Drone Pilot License?

[kenjancef]

The AMA insurance covers you wherever you are. And I doubt most homeowners or renters insurance would touch drones with a ten-foot pole. Unless you paid for a very expensive rider.

I have a rider on my renters insurance that covers my camera gear, added about $25/month but covers over $12,000 of gear. I should ask if I can get my Phantom covered...

 

[GadgetGuy]

You'd of course have to look at your own policy (majority of renters don't choose to buy renters insurance). However, renters insurance typically only covers theft away from home if you pay extra for it...and many policies exclude "aircraft" all together...some do allow model aircraft coverage. Depends on your individual insurance terms. So the answer is maybe. Certainly not in all cases. Also some may have limits to their coverage if they do hold renters/homeowners and this will cover any excess damage beyond that coverage.

So, if you're already have a covering homeowner's policy, the AMA insurance gets a free ride, as you cannot collect under both for the likely claims. Also, all policies have deductibles before any coverage kicks in, including the AMA, and paying two deductibles drastically reduces the coverage on a $1,200 drone that wouldn't hurt a flea if it fell on it from outer space! I'd like to see a list of all paid claims the AMA has actually paid out that exceeded the annual premiums. Those huge figures quoted are only offered because they never come into play. The best insurance is self insurance. Neither policy will cover replacement or repair of the aircraft due to a crash, which is the most likely occurence. Now you have insurance on an aircraft you cannot fly, and the AMA offers no prorated refunds after any crash. Not as good a "deal" as it seems, as you have to buy it for a year, but may only need it for two weeks until you crash. Call me a cynic.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The AMA insurance covers you wherever you are. And I doubt most homeowners or renters insurance would touch drones with a ten-foot pole. Unless you paid for a very expensive rider.

Several different insurance agents for major name carriers that sell homeowners insurance policies have already indicated previously that standard homeowners policies without any riders already cover the liabilities most drones owners are so worried about. The liability is virtually nil. It's grossly sensationalized, and the fact that it is included at no additional cost supports that. Much ado about nothing.

 

[TAZ]

So, if you're already have a covering homeowner's policy, the AMA insurance gets a free ride, as you cannot collect under both for the likely claims. Also, all policies have deductibles before any coverage kicks in, including the AMA, and paying two deductibles drastically reduces the coverage on a $1,200 drone that wouldn't hurt a flea if it fell on it from outer space! I'd like to see a list of all paid claims the AMA has actually paid out that exceeded the annual premiums. Those huge figures quoted are only offered because they never come into play. The best insurance is self insurance. Neither policy will cover replacement or repair of the aircraft due to a crash, which is the most likely occurence. Now you have insurance on an aircraft you cannot fly, and the AMA offers no prorated refunds after any crash. Not as good a "deal" as it seems, as you have to buy it for a year, but may only need it for two weeks until you crash. Call me a cynic.

You're a cynic. Thing is I'm not a spokesman for the AMA...you stated you had to fly at an event or field, which isn't correct. Just pointing that out.

Many people don't have homeowners or rental insurance...or have limited coverage, or have exclusions that does not cover aircraft. For those, The insurance included in the AMA membership is a good value. If that isn't value to you, then perhaps the other benefits they offer may be...perhaps not.

And it's not really "non-cynical" to say the AMA gets a free ride...they aren't the ones paying out the claims, it is their insurance carrier. You are likely right that many claims that are primarily covered by those that already have homeowners/renters insurance reduces the cost of membership wide insurance to their members...so really the ones getting a free ride are those that have limited personal coverage using the AMA coverage to fill the gaps...and that's a good thing. It's all an insurance game, and the winners are the insurance companies, not the AMA. And BTW, AMA deductible for fire/theft is $100.00. Not hard to research. Of course if you want crash coverage, the AMA coverage will be just like your homeowners...non existent. No better, no worse.

The reason I belong to the AMA has nothing to do with insurance, although their 2.5Mil coverage exceeds my own...I can't imagine doing 2.5mil of damage with my drone (but if I do...I'll be happy I've got it). The reason I belong is because they are a good advocacy / lobbying group for model aircraft (drones included). It's in fact because of the AMA lobbying efforts that "model aircraft" are currently by law excluded from most FAA regulations due to the 2012 Aircraft and Aviation Reform Act. It didn't just mysteriously appear in the laws, it was lobbied and advocated for. And that's a good thing. They also provide youth education and scholarship opportunities, and facilitate a great amount of information flow between their members.

