3rd Party Insurance other than BMFA - Can someone recommend please?

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Hi Guys,

 

I know some people and clubs have their own insurance (separate of the BMFA) and I wonder if someone could point me in the direction of an insurance company who will offer a 3rd party group policy for model flying please?

 

I've tried explaining what I'm after to a fair few mainstream insurers (and been politely told to go away) so I'd be very interested to get the name of any suitable insurance companies to try please.

 

Many thanks for any help

 

Simon

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Terry Whiting]

Simon,

 

Our Club has been with this company for a number of years,

 

Walker Midgley Insurance Brokers Limited.....Underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance plc.

It might not suit you needs as there are certain limitations, ie

 

RC models and control line model are limited to  40cc

Free Flight limit 10cc

No Pulse Jets....No Gas Turbines....or Turbo Props.

 

If you wish to enquire................www.walkermidgley.co.uk

 

or

 

Walker Midgley Insurance Brokers Limited

Yorkshire Bank Chambers,

Fargate,

SHEFFIELD  S1 2HD

[Tim Hooper]

Seem to recall a firm called Ace Insurance........

 

tim

[Mowerman]

Why????

[Mark Chiocca]

Edited By Mark Chiocca on 18/03/2009 10:26:02

Edited By Mark Chiocca on 18/03/2009 10:26:23

[Mark Chiocca]

Edited By Mark Chiocca on 18/03/2009 10:24:21

Edited By Mark Chiocca on 18/03/2009 10:25:55

Edited By Mark Chiocca on 18/03/2009 10:27:02

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Thanks guys,

Walker Midgley looks very promising.  I'll aslo try and find Ace Insurance.  

Does anyone else have any others?

Thanks again

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'd support Mowerman in his question - why?

 

Is there some limitation in the BMFA insurance?   Are there suspicions that we are being fleeced by the BMFA or its insurers?

 

It seems to me that we're getting a good cover (10 000 000) for a broad spectrum of activities from the BMFA insurers plus (although fashionable in some places to knock them) a generally responsible body who have achieved a great deal for model flying in this country.  I don't see anyone else offering to support us...

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Well I really don't want to get into a debate about the relative merits of the buddy lead for FPV in this in a thread about insurance but since you insist on an explanation of why I'm looking for insurance cover...

 

A large number of pilots who fly FPV (First Person View) find the BMFA rules for FPV flying are impractical and ill thought out and as such those people find themselves flying safely and legally (as far as the CAA are concerned) but without 3rd party liability insurance (because they are not covered by the BMFA).

Here are just a couple of the many threads where R/C modellers are asking for such insurance due to the BMFA rules not covering how a large number (I hesitate to say the sensible majority, but that is my feeling from speaking to FPV pilots every day) fly: here

link

I am trying to find a suitable policy that I can recommend to those people.  Through an Association (most likely the British FPV Model Flyers Association in the absence of a less wordy name) we will also be representing FPV pilots with the CAA and Ofcom and will continue to promote safe and legal flying including the FirstPersonView.co.uk FPV safety guidelines which are much more comprehensive, safe, sensible and well thought out (written by experienced FPV model pilots rather than without knowledge, experience or consultation on the subject).  Those guidelines are available here in PDF format: 

 

Don't get me wrong; The BMFA do a grand job and I'm a supporter.  It was great that they recognised FPV relatively quickly and did something.  Its just that to a lot of people those guidelines are just slightly wide of the mark and they will be breaking the BMFA's rules when they fly - hence the need for other insurance.

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 18/03/2009 11:51:27

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 05/08/2009 16:28:40

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 05/08/2009 16:29:07

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

OK thanks,  I don't know that I was insisting but I was certainly curious.

 

I must admit that I thought that the CAA had advised the BMFA that they wished to have a safety pilot via a buddy lead in order to mitigate against situations where aircraft might be endangered but I'll check my facts via the other threads etc.  Perhaps things have moved on?

