.

.

Post your flying stories and flight reports here. Make sure to attach pictures if you got em!

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#379174
I don't get it. Surfers don't get insurance. Mountain bikers don't get insurance. Kite boarders don't get insurance. Skateboarders don't get insurance. Why do we need insurance? I have been flying for 15 years and I have never thought about making a claim. I don't know anyone who has made a claim. If pilot hurts someone because of his negligence, shouldn't he be the only one responsible? It sounds like we are all paying for that one pilot.

Please, flamers, angry pilots, mean people need not respond.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
User avatar
By NMERider
#379179
SlopeSkimmer wrote:I don't get it. Surfers don't get insurance. Mountain bikers don't get insurance. Kite boarders don't get insurance. Skateboarders don't get insurance. Why do we need insurance? I have been flying for 15 years and I have never thought about making a claim. I don't know anyone who has made a claim. If pilot hurts someone because of his negligence, shouldn't he be the only one responsible? It sounds like we are all paying for that one pilot.

Please, flamers, angry pilots, mean people need not respond.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
You don't need automobile insurance in the State of California in order to legally operate certain classes of motor vehicles but you do need proof of financial responsibility. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle either but if you cause injury to another or property damage you may be held legally liable for that damage or injury and so liability insurance may be purchased for cycling and even surfing, skateboarding and kite-boarding can all be covered under forms of extended homeowner's policies. But if you have little or no income or assets to go after then it becomes a moral and ethical obligation to be responsible for damage that your negligence causes. There is nothing in FAR part 103 that requires us to have insurance and there are many active sites in the U.S. that are unrestricted and pilots without either insurance or financial resources for that matter fly there regularly. Do you want to put your financial security at risk of negligence committed by other pilots who have no means to compensate you? I wouldn't but I do every day when I drive my car since many people in CA buy insurance to get their licenses renewed then cancel it for a refund and have no means to pay for the damage they cause me though their own fault.

Now enter the landowner who controls the launch and or LZ. Would you want unrated and financially irresponsible pilots using your property? If one of these deadbeat causes injury or property damage to another party guess who is left holding the bag? You are! That's who. Without this liability protection for landowners we lose most of our flying sites. Plain and simple. Why do you think certain pilots get kicked out? Anyone who undermines our ability to keep our liability insurance is a liability to everyone else. Sound familiar? We all belong to a risk pool and anyone who threatens that risk pool is likely to be ejected by the board that governs it. It's the same reason your rates will get jacked up and then you will get dropped by your auto insurance policy.

In the case of surfing the governmental body that owns or manages that sites is usually indemnified by law or statute. Landowners have limited indemnification against accidents caused my hunters, hikers and trespassers but it's only limited. There is a lot of different law regarding who can be held liable for third party negligence and it can get really messy. So without our liability waivers and liability insurance for the most part we don't get to fly unless we do it bandito style.

Whether you know it or not, you could be financially destroyed by the negligence or even the malice of some rich assholes creepy little juvenile delinquent kid. Did you know this? In many states the parents of a minor child under a certain age like 16 are only liable up to a minimal amount like $5,000. I know guys my age who were ruined by some creepy little punk who ran into their bicycle with the kid's bicycle and left the poor sod with medical bills that bankrupted them. Meanwhile the parents had more than enough money to pay for these old guy's medical bills but told then to piss off and the courts agreed. How do you like them apples? Want something to rant about?

Say, wasn't there a tandem instructor near Fort Funston not too long ago who was giving away free tandem rides without having the passengers sign a liability waiver or pay for temporary memberships? Last I heard they were reinstated only after being sent to the penalty box for like a year.

