Clarification about 'turning on' when another model is up

J

JR 22 years ago

In another post, the allegation was made that when a modeler inadvertently "turns on', that it negates his AMA insurance. I wrote to Carl Maroney and this is his repley, with email addresses edited.

JR

-----Original Message----- From: Carl Maroney [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxxx.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:01 AM To: 'Jean and Debbie Rondot' Cc: Ilona Maine Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC

If a member A turns on his Tx, on the same frequency as member B is flying on, when B member is flying, does member A have any insurance coverage should member B's plane strike another member C? YES

-----Original Message----- From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxx.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:50 AM To: 'Carl Maroney' Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC

If a member A turns on his Tx, on the same frequency as member B is flying on, when B member is flying, does member A have any insurance coverage should member B's plane strike another member C?

If the answer is no, where is the exclusion to this coverage? How is the average member to know about the exclusion? This issue brings up the need to publish all exclusions, if it is a fact.

-----Original Message----- From: Carl Maroney [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:13 AM To: 'Jean and Debbie Rondot' Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC

Could you be more specific as to what statement concerns you?

Carl P. Maroney snipped-for-privacy@modelaircraft.org

765.287.1256 X250 AMA HQ
5161 E Memorial Dr Muncie, IN 47302 Website:

formatting link

-----Original Message----- From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxx.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:47 PM To: snipped-for-privacy@modelaircraft.org Subject: Presentation you made at SWAC

Hi Carl

There is a thread on RCUniverse that has raised some concern. Since it was a presentation by you at SWAC that precipitated the discussion, I would ask that you look at the thread and see if the information presented in the thread is correct.

Personally, I take issue with the concept of having exclusions that the membership is unaware of and that do not seem to be documented in any information available to the membership. Specifically, how can an action such as turning on a Tx negate the coverage when no such exclusion is expressed? It is my intent to share any comments you may have on RCUniverse.

The thread in question is located at:

formatting link

Thanks in advance

JR

Jean-Pierre Rondot

AMA 732

Vote

T

The Natural Philosopher 22 years ago

Ah. 'Flying under the influence' again?

:-)

Vote

M

MJC 22 years ago

I think the confusion comes from the AMA specifying a rigid set of rules of operation that, if "violated", negates the coverage. But I think the AMA is creating a problem for themselves if in fact the accidental powering up of a radio causes a problem. They could say that doing so violates one of their "rules", however, inadvertantly turning on a radio is also an "accident" by itself. While I wouldn't want to test this case myself, I'm pretty sure that a decent attorney with an average jury would roll all over the AMA if they tried to deny a claim based on that situation.

MJC

formatting link

Vote

P

Paul McIntosh 22 years ago

Your email to Mr. Maroney didn't mention anything about "inadvertently" turning on. A good lawyer would have the insurance negated if there was posted frequency controls in place and the offender didn't follow them.

Vote

A

Aileron37 22 years ago

That`s an interesting thought Paul, I wonder about said interference, coming from an "outside" source (not someone turning on). Since we as fliers must endure any interference to our radios and aircraft. Can it be said that we understand the risk however choose to fly anyway and void the insurance? rick markel

Vote

J

JR 22 years ago

This is just my opinion . Feel free to write Carl for clarification.

If the instance was intentional, it would be malice, and not be covered, but, might be criminal.

It is possible that if rule 3 of the Safety Code was in play, as you suggest, that a claim MIGHT be declined.

The old Safety Code had as it's first line: Model Flying MUST be in accordance with this Code in order for AMA Liability Protection to apply.

The new, 2004 Safety Code has as it's first line: I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage.

JR

Vote

Clarification about 'turning on' when another model is up

Join the Discussion

Didn't find your answer?