[g.p.]

Originally Posted by Ed Smith

Most cities and municipalities prohibit the flying of model aircraft on public parts by By-Law. Violating By-Laws negates any insurance, can also lead to being arrested.

I am pretty sure that a park flying site has to go through an approval process to be considered as an AMA park flyer site. Hopefully they check to make sure that you can legally fly there sometime during that process.

[reo]

Originally Posted by g.p.

With park flyers becoming more and more popular this is definately the wrong direction if MAAC is hoping to grow it's numbers. We should be trying to offer park flyer insurance and incentives like the AMA is doing.

This is not an issue that was created by MAAC.....this whole issue falls directly in the lap of the insurance industry, no more no less.....and I agree with some other posts in this thread, why not let us know how many and how serious the claims were over the last 5 years.....why the secrecy in this area?........(I must confess here that I have never pursued this information, if it is readily available, I apologize and stand corrected but in 30 years I have never seen any of these stats in the MAAC mag or anywhere else).....Ron

[Guest]

Originally Posted by reo

Although I fly at my own unregistered field with two other guys I still hold a MMAC membership for attending funfly's etc.

Starting your own club may or may not work for a number of reasons.....e.g., although a club with 4 or 5 members satisfies the letter of the law so to speak, I'm not convinced at the end of the day that it satisfies the 'spirit' of the law. What I'm getting at is, if you are flying in a remote area by yourself I'm not convinced that getting 4 other MAAC members from out of the area to join on paper just to get MAAC's blessing would pass the smell test under fine scrutiny.

Up until this year we assumed that we were covered by the MAAC insurance policy but as it sits now I understand this is no longer the case, regardless of how much deductible I am willing to pay. I guess it is what it is, I can live with it.

I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected....Ron

Understand, this has been dictated by the interpretation taken by the insurance company not MAAC. Before you suggest finding an other insurance company please be aware there are few that are even interested in talking to us about coverage. I understand that the minimum member requirement to form a club has been reduced to 3 from 5.

It would be nice if the Insurance Column were back in our magazine with updates and answers to the most often asked questions. Other committees are expected to keep the members abreast of current developments I personally feel insurance being one of the most important committees should at least provide monthly updates. I would think this would save many many unnecessary phone calls and emails on the same subjects, fielded by the insurance chair, zone directors or executive. Even if all the insurance column did was to take a few questions that the members pose each issue and print the best answer available.

With an increasingly restrictive policy we need an open conduit in the form of a return of the insurance column to remain up to date and informed so we can confidently operate within the limits of the coverage. One of the reasons for the magazine is it is the official conduit of communication to each and every member. Why is it not being used by the insurance committee to keep the members informed?

Dennis

[wymbly1971]

The insurance coverage is very sad news for sure. I can't help but remember a little poll about a month or so ago about something like this. I wonder if it's related in some way?

I haven't seen any claims info either. Why is that?

I was in the process of helping a remote community form a club of their own. The last time I went there, I was able to satisfy the 3 requirements and all was good. Everybody had a lot of fun and interest was growing. These are potential MAAC members here. Honest to goodness paying members.

As it stands now. How are they supposed to form anything? No club, no way to get qualified flyers to even have a club, no trainers, etc. These people are 7 hours from anywhere! What are they supposed to do now?

They'll lose interest or they'll fly without insurance. They almost certainly will not pay MAAC dues (what's the point?) and that hurts all of us.

I think it's time we all start thinking about alternatives. I for one intend to get a little more involved. I look forward to hearing what MAAC intends to do, if anything. I look forward to becoming more involved.

[reo]

Originally Posted by Propworn

Understand, this has been dictated by the interpretation taken by the insurance company not MAAC. Before you suggest finding an other insurance company please be aware there are few that are even interested in talking to us about coverage. I understand that the minimum member requirement to form a club has been reduced to 3 from 5.

It would be nice if the Insurance Column were back in our magazine with updates and answers to the most often asked questions. Other committees are expected to keep the members abreast of current developments I personally feel insurance being one of the most important committees should at least provide monthly updates. I would think this would save many many unnecessary phone calls and emails on the same subjects, fielded by the insurance chair, zone directors or executive. Even if all the insurance column did was to take a few questions that the members pose each issue and print the best answer available.

With an increasingly restrictive policy we need an open conduit in the form of a return of the insurance column to remain up to date and informed so we can confidently operate within the limits of the coverage. One of the reasons for the magazine is it is the official conduit of communication to each and every member. Why is it not being used by the insurance committee to keep the members informed?

