.

.

All things hang gliding. This is the main forum. New users, introduce yourself.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By miraclepieco
#401527
USHPA doesn't have the only FAA tandem hang gliding exemption. I received this announcement today regarding a feasible, legal and economical option to the USHPA Tandem Exemption. This is in addition to the no-insurance non-USHPA flying waiver an industrious group has obtained for Dockweiler Beach. Grass roots organizers may yet save hang gliding without coercing millions of dollars from the participants!

From Fiasco Dave:

Like USHPA, ASC has been granted an exemption from FAR Part 103. Unlike USHPA, there is no other cost to instructors/tandem pilots. Unlike USHPA, ASC does not attempt to bar any pilot from any flying site or LZ. $130 annual dues & Instructor fee...that’s it! Keep in mind that the only real reason IMHO to pay even this small amount is for the tandem exemption it provides an individual pilot from the FAA. Anyone can legally Instruct HG without any membership or allegiance to any organization! If you have the desire, knowledge and tools to teach - do it! If you’d like to fly tandem, keep it legal and pay for a membership FAA exemption with ASC.

ASC has over 1,500 ultralight instructors nationwide. THINK ABOUT THAT NUMBER FOR A MINUTE...That’s more than USHPA allows. Yet you’ve never heard of ASC. Why? USHPA wants to keep absolute control over sites and pilots, tandem and instructor fees for themselves.

Dave
Attachments
ASC (Medium).jpg
ASC (Medium).jpg (73.26 KiB) Viewed 1615 times
ASC2 (Medium).jpg
ASC2 (Medium).jpg (92.52 KiB) Viewed 1615 times
ASC3 (Medium).jpg
ASC3 (Medium).jpg (100 KiB) Viewed 1615 times
ASC4 (Medium).jpg
ASC4 (Medium).jpg (81.45 KiB) Viewed 1615 times
User avatar
By mgforbes
#401529
miraclepieco wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:30 pm
USHPA doesn't have the only FAA tandem hang gliding exemption. I received this announcement today regarding a feasible, legal and economical option to the USHPA Tandem Exemption.
This is news? ASC has held an exemption since 1995, except when they had a gap between renewals. If you're looking for a slightly cheaper way to fly tandem at non-USHPA-insured sites, this is a way to operate legally. No insurance, of course...all you're really doing is paying Jim Stephenson $130 a year to use his exemption.

USHPA doesn't try to bar pilots from flying sites, unless that pilot is not a current member of USHPA, AND the landowner has requested that pilots flying there be covered by USHPA insurance which protects that landowner from the risk of a lawsuit. By definition, non-USHPA-members are not insured, and that landowner requires insurance as a condition of use of his property. Even then, it's the individual local chapters that are responsible for enforcing the rules for site access, not some faceless USHPA goon squad.

You want to "fly free"? Go for it. Go fly somewhere that the landowner doesn't care, or doesn't notice. If it's an organized, established, insured flying site, then you need to be a member to fly there. Want to fly tandem in the hinterlands? Sure! Join ASC, pay your $130 and have at it. If you have a crash with a student/passenger and get sued, it's not our problem.

Dave makes a lot of noise about how insurance is just a scam, but the claims history doesn't lie. Our members do get sued, and they do cause damage and injury to others, and some of those claims have cost upwards of $200,000. That's why we have insurance...so we don't individually get wiped out financially by a mistake. Maybe Dave figures that he's such a great pilot that he'll never have an accident. Maybe he doesn't mind putting his winery on the line in case he's wrong. His choice. Me, I'll choose to pay $150/year for membership that protects me in case I screw up. I pay that much just for a general liability umbrella policy, with similar coverage limits. It excludes aviation, as does every policy you'll find on the general market. If you think your homeowners policy will save you, you'll be in for a rude shock when they deny the claim.

Insurance is all about spreading out the risk and supporting each other. It's sort of a membership-wide GoFundMe, that keeps each of us safe from financial disaster. If you don't want to help out the rest of us, fine...but don't expect to enjoy the privileges without taking on your share of the responsibility.

