President’s Perspective
Dave Brown AMA president
AS I TALK to members in my travels, two of the most common questions I hear are whether the AMA insurance pays out many claims and why we don’t see any account of those claims in Model Aviation.
These are valid questions about which I wish we could provide more information, but it’s not usually possible.
For reasons I’m not entirely familiar with, most larger claims are sealed upon settlement and subject to some form of “nondisclosure” agreement. I’m sure there are some circumstances where this is reasonable, but I must admit, it seems to be the case far more often than I can understand.
If you look at the financial information provided in the magazine by Executive Vice President Doug Holland, you can get a glimmer of the overall settlement cost, but that requires that you screen the information carefully and know where to look for all of the costs.
It’s difficult to assess the costs because it’s difficult to attribute the overall legal expenses to specific areas of AMA operations.
Recently we settled a case where we were not subject to any nondisclosure clause, and it is an opportunity for me to show the members how these things go and how the costs mount.
To begin with, the accident itself was a fairly simple case of a dead-stick model hitting a youngster (a modeler on the field with his father) when the pilot of the model tried to land it.
During the course of “discovery” — the legal process of interviewing anyone who had anything to do with or any technical knowledge of the accident or subject — there were conflicting reports of a number of details. These included whether the model the youngster was preparing to fly with his father was running, when the incident started, or if the aircraft was being fueled.
Reports of the pilot yelling “dead-stick” and of many people yelling “heads up” seem to be universal, but the accident happened anyway. Gusty winds may have caused the pilot to lose control, and it isn’t clear whether the injured person was in front of or behind the flightline.
The bottom line is that it was an accident, and, as in most such accidents, there were many contributing factors as well as a number of ways it might have been prevented.
The injuries that resulted were significant to the youngster, chiefly in the area of the right eye, which was severely impacted. I won’t go into the medical details, as I might misrepresent them through my lack of understanding the medical terms in the report, but the injuries were significant and will affect this youngster for the rest of his life.
By now the youngster should have had the second surgery, which will allow him to try to wear contact lenses to correct his vision to 20/30 as compared to 20/200 uncorrected and 20/40 with glasses.
The reports indicate the likelihood of a couple of more surgeries when he becomes an adult, but that may depend on future medical advancements.
While the financial ramifications for this case are far from the worst part, it’s important that you understand how these things work.
As with most cases these days, the one was settled before trial. The settlement was $900,000, of which the pilot’s homeowners insurance (State Farm) paid out its policy limits of $100,000 and the AMA policy paid out $800,000.
Of this $800,000, AMA paid the first $250,000 directly out of its insurance reserves and Royal Insurance paid out $550,000.
The breakdown of where this goes is really quite interesting. Right off the top comes $360,000 (40% per contract), which is the attorney’s fee for the injured youngster.
Filing fees and service of process came to $1,836. Medical records were $233.38.
Other reports were $567.37, including a fire/rescue report at 45 cents!
Photocopies were $441.12, court reporters (deposition-taking) came to $2,285.09, couriers cost $448.03, and expert witness fees totaled $5,600.
Investigators received $1,319.40, medical illustrations cost $12,600, and miscellaneous expenses totaled $3,131.58, for a total of $28,461.97. Added to that was $2,600 in out-of-pocket expenses for the injured party and $1,318.37 in uninsured medical expenses.
That leaves $508,919.66 for the claimant, but Blue Cross will probably have to be reimbursed for the $33,708.05 it paid out.
The bottom line is that the expenses of the process used up almost half of the settlement.
All of this is the result of a simple dead-stick landing we have seen many times — except this one got away from the pilot and hit someone.
How do we avoid this type of thing in the future?
To begin with, unless you are really well-qualified, don’t try to land a dead-stick model at your feet on the runway when others are nearby.
Land the model in the grass on the other side of the runway. This is particularly important if it’s windy. Don’t take any chances.
If you hear anyone yell “dead-stick,” pay attention! Human nature makes it likely that the pilot will try to land the model close, and that means you need to keep an eye on it.
Look around before starting your engine. Do you really need to be that close to the runway when you are starting your model? If not, move back.
The important thing we can all learn from this is to be alert to everything that is going on around us while at the flying field.
If you are flying and someone is too close to the runway, dump it in the weeds. If you are near the runway and in an unprotected area, be aware of other models, whether they are flying or taxiing. The injury you prevent might well be your own — or worse yet, some kid’s.
Fly safely. MA
Dave Brown AMA president [email protected]
Many would prefer the belt-tightening method, and that would affect members in different ways. Someone would be affected no matter where we make cuts, so it becomes a matter of fairness.
One significant area where we could reduce cost is mailing; we could reduce the amount of mailing we do by relying more on E-mail and electronic media. This could be a substantial savings. We're looking into an electronic balloting system as a way to increase election participation and save a significant amount of money. Elimination of the souvenir manual is also being considered.
Free (named) membership for contest directors could be eliminated. We know there is abuse of this program, and it is costly. We could reduce the subsidy we give to youth memberships, which actually costs more to process than the $1 we charge in dues. The senior-citizen discount could be reduced from the present 22% to the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) standard of 10%.
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) team support could be cut, as could the support for representation at FAI meetings. We could cut back on the funding of educational programs, but we have already lost $87,500 from RCHTA (Radio Control Hobby Trade Association) for educational programs. It is important that we maintain educational programs; they justify our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, so options in this area are limited.
It's important that we not lose too much of our due structure to the neglectability of risks. To do so could create a problem with insurance regulations. We are not an insurance company; we are an association dedicated to aeromodeling which provides liability coverage for its members, clubs, and flying-site owners.
We have many options, but all involve a dues increase or a decrease in services. Some would have us sell assets and/or dip into reserves to avoid an increase, but to do so would endanger our ability to provide the services, programs, and benefits necessary for our sport to survive in the future.
I said at the BC meeting that the best way the AMA EC can serve its members is to do an exemplary job of running the business of the association. If we do a poor job, the association will not be able to serve the needs of aeromodeling in the future.
We must make some hard decisions, and your input to your district vice president is appreciated.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