Dennis

Good points, Dennis.....but to clarify, nowhere in my post do I suggest that MAAC look for a different insurance co. I accept the limitations of the MAAC coverage, still a good deal and I still like to attend a few events every year where insurance is a must because of the exposure and numbers attending.

I accept the fact that I do not have insurance when flying on my own property (160 acres).....the only limitation is (and always has been) that I will be extra careful or likely not fly the jets at all during harvest time and other dry times of the year when the fire hazard is high but this would be the case anyway whether the insurance is there or not, just common sense. As for injury claims on the farm here, not an issue at all as far as I'm concerned, crop damage by fire is the biggest liability issue for me.

Ron

[Flyboy76]

Wymbly, that is pretty cool that your looking to get involved. If we have more people like you take up the challenge (not saying our current reps. aren't up to the task at all) it can only lead to good things. good luck.

[Guest]

I'm still not sure why so many people feel that we are being more restricted by MAAC.
From the way I have ALWAYS understood it, you were NEVER covered by insurance through MAAC UNLESS you were flying at a MAAC sanctioned field, or MAAC sanctioned event.
IMO the BIGGEST problem we are facing is ignorance in the rules. That's not to say people are being ignorant, just that they have not read and clearly understood the rules supplied to us by MAAC that allow us to hold the insurance coverage.

As for wondering what there has been for claims, I've never seen them published, but when I lived in Alberta and attended the zone meetings there, the past years claims were mentioned. I don't know if it happens at the other zone meetings, I haven't attended any of the BC ones as of yet.

I'm not sure why it's so important to see what claims were made other than morbid curiousity, I don't see an easily accessible report from my car insurance company that tells me what the claims were from the past year, or my home insurance etc. I've never seen a spreadsheet to tell me how many accidents are caused by a Harley vs a Hayabusa motorcycle etc. I'm sure if you dig and ask you could find out, probably the same with MAAC. If it was a serious concern for you contact your zone director.

I think that the hobby is pretty safe and that claims are probably few and far between, that's the way it should be. If our insurance now had to cover accidents because people are flying in parks, or other public area's, the probability of accidents increases a HUGE amount, therefore if they are going to cover that, it will cost us more.
When you go to a field that has signs telling you that you are entering an area with model aircraft at your own risk, you assume part of that liability to begin with. You know getting hit with a prop, a model, etc is a risk, like crossing the street, you know there is a risk of getting hit.
If you are walking through a school yard, you don't expect to get hit by anything.

It opens up way to many variables, and if I were an insurance company I would not cover something that cannot be policed in some way unless the rates were very high.

You pay far more for car insurance than model insurance, if you decide to drive your car through a school yard and you hit somebody, do you think your car insurance is going to cover you? Probably not, why should our insurance through MAAC be any different?

[g-manz35]

Originally Posted by bbbair

Quite right Ed, like it or not we are being dictated to.



Almost right; The 'Other' reason to belong to MAAC is to participate in MAAC events 'AT REGISTERED FIELDS'. these events require MAAC if you wish to fly.



WRONG!
Park Fliers (as I understand them) are largely folks that buy a toy on a whim and try it out in a local piece of property... with no training, in the middle of a populated area...and they are VERY likely to have a problem and hit a PERSON, CAR, BUILDING and then our insurance claims go UP and our policy fees go WAY UP!

Park flyers are not insured by MAAC so how can they make a claim? If they can't make a claim how can that make our rates go up?

Even if they are qualified MAAC pilots - accidents still happen and there you are - still in the middle of a populated area with lots of things to hit.


So; at the end of the day we are still left with a problem - how to get Reasonably Priced Insurance and Why MAAC?]

It was brought up in a previous post that our insurance cost is 18% of the MAAC membership. That's $13.50. How cheap do you want it? I have never seen this in writing so if someone knows FOR SURE that this is not true please correct me

[The key word here is 'REASONABLY', if you have unlimited funds EVERYBODY would be covered for EVERYTHING all the time. But we are on a budget so this is what WE can AFFORD. You could always ask MAAC to raise their rates.

Why MAAC? - Someone has to represent us, why not them? They are group of our peers, duely elected for us, by us - if you don't like what they are doing call your ZD, or get elected yourself.

I agree.

