[TadEareckson]

Not initially.

GREAT!!! We can get this ball rolling and then, after we're firmly and comfortably established, we can figure out some way to deal with all the crud that's clotting the organization - when all the crud has been elected to the Board of Directors and appointed as Committee Chairs. I can't wait to see how THAT works out.

I think if we want to get insurance easily (or possibly at all), our best hope is to say that we are meeting or exceeding USHPA standards.

How 'bout we focus on EXCEEDING for a little bit? 'Cause if we're trying to MEET USHPA standards US Hawks is just a pathetic and astronomical waste of time.

OK, that's easy to say, but how would a prospective insurance company know that our standards are as good as USHPA's standards (whether you approve of USHPA's standards or not)?

They could put a finger on one of our wrists and check for pulse.

The answer is that we don't judge the meeting of standards for ourselves, and instead we accept USHPA's judgement of standards.

Great! We look to a total sewer of an organization in which no one - save for dead pilots - is held accountable for anything and which maintains its sterling safety record by shredding accident reports. Then we build from there with less accountability and better shredding techniques.

If they say you're an Advanced Instructor, then we say you're an Advanced Instructor.

Well just to be fair and consistent then, shouldn't we honor their rating suspensions and revocations with the same level of scrutiny? And we should probably also assume that if a USHGA aerotow pilot is persona non grata at one or more USHGA aerotow operations we should probably also play it on the safe side and continue that policy as well.

I suspect you won't like that answer Tad...

Do ya think?

...(and others might not either)...

I bloody well hope so.

...but you must understand that there will have to be a transitional period where we rely on the judgement of an organization that the insurance industry already trusts - USHPA.

Do we really wanna get insurance from people that stupid? (Yeah, probably.)

I think that's the only way we can get affordable insurance to get us started.

What if we got started by siphoning off USHGA pilots and giving them online training to turn them into REAL pilots. Like Zack, for example. And then we could give them little US Hawks cards which might come to count for something.

Can anyone see any other way to get our members insured?

We build and bill ourselves as a BETTER organization than USHGA.

We get rid of spot landing requirements - which INCREASE the pilot's chances of killing himself before, during, and after qualification and get BRUTAL on hook-in checks so we don't hafta keep recruiting replacement members to maintain our numbers and lessen the chances of unaccompanied gliders shorting out everyone in the valley.

We set instructional standards that we we're serious about and when we see a YouTube video that shows they're not being adhered to we pull instructor certification so that the word gets out that the standards actually mean something.

That's the organization I'd send my nephew into. No way in hell I would EVER send him - or anyone else I didn't hate - into USHGA or anything that could possibly evolve out of what you're proposing.

USHGA's killing about one participant per thousand per year. If we can't add a zero to the back of the latter number drunk and blindfolded then we should probably find something else to do.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Can anyone see any other way to get our members insured?

We build and bill ourselves as a BETTER organization than USHGA.

We get rid of spot landing requirements - which INCREASE the pilot's chances of killing himself before, during, and after qualification and get BRUTAL on hook-in checks so we don't hafta keep recruiting replacement members to maintain our numbers and lessen the chances of unaccompanied gliders shorting out everyone in the valley.

We set instructional standards that we we're serious about and when we see a YouTube video that shows they're not being adhered to we pull instructor certification so that the word gets out that the standards actually mean something.

That's the organization I'd send my nephew into. No way in hell I would EVER send him - or anyone else I didn't hate - into USHGA or anything that could possibly evolve out of what you're proposing.

USHGA's killing about one participant per thousand per year. If we can't add a zero to the back of the latter number drunk and blindfolded then we should probably find something else to do.

OK, I hereby appoint you to approach any insurance agency you like with any regulations you like, and get us a quote for the US Hawks. Please have them give us quotes for USHPA's membership numbers (around 10,000), and for a slightly smaller organization (around 1,000), and for our current active membership (something like 10).

Do you think they have the expertise to evaluate whatever you write? Do you think they'll even bother for a membership of about 10?

