[DanBrown]

This paper proposes a procedure for reforming and restructuring USHPA. The task of implementing the procedure, I leave to others. If there is discussion of this paper, I hope it will be conducted by proponents and opponents in a civil manner without personal attacks.

USHPA’s Bylaws require USHPA to hold a special meeting upon the request of 5% of its members. At the meeting a broad range of actions may be taken from removing Directors to dissolving the Association.

At the end of 2010 USHPA membership was 8,910. 5% of 8.910 is 446. A special meeting may require less than 446 members. USHPA, which prohibited clubs from having non-voting members, has non-voting members, the Affiliate/Student class, and they arguably should not be included in the membership total for the purpose of calling a special meeting. It is unknown how many are in the class.

Relevant Sections of USHPA’s Bylaws for holding a special meeting are Art. VIII, Sec 12(c), Art. VI Sec. 4(b) and Art. VI Sec. 3. The California Nonprofit Corporation law is found in Corp. Code Sec. 5000, et seq.

Below are six areas where in my opinion USHPA has failed to act in the best interests of its members. The most serious failure has been in management practices.

1. Directors Not Accountable For Their Actions
Elected representatives from senator to school board member are accountable for how they vote because there is disclosure of how they vote. USHPA Directors are not accountable because USHPA doesn’t disclose how they vote.

2. Gag Rule And Independence Of Local Clubs
At its fall meeting the Directors passed a SOP limiting free speech and allowing USHPA to end the independence of local clubs by giving it the authority to change bylaws and rescind rules it considered “detrimental”. It also required pilots to be its “goodwill ambassadors”. Member indignation forced the Executive Committee to withdraw the SOP.

3. Secrecy Of Accident Reports
At the same meeting the Directors voted to keep accident reports secret by asserting attorney client privilege. It is not unusual to redact names to protect privacy and encourage full reporting but there is no justification for keeping the reports secret accessible only by a few USHPA insiders. Accident reports should be widely circulated to prevent accidents.

4. No Ethical Standards For Directors
USHPA Regional Director Urs Kellenberger accused USHPA member Mark Lilledahl of killing Tom Mayer. Tom died June 6, 2010 doing aerobatics in a glider Mark sold him 6 months previously. Kellenberger told pilots that Mark’s tuning of the glider killed Tom. Kellenberger notified a Canadian pilot to whom Mark had sold a glider in 2008 that Mark’s gliders were “dangerous”.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the cause of an accident. However if the opinion is of a particularly offensive nature, made in bad faith and without any factual basis, it is slander per se. Since witnesses to the accident said it was pilot error; viewers of the video said it was pilot error; the glider’s manufacturer said it was pilot error; the meet director told Kellenberger it was pilot error and, presumably, USHPA’s secret accident report said it was pilot error, Mark believed there were sufficient grounds for USHPA to investigate to determine whether Kellenberger made the accusation in bad faith.

USHPA has an ethical conduct standard for Directors, SOP 6.02, but USHPA’s President Rich Hass refused to enforce it notifying Mark that USHPA doesn’t have a “process” for investigating unethical conduct by Directors.

5. USHPA Elections
Despite the difficulty in determining how Directors voted, it appears that Regional Director Dave Wills was responsible or one of the Directors responsible for the Gag Rule. Wills recently “won” reelection as Regional Director by one vote. It is known that USHPA disqualified ballots in some regions. Cal. Corp. Code Sec. 7611 allows appointment of independent election inspectors to conduct elections.