MGF
User avatar
By mgforbes
#401531
miraclepieco wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:30 pm
ASC has over 1,500 ultralight instructors nationwide. THINK ABOUT THAT NUMBER FOR A MINUTE...That’s more than USHPA allows.
Allows? Last I checked, we didn't have a cap on the number of instructors. I see that Jim's taken down the list of ASC "instructors" from his website. It used to be up there, but I think now you have to call/email to see if someone who claims to be an ASC instructor really is. When the list was still posted, I was surprised to find several people that I know of on it who are no longer looking down on the grass from the top side. I mentioned that to Jim, but I don't know if he got around to removing them from the current instructor list.

ASC took a real hit when Sport Pilot went into effect. Prior to that, to take someone aloft in an ultralight you had to be an instructor teaching a student. In practice, most of those ASC "instructors" were really just guys taking their wives/girlfriends flying in their ultralight. Now under Sport Pilot rules, I'm allowed to take one passenger along, so there's no need for me to be an ASC "instructor". Some of those on the list are actually teaching, but most are not, and I only saw maybe a half-dozen HG or PG instructors. Almost all of them are on the powered side of things. USUA also held an exemption back in the day, but I think they dropped it after Sport Pilot went into effect.

MGF
User avatar
By miraclepieco
#401532
Mark,

Sorry to be repeating old news; I guess I just missed the announcement by USHPA. Could you please direct me to which issue of HG&P magazine the Association informed it's members of this major option for FAA legal tandem flights?

Also please let me know where the Association has heralded news of the newest no-membership, no-insurance flying agreement for Dockweiler Beach.

Thanks (because I'm sure it will take quite a while for you to find those references).
User avatar
By Paul H
#401543
miraclepieco wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:04 am
Mark,

Sorry to be repeating old news; I guess I just missed the announcement by USHPA. Could you please direct me to which issue of HG&P magazine the Association informed it's members of this major option for FAA legal tandem flights?

Also please let me know where the Association has heralded news of the newest no-membership, no-insurance flying agreement for Dockweiler Beach.

Thanks (because I'm sure it will take quite a while for you to find those references).

We get it, you hate the USHPA.
Your so-called major option isn't. That tandem option can only be used at flying sites that will permit it unless those flights are at non-regulated sites that don't require the USHPA coverage. Since the non-regulated sites don't require insurance and the other sites are most likely not going to allow it, nothing has really changed.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401548
Prefaced by disclosing that I have been a long time supported of USHPA, and am a former Director on their Board.

Also prefaced by saying it is not coincidence I am not giving my time to the organization anymore. I have some major differences of opinion and as of late have been disappointed beyond what I can depict in words...

Now that I have disclosed those two things:

Not all sites require "site insurance" to fly there, because not all land owners (and/or controlling entities) require insurance coverage for them allowing launching or landing at their property. Not all instructors feel professional liability insurance is a must-have to provide instruction. Not all sites require USHPA membership because not all land owners (and/or controlling entities) carry third-party liability insurance, to cover people or property that could be harmed in the event of an accident. And not all pilots feel they need third-party liability insurance coverage in the unfortunate event they cause harm or damage to other's or their property.

BUT- some landowners, controlling entities, instructors, and pilots *DO* want/need/request/require etc this insurance coverage. And unfortunately we, the hang gliding and paragliding community, are too small for such insurance to be economically feasible if only the interested parties were purchasing it. And that is IF such insurance would even be available to that number of "clients"- a subset of the already tiny HG+PG population.

So... it was decided many, many, MANY moons ago... that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER! And that is as true today as ever, with hang gliding struggling as it is. It is FANTASTIC that some sites do not require site insurance, and that some do not even require USHPA membership at all! And on topic for this thread, it is awesome there is availability of an alternate tandem exemption through the FAA. No one has ever said these things are anything but good things!

