US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

For years, I've been warning the dysfunctional hang gliding community that merging their sport with any form of parachuting is suicidal.

Hang gliding represents a unique case of a truly dangerous pastime gradually maturing into a responsible, self-regulated sport that successfully demonstrated that a focus on safety, integrity of design and pilot proficiency could reduce casualties by a magnitude. After early global fatality rates of over 70 per year in the 1970s, hang gliding associations led by the USHGA worked with manufacturers and pilots to reduce both glider design deficiencies and deadly pilot error incidents to average a mere handful per year. This was a tremendous accomplishment.

In the early 1980s, hang gliding associations took the developing ultralight motorheads under their free-flight wings in an effort to guide them along the same path. Unfortunately, it soon became obvious that they were dealing with a different type of pilot - more an aerial motorcyclist than a soaring enthusiast - and a particularly dangerous and immature technology filled with problems. Wisely, as the ultralight fatality numbers spiraled out of control, the USHGA ejected the ultralight segment despite the huge financial potential it offered. This came as a disappointment to the ultralight community who had hoped to hitch their wagon to the spectacular gains in safety that hang gliding had demonstrated. Thanks to the oversight of an active membership, hang gliding remained a free-flight organization in the U.S. and the ultralight segment carried its terrible accident record over to a larger motorhead organization that could more easily absorb its attrition.

Then late in the 1980s, the USHGA made a terrible blunder by inviting parachutists in the form of paragliders into the association. To accept parachuting, with its heavy fatality numbers, the USHGA had to make the severe ethical compromise of throwing away entirely, in regards to paragliders, the hard-won gains in hang glider safety brought about by years of vital improvements in structural integrity and dive recovery. While it is true that the terrifying attrition rate to come was not yet evident at that time, a great deal of wishful thinking was apparent. The global associations hoped to institute a parallel path for paragliders, changing the language to now call parachutes "gliders" and to form regulatory design oversight entities led by the German DHV. But by 2000, with over 170 paragliding deaths, the writing was on the wall and the hang gliding community should have acted to protect its reputation by ejecting paragliding by having it placed under the umbrella of parachuting.

But unlike what had been done with ultralights, this did not happen. As reflected by today's global fatality total of nearly 1,400 soaring parachutists since 1986, the plan to guide paragliding to safety and responsibility has completely failed. Much worse, due to the growing popularity of soaring parachutes, the fate of hang gliding has been relinquished to the whims of paragliding. This was the most stupid thing hang glider pilots could ever have done. Unbelievably, they threw away their organization, their safety record, and absorbed the huge fatality and injury rate of a sport that has little to do with hang gliding - all to their detriment, with no benefit at all.

This was not the only bad decision made by hang gliding pilots. Since the beginning of the sport, there has always been a desire to take a friend along on a flight to share the experience. In the early 1980s, the USHGA lobbied congress for a "tandem exemption" to make dual flights legal under the FARs as instruction. This seemed a satisfactory solution at the time but it opened up a pathway for abuse by commercial "instructors" seeking to make a living by giving hang gliding and paragliding rides. By the middle 2000s, hundreds of "instructors" were giving "joyrides" to tourists around the world, some raking in upwards of $50,000 per year. Many of these tandem hang gliding instructors, along with their paragliding counterparts, began exerting undue influence on the decision-making of free-flight associations. When the global fatality total of tourists killed on joyriding flights recently surpassed 100, it became strikingly obvious that something was wrong. But rather than enforce the original intent of tandem instruction as used in the argument for the exemption, free-flight organizations allowed themselves to be manipulated by the commercial profit potential of joyriding and the spiraling sales potential of paragliding hardware and training.

Hang gliding is being sucked out of existence by these bad decisions. This blog is intended to provide examples of the harm being done to the sport as a result of them, with an emphasis on litigation, much of it from outside hang gliding, which threatens to destroy the sport entirely.

Great article, I learned a few new things today, thanks for sharing this info with us. If the Hawks plan on putting out a monthly magazine or press release I nominate you for the task.

An idiot flying a PPG decided to do tight turns around a hot air balloon in Tuscon and got tangled somehow in the rigging. He brought down the balloon, injuring the passengers and himself.
He then sued the city, airport commissioners and airport management - and the balloonist and his passengers!
The trial dragged on for three years. Half-a-dozen attorney$ are involved.
Today the lawsuit was dismissed.
http://www.kvoa.com/story/29900011/dismissal-of-suit-from-balloon-paraglider-collision-upheld
You might say, "Oh, that's powered paragliding. That's not in the USHPA." And you would be right.
But insurance companies were involved in defending the people involved.
They spent tens of thousands of dollars.
A type of paraglider caused them a financial loss.
What do you think they feel when they get an insurance request from the U.S. Hang Gliding and PARAGLIDING Association?

