.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By LoganR
#403862
Paul H: I very clearly stated that "USHPA has exclusive rights to a number of parks through their local chapters." This is backed up by the fact that the Special Use Permit for Ft. Funston is granted to "Fellow Feathers Hang Gliding Club (Chapter of the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association)". Fort Funston is one of 10 National Parks that has this arrangement. My statement is true. Your statement "The USHPA does not control ANY flying sites." is patently false. I'm sorry that you find facts to be ridiculous, though I suppose you are in good company with USHPA.
Attachments
(1.27 MiB) Downloaded 27 times
User avatar
By Paul H
#403863
LoganR wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:37 pm
Paul H: I very clearly stated that "USHPA has exclusive rights to a number of parks through their local chapters." This is backed up by the fact that the Special Use Permit for Ft. Funston is granted to "Fellow Feathers Hang Gliding Club (Chapter of the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association)". Fort Funston is one of 10 National Parks that has this arrangement. My statement is true. Your statement "The USHPA does not control ANY flying sites." is patently false. I'm sorry that you find facts to be ridiculous, though I suppose you are in good company with USHPA.
That just states that the Fellow Feathers is a USHPA chapter club. It doesn't say that USHPA controls the site. A club that becomes a USHPA chapter does not give up control of its sites. You seem to be one of those individuals that believes the USHPA is some faceless entity or a conspiracy of some sort. The USHPA is just made up of its pilot members, that's all.
User avatar
By LoganR
#403866
"USHPA has exclusive rights to a number of parks through their local chapters." Is a clearly stated and factual position. You don't need to make assumptions about what I really mean or think. USHPA clubs are exclusive to USHPA members (as stated here and on USHPA sites over insurance). So if the club is a USHPA chapter and only allows USHPA pilots, how are they not USHPA controlled?
User avatar
By mgforbes
#403875
This is nonsense. The control of the site is ultimately up to the LANDOWNER. If the landowner's requirement is that they be covered by our liability insurance policy, then the site MUST be restricted to USHPA-member-pilots only, because those are the only pilots for which the insurance coverage is valid. Non-member pilots are not covered by the USHPA insurance policy, and therefore the landowner is not covered either, for claims related to their flying.

The LANDOWNER makes the decision on who shall be allowed access to their property, and on what terms. The chapter shares responsibility for enforcing that access restriction, preferably through consensus and community agreement rather than involving law enforcement, trespass charges and so on.

If chapters choose to turn a blind eye to use of a site where insurance is required, by pilots who are non-members, and does nothing to correct the problem, then USHPA's only recourse is to pull the insurance coverage and inform the landowner of the reason why coverage has been withdrawn. That will likely result in the permanent loss of the site. We don't want that to happen, and we try very hard to resolve problems without taking that step. But we have made a promise to that landowner as a condition of being allowed access: If they're sued as a result of flying activity on their property, we will defend them. If the local chapter that obtained that access permission is not willing to uphold the promise, then we have to notify the landowner and withdraw the insurance coverage.

USHPA does not control access to flying sites. LANDOWNERS control access to flying sites. CHAPTERS are responsible for managing the use of a site where they have obtained permission to fly, in accordance with the terms the landowner has worked out with the chapter.

