[DaveSchy]

Again... (sigh) private land use agreements involving "membership" in a corporation and so-called "insurance" may or may not pertain to legal trespass.

Public lands that U$HPA has chosen to "insure" are open to the public, and I don't think such "agreements" have any enforcement "teeth" regarding the requirement of a corporate membership that defines such trespass. ITS PUBLIC LAND... duh (except in San Diego). Take your CJ U$HPA "lists" and begone from public set up areas!

The continuing U$HPA referral to their RRG scheme as "insurance" is incorrect, purposefully mis-leading and very likely will be found to be illegal.

The RRG gives U$HPA legal representative(s) a 2 million dollar (or is it 3 million per a recent candidate's message to Region 1 ?? who knows??) fund to fight claims before going to underwriting. That is not insurance. It is, however, an attractive way to milk a corporation for excessive legal fees (like the $200,000 it has already cost to ESTABLISH the RRG).

[Bob Kuczewski]

Again... (sigh) private land use agreements involving "membership" in a corporation and so-called "insurance" may or may not pertain to legal trespass.

Public lands that U$HPA has chosen to "insure" are open to the public, and I don't think such "agreements" have any enforcement "teeth" regarding the requirement of a corporate membership that defines such trespass. ITS PUBLIC LAND... duh (except in San Diego).

You have been paying attention. Thanks!!

The RRG gives U$HPA legal representative(s) a 2 million dollar (or is it 3 million per a recent candidate's message to Region 1 ?? who knows??) fund to fight claims before going to underwriting. That is not insurance. It is, however, an attractive way to milk a corporation for excessive legal fees (like the $200,000 it has already cost to ESTABLISH the RRG).

Tim Herr must be smiling all the way to the bank.

USHPA has become a festering cancer in the sport of hang gliding. And just like a cancer, it consumes enormous resources and produces nothing ... except more cancer.

USHPA consumes about a million dollars every year from the membership ... every single year. Does it feel like we get one million dollars worth of value from USHPA every year?

USHPA consumes enormous resources and produces nothing ... or in many cases ... less than nothing. I'd be flying at Torrey and Sylmar and Crestline and Funston to this day if it weren't for USHPA. That's certainly less than nothing.

It's time to start again. Spread the word.

[Bob Kuczewski]

P.S. The topic of USHPA's control of hang gliding is very hot right now on hanggliding.org. I've seen posts from at least 4 regional Directors in those topics - including half of USHPA's Executive Committe (Mark Forbes and V.P. Alan Crouse). They're filling that topic with misinformation to hang on to USHPA's monopoly control of hang gliding.

I can't post there, but I encourage all pilots to join the discussions there to get the truth out. Here are the links to those topics::

No-Membership, No-Insurance Flying Agreement with City
http://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35775

MN's recreational land use laws
http://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic. ... 98#p401555

Non-USHPA Tandem Exemption
http://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic. ... 73#p401527

If you have any questions about the history or the facts in those topics, please feel free to contact me on the forum or privately. I'll be happy to share what I know.

[eagle]

Torrey Pines Gliderport
Extortion Case
The Slap on the hand Millionaires club
To charge a City office, Police related, public official and or leaseholder, with misconduct
Federal public corruption statutes
Violations of the agent's statutory duties could result in which of the following penalties

Public extortion by city contract
CRIME RELATED PENALTIES:
Misappropriation of public funds
Use of public office for private gain penalty
Misuse of position for personal gain
Official misconduct definition
Basic Drug law violations
Misuse of official position
Aiding and abetting
Felony Harassment (for speaking out)
Entrapment, False reporting & arrest
Negligent "Under the influence" Safety operation. with intent
THE STRAIT UP THREAT OF PUBLIC VIOLENCE

OTHER CHARGES ~ by Public extortion by city contract
Public safety & endangerment penalty... (life baring)
Public racketeering violations
Public fraud
Public Threat with intent... (again Life baring)
Restitution to all victims including the public
* Note : This list goes on & on

Oh , One More thing...
~ SHUT UP AND PAY THEM ~

Pay them or Else.png (15.22 KiB) Viewed 5009 times

[Rick Masters]

"...sword swallowers, chuteless wingsuiters, tandem speedriders, longboarders, lords a'leaping..."
Hang glider pilots listen as MF tells them why expanding the RRG is so important to the USHPA.

