Forum rules
This forum is for discussions and responses related to the Oz Forum.
Please start new topics with the same name as the Oz Forum's topic name.

RRG Maybes

Postby Bill Cummings » Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:11 pm

Over at the OZ (actually it is starting to sound a little bit like we were saying all along about: "No Fee," "No Invitation."
MichaelB51 Posts:
Re: RRG Tandems Mon, Feb 29 2016, 7:36:39 am
It's been signaled that RRG Insured sites may not allow commercial schools or instructors who are not insured, or they will risk loss of coverage. Instructor authority to train, recommend or endorse students is a completely separate issue. No insured site, no compensation, no issue (as I understand it.) I'll also assume that beginning June 1 if the RRG policy takes effect, the member's individual 3rd party liability (membership) coverage will definitely not apply at all when they conduct commercial instruction. "Philanthropic" instructors should be covered, but only as members, and only when following the SOPs. No commercial coverage in the main policy.

Clearly there's an intent to affect the behavior of tandem (business) operations, but the policy, policies and policing will [IMO] likely not single out tandem operations, beyond setting new operating standards, which could indeed affect only tandems. Can't see any justification for promoting or restricting any training method over another. But the independent tandem pilot selling instructive rides, as a business model, is clearly (and thankfully) marked for decline in the U.S.. Tightened professionalism is being touted as the vaccine. Hope it works.

Not having policies or fee schedules in front of us, we can't be sure I'm right about all this. And it's worth mentioning that my local USHPA Chapter acted in 2015 to disallow any instruction on our sites at all, "EXCEPT:". And I'm certain commercial insurance coverage for commercial training will (when available) number among our local requirements. I expect many if not most Chapters and landowners with sites will find cause to do the same.

Tandem flight, unless both occupants are rated pilots and one is rated tandem and there's no compensation, is commercial instruction. Paid intro flights are commercial instruction. Commercial insurance from the RRG will apparently be available only to approved schools, or instructors affiliated with approved schools. Purchasing instruction will definitely cost more, whether on the bunny hill, the towline or the tandem.

How much more should be known in the coming weeks. Even if it's not known until June 1, the people who need it have to put up $300 to start the process (if they go through PASA.) That's very little cash, compared to the hours of work most will invest assembling an application to which they can attach it, and instituting new procedures. It's a bit of a lottery, and there will be losers--those who decide the price (once announced) is too high. There will be winners too I think, including students, and all of those for whom the profession is a commitment.

Oh and just noticed this:
2.29.16 1453hrs oz.PNG
2.29.16 1453hrs oz.PNG (13.95 KiB) Viewed 2630 times

2.29.16 1453hrs.PNG
2.29.16 1453hrs.PNG (21.94 KiB) Viewed 2630 times
Bill Cummings
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Rick Masters » Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:54 pm

Those other forums are pretty boring.
q2asww2@@@@2222222222222222222 <-- this part was typed by my dog, who is really smart and prefers frisbee.
Rick Masters
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 3260
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:11 am

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Bill Cummings » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:00 pm

From the OZ Report Forum today Mgforbes posts:
Re: RRG Tandems Mon, Feb 29 2016, 3:41:50 pm
Busy today, so a quick response.

1) If not a USHPA insured site, then no *current* requirement that instructors have commercial insurance to teach for pay.

1a) At present, USHPA instructors can avoid the insurance requirement by not operating commercially at insured sites. But this
does impose a risk on USHPA; the instructor insurance does not apply, but USHPA has signed off the instructor. One of the
topics at this next BOD meeting is how/whether we deal with that risk.

2) If an insured site, any instruction for pay, in any form, MUST have commercial coverage through a certified school.

3) If instruction is purely non-commercial, with no exchange of value of any kind including donations, then instructors
are covered by the USHPA instructor policy for recreational instruction. Operating with a mix of commercial and
"non-commercial" instruction will be presumptive of commercial operation. "Oh, that one was free". Nope. Not buying it.
MGF


1) If not a USHPA insured site, then no *current* requirement that instructors have commercial insurance to teach for pay.

Here in New Mexico it is my understanding that commercial instructing within the Lincoln National Forest (Dry Canyon Alamogordo, NM (USA) you would need a special permit from the Forest Ranger to be doing for pay instruction. This will also require insurance. For Fee charging events like Invitational fly-ins we have always been required to carry insurance.
Bill Cummings
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Bill Cummings » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:26 pm

I'm passing the words of Mgforbes to (at this moment in time) a larger viewership here. Found this at the OZ Report Forum.

Post Alternative realities Tue, Mar 1 2016, 9:16:18 am
When you own the property, you get to make the rules and decide what level of risk you're willing to accept. Matt owns his flight park launch and landing areas. Malcolm owns Wallaby Ranch. They can choose to operate without USHPA insurance coverage and deal with any potential litigation on their own. Nothing wrong with that.