6. Management Practices
In 2005 USHPA’s Planning Committee drafted a "Vision Statement" projecting that USHPA’s dramatic decline in membership would be reversed and in ten years USHPA’s membership would increase from around 10,000 to 20,000. USHPA appointed Martin Beresford, an experienced international management consultant and businessman, to the Committee asking him to analyze the causes of the membership decline and recommend strategies to reverse it. Beresford reviewed USHPA’s operations and concluded there was a huge "growth gap" between the Planning Committee's highly optimistic growth projections and the underlying causes of the decline. Beresford's presentation, "Closing the Growth Gap", is available at http://www.ushga.org/documents/USHGAPre ... uly26A.ppt

Beresford summarized member concerns about the management style and effectiveness of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. These concerns included:
1. “Secretiveness, lack of transparency”
2. “Clique ridden, political”
3. “Not accountable to membership”
4. “They don’t tell us how they’re using our money”
5. “Muddling through, directed by those with most clout or most strident”
6. “Poor communication with members”
7. “Internal conflict, self-promotion, self-interest”

Beresford recommended strategies for the Board to improve its clarity, effectiveness, communication and accountability. He also raised concerns about the Board’s allocation of USHPA’s limited resources citing the following Board decisions:

1. The transfer, without consulting the membership, of over $100,000 of USHPA’s funds to the USHPA Foundation, an organization that is unaccountable to USHPA or its members

2. The all cash purchase – also without consulting the members - of a 6,700 sq. ft. building for USHPA’s 5-person HQ staff, diverting $410,000 from more mission-relevant priorities, and creating substantial risk exposure for the Association

3. The secretive write-off of approximately $150,000 of members’ funds as a result of poorly managed development of a database, when readily-available software could have met USHPA’s needs for vastly less

Beresford recommended the Board provide a full accounting of its decisions and transactions, conduct a review of its role and responsibilities and establish procedures to ensure that the Board’s resource allocation decisions were clearly defined, communicated to the members and implemented. The Board rejected the recommendations and Beresford resigned from the Committee.

Dan Brown

[Bob Kuczewski]

Excellent, excellent, excellent post!!!

Thanks Dan!!

This is an excellent review of the 2005 Beresford report. The Beresford report was done years before I became a Director, and yet I saw all of those same problems during my "inside" look at USHPA from 2008 through the early part of 2010. It appears that the USHPA Board learned nothing from this report.

For example, take a look at this slide from page 108:

Page_108.png (65.04 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

If you look at all three of those "Support" areas, you'll notice that they're all about how USHPA can help on the LOCAL level ("local PR", "local training & support", "local training & flying sites"). Yet when USHPA's members requested help with a local problem at Torrey, USHPA turned its back. When those same members formed their own local club and elected their own local Director, USHPA fought them with SOP changes targeted at killing their club and removing their Director.

Let's look at another slide from that presentation (note that the underlining of "locally" was part of the original report):

Page_120.png (76.94 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

This slide reminds us that the greatest growth of hang gliding was NOT due to a national organization. It was due to local actions by local enthusiasts. But since USHPA has become a centralized BUSINESS, the idea of decentralized clubs runs counter to their purposes. They're all about consolidating their power rather than distributing it. Their recent SOP changes reflect that goal.

Let's look at a few more slides...

Page_122.png (58.29 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

Page_123.png (55.37 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

Both of these slides talk about Accountability and Transparency. That's exactly what I tried to achieve during my term as Regional Director, and that's why the Executive Committee fought me tooth and nail. I wanted to attend the EC meetings, and I was barred. I asked about recording our open meetings and it was ultimately forbidden. I tried to pass the "Accountability Amendment" so our pilots could see how their Directors were voting, and my motions were disallowed (both by Dave Wills in O&B, and by Lisa Tate in General Session). I tried to open up the competition discussions by posting how I was voting and Mike Haley went ballistic. The lack of Accountability and Transparency at USHPA is so deeply rooted, that I doubt it can ever be changed. But let's look at a few more slides from the report...

Page_124.png (62.07 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

Page_125.png (62.03 KiB) Viewed 3419 times

It's the same story again and again and again: Lack of Accountability and Lack of Transparency.

The problem, however, is that I don't think it can be changed from the inside. I think there's too much apathy in the general membership and there's too much power in the hands of the EC (Executive Committee). The latter was mentioned in another report where organizational experts told USHPA that they were going far too long between Board Meetings - with only 2 meetings each year. That left far too much power in the hands of the EC (which runs USHPA between Board Meetings). Did USHPA heed that recommendation and at least open up the EC teleconferences to all Directors? No. Instead they institutionalized the exclusion of Directors by explicitly allowing it in their SOPs. They went exactly in the wrong direction.