The thing is... even if YOUR site(s) do not require USHPA insurance or even membership... there are still all those others that DO. And around those sites, there are all those pilots that love to fly, just as you love to fly. And for those pilots, the support and membership benefits from USHPA are what keep flying available to them. And your, my, everyone's membership in USHPA, supports those fellow pilots in sharing the costs and burden of their insurance requirements. I think you are seeing USHPA membership as supporting "an organization"... but really it is the means to how we support each other as like minded fellow pilots around the country or world.

We are all birds of a feather... you are, of course, entirely entitled to your own perspective, opinions, and choice when it comes to joining USHPA or not. But if you choose NOT... do so thinking of the many pilots who's only flying for many hours in any direction is dependent on USHPA's community-pooled numbers and resources, think of those instructors who will only bring in new pilots if they do not have to worry about a frivolous lawsuit leaving their family on the street with nothing, and think of those pilots who choose to think not just of themselves, but taking care of others should something unfortunate happen and they are the cause of great misfortune to another human or humans, whom might be left in an awful circumstance they did NOT choose or accept the risk of because they were not even participating in flight.

We really gotta support eachother!

And work together to improve USHPA, rather than undermine or circumvent it's purpose... OUR purpose...
User avatar
By SeeMarkFly
#401551
Ryan seems to be channeling Mark Forbes, I thought he was still alive!
Ooohh LIVE LIFE CHANNELING? There's something new.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401552
SeeMarkFly wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:55 pm
Ryan seems to be channeling Mark Forbes, I thought he was still alive!
Ooohh LIVE LIFE CHANNELING? There's something new.
When you've got nothing intelligent to respond with... I guess an attempt at witty banter is all that's left?
By blindrodie
#401554
I totally agree with Ryan on this issue. I'm in this for the masses and I want to support everything freeflight. The sport of hang gliding "for me anyway" is a community project and only works if we all do it together. Full disclosure: I am not a current member but did pay my fair share into the RRRG. Our FL site of 40 years has never required insurance nor USHPA membership.

8)
By h2os
#401567
mgforbes wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:21 am
If you're looking for a slightly cheaper way to fly tandem at non-USHPA-insured sites, this is a way to operate legally. No insurance, of course...all you're really doing is paying Jim Stephenson $130 a year to use his exemption.

Really, all we are doing is paying Jim to use the ASC exemption? This comment really makes me cringe, especially coming from you.

The 30-day waiver is nothing more than USHPA charging pilots a fee to use its own tandem exemption. A fee for every tandem flight on top of the more-than-double yearly membership fee.

The fact that you say "all you are doing is paying to use the exemption" is the entire argument many of us have had all along against USHPA tandem policies (specifically the cost of the 30-day waiver). A policy that you defend, and many people even wanted to see dramatically increased. What a joke.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#401568
h2os wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:49 pm
The 30-day waiver is nothing more than USHPA charging pilots a fee to use its own tandem exemption. A fee for every tandem flight on top of the more-than-double yearly membership fee.

Not exactly. The USHPA 30-day membership carries with it coverage for third party liability for the student, in the event that the student flies into something or someone. In that regard it is the same as a regular USHPA membership. The exemption which USHPA holds requires that the student be a member and hold a student rating. The ASC exemption does not have that requirement. I don't know why FAA decided to drop that part of it, but they did.

The USHPA 30-day membership also includes a waiver. That waiver is part of a contract, which involves an exchange of value. The student agrees to give up certain rights to sue others, in return for membership benefits upon payment of the 30-day membership fee. That same membership is also used for visiting pilots from other countries, or for pilots who wish to fly at an insured site but are not current USHPA members. In each of these cases, the acceptance of and payment for the 30-day membership, and the signing of the waiver, serve to both insure the student against claims related to their own flying, and protect USHPA and its members from claims by them in case of an accident.

The 30-day membership is used for much more than just tandem flights, although that is one significant use. USHPA pays an insurance premium for each 30-day membership that is issued, so it has a real cost. Those 30-day fees are one of the components that help to pay the overall insurance bill. To assist instructors and schools, USHPA rebates $2 of the $6 30-day fee to PASA-certified schools when they promptly submit the 30-day forms for filing at the office. The purpose of the rebate is to give schools a strong incentive to get the forms back to the office so they can be filed and stored securely.