Well I'm sure glad we have reached this understanding. :thumbsup:
User avatar
By aireout
#379182
Now enter the landowner who controls the launch and or LZ. Would you want unrated and financially irresponsible pilots using your property? If one of these deadbeat causes injury or property damage to another party guess who is left holding the bag? You are! That's who. Without this liability protection for landowners we lose most of our flying sites. Plain and simple. Why do you think certain pilots get kicked out? Anyone who undermines our ability to keep our liability insurance is a liability to everyone else. Sound familiar? We all belong to a risk pool and anyone who threatens that risk pool is likely to be ejected by the board that governs it. It's the same reason your rates will get jacked up and then you will get dropped by your auto insurance policy.


Here in the West, many flying sites are owned and managed by governmental agencies. They typically require odd-ball groups like ours to be insured as part of a permit process. They are a little suspect of our 3rd party insurance because it's kinda limited. Zero insurance will be a big problem. Sites will close. I wish it wasn't the case but as Jonathan noted, all it takes is one irresponsible jerk and that's pretty common anymore.
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#379191
Johnathon,

I agree that "There is nothing in FAR part 103 that requires us to have insurance and there are many active sites in the U.S. that are unrestricted and pilots without either insurance or financial resources for that matter fly there regularly."

In the case of the bike rider, are you saying that the kid had no bike riders association insurance so the old dude tried to sue the parents? The kid was totally at fault, the old guy got screwed and yet bike riders are still not required to buy insurance.
User avatar
By NMERider
#379194
SlopeSkimmer wrote:Johnathon,

I agree that "There is nothing in FAR part 103 that requires us to have insurance and there are many active sites in the U.S. that are unrestricted and pilots without either insurance or financial resources for that matter fly there regularly."

In the case of the bike rider, are you saying that the kid had no bike riders association insurance so the old dude tried to sue the parents? The kid was totally at fault, the old guy got screwed and yet bike riders are still not required to buy insurance.
That is more or less the way it works in some states. The kid may have no liability for the injury he caused and the parents may only on the hook for a fraction of a penny on the dollar. Pretty screwed up if you ask me. A really sad part is that people don't know about this until they are financially and maybe physically ruined. This type of inequity is too common.

I am personally acquainted with a pilot who did some damage for which USHPA's liability policy paid out big. You should have heard the pilot whine when faced with the deductible then insist they should be given a free ride. I take a dim view of attitudes like this and similar ones I know about. We are extremely lucky that USHPA hasn't been bankrupted. Guess what happens when the policy limit is exceeded in court if there's poor secondary coverage? So the insurance is mainly to protect third party landowners from third party liability. We live in a litigious society which has both made our lives safer on one hand and screwed us over on the other hand. It's a mixed blessing.

Don't forget that I showed up in court after I intervened on behalf of one pilot who was sued by another pilot for medial bills following an accident. USHPA prepared the evidence needed to get the complaint tossed out and I explained to the plaintiff how they violated both their UHSPA contract and the club's contract when they filed suit. Many organizations would have sued the plaintiff for legal fees in addition to expelling them. USHPA is exceedingly tolerant as it is political and so justice may be meted out less than evenly.

Gosh I'm only 118 posts from my 10,000th. I really need to get a life.
User avatar
By flybop
#379198
LESS THAN 100 bucks a year??? Come on, can you seriouslycomplain about paying 100 bucks a year so that land owners, guberment agencies and the general public can at the very least see that we are attempting to be responsible when we fly? Before anyone goes off on me being dismissive over a 150 buck expenditure, you are wrong. I am not rich, well off, etc. However, I see that yearly check as a very small price to pay so that I can fly. (Also, the vast majority of the sites I fly do not require me to be rated, have insurance or know what the heck I am doing.)

Think of it this way: What if you went to your local site one day and found a big, fat NO TRESPASSING sign? Would you pay $150.00 to re-open it?