What do you think paraglider rescues and tree extractions are costing search and rescue operations worldwide?
For every hang glider pulled out of a tree, I estimate 1000 paragliders are rescued from trees.
http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1908&start=30&sid=ba7d7a29924030859b27b6858ef0ca38
S&R expenses have increased ten-fold with the popularity of paragliding.
For the past few years, S&R groups across Europe have been desperately petitioning their local governments for help.
This year, half of the Mt. Blanc massif has been closed to hang gliding because of recent paragliding fatalities.
http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2008&sid=ba7d7a29924030859b27b6858ef0ca38
This year, thousands of square miles of the best free-flight areas in India have been closed to hang gliding because of paragliding accidents.
Without a formal separation of the sports, hang gliding suffers for every paragliding accident, injury, fatality and incurred expense.
There is no free lunch. Hang gliding will continue to suffer.
A point is nearing where it will become impossible to separate the sports.
Hang glider pilots need to act now to take back their sport.

Do you realize, even today insurance actuaries go all the way back to 1972 to derive hang gliding risk?
Even though the dangerous, divergent rogallos that faded from the sport in the late 1970s are no longer flown, they remain a factor in our insurance fees.
Who is our advocate? Who tries to explain this to insurance companies?
I'll tell you who. A pigheaded paraglider pilot who thinks because he can fly anything, he can represent everybody.
This is where hang gliding has ended up.
A minor segment with little influence, clout or respect.

This idiot crashed his paraglider so he sued his national hang gliding association for two million dollars.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/paraglider-mathew-mchugh-sues-for-2-million-after-losing-a-leg-at-mona-vale-rock-face/story-fni0cx12-1227441897152
The reason? He says they failed to warn him that "the site was dangerous."
Does this sound like something a real pilot would say?
Do you know any hang glider PILOTS who would behave like this?
I don't. I am a pilot. My flying decisions belong to me.
When my feet leave the ground, it's all on me.


So who are the geniuses who let these people into our sport?
Parachuting? That's not hang gliding. Those aren't pilots.
This is self-destructive behavior from a self-destructive sport.
Why do hang glider pilots want to share with it?
We have airframes, skill and courage.
Our aircraft don't collapse or suddenly go out of control when hit by "a gust of wind."
If we fall out of the sky, it's our own fault.
We don't whine and point fingers and use a mishap as an opportunity to steal from others.

But what do you think the insurance companies think?
"Why did we involve ourselves with this bunch?" That's what.
"They eat their own." That's what.
Say goodbye to your flying sites.

If you ever wondered why Wills Wing got out of paragliding, here it is

Wheelock v. Sport Kites, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 730 (D. Haw. 1993)
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii - 839 F. Supp. 730 (D. Haw. 1993)
December 1, 1993
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/839/730/1444328/
On July 14, 1991, David was paragliding at Kualoa Ranch. He was at a height of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet when the lines connecting him to the parachute-like canopy simultaneously broke, detaching him. He plunged to the earth and died. Mary Rose Wheelock, David's wife, brought this action against Kualoa Ranch, owner of the premises where the activity occured, Sport Aviation Hawaii, provider of the equipment, and Sport Kites, Inc., dba Wills Wing, and Rob Kells, an individual, manufactures of the equipment.
--------

This analysis from James Moss, J.D., explains how the court decision backfired and destroyed the viability of waivers in Hawaii:
http://recreation-law.com/category/activity-sport-recreation/skydiving-paragliding-hang-gliding/
Tourists are the life blood of the outdoor recreation industry. No place does that ring any truer than Hawaii. Without tourists who are there for a vacation or as a stop on a cruise ship, Hawaii’s economy would grind to a stop.

In an effort to limit liability for outdoor recreation activities, the recreation providers passed a law attempting to reduce or prevent lawsuits for injuries tourists received recreating. However, this Hawaiian law backfired by eliminating the use of releases a defense against a claim in the statute.

To set the stage for Hawaii’s move towards recreation legislation, it is important to acknowledge the development of Hawaiian common law. The landmark case, Wheelock vs. Sport Kites, 839 F. Supp. 730 (9th Cir. 1993), was the first time the Hawaiian courts dealt with whether an express release of liability bars all claims of negligence. Wheelock plunged to his death while paragliding when all the lines connecting the canopy to his harness broke. Wheelock’s wife sued, even though her husband signed a waiver releasing Sport Kites. The court upheld the release for negligence, declaring that Wheelock assumed the risk of paragliding.

The court did not allow the release to bar claims for gross negligence and the product liability claim.

