Insurance ending for USHPA March 2016 (opinion)

[Bill Cummings]

I was surprised when I read the post at the USHPA website that one of the sites that could be affected by our insurance company canceling on us was the, "Guadalupe's."
If the "Guads" are used more often than Presidents Day I'm not aware of it. We haven't been holding any fees or dues collecting events or competition at the Guads so why would we worry about third party liability. I do understand the launch is Forestry land and the LZ is BLM land. But I don't see the problem.
My concern about the RGSA paying an insurance premium for the Guads will be unfounded after March 2016 once we are dropped by the insurance company.

We may be duty bound to inform the Lincoln National Forest in writing that as far as Dry Canyon is concerned that our insurance is about to run out in March 2016.
Our letter, if I understand the workings of all this, should also mention that should we lose coverage we will no longer be scheduling invitationals or collecting fees.
Then it should be flying at the Guads., Dry, La Luz, as usual but nothing other than individual recreational flying.

If we were using the site to collect fees or make money we would then be required to purchase a permit and pay a percentage of collections.
We are not doing that at the Guads., so there is no need for us to have in place third party insurance. As long as the Forestry isn't inviting us or charging us to use our National Forest (and we as recreational flyers aren't either,) they are to be held harmless when we recreate just like in all other states of the USA.
There also is no need to have a waiver in effect to engage in recreation on BLM or National Forest Lands. The FAA doesn't require insurance. It also doesn't require a rating by the USHPA.
Just like when you use undeveloped Forestry land for camping, hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, photographing, Frisbee tossing -- and the list goes on -- no insurance.

It is my understanding the only reason we have insurance for the Dry Canyon Alamogordo, NM site was that we were required by the Forestry Service to have it years back when the Nationals were held. That was an invite by our club and we charged an entry fee. Without insurance we can no longer engage in that activity. From now on it's fun flying only unless we have insurance in place.

If the USHPA fails in it's efforts to form a RRG (cooperative insurance with no middleman, AKA Loyd's of London) we are back to recreational flying only.

I'm unclear as to whether the City of Alamogordo requires that we carry third party insurance. I don't know if soccer teams and baseball teams are required to carry liability insurance. Maybe someone has the answer.

One issue I wanted to bring up to our RGSA Club officers was to drop some sites off of our site insurance since we are about 2/3 short on collecting the donation this year that would cover it. I think there is still other money in reserve so we should be okay.
I think I was told that site insurance would be around $67?.00 if it stayed the same at renewal time in Feb. All that is left after expenses this season is $198.00 that I still hold and have to mail it in with receipts to Hadley. Bottom line as I see it is 670.00 (about) owed with 198.00 to cover that expense. These are my guesstimates but Hadley can clue us in.

I was hopeful that the RGSA helping to insure the Sod Farm would turn out some local dues paying new pilots. I was all for this but it is looking to me that the insurance company is only going to leave broken piggy bank shards behind even if they hadn't dropped us. Now USHPA is saying the dues base will jump from 99 dollars to 150 dollars.

I'm not sure if I will remain part of that organization.

In the past I felt as though my BLM land flying, that was absent of third party individuals, was wasting my money. My dues were being enjoyed by someone giving joy riding, tandem flights for hire. Businessmen with a cushy deal. They pose the greatest risk and earn enough bucks to make a living at it. I'd rather donate to a different charitable organization.

Anyway -- something to think about.

It's partly my own fault. I should have been swinging on USHPA's ear long ago when they shifted from supporting we recreational pilots and shamelessness switched to supporting the money making aspect that our flying sport generates. When USHPA started cutting back on our rating observers is when I really started to pay attention.
Insuring proximity speed wings after tucking them into the fold of our insurance was another heavy straw for the staggering camel. USHPA may collapse just short of the oasis.
USHPA has to correct it's business model and stop being everything for all endeavors. We have to separate from the business of flying and get back to the recreational flying.
The tandem exemption granted us by the FAA is being abused for bucket list rides and joy rides. Why should my dues support this abuse that is generating law suites?
Let the tandem business pay its own way. Let the schools pay their own way. I was mentored into this sport like most of the other older pilots. Most of us didn't have to pay anything to a gate keeper to enjoy the free airspace. It can be done again because that is how it all started.
Mentor and leave you wallet in your pocket.
Find a better way than the USHPA.
Don't give of your money ($150.00) first without first giving of your time. (Mentor.)
USHPA has too many RD's that run schools and businesses. They have reduced the free rating observers list. That funnels everyone to their $chool$. That is a conflict-of-interest.
There has been a voice crying in the wilderness since 2007. USHPA didn't heed or repent. They instead served his head up on a silver platter.

[Rick Masters]

Bill,
Your thinking is very clear and it leads to the question, "What comes after USHPA?" Perhaps pilots who step away from USHPA can direct some of the money that went to USHPA membership toward their local club activities and local S&R. You nailed the insurance issue. The Feds have always used the insurance issue as a method to force local pilots to ease congestion at popular sites or comps and deal with sanitation. I never thought liability was at the top of their concern. USHPA, as well, has used insurance as a membership prod and a raison d'État. But if insurance becomes unavailable, that's not the end of hang gliding. It's just the end of the (more expensive) old way of doing (unnecessary) things. You also nailed the issue of how special interests sucked recreational hang gliding dry.
Rick Masters

[Bob Kuczewski]

I agree Rick. Bill's assessment of the situation is very clear indeed.

