.

.

Funny/Friendly Off topic discussion. Fail this test and threads will be migrated to Way Off Topic.

Moderators: sg, mods

#403094
Here is a good article on Motorcycle Track Days Insurance and Liabilities.

There are many parallels to our insurance discussions and liabilities.

Could this lawsuit affect track days and club racing?

Link

I ride a BMW K1300S.
By dshman
#403101
Why would anything in that article have anything remotely to do with our sport? We don’t race motorcycles and FAA is our governing agency. This is how we start living in fear. Why don’t we just go get insurance to leave our house and go shopping? At some point we can’t live in fear of the unknown and mix nonsense with facts. Unless all variables aren’t the same is just a empty debate over ideas that really have nothing to do with each other. Maybe we should fear people falling from horses, the lady in a cross walk, or what about that guy who crashed his dirt bike, does he need insurance? Let’s talk about airplanes shall we, do you need to insure a airplane? Nope, not even the federal Authority requires it. This has nothing to do with flying and we should all talk with FAA to understand we have no insurance requirements like airplanes thru the only agency with real authority, FAA.
I fly at a federal Airport neerly every day, and the requirement is... no helmet, no parachute, no member ship, no fee, no sticker, no insurance, so less restriction to Fly with FAA but USHPA has more? Can you see what’s wrong with this picture? Are you operating at a higher level than a Airport? Maybe a king air twin turbo prop, or how about a citation with two small jets, how about a heavy haul sky crane ? I Fly with them everyday with no problems. How can it be, we don’t need insurance to operate levels above free flight at a federal airport? (Public land). Well....ushpa used scare tactics to insure there control schemes got funded. Now it’s failing with people involved in real flight, far more extensive than part 103, we understand this matter so it’s hard to pull the vail over our eyes. Ushpa’s worst nightmare was when real pilots started to join in on the fun, then realizing these guys don’t know what there talking about?
User avatar
By Paul H
#403103
dshman wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:24 pm
Why would anything in that article have anything remotely to do with our sport? We don’t race motorcycles and FAA is our governing agency. This is how we start living in fear. Why don’t we just go get insurance to leave our house and go shopping? At some point we can’t live in fear of the unknown and mix nonsense with facts. Unless all variables aren’t the same is just a empty debate over ideas that really have nothing to do with each other. Maybe we should fear people falling from horses, the lady in a cross walk, or what about that guy who crashed his dirt bike, does he need insurance? Let’s talk about airplanes shall we, do you need to insure a airplane? Nope, not even the federal Authority requires it. This has nothing to do with flying and we should all talk with FAA to understand we have no insurance requirements like airplanes thru the only agency with real authority, FAA.
I fly at a federal Airport neerly every day, and the requirement is... no helmet, no parachute, no member ship, no fee, no sticker, no insurance, so less restriction to Fly with FAA but USHPA has more? Can you see what’s wrong with this picture? Are you operating at a higher level than a Airport? Maybe a king air twin turbo prop, or how about a citation with two small jets, how about a heavy haul sky crane ? I Fly with them everyday with no problems. How can it be, we don’t need insurance to operate levels above free flight at a federal airport? (Public land). Well....ushpa used scare tactics to insure there control schemes got funded. Now it’s failing with people involved in real flight, far more extensive than part 103, we understand this matter so it’s hard to pull the vail over our eyes. Ushpa’s worst nightmare was when real pilots started to join in on the fun, then realizing these guys don’t know what there talking about?

If you financed that airplane you’ll need to have insurance on it. If you rent, there will be insurance requirements, either your own or as part of the rental fees. If you violate the FAR’s with your airplane there can be financial penalties or even loss of license. The other costs of operating a registered aircraft are far higher than hang gliding, too.
How do you get to the airport? Do you drive? You are required to have a much higher level of insurance for your vehicle.
You don’t seem to understand what the USHPA insurance covers. It’s coverage to protect the non-hang gliding public. It’s not a requirement to have it to fly, it’s only a requirement to have it at the flying sites that are required to have it as part of a use agreement. If it’s a public park or other public land then we shouldn’t be required to be covered just like other users aren’t, but that’s not the real world. Hang gliding is still seen as a high liability risk by many agencies in charge of public lands and although it’s not fair, it’s still a real issue that we are forced to deal with. That’s the battle that should be fought.
Your claim that you fly multi-engine turbine aircraft with less rules than hang gliding is ridiculous.
By dshman
#403105
Well....hanger insurance isn’t flying insurance personal propert. Seems hard for you guys to say on track. If you can’t pay for what you want in full maybe you should wait till you can. People living outside there budget should be required. The rest of us who can afford our pleasure shouldn’t be affected. This is a perfect example of if variables are not equal you have incomplete outcome. Call FAA and get the requirements for part 103 then talk to me. I’m a FAA light sport inspector this is nonsense and your going off the deep end. Can you give me a example where FAA requires or recommended insurance for part 103? Please stay on track and provide me with substantial proof of FAA even thinking of this. Anything else is apples to oranges.
User avatar
By Paul H
#403107
dshman wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:54 pm
Well....hanger insurance isn’t flying insurance personal propert. Seems hard for you guys to say on track. If you can’t pay for what you want in full maybe you should wait till you can. People living outside there budget should be required. The rest of us who can afford our pleasure shouldn’t be affected. This is a perfect example of if variables are not equal you have incomplete outcome. Call FAA and get the requirements for part 103 then talk to me. I’m a FAA light sport inspector this is nonsense and your going off the deep end. Can you give me a example where FAA requires or recommended insurance for part 103? Please stay on track and provide me with substantial proof of FAA even thinking of this. Anything else is apples to oranges.
Who said the FAA requires insurance for part 103?
I understand the FAR's quite well. It's a requirement for my job.
You don't need to be a member of the USHPA to fly hang gliders. Making false arguments that it's required to be so you have that insurance is just obfuscation on your part.
By dshman
#403109
Before you go there I suggest you log onto RVHPA website and read the lies of mebership needed to fly because of insurance. This is on public land and it’s a lie brought on by USHPA and Is clubs. I’m only stating the words typed by there hand. First look then talk to me.
User avatar
By Paul H
#403111
dshman wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:29 am
Before you go there I suggest you log onto RVHPA website and read the lies of mebership needed to fly because of insurance. This is on public land and it’s a lie brought on by USHPA and Is clubs. I’m only stating the words typed by there hand. First look then talk to me.
What lies? I didn't see anything there claiming that the FAA has an insurance requirement.
#403126
dshman wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:24 pm
Why would anything in that article have anything remotely to do with our sport?

