c/l speed injury

>On the RCUniverse AMA discussion forum there is mention of a
>1.3 million settlement to someone who was hit by a plane
>that he was launching. Details are sketchy at best. This
>supposed incident happened at Whitter Narrows (in Ca?). Does
>anyone here know of this incident? This was to have
>happened during a c/l speed event at an AMA contest. Thanks
>MIke Krizan.

Is the guy related to the gal who spilled the McDonalds coffee on her lap? I always figure I have about 6 seconds to get out of the way when I launch a cl stunt plane. With a speed plane they come around a little quicker. If I can't move quick enough, I figure I shouldn't be launching.

Whenever you get a pile of money together, there is an equal if not greater pile of greasey, scumbag, leper ridden lawyers working on a way to convince you that it's really theirs. With enough time, they move to washington where they try to convince you that all money is theirs and they should allocate what they think you need back to you.

That's not quite fair. Those afflicited with Leporacy shouldn't be lumped in with lawyers and politicians, my apologies.

I believe it happened in 1992 and the model hit the man in the leg. He was an airline pilot and was unable to get his medical certificate after the injury. That would indicate a very disabling injury. I think it was a D speed model. All of this is from memory, I can be wrong.
Chris...

>>On the RCUniverse AMA discussion forum there is mention of a
>>1.3 million settlement to someone who was hit by a plane
>>that he was launching. Details are sketchy at best. This
>>supposed incident happened at Whitter Narrows (in Ca?). Does
>>anyone here know of this incident? This was to have
>>happened during a c/l speed event at an AMA contest. Thanks
>>MIke Krizan.
>
>Is the guy related to the gal who spilled the McDonalds
>coffee on her lap? I always figure I have about 6 seconds
>to get out of the way when I launch a cl stunt plane. With
>a speed plane they come around a little quicker. If I can't
>move quick enough, I figure I shouldn't be launching.

Speed planes accelerate quite slowly - first lap would be at least 6 or 7 seconds. Combat ships are the ones to be careful of - a quick figure 9 into your backside?

What I heard at the time(early 90's) was that he was struck when a speed ship broke loose during a flight. His leg was severely injured with broken bones, destroyed nerves, etc. This is the reason speed sites are now required to have a fence seperating the plane from other fliers and spectators.

I believe the reference is to an injury suffered by Joe Armstead in the early '90s. As I heard it, a D speed ship came apart and the main pan/engine assembly hit Joe in the leg. This destroyed his lower leg, and he lost his career as an airline pilot as a result. Someone else may be able to fill in the details. This was not a case of someone spilling coffee; it was a serious accident.

The McDonald's coffee incident...do you know the facts?

Woman in her 80s, not litigious, never sued anyone.

3rd degree burns over about 10% of her body.

McD's already had settled a number of similar cases out of court (relatively cheaply).

Later investigation showed that McD's. served their coffee at least 20 degrees hotter than any other restaurant that could be compared. It was near the boiling point.

McD's stopped this practice soon afterwards.

IMHO, the woman had a case...You do expect some unpleasantness when you spill coffee on yourself, but not this.

Re lawyers...say what you will, but when you get in trouble, you will not pick Mr (or Mrs) Congeniality. At least, you are not advised to.

>The McDonald's coffee incident...do you know the facts?
>
>Woman in her 80s, not litigious, never sued anyone.
>
>3rd degree burns over about 10% of her body.
>
>McD's already had settled a number of similar cases out of
>court (relatively cheaply).
>
>Later investigation showed that McD's. served their coffee
>at least 20 degrees hotter than any other restaurant that
>could be compared. It was near the boiling point.
>
>McD's stopped this practice soon afterwards.
>
>IMHO, the woman had a case...You do expect some
>unpleasantness when you spill coffee on yourself, but not
>this.
>
>Re lawyers...say what you will, but when you get in trouble,
>you will not pick Mr (or Mrs) Congeniality. At least, you
>are not advised to.
>
>Currell

Not sure I would agree that she had a case... But that's why we have courts...

I expect coffee to be HOT. I understand she was holding the coffee cup between her knees while driving and the lid came off... can't see how that could be McD's fault.

I just wonder who the guy would've suid if he had torn his leg up skiing? Of course I just recently started purchasing that Insurence that pays you if you get hurt and can't work, with money, and that's almost as good as cash.

>I just recently started purchasing that Insurence that pays you if >you get hurt and can't work, with money, and that's almost as good >as cash.