This is aviation (as well as jumping off of mountains). Like it or not, justified or not, the general public (including land owners, etc) has an automatic reaction to what we do. Having insurance keeps sites open and makes it possible to open new ones.
User avatar
By Aldpal
#379202
NMERider wrote:
SlopeSkimmer wrote:Johnathon,



Gosh I'm only 118 posts from my 10,000th. I really need to get a life.
Jon:

9893 posts / 7.5 years / 365 = 3.61 post/day

117 posts to go / 3.61/day = 32.5 days to go until # 10,000

Unless some one pushes your buttons causing you to up your ADPR (Average Daily Post Rate) I predict you will hit 10 K on December 30. I trust you will make #10K a real doozy. I guess I am finding too much free time during this retirement gig or like you, I need to get a life. :rofl:
User avatar
By ChattaroyMan
#379205
flybop wrote:Think of it this way: What if you went to your local site one day and found a big, fat NO TRESPASSING sign? Would you pay $150.00 to re-open it?
Great way to frame it Don! :thumbsup:
User avatar
By danmoser
#379211
There are several ways to provide needed insurance to keep valuable flying sites open.
USHPA could have supported liability insurance for individual flying sites, rather than charging the national pool of pilot members.
Flying sites that require insurance are typically controlled by local clubs, who could be charged with the responsibility of managing the insurance of that particular site themselves, and distributing insurance costs fairly among the pool of pilots who use that site.
This would have more fairly distributed insurance costs to those who need to be insured, but this was not the USHPA's decision.

Instead, USHPA decision-makers decided to dramatically raise dues on all member pilots to cover insurance costs, regardless of the insurance needs of each individual pilot.
It is not clear to what extent that the USHPA's BOD even considered other insurance options, or how much they considered various pilots' insurance needs.
I'm sure it was the most convenient for them to just raise the dues on everyone, and be done with it,

In contrast, the US Ultralight Association does not require insurance for its flying membership.
However, USUA does offer optional group liability insurance on a per-aircraft basis.
Other aviation groups operate in a similar way.
This might not be practical for HGs, but there are many other options.

As it stands, USHPA member pilots who fly at flying sites that do not require insurance are charged for insurance that they do not need, if they wish to remain dues-paying members of USHPA.
I assume USHPA arrived at their decision after estimating how many pilots would drop out of USHPA as a result of the latest dues increase, and figured it was worth the risk.
Did they make a bad decision? .. time will tell.
User avatar
By Aldpal
#379212
Hello Dan, I hope all is well in Utah. In a perfect world we would only pay for what we use or need, but any time we join a community or tribe with some shared costs or expenses, there will and should always be some questioning of where or how money and resources are spent. As much as I lean to the right on most issues and believe in the individual over the government or "the collective", there are times when I believe it is better to make or go along with a (hopefully small) personal sacrifice for the better of the community. The best example I can give would be an argument that in a given society any people with out children should not be taxed to pay for schools, since that is a service they do not use. We all pay taxes to support schools, and I would argue that in the big picture this is a benifit to everyone, even those without children. Even if I never flew a site that required insurance, I see value in supporting the existence and viability of those sites such as my local CSS/AJX, because that strengthens the overall viability and strength of our sport. If all the sites that require insurance were shut down, I believe that would greatly dwindle the number of people participating, and would greatly drive up the cost of wings and gear, as sales volumes would plummet. It is true that other types of aircraft such as ultralights and even General aviation aircraft do not require liability insurance, but not if you want to use them at the majority of airports. I even have to provide enhanced (more expensive) auto insurance just to drive my car onto the county owned airport in Hemet to get to a hangar I own there. Getting back on topic, I do not advocate having an opt out option for insurance if you want to have a USHPA membership, unless that insurance component of your USHPA mebership became astronomical. See you in the air, Alan
User avatar
By miraclepieco
#379213
I like the OP's comparisons of other outdoor activities that routinely go uninsured. USHPA has pilots, and many landowners, brainwashed that insurance is imperative to fly.

For many years I flew successfully several times a week at multiple local sites without USHPA membership or insurance. Only one local site (Woodrat) mandates insurance.