Despite the Wheelock decision, the statewide Activity Owners Association of Hawaii believed litigation over recreation accidents needed to be reduced. The belief was it would lower insurance premiums and promote business growth. (See Ammie Roseman-Orr, Recreational Activity Liability in Hawai’i: Are Waiver Worth the Paper on Which They Are Written?, 21 U. Haw. L. Rev. 715.) Without a law, every accident had the opportunity to test the waters of the legal system in hopes of a reward. The Recreational Activity Liability Statute was enacted in 1997 to reduce recreation accident litigation’

§ 663-1.54. Recreational activity liability.

(a) Any person who owns or operates a business providing recreational activities to the public, such as, without limitation, scuba or skin diving, sky diving, bicycle tours, and mountain climbing, shall exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety of patrons and the public, and shall be liable for damages resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the person which cause injury.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), owners and operators of recreational activities shall not be liable for damages for injuries to a patron resulting from inherent risks associated with the recreational activity if the patron participating in the recreational activity voluntarily signs a written release waiving the owner or operator’s liability for damages for injuries resulting from the inherent risks. No waiver shall be valid unless:

(1) The owner or operator first provides full disclosure of the inherent risks associated with the recreational activity; and

(2) The owner or operator takes reasonable steps to ensure that each patron is physically able to participate in the activity and is given the necessary instruction to participate in the activity safely.

(c) The determination of whether a risk is inherent or not is for the trier of fact. As used in this section an “inherent risk”:

(1) Is a danger that a reasonable person would understand to be associated with the activity by the very nature of the activity engaged in;

(2) Is a danger that a reasonable person would understand to exist despite the owner or operator’s exercise of reasonable care to eliminate or minimize the danger, and is generally beyond the control of the owner or operator; and

(3) Does not result from the negligence, gross negligence, or wanton act or omission of the owner or operator.

This statute superseded the common law, which developed through Wheelock and the cases preceding it.

The first case to review the statute was King v. CJM Country Stables, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1061; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511. In this case, the plaintiff was on a seven-day cruise that left Vancouver and went to Hawaii. While in Hawaii, the plaintiff booked a horseback ride through the cruise, with the defendant stable. While riding, the plaintiff was bit by another rider’s horse. She sued.

The court immediately reviewed the above Hawaiian Recreational Activity Liability Statute. Reading the statute the court concluded:

…these sections provide that a trier of fact must determine if injuries were caused by the “inherent risks” of a recreational activity. And if the trier of fact finds that the injuries were “caused solely by the inherent risk and unpredictable nature” of a horse, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant’s negligence did not cause the injuries.

The court looked at the language of the release which states the trier of fact must determine if the injuries were caused by the activity, or in this case, the horse. The court found that under the statute, the court could not support the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the statute “…explicitly precludes waiving liability for negligence.”

Since there was a genuine issue of material fact, meaning there were facts important to the case that had two different versions or interpretations (duh!) then the jury had to decide the case no matter what. The statute placed a burden on the plaintiff that was greater than the normal burden of proof, however the decision placed a greater burden on defendants in the increased cost of litigating cases.

…whether Defendant was negligent; and the Release Form’s validity as a waiver of liability, which depends on whether the horse-biting incident was an “inherent risk” of the recreational activity that Defendant provided to Plaintiffs. Defendant cannot satisfy its burden and thus, is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

So?

The statute left an enormous hole that will allow every injured party to recover something. The statute states that an “inherent risk” must be determined by the trier of fact, and that negligence cannot be an inherent risk. Consequently, the statute is worthless.

It gets worse. Under the previous common law, the judge could determine the inherent risk and grant summary judgment. In the case of Wheelock, the judge determined that, as a matter of law, equipment failure is an obvious risk of paragliding and set this as a precedent for future paragliding cases. The recreation statute, on the contrary, declares that the trier of fact must determine the inherent risks of the activity. The trier of fact is the jury. Therefore, every claim will go to trial. That increases the cost and increases the chance that a settlement will occur to reduce the cost of litigation.

Summary judgment cannot be granted because a jury trial must be held to determine if the risk is inherent. The cost of litigating jury trials will be substantially higher than the cost of a motion for summary judgment. A precedent cannot be set because it is determined, as a matter of fact, so the inherent risks must be determined in every case.

Even cases with identical inherent risks and injuries must be brought before a trier of fact, with the possibility for differing results. Second, the statute explicitly states that providers will be liable for negligence. Wheelock previously determined negligence could be an inherent risk that customers assumed when they signed the waiver for, thereby releasing the provider from liability. The statute no longer allowed the customer to assume the risk of negligence, making the statute a major step backward for activity providers.

So Now What?

Although a good effort by the Activity Owners Association of Hawaiian, they probably wrote the legislation without help from attorneys or those knowledgeable in how the statute would be applied (someone who had been in a courtroom with a suit and briefcase).