The USHPA Rogallo membership dues rate reflects a portion of the additional cost of the services provided to that membership class. The membership cost is significantly subsidized; it actually costs USHPA about $315 (as I recall) per Rogallo member, with the additional insurance premium for professional non-commercial instruction coverage. With a dues rate of $294 for Rogallo members, each one is getting about $171 in subsidy from the general membership. (315-294+150)

There are ways we could structure it differently, for sure. Should we lay the entire burden of the overall insurance premium on the general membership, and effectively give schools and instructors a large subsidy? That would require a significant increase in general membership dues, and I personally think they're too high already. But that's where they have to be right now to balance the books, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to reduce insurance costs and bring the dues down in future years. (So far, so good, fingers crossed.)

30-day memberships need to have some cost associated with them, because that "exchange of value" is central to the formation of a binding contract under California law. That contract is what makes our waiver enforceable, and allows us to control risk effectively. We can argue about exactly what that number should be; at present it's $6, and $2 of that is offered as a rebate to PASA-certified schools which promptly return the completed waiver forms.

MGF
By h2os
#401570
The 30-day membership gives the student 3rd party liability coverage. But the tandem instructor is left without anything (unless they want to play with PA$A). In the case of a 3rd party claim resulting from a tandem flight, who is more likely to be sued, the student or the instructor?

Again, the 30-day membership is nothing more than USHPA selling its own tandem exemption. You can do the math however you like. But if you want to discuss subsidizing tandem instructors premiums from the general policy, then you need to account for the massive revenue generated by tandem instructors buying 30-day waivers that go directly into that same general policy, all while the 30-day waivered tandem student is posing an extremely low risk of a claim on that policy. That is the number that always seems to be forgotten when we talk about how much the instructors are "subsidized".

The FAA exemption does not dictate that we have to make tandem students members for 30 days, this is something USHPA made up. If USHPA didn't want to leverage the tandem exemption to raise money, they could easily create a free 24 hour membership form for students who are doing a single tandem flight, and keep the 30-day form for students who are taking lessons or visiting pilots.

Also, what law in California dictates the waiver must be sold from USHPA to the instructor? If there is a law saying money must be exchanged for the contract to be legal, isn't that between the student and instructor, not the instructor and the organization? Either way the point is moot unless there is a dollar amount attached to that law, just charge $0.01 per waiver and be done with it.

The whole thing stinks like our free-flight organization is being ran like a for-profit insurance company. Oh wait, it is...
Last edited by h2os on Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#401571
h2os wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:19 pm
The whole thing stinks like our free-flight organization is being ran like a for-profit insurance company. Oh wait, it is...

Ok...I'll stipulate that our RRG is designed to operate at a profit. It has to, by law and regulators. It is owned by our association (68%) and the Foundation (25%) with the rest of the ownership held by PASA and individual flight schools. The profits in the RRG flow directly back to USHPA in the form of lower insurance premiums, once we get to that stage. There's nobody taking money out of the sport; we're investing in ourselves, not some outside syndicate looking for a high-yield/high-risk investment. If we can hold down the cost of claims and reduce accidents through better risk management, we'll see the benefits in the form of lower costs. But it's going to take a while, and there's no way to hurry the process along.

We all want to see decreased costs. We were able to reduce school insurance premiums an average of 10% this past cycle, which is more than we'd hoped for this early in the RRG's history. It will take a while to develop enough history to convince the actuaries that our risk profile has changed for the better, but over the long term if we do a good job the premium requirements which they impose will be reduced.

MGF
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401572
Anyone with tandem flight experience can get their own FAA tandem exemption for teaching hang gliding. The simple fact of the matter is they have issued hundreds of them and they cannot discriminate against one more person wanting to teach another person to fly a non powered ultralight. After all, what better way to teach someone than to have a professional pilot by their side while doing it for the first time.

