No Insurance?

[Bearair]

I have long championed the cause of flyers not to have insurance if they choose. I think in 99% of instances its very stupid not to have it,I have had model flying insurance since 1973 and wouldn't fly without it. But it is not a legal requirement and you have the right to make stupid decisions.

However I would ask you read what happened to me this afternoon.

I was at St Agnes in Cornwall. A gentleman arrived and drove past me and all the other flyers into a separate car park. He then removed a phase 6 and a 4m Pat Teacle Vega from the car. After a flight with the P6 he was trying to sort out the airbrakes on the Vega. One side refused to go back in. Not perturbed he flew the Vega anyway. On landing, the model drifted over the car park, just missing the cars it hit me and then spun on to my Mini Vector cracking the fus and smashing the right wing. I was very angry, I called him a not very polite name. I also told him I expected him to pay for the model £204! He seemed shocked at the fact I expected him to pay. I asked him if he had BMFA insurance. Then he told me he didn't have any insurance! He also seemed shocked a the cost of the glider. I pointed out how lucky he was not to have hit the Caldera next to it. Now hes a pensioner and I am not going to follow my threat up, I was very angry when I said it.

But, think on this.

I am left with a cricket ball size bruise on my shoulder, earlier there had been a group of OAPs standing where I was. My guess is that if he had hit one of them and not 6'6 25 stone little old me, then we wouldn't be talking hundreds but maybe everything he owns.

So I will continue to say that insurance is not compulsory but I would ask those who choose not to have it

"can you afford not to?"

[kc]

His household insurance may cover such public liability. Worth a try.

[Peter Miller]

Many years ago we flew from some set aside land. We had the land owner's permission to fly there.. The trouble was that other people could come and fly there without permission..

One afternoon, just as a small group of use were leaving a man and his son turned up. I asked if he had insurance. He said that his model was electric power and so didn't need insurance.

We moved to our cars which were behind the hedge and parked on the road. A few seconds later we heard the electric motor start up followed by a massive thump. Thay could have been the roof of a car or a members head.

I didn't go back and later I learned that the man was an idiot who refused to listen to advice and insisted on settng his model up in some strange way.

As I have said many times, "All of the monkeys ain't in the zoo!"

If you do not have insurance you are an idiot.

[Phil 9]

£32 BMFA membership gets you 12 months insurance and a few nice magazines. When you could pay that much for a servo why wouldn't you

[stu knowles]

I really don't see why he should pay for the damage that he has caused and feel lucky not to be paying a lot more for the injuries and discomfort suffered by you. £250 would have been a bargain let off!

He took a concious decision not to bother with insurance, he should live with the consequences. In my old club, if you shot someone down by not observing frequency control, you bought the wreckage, no argument!

stu k

[Erfolg]

Not withstanding the insurance issue.

There seems to be a number of issues

• A model was flown with a known serious issue
• The model flight path appears to be over a car park, rather than no less than a 100m, from identifiably hazards
• A known public area appears to have been used, with no concern of managing the issue

Perhaps what seems even stranger any one with the skill to build a 4m Pat Treakle model is no novice, and should be well versed in all of the ways of prudent operation of a RC model.

As for insurance, it is one of those emotive issues. I have no issue with any body, particularly children operating a sub 500g  foamie or small electric park flyer, or in the past, a paper and stick model (rubber powered etc), almost anywhere. At the same time, would I fly a +1kg IC model, never mind a 4m model without insurance, never mind an apparently very much a public area, in my case, no!

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 09:55:49

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 09:57:18

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 10:01:46

[Bearair]

Posted by Erfolg on 23/05/2013 09:54:57:

Not withstanding the insurance issue.

There seems to be a number of issues

• A model was flown with a known serious issue
• The model flight path appears to be over a car park, rather than no less than a 100m, from identifiably hazards
• A known public area appears to have been used, with no concern of managing the issue

Perhaps what seems even stranger any one with the skill to build a 4m Pat Treakle model is no novice, and should be well versed in all of the ways of prudent operation of a RC model.

As for insurance, it is one of those emotive issues. I have no issue with any body, particularly children operating a sub 500g foamie or small electric park flyer, or in the past, a paper and stick model (rubber powered etc), almost anywhere. At the same time, would I fly a +1kg IC model, never mind a 4m model without insurance, never mind an apparently very much a public area, in my case, no!