When we were working on the Mission Statement (which just passed this weekend), I was initially some what resistant to putting the word "recreational" in there. But the wisdom of Joe Faust shines through. That's what our association is about - people flying for the pure joy of flying. We're not against businesses in any way, and I hope we will find many ways to support schools, manufacturers, and instructors. But those decisions must be made based on the underlying question of whether they help or hurt recreational flying. The ongoing conflicts at Torrey makes this clear. USHPA has chosen to support the business interests at that site over the recreational user's interests. And don't get me started on wing types!!   

Anyway, I really like the direction the US Hawks is going, and I have to admit that it wouldn't be going in that direction if it weren't for the contributions of our great Board members.   

                                       

[Bill Cummings]

Found this at the HG dot org site but it looks like M.G. Forbes left the US Hawks out of the loop.
So as of yesterday MGF himself didn't understand (allegedly) completely where we stood on this insurance question.

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:04 pm Post subject: USHPA CGL insurance update Reply with quote #1
There has been some discussion of whether we could continue to just obtain pilot and site insurance from our insurers, probably with a premium increase, and leave the instructors hanging. That idea was floated as an alternative to forming an RRG and self-insuring, since "after all, that's what we used to do."

Yes and no....we had a hole in our coverage related to paid instruction, and we plugged that hole when we obtained instructor insurance. We didn't make a big deal of it at the time because we didn't want to panic our landowners into shutting down flying sites. Going back to that situation isn't wise, and leaves us exposed to serious risk.

But that's moot. We've now received word that our insurers do not intend to renew ANY of our policies when they expire at the end of February. Talk of continuing some partial level of coverage under the existing policy is no longer on the table. This just came to light in a string of emails over the past few days. We either find a way to self-insure through the RRG, or we're done. Until this morning, I was of the opinion that we might still have a chance to renew the CGL policy, if all else failed. That is no longer the case.

This really is "for all the marbles". As of today's report, we have donations totaling just under $113,000 from 440 donors, with an average donation of $256.44. What that means is that 4.6% of our members care enough about our sport to help it survive. REALLY? Are we that apathetic?

Come on...I know we can do better than that. If we all pitch in a hundred bucks, we're done with this thing and we can get on with flying at our favorite sites.

Mark G. Forbes
USHPA insurance chairman.......

[Bob Kuczewski]

I wonder what it would take to make the switch:

FirstFlightAssociations.gif (154.49 KiB) Viewed 8111 times

[Bill Cummings]

joef posted this at the OZ Report of which I made a copy/paste that doesn't repeat the entire post.
"

Members of an RRG must be engaged in businesses or activities which are similar or related in regards to the liability exposures created by virtue of common business or trade practices, products, services, premises or operations. In addition, an individual or firm that meets this criteria cannot be excluded from the group if the intent of the exclusion is to provide the group with a competitive advantage.

Of particular interest to me was this:

"In addition, an individual or firm that meets this criteria cannot be excluded from the group if the intent of the exclusion is to provide the group with a competitive advantage."

Am I the only one to understand this to mean that any RRG set up could not exclude me if I let my USHPA membership laps
EDIT (a few minutes later)
In other words, If, as an individual hang gliding pilot, I match what other pilots contribute monetarily to the RRG am I safe from exclusion by the USHPA or any other HG organization

[Rick Masters]

Am I the only one to understand this to mean that any RRG set up could not exclude me if I let my USHPA membership laps

    Yes, that appears to be the case, because if you were to be excluded, you would be forced to seek insurance at a higher rate, if insurance could be found at all. This would provide a competitive advantage to USHPA members.
    If the RRG were not insuring paragliders and speed wings and God knows what else, it would matter. But they are, so it doesn't.
    My advice is to forget the USHPA RRG scheme and find constructive ways to assert your right to fly under FAR 103 as a citizen. This should be the top priority of every club right now and each club should form a committee to assist their members in doing this.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Of particular interest to me was this:

"In addition, an individual or firm that meets this criteria cannot be excluded from the group if the intent of the exclusion is to provide the group with a competitive advantage."

Am I the only one to understand this to mean that any RRG set up could not exclude me if I let my USHPA membership laps
EDIT (a few minutes later)
In other words, If, as an individual hang gliding pilot, I match what other pilots contribute monetarily to the RRG am I safe from exclusion by the USHPA or any other HG organization

I think we might have a good case (in court) per this provision. However, they appear to be claiming that participants in an RRG must have a significant amount of money to be certified investors (something like that). That may be why they chose the RRG mechanism as opposed to forming a "mutual" or "cooperative" or some other type of shared risk pool.

USHPA appears to be telling individual pilots that they can "donate", but only the big money schools can be "owners". This is about as disgusting as it gets.

Rick is right that we do need to try to find non-insurance avenues to perpetuate the sport of hang gliding. I agree 100%, and I support doing both.

[JoeF]

Perpetuate recreational hang gliding ...

could be very different from perpetuating sport hang gliding ...

[Bill Cummings]

JoeF dug this up so I decided to post it here for RGSA Club members to learn about RRG's
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/risk-retention-group-rrg.asp