.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401657
mtpilot, what would you like to work on with the FAA?
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401661
Get your own exemption from the part 103 two place rule here:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... /petition/

It only takes a few minutes and its FREE! You don't pay when you get it, and you don't have any annual dues either.
User avatar
By mtpilot
#401662
The FAA isn't causing me any problems and I like to keep it that way. I don't want USHPA to screw things up like they
have with site/public land access. I am not a tandem or tow pilot but can see the need for more unity in dealing with
the FAA on those special exemptions.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401663
A “rip off” is based on personal preferences and what you value, or do not value.

Funny you mentioned skiing, where a one-day lift ticket- 9am to 4pm- costs as much or more than a YEAR of USHPA pilot dues.

It’s just fine if you don’t find value in those things... but you are not everyone. Greatest good for the majority of the membership (or the best approximation the board of volunteers can accomplish, as a consensus is indistinguishable most of the times... look at any thread here for example)
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401664
Criticisms of USHPA dealing with FAA... but then the FAA isn’t bothering you... which is it? Think it’s coincidence?
By bickford frederick
#401669
Slopeskimmer,

If no commercial instruction is supposed to be allowed at Ed Levin my guess is it's from the county since it's a county park, not a USHPA or WOR rule. On the wiki page here Ed Levin is shown as non-commercial. Funston isn't supposed to have commercial tandems so if pilots are doing them at either or any other site where it's not allowed they should get their ratings revoked.

H2os,

I've seen some sketchy tandem launches and landings on foot in person, but I'm beginning to agree with your (and others) viewpoint on tandems flights growing the sport. It would be good to do away with needing an exemption.
User avatar
By gotandem
#401689
I think there is nothing wrong with the USHPA exemption. USHPA has effectively arranged with the FAA that we can fly the general public in a 2 place glider without: an FAA commercial and instructor certificate, a medical, a biannual flight review, an airworthiness certificate, an annual or hundred hour inspection and registration. That's huge and unheard of in other forms of aviation. No need to mess with any of that. In fact when Sport Pilot rules came into effect we feared that they were also going to regulate us. None of that happened because the FAA has recognized our own ways of training and teaching tandem instructors. If I remember correctly Rob McKenzie played a big role in that. I like how other associations and individuals have also obtained such an exemption. But USHPA's exemption is used by far the most.
That brings me to another point. Our safety record of 2 place flying has been so good that USHPA has had no (major) problems in getting it renewed every 2 years. It does not take an act of congress to revoke it. The FAA can decide to end it right now. But in several decades of tandem flying they did not feel that was necessary.
We often hear that it is only right that instructors and tandem pilots should pay more towards insurance. Take this statement from Ryan for example:
"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."
This statement is wrong because Ryan forgets that in order for it to cost more in claims, we have to have more occurrences of tandem accidents. Of course instruction and tandem flying for money has the potential to cost us more. But are we really getting those claims? We don't know because Mark and Tim sit on that information and guard it well. I understand why and it makes sense that they do, but in the meantime we are left without data.
Bart Weghorst
User avatar
By Underdog
#401696
Ryan said
"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."

Read more: viewtopic.php?t=35773&start=40#ixzz51lo03471

This is definitely not a "wrong" statement,I would go so far as to say it is factual.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401703
gotandem wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:57 pm
This statement is wrong because Ryan forgets that in order for it to cost more in claims, we have to have more occurrences of tandem accidents. Of course instruction and tandem flying for money has the potential to cost us more. But are we really getting those claims? We don't know because Mark and Tim sit on that information and guard it well.
First, yes- we really are getting those claims. Unfortunately, even after people aknowledge that hang gliding and paragliding are dangerous activities, there is an expectation that their instructor will keep them safe. Ummm, hello... I just told you it's dangerous... if I could make it safe instead, I wouldn't tell you it's dangerous! Still, something goes awry... or someone even THINKS something went awry... and they file suit. Doesn't mean they have a solid case, or even a chance in hell of winning... it's cheaper to settle than litigate and our previous insurance provider LOVED to settle claims rather than take it to court.

Second, Mark and Tim don't sit on or guard the lawsuit information THAT well... there are details about cases out there. Some general details have been super well publicized to all USHPA members: Hitting power lines, and having non-waivered spectators get hurt. Remember when that was emailed out to everyone?

That probably doesn't mean there were dozens of power line accidents and lawsuits... it might only mean there was one or two REALLY COSTLY occurances. Which is kind of the whole point... it is not about if USHPA-Certified Tandem Instructors are having many accidents, the *chance* for an accident is there every tandem flight. And, if or when a tandem accident does occur (using tandem as an example, same goes for training lessons) the *chance* of a lawsuit is far greater than if it were just a solo free-flyer. So, just ONE accident can be extremely costly... and I don't think it is a secret that occasionally and unfortunately, there have been accidents... and since this is a dangerous activity, there is pretty much guaranteed to be future accidents as well. Have there been claims? You betcha, and no question. Will there be future claims? Let's hope not... but who can know?! If we knew, we wouldn't need INSURANCE! :roflcat:

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[…]