[DaveSchy]

On 12/20/2017 1:23 PM, Tontar tontar@comcast.net [CBCC] wrote:

Aaron Swepston writes:
> "If someone like the Blanchard land owner says “okay, the ORA protects us from settlements, so we won’t require you to have insurance coverage for us”, and then someone gets hurt while a recreational activity like hang gliding is taking place on their land, and the injured party sues the landowner, what happens then? That lawsuit has to be answered in court. While at the end of that court case the landowner might be released from any liability and settlement, the entire court process, the defense, has to be mounted on the part of the defendant, the landowner. The Blanchard landowner has to defend himself in court. He has to go into court and wave around the ORA as his defense, or hire an attorney to do it for him. Guess what, that costs money. Who pays that? He does. The ORA “may” prevent him from having to pay a settlement to the injured party, but he has to pay his own legal fees defending that case against him. And THAT is not an acceptable situation to those landowners who know full well about the ORA, and that is why most have chosen to require insurance that will pay their legal fees and actually step in to defend the case against them. That’s not an insignificant distinction between USHPA insurance and the ORA protections.
>
> Knowing that, which land owners will choose to trust in the ORA versus the known protection of liability insurance? I think our site managers and negotiators can answer that pretty well. The site owners CHOOSE insurance over non-insurance and them having to pay legal fees to defend themselves. "

ORA = Outdoor Recreation Act in Swepstonarian acroniminy

My reply to CBCC user list:
Folks,

This, too, is an old, old argument, time to retire that one, Aaron!

Since when is liability insurance a "known protection"? Ever been jerked around by car insurance companies after a wreck?

Trust is built, not purchased, Aaron.

The fact is, that red herring of an "insurance problem" is very simply solved with a well written WAIVER. (We had them at Frailey, that's how we established trust). USHGA had one too, prior to EXPIRING, as does USHPA now.

Now, even LA County is fine with having a waiver for recreational use at Dockweiler (a busy beach just south of world famous Venice Beach). This is instead of ANY USHPA membership or insurance (I think LA just might have fairly deep pockets for a PI lawyer to drool over, and very good lawyers writing this waiver).

Here's the waiver: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yultargugyoh ... sW5ja?dl=0

Section 3 fully addresses Aaron's postulated scenario.

Fact, I just signed this LA County waiver. See the fine print... it says recreational use. As a BUSINESS, Windsports has their own coverage, as they should.

Every hang glider pilot should sign that waiver and send it to LA, as a statement of their continued commitment to self regulation and in support of a true legacy training hill.

A simple sign and waterproof box stating "Waiver required, pilot assumes all liabilities to properties, themselves and others", posted in a conspicuous spot, preferably near launches and at the LZ's gives all the "extra financial protection" necessary.

Boom, the clubs just saved 2 million bucks and yearly site insurance fees, plus the cost of operating an "insurance company". In fact, just such a waiver is required (and very available) at Dog despite having "site insurance"!!! So will some slick, expensive PI lawyer even represent a case like you posit, Aaron?

How many waterproof boxes could we have bought for 2 million bucks? Maybe 10,000? that's 1,000 flying sites (2 boxes each) in every state in the US!

Could that just possibly grow the sport of hang gliding more than this present "insurance"? USHPA is a paragliding club, 2/3 of the dwindling membership fly them, and TOTAL membership is less than 9,000 now.

Less than 3,000 hang glider pilots are presently members of USHPA. Good work by the "Bored"!!!

Is it really worth all the expense, overhead, regulation and hassle of "site insurance" to not have to sign a site waiver before flying, if an owner or agency feels insecure about their existing statutory ORA protection?

Will USHPA's "enforcers" be covered for reconstructive dentistry by the RRG?

Rant away!!!

Happy Solstice from 18966

[Bob Kuczewski]

Excellent post Dave. Your message will be rejected by some and embraced by others. I'll be happy to be flying free with those others.

Happy Solstice to you as well.

[Frank Colver]

Escape Country eventually closed because it was costing so much to defend law suits even though, to my knowledge, they never lost any of those pertaining to the hang gliding operation (they also had a dirtbike motorcycle park).

HOWEVER, the difference was that it was a business and they collected fees to enter, get training, etc.

After it closed to the public, Wills Wing was able to continue using the site for glider testing right up to the time it was developed into houses. I don't know what kind of arrangement they had with the owner but it most likely involved insurance because it was a business.

Frank