A fairly valid complaint is members of the AMA have historically (to the limits that drone history goes back) not been overly welcoming in some cases to drone enthusiasts. This however is changing, and there is plenty of evidence towards their shift in that regard.

So...yeah, if you've got great homeowners/renters insurance...and don't care about anything other than insurance, don't join the AMA. If you are in the other category, it may be of good value.

 

[johan]

I've always wondered about the AMA insurance and exactly what it covers. Back when I was flying professionally, I had a job flying banners off of a private grass strip. My company rented the strip and we were the only tenants. Even the property owner didn't fly out of there or keep a plane there.

One evening as I'm packing up and getting ready to head home, a car pulls in and a few guys get out. They approach me and ask if I work there. I do. They say they fly RC airplanes and were wondering if they could come out and use our field to fly their planes.
Absolutely not.
Why not?
I've got several aircraft tied down here which I could not afford to risk damaging if one of your models goes rogue.
Oh, its ok, we have insurance for that through the AMA.
Is that so? Well depending on the weekend in question, I could lose $10k or more in revenue if one of my airplanes is out of service. Are you or your insurance prepared to reimburse us for that lost revenue should it come to pass as a result of damage you caused?

They didn't have an answer for that one. I bid them good evening and they left never to return. $2.5M in liability is great. But it doesn't do squat if it doesn't cover lost revenue and I doubt that it does although I've never found anyone who could say for sure if it did or didn't.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The devil is always in the details. The AMA insurance policy coverage is null and void if you don't comply with every single one of the "rules" of the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, as spelled out in this very "simple" document:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
"Just join the AMA, fly for recreational fun and operate within the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code and you’re good to take off."

Handcatching is specifically prohibited, and you may not ever fly within 25 feet of any human being other than yourself. You must also have a spotter and retain visual LOS at all times.
No automomous flying permitted. Your name and membership number must be on your aircraft.
They even prohibit drunk flying! What a bunch of pansies!

If you want to join the AMA, fine, but they don't speak for me, and I don't need any more stinkin' rules to fly by, and their insurance is worthless, IMHO.

 

[Buk]

I carried one of my Phantoms into my insurance agent's office. They stated they would only cover theft, if I had gotten a police report filed. No other coverage was available.

So always check with your agent before presuming your Phantom is covered.

I haven't heard of an instance of AMA insurance providing coverage for a Phantom incident/accident. Have any of you?

 

[GadgetGuy]

I carried one of my Phantoms into my insurance agent's office. They stated they would only cover theft, if I had gotten a police report filed. No other coverage was available.

So always check with your agent before presuming your Phantom is covered.

I haven't heard of an instance of AMA insurance providing coverage for a Phantom incident/accident. Have any of you?

The Phantom itself isn't covered, but you are covered for liability while operating the Phantom, or while playing golf, or owning the real estate upon which somone is injured. They insure you, not the drone.

None of these policies provide comprehensive coverage for damage to the Phantom, just theft and liability.

 

[Buk]

Allow me to rephrase: So always check with your Homeowner's Insurance agent before presuming you or your Phantom are covered.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Allow me to rephrase: So always check with your Homeowner's Insurance agent before presuming you or your Phantom are covered.

Assuming you get a correct answer, which I don't think you did, as you should be covered for liability no matter what you are doing that is legal, including flying your drone, unless they specifically excluded drone flying, but why would they? The risk and the liability is so minimal that the AMA includes it for free in their membership, even if you have to fly by all their rules to be covered. Best insurance is good piloting skills!

 

[Buk]

Good operating skills are a supplement to good insurance. Or perhaps good insurance supplements good operating skills. Finding good insurance may require adequate "shopping" to obtain what maybe believed to be good and adequate coverage.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Good operating skills are a supplement to good insurance. Or perhaps good insurance supplements good operating skills. Finding good insurance may require adequate "shopping" to obtain what maybe believed to be good and adequate coverage.