 

Knowing from first hand experience how difficult aerial navigation can be (with the benefit of full views and maps to hand) without electronic aids, I must say that the concept of flying out of direct sight of the model worries me in principle.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Simon,

Are you aware that something has changed since the following statement was issued(my italics)?

 

**********************************************************************************

After Consultations with the Civil Aviation Authority and our insurers, BMFA is happy to confirm that First Person R/C will be a legal and recognised aspect of model flying and as such covered by the BMFA Insurance policy but ONLY where the following conditions are applied:

 

• The activity is solely for ‘sport and recreation’ purposes.

• Two pilots must take part

• A buddy Box system must be employed

• The pilot in charge must operate the master transmitter

• The pilot in charge must not wear the headset or view a screen

• The aircraft remains within the natural unaided visual range of the pilot in charge

• Reliable operation of the Buddy Box is established

• A clear handover protocol is established

• The pilot in charge is solely responsible for the safety of the flight

These operating conditions very clearly place the legal responsibility for the safety of the flight on the pilot in charge.

Only by compliance with the above procedures can First Person RC take place as a lawful and insurable aspect of model flying activity.
***************************************************************************************

 

I think it is important that it is realised that the implication here is that the CAA are only recognising FPV as being an acceptable activity under the Air Navigation Order IF the conditions above are adhered to and would probably consider an operator of a model aircraft to be potentially endangering other aircraft if they weren't.  I'd suggest that unless you can find documented evidence to the contrary, it would be in your best interests to confirm the legality of non-buddy boxed flying direct with the CAA and not to be seen to encourage non-compliance in the meantime.

 

One thing that came out of the BMFA Chairman's conference I attended last year was that it is NOT possible to insure against an illegal activity - please be very sure what you're undertaking.

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 14:16:12

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Martin - In answer to your post at 12:50:

 

Flying out of direct line of sight is an entirely different issue.  What I am talking about is the requirement for a buddy lead.  UK/ Europe legal 10mW equipment offers at best between 400metres and 1000metres range so navigation is not an issue here (you'll see that our guidelines suggest studying OS maps/ Google maps of your flying field before you fly and also flying as a "passenger" with the goggles on whilst someone else flies your model for you to learn the lay of the land).

That’s not to mention that most FPV pilots fly with an OSD which displays (amongst other information) location, distance from home and an arrow pointing in the direction of home.

The simple fact of the matter is that a large number of people are flying FPV without a buddy lead (with a spotter, safely and in compliance with the ANO) but without insurance and rather than ignore those people I think it is the safe and responsible course of action to find insurance for them.

I'll respond to your more recent post in a minute.

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 18/03/2009 14:33:37

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Martin,

I'd suggest that unless you can find documented evidence to the contrary, it would be in your best interests to confirm the legality of non-buddy boxed flying direct with the CAA and not to be seen to encourage non-compliance in the meantime.

 

You are a undoubtedly a victim of the BMFA’s unfortunate habit of confusing ‘facts’ with ‘advice’ and with their own self-imposed ‘rules’ (which only apply to BMFA members).
 

There are no special CAA Laws on FPV flying, buddy boxes etc. And yes, we have had several discussions in writing with the CAA and have their responses in writing. Non buddy box fpv flying is entirely legal.  

 

The fact that the BMFA may or may not have ‘consulted’ with the CAA before issuing their own BMFA rules on FPV flying is a very misleading attempt to give false provenance to their entirely self-inflicted knee-jerk short-sightedness.
 

A pilot who is a member of the newly formed B-FPV-MFA (British FPV Model Flyers Association) will be covered by our public liability insurance and will have agreed to follow our comprehensive safety guidelines (which form best practice for FPV flying) will have exactly the same legal status as a member of the BMFA following their guidelines (assuming the said pilot is following the ANO and not wrecklessly endangering anyone, or anything).

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 18/03/2009 14:46:56

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Simon,

 

I'm very glad to hear that you've taken the responsible line with this and had the activity sanctioned.  Would it be possible for you to publish the statements of authorisation as I, for one, would want to see them before diverging from the published advice of a national body.