MGF
User avatar
By DAVE 858
#403878
If non USHPA pilots are not covered, & a subsequent accident involving a non member pilot occurs at an insured site, I assume USHPA would not be on the hook to cover claims from said accident. Why would USHPA yank the site insurance if clubs/landowners are not enforcing the “rules” of preventing non member pilots from accessing the site? I fail to see how this helps anything other than to coerce people into buying into the falsehood that insurance is the only way we are able to fly. Why wouldn’t u just inform the land owners that USHPA will walk in the event that a non member accident occurs & just leave it up to them?
User avatar
By LoganR
#403879
DAVE 858 wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:58 am
If non USHPA pilots are not covered, & a subsequent accident involving a non member pilot occurs at an insured site, I assume USHPA would not be on the hook to cover claims from said accident. Why would USHPA yank the site insurance if clubs/landowners are not enforcing the “rules” of preventing non member pilots from accessing the site? I fail to see how this helps anything other than to coerce people into buying into the falsehood that insurance is the only way we are able to fly. Why wouldn’t u just inform the land owners that USHPA will walk in the event that a non member accident occurs & just leave it up to them?
Because USHPA is profiting from the land, thereby nullifying the protection that the landowner would have from the recreational use statute (RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE – CIVIL CODE § 846: California for example) have if it were *NOT* for USHPA. USHPA creates the liability and lies to the land owner about the "protection" that it offers VIA their insurance. The above claim that the *LANDOWNER* controls the land, when we are talking about public land, is patently false. I *NEVER* gave USHPA the right to control my public land, nor did the FAA. I genuinely don't care what a landowner decides to do with his property, but when it comes to public property I will have USHPA removed within the next few years. It is a slow process, but not that difficult. I have won Utah, I am talking with the directors at Ft. Funston and they are not happy with how the public land is being managed. Once the national parks go, I can't imagine there will be much USHPA business left.
User avatar
By Underdog
#403880
Thanks Logan,, your on to something there..Get rid of the profit and no need for insurance..ushpa exist now to protect the business of hanggliding,,not free flight pilots.
Keep up the good work and don't let the kool-aid drinkers and blue pill idiots get you down.
User avatar
By mtpilot
#403883
I would point out that WE the public are the landowners in most cases. The concept of site insurance is false since
every state has laws to the contrary. No other sport is so bogged down in negativity. I don't need insurance to dirt
bike or snowmobile on public land. Let's concentrate on safety not more lawsuits, regulation and paperwork.
User avatar
By LoganR
#403886
Underdog wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:11 am
Thanks Logan,, your on to something there..Get rid of the profit and no need for insurance..ushpa exist now to protect the business of hanggliding,,not free flight pilots.
Keep up the good work and don't let the kool-aid drinkers and blue pill idiots get you down.
No worries , evicting USHPA from public land is a relatively simple process:
1) Identify the controlling agency (National Park, State DNR, .... etc.)
2) Identify the contracting agent dealing with USHPA
3) Identify the *LAWS* that allow/enable USHPA control of the site (There usually aren't any)
4) Point out the *LAWS* that conflict with private control and profit from public land (Email me if you need help with this one)
5) Repeat as necessary, it is unfortunate that people tend to think that what has been happening is legal and proper. Be persistent, be polite, keep things relevant/legal. I think one of the main tripping points that HG pilots have is that they use Park Officers as a therapist to complain instead of sticking to the laws to try to find a reasonable solution.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#403887
No worries , evicting USHPA from public land is a relatively simple process:
1) Identify the controlling agency (National Park, State DNR, .... etc.)
2) Identify the contracting agent dealing with USHPA
3) Identify the *LAWS* that allow/enable USHPA control of the site (There usually aren't any)
4) Point out the *LAWS* that conflict with private control and profit from public land (Email me if you need help with this one)
5) Repeat as necessary, it is unfortunate that people tend to think that what has been happening is legal and proper. Be persistent, be polite, keep things relevant/legal. I think one of the main tripping points that HG pilots have is that they use Park Officers as a therapist to complain instead of sticking to the laws to try to find a reasonable solution.
It's clear that trying to explain reality to LoganR is a losing proposition. For the rest of the peanut gallery, I will comment on his utterly absurd statements.

USHPA makes no profit whatsoever from public or private lands. We provide insurance coverage to landowners (both private parties and public agencies) through local chapters, and those chapters pay the cost of the insurance premium. The fee that the chapters pay covers most of the cost of the premium, with USHPA picking up the rest from general funds. The notion that providing insurance coverage for a landowner somehow invalidates the recreational use laws is wrong. It is not true. It is a lie.

Recreational Use statutes, in all 50 states, provide a tool for defense of lawsuits related to use of private property when access is granted without compensation. They DO NOT prevent lawsuits. They DO provide a tool for defense. That tool must still be wielded by a competent lawyer or it is of no value. Hiring a lawyer and getting a simple dismissal on summary judgment is going to cost $20,000 to $30,000 these days, depending on venue. If a judge rules that there's enough of a case to go to trial, and does not immediately dismiss, multiply those numbers by 10. THAT is what USHPA's insurance coverage pays for...the cost of legal defense to get these lawsuits dismissed, or see them through trial if that's what it takes. And if it comes to it, to pay whatever damages a jury may award.

USHPA's waiver achieves the same effect as the general recreational use statutes, except that it's even more restrictive. It provides an even greater level of lawsuit defense tools than the state laws. This is another reason for landowners to impose a "members only" restriction on the use of their land. USHPA members have voluntarily joined our association, and have signed our liability waiver. Many prospective lawsuits vanish as soon as a plaintiff's counsel sees that waiver, because they know it's going to be very difficult to overcome. Typically these plaintiffs are asking for a lawyer to take their case on contingency, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. Lawyers are reluctant to take cases where they're almost certain to lose, to spend a lot of time and energy for no reward.