The statute is great in its intent; the actual way it was written makes the statute the best thing that could happen for any injured person in Hawaii. No matter what, this statute is going to allow the plaintiff to recover because the cost of fighting every claim through trial is at least $50,000 or more. Consequently, it will always be cheaper to settle than to sue.

Paraglider to sue Netcare for 'bad service'
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/paraglider-to-sue-netcare-for-bad-service-1.262568
December 29 2005 at 09:36am
By Cyriel Freijser

Cape Town-based paraglider Martin Bacsak says he is considering suing Netcare 911 for their "outrageously insufficient service" because he waited "six hours" for an ambulance, and was taken on a "seven hour" road trip to hospital - after he broke his back when his paraglider collapsed. Bacsak crashed on December 10 near Sterkspruit, a few kilometres south of the Lesotho border, shortly after he had flown 344km from De Aar, setting an African paragliding distance record. His paraglider collapsed in strong winds and Bacsak fell 20 metres. "I lay there for six hours after sending my GPS location through to two friends who tried everything to get a helicopter to airlift me out, but to no avail.

"Finally an ambulance arrived at 11pm and took me to a Bloemfontein hospital where we arrived seven hours later at 6am. That is insane. There was a hospital 40km away and they could have dispatched a helicopter. I saw one flying past just before I crashed," Bacsak, 40, said. His full recovery is expected to take a year. Netcare 911's Daniel Nevin told the Cape Times the call came in at 6.38pm, and the ambulance reached the scene just before 10pm and arrived in Bloemfontein at 3.20am.

"There is no emergency helicopter operable in that sparsely populated area. We contacted SA Police and the SA Defence Force but they were unable to assist. The option of a fixed-wing aircraft transporting the patient from Aliwal North to Bloemfontein also would have been impossible, because Aliwal's grass runway has no lighting," Nevin said. He said the closest hospital, considering the patient's injuries, was in Bloemfontein. "Normally the 257km drive from Sterkspruit to Bloemfontein takes about 21/2 hours, but the roads there are very poor and considering his injury they had to drive slowly," he said.

Paul Putter, chairman of the South African Hanggliding and Paragliding Association, said Netcare 911 receives R60 000 annually to assist its members in case of accidents. Nevin confirmed this agreement, reiterating that Netcare 911 had followed protocol and provided the "quickest, safest way of transport" for Bacsak.

The costs of HG joyriding are borne by the free-flight hang glider pilots' association fees.
You all would be much better off without joyriding.
But you would particularly be better off without soaring parachutists suing your hang gliding associations.
You should reform your hang gliding organizations without paragliders now, before you suffer their wrath.

Parents sue for daughter’s death in hang-gliding accident
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e18349109/
Mr. Orders, 51, was convicted of criminal negligence causing death by a B.C. court and was sentenced to five months in jail in February. The judge said the pilot should not have missed several fundamental steps during a prelaunch safety check. The court determined she fell because her harness wasn’t hooked to the glider. Video footage presented in court showed the woman clinging desperately onto Mr. Orders and the hang-glider as he attempts to clip her in, but she slipped off and fell. Mr. Orders had also been charged with obstruction of justice after he admitted to swallowing the video camera’s memory card, but that charge was later dropped. Also named in the lawsuit are the pilot’s partner, Shaun Wallace, the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada, British Columbia Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, the West Coast Soaring Club and others.

Paraglider sues fellow pilot over broken back
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Paraglider-sues-fellow-pilot-broken/story-21699647-detail/story.html
Mr Petrou is now suing the novice pilot, Marcio Bertoncello, who he claims caused the accident, as well as James Dell and Gary Cooper, in their capacity as the then chairman and safety officer of the Dunstable Hang-Gliding and Paragliding Club.

VENARD v. JACKSON HOLE PARAGLIDING LLC
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wy-supreme-court/1620949.html
Appellant, Edward Venard, filed suit against Appellees in Wyoming district court to recover damages for personal injuries sustained during a paragliding lesson. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss seeking to enforce a forum selection clause contained in a “Release, Waiver and Assumption of Risk Agreement” that Mr. Venard had signed as a condition of his membership with the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA). Several of the Appellees had signed similar agreements with USHPA, but none of the Appellees was a party to the agreement between Mr. Venard and USHPA. Based upon the forum selection clause, Appellees contended that California was the appropriate forum for litigation of the dispute. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Mr. Venard challenges that decision in this appeal. We reverse.

-- I don't have the energy to publish all this stuff; it's endless. --

jaybird78 wrote:Great article, I learned a few new things today, thanks for sharing this info with us. If the Hawks plan on putting out a monthly magazine or press release I nominate you for the task.

Yeah Good work Rick

history lesson