Careful folks, or the Obama Administration will mandate insurance for ALL outdoor sports, just like they did for healthcare.
Last edited by miraclepieco on Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By mtpilot
#379233
Everybody is trying to stuff you full of insurance! You can't buy hang gliding
insurance, only a policy basically intended to insure USHPA not you, your
body or glider. Let's face it, hang gliding freaks most people out. and they
have been zombiefied into believing insurance is the answer to everything.
I believe the best policy is out of sight, out of mind. If you go waving insurance
and waiver papers in their face, of course they will say no. I fear when USHPA
self insures nothing will change and the mistakes will just repeat. There are
too many layers of insurance, mostly because none of it really works. if we
do need insurance for self launch let's keep it simple.
User avatar
By davisstraub
#379236
Let's talk a bit of sense here.

The USHPA is an insurance company (dealer) with a pilot proficiency program. You do not have to be a member of the USHPA in order to fly a hang glider (unlike in Australia).

The USHPA provides 3rd party liability insurance. It does not provide health or accident insurance. You can get that from other companies (perhaps).

This 3rd party liability insurance is a benefit to you at a reasonable rate if you wish to have it. It is not required.

So, if you don't want USHPA provided 3rd party liability insurance, don't purchase it. There is no need for you to join the USHPA.
User avatar
By Fred Wilson
#379238
danmoser wrote:Instead, USHPA decision-makers decided to dramatically raise dues on all member pilots to cover insurance costs, regardless of the insurance needs of each individual pilot.
It is not clear to what extent that the USHPA's BOD even considered other insurance options, or how much they considered various pilots' insurance needs.
I'm sure it was the most convenient for them to just raise the dues on everyone, and be done with it.
Hey MIke & Dan. The USHPA is doing what ± every other National Ass Oh She Own is doing world wide.

So: A wordy word or two from the other side of the equation.
I live in the Okanagan / Kamloops / North Thompson region of BC Canada.
- The Okanagan is an OK place to fly, which is why our website is: http://www.FlyOk.ca :mosh:

Image

We have only 55 insured pilots right now, down from 82 a couple of months ago due to fluid HPAC Membership renewal dates. We really struggle handling so many flying sites with so few people. Thanks from visitors is a big part of what keeps us going. :thumbsup:
OSA has $25.00 non mandatory annual Club membership fees. Take a guess at how many pay up! :punch:
- Those that DO become paid members are the ones that do ALL the work too, and they are really, really starting to feel taken advantage of. :chair:
FYI: Our Club Motto is "More Flying Sites than Pilots" - something we are damned proud of. Image
We live in Hang Gliding and Paragliding Paradise, with the safety record to prove it.

It has cost no small fortune to make these sites as good and as safe as they are.

Secondly: Our most precious sites are legally secured by tenure.
They then become added to the BC Gov't list of Recreational Sites and Trails (link above.)

BC Government Nominal Rent Tenures for free flying sites cost us ± $700.00 each.
Commercial Tenures which allow Instruction and Tandem Flights at the site as well as free flight cost STAGGERING amounts to apply for and have STAGGERING annual fees every year thereafter.
- If you want to drop your drawers, read these two articles on the WCSC Forum.
Bridal Falls & Woodside BC: www.westcoastsoaringclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6136
Pemberton BC: http://www.westcoastsoaringclub.com/for ... php?t=6804

Upwards of $123,200.00 has gone into our Mara launch (mostly the upper road section, thanks to Tolko Logging - and grateful thanks to the $5,000.00 from the BCHPA.)

Image

Image

Fly Hills Upper launch - 3,650' vertical. (4,720' Asl.)
Well over $1,000.00 went into Fly Hills last year. It has lower, mid and upper launches.
- The mid launch is 2,330' vertical.

Image

Image

$4,000.00 + into Lumby's Coopers launch just a month ago.

Image

We are just now, as we speak... putting $700.00 into Tenure for the Sicamous Launches, having put $8,000.00 into the restoration of the Hang Gliding Ramp a few years ago!

