US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

Mitchell McAleer wrote:The United States Hanggliding and Paragliding Association executive management lies, all the time.

I spent three days in San Bernardino court watching the Peter Pivka, USHPA vs. Andrei Firtat trial. The USHPA, Tim Herr, and hired attorney Kirshbaum are defending Peter Pivka, a known liar, expelled from the USHPA, and the Crestline Soaring Society for lying about the mid air incident he caused, badly injuring Andrei, resulting in 4 fused upper lumbar vertebrae, long term care, loss of work, and long term chronic back pain for the victim of Peter Pivka's colossal ego, coupled with poor judgment and poor piloting skills.

At breaks in the trial Pivka walks from the defendant's chair, past me in the gallery never looking me in the eye, head high, shoulders back, a purposefully arrogant liar. Tim Herr, the lifetime USHGA, USHPA attorney is no different.

Pivka came to my house the day after the incident in 2017, asking for a couple broken upper brake lines replaced. He told me his version of the mid air story, claiming Andrei appeared below him in a steep climbing turn and impacted trailing edge of Andrei's canopy to Pivka's chest. Marcello de Barros came up the following day and showed me Andrei's GPS track, a virtually straight course along the front of Cloud peak ridge until impact and a straight line descent under a canopy collapsed by Pivka's body running into the trailing edge until Andrei's glider stalled and fell 100 feet to impact with the terrain above the 750 launch.

After looking at Andrei's GPS track, it's clear Peter Pivka was lying, and the cause of the mid air. From the GPS track and witnesses in the air that day Pivka was trying to milk the last weak lift and stay above Andrei, 2 minutes before this incident, Andrei turned 180º away from Pivka, who then followed him around the north west face of the Cloud peak ridge toward regionals launch, turning 180º left traveling toward the 750 for at least 200 yards, attempting to stay higher, or possibly wing walk on Andrei's canopy, to be cool, you know, like the pro's, except he caused a total collapse by impacting trailing edge at chest level continuing forward without any attempt to slow down or change course until Andrei's canopy stalled, collapsed and fell 100 feet impacting hard enough to break bones.

Day two, Kirshbaum attempts to claim the USHPA membership waiver excludes Pivka from any responsibility. That's absurd, self serving, as if the USHPA executive never had any intention of supporting membership by paying out liability claims and simply wants to keep all the self insurance fund for some other purpose. Kirshbaum asks a few leading questions alluding to Andrei's failure to deploy his reserve as the cause of his injury, another lame attempt to shift blame, based on a fiction, like it's a good idea to abandon control near the terrain and deploy a reserve and not control the main canopy at under 100 feet above ground.

Brad Hill, Discover Paragliding out of central Oregon coast showed up last Friday, October 29, and lied like a rug, claiming it's standard USHPA practice to teach entry level students to twist their risers 180° in flight to look behind them to see and avoid traffic closing from behind. Twisting risers and flying a paraglider with the pilot facing backwards is an advanced maneuver reserved for high time aerobatic pilots in the appropriate setting, most of the time, 1000 feet above ground over water, definitely more than 100 feet from terrain for a recreational pilot.

Turning around and facing away from direction of travel when this close to terrain is stupid and dangerous, and that's exactly what Brad Hill suggested should be standard procedure for low skill novice pilots. The premise is ridiculous, endorsed by USHPA attorney Tim Herr, every paraglider pilot must be alert as if we are all constant targets of suicidal kamakazie weekend warrior pilots, the same pilots we rode up with, drink beer with in the LZ after the flight. This is another lame attempt at blame shifting, and more delusional, poor ethical behavior from USHPA.

Tim Herr is a lawyer, he evidently hired Mr. Kirshbaum, who did all the work at the trial. Herr never questioned any witness, or said much, if anything the entire 3 days I was there. My experience indicates Mr Kirshbaum costs around $50K per year, and this case is 3 years old. That's potentially $150K wasted on a losing case, that might cost the PASA, RRG, USHPA self insurance scam millions in court costs, compensation for Andrei's medical expenses, pain and suffering, and long term care.

Verdict 11/2/2021

Jury found the defendant liable for $6 Million. Tim Herr USHPA attorney is visibly upset. The USHPA PASA, RRG self insurance scam started with $2 Million in donations from membership, and my guess, Palmaz, Herr, and the USHPA Colorado Springs office staff has absorbed a good part of that money in salaries, and there isn't anywhere near $6 million between Peter Pivka and the USHPA self insurance scam to pay Andrei Firtat compensation according to the jury verdict today.

