[Rick Masters]

What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA?

Answer: The USHPA itself.
They don't want competition.
Fine.
The USHPA will not feel threatened by the refusal to allow financial incentive as part of the Hawk's platform.
Along with being restricted to recreational hang gliding, the Hawks must avoid supporting any financial arrangements that allow individuals to prosper financially from hang gliding activities.
The Hawks must be agnostic toward hang gliding for profit.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not our thing.
No rules for or against enterprise.
A focus on hang gliding for fun. Peer instruction and support. An education and ratings protocol that satisfies expectations of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Leave the money side to the clubs and the USHPA.
No one seeking to enrich themselves through hang gliding will waste his time in an org that doesn't allow it.    
Others who wish to participate and mess thing up through malicious intent will find they have little to do except make fools of themselves.    
This is the way the Hawks can grow into a national grassroots recreational hang gliding organization.
It also means the Hawks must not participate in the RRG scheme.
No schemes. Just flying. And low, low. low membership fees.
This is why the mission statement and operating procedures for the Hawks must be set in stone, requiring for instance a 99% membership vote to change it.    

- Form a national recreational hang gliding association without schemes -

[Bob Kuczewski]

The Hawks must be agnostic toward hang gliding for profit.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not our thing.
No rules for or against enterprise.
A focus on hang gliding for fun. Peer instruction and support. An education and ratings protocol that satisfies expectations of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

I agree with this 100%.   

It also means the Hawks must not participate in the RRG scheme.

We might have a problem here. If certain US sites require insurance of some sort for recreational hang gliding, then our mission statement compels us to find ways to support pilots at those sites. One mechanism is through the recreational use statutes, and I suspect that will always be our first choice (a choice that USHPA has generally avoided because it undercuts their insurance monopoly). But when recreational use statutes do not satisfy a land owner, I do think we should try to find a way to keep those sites open to our members.

Of course, as time moves on, this will be more and more of a topic for the US Hawks Board. It's good to have these discussions to get us thinking about how we can support members who fly at sites requiring insurance.

[Rick Masters]

We might have a problem here.

No question.
The RRG is fundamentally a paragliding insurance scheme.
The US Hawks are dedicated to protect recreational hang gliding.

[Bob Kuczewski]

The RRG is fundamentally a paragliding insurance scheme.
The US Hawks are dedicated to protect recreational hang gliding.

If the US Hawks decides that we want to purchase insurance for members and clubs who need it, then we will try to make the best purchase we can find. We may find that the best purchase of a vario is one that's manufactured for both sports because it's cheaper due to economies of scale. Similarly, any insurance purchase will probably be made based on the best deal we can find.

[Rick Masters]

The present workable solution is for individual Hawks to buy USHPA membership and to let the clubs deal with 3PL themselves.
A poll has to be taken to determine how many Hawks even want 3PL insurance.
At least one Hawk doesn't need it, doesn't want it and would refuse to pay a portion for those who do.
There is no indication at the present time that Hawks could even purchase insurance if they had any money, so it's a moot point, anyway.
I would suggest building the Hawks based solely on state liability exemptions and worry about buying 3PL when we have at least thousand members or so.
Even then, I don't like it. 3PL is in many ways a scam that has been used to monopolize flying sites. The US Hawks shouldn't be a part of that.
I would rather position the Hawks to satisfy the FARs and then get a determination from the FAA on the right for us to fly from public land (like Torrey).
And be individually financially responsible like people in other sports.
Remember, when you act for liability of members, you open your organization up to potential liability claims.
I suggest we avoid that for as long as possible.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think I'm on record -somewhere - that pilots who don't need or want insurance should't need to purchase it to be US Hawks members and hold US Hawks ratings.

I know that's a very different model from U$HPA's forced coupling between insurance and membership, so it's easy to confuse them. Our sport has been brainwashed that insurance and membership are synonomous. We should think outside of that box.

By separating insurance from membership, local clubs and pilots will have an incentive to free their sites from insurance requirements when possible. We would encourage pilots and clubs to employ the recreational use statutes first as you've suggested.

Does that help?