Without even getting to the insurance issue, there are the same applications of the law regarding land owner’s, promoter’s, and sponsor’s liability obligations to Part 103 flying. This was also posted in The Camp Fire for discussion. Thank you for voluntary participating in the discussion.

First, Part 103 flying and the motorcycle track days are for sport and recreation. The participants are there voluntarily of their own accord. In the motorcycle track days case the track operator placed sand bags off the track in the runoff area to control erosion. The intent of placing the sand bags was for safety. The parallel to Part 103 is the land owner placing sand bags to control erosion in the landing area so the voluntary participants landing on his property don’t break their legs in a gully while landing. So is the land owner criminally negligent if a hang glider catches a wing tip on a sand bag and the pilot breaks his leg in the accident?

In the motorcycle track days case the judge ruled, no, the track operator was not criminally negligent for placing the sand bag in the runoff area. There is more on the obligations of the track operator to notify the participants of the sand bags, etc, etc. There was overwhelming outrage in the comments section that the injured party would file a claim. There are parallels to Part 103 flying that are good to know that may help in formulating your views on insurance and liabilities of Part 103 flying with legal consequences.
dshman wrote:Let’s talk about airplanes shall we, do you need to insure a airplane?

Some airports require liability insurance for the operation of the airplane, if your airplane is based at the airport, tie down or hanger. Big Bear City Airport (L35) requires such insurance along with hanger insurance. I agree it is ridiculous to require 100 plus airplane owners to basically provide the airport with insurance. It would be a simpler and cheaper for the airport to have their own umbrella policy covering everyone using the airport with the insurance cost covered by user fees, tie down fees, and hanger rental. There would be lower costs in the economy of scale. That is California, so I left, out of there, good luck.

So back to the motorcycle hang glider comparison. My motorcycle weighs 560 pounds, 190 horsepower, and capable of 175 mph. I pay $65 a year in liability coverage for the motorcycle on the street with all the crazy other drivers trying to kill me. The potential energy and damage of the motorcycle is far greater than a pilot in a hang glider could ever produce, $150 a year for USHPA membership and insurance seems a little high.

The other thing to take into consideration in the comparison of the motorcycle track days and Part 103 flying is the big bucks theory of lawyers. Lawyers live in nice big houses, drive the trendy cars, and wear expensive suits. Lawyers don’t waste their time suing people without money, assets, or insurance. The best way to get involved in litigation is to raise a couple of million dollars needlessly and place it on the board room table unprotected - RRRG.
By dshman
#403127
I have been riding and racing bikes dirt and street for 35 years. I was sponcered by motorcycle USA they followed me writing stories while I competed multiple time in Baja 250 500 1000, also more thunder hill and PIR track days than I can count. Never insured, just track waivers. We fly Hang gliders under part 103. I own my hanger at gp Airport and operate there extensively. Airport Administrator has no problems with me. Thank god im not stuck in California’s armpit of idiots, and I only pass thru it on my way to my house in mexico 15 minutes from las Salinas flying site. I understand your area is different that mine. I merely posted a new organization to accept and rate free flight pilots and the messenger is attacked. Typical response. My good buddy is Forestry senior law enforcement and he has been awoken by these lies on public land. He told me to call him up to launch next time so he can arrest the next person harassing me or trying to deny public access . I’m on the inside loop here, my buddys are... Marty oregon state trooper I went to school with, Brad is next in line state trooper also I went to school with, Shawn senior forestry law enforcement. I’m really not worried my state police buddies are ready to set this straight and have told me I’m in the right, anyone attempting to stop me is breaking the law on public land, and they will site or arrest people for attempting it. Be sure your on firm ground or it may go way dirrerent than people think especially here.
#403144
dshman wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:24 pm
. . . we have no insurance requirements . . .

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes Recreational Use Immunity Statutes Fifty State Survey

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes for the State California Code, Government Code - GOV § 831.7

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes for Private Property California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 846

Articles:
California’s recreational use and trail immunity laws by Jim Porter

Premises Liability Part I: Recreational Immunity and Expert Witnesses in California By Kat S. Hatziavramidis, Esq.

Recreational Immunity by R. Sam
GSSK 2018 vlog

Yes that's correct, any suggestions? Try somet[…]

THE FUTURE OF HANG GLIDING

Verily, it would be cool to see a P-51 thermalling[…]

Flying the greater Bakersfield area from '94--'07,[…]

Nice spring day 3-29-18 -T2C - 4K

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