This is the most critically underinsured area in America. It's called disability income, it's not widely available to many occupations, and basically every company that has gone into the disability market has done poorly. Benefits are free of federal income tax to the extent they are paid with after tax dollars ie, if your emplyoyer pays half,only half the benefit is taxable. There are many definitions of disability contained in the policy, some quite generous(i.e. work at a different job due to disability and still collect full benefit, etc.)

I picked up an individual policy paying $1700 a month back when I was in administrative work. After I had gone into sales several years later, I had back surgery and drew the benefit for two years despite still working and making more money than when in administration. At the end of two years, the company decided they were riding a dead horse and started negotiations to buy the policy back, which they did for $60K.

Get it if you have the chance and never give an insurance company an even break-they won't give you one I assure you.

Quack, Quack.

Chris McMillin & Johm Thompson have it right. It was Joe Armstead; he was an airline pilot; and a D Speed ship did hit him at Whittier Narrows, thereby destroying his leg (and career).

I seem to remember hearing that Dr. Rudner was on site and helped stabalize the leg during transportation. I too understand that the damage to the leg was very bad.

I was there (in the stunt area) but memory a little hazy. I believe he had launched the model and was inside the speed fence when the model touched the ground and came apart with the pan and engine doing the damage to his leg.

I hope I'm right about this- I think his leg was saved and after about a year of rehab he was able to return to work (DC10 driver). AMA would know the facts. Let's face it- what we do has an element of risk that we control the best we can. But if it's mechanical it can fail. Fly safe!,

Sounds like the the jet speed model that broke away at the Houston meet this year. No fence or net.....

The Joe Armestead at Whittier Narrows incident happened before the speed cage (a 10 ft 80' radius cyclone fence)was put up. It was a nostalgia D speed plane that hit the ground at full speed at a shallow angle. The controls held but the engine and pan broke free and went into a crowd of particpants.
There was some racer pit men injured recently but I know of no permanent injury or law suit.
Another incident was at the tether car track. A bullet shaped car went throught the cyclone fence. Only slowed it down slightly. No one hit or hurt. Since then, the car guys have put a steel rail about 6" from the 10 meter radius. I understand it works but have seen it in action.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-03 AT 11:31 PM (CDT)
 
Guys,

I know Joe quite well both through modeling (which he gave up forever after the incident) and as a fellow pilot at United. I visited him in the hospital several times over the several years of rehabilitation and reconstructive surgery he suffered through..and believe me, suffer hardly describes what he endured.

Joe's story is, in fact, quite heroic and the conflict with AMA rose to the level of a law suit only after many months of conflict over their insurance culpability for the incident. I don't know the details well enough to be any more specific than that.

What I can relate his the fact that amongst many surgeries he had one where they removed a muscle from his groin to replace one that had been destroyed in the accident. This transplant suffered an infection that required that the transplant be removed. Something similar happened with a bone transplant from the other leg.

The bones in his lower leg were shattered to the point that significant lengths of bone were simply gone. He underwent an experimental procedure developed (I think) in Russia where an external brace...two haloes, one around the upper leg and one around the lower connected to the separated bones by rods going through the skin and into the bone and then connected to each other by steel pushrods which could be shrtened to apply pressure to the bones themselves. These applied a force of sorts to the bone ends which caused the bones to grow and eventually meet and mend together.

More than once Doctor's urged Joe to have the leg amputated and each time he refused.

Eventually Joe's heroic efforts paid off. He now walks more or less normally and, after several years (not one as someone suggested)he came back to United and requested the right to demonstrate his ability to return to the left seat flying passengers around the world. This pretty wonderful guy did exactly that and finished off his career with great distinction.

Joe is now retired like yours truly and I haven't seen him in a couple of years. I will, however, the end of September when both Joe and I will take part in some NASA simulator development of emergency procedures for the Space Shuttle from lift off to MECO (That's Main Engine Cut Off to us part time astronaut types!)

Guys, I'm no stranger to lawyer jokes but, in this case, some of you are way off base. The entire story of what transpired between Joe and AMA's insurance will probably never be known to anyone outside of the litigation. What can be known, if I can state this plainly, is that Joe suffered more than any human I've ever been personally acquainted with as a result of an injury in which he was strictly a victim. That it was the result of participating in a hobby that up to that point had been a huge and happy part of his life and is now anathema to him only makes the story more distressing.