Hang gliding insurance is not as expensive as they want you to believe. I got my commercial liability insurance policy for about the same price as the RRRG. This means I and all of my students can fly at my local hang gliding site without USHPA.

The USHPA does bar pilots from the flying sites which they have taken over. After obtaining my own insurance policy outside of the USHPA, they quickly suspended by flying privileges at Fort Funston park. They said I had taken money a year earlier for a few tandem flights and took my tandem rating, as well as my hang 3 4 5. Fort Funston rules specifically state that commercial tandem flights are prohibited. It is a rule right John Simpson? It is my opinion they just didn't want competition. My local club also tried baring me from flying at our Ed Levin Park site. They kicked me out of the club because I was distracting at the monthly meetings and constantly reminded them that they were not in charge of hang gliding. The club officers use to hassle me daily about everything from how I park my car in the gravel parking lot to how my students didn't legibly fill out the waiver forms. They have not said a word to me since I got my own commercial use permit at Ed Levin Park. I believe I am the only hang 2 who is teaching hang gliding and flying tandem flights at a USHPA hang gliding site. I had 6 new students last week and pulled off several tandem flights from the 1750.

I am here to help any hang gliding instructor who has been getting hassled by the USHPA, the RRRG and PASA and wants to try another way. Please feel free to call text or email me any time. You can get my information from LearnHangGliding.com.

Merry Christmas everyone!
Mike Jefferson
Big Air Hang Gliding

PS. I hope they don't take my hang 2 for writing this post...
User avatar
By gotandem
#401581
h2os,
While I would not have worded what you wrote in such a strong way, I have to admit that you hit the nail on the head. Who are you? It seems to me that you are very well informed.
Mark, as always I appreciate your contributions to our sport. You guys made a very daring move with the RRRG. It looks like it will succeed. That is your achievement and it is a big one. Just so that everyone knows, we buy RRRG insurance and I am very appreciative of Mark's efforts in this regard.
My criticism is about the attitude Mark and some of our other leaders show towards instructors. Take this sentence Mark wrote in this thread: "The 30-day membership is used for much more than just tandem flights, although that is one significant use." Mark knows that by far the majority of all 30 days are used for tandem flights. To say it's significant is an understatement. So although it is technically true, it does not really reflect what's going on. In 2015 the income generated from instructors buying the 30 days was $200.000. The money went into a general fund. It would have paid for 1/4 of the total insurance bill in 2015! Back then you said that the membership was subsidizing instructors' insurance. Again, technically true, but in the big picture that statement did not reflect reality. I see now that you are still trying to proliferate the same point of view. That seems unfair to me.
Instructors grow the membership. Big or small.
Bart Weghorst
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401585
Bart- huge respect for you. Very few are out "on the front" like you and Tiki... you guys are NOT a "big flight park" nor a massive (bulk) school... and you guys are not- at least as far as I know LOL- independently wealthy and doing this as a hobby-job like some of the other schools and instructors etc out there. You guys are legit, working your butts off to keep the bills paid and share the privledge of free flight with anyone and everyone that comes along. You charge just enough to keep it going... can't bring as many people in if you go out of business, right?! So making a living in the sport is a means to an end, not what you're actually after... and again, big respect for you and what you have done, are doing, and hopefully will continue doing!