Look, they don't know the difference between a leg loop and a hang loop. They're not going to know if "lift and tug" is safer than "turn and check". So any word that you write that differs from what USHPA has already written is going to be a cause for concern. And that cause for concern is going to cause any underwriter to start squirming in their seat. And when they see an estimated income of $50 x 100 members, they're not even going to bother to try to understand whatever it is that you've written. They're going to take the easy way out and "just say no".

But go ahead and give it a try. Please post your proposed regulations and let us know how you make out with the insurance industry.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Ooops, I missed this one:

What if we got started by siphoning off USHGA pilots and giving them online training to turn them into REAL pilots.

Oh yes, you've been great at siphoning off USHGA pilots and bringing them in to the US Hawks.   

Seriously, I've got my hands full keeping you from driving off the seventy-some members we've already got!!

[Rick Masters]

INSURANCE
In many ways, insurance is a scam. At a lot of places, it's used to force USP a** membership. It doesn't protect pilots. It doesn't protect equipment. It doesn't protect anyone from a lawsuit. You don't need it when nobody's around. Since it only protects the people you could hit, you could eliminate the need for it by asking anyone nearby to stand back when you launch or when you land, land away from any people. But if you have to have it, you can get USP a** Insurance. A lot of people don't need it. It's not fair to make the people who don't need it buy it for those who do. SO IT IS NOT A US HAWKS ISSUE. Forget about it.

Ratings and Training
Accept all USP a** Hang Gliding Ratings as valid. Issue US Hawks PERMANENT ratings based on that. Use the old rules to appoint Special Observers. SO's bump up pilots who qualify. No liability. Friends teach friends how to fly. Likewise, no liability. You want to be a commercial instructor? Look up the USP a**. You want me to give you some tips at the training hill, Newbie? Drive retrieve for us next Sunday then call me Tuesday afternoon. We'll go out there. That's how it was done. US Hawks could be Linux to USP a** Windows. Open source.

Infiltration
US Hawks volunteer to be USP a** site monitors. Oh, you're a Hawk? Have a great flight.

[Bob Kuczewski]

In many ways, insurance is a scam.

I couldn't agree more, and that leads to a big topic way beyond hang gliding. But for the sake of this discussion, I'll stick with hang gliding.

The big need for insurance seems to come from landowners (private and government?) who want to be protected against being sued. I think that's what leads to site insurance, and I suspect the site insurance policy requires insured pilots as well (isn't it nice how that all works together?). So if the landowners fear lawsuits (from pilots), then it might be possible to substitute waivers for insurance at some sites. But most of the major sites in southern California will still want insurance just because they've gotten used to the idea - which will make it a US Hawks issue for some time to come.

Ratings and Training
Accept all USP a** Hang Gliding Ratings as valid. Issue US Hawks PERMANENT ratings based on that. Use the old rules to appoint Special Observers. SO's bump up pilots who qualify. No liability. Friends teach friends how to fly. Likewise, no liability. You want to be a commercial instructor? Look up the USP a**. You want me to give you some tips at the training hill, Newbie? Drive retrieve for us next Sunday then call me Tuesday afternoon. We'll go out there. That's how it was done. US Hawks could be Linux to USP a** Windows. Open source.

As a long-time Linux user, I like every word you've written (except the ones which push our profanity rules a bit). The FAA (actually the Wright brothers themselves) established permanent licenses for "regular" pilots. I have one myself. I may not be current, but my license is still good for life. I like the idea of permanent ratings, and it could give people an incentive to join the Hawks. I also like the idea that safety is based on currency of flying experience and NOT on "currency" sent to some organization's bank account. In fact, that's a way to make us even more attractive to insurance companies from a safety point of view. I think I'll start a new topic to discuss this and maybe send out an email message to all of our members inviting them to join the discussion.

Thanks Rick!!!   

[TadEareckson]

OK, I hereby appoint you to approach any insurance agency you like...