So I am not optimistic that we can "take back" USHPA from the inside. I will certainly support that effort, and you can count me among the 446 members that you need. But USHPA won't sit still while that happens. Instead, they will start handing out "goodies" (essentially bribes) to retain support. Do you remember when Davis wanted to be included in the Competition Committee discussions? Do you remember how he supported Bill Helliwell on his forum and how he actually removed my challenges to Bill? Then when the election was over, he was rewarded with his seat at the table. That's how the "insiders" at USHPA operate. They can dole out money through the Foundation. They can dole out publicity through the magazine. They can dole out awards through the Awards Committee. They can dole out favors through competition selections. They can dangle potential rewards like moving their HQ to Crestline. In other words, they hold the power to persuade because they hold the monopoly on flying in the US. That's the crux of the problem.

So while I will definitely support your effort (please add my name to your list right now), I still think the only long term solution will come from competition in a free market. The sport of SCUBA diving has several major certification entities (NAUI and PADI, for example). I believe that's been a great asset to the sport of SCUBA diving and to the SCUBA divers themselves. Our free market system is based on CHOICE, and it breaks down under any kind of monopoly. That's what we're seeing with USHPA.

Thanks again and again for posting Dan. I will definitely support your effort, and we can start listing the names right here. Please start a topic for collecting names and please put yourself at the top. But I also hope you'll support the notion of competition and support the US Hawks in return. That way, if either of us is successful, then we both win.

Thanks.
Bob Kuczewski

[Craig Muhonen]

Tools, Tools, Tools, Fight fight fight.

How to write a Strong petition
https://communityactionworks.org/resour ... ns-online/

How to write a carefully worded FOIA request
https://unredacted.com/2010/01/20/foia- ... t-part-ii/
=====================================================================================================================

Thank you DanBrown, your posts from 2010-2011 are spot on, and you and Bob are on to something here.
sorta a version of your own US HAWKS AI, where certain words and phrases are "coded", so their AI won't pick it up.
=====================================================================================================================

Bring it forward

C:+o)




.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for refreshing this topic from 2011 Craig. I am refreshing it again in response to Steve Pearson's recent call to support "veteran" Board of Directors members in the upcoming USHPA election. Those "veterans" were responsible for the problems noted in Dan's 2011 report and for not addressing those problems in the 11 years since Dan's report.

[Craig Muhonen]

Paragliding in all it's forms is just to damn dangerous, let AIG be a lessen
Topic Starter by Ryan Taylor / Telluride Paragliding LLC.



Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2020 22:13 UTC

Post subject:
Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Due to ski area insurance requirements with AIG insurance agency many tandem operations and clubs operating on ski areas in the USA will be forced to pay 5 x usual amounts. Looking for advice and suggestions on alternate insurance companies for limits in the 5 mil range.
Anyone out there using alternate insurers?
Businesses involved are currently using the newly formed RRRG with the USHPA. In addition to premiums about to quadruple they will in addition charge a 10-15% fee on gross income. Sounds like we will need to explore all and any options.
I am thankful for their efforts in trying to find insurance for us involved but wanted to open up the discussion on a worldwide level. Thanks for any and all insight and suggestions.
Ryan Taylor/ Telluride Paragliding LLC

Back to top
Post karma: +1 / -0



Bpw
Donor ♥


Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 530
Post karma: +981 / -68
Location: Richmond, CA Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:05 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Can you clarify a little more? Is AIG insuring the ski areas and that have increased the requirements for other commercial users to 5 million on the ski areas they insure? Would AIG be willing to write policies that cover the commercial tandems as part of the ski areas policy?

5 million per incident or 5 million total with a lower per incident limit?