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 09:55:49

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 09:57:18

Edited By Erfolg on 23/05/2013 10:01:46

In total agreement about the insurance.

The recognised way to land at St Agnes is to either land on the edge of the slope, if you have the skill and model to do it. Or you can walk back a hundred yards and land in the square mile of deserted scrub land!.There is no need to overfly the car park. I too was very surprised that such an expierenced modeler (he has had the Vega 26 years) was not insured.

Im away for a week now and will sort it out with him when I get back.

[kc]

If he has been flying for 26 years without insurance he has saved more than the 204 pounds in fees.........( BMFA membership etc ) so make him pay up. Just make sure you have all the witnesses details recorded.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Percy, is this a myth? If not, how about some validated details.

The reality of life is that a 2/3rds Spitfire with a 100cc engine, is potentially going to do more damage than a paper dart aerolplane. We need to be sensible when we access risk, not be fantastically fanciful about the 120g indoor model was responsible for £2m pounds worth of damage and it happens weekly, my mate told me down at the pub last week.

If anybody needs insurance it is flying a model, particularly of the type, as described in the opening post. A 120g indoor model flown in the same circumstances, could do some damage, on any rational risk assessment is capable of significantly less damage.

Yet for me the issue is, is it reasonable to fly from the location at all, particularly larger models, how can it be justifiable to either overfly a car park etc, and it not be out of bounds by the operational flight pattern to ensure safety in the event of unintended and forseen occurrences.

Would we expect to have insurance to fly your 30g helicopter in your house, particularly as a separately insured activity. We must be sensible with respect to risk and not indulge in fanciful what ifs, rather deal with clearly identifiable risks, where significant consequences are self evident.

Just leave kids and (true) park flyers alone.

Before you ask, yes I am insured via the BMFA scheme.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm fairly sure that I either read about the chuck glider in the BMFA News or heard it quoted at a Chairmen's conference - or both.

[Erfolg]

I was told about St George and the dragon, yet nobody has been able to substantiate the tale.

Something tells me, not sure what, that it might not be true. am I just sceptical ?

[WolstonFlyer]

Somebody at our club told me the largest insurance payout was to an airline pilot who was blinded in one eye when the prop of a very small indoor model hit him in the face at an indoor meeting and damaged his cornea. I was told he lost his job as a result.

Edited By WolstonFlyer on 24/05/2013 21:14:47

[John Privett]

Posted by Martin Harris on 24/05/2013 20:49:32:

I'm fairly sure that I either read about the chuck glider in the BMFA News or heard it quoted at a Chairmen's conference - or both.

I could be wrong, but I thought it was mentioned at the BMFA Chairmans' conference a couple of months ago.

[Erfolg]

Very impressive stories! all of them

One of my favourite stories is about a woman in a tower called Rapunsel. However apparently I was told by my granddaughter, that its only a story. I said no, it is not, I was shown a book with it written down. Granddad, its a fairy story, she said. Then, oh, you are silly! Your book by the Bruder Grimm, are just stories that daddies and granddads tell their children, very good stories granddad, but just stories.

Ironically, in all seriousness, she later said,"you know granddad, the stories are meant to be anecdotal, you know, to provide a moral guideline". Who told you that, I said, in amazement. My school teacher, was the reply. She said just because the tale is told many times does not make it true, you know!

Yes, I should know better than that at my age. Hmmm, you are right was again said.

Now that I have been chastened by my gullibility,I  nowI like a bit of proof, like a court judgement, or at least a detailed account in a reputable newspaper.

Anyway back to my history book about middle earth, you know that the truth, really is stranger than fiction.

Edited By Erfolg on 24/05/2013 22:46:02

Edited By Erfolg on 24/05/2013 22:49:16

[WolstonFlyer]

I never said I believed the story but it does make you think about safety a bit.

A small high speed prop hitting your eye... shudder.

[Erfolg]

I hope you are fully insured when you play darts in the pub!

[Area 51]

Had a strange fellow at my club hovered a helicopter over the Memsaab's car one day as she approached and visited us with a friend. She had a convertible golf with the roof down.

I did speak to him about this; there is always one.

Same chap also ran over a members dog at the club field too.. As with the poor animal , he is no longer with us.