See a Sicamous thread here at: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=30279

Image

Image

On the books are a massive overhaul of Lumby's Saddle Mt Launch, and Tenure for Osoyoos's Anarchist site, El Nido in Clearwater AND Dundee in Ymir.

(We did have to drop tenure for Keremeous's Cawston launch due to the puke your guts out annual fees.)

STAGGERING amounts of money has gone into Golden's Mt 7 Flying Site. $1.85 million into the road alone, last I heard.
Not to mention that John McIssac is into ± $3 million for the Golden Eco-Adventure Ranch LZ.

See the Golden Mt 7 thread here at: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=30268

MIke and Dan: Take Note!
Bottom line #1 is:
without Insurance we can NOT get Tenure. In BC not having tenure for our sites means:
. .a) NOTHING can be done to any launch that anyone will notice. No contractors would work on the site or project. No Logging Company or their Contractors and no Roads Company would ever do anything for us. (Or they would get their ass sued off.)
. .b) No Municipal, Regional, BC Forestry, BC Government or Canadian Government funded projects would ever be accessible.

All Bush User Groups are having to get Nominal Rent Tenures up here. The BC Gov't requires all user groups that actively use Crown lands to do so and... to do so they must carry insurance. The BC Government is just swamped with applications from Cross Country Skiers, ATV Clubs, Bike Clubs, Snomobile etc etc. Applications that are, by law, to be completed in three months are taking well over a year and that is climbing every day.

Bottom line #2 is: Without the ability to spread the costs, BC would have 10% of its PHENOMENAL flying sites (and the pilot numbers would have crashed accordingly.)

I'm sure that holds true pretty much everywhere world wide...

How on earth do we manage to do all this you ask?
$15.00 out of every BC pilot's HPAC Membership Fee goes back to the British Columbia Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, which allocates pretty much 100% of that revenue to our Site Development and Maintenance Grant Funding Program.

[youtube]
[/youtube]
Last edited by Fred Wilson on Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:40 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
By wsu-nicodemus
#379241
NMERider wrote:
SlopeSkimmer wrote:I don't get it. Surfers don't get insurance. Mountain bikers don't get insurance. Kite boarders don't get insurance. Skateboarders don't get insurance. Why do we need insurance? I have been flying for 15 years and I have never thought about making a claim. I don't know anyone who has made a claim. If pilot hurts someone because of his negligence, shouldn't he be the only one responsible? It sounds like we are all paying for that one pilot.

Please, flamers, angry pilots, mean people need not respond.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
You don't need automobile insurance in the State of California in order to legally operate certain classes of motor vehicles but you do need proof of financial responsibility. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle either but if you cause injury to another or property damage you may be held legally liable for that damage or injury and so liability insurance may be purchased for cycling and even surfing, skateboarding and kite-boarding can all be covered under forms of extended homeowner's policies. But if you have little or no income or assets to go after then it becomes a moral and ethical obligation to be responsible for damage that your negligence causes. There is nothing in FAR part 103 that requires us to have insurance and there are many active sites in the U.S. that are unrestricted and pilots without either insurance or financial resources for that matter fly there regularly. Do you want to put your financial security at risk of negligence committed by other pilots who have no means to compensate you? I wouldn't but I do every day when I drive my car since many people in CA buy insurance to get their licenses renewed then cancel it for a refund and have no means to pay for the damage they cause me though their own fault.

Now enter the landowner who controls the launch and or LZ. Would you want unrated and financially irresponsible pilots using your property? If one of these deadbeat causes injury or property damage to another party guess who is left holding the bag? You are! That's who. Without this liability protection for landowners we lose most of our flying sites. Plain and simple. Why do you think certain pilots get kicked out? Anyone who undermines our ability to keep our liability insurance is a liability to everyone else. Sound familiar? We all belong to a risk pool and anyone who threatens that risk pool is likely to be ejected by the board that governs it. It's the same reason your rates will get jacked up and then you will get dropped by your auto insurance policy.