Pivka's behavior coming to my house the day after the incident and spinning his actions to render himself blameless for Andrei's injury, and his story changing 3 times between depositions and the trial tells me he's lying, and in denial of the consequences of his actions. Peter Pivka's colossal ego compelled him to milk the last of the day and stay above Andrei, following directly behind and above for two minutes until he plowed into Andrei's glider.

If the USHPA had attempted a fair settlement, would the case have gone to trial? Between Pivka's ego, Tim Herr's ego, his vested interest, conflict of interest paying out multi million dollar injury settlement from the USHPA PASA funds, evidently no other outcome was possible.

Tim Herr and Martin Palmaz have been the USHPA executive management through both the loss of the Lloyd's of London coverage that used to cost USHGA, USHPA members $59 a year, and included a bi monthly magazine edited by Gil Dodgen. Now it seems their management style is also going to collapse the PASA self insurance scam.

Moderator's Note: The names "Funar" and "Pavlik" in this article may be fictitious.

Funar v. Pavlik – $7.44M Verdict for a Mid-Air Paraglider Collision – Dave Fox & Russ Gold
Webinar on April 8 @ 10:30 AM - 1:30 PM PDT

This case involved a mid-air paraglider collision. Defendant Peter Pavlik, flying above and behind plaintiff Alex Funar, crashed into the rear edge of Funar’s paraglider wing. Funar’s wing collapsed and he fell approximately 100 feet to the mountainside below. Funar suffered a severe spinal fracture requiring a 4-level spinal fusion.

All paragliders must sign a broad waiver agreeing not to sue other paragliders and assuming all risks of injury while participating in the sport. Therefore, Funar had to prove that Pavlik’s conduct was (1) grossly negligent to avoid the waiver, and (2) so reckless it was entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in paragliding. Pavlik contended that Funar was in Pavlik’s blind spot and Funar should have been more aware of Pavlik’s location. Therefore, according to Pavlik, the collision was an unfortunate accident that did not give rise to liability, and Funar was also at fault for failing to “see and avoid” Pavlik.

Before reaching trial, Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s motion for summary judgment based on federal pre-emption, waiver, and primary assumption of risk. Then Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s petition to the Court of Appeal seeking a peremptory writ of mandate.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Pavlik grossly negligent and reckless without any comparative fault by Funar. The jury decided total damages of $7,443,369.74, which included $1 million for past non-economic damages and $5 million for future non-economic damages. The judgment will exceed $9 million after CCP §998 costs and interest.

Rick Masters wrote:In all seriousness, Mike should look at the bright side.
He escaped the liability all stock-bearing members of the RRG share.
For the cost of only $500, he gets total protection against any massive lawsuit or regulatory action that could destroy the RRG and leave its members liable for astronomical costs for many years to come.
A class action lawsuit based on the omission of certain facts that resulted in multiple deaths of participants, for instance.
That is cheap protection.
In the future, other members may wish they had followed Mike's example before it was too late.
Members need not worry about the RRG Directors getting caught up in any of it, though.
They're most likely covered by a reinsurance policy the members paid for.
(They might have forgotten to say anything about it.)

Mike's action also exposes a big hole in the RRG story.
He got insured with another company.
That flies in the face of everything the USHPA was telling their gullible members about the end of free flight.
Actually, free flight is probably going to be around for a while longer.
I'm not so sure about the USHPA, RRG and the Federation of Free Paragliding Flight.

Mark Forbes wrote:Mgforbes
Re: RRRG Litigation?
Post Thu, Mar 10 2022, 05:51:35 pm

Mark Forbes here. I serve as CFO of Recreation RRG. I can't answer most of the questions that you're all about to clamor for answers to, so don't bother asking.

What you saw in the announcement from the RRG is what can be released at present. What you read from people like Hanning and Mcaleer is misinformed ranting. This litigation is a long way from being over, and meanwhile Recreation RRG continues to operate, insuring pilots, schools, chapters, landowners and USHPA.

The fundamental understanding within our sport must be the belief that we're all responsible for our own safety, and on ourselves alone falls the duty of care to stay safe. We all agree as a condition of USHPA membership that we will not sue or make a claim against landowners, pilots or anybody else if we get hurt. The plaintiff in this case broke his promise and sued. He found a judge and jury sympathetic to his argument that his promise should not be binding. If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable. When members of our flying community actively encourage one pilot to sue another, or make public statements casting blame and calling for retribution, it damages us all.