Managers of public lands (landowners, or at least the decision-makers for those lands) have rules they must abide by. It is often the case that a flying site on public land requires some degree of modification, maintenance or infrastructure improvement to make it usable. Porta-potty, launch ramp, gravel on the slope, brush clearing...all of these are examples which usually require a special use permit issued by the controlling agency. We often see that a condition of issuance for those permits is proof of insurance coverage, naming the agency as additional insured. That's where the USHPA insurance policy comes into play, just as it does for private landowners.

Instructors teaching for pay on public land generally need to obtain a commercial use permit from the controlling agency. Again, that permit requires proof of insurance, naming the agency as additional insured for commercial operations on the managed property. Recreation RRG provides commercial school insurance that satisfies the requirement.

I don't recommend that chapters request insurance coverage for a landowner unless it's necessary to get access to a flying site. Once you do that, you're signing up for a long-term commitment to pay the annual premium. The site had better be worth the long-term cost. But if the site is a good one, convenient to a group of pilots willing to bear the expense, then paying for landowner insurance coverage makes sense. Gaining access to that land by agreeing to insure it, and making certain that every pilot flying there is covered by the insurance, seems to me a reasonable trade-off. Maybe it doesn't seem reasonable to freeloaders who want to enjoy the use of the land without paying for the cost of getting access. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

MGF
User avatar
By mgforbes
#403888
DAVE 858 wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:58 am
If non USHPA pilots are not covered, & a subsequent accident involving a non member pilot occurs at an insured site, I assume USHPA would not be on the hook to cover claims from said accident. Why would USHPA yank the site insurance if clubs/landowners are not enforcing the “rules” of preventing non member pilots from accessing the site? I fail to see how this helps anything other than to coerce people into buying into the falsehood that insurance is the only way we are able to fly. Why wouldn’t u just inform the land owners that USHPA will walk in the event that a non member accident occurs & just leave it up to them?
Typically a chapter negotiates for access to property, on the terms that everybody flying there is going to be covered by insurance, and the landowner will also be covered. We've made a promise to that landowner that if they get sued, they're going to be defended. That promise is broken if there are non-member pilots flying the site and an accident results from their flying which entangles the landowner in a lawsuit. If a chapter is deliberately ignoring the members-only requirement for insured sites, then USHPA's only recourse is to pull the insurance coverage. Landowners are not going to be out there checking membership cards and making individual decisions about whether to allow non-members to fly.

There are cases to the contrary; at your local site, in fact. There was a pilot many years ago who refused to join USHPA but had a long-standing personal relationship with an insured landowner. He had specific permission to fly at the site, without being a member of the club or USHPA. The landowner was aware of this, and approved of it. That's fine. The club otherwise enforces the "members only" requirement, and that pilot has long since retired and moved on.

MGF
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#403889
LoganR wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:10 am
No worries , evicting USHPA from public land is a relatively simple process:
1) Identify the controlling agency (National Park, State DNR, .... etc.)
2) Identify the contracting agent dealing with USHPA
3) Identify the *LAWS* that allow/enable USHPA control of the site (There usually aren't any)
4) Point out the *LAWS* that conflict with private control and profit from public land (Email me if you need help with this one)
5) Repeat as necessary, it is unfortunate that people tend to think that what has been happening is legal and proper. Be persistent, be polite, keep things relevant/legal. I think one of the main tripping points that HG pilots have is that they use Park Officers as a therapist to complain instead of sticking to the laws to try to find a reasonable solution.

LoganR:

Do you think you could share those Laws, Regulations, and Public Policy Statements with the rest of us?
User avatar
By LoganR
#403890
magentabluesky wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:45 pm
Do you think you could share those Laws, Regulations, and Public Policy Statements with the rest of us?
It very much depends on the specific agency you are dealing with, but the most common/overarching federal law is:
49 U.S. Code SS 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(e)No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.--A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

Special Park Use Permits are authorizations from the National Park Service that are required prior to short-term activities:
- that take place in the park
- provide a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather than the public at large
- require some degree of management control from the NPS (in order to protect park resources and the public interest
- are not prohibited by law or regulation

Multiple year long exclusive leases are not "Short Term Activities"
" - are not prohibited by law or regulation" means that by definition if a SUP is used, then the activity is legal without the SUP.

In dealing with the National Park Service the additional laws that govern the Special Use Permit include:
"Commercial activity is not authorized by this Special Use Permit. Permittee