In the case of surfing the governmental body that owns or manages that sites is usually indemnified by law or statute. Landowners have limited indemnification against accidents caused my hunters, hikers and trespassers but it's only limited. There is a lot of different law regarding who can be held liable for third party negligence and it can get really messy. So without our liability waivers and liability insurance for the most part we don't get to fly unless we do it bandito style.

Whether you know it or not, you could be financially destroyed by the negligence or even the malice of some rich assholes creepy little juvenile delinquent kid. Did you know this? In many states the parents of a minor child under a certain age like 16 are only liable up to a minimal amount like $5,000. I know guys my age who were ruined by some creepy little punk who ran into their bicycle with the kid's bicycle and left the poor sod with medical bills that bankrupted them. Meanwhile the parents had more than enough money to pay for these old guy's medical bills but told then to piss off and the courts agreed. How do you like them apples? Want something to rant about?

Say, wasn't there a tandem instructor near Fort Funston not too long ago who was giving away free tandem rides without having the passengers sign a liability waiver or pay for temporary memberships? Last I heard they were reinstated only after being sent to the penalty box for like a year.

Well I'm sure glad we have reached this understanding. :thumbsup:
Well said NME. More people need to read what you say about landowners and how we would lose most of our sites without insurance.
User avatar
By wsu-nicodemus
#379243
danmoser wrote:There are several ways to provide needed insurance to keep valuable flying sites open.
USHPA could have supported liability insurance for individual flying sites, rather than charging the national pool of pilot members.
Flying sites that require insurance are typically controlled by local clubs, who could be charged with the responsibility of managing the insurance of that particular site themselves, and distributing insurance costs fairly among the pool of pilots who use that site.
This would have more fairly distributed insurance costs to those who need to be insured, but this was not the USHPA's decision.

Instead, USHPA decision-makers decided to dramatically raise dues on all member pilots to cover insurance costs, regardless of the insurance needs of each individual pilot.
It is not clear to what extent that the USHPA's BOD even considered other insurance options, or how much they considered various pilots' insurance needs.
I'm sure it was the most convenient for them to just raise the dues on everyone, and be done with it,

In contrast, the US Ultralight Association does not require insurance for its flying membership.
However, USUA does offer optional group liability insurance on a per-aircraft basis.
Other aviation groups operate in a similar way.
This might not be practical for HGs, but there are many other options.

As it stands, USHPA member pilots who fly at flying sites that do not require insurance are charged for insurance that they do not need, if they wish to remain dues-paying members of USHPA.
I assume USHPA arrived at their decision after estimating how many pilots would drop out of USHPA as a result of the latest dues increase, and figured it was worth the risk.
Did they make a bad decision? .. time will tell.
Considering you haven't been a USHPA member since March, I'm assuming you are on one of your 'off again' times. Honestly, what are you complaining about when you aren't a current member and who knows when you will be? If you want to fly ultralights or hang glide at sites that don't require insurance, go for it (but please be able to take of any damage you are responsible for). For those of us who appreciate the landowners that let us use their property, this insurance is a very small price to pay for what we get in return.

All of us are in risk pools that we don't feel like we directly benefit from, get use to it. Refer to NME's post.
User avatar
By danmoser
#379264
wsu-nicodemus wrote:
danmoser wrote:There are several ways to provide needed insurance to keep valuable flying sites open.
USHPA could have supported liability insurance for individual flying sites, rather than charging the national pool of pilot members.
Flying sites that require insurance are typically controlled by local clubs, who could be charged with the responsibility of managing the insurance of that particular site themselves, and distributing insurance costs fairly among the pool of pilots who use that site.
This would have more fairly distributed insurance costs to those who need to be insured, but this was not the USHPA's decision.