I guess this illustrates how important it is to learn the facts about things and events about which we choose to be outspoken and vituperative. How much are a few years of our lives or the normal use of our limbs worth in the great scheme of things.

A much more diplomatic definition of the word ASSUME than I might have used, but well said...

Ted, I appreciate your response, and, perhaps, my original response was off base. However, I wonder, in our litigatious society, if sometimes there are not abuses of the system.

If I have a hundred thousand dollar life insurance policy (fact) and I were to die of "natural causes" or because an airplane hit me, my wife would be entitled to one hundred thousand dollars. No more. no less. I have health insurance, and when I had my heart "situation", we paid the $500 deductable and the insurance company bought a new Porsche for the doctor (er, sorry, paid the doctor's fee) the hospital bill, etc. That is what the insurance was supposed to do. If I had been hit by a model airplane or a car or whatever and placed in the same situation and had to go through the same rehabilitation, etc., it would still have paid the same. No more. No less.

I don't know what the AMA policy states, but my insurance policy pays only for the injury, not for pain and suffering, loss of income, or anything else. There are policys for that, too, if you want them. Betty Grable insured her legs for a million dollars--and that was in the 40's. If I injured my legs, I don't care how severely, I wouldn't get that. I am not insured for it. I am not entitled to it.

When I had my heart "incident" I was partially to blame (maybe a lot to blame.) I ate McDonald's hamburgers like a pig. Whpppers? Give me a couple--and add the fries and chocolate shake to the order too. Anyone got room for a hot fudge sundae? I'll take one. What I am getting at is I don't blame McDonald's or Burger King or...I blame me. When I step into the ring to launch a model airplane, I know the risk. I accept the risk. And if something happens, well, there is medical insurance for the injury. There is life insurance if death occurs. But are we really entitled to more?

Again, I do not know circumstances and do not wish to say this wrongly, but today there is the feeling we should blame everybody and anybody. Instead of suing the person who shot us with a gun (who has no money and has no insurance) we sue the gun company that made the gun. Instead of suing the drunk who hit us with his car (who has no money and has no insurance) we sue the bartender who served the drink, or the bar where he works, or the company that made the liquor. Instead of blaming ourselves (or at least taking part of the blame) for placing ourselves in jeopardy, or suing the pilot who flew the plane or the builder who built the plane (who have no money and only have AMA insurance) we sue AMA as provider of the insurance and sponsor of the contest.

If I am out of line, again, I am sorry, but it seems to me to be a bit of overkill. Maybe we should get back to talking about airplanes. And not to scare you, Ted, but remember the guy who flew his plane into the power lines and got killed and his family sued the maker of the handle? Was the maker of the handle really at fault?

>Again, I do not know circumstances and do not wish to say
>this wrongly, but today there is the feeling we should blame
>everybody and anybody.

<<snip>>

>Instead of blaming ourselves (or at least taking part of the
>blame) for placing ourselves in jeopardy, or suing the pilot
>who flew the plane or the builder who built the plane (who
>have no money and only have AMA insurance) we sue AMA as
>provider of the insurance and sponsor of the contest.

I am first in line when it comes to bashing lawyers, but this was not a situation in which someone tried to get rich. The AMA insurance is intended to provide coverage for participants who are flying in accordance with the AMA safety code. That's why we pay $50ish dollars a year -primarily, it's the premium on the policy. If one has a devastating injury while engaged on modeling activities, it's supposed to pay reasonable costs incurred as a result. The fact that reasonable costs might be high due to the level of injury, or that the injured party might be perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be rich enough to not need the payout, doesn't have a bearing on the validity of the claim.

It's not a matter of "blaming" the AMA,or anyone - it's a matter of getting insurance that was bought and paid for to pay off a legitimate claim for reasonable medical costs.

I'm sure you could get an alternative veiwpoint from AMA officials.

In a lot of cases, you may be right, but I know just enough about this one to suggest you are way off base.

If I am off base, I am sorry for the comments. And I do agree that insurance coverage should be paid according to the policy coverage.

Perhaps we should just leave the subject.

Could he have sued if he'd been the flyer of the model instead of the launcher?

Tony

I was flying speed there that day and the comments by John Thompson Ted Fancher and John Wright pretty much have it covered.