Thanks, but I'm gonna be pretty buried by my duties as Chairman of the Safety and Training and Towing Committees.

Do you think they have the expertise to evaluate whatever you write?

I'll bet the most clueless of them can do a better job with:

With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

than the tens of thousands of people who've participated in US Hang Gliding have been able to manage over the course of the past three decades.

Do you think they have the expertise to evaluate whatever you write?

Here are a few requirements from the current USHGA SOPs for a Three rating that I don't have much problem with and would be typical of what would appear in anything I'd revise:

Can give verbal analysis of conditions on the hill demonstrating knowledge of wind shadows, gradients, lift, sink, laminar air, turbulence, and rotors, and the effect these items can have on an intended flight path and turns.

Must give a verbal flight plan for each observed flight.

Must show thorough preflight of harness, glider, and reserve parachute.

With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

All takeoffs should be aggressive, confident and with a smooth transition to flying. Flights with slow, unstable launches will not be considered adequate as witnessed tasks.

Demonstrates the ability to differentiate airspeed from ground speed.

Demonstrates linked 180 degree turns along a predetermined ground track showing smooth controlled reversals and proper coordination at various speeds and bank angles.

Explains stall warning characteristics.

Has practiced and demonstrates gentle stalls and proper recovery under the direct supervision of an instructor or qualified observer, at least 500 feet from any object.

In 8 to 15 mph wind, demonstrates the ability to maintain airspeed at or near minimum sink during crosswind and upwind legs, without any evidence of stalls.

Exactly how much expertise would someone with a solid fifth grade education need to evaluate them?

Do you think they'll even bother for a membership of about 10?

Probably not. But with ten quality people getting on the same page with Sir Isaac we could start laying a pretty solid foundation to prepare for the day when the worst nightmares of Mark Forbes and Tim Herr comes to pass.

Look, they don't know the difference between a leg loop and a hang loop.

That's OK. Glider drivers who know the difference between angle of attack and pitch attitude and tension and pressure are rare as hen's teeth.

They're not going to know if "lift and tug" is safer than "turn and check".

I can explain glider stuff to some average jerk at the mall about a billion times easier than I can to someone who's gotten a rating from Lookout, Manquin, or Ridgely.

So any word that you write that differs from what USHPA has already written is going to be a cause for concern. And that cause for concern is going to cause any underwriter to start squirming in their seat.

So, Mr. Prudential... See here where USHGA says:

"This release shall be operational with zero tow line force up to twice the rated breaking strength of the weak link."

But ya notice that NOWHERE do they specify a minimum weak link?

And they don't even define what they mean by "operational"?

So the "regulation" is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

DAMN! These people are MASTERS of shielding themselves from accountability! Are any of them currently thinking about career moves?

Please post your proposed regulations...

Bill Cummings - 2011/10/26

Very fine effort Tad.

Nobody - 2011/10/27

Indeed !

Read my Aerotowing Guidelines yet?

Oh yes, you've been great at siphoning off USHGA pilots and bringing them in to the US Hawks.

I've brought in two desirable top notch Yanks, two top notch foreigners (only one of whom has participated), and I neutralized Peter pretty quickly before he could do any damage. What's the average for the rest of the participants here?

Seriously, I've got my hands full keeping you from driving off the seventy-some members we've already got!!

1. They don't seem to be boycotting my topics very effectively.

2. It might be in the best interests of the organization if one or two of the currents WERE driven off. Might help a bit with the foundation thing.

[Rick Masters]

In my opinion, the problem could be solved by offering pilots the opportunity to do either a hang check just before launch or force them to read the last post.

[SamKellner]

[TadEareckson]

Bob held on to his base tube all the way down from Plowshare. The impact split his skull and he suffered terribly until he died during the night, alone.

[miguel]

Bob held on to his base tube all the way down from Plowshare. The impact split his skull and he suffered terribly until he died during the night, alone.

What is the point of mocking someone's death?

Inquiring minds would like to know