Interesting. It raises the question whether FAA "policy" is effectively law -- which is basically, where I started in my analysis.... FAA Federal Aviation Rules appear to be law -- they're in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations Andy.
Andy, Howard, Our policy states: "LIMITATION OF COVERAGE TO USE OF REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT This insurance applies only to bodily injury, property damage, and medical expenses arising directly out of the ownership, maintenance or use of Remote Controlled Aircraft used in the insured's business, intended for operation within line of sight from the operator, with a design payload of no more than twenty-five (25) pounds and maximum design power rating of eight horsepower." Steve's comment above is interesting, because we were not required to set up a separate entity, perhaps because we obtained our policy in March '12 and things have changed since then? Steve - do you have this same endorsement in your policy? Hope this helps-
Jon, my policy contains this exact wording. It's interesting that they claim "intended for operation within line of sight from the operator". I would wonder if that covered FPV operations in cases where the copter is technically within LOS of one of the operators. Or maybe FPV is a no-no WRT insurance. And the separate business entity may be specific to me because i already have a photography studio insurance package through my agent (albeit a different carrier) which specifically prohibits aerial operations. Do you have a general business liability and/or equipment coverage?
Not to "rain on the parade" but I would check the policies for any exclusions -- typically the wording you're citing is in the main statement of coverage, but then there are whole bunch of exclusions and that's where you might see references to the word "illegal." Andy.
I'm just very uneasy at the fact that a couple members here confirmed that AerialPak is no longer writing policies yet a couple days later another member confirmed that they are. Outdated and misleading info on their website...I definitely will not be doing business with such a flakey company, makes you wonder how they'll handle being sued by a heavy hitting law firm for a liability claim while operating.................
@Howard, I need insurance to operate commercially. So I'm willing to take my chances. I find nothing about them to be "flakey". My agent has been super helpful, responsive and honest in the 3-4 years I've been dealing with him. And I've had a claim on my Photography Studio policy, which was handled expeditiously and to my satisfaction. @Andy, here's the exact wording from the policy proposal. I love double negatives. Or I should say I hate not using double negatives. COVERAGE FOR USE OF REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFTThis endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PARTWith respect to the Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft exclusion (Section I) only, the exclusion does not apply to:Remote Controlled Aircraft used in the insured’s business, intended for operation within line of sight from the operator, with a design payload of no more than twenty-five (25) pounds and maximum design power rating of eight horsepower.
No thanks to you for not sharing, Steve. <evil grin> If there are no other exclusions, then I'd say you're covered. The Catch-22 is that you won't really know until you need it and you can't ask directly now for fear that the answer is no. Andy.
I have liability and flight coverage up here in Canada. My insurance specifically covers replacement in case of a crash, whether mechanical failure or operator error. I', using AON insurance. They are a company that my wife has used many times to ensure entire movies while she was Production Coordinating. Not only am I excited about how much coverage I have, when they told my my annual I was over the moon!! Way less than I was expecting! Got to love that.
Duane: Specifically do you have a General Liability and an "Inland Marine" policy -- which is typically what covers aircraft hulls? Thanks Andy
I don't think mine used the specific term Inland Marine. In the list of items and their values, mine states that these items are covered for fire, theft, etc. and in there it specifies damage due to crash.
Is there a specific title/name on the policy that I could explore with Aon down in the U.S. of Eh? (Sorry, folks, little Canadian joke, there...) Andy.
I'm on set this week filming here in BC, done on Thursday though. I'll call my guy and see if the underwriter is Canadian specific or not. I will note though, I am covered in the entire world EXCEPT the US. Could have something to do with the current status of the FAA or some other reason. Anyway, I'll look into it for you.
That would be great Duane. As you say, the FAA lagging behind Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. might well be the issue -- I presume Canada has some sort of pilot certification for UAS (the UK certainly does: the BNUC.) Andy.
No, no pilot certification..yet. However, our application for flight permits is pretty extensive. They want a lot of information not just about my experience, my UAV and its software, but what failsafes I have implemented, what my emergency protocols are, maps of the flight area, etc. I'm certain that this permit through Transport Canada does a lot to weed out some of the sketchy operators.
Interesting, Duane. Thanks. Have you implemented any special fail-safes beyond those provided by the MK firmware (e.g. it's Fail safe, Come Home)? What kind of emergency protocols do you have to have? (Other than "DUCK!" ) I think forum folks would be interested to learn as I suspect the FAA is probably looking at what Transport Canada is doing. Andy.
Nope, nothing additional. I do note for them though that I have telemetry so I can monitor battery levels, that the UAV LEDs will flash at a specific amount of battery life remaining, plus I have a timer build into my Tx that beeps and vibs at a predetermined time so I know I should begin my way back to the LZ. My emergency protocols are pretty straight forward and crafted specifically for each job. This way I can say 'In case of emergency while flying on the NE of my flight area, my emergency landing area will be the field to the North.' Like I said, I believe its just to keep pilots honest, thinking about the worst and prepared for when something goes wrong.
Thanks..... I had to smile to myself, though. "And in the event of a complete flight battery failure, I shall land the aircraft immediately below the point where the battery failed." (Probably best not to mention the vertical descent rate being at terminal velocity.) Andy.
Oh I know... In the case of some emergencies I plan to land the aircraft wherever it decides to come down.