No Insurance?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 25/05/2013 10:28:39:

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.

While a radiused nose or spinner can't be a bad thing, it's quite a few years since the BMFA dropped the requirement for minimum radii. It's quite surprising how few people actually bother to keep up with the updates to the handbook and you often come across examples like this which have become enshrined in aeromodelling lore.

I understand that the FAI still specify a minimum nose radius for competition models.

Edited By Martin Harris on 25/05/2013 11:02:28

[bouncebounce crunch]

Posted by Peter Miller on 25/05/2013 09:16:01:

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.

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

Is Peter is after a birthday congrat?. and what does he mean it happened on his 21st birthday? mention it was something he will not forget, was that good or bad?.

[Peter Miller]

Posted by bouncebouncecrunch on 25/05/2013 11:07:00:

Posted by Peter Miller on 25/05/2013 09:16:01:

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.

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

Is Peter is after a birthday congrat?. and what does he mean it happened on his 21st birthday? mention it was something he will not forget, was that good or bad?.

The mention of the Birthday was an aside. Most people remember that day with pleasure. I don't.

It is not pleasant remembring it so that is bad. On the other hand it make sure that you stay insured and that is good.

[bouncebounce crunch]

Peter i was only being a little sarcastic there, but back to the main point, Insurance looks to be a must unless flying in a large private area and all flyers agree and understand that agreement is for fly at own risk. I once saw a lady duck under a roped off area to get back to the carpark(35 years ago) a man was flying a heli there was a large audience and he had to quickly put it down destroying the model, she glanced at what was happening, ducked under the rope at the other side and didn't even look back.

[Erfolg]

I really find it hard to see the need for compulsory insurance. There are so many activities, I have mentioned two, thought others that come readily to mind are Golf, Rugby where real danger to others and property are not only possible, it occurs. Yet society manages without a compulsory insurance requirement.

Do we really want to stop children flying what some on this forum call toys, without model specific insurance.

Do we really need compulsory insurance for F3p models, flown in the park?

To me the idea is reminiscent of a discussion with a LMS owner, who was up in arms that Debnams, was selling Pico Zs, not only selling them, but at a lower price. He wanted a ban on none model trade sales. Or a representative of the Vintners trade body, who want minimum pricing in supermarkets to stop the erosion of the pub trade. Are all the motives totally pure without some self interest?

I also find some aspects of the chuck glider story disturbing. Did the chuck glider kill some one, if not we all know that a small number of people have been killed by mainly power models, and the occasional glider. Is the pay out less for a death? If the chuck gliders were the highest.. By cost and grouping, I suspect that the damage to property (incl motor vehicles) is by far the largest group, or using volume and total cost, it is the same. It us flyers of ordinary models.

Given that there have been two apparently very high payout for chuck gliders, have improved methods of operating them not only been proposed, but enforced at both club and competition level? Such as very large models adhere to, the dangers are recognised and managed, to ensure that pay outs and human distress minimised. It is perhaps worth noting that true chuck gliders are not flown by children. Maybe what they do fly is flown more responsibly?

I personally accept that insurance for my models is prudent, yet baulk at the thought that small models (call them toys if you must) should be prevented from operating without insurance, other than generic household type insurance.

Peter seems to be a person with a conscience, who does care about what has been inflicted on others. Yet besides apparent crocodile tears the first disabled cart that reversed into me, did not seem that concerned, to my injuries, which became apparent as very real, later, in heavy bruising and pain. Would I demand a licence and insurance, probably not. I did complain to ASDA and my MP though, about the need for training, the main reason is that balance between the good and benefit to the many, against the foolishness, or plain recklessness of a few.

Yet the main message of the thread is that some do not care about safe behaviour, or make mistakes and have not planned an adequate escape route etc.

However I am a little surprised that anybody operating a large model does not see the benefit from insurance. Then again, perhaps they did, and did not wish to divulge the fact. A little like Sally Bercow, who did not acknowledge any wrong doing.

[Bearair]

Well we shall find out if he does indeed have insurance, because after discussion with him and others I have decided that he should make a contribution towards tbe damage he has done. Watch this space as they say.

[Peter Miller]

Posted by bouncebouncecrunch on 25/05/2013 12:15:02:

Peter i was only being a little sarcastic there, but back to the main point, Insurance looks to be a must unless flying in a large private area and all flyers agree and understand that agreement is for fly at own risk. I once saw a lady duck under a roped off area to get back to the carpark(35 years ago) a man was flying a heli there was a large audience and he had to quickly put it down destroying the model, she glanced at what was happening, ducked under the rope at the other side and didn't even look back.