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



RyanTaylor007
Topic Starter



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 130
Post karma: +13 / -10 Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 2:45 UTC Post subject: clarification

Yes AIG insures the ski areas. They now require clubs and commercial operators to provide the ski area as a listed insured on the paragliding business/ or club insurance certificate to be insured to 5 Million per occurrence/aggregate.
AIG is not interested in insuring paragliding. It is more likely that they don't want to see it allowed on ski areas they insure. The increase in premium is not the result of any claims as there haven't been any.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Bpw
Donor ♥


Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 530
Post karma: +981 / -68
Location: Richmond, CA Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:41 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Got it, your insurance requirements went way up and that means premiums increase.

One option to consider is looking for someone who would provide a very high deductible coverage that you could stack on top of the RRRG policy. The RRRG cost is pretty reasonable for the the first million, and a policy from another insurer that covers anything beyond that first million may be easier to get than a policy that covers everything. This is essentially what the RRRG is doing when they purchase reinsurance to cover large claims against the RRRG, I have no idea if you could find something cheaper than what the RRRG currently has access too though.

Just a though, certainly not an area of expertise for me,

I do know someone who was getting commercial PG insurance through "Evolution Insurance Brokers" no personal experience but they may be worth a call.

I would be very interested to hear what the results of your search are, the RRRG works for a lot of situations but alternatives are always good to know about.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



jrutledge



Joined: 07 Jan 2021
Posts: 2
Post karma: +3 / -1
Location: Colorado Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2021 15:25 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Does anyone know which ski areas are or are not affected by the changes with the insurance? From what
I've gathered, besides Telluride, Sun Valley, Jackson Hole, and the tram at Albuquerque are included.

Also, is there an updated list of ski areas that allow lift access flying? The thread below is quite dated and I know some of the ski areas listed are now off-limits.

https://www.paraglidingforum.com/viewto ... ea#p553666

My wife and I have the option to take early retirement later this year. We're both avid cyclists and skiers. We would ideally like to relocate to an area with options for flying, mountain biking, and skiing. Telluride was at the top of our list (with Sun Valley sadly being second) but we're now reconsidering given the current circumstances. Any suggestions are appreciated.

Back to top
Post karma: +2 / -0






Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 3331
Post karma: +4752 / -216
Location: El Cerrito, CA USA Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 23:47 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Does this affect solo flying as well as commercial tandems?

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



birddog



Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 169
Post karma: +67 / -12
Location: Boise, idaho, usa Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 0:16 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

JOSH-
as per Sun Valley Club communications, yes, the prohibition on flights from Baldy applied to both commercial tandem as well as solo pilots.
No idea for the other locations, but one would guess as much.
-Aaron

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:11 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

My understanding to date is that the following ski resorts are in the AIG program (that is asking for this increased minimum coverage) used by USHPA Chapters :

1. Jackson Hole Mtn Resort (WY) - Chapter 87 Jackson Hole Free Flight Club
2. Snow King Resort (WY) - Chapter 87 Jackson Hole Free Flight Club
3. Sun Valley Ski Resort (ID) - Chapter 81 Sun Valley PG ($3M requirement at this location ONLY)
4. Telluride Ski & Golf (CO) - Chapter 26 Telluride Air Force
5. Sandia Peak Tramway (NM) - Chapter 30 Sandia Soaring
6. Whiteface Mtn (NY) - Chapter 66 Utsayantha Flyers Organization
7. Alyeska (AK) - Chapter 79 Arctic Air Walkers
8. Blue Mtn Resort (PA) - Chapter 312 Lehigh Valley Free Flyers Club

The following ski resorts are also known to be requesting $5M min insurance requirement:
1. Mt Bachelor (OR)
2. Baldi (OR)

I do know that both USHPA & the RRRG are working hard to find solutions for this not so easy problem in this strained insurance market. Part of what is making this difficult is that the reinsurance arms are under pressure from all of the natural disaster payouts worldwide + COVID liability concerns are not helping.