Instead, USHPA decision-makers decided to dramatically raise dues on all member pilots to cover insurance costs, regardless of the insurance needs of each individual pilot.
It is not clear to what extent that the USHPA's BOD even considered other insurance options, or how much they considered various pilots' insurance needs.
I'm sure it was the most convenient for them to just raise the dues on everyone, and be done with it,

In contrast, the US Ultralight Association does not require insurance for its flying membership.
However, USUA does offer optional group liability insurance on a per-aircraft basis.
Other aviation groups operate in a similar way.
This might not be practical for HGs, but there are many other options.

As it stands, USHPA member pilots who fly at flying sites that do not require insurance are charged for insurance that they do not need, if they wish to remain dues-paying members of USHPA.
I assume USHPA arrived at their decision after estimating how many pilots would drop out of USHPA as a result of the latest dues increase, and figured it was worth the risk.
Did they make a bad decision? .. time will tell.
Considering you haven't been a USHPA member since March, I'm assuming you are on one of your 'off again' times. Honestly, what are you complaining about when you aren't a current member and who knows when you will be? If you want to fly ultralights or hang glide at sites that don't require insurance, go for it (but please be able to take of any damage you are responsible for). For those of us who appreciate the landowners that let us use their property, this insurance is a very small price to pay for what we get in return.

All of us are in risk pools that we don't feel like we directly benefit from, get use to it. Refer to NME's post.
So .. discussing constructive suggestions for trying to lower the cost of flying HGs is complaining?
OK .. feel free to call me a complainer, if that satisfies your ego somehow.

If you think that some pilots' deciding not to renew their USHPA membership is making hang gliding a better sport,
Or if you think that rapidly rising costs & regulations is somehow a good thing,
.. then go out and celebrate your victory.

BTW, I did read Jon's post thoroughly, and he made some good points.
I guess you thought my point, that 3rd party liability insurance and flying site regulation should be handled locally instead of nationally, doesn't deserve any consideration or discussion..
You are in full agreement with USHPA BOD there.
User avatar
By rmsmith
#379271
SlopeSkimmer wrote:I don't get it. Surfers don't get insurance. Mountain bikers don't get insurance. Kite boarders don't get insurance. Skateboarders don't get insurance. Why do we need insurance?
In order for the skiing industry to move beyond the smelly "porta-potty" at the bottom of a desperate rope-tow hill and enable serious investment in the various chair lifts and aerial trams, chalets and hotels, restaurants etc., they needed immunity from liability based on the inherent risk clause. Most of the ambulance chasing lawyers won't waste their time with skiing injuries unless the victim brings cash up front.

Search: google.com/#q=skiing+industry+liability+immunity+inherent+risk+clause
User avatar
By Tontar
#379286
danmoser wrote: So .. discussing constructive suggestions for trying to lower the cost of flying HGs is complaining?
OK .. feel free to call me a complainer, if that satisfies your ego somehow.

If you think that some pilots' deciding not to renew their USHPA membership is making hang gliding a better sport,
Or if you think that rapidly rising costs & regulations is somehow a good thing,
.. then go out and celebrate your victory.

BTW, I did read Jon's post thoroughly, and he made some good points.
I guess you thought my point, that 3rd party liability insurance and flying site regulation should be handled locally instead of nationally, doesn't deserve any consideration or discussion..
You are in full agreement with USHPA BOD there.
I think you may be sending mixed messages based on not being very well informed about what you are talking about.

1 - You say that you are talking about lowering the cost of hang gliding, and so your comments are well intentioned? Not paying insurance is lowering the cost of hang gliding? To what end? Sites being closed due to lawsuits, fear of liability, or a very real concern on the part of the landowners that their liability risk is way outside of acceptable if pilots are not insured? That's lowering the cost? We could cut the cost dramatically if we went back to making gliders out of bamboo and plastic sheeting. But is regression a good risk to reward formula?