The model belonged to an older speed flyer that was coming back into the hobby. He bought a modern OS 65 and put it into one of his models built in the sixties. The problem arose when he used one of his wooden props instead of a composite one and the model threw a blade after about 2 laps the vibration caused the model to pan in at a shallow angle and the pan and engine separated from the model hitting Joe.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-03 AT 05:32 PM (CDT)
 
Ron,

Would you say that responsible officiating by the CD calls for disqualifying such a questionable setup--especially a modern D engine with a wood prop (not as a matter of finger-pointing, but rather learning from mistakes), or would that be expecting the CD to bring a crystal ball?

Are you planning to fly at Merced Labor Day?

Hi Kim,
In hindsight Kim after all was said and done the model probably shouldn't have been allowed to be entered. We all had a chance to look at it after the accident, it was a full pan model but had only three tie down points and the hardware was of questionable quality. At the time there was no rules about the use of wood props on a .65. One point to make is that Joe and the owner/pilot of the model were friends and had come to the contest together and Joe was starting and launching the model, so was somewhat familiar with the model.

:So Kim what do you think of the nova rossi?

>:So Kim what do you think of the nova rossi?

Hi Ron,
It's a beauty, and so much bang for the buck. It won't be ready for Merced on Labor Day weekend--I started a new job etc etc, but should be ready for the last 2 LA contests. Any chance you might be available and willing to pilot my new F40 buy-n-fly at Merced (OPS Ned "Indy")? Jim Rhoades is planning on going to Denver that weekend.
It will be nice to become less dependent on pilots in the future, with enough practice.

I flew stunt for the first time in a long time today in Gilroy and wasn't as senile and rusty as I expected. So much hobby, so little time.

Hi Kim,
No I won't be making Merced as that would be four contests in four weekends in three different states and one province. I'll need at least one weekend off so unfortunately it will have to be Merced. hopefuly i'll see you at one of the L.A. contest's. Is'nt that a fantastic engine,and it cost's less than a fox .35. Hard to mention them in the same sentence.

Hi Ron,
Just reading about your contest schedule wears me out.
See you in L.A. Time for a rest.

I know things are different here in the UK but I can't imagine a UK insurance company paying out to anyone who was actively participating in a sport whether flying or launching.

>I know things are different here in the UK but I can't
>imagine a UK insurance company paying out to anyone who was
>actively participating in a sport whether flying or
>launching.

Well, I would think they would pretty much be obliged to, if the policy explicitly includes all accidents that happen as the result of modeling activities.

Model flyers can have ample coverage through membership of the BMFA, the UK equivalent of AMA. I don't know how much truth there is in the tale that the most expensive payout from the BMFA insurance was for an injury caused by a hand launched glider that destroyed the vision in one eye of someone.

There is very little that can not be insured, even in the UK, the bigger the risk, the bigger the premium.

Vernon

>I don't know how much
>truth there is in the tale that the most expensive payout
>from the BMFA insurance was for an injury caused by a hand
>launched glider that destroyed the vision in one eye of
>someone.

Certainly this is a credible scenario. I was struck directly in the eye with a HLG. I was lucky. It bloodied the interior of the eye and caused a very small retinal detachment which did not require treatment and healed properly. I still have floaters in that eye as a reminder. If the impact had been just a little more forceful, I could easily have lost the eye. As it was, the eye was blinded for perhaps 15 minutes after the injury. Very scary.

But I didn't sue anybody or collect on any insurance. It was an accident. Stuff happens.

>>I don't know how much
>>truth there is in the tale that the most expensive payout
>>from the BMFA insurance was for an injury caused by a hand
>>launched glider that destroyed the vision in one eye of
>>someone.
>
>Certainly this is a credible scenario. I was struck
>directly in the eye with a HLG. I was lucky. It bloodied
>the interior of the eye and caused a very small retinal
>detachment which did not require treatment and healed
>properly. I still have floaters in that eye as a reminder.
>If the impact had been just a little more forceful, I could
>easily have lost the eye. As it was, the eye was blinded
>for perhaps 15 minutes after the injury. Very scary.
>
>But I didn't sue anybody or collect on any insurance. It
>was an accident. Stuff happens.

If you were an AMA member, then you should have been covered under the Medical coverage, and if your other insurance didn't cover the hospital and doctor visits, AMA's insurance would have kicked in.

Accidents are exactly the thing insurance is there for, after all, isn't it?

The last time there was an insurance flame war on Usenet (this used to be more common when SFA was around) I had to point out what everyone was ignoring - that the important part of AMA insurance is flying site OWNER coverage. This coverage is primary, and without it, many flying sites would cease to exist. (And I see no reason why someone who is not an AMA member and who doesn't contribute towards the siteowner's coverage should be able to fly at a field where the owner is covered under this scheme.) The individual modeler liability coverage is important, too, but I consider it much less so.