Yes, this affects both Commercial Schools/ Tandem operations and Recreational flight/ Chapters

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



jrutledge



Joined: 07 Jan 2021
Posts: 2
Post karma: +3 / -1
Location: Colorado Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 14:48 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Much appreciation for the info. After a tremendous amount of consideration, while we have decided
to take early retirement, we're going to forego paragliding lessons for now. There is an overbearing sense this insurance situation can easily affect flying at all ski areas and potentially most flying sites. Unfortunately, communication with the *authorities* responsible for solving this crisis didn't provide any type of reassurance whatsoever.

Good luck everyone.

Back to top
Post karma: +1 / -1



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:54 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

jrutledge wrote:
Much appreciation for the info. After a tremendous amount of consideration, while we have decided
to take early retirement, we're going to forego paragliding lessons for now. There is an overbearing sense this insurance situation can easily affect flying at all ski areas and potentially most flying sites. Unfortunately, communication with the *authorities* responsible for solving this crisis didn't provide any type of reassurance whatsoever.

Good luck everyone.


I would not let this issue at the listed 10 Ski Resorts deter learning to fly.

Note that there are currently 188 USHPA Chapter Managed Sites in the US. Of those, only the listed 10 sites have an insurance coverage issue of meeting the arbitrarily requested 5x higher limits by the ski resort management.

So one could say that this does not affect most flying Sites as there there are 178 Sites with insurance coverage for the Chapters and or Landowners as Additional Insured. There are additional Sites that are Run as Flight Parks by Flying Schools also with coverage.

Back to top
Post karma: +4 / -1



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 18:58 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

There are also other flying Sites at most of those impacted resort towns that are outside of Ski Resort control. 6 of the 7 Chapters with the ski resort issue have other launch locations they maintain that are not impacted and outside of Ski Resort managed land:

1. Chapter 87 Jackson Hole Free Flight Club: 5 other Sites
2. Chapter 81 Sun Valley PG: 3 other Sites
3. Chapter 26 Telluride Air Force: 0 other Sites listed (would expect the Pilots to start developing / Managing/ Improving other launches in the area.)
4. Chapter 30 Sandia Soaring: 2 other Sites
5. Chapter 66 Utsayantha Flyers Organization: 2 other Sites
6. Chapter 79 Arctic Air Walkers: 25 other Sites
7. Chapter 312 Lehigh Valley Free Flyers Club: 2 other Sites within 10 miles as the crow flies managed by another Chapter

Back to top
Post karma: +4 / -0



tetszen



Joined: 29 Apr 2009
Posts: 430
Post karma: +302 / -50
Location: MT Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 21:49 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Steve Rohrbaugh wrote:
There are also other flying Sites at most of those impacted resort towns that are outside of Ski Resort control. 6 of the 7 Chapters with the ski resort issue have other launch locations they maintain that are not impacted and outside of Ski Resort managed land:





Joined: 31 Jan 2021
Posts: 50
Post karma: +17 / -4 Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 0:48 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

For those that are on the fence about whether or not continued access to flying sites is a legitimate concern or not, a few thoughts:

- I don't fly SV, but once or 2x/year. I've never flown at any of the other sites, but I would like to at some point in the future.

- My father did not start flying until he was 60 after I had purchased a tandem flight for him with fly sun valley. While he had been with me to launch previous to that flight, he never would have considered learning how to fly as a solo pilot without that flight. Sun Valley has been a gateway drug for many others as well.

- from one perspective the US is very much a country whose law/norms/governance is rooted in lobbying power and money. Pilot groups could use more money, support, lobbyist working for them, or some sort of checks on insurance and other coporations and their insatiable bottom line/share holder earnings, or something.

- access is king. sure, there are plenty of unregulated sites in the western united states, but access is king. The three other sites around ketchum/SV: Two burn up your 4wd/transmission accessible for maybe 1/2 of the calendar year, neither are realistically accessible during months with snow on the ground. The third site is a hike up site.

- its been a few years since SV hosted formal comps, but if access to these sites goes away, even the idea of a comp or other similar event isn't even a topic.

I do realize, that's, just like my opinion man.