Many years ago our control line club used to put on displays at local fetes and carnivals. we were very popular and used to go bac k to some year after year. WE made a small charge which apid for the annual coach trip to Old Warden.

WE regulalrly got spectators crossing the roped off arena and having to be removed at speed. We also had to watch for them coming across the line park. A yell of "Mind the lines" did not work.

[Gordon Bushell]

I used to practice archery quite seriously, and at one tournament a group of spectators ducked under the ropes, and walked between the archers and their targets.

[Alan Randall]

Our club flies from the runway at the old Rolls Royce testing airfield at Hucknall. One evening a guy decided to walk his dogs right down the middle of the tarmac runway we were flying from. He saw nothing wrong in his actions despite being on private land.

[Devcon1]

I suspect this flyer knows too well that most of us will choose the least confrontational path and him probally lacking in standards and morals gets away with it.

These people should be brought to book. If I was hit and hurt with a model damaged in these circumstances I'd make the silly man pay through the nose..

This story resonates with some issues in our society...

Regards

John

[001]

This one is true. There was a village show, held on the same Bank Holiday every year and attended by thousands. I went because I was quite interested in the classic car show that went with it. I was aware that r/c model aircraft were being flown in a field immediately behind some other displays so I went over and introduced myself. There was a rope across the edge of a field about 5 metres from a hedge, spectators including small children were corralled into a small space. There were two individuals flying planes all day with 0.40 size I.C. motors. Just the other side of the rope. Not only did they not have any qualifications or insurance at all, they were flying about 600 metres from a known club flying site.

When I found out who was organising the show I contacted him the next day. His reply was that it was alright because they were doing it for charity. It was pointed out the dangers of injury etc. but he just was not interested.

[Peter Miller]

Many years ago our local village fete booked a local R/C club. Now I know that they were BMFA aiffiliated so insured.

They were flying from the local recreation ground where the fete was held. This meant that they were overflying the main street of the village at one end of there passes and council houses at the other end.

I had a few words with the organiser later and pointed out the risks. If I remember correctly this was before 35 Mhz came into use.

I also remember a huge vintage rally at a local stately home where large radio model were being flown out of a circle surrounded by spectators. A very well known person (who is no longer with us) was one of the people flying there. Later I asked him why and was told that they had to fly and that they were not happy with the situation but....etc. etc.

[PatMc]

I don't think BMFA insurance covers chariry events, village fetes etc & I don't think it should.
Insurance for these events is up to the event organisers. For 2 or 3 years I organised model flying displays at a local school during their sports day & fete. I always made certain that the school checked that we were covered for the day by their insurance.
This was in the days of 35MHz, the school is about 3/4 mile from the club site so we arranged with the club to have exclusive use of 3 frequencies for the day.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I think you're right there Pat. Our insurance is strictly for "recreational activity" - ie what we normally do! Any flying where payment is involved - and I see no reason why that should not include payments that go to a charity - are specifically excluded. So my interpretation would be if you are mounting a flying display for a local charity event you very well may not be covered by the BMFA's insurance scheme and should look to arrange alternative cover.

In cases like this you can always ring the team at the BMFA - Manny in particular is knowledgable on this sort of issue - they are very helpful and will do their best to give you accurate, well informed, advice.

BEB

[john melia 1]

does the bmfa insurance cover you for flying in a field , which is not attached to any model flying club , or are you only covered if you are a member of a recognised club ?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes John. You are covered if you flying anywhere - provided you have the landowners permission.

BEB

[Rich too]

I do fly with insurance, mainly because it is so cheap. But there are many other pursuits where you are more likely to be involved in an accident with a 3rd party. Surely 99.99% of model aircraft accidents are just freak accidents where noone is to blame?

I was just reading about the Dartford Heath case 10 years ago (I flew there many moons ago, and it has been used for model flying since the 1920's), which very sadly involved the death of a teenage girl. I believe the pilot was uninsured? Anyway, the surprising thing to me in that case was that noone was held liable - the verdict was that it was a terrible accident. The coroner did nothing but recommend that flying be banned from the Heath - which I believe it has? That is despite the fact that a girl was killed, and that someone else reported a near miss to the council not long before. The BMFA critised both the council and the pilot.