>
>If you were an AMA member, then you should have been covered
>under the Medical coverage, and if your other insurance
>didn't cover the hospital and doctor visits, AMA's insurance
>would have kicked in.
>
>Accidents are exactly the thing insurance is there for,
>after all, isn't it?
>

The situation was complicated in that it occurred in Canada, and I don't honestly remember if I was an AMA member or not at the time. We were not flying at a sanctioned event, and had no formal permission to fly at all. We were just tossing gliders at dusk to relax. It was my own glider, tossed by a friend, that got me.

I didn't have insurance that the Canadians accepted at the time, and ended up paying out of pocket. I saw the best retinal specialist in Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Cost me a whopping $89 out of pocket, and he stayed late to see me. Nice country Canada.

Canadian $? ^_^ That's cheap..

This does bring up an interesting point. In the US, I don't think you'd need official permission, or have to fly at a sanctioned meet, for insurance to be in effect. When flying in Canada, I wonder. I know that MAAC and AMA have reciprocal contest recognition (AMA members can fly in MAAC contests, and vice versa) but as far as insurance coverage for informal flying goes.. I dunno. My AMA card, incidentally, does say that the insurance is only good inside the U.S. (I continue to be an AMA member, but obviously not for the insurance..).

LAST EDITED ON Aug-12-03 AT 11:30 AM (CDT)
 
>The last time there was an insurance flame war on Usenet
>(this used to be more common when SFA was around) I had to
>point out what everyone was ignoring - that the important
>part of AMA insurance is flying site OWNER coverage. This
>coverage is primary, and without it, many flying sites would
>cease to exist. (And I see no reason why someone who is not
>an AMA member and who doesn't contribute towards the
>siteowner's coverage should be able to fly at a field where
>the owner is covered under this scheme.) The individual
>modeler liability coverage is important, too, but I consider
>it much less so.
How about this situation?? City builds a FINE UC flying field and maintains it. Two large cement donuts and four large grass circles with cement center spots. If we try to list this field as our flying site, AMA says that we can not let NON AMA modelers fly there. City says that since it is a city park, WE (AMA and our club) cannot restrict who can fly there. Those non AMA fliers and their parents pay for the use of that facility through thier taxes.We (the club) now have no "designated UC flying site" as far as AMA is concerned. How can that be handled?

Bigiron

First I am NO expert, but here is my interpretation.

Site insurance from AMA is to indemify the site owner from costs coming from accidents due to modeling activities. I can't see the AMA doing this for non-AMA members, so I understand their point. On the other hand, the city is saying that it doesn't care (at least until the first liability suit!). At least your normal AMA personal insurance covers you in case of accidents (in the "normal" way that the AMA insurance works at least.)

In our case, we had to show our site owner that we could handle the liability, so you have to be an AMA member to fly at our field. We do have some park district fields around here, and you don't have to be an AMA member, but I can't recall if you have to show some type of insurance. Also you need to buy a permit for $25.

Hmm.. Interesting situation. Does the city require proof of insurance before you can fly there? Did they demand that the host club (if there is one) show proof that the City is covered by some sort of policy? If the City does not insist on these things, then they aren't covered by AMA's site owners' policy, and their only protection is that SOME of the fliers there carry AMA personal coverage. So if they get sued, they then sue the flier, at which point AMA's coverage kicks in. If a non-AMA member causes an accident, then they (the City) are up the creek and will have to defend themselves.

I think it takes a chartered club to be operating at a flying site before you can have site owners' insurance, but I might be wrong. As I've pointed out on Usenet in the past, one of the benefits of having the land in Muncie is as a guarantee for this type of coverage (AMA keeps the cost of the blanket insurance policy down by a significant amount of "deductible", which is backed by assets such as land).

In our case, we are a chartered club, but for contests and other activities that we want to assure the field availability, We have to reserve the field ($25) and obtain proof of additional property owner insurance coverage. But for routine evening and weekend flying, no problem. Just go out and utilize one of the five circles.
Bigiron

It does sound like the City is covered for the sanctioned events (in which only AMA members can fly), but in the case of everyday flying, they won't be. They're still "covered" if the flier is an AMA member because the personal coverage can kick in, but if a non AMA flier causes an accident, then they lose out.