I do however feel a correction to your above post is needed... and I hope hearing it from someone OTHER than Forbes will help you and others consider it, not as "trying to proliferate that same point of view" as you put it... but as a little more perspective on YOUR OWN point of view.
gotandem wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:36 pm
Take this sentence Mark wrote in this thread: "The 30-day membership is used for much more than just tandem flights, although that is one significant use." Mark knows that by far the majority of all 30 days are used for tandem flights. To say it's significant is an understatement. So although it is technically true, it does not really reflect what's going on.
All training hill students/lessons also use the same temporary membership forms. I do not AT ALL disagree that far more tandem "lessons" (avoiding the "tandem lesson" can-of-worms) occur than training hill lessons, and from Mark's quote above it seems he does not disagree either- it is a significant use of the temp membership forms. In addition to tandem AND hill, and scooter, and whatever other types of training people do out there, the temp memberships can also be used when foreign pilots are visiting the US... if they do not need a specific rating, just USHPA membership in order to fly a USHPA insured site, or compete in a USHPA sanctioned competition, then the 30-day membership/waiver works great. So I would have to agree and support Mark's words that tandem is one significant use, but I think that perhaps your statement that "it does not really reflect what's going on" might be based on your perception, as someone who primarily is in a flat area, primarily towing, and doing a lot of tandems, and tandem instruction, as compared to flight instruction lessons utilizing the 30-day forms. When I lived at Point of the Mountain in Utah, I helped quite a few visiting pilots join USHPA via the 30-day form... they were either from other countries, or lived in areas where USHPA membership wasn't needed and so they weren't current members. Rather than have them "trespass" and fly the State/County Parks without membership, offering the 30-day as a more cost-effective and practical solution than buying an annual membership for the couple days or week they were in town. Not to mention that nearly all the training I was doing was hill based lessons, with each student needing a 30-day. Sometimes more than once, if they were not ready to commit to USHPA membership, and/or a lot of time had passed since their last lesson and 30-day. I was a small operation there in Utah... but I feel you might be disproportionately thinking how the 30-days are used in tandem over all else. Please reconsider your opinion on that?

gotandem wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:36 pm
In 2015 the income generated from instructors buying the 30 days was $200.000. The money went into a general fund. It would have paid for 1/4 of the total insurance bill in 2015! Back then you said that the membership was subsidizing instructors' insurance. Again, technically true, but in the big picture that statement did not reflect reality.
I must admit, in this quoted bit I am unclear why you recognize the factual content but then say "that statement did not reflect reality". The USHPA insurance policy purchased prior to the RRG shindig had multiple facets. Third-party liability coverage for ALL pilot members, then the ability to add non-members/non-pilots as additionally insured parties... which is what "site insurance" really is- it is coverage for the other people or entities that might be involved in our flying. Then there was the policy for instructors... which was added later than the general third-party coverage... at the request or insistence of the insurance provider... possibly under threat of no longer offering the general coverage policy if additional coverage wasn't purchased for instruction activities, because the liability exposure from instruction (including tandem) was and is obviously far greater than general pilot members or land owners allowing flight activity on their land.

Far greater legal liability- from the perspective of an insurance company- means far greater RISK, and therefore far greater COST. If all USHPA members paid X for their annual membership when only the general policy was being paid for... and when the instructor policy was added ONLY INSTRUCTORS paid around X * 2 (about double of pilot members)... that's a policy covering greater liability risk, and yet far FAR fewer people paying for it. Those numbers wouldn't support the policy alone... so 1) all pilot members paid a little more to help offset the cost to instructors- which was passed by the BOD *DESPITE* the instructors on the board being fundamentally against having "pilots" subsidize "instructors"... which is why general dues only went up a little, and instructor dues went up a lot more. So still, that did not raise enough money to pay for this new policy. In addition to the poor office staff's salary (I'm sure you know, someone was manually performing data entry from every 30-day form received, right?)... charging additional for the temporary memberships helped raise funds for the policy, WITH THE PEOPLE USING THE POLICY MORE, PAYING MORE TOWARD IT. If we could define the liability exposure of ONE lesson or tandem flight... an instructor doing ONE and another instructor doing TEN... are not exposing themselves, the association, or the insurance provider to the same legal liability... so it does make sense the instructor doing more pays more. It is again a bit philosophical, where the people using the policy actually pay for their coverage.