The insurance policy now excludes claims between pilots, so a future mid-air collision would not be an insurable event. It also excludes claims for gross negligence, in addition to criminal negligence previously excluded. As we continue to gain experience, the insurance policies continue to be refined, expanding coverage where it's feasible, restricting it where unacceptable risk becomes evident.

Recreation RRG continues to operate normally, and I expect that a final resolution of this case is many months in the future. Claims are something that happens in the insurance business, and they don't generally rise to a level of concern within the pilot community. Perhaps once this is finally settled out and fully 'done', we can have an in-depth discussion about what happened and how it was handled. For right now, "I can't comment on pending litigation."

MGF

Mark Forbes wrote:"If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable."

Bob Kuczewski wrote:I'm not sure if this belongs in "Politics" or not, so please feel free to move it if it offends any of the USHPA loyalists at Sylmar.

There have been a number of reports on a recent $7.44 million verdict in the Firtat v. Pivka case originating from a paragliding collision at Crestline. I've been assembling some of that information here:

   https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3903

From all that I've read, it appears that Pivka's irresponsible behavior collapsed Firtat's wing and caused an impact with the ground. The jury has upheld that view and rendered a 7.44 million dollar verdict against Pivka. I've pulled a number of partial documents from the court file and found that USHPA's lawyer (Timothy Herr) testified against Firtat and in Pivka's favor.

This raises an important ethical question in our sports. If it really is true that one party does a very bad thing that injures another party, should we really join forces to allow that injury to stand without compensation?

Our justice system isn't perfect, but it has one simple goal - justice. Justice means punishing people who do bad things to other people. It also means compensating people who've been injured by the bad behavior of others. Yet USHPA stands in direct opposition to such justice because it might (almost always) harm their insurance pool. That's why they expelled me. I spoke up for justice in the Hamby case, and USHPA retaliated by expelling me as soon as the case was settled in Hamby's favor.

If you think about it, this means that USHPA will always be on the side of the bad actor in our sports. After all, it''s the bad actors who cause accidents, and it's the innocent victims who will want justice in the courts for being injured. Yet seeking such justice ALWAYS puts the innocent victim on the opposing side of USHPA's insurance pool ... and therefore on the opposing side of USHPA itself (and USHPA's lawyer and USHPA's Director and USHPA's Board Members).

This means that the USHPA-sponsored insurance scheme will always stick up for the bad actors and always attack the good actors. Is that sustainable? Is it even desirable if it is sustainable? After all, what kind of people will you attract to a sport where bad actors are protected and innocent people are punished or ostracized?

I believe that Joe Greblo is a good human being, and I don't think that Joe would endorse the kind of irresponsible behavior that has lead to these injuries (Firtat, Hamby, etc). Yet Joe's unwillingness to defend those who seek justice has, paradoxically, done just that. Retaliation against those who testify against USHPA's interests may be tempting to avoid the short-term pain of law suits. But in the long run, those chickens will come home to roost. USHPA's loss of insurance was just the first shoe to drop.

Read more at USHawks.org.

FFS wrote:$9M judgment AF v. Peter Pivka (Pivkova)
Post Fri, Mar 11 2022, 06:04:38 pm

”The judgment will exceed $9 million after CCP §998 costs and interest.”
See paragraph 4, last line - https://tluvirtual.com/event/firtat-v-p ... russ-gold/

Peter Pivka (aka Peter Pivkova) and AF were strangers to each other. Pivka had been tailgating/pimping off AF at Andy Jackson Flight Park.

AF flew away towards Cloud peak. Pivka followed.

Then without prior agreement or communication in the air, Pivka attempted to walk on AF’s wing from behind. Pivka misjudged his approach and essentially collapsed AF’s wing. AF was already too close to terrain (100’ AGL) for any possibility of wing recovery or reserve throw.

USHPA-selected expert testified flying reverse (HG equivalent would be twisting 180 degrees on the hang point to face towards the keel) is a basic maneuver taught to P-1s on their 4th or 5th flight and that AF had the responsibility of checking for traffic behind him by flying reverse. 100’ above the ground.

The fact that “expert” testimony was sanctioned by USHPA is incredibly disappointing and shows USHPA prioritized protecting RRRG assets over the truth and welfare of one of its own.

Mark Forbes’ continued obfuscation of the truth does not surprise. Forbes dropped the ball at a crucial moment during the initial insurance crisis. He is not a credible source of information nor can he be relied upon during times of crisis.