Plan 'B' - Stop flying like a fool and making stupid claims!
Then the rates will come down and we can 'AFFORD' a plan with more options.]

I don't think there are any stupid claims. Does anyone know of any?

But that's just my opinion.

Couple other things. Someone mentioned that this is the wrong way for MAAC to go. I was told by Richard Barlow that MAAC was trying to get insurance for those flying off santioned fields. They wanted clear rules that needed to be folowed so that flyers would be insured. "Thank you MAAC for trying" I appreciate it.

I may or may not renew my membership this year as I am uninsured for 99% of the flying I do. Starting a club seems imposible as there was one here and it died.

Sorry bbbair. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just thought there was error in some of your statments.

Cheers. George

[reo]

Originally Posted by LGM Guitars

I'm still not sure why so many people feel that we are being more restricted by MAAC.
From the way I have ALWAYS understood it, you were NEVER covered by insurance through MAAC UNLESS you were flying at a MAAC sanctioned field, or MAAC sanctioned event.
IMO the BIGGEST problem we are facing is ignorance in the rules. That's not to say people are being ignorant, just that they have not read and clearly understood the rules supplied to us by MAAC that allow us to hold the insurance coverage.

As for wondering what there has been for claims, I've never seen them published, but when I lived in Alberta and attended the zone meetings there, the past years claims were mentioned. I don't know if it happens at the other zone meetings, I haven't attended any of the BC ones as of yet.

I'm not sure why it's so important to see what claims were made other than morbid curiousity, I don't see an easily accessible report from my car insurance company that tells me what the claims were from the past year, or my home insurance etc. I've never seen a spreadsheet to tell me how many accidents are caused by a Harley vs a Hayabusa motorcycle etc. I'm sure if you dig and ask you could find out, probably the same with MAAC. If it was a serious concern for you contact your zone director.

I think that the hobby is pretty safe and that claims are probably few and far between, that's the way it should be. If our insurance now had to cover accidents because people are flying in parks, or other public area's, the probability of accidents increases a HUGE amount, therefore if they are going to cover that, it will cost us more.
When you go to a field that has signs telling you that you are entering an area with model aircraft at your own risk, you assume part of that liability to begin with. You know getting hit with a prop, a model, etc is a risk, like crossing the street, you know there is a risk of getting hit.
If you are walking through a school yard, you don't expect to get hit by anything.

It opens up way to many variables, and if I were an insurance company I would not cover something that cannot be policed in some way unless the rates were very high.

You pay far more for car insurance than model insurance, if you decide to drive your car through a school yard and you hit somebody, do you think your car insurance is going to cover you? Probably not, why should our insurance through MAAC be any different?

Jeremy, until this year the belief was that if you had permission of the landowner to fly on his property you were covered by MAAC whether it was a registered field or not. We now find out that over the years this may or may not have been so, in essence, and I quote from a previous thread 'a grey area'.....in fact we have had one of our assitant zone directors flying at a local airport a number of years ago and I know at that time he was advised that if he had written permission from the airport manager than he was covered. So in short there has been the perception given in the past that flying with permission at non MAAC locations was covered, it had nothing to do with 'ignorance of the rules' as you state in the post above.

It personally does not matter to me one way or the other if off site flying is covered or not....just give us the information in black and white and then we can deal with it in our own way and this has now been done at insistance of the insurance co., certainly their perogative and we now finally know where we stand..

As for finding our what the claims MAAC has had to deal with, there is no reason that I can think of that this information should not be available to all members.

Transport Canada makes all their accidents and 'incidents' available to Canadian pilots as well as the public if they so desire. TC look at it from the point of view that you may be able to learn something from the misfortunes of others and use these lessons to make your flying (full scale here now) safer.....I think the same could apply to our models as well.....

Ron

[g.p.]

Originally Posted by reo

This is not an issue that was created by MAAC.....this whole issue falls directly in the lap of the insurance industry, no more no less.....

I never said it was created by MAAC and understand that it's an insurance issue. MAAC has the option of trying to put together a park flyer program like the U.S. has started though. Why should I pay the same for insurance for my 10oz foamy and 30oz balsa electric plane as some guy that flys a 40lb 300km/hr turbine powered jet? Why should I have to take my foamy to a field 1/2 an hour away when I could get the park across the street established as an official MAAC park flyer site?

Go to RCG and read some of the AMA threads. We're a few years behind what they have already gone through. Why not learn from it and be pro-active now?