By contrast, Kitty Hawk, Torrey and Windsports operate as concessions on public land. The public agencies that own the property require that each be insured for commercial activity, and that the agencies be named as additional insureds on their policies. For them and many others, access to liability insurance is a requirement to stay in business. Flight schools owning their own land are the rare exceptions.
MGF
Bill Cummings
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Bill Cummings » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:57 pm

At this moment in time the viewership here is more than double that of the website where MGF responded to a good post.
MGF doesn't post to the pilots viewing here at the US Hawks.
I'll do a copy/paste of it here so that the pilot viewership on this website will be able to read MGF's clarifications concerning the RRG confusion.

(Verification available at the OZ Report Forum)
Re: RRG Tandems Wed, Mar 2 2016, 10:30:54 am
Gotandem:
The change that is here is that the cost of insurance is going to go up. Especially for instructors. Otherwise there is no change. Pasa recently said that they will not come up with new standards or new rules. They will only try to enforce existing rules. That's no change. But also I wonder what is reasonable anymore. Because if we ask Mark where the biggest claims came from, he usually names cases that have nothing to do with instruction. Why then is USHPA cracking down on instructors. Why is that reasonable?
Bart

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Response from MGF to Bart:
I think that part of the problem is that instructors have been receiving a highly-subsidized rate on insurance up to now. USHPA has been absorbing some of the cost via general membership dues, and instructors have been using the coverage loophole for landowners as a means of avoiding paying for commercial coverage. That will no longer be the case going forward, and instructors will now be paying the actual cost of the coverage. The cost of that coverage is based on the ACTUAL expenses of defense and claims settlement. The Rogallo membership dues rate has not even been paying the base cost of the previous instructor insurance. It's not that USHPA is "cracking down" on instructors; it's that we're no longer subsidizing them to the same extent.

I have not discussed details of all of our claims. I've referred to selected incidents in order to illustrate some points, but there are many others. Some involve instruction, some do not. While fewer in number, tandem instructional claims have been expensive relative to others. That's not really a surprise; it's easier to make the argument that "somebody made a mistake" when the instructor is right there with the student.
MGF
Bill Cummings
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Rick Masters » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:34 pm

What me worry?
Image
The U$hPA RRG Welcomes Bungie Jumping!
Paragliding, speedgliding. kiteboarding, bungie jumping and, uh...
What's the other one?
Oh, yeah, hang gliding. (Do people still do that?)
The U$hPA RRG welcomes bungie jumping to expand our insured base
and make our RRG insurance more affordable and robust and impenetrable!!
Yayy!
Stay tuned for our negotiations with the zip-line industry!

Yayyyyy!
And another big surprise yet to come!
Image
Yaaayyy! There's no stopping us!
Rick Masters
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 3260
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:11 am

Re: RRG Maybes

Postby Bill Cummings » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:25 pm

Information found at the OZ Report Forum posted by Davis that RRG information is coming from Bill Boloski:
A teaser: Bill and the RRG Wed, Mar 16 2016, 5:50:37 am
Getting our liability insurance in order

Bill Bolosky <<bolosky>> writes:

As you may or may not know, I've been appointed as the president & CEO of the Risk Retention Group for self-insuring free flight. We've been scrambling to get all of the pieces put together, from financing to regulatory approval, to setting up the corporation, to figuring out the terms of the insurance policies and fees, etc. One of the goals I have for the RRG is to establish it with a culture of transparency, much like what I tried when I was president of USHGA. We on the RRG board have to remember that we're dealing with money that largely came from the pilots, either in the form of dues or donations, and so we have an obligation to them both to be very careful and to explain what we're doing.

Right now, there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation out there about the RRG, which is a natural consequence of changing so many things at once. So, we think that it's incumbent on us to provide correct information to clear things up. This effort will take many avenues, but if you're willing, we'd like the Oz Report to be one of them.

I'm proposing that we write a series of articles/press releases that we'd ask you to run… Once the articles ran, then we'd do a Q & A with you (through email) so that you can address anything that we didn't cover or weren't clear about.

Mr Boloski has the same opportunity I have to see how many pilots are on line and where. Below is where he can get the word out as I see it:
83 Hawks- 23 OZ 15.57pm 3-16-16-.PNG
83 Hawks- 23 OZ 15.57pm 3-16-16-.PNG (24.82 KiB) Viewed 2513 times

OZ 23. Hawks 83 15.53pm 3-16-16.PNG
OZ 23. Hawks 83 15.53pm 3-16-16.PNG (11.37 KiB) Viewed 2513 times
Bill Cummings
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)

Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Options

Return to Oz Forum Discussions

cron