Agreed!

 

[TAZ]

The reason I belong to the AMA has nothing to do with insurance, although their 2.5Mil coverage exceeds my own...I can't imagine doing 2.5mil of damage with my drone (but if I do...I'll be happy I've got it). The reason I belong is because they are a good advocacy / lobbying group for model aircraft (drones included). It's in fact because of the AMA lobbying efforts that "model aircraft" are currently by law excluded from most FAA regulations due to the 2012 Aircraft and Aviation Reform Act. It didn't just mysteriously appear in the laws, it was lobbied and advocated for. And that's a good thing. They also provide youth education and scholarship opportunities, and facilitate a great amount of information flow between their members.

A fairly valid complaint is members of the AMA have historically (to the limits that drone history goes back) not been overly welcoming in some cases to drone enthusiasts. This however is changing, and there is plenty of evidence towards their shift in that regard.

So...yeah, if you've got great homeowners/renters insurance...and don't care about anything other than insurance, don't join the AMA. If you are in the other category, it may be of good value.

Further to the point of AMA advocacy, here is a communication I received today via email: AMA Email: AMA’s Response to the FAA’s Drone Sighting Report | DJI Phantom Forum

Fairly pleased with both their communication, and getting their opinion in front of a couple of media outlets. It's fairly difficult to get the media to say anything positive about our hobby. Nice to see someone push for some perspective.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Further to the point of AMA advocacy, here is a communication I received today via email: AMA Email: AMA’s Response to the FAA’s Drone Sighting Report | DJI Phantom Forum

Fairly pleased with both their communication, and getting their opinion in front of a couple of media outlets. It's fairly difficult to get the media to say anything positive about our hobby. Nice to see someone push for some perspective.

I read their reply. Their interests and ours as drone flyers are not the same. They don't speak for me. I don't fly at their airfields, and I have no desire to be bound by their Rules when flying elsewhere. Rumor has it they are hostile to drone flyers at their airfields, and are worried that drones are ruining it for them. They are not our friends.

 

[TAZ]

I read their reply. Their interests and ours as drone flyers are not the same. They don't speak for me. I don't fly at their airfields, and I have no desire to be bound by their Rules when flying elsewhere. Rumor has it they are hostile to drone flyers at their airfields, and are worried that drones are ruining it for them. They are not our friends.

You've made it clear you have something against the AMA. Their reach is beyond their airfields. You're under no obligation to fly within their safety recommendations, or to pay them any mind whatsoever. Others can read it and research and make their own opinion. If you'd like to introduce a group that does speak for you...and us, I'm sure it'll inform many people here. And, as an organization, they are not hostile to drone fliers. Some individuals may be, but such is that in any large group. If you'd like to provide some substance to your inflammatory remarks in that regard, I'm sure people will also take that under advisement. Otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth. But more importantly...at least in the regards of the topics discussed of the links I posted, they do speak well for me, and I assume many others.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You've made it clear you have something against the AMA. Their reach is beyond their airfields. You're under no obligation to fly within their safety recommendations, or to pay them any mind whatsoever. Others can read it and research and make their own opinion. If you'd like to introduce a group that does speak for you...and us, I'm sure it'll inform many people here. And, as an organization, they are not hostile to drone fliers. Some individuals may be, but such is that in any large group. If you'd like to provide some substance to your inflammatory remarks in that regard, I'm sure people will also take that under advisement. Otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth. But more importantly...at least in the regards of the topics discussed of the links I posted, they do speak well for me, and I assume many others.

An organization is no more than its members. The AMA is an "advocacy group" with their own agenda. They do not speak or advocate for drone flyers. While we, as drone flyers, may share some common interests with model aircraft pilots, whose aircraft ARE the very ones causing all the problems, based upon the size and altitude and range being reported in the sightings, that doesn't impress me. We drone flyers are catching all the flak because of the actions of rogue AMA flyers who own and fly bigger craft that do pose a serious safety hazard. The so called inflammatory remarks come from statements made by advocates of the AMA in this forum about hostilty towards drone flyers at their airfieds is now "slowly changing." Skiers and snowboarders may have to share the mountain, but that doesn't mean I have to like snowboarders nor let them speak for me, just because the AMA offers worthless insurance with membership and wrote a self serving letter to the FAA that everyone here could have written themselves, after reading the bogus FAA report. The AMA just wants to pretend they are the only one that can see through all the BS the FAA is putting out. You read all that here first! We have plenty of bandwidth. No worries there. I don't need a group to speak for me. I'm good at speaking for myself!