 

I'm not questioning your information but in the case of anything being misunderstood or misinterpreted, ignorance of the law is no defence.  Having met Manny Williamson on several occasions, he strikes me as a level headed and intelligent individual and it would surprise me if his recommendations and reports were anything but carefully considered.

 

Please be assured that I have nothing against FPV flying and would be interested in trying it but I'd hate to see any adverse publicity for the hobby, hence my interest in establishing the full facts of the matter.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Martin

The CAA do not issue ‘Letters of Authorisation’. They issue the ANO. The ANO details the law in regard to aviation – including model flying.

We have a sequence of emails clarifying with the CAA that the ANO is the law – the one and only law and that there are no other secret laws (from the BMFA or anyone else). 

So as long as we operate our FPV models in accordance with the ANO (which we do) then we are complying with the law.  No – I will not publish private communications: that is a dirty trick. And no, I am not going to go back to Tony Eagles and George Duncan (or Robb Metcalfe) at the CAA and ask their permission to publish private correspondence. That is a waste of everybody’s time.

Let’s turn this on its head. Other than the statement from the BMFA (who have no legal power and definitely are not responsible for setting UK law) where does it say in UK law that FPV flying without a buddy lead is not legal?  (The ANO is searchable on line so it should not take you long ).

Other than the law itself there are potential pitfalls with insurance (you’ll invalidate your association issued insurance if you don’t follow your association’s guidelines) and there are potential issues with best practice (whereby a judge may decide that you were recklessly endangering people, property, aircraft or vessels by blatantly ignoring the sensible guidelines of your association) to be aware of. In this case we’re talking about a member of the BFPVMFAssociation who will be flying with a spotter and will have both public liability insurance and will be bound by best practice guidelines (as previously posted here) which are much more strict, sensible and safe than those of the BMFA.

I’m sure the BMFA came up with the guidelines as they are today for expediencies sake; the buddy lead rule offered a very quick way to give FPV pilots a start without the BMFA spending months researching, testing all the different equipment/ different ranges/ dropout, interference, runtimes, etc, etc, consulting with the experts/ FPV pilots, writing detailed guidelines, etc, etc. and also for insurance purposes because those guidelines offered a quick solution since there was no need to consult the underwriters at all - its traditional RC flying in all respects.
 
The BMFA document satisfies most of the membership and it got those who are interested in FPV off the ground in the first place. However, for those who have passed the beginner stage and are proficient enough to fly FPV without a buddy lead and whom want to do so (with a spotter) the BMFA guidelines are impractical.

For the reasons mentioned above I think the BMFA guidelines were a decent first stab to get us all in the air by FPV. Its unfortunate that Manny’s statement was written to imply that they form UK law when they don’t at all. If the guidelines were seen as a first quick stab to get us in the air and to be later modified as knowledge on the subject increased, technology improved, a track record is set, etc. then that would be fine, but people tend to see those guidelines as set in stone forever.

Adverse publicity for the hobby will come from a seven kilogramme jet crashing into spectators. Or a free-flight model landing on a motorway. Or a large scale heli decapitating a child. Not from an FPV EasyStar bumping into a fence.

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 05/08/2009 16:30:11

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 05/08/2009 16:30:57

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 05/08/2009 16:31:47

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Simon,

 

My worry is that the general nature of the ANO regarding this activity leaves it open to interpretation that a TPV flyer could endanger an aircraft by flying with a limited field of view.  It may very well not be the case but the national body has given the impression that the CAA has laid down conditions and it would be foolish in the extreme not to satisfy oneself that this was not the case.

 

Please don't think that I'm against anything you're doing and I'm more than happy that you've liaised with the CAA on the subject. 

 

My impression is that the CAA are concerned enough about the operation of UAVs to be making specific legislation and that there is a certain grey area in the crossover between FPV flying and UAVs in which they are attempting to accommodate our needs.