-A

Back to top
Post karma: +1 / -0



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 19:57 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

tetszen wrote:
Steve Rohrbaugh wrote:
There are also other flying Sites at most of those impacted resort towns that are outside of Ski Resort control. 6 of the 7 Chapters with the ski resort issue have other launch locations they maintain that are not impacted and outside of Ski Resort managed land:


Many of these sites likely also have a few unregulated sites within the area as well. That's one of the benefits of living in the Western U.S. where access to National Forest land gives near limitless opportunities to fly from.


Yes, but there really is no such thing as "Regulated" or "non-Regulated" Sites in the US.

Rather, All flight in the US is regulated by the FAA and PG/HG falls into part 103 Ultralight Vehicles of those regulations regardless of the Site or location launched from.

Then there are land access and use requirements/ legalities that will vary for launching and landing depending on the location that needs to be addressed. Landowners/ land managers / Agencies can require various conditions and protocols to be followed as a condition for use of their lands for ground-based/ access to the air activities.

That is the issue here for those Ski Resort managed lands that are also typically in National Forest or other lands under lease agreements or Permits with those agencies. Simply, they are requiring to be listed as Aditional Insured at some specific level. There are many other locations in National forests and others that require use permits of one type or another to create and maintain launches & LZs. BLM land is about the only agency that usually has little to no requirements for our activities. Again, all of this varies by location.


Some parts of our 103 flight operations are also under FAA Advisories such as Info_FAA-AC103-7-Ultralights that further define Part 103. Link for those subdocuments can be found in the Members section of USHPA and other sources: https://www.ushpa.org/page/flight-operations.aspx

Some parts of our flight operations are under waivers of exclusion to Part 103. Examples of operation under waivers: two-place/ tandem, commercial, towing, and a few others. These waivers were granted and allowed to be maintained/ renewed under self-regulation bodies like USHPA and a few other organizations for those waivers.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 20:18 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Agreed, that retaining access is a legitimate concern, and not downplaying that by pointing out that Flying in the US has not been shut down across the board. Access is key and we should be all trying to preserve sites and access.

Believe me, the USHPA and the RRRG are actively working on this issue. There have been many manhours spent on this and will continue to be spent on trying to find a solution to this Ski Resort issue for insurance coverage that meets their requirements.

Affordability for extended coverage is also a big concern so that it does not become cost-prohibitive. Rates become exponential as the limits increase. We are getting close to some solution options with verbal negotiations for extended coverage agreements, but not formally signed . . .


If reading some alternate coverage policies suggested by some in other social media, those policies do not cover participant activities, only third parties. So that alternate coverage is a nonstarter with the Ski Resort requirements.

What really needs to happen along with the search for coverage is further negotiations with the Ski resorts & their coverage provider requiring this arbitrary 5x increase.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Bpw
Donor ♥


Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 530
Post karma: +981 / -68
Location: Richmond, CA Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:12 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Steve Rohrbaugh wrote:


If reading some alternate coverage policies suggested by some in other social media, those policies do not cover participant activities, only third parties. So that alternate coverage is a nonstarter with the Ski Resort requirements.


Can you clarify this a bit? Is the issue that these policies would provide third party coverage but not protect the landowner from liability like the RRRG landowner policies do?

Any idea why higher limits are so much more expensive proportionally compared to the million dollar policy that is fairly cheap? Most other insurance I have dealt with gets proportionally cheaper for higher limits because while the potential claim is bigger they are less common (High limit unbrella policies vs basic car liability for example). Is this a side-effect of the RRRG needed to get re-insurance for the big policies vs keeping underwriting mostly in-house for the basic policies?

Would also be interesting to here what the rough numbers are, will a 5 million policy be $5,000 or $50,000?

I can certainly understand the resorts/AIG side of the argument as well, we are small group that provides very little profit to them with potential for really big liability and a million dollars doesn't go that far these days.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0




Donor ♥


Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 530
Post karma: +981 / -68
Location: Richmond, CA Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 19:16 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Steve Rohrbaugh wrote:
Bpw wrote:


Can you clarify this a bit? Is the issue that these policies would provide third party coverage but not protect the landowner from liability like the RRRG landowner policies do?