But the case does make me think, is the insurance necessary when you have cases/verdicts like this? Rich ps whats up with this spellchecker? I cant get on with it!!!!

Edited By Dickster on 26/05/2013 20:18:54

[PatMc]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 26/05/2013 19:11:33:

Yes John. You are covered if you flying anywhere - provided you have the landowners permission.

BEB

I think you'll find that having the landowner's permission is not a condition of the insurance cover.

[cymaz]

Flying without insurance.....I'm sure he doesn't mind if someone hits his car and shrugs their shoulders,,,,,,,oh well

[john melia 1]

Posted by PatMc on 26/05/2013 20:10:34:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 26/05/2013 19:11:33:

Yes John. You are covered if you flying anywhere - provided you have the landowners permission.

BEB

I think you'll find that having the landowner's permission is not a condition of the insurance cover.

so does that mean i could fly in a field that i don't have permission for , and still be covered

[PatMc]

Posted by Dickster on 26/05/2013 19:55:40:

I do fly with insurance, mainly because it is so cheap. But there are many other pursuits where you are more likely to be involved in an accident with a 3rd party. Surely 99.99% of model aircraft accidents are just freak accidents where noone is to blame?

However, on the subject of insurance, I was just reading about the Dartford Heath case 10 years ago (I flew there many moons ago, and it has been used for model flying since the 1920's), which very sadly involved the death of a teenage girl. I beleive the pilot was uninsured? Anyway, the surprising thing to me in that case was that noone was held liable - the verdict was that it was a terrible accident. The coroner did nothing but recommend that flying be banned from the Heath - which I believe it has? That is despite the fact that a girl was killed, and that someone else reported a near miss to the council not long before. The BMFA critised both the council and the pilot.

But the case does make me think, is the insurance necessary when you have cases/verdicts like this? Rich

Edited By Dickster on 26/05/2013 19:58:21

I think that most model aircraft accidents are avoidable & there's virtualy no such thing as a "freak accident".

You have the facts about the accident on Dartford Heath wrong & you seem to misunderstand the purpose of an inquest is.
A claim for damages would be held by a civil court which would decide on liability with a lower level of proof than would be necessary in a criminal court but the case would need to be brought by the wronged party/parties. In the case of personal injury or death level of damages would depend on a number of factors, some obvious, some not. For example the award for death of a young person without dependants would be much less than a parent with dependant children. Permanently incapacitating injury to a young person would receive a much higher award than their death would. The award for damage to property could very easily be much more than that for a death.
If the person responsible for the accident was covered by insurance the insurer, in most cases, would settle after a negotiated level of compensation was agreed with the injured parties' through their solicitor. This would be without a court case. If there was a court case the insurer would bear all legal costs as well as any award.
Any person not insured in the same circumstances would have to bear all legal costs as well as any compensation award.

Still wonder if having insurance is necessary ?

[PatMc]

Posted by john melia 1 on 26/05/2013 20:47:54:

Posted by PatMc on 26/05/2013 20:10:34:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 26/05/2013 19:11:33:

Yes John. You are covered if you flying anywhere - provided you have the landowners permission.

BEB

I think you'll find that having the landowner's permission is not a condition of the insurance cover.

so does that mean i could fly in a field that i don't have permission for , and still be covered

No it doesn't mean that. It's not a carte blanche, it means exactly what is said but there may well be other factors to consider.

[SkippyUK]

I'm interested in the turn this discussion is taking.

I keep a 23" wing in the back of the car (a Jerry from Robotbirds) and travelling up to 40,000 miles all over the country, I often stop in the middle of no-where and have a quick fly over adjacent fields before driving on.

The model is hand launched and recovered and I don't fly from layby's but more along public footpaths and over styles into a field and never near animals - common sense prevails at all times.

Are you suggesting that because I don't have the express permission of landowners to overfly their land then I am not insured?

As I'm on a public footpath then I always though it is OK and I was insured if something unexpected did occur.

[john melia 1]

well a blank cheque it may be , but you say it means exactly what is said ie

"I think you'll find that having the landowner's permission is not a condition of the insurance cover but there may well be other factors to consider "

could you please enlighten me , as i'm rather confused at the moment , what would be other factors to consider ?

basically i'm out of my depth in terms of legal conditions , but i'd just like to have the above statement clarified , as it could be important in the future

[john melia 1]

i don't know skippy i'm as confused as you are now