 

[Buk]

I'm wondering how you've found out about rogue AMA flyers? In the many stories from news agencies, I haven't seen statistical references regarding rogue flyers belonging to this organization or that organization. That seems to me to be an unfounded generalization much like the misinformation included in many news stories.

I don't think the AMA speaks for me. Safety is important to me, but currently the AMA seems behind the times much like the FAA in the technology involved and operating practices of multirotor or fixed wing unmanned aerial systems operators. That is slowly changing, if for no other reason than what a cash cow "drones" are becoming.

However the AMA is a large lobbying group for model aircraft, one that has been around for quite awhile. As such, their comments and opinions carry some clout. The two organizations (FAA/AMA) were going to be hand-in-glove, that maybe changing.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'm wondering how you've found out about rogue AMA flyers? In the many stories from news agencies, I haven't seen statistical references regarding rogue flyers belonging to this organization or that organization. That seems to me to be an unfounded generalization much like the misinformation included in many news stories.

I don't think the AMA speaks for me. Safety is important to me, but currently the AMA seems behind the times much like the FAA in the technology involved and operating practices of multirotor or fixed wing unmanned aerial systems operators. That is slowly changing, if for no other reason than what a cash cow "drones" are becoming.

However the AMA is a large lobbying group for model aircraft, one that has been around for quite awhile. As such, their comments and opinions carry some clout. The two organizations (FAA/AMA) were going to be hand-in-glove, that maybe changing.

Well, considering that the vast majority of AMA members are flying the type of larger craft described in the near miss incidents, it stands to reason that they are far more likely to be the culprits than Phantom pilots whose 2.5 pound drones are a fraction of the 55 pound size limit of larger model aircraft flown by AMA members. However, I didn't mean to imply that they necessarily belong to the AMA. Just that they are rogues flying the larger "AMA type" craft that have much longer ranges, sizes, and are capable of the altitude heights that Phantoms cannot reach, where these so called "drone" sightings are allegedly occurring. These larger aircraft flyers are clearly flying off the reservation! If they are AMA members, the AMA would do well to police their own members. These guys like to brag and share their toys and accomplishments, and are rarely loners. The AMA is where I would expect to find them! Why do bank robbers rob banks? That's where all he money is! As to the rest of your post, I think we agree. Clearly, the AMA is here trying to recruit us under the guise of "free" insurance, so we can help fund their agenda. Free insurance is worthless. You'll never collect a dime under it, if you read the policy exclusions! Save your money for another battery, so you won't need insurance, because you are always stretching the original battery, risking a loss.

 

[Buk]

"These guys...", "...rarely loners..." Those are generalizations without much basis in fact, as the facts are not available. Generalizations, much like what you hear from this AMA official in this meeting. Compare the AMA guy's speech to Brendan Shulman's speech.

Joint Hearing Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management and Senate Judiciary Committee | senate.ca.gov

I don't feel represented by the AMA guy.

 

[Pulsar747n]

Ok, so for the uneducated, what goes into getting a pilot's license for drone use? I am a sports photographer, and was looking to get my P2 involved in my photography. If I fly commercially I need to be licensed, but have no clue where to begin.

Thoughts?

Not sure you have received an direct answer to your question. To make it short, under current rules you do need need to be a FAA certified pilot or hire a FAA certified Pilot to fly a drone commercially. The lowest license that you can get is the Sport Pilot License. Search for Sport Pilot to find out the requirements. Also, to fly commercially you need to obtain a 333 Exemption. There is plenty of information on this forum that you can research.

@antdon. There are not FAA official recognized school that will provide you with what you want. There have been some people/companies that have obtained 333 Exemption to include training but the curriculum is not approved by the FAA. In other words, what you are asking does not exist yet.