[g.p.]

Originally Posted by Hughes500E

You do realize what you are asking for, tighter rules and regulations

Actually, it is less rules and regulations that are being sought after. The insurance that is being discussed would let people fly ANYWHERE, with NO RED TAPE. It was made very clear in the past year or so (in the MAAC magazine) that MAAC insurance no longer covers anybody flying outside of a sanctioned MAAC field. I therefore assume (bad word, I know) that MAAC insurance DID cover those flying outside of a sanctioned MAAC field in the past.

It is great to get as many places sanctioned as possible, but it is not practicle in some circumstances. Some of us like to bring planes on camping trips, hike in the mountians with a glider, bring float planes out on our boats, fly 5oz foamies in our back yards, and keep a foamie in the trunk for whenever an empty parking lot or open farmers field greets us unexpectedly. Sanctioning a field is perfect for places that will be flown at frequently, or times like an event when there will be many people flying. That makes perfect sense. Sanctioning a place to fly does not make sense for one or two people flying at a random location once, and with the recent explosion of small electrics there is a big segment of the hobby going this direction.

I admit that I am not up on all the MAAC rules, nor do I care to be. I don't care to attend all of the meetings either. This is my hobby away from work and family matters, and I only get a few minutes a month (if any) to partake in it. I would like to spend those minutes flying, not reading or attending meetings. If I was even considering spending $$$ in gas to attend a MAAC meeting, I would be better off just spending the money on this insurance and cutting my ties with MAAC. Can you seriously expect every member to attend the meetings, and fault them for not doing so?


I am very disappointed at the amount of negative and condescending responses from people in the know on this thread and RCC in general. If I'm uneducated and ingnorant about something then please correct me. It can be done politely though. The types of responses that I consistently read on this site do not make me want to ever take more of an active roll in MAAC. It is something that I have thought about doing once the kids are out of the house and life provides me with some free time. I have thought that that would be my way of paying back the hobby in years to come. If this is insight into what it's like, then I want no part of it.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by g.p.

...I am very disappointed at the amount of negative and condescending responses from people in the know on this thread and RCC in general...

Take heart GP. They are not necessarily people in the know. They are just "the usual suspects".

[Wayne MIller]

Originally Posted by Tom Molloy

Since there seems to be no one interested, or able, to answer the10 true or false questions I asked, I guess I can conclude that no one on this forum knows the answers.

I’m not sure what conclusions I should draw from the fact that the previous and ensuing discussion continues to comprise mainly of innuendo and metaphors that prove nothing, and are simply “red herrings”. Rather than objectively discuss, what many people consider a very significant issue, several of the contributors to this discussion seem to consider this situation frivolous. Snide references of a personal nature abound, anecdotal evidence pertaining to unrelated events and playing with semantics to prove over and over that they do not have the answers. This ignorance does not, unfortunately, prevent them from forcing those of us who are seriously interested in having a resolution to this issue, from reading their ego boosting posturing and smug diatribe. Many of us are just interested in knowing that we can fly anywhere with the complete confidence that we have insurance cover and that issue has not been resolved in the close to 100 contributions. Maybe the conclusion I should draw is “There is an elephant in the room and some people need to remove their blindfold.”

The only other rational explanation to the continued resistance to acknowledging that there is a problem and the apparent refusal to seek a resolution could be that some contributors may have a vested interest.

Hi Tom,

The interesting thing is, we all know MAAC Exec's are reading this, and it appears they can not answer your questions.

Interesting !!!

[Hughes500E]

The last time I checked there was no lack of contact information on the MAAC web site nor in the MAC Magazine

Tom, you should contact Larry Rousselle, I think you will find him to be quite informative and a pleasure to talk to.

[Tom Molloy]

Gentlemen:

I would like to say thank you to those of you who take this issue seriously. I don't think there will be a solution from MAAC and the organization will suffer as a result. I don't think there is anything to be gained by anything else I might say and I don't think there is any point in our discussing this further. What is needed I believe, is a demonstration of leadership by MAAC by acknowledging that there is a problem and that it needs to be resolved. Most pilots want the option to fly in places other than their club field. Most pilots are responsible enough to fly safely but we want to do that with the knowledge that should the unforeseen happen that we have adequate insurance cover. Since MAAC is not providing that at the moment we will have seek elsewhere for the insurance we need. That my friends will signal the death knell for MAAC as we know it.
MAAC may have done a lot in the past but like any organization, when it ceases to address the current needs of its customers/members, it ceases.