Third parties are spectators, hiker, a person riding a horse that may be thrown, person on a lift . . . Those that are not involved in the flight activity/ sport. The innocent bystanders . . . or even non-pilot that might lend a hand assisting a launch or try to help catch a stray wing . . .

Participants, in this case, would be any pilot/ passenger, pilot's/ passenger's family, or other involved in the sport/ activity that might sue or be sued that was directly or indirectly involved.

Yes, the USHPA GL policy and Flight School policies provided by the RRRG covers participants & third parties, and include aviation/ flight.

Is interesting that in fine detail of some of those groups touting to cover extreme sports have aviation/ flight exclusions even though sold to those activities.

I can not speak to the other as am not involved in the $ other than knowing some of the general challenges.


In general with a third party liability policy there would be coverage for damage I do to other people (the "third party"), even if they are doing the same thing as me (think of an auto policy - it covers damage I do to other drivers), The RRRG on the other hand actually excludes coverage for damage I do to other pilots. They had to include specific language in the policy for this exclusion since that is not normal for third-party liability policies.

However, I am not sure this is relevant here, the ski resorts would be looking for something like the landowner protection policy that the RRRG can provide that protects the landowner from any damage claims arising from paragliding on their property. The policy USHPA provides us as pilots doesn't protect the landowner from lawsuits at all, the separate landowner policy is needed for that.

None of these policies do anything to protect against damages we sustain as pilots to ourselves.

To clarify a bit better, all these policies are "third party liability" but the pilot policy we all get via USHPA has the RRRG and the pilot as the first and second party, while the landowner policy has the the RRRG and the landowner as the first two parties. "Third party" is everyone else minus any specific exclusions in the policy.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Steve Rohrbaugh



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 479
Post karma: +581 / -63
Location: San Diego Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 22:59 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Bpw wrote:

However, I am not sure this is relevant here, the ski resorts would be looking for something like the landowner protection policy that the RRRG can provide that protects the landowner from any damage claims arising from paragliding on their property. The policy USHPA provides us as pilots doesn't protect the landowner from lawsuits at all, the separate landowner policy is needed for that.


Landowner 3rd party liability coverage comes in two parts: from Chapters (for Recreational flight of USHPA members) and Schools (for commercial flight activities).

Pilot Liability comes from the USHPA GL policy for USHPA members.

The catch is that all pilots involved need to be USHPA members in good standing for the above coverages.

Back to top
Post karma: +0 / -0



Bpw
Donor ♥


Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 530
Post karma: +981 / -68
Location: Richmond, CA Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 23:55 UTC Post subject: RE: Major US flying sites shut down due to major insurance spike

Steve Rohrbaugh wrote:


The catch is that all pilots involved need to be USHPA members in good standing for the above coverages.


I would need to go double check, but I am pretty sure this changed with the RRRG policy changes this year and we are no longer covered for damages to other pilots, USHPA members or not. The pilot side of the RRRG policy had some changes this year that added quite a few more limits on coverage compared to the past. The most substantial change was that pilots must now be rated p2 or higher where previously all USHPA members had coverage.

Hopefully RRRG can find a solution to higher limit protections for landowners, I suspect this will become more common going forward, especially when the landowner is a large corporation like a ski resort with lots of assets to lose. Ideal would be a law limiting liability for landowners similar to how many states make it very hard to sue a ski area for skiing accidents.

As such a tiny user group PG/HG is always going to have a hard time with insurance and land access, no profit to be made for a land owner and small insurance pools are risky for the insurance companies.

Rob;
As much as I want access to fly, it's pretty understandable that a ski area (and their insurance company) would decide we aren't worth the hassle and liability.

Craig;
Starting in 1972 at Telluride, and up to 1990, the ski areas and the Hang Gliding community respected each other and was no hassle at all and was absolutely worth it for everybody, it was all about professionalism and fun, WTF happened after 1990?