 

I'd like to think that you will or have been able to include the BMFA in your deliberationsand that between you there can be a joint statement in order to clarify the position for anyone interested in FPV flying.

 

Perhaps as this is an open forum, someone from the BMFA might see this and care to comment?

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 17:13:18

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Hi Martin,

 

I hope you can see that we have safety and compliance at heart and we are doing everything by the book so to speak even though that is certainly not the easiest option. 

 

We did approach Manny Williamson with our guidelines (which include a risk assesment to the CAAs template) about 18 months (at the same time that we confirmed with the CAA and Ofcom that what we were planning to offer for sale would be legal) and we told him that we were very keen to work with him, to show him FPV flying, explain the ins and outs, etc. 

 

We rang several times and spoke to him but he never gave any information away or contacted us back.  Then sometime later he released the aforementioned guidelines .  There was no consultation with us (the sole UK seller of FPV equipment) or any other FPV experts at all.

 

As I said before; those guidelines were a reasonable first stab to get us going quickly.  Its just a shame that it has been perceived as law and also unchangeable instead of a quick first iterative stab.

 

On the UAV part; I do have it in writing that the upcoming changes to CAP658 for UAVs will make a distinction between FPV flying and UAVs and there will be no additional regulations for FPV.

 

The definition of FPV  will be firstly recreational and secondly:

Cockpit camera for monitoring aircraft flight (including recording)

The definition of a UAV (and there is a separation criteria in play with UAVs):

Surveillance/ data acquisition (external) equipment (eg camera)

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 18/03/2009 17:38:20

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Simon,

 

Certainly looks like you're taking things seriously and I can only applaud that approach.  I do think it would be good if the BMFA could liaise with you and agree a joint policy.

 

Cheers,

 

Martin

[Terry Whiting]

Martin & Mowerman.

 

In answering your question "Why", not all clubs are BMFA affiliated. You might be surprised at the number of clubs that still believe in the freedom of choice for their  insurer.  

Edited By Terry John Whiting on 21/03/2009 08:52:55

[i12fly]

This FPV sounds exciting state of the art stuff and needs to be allowed to move forward. As I'm sure UK isn't the only 'pioneer' for this, what regulations do other countries have? It is a pity that there seems to be a barrier between Simon and BMFA as in the long run it can only be detrimental to our hobby as a whole. C'mon guys, kiss and make up   

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'd second that.  Terry, the issue is of a difference in opinion between the conclusion drawn by the BMFA in consultation with their insurers/CAA and Simon's reported dealings with the CAA (I say reported because he's unwilling to share them although there's no reason to doubt him).

 

I assume that the idea behind the buddy box requirement is that with the best will in the world, there is a difference between having someone standing on the flightline observing and someone with a buddy box holding the switch down in physical control of the flight.  Although it's perfectly possible for either to be totally responsible I think there might be an attitude difference in some cases.

 

In our club, although no-one has tried it yet, we've decided that for the time being, only recognised instructors will be able to act as safety pilots as they are used to taking control at appropriate moments and will not be overawed by senior pilots.  This may be overkill but we feel it's a sensible precaution until more experience is gained.

 

I have drawn the BMFA's attention to this thread and I hope that both parties can get together and come up with a common policy.

[Mark Chiocca]

In our club, although no-one has tried it yet, we''ve decided that for the time being, only recognised instructors will be able to act as safety pilots as they are used to taking control at appropriate moments and will not be overawed by senior pilots.  This may be overkill but we feel it''s a sensible precaution until more experience is gained.

Its curious that nobody has tried FPV in your club when you have made it so easy.

 

Did you introduce the same safety measures when members started swapping to 2.4GHz radio gear? (We all know that there were lots of issues.) Did you have a similar scheme when folks swapped from gas to electric? From Nicad/Nimh to Lipo?  And jets – do you let folks fly them unaided?!?!  In the modern Health and Safety mad, totally risk free UK it is obviously entirely reasonable to introduce the requirements you have. In fact I think an alarm bell should also be rung and the fire brigade put on stand-by. (Maybe a special warning flag should also be hoisted for the benefit of those members who are hard of hearing?)  