[Keith Morison]

You wonder why no one answered your ten questions?
Maybe some one would have if they weren't so clearly loaded.

Originally Posted by Tom Molloy

1. No field has a written certificate of approval. True or False?
2. If there is no written approval then the field is not approved. True or False?
3. Under MAAC insurance I can only fly at an approved field. True or False?
4. If #2  are true MAAC INSURANCE IS NO INSURANCE. True or False?
5. With BFL insurance I can fly anywhere True or False?
6. If I have both MAAC and BFL insurances each company could argue the other is liable True or False?
7. If #6 is true it could cost me a lot of money. True or False?
8. I need insurance when I fly. True or False?
9. If #8 is true I should be concerned about MAAC insurance coverage. True or False?
10. BFL offers more than one option. True or False?

As I understand things...

1) False.
Only when an application is approved an insurance certificate issued, it is a defacto approval.

2) Loaded question based on a fallacy
3) False.
You can fly anywhere you want, however you are only covered by the MAAC insurance at registered fields or sanctioned events. (Yah, I know what you meant)
4) False. question based on a fallacy
5) I have no idea
Likely some restrictions (owner permissions, restricted airspace... etc)
6) True and False.
Insurance companies always argue about ultimate liability and look for others to pay out. Status quo in claims
7) False
It is what insurance companies do - it won't cost you money, it might only slow payment of a claim. (again the question is based on a fallacy)
False, and true.
Getting permission from a landowner to use their property may (and most likely will) come with the prerequisite that you are insured for your actions. Even malls, for non-flying mall shows, usually require proof of insurance meeting minimum coverages.
9) False
Concerned is the wrong word. Informed and understand is more appropriate.
10) No Idea
What I have read here would suggest that is the case.

It is also important to understand that liability insurance does not cover in the event that the insured is deemed to be negligent. In that case, the insurer will look to accepted standards as the measurement of performance. In otherwords, I would think that even under BFL, if you are found to be flying well outside of the standards set by MAAC or the AMA ... you might find your coverage is void.

I don't know for sure, but in the event of a claim, particularly a large one, your actions and precautions will come under scrutiny at some point.

(edited for clarification of my last point)

[Arceenut]

Originally Posted by Keith Morison

In otherwords, even under BFL, if you are flying well outside of the standards set by MAAC or the AMA ... you might find your coverage is void.

So, what is BFL offering???

[Keith Morison]

Originally Posted by Arceenut

So, what is BFL offering???

Note my edited post. The statement you quoted is very much hypothetical/theoretical.

It would seem clear that BFL is insuring a broader range of activities. Some seem to think that they will cover them no matter where or how they fly... that could be a dangerous an expensive assumption.

[747man]

BFL will ONLY cover you as a SECONDARY policy..that is to be in conjunction with MAAC...or your homeowner's policy ..that is if your homeowners policy will cover you...some will not, some will..the policy that was offered to the club that started this whole thing was a SAVE HARMLESS policy...for the landlord..which means..if MAAC insurance wasn't enough, or wouldn't cover the incident, then the BFL policy would cover ONLY the landlord for liability ( save harmless) not the flyer....I don't for the life of me know why people who do not know the situation, or the real story keep beating it to death. In the end, it was not acceptable to the landlord, or their solicitors because it didn't
take care of their liablilty concerns any better than the MAAC policy does.
AND no the MAAC insurance coverage has not changed..you THOUGHT you were covered at parks etc...in reality you never were... the only difference is now you know it....oh sorry there was one change..MAAC can no longer cover flying at full sized airshows.... the policy was never meant to do that...nor was it ever intended to cover flying in a park or school yard.
The insurance committee "inherited" this policy ......as they clarify things slowly they are discovering that coverage we "assumed" we had, was in fact not there.....hopefully in time they can manage to get us a better policy, but it won't be without it's trials.....talk to the insurance committee they are a pretty good bunch, and they KNOW what they're talking about..they didn't change the policy..... BUT I know they are likely trying to come up with something for us. I have never asked a question of any one of them that wasn't answered promptly ...I may not have liked the answer, or it may not have been the answer I wanted to hear, but it was clear and concise.

[E Smith]

I have never asked a question of any one of them that wasn't answered promptly ...I may not have liked the answer, or it may not have been the answer I wanted to hear, but it was clear and concise.

Exactly, that is my experience as well. That is the reason I basically ignore the fruitless discussions on these endless insurance fora.

Ed S