Care needs to be taken in all aspects of this hobby, for those around us and of course ourselves.. Achieve this and we can all have fun!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well Erflog, you are clearly very reluctant to accept the "chuck glider" story. Some of your comments on this are pretty extreme to be honest. I think comparing what other people say to fairy stories is bit much.

But, I have to say you absolutely right! The story that there was a very large claim for an accident involving a chuck glider is false.....the truth is that accidents involving chuck gliders account not for one of the highest claims on the BMFA insurance - but actually for TWO of the highest claims.

Now I know exactly what you are going to say "Where is your proof BEB, its just another urban myth". OK here's my proof -

"Being Insured - What Does it Mean to You?", by Manny Williamson, BMFA News, Feb 2011, Edition 104, p7, column 1.

I assume that is authorative enough for you? To save you to the trouble of searching out your copy here is a link to the article on the BMFA website.

BEB

[Simon Chaddock]

Its an interesting article (althouth I still can't find any reference in CAP 658 to the legal requirement for insurance over 20kg ) and quite rightly stresses the fact that untimately the cost of claims are paid for by the premiums.

I do sometimes wonder if the increasing claims are the result of a claims cullture - I've paid a premium so I'll make a claim. To my mind even the personal injury "I cut my finger with a prop" is no grounds for a claim - props are dangerous if you don't like the risk, don't do it.

In reality the concept of 'cost effective' insurance really only works where a small premium paid by many covers the few situations where the liability is beyond the realistic ability of any individual to pay.

Just my twopenny'oth!

[Bearair]

The flying site is perfectly safe Erfolg, as stated above there is absolutly no reason to fly over or near the car park. In fact I would go as far as to say its safer than at least 2 of the club sites I have flown from.

[ken anderson.]

no insurance-no fly in any public places........plain and simple......

ken anderson ne..1 ........ insurance dept.

[Peter Miller]

Let me tell you that if you are ever involved in an accident where personal injury to another occurs you will never forget it and the fact that you are insured will at least stop you having to worry about how you will pay for it.

It was 55 years ago. It was not my fault in any way but I never forgot it. IT also happened to be on my 21st birthday.

If you have the option to be insured and don't take it you are a fool.

Edited By Peter Miller on 25/05/2013 09:17:39

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

I have read the item, and for once I do remember the issue.

It did strike me at the time (not a pun) there seemed to be a number of issues, which were not addressed and it can be argued the issues need to be addressed and discussed else where.

The use of chuck gliders by BMFA or any other modeller, in principle need to adhere to the same criteria as any other model. So obvious issues are

• Chuck gliders need to have radiused noses to prevent injury to either property and persons. Just as the requirements are there for both propeller spinners and glider noses.
• They should be flown in a regulated manner, not in a space with members of the public or other competitors or observers present in an uncontrolled manner that can be found at FF events.

The fact so it appears there have been two claims indicates there is an issue with chuck gliders and their safe operation. You could argue that some FF practises are reckless as witnessed 20 years back.

I still hold to the same principle that for small park flyers and indoor models the need for insurance is overstated. I would argue that the risks that cyclists, and invalid carriages (when operated on pavements and stores) posse a greater risk to individuals than a small low powered foam model. As far as I am aware these groups have no requirement to have 3rd party insurance. Now I could say I feel passionate about these groups.

A invalid carriage reversed over my foot, briefly trapping my leg in ASDA, Trafford Park , the driver apologised. Then some months later one just ran into me from behind again in Asda, who simply said, could you not see i was coming?

I am all for youngsters flying small models in parks and waste land, or even dads with their children, & university students on their campus, with appropriate small light , low powered models.

On the other hand FF as flown by clubs, be it indoors or other open spaces, prudently benefit from some insurance be it BMFA or on home policies cover for sporting activities. Above all flying areas need to be managed to minimise the potential of injuries and accidents, if this is not the current situation

You have to be balanced.

I still would like to know the chuck glider details, as it could be very illustrative of reckless and inconsiderate practises, or just demonstrate that accidents will happen, with bad luck, or is there such thing as luck in accidents?

After any incident as described in the opening post, we need to consider if the same could have happened to me. Not think, the same constraints do not apply to me, for what ever reason you conjure up.