Fast forward to today, with "our" insurance now coming from RRRG, an RRG (thanks for making even the naming confusing guys!)... and really nothing has changed. USHPA purchases a policy covering all members for third-party liability. Purchasing it from a different provider now, but whatever, no great change to pilot members. USHPA also purchases a policy covering instructors- but it IS NOT "professional liability insurance"... which is where the whole "teach for free or buy additional insurance" thing comes from. And just like before- all pilot members are paying a little bit towards this coverage... instructors are paying a lot towards this coverage... and those using the coverage most are paying more into it, via the purchase of those required temporary memberships. Charging for the 30-day forms makes sense today, as it always did, at least IMHO...

I believe when schools purchase the professional coverage, they are then able to purchase the 30-day temp memberships for less, right? Also kinda makes sense, since some of that built-in cost for the form that pays for non-commercial coverage is "replaced" by the additionally purchased coverage... so those 30-day buyers aren't exposing the general USHPA instructor policy to as much exposure, because they now have a more specific policy overlapping the coverage that would have come from USHPA's policy. If that makes sense- not sure I worded that clearly?

Personally- I have a pretty big disagreement with USHPA purchasing that additional instructor policy- and all pilots, instructors, and 30-day form purchasers paying for it- when SO FEW INSTRUCTORS are actually using it (teaching for free). I feel it's a big expense for a barely-used benefit... and while it was once something USHPA sort of had to buy to appease the insurance company... THAT HAS CHANGED! Why are we all- particularly the certified instructors like me and you Bart- paying for a friggin' policy that only provides coverage if we give our services away?! Look at what I said in the very beginning of this post- an instructor must stay in business if they want to help MANY people, rather than just a few. Helping many people at a bit higher cost to them does a greater good to the sport and community than helping a small number very cheaply (and then going out and getting a "day-job" to actually pay the bills).
gotandem wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:36 pm
I see now that you are still trying to proliferate the same point of view. That seems unfair to me.
Instructors grow the membership. Big or small.
Bart Weghorst
I support what Mark has said, even though I hate to disagree with you Bart. Again, I have *GREAT* respect for you and Tiki!

I do not see the unfairness you reference. I agree that instructors grow the membership, of course I agree with that! But "the membership" are first and foremost hang glider and paraglider PILOTS... not instructors. While you and I see the greater picture, in that our little niche world of free flight benefits in entirety if the community grows- more people flying, more use of sites, more people buying/selling gear, more volunteers putting forth efforts, more sites hopefully, more shared resources in a larger population reduces costs-per-member... yada yada... BUT- the membership, in general, does not want to pay their *CURRENT* dues... let alone paying more to help cover instructors. Hell, INSTRUCTORS don't want to pay for their own coverage... and in the end, USHPA... like the USA... is a majority rule environment. If the majority of USHPA members only wants to pay for what they HAVE to... third party insurance for themselves and for those parties that grant us entry or exit to/from the sky... and no more... then that leaves instructors to pay for their own stuff...

This sucks... but it is not USHPA's fault or doing... take it up with "the membership". If you can show that most USHPA members will accapt paying more, to help keep instructors afloat and help perpetuate the sport, then I can absolutely with total confidence assure you the BOD would change the dues structure to reflect that.

But within a thread where people are saying they refuse to pay PILOT MEMBER DUES because their local site doesn't require USHPA membership... and they don't care they aren't helping financially support the greater good for all pilots in the USA... I guess all I can say is good luck getting the membership to fund the instructors. That, and that I myself do not want that- as an instructor. The people I taught paid me for that. If I am not teaching now, I can either pay out of my pocket for my added insurance, or I can call the office and suspend my instructor certifications. But like I said, I do think it super sucks I'm paying for teach-for-free coverage just so I can keep my cert active for the occasional clinic or tandem with my daughter. Lamesauce... IMHO... You listening Forbes??? :surrender:
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401588
I know of a lot of good instructors who do not teach any more because of the whole PASA RRRG thing. Ryan, did you say you quit teaching or you didn't join PASA so your teaching for free now?

Fun day at the hill. A few others showed up. Nice […]

Another day at the local site, bald eagle and a fe[…]

Yes, I was flying my Gecko 155. New wing. Only i[…]

I tried to run the Python script but it only gener[…]