[dhmartens]

I posted at shga:
Congratulations Ken on your victory.

After USHPA raises $2 million they will apply in Vermont for the RRG.
here are the laws there.
http://www.dfr.vermont.gov/captives/captive-laws

Actuarial Scientists will have the final say on rates charged:
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/actuaries.htm#tab-2
Actuaries typically do the following:

Compile statistical data and other information for further analysis
Estimate the probability and likely economic cost of an event such as death, sickness, an accident, or a natural disaster
Design, test, and administer insurance policies, investments, pension plans, and other business strategies to minimize risk and maximize profitability
Produce charts, tables, and reports that explain calculations and proposals
Explain their findings and proposals to company executives, government officials, shareholders, and clients
... They calculate the expected number of claims resulting from automobile accidents, which varies with the insured person’s age, sex, driving history, type of car, and other factors.

Then USHPA will apply to California to get permission for the RRG
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insure ... nt2014.pdf


It will be interesting to see if Stalag Dockweiler and Tora Tora Tora Pines flight schools are charged the same rates after Vermont analyzes the statistics.

No Claims history






several claims of battleship damage battleship row.




Concentrate on the Vermont Laws.

[JoeF]

Section 6048o. Confidentiality

(a) All documents, materials, or other information, including confidential and privileged documents, examination reports, preliminary examination reports or results, working papers, recorded information, and copies thereof produced by, obtained by, or disclosed to the Commissioner or any other person in the course of an examination made under this subchapter are confidential and shall not be:

(1) subject to subpoena;

(2) subject to public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act; or

(3) discoverable or admissible in evidence in any private civil action.
==============================================================================

THE WALL OF SECRECY?
Third government?
Will such be the path to safety?

[Rick Masters]

"USHawks should endorse the RRG (Vermont oversight)"
I disagree.
Individual members should be free to endorse the RRG or any other scheme.
The US Hawks must not endorse a scheme that expands beyond its mission statement and places recreational hang gliding at risk.
If or when the RRG collapses, it will take down commercial hang gliding.
But recreational hang gliding will continue elsewhere if we protect it.

[Bob Kuczewski]

USHawks should endorse the RRG (Vermont oversight)

I disagree.

I think you're both right.

If the RRG becomes a shared insurance pool that can be joined by independent organizations who feel it's to their advantage, then that's a dream come true in breaking USHPA's monopoly grip on hang gliding. Whether the US Hawks would participate or not would be up to our Board, but it would be OUR choice. And if we chose to not participate, that wouldn't prohibit some other national organization (possibly even hanggliding.org or the OzForum) from joining the RRG to insure those who wanted insurance.

But Rick is also right. The US Hawks mission is "Recreational Hang Gliding" and that will be our focus. Now there may be times when purchasing insurance helps us with that mission and there may be times when working the recreational use statutes helps us with that mission. But whichever way we go, the mission statement will be the guiding principle, and all proposals must be evaluated with regard to how well they serve that mission.

Now from a practical point of view, I think USHPA is intentionally crafting this RRG so that only their buddies and their puppet organizations (can you say "Foundation for Free Flight"?) will benefit. That's the way I see it going, and that will prove Rick right.

But until that's actually cast in concrete, I do think we should take our best shot to make the RRG something that will serve all of hang gliding and not just USHPA and their puppets.

By the way, I think I've figured out USHPA's strategy on the RRG. I suspect that the big schools (like Torrey) that bring in 6 figure incomes could probably afford to fund the entire RRG themselves. I further suspect it's already known that they will kick in whatever it takes at the last minute. But until then, they might as well milk USHPA's members for everything they're worth through "donations" that eventually end up in the pockets of the people running the RRG. It's really amazing how these people can turn even their own screw ups into profit. I feel the need to take a shower just thinking about it.

[Rick Masters]

I think you're both right.

[Frank Colver]

Here is what Mark Forbes replied when I asked about other clubs or individuals buying in to the RRG, I was pleased that no "for hire" operations or services would be in the recreational RRG coverage.

Copy of Mark's reply to my questions:

The RRG is legally allowed to insure only its owners. Its owners need to be organizations closely aligned to the core activities being insured. At present those owners are USHPA, the Foundation, PASA and some individual schools. If some future organization came into being, it's possible that it could buy in as an owner. That organization would need to meet underwriting requirements, be acceptable to the other owners, and have a structure in place to make it an insurable risk. I know of no such organization at present, but I would not say that such an entity could not develop in the future.

Under the RRG, USHPA's policy will no longer cover any form of instruction for hire. It will still cover instruction so long as that is completely without compensation of any kind. The certified schools will carry the commercial policies and landowner coverage for commercial operations, and those premiums will be underwritten based on their risk history and exposure level. So unlike today, the commercial risk will be fully burdened on schools and paid instructors, which is what I think you're asking for.