2 - Is the cost of membership even of concern to you? If what Nicodemus said above is true, you are not even a member of the association, so you managed to reduce your costs of hang gliding by what, $100 a year currently, and perhaps $150 a year next year? I guess that might seem to be a good deal, but hopefully you don't endanger insurance required sites by flying them, or screw the pooch by having an accident where you are liable for damages.

Granted, having a conversation shouldn't require investment in the subject of the conversation necessarily, but it's sort of ironic when non-members get all worked up about issues that really don't directly affect them.

3 - Okay, I'll say it too. Your comments above sure do look like complaining to me as well so does that mean I'm stroking my ego too, by mentioning it? LOL!

4 - You mention that you have been paying attention to the posts in this thread. If so, do you still not understand that pilot insurance is NOT the same as site insurance? Do you still not understand that having USHPA membership and insurance protects you, individually, at ALL flying sites, whether insured, regulated, or not? That if you have USHPA membership and insurance and go fly some favorite unregulated site and smack into someone's car, or smack a spectator, that insurance will protect you from liability incurred? You smack someone in the LZ, and they decide to sue for damages, you're going to have to defend yourself one way or another. Run a mental simulation with that scenario, one with insurance, and one without, and see how the simulation turns out at the end.

I can tell you that in the scenario where you have membership insurance, the insurance will pay for your defense and your settlement, where in the scenario where you have no membership and no insurance, you will have to pay your own defense and court costs, and whatever settlement the plaintiffs are awarded.

So now tell me how the insurance is unequally distributed between pilots based on where they fly? It has nothing to do with where we all fly, it has to do with the fact that all of us share a risk of causing damage that could result in a lawsuit, no matter where we all fly, we are all in that same risk pool. In fact, if it is at all unequal, you'd be a lot safer arguing to shift the bulk of the financial responsibility (higher membership dues) onto pilots more likely to incur such liability cases. Base the fees on ratings, and have the ratings tested annually to see who is still current with their ratings and skills. Pilots who can't land within a hundred feet of the spot pay more than those who can land within 50 feet, and those who can land within 20 feet pay even less. Since the insurance is primarily to cover liability issues, why don't you argue in favor of making the lousier pilots pay more than ten good pilots, since your prior argument is pretty much baseless; individual liability has nothing to do with insured versus uninsured sites.

So really, if you want to argue about inequality in insurance premiums because all members pay equally, I think the really good pilots have a better argument than the not so great pilots, because the good pilots are paying for the risk of the worse pilots. The cool thing is that I haven't seen the really good pilots complaining about carrying the risk of the not so good pilots. That's encouraging.
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#379288
Tontar wrote:
danmoser wrote:
I can tell you that in the scenario where you have membership insurance, the insurance will pay for your defense and your settlement, where in the scenario where you have no membership and no insurance, you will have to pay your own defense and court costs, and whatever settlement the plaintiffs are awarded.
On the flip side of this statement, understand this;
In the scenario where you have no membership and no insurance, you will have to pay your own defense and court costs, and whatever settlement the plaintiffs are awarded, to the best of your ability, until you die or what ever. Now here comes the tricky part. In the scenario where you have membership insurance, the insurance will pay for your defense and your settlement, and if the law suit is large enough they will drop your insurance, they will drop all of your flying buddies insurance and your national organization will have to scramble to come up with a solution. Please don't be upset. I'm just saying the insurance policy can be a seen as a target.

Btw, I had a great flight on a falcon 4 today at Ed Levin park. I flew 800 maybe 1000 over and then decided to fly a couple miles north to land at the Mission Peak LZ. I want to upload the track log from my 6030 but I forgot how :(
Nice spring day 3-29-18 -T2C - 4K

Thanks Chris, glad you liked it. No doubt someday […]

THE FUTURE OF HANG GLIDING

People talk about it like running hard for 50 fee[…]

Pain in the Neck

Another thing to consider is that the pitch limi[…]

GSSK 2018 vlog

Made a narrated video of my experiences at Green S[…]