 

But have you considered the alternative: that a model crashes. Where I used to fly I saw at least one crash every time I went to the club field.  And then lets imagine that – God Forbid - it is an FPV model that crashes! So more than likely an EasyStar weighing less than half a kilo, flying at 15mph and made from impact absorbing foam. Would this really be the worst thing that has ever happened at your club field?  

If I was to join your club, and fly FPV, I now need to get my packed work schedule and the fickle weather schedule to coincide with an Instructor’s availability – so what chance a quick squirt after lunch on Tuesday? Nah – I’ll fly on my own in my pal’s field thanks.

 

You have (entirely reasonably and totally sensibly) effectively outlawed my interest – on the basis of no actual experience or knowledge of the activity. In fact, just blind prejudice.

• Quote

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Ouch Mark!  Something seems to have rattled your cage!

 

I think we've taken a reasonable approach  "on the basis of no actual experience or knowledge of the activity"  If that's "blind prejudice" then I hold my hands up.  If you re-read your quote from my post you'll note that I did stress that it might be overkill with a clear inference that this policy is not set in stone once some experience is gained.

 

You're absolutely spot on that an EasyStar isn't the most hazardous model in the world but who's to say we won't have our first interested person  equipping a 35% CAP with FPV?

 

We're also guilty as charged over insisting on checks when the 2.4GHz GUID issue emerged and offerering timely advice on the brownout issue.  We insisted on following the BMFA black peg guideline until more experience prompted debate at committee and a vote at the AGM to stop using them.  Yes, the committee takes a lead until experience leads to questioning the initial precautions and informed debate can be entered into.

 

As to why no-one has tried FPV I'm doubtful that any reluctance to take it up would be influenced by our specifying a limited (but readily available) number of experienced helpers to satisfy the requirement to abide by the position promulgated by the BMFA giving the view (whether correct or not) that a safety pilot is a legal and insurance requirement.

 

I certainly haven't heard of any dissenting voices.  Personally, I'd love to give it a go but at this time I don't really want to invest several hundred pounds to indulge in what might be a gimmick.  Some friends at another club weren't particularly enthused over their own experience but if anyone at our club was experimenting, I for one would go out of my way to assist.. And I doubt that I'd be alone.

 

It is a sad fact that as a responsible club, we do have to be aware  of the "modern Health and Safety mad, totally risk free UK" - not a mindset that I think encourages making balanced and considered judgements and may well be actually counter-productive in the long run, but that's a whole different debate.

 

You may not find this at all odd, but our club has a reputation locally for enforcing rules and discipline and that would seem to prove your case.  However, it was like that when I joined and has remained that way BUT it is one of the friendliest bunch of blokes I've ever known, touch wood has no "political" issues, an approachable committee, sensible rules that are reviewed regularly and openly and very importantly due in no little part to observing our rules, good (touch wood very firmly again) relations with the neighbours.

We do seem to be wandering off topic with these posts - perhaps you might think of starting a new thread if the above hasn't put your mind at rest...

Edited By Martin Harris on 23/03/2009 21:41:12

[Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage]

I think the 'rules' set out by the bmfa kinda ruin the whole fun of it. Some setups even have special fail safes that automatically fly back to the home destination upon loss of signal.

 

Even normally, i am mostly (99% of the time) flying with my dad acting as a spotter (tells me of dogs straying onto the strip.

 

Really, i can't see why losing video connection would be any different to losing radio control of the model, just range check the camera before you fly!

And if you say, well if you are controlling via video goggles you can fly away without knowing it, whats to stop you flying out of your radio range without flying via FPV? trying to get your glider as high as you can still see it?

 

If you lose radio connection with your plane, it will probably crash, if you lose video connection, you might crash, but you would still have control of the actual model. Aslong as you don't have cheap cameras that cant reach 100m and even greater ranges than your radios