Individual pilots will not be able to buy insurance policies from the RRG. That's not a choice; it's the law.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Frank,

It looks like we're both night owls tonight.

If you read what Forbes is saying ... and isn't saying ... you'll see that he's not telling us which "schools" will be owners of the RRG that they're asking pilots to "donate" to. Is the Torrey concessionaire one of those schools that will end up "owning" USHPA's insurance program?

This whole thing is backwards. They've got the pilots donating to a pile of money that the schools will end up owning. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

The Torrey concessionaire makes between about one third to one half a million every year - that's AFTER paying their pilots. They're making that money off the sport. Shouldn't THEY be donating to an RRG that the pilots own?

Why do you suppose they chose an RRG model instead of a mutual insurance model (that's where the "mutual" in "Mutual of Omaha" comes from)? They didn't choose a mutual because that would be more easily owned by the members. They pick a model that (supposedly) is not ownable by the members and then turn around and tell us "sorry, the law says you can't participate". Well why did they pick that model?

This whole thing was set up behind the members' backs with no open discussion at all. And most ironically, it was set up by the same people who caused this insurance melt down.

Frank, Mark Forbes is one of the most despicable people I've met in my life. He personally pushed my expulsion through the Board with no justification and no violations of any USHPA rules on my part. This RRG is a fleecing of the members to support the big schools that control USHPA. Please don't feed that beast unless they prove a change of heading from the course that brought them to this disaster.

You've got a big generous heart for this sport Frank. If you want to support anything, support the Dockweiler club directly. That's where the sport started and that's where new pilots are "born". That's a site that you can nurture in your own back yard. It's a site that would have been just fine if USHPA hadn't poisoned the insurance well by looking the other way on their buddies' mismanagement at Torrey and elsewhere. Please don't reward their misdeeds unless they can prove a change of direction with concrete actions. You've asked them to do a very reasonable thing - something they could do with a snap of their fingers - and they turned you down. That shows how much they value your opinion ... while picking your pocket.

[Rick Masters]

Why do you suppose they chose an RRG model instead of a mutual insurance model

Less regulation. Lower financial requirements. But the reason they want as much as they can get from the membership and the FFF is that they know what's coming. All this effort makes an RRG possible at the minimum level. But only $2 milion will be in the kitty. They're going to have to pony-up for every significant damage claim to keep the pot at the minimum level. One big claim will end it. No sensible person would invest in this. No odds-maker would bet on it.

If you believe this is a "one time payment," I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. As a matter of fact, this RRG scheme seems to be as bad or worse for the USHPA as the idea of going after BobK for, what? - nothing in return and a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I hope the guy who came up with that idea isn't the same one who thought up the RRG.

Oh... It was?

[Frank Colver]

Bob, you already knew that I wasn't going to donate to the RRG so why the plea?

Remember, the proposal I made, that they create a new membership level for "Pilot Without Voting or Office Holding Privileges" so that someone like you, that has been banned from full membership, can always join at that level, to have the insurance coverage and be able to fly all the sites. This way the gatekeeper role of USHPA would be eliminated so that any pilot could join at the non-voting level, even if they had been barred from full USHPA membership (like you) and have coverage under the RRG. The only reason for dropping a member at that new membership level, from the RRG coverage, would be gross safety violations that affect risk coverage.

My proposal is going to be presented to the board but it will take time and it may not even be possible under CA nonprofit law. So, because there was no guarantee it would be implemented I told Mark I would drop my offer to donate. I sent you all of that information so I don't know why this plea for me to not donate. It's already a dead issue!

Even Mark Forbes told me he would rather see me support Dockweiler HG site protection instead of contributing to the RRG!

You definitely have your personal reasons to dislike Mark, but I'm trying to get some positive changes in USHPA here. In order to do that I have to work with the people in the driver's seat. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. My proposal may die on the vine but it's worth a try.

Frank

[DaveSchy]

I agree with Frank that the changes USHPA needs will not happen from outside the organization. I think that is one reason why Bob was summarily expelled!

Nick Greece's latest message got a few laughs, though!

The Forbesian manufacture of impending doom for USHPA has helped me make my personal decision to renew at my regular renewal time, and to try to continue my membership for the 40th year. Business as usual.....

There is a lot more going on at USHPA HQ than is being disclosed. They admit it.
Disregarding this self-imposed aura of "sneaky", the Board appears as not being transparent, and as having vested interests that are at odds with recreational flying. If they decide to eventually put all the cards on the table, it will be too late. This in itself does not cultivate trust!

I try to make my decisions on data (and the intentional withholding of data), not ardent Greecian pleas or Forbesian twisted "wordcraft"..