhere in the AMA rules does it state that you must demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to fly at a sanction hobby airfield or does it? I mean, I get it and it makes sense. It's like you gotta pass a driving test before being allowed on the streets but would you agree that there is a negative bias (in some circles) among the old school R/C people "who know their stuff" against new drone pilots? I believe there is and I believe that AMA would also like to remain a strong authority in the hobby.

 

[GoodnNuff]

This is interesting but nowhere in the AMA rules does it state that you must demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to fly at a sanction hobby airfield or does it? I mean, I get it and it makes sense. It's like you gotta pass a driving test before being allowed on the streets but would you agree that there is a negative bias (in some circles) among the old school R/C people "who know their stuff" against new drone pilots? I believe there is and I believe that AMA would also like to remain a strong authority in the hobby.

AMA doesn't ask you to show you can fly - flying clubs ask you to show your ability.


Allow the flawed car analogy - you can't drive on the open road without proving (via a driving test from the state you live in) you can safely handle an automobile on the road among other automobiles.

A flying field is something like a highway with multiple aircraft in the air at any given time, I do not want to risk a $1200 drone/fixed wing/helicopter because there is a pilot who can't control his rig. So no, the AMA will not ask you to demonstrate your proficiency in the air, but a flying club will. I have absolutely no problem with that, nor should anyone else who values their RC craft, IMO. You showed that you understand that, so I'm posting for the benefit of others here who may not.

Like I said, I've never had anyone complain about my drones at any of my clubs.
Far more often I have ran into old school RC guys who hate Foam planes at the field - they think you should be like them and scratch build your planes, spending hundreds (sometimes) of hours modeling and finishing your aircraft. Or gas flyers who hate electric planes, or Old School flyers who hate the new trainer planes with "smart" technology that self levels them and makes them very easy to fly right out of the box for any new pilot.
In my experience, the old school guys are intrigued by the new technology in drones, and find them pretty fascinating. But again, I am only speaking from my experience.

 

[Mario_SB]

AMA doesn't ask you to show you can fly - flying clubs ask you to show your ability.


Allow the flawed car analogy - you can't drive on the open road without proving (via a driving test from the state you live in) you can safely handle an automobile on the road among other automobiles.

A flying field is something like a highway with multiple aircraft in the air at any given time, I do not want to risk a $1200 drone/fixed wing/helicopter because there is a pilot who can't control his rig. So no, the AMA will not ask you to demonstrate your proficiency in the air, but a flying club will. I have absolutely no problem with that, nor should anyone else who values their RC craft, IMO. You showed that you understand that, so I'm posting for the benefit of others here who may not.

Like I said, I've never had anyone complain about my drones at any of my clubs.
Far more often I have ran into old school RC guys who hate Foam planes at the field - they think you should be like them and scratch build your planes, spending hundreds (sometimes) of hours modeling and finishing your aircraft. Or gas flyers who hate electric planes, or Old School flyers who hate the new trainer planes with "smart" technology that self levels them and makes them very easy to fly right out of the box for any new pilot.
In my experience, the old school guys are intrigued by the new technology in drones, and find them pretty fascinating. But again, I am only speaking from my experience.

Agreed and I totally understand where you're coming from. Personally, I had a bad experience when I first visited my local hobby R/C shop. I had never been there before until after I purchased my Phantom and I just went in for the curiosity of it all. After I told the owner that I had just purchased a Phantom 3 (thank god I didn't use the word "drone" ) he pretty much said to me, " Well I have nothing for you here, this is all big boy stuff." I was suddenly left thinking, "what an ***-hole!" lol. Instead of trying to create a new customer and welcome someone to the hobby of R/C flight and perhaps introduce them to something more challenging he instead decided to belittle me. In hindsight I find it pretty ignorant and hilarious at the same time.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Agreed and I totally understand where you're coming from. Personally, I had a bad experience when I first visited my local hobby R/C shop. I had never been there before until after I purchased my Phantom and I just went in for the curiosity of it all. After I told the owner that I had just purchased a Phantom 3 (thank god I didn't use the word "drone" ) he pretty much said to me, " Well I have nothing for you here, this is all big boy stuff." I was suddenly left thinking, "what an ***-hole!" lol. Instead of trying to create a new customer and welcome someone to the hobby of R/C flight and perhaps introduce them to something more challenging he instead decided to belittle me. In hindsight I find it pretty ignorant and hilarious at the same time.

LOL, yeah, I have been met with that same attitude in some of the RC places - especially if they are tied to Horizon Hobby (I think their national franchise is "RC Hobbies") - they seem to hate Phantoms. I think it is the competition - a lot of people are no longer making drones from pieces and parts, and the RC Hobbies/Horizon Hobby chains sell Chroma and Blade quads.
I naively went into a local "Drone Shop" here and asked about the 3DR Solo (right before it's release), not realizing I was in a DJI only franchise... I was quickly shown the door. heh.
You just got put up with all kinds and ignore them - just fly!

 

[Mario_SB]

LOL, yeah, I have been met with that same attitude in some of the RC places - especially if they are tied to Horizon Hobby (I think their national franchise is "RC Hobbies") - they seem to hate Phantoms. I think it is the competition - a lot of people are no longer making drones from pieces and parts, and the RC Hobbies/Horizon Hobby chains sell Chroma and Blade quads.
I naively went into a local "Drone Shop" here and asked about the 3DR Solo (right before it's release), not realizing I was in a DJI only franchise... I was quickly shown the door. heh.
You just got put up with all kinds and ignore them - just fly!

So any leads on the genius who crashed into the Great Wheel? lol

 

[retrodog]

AMA, all of the cost of the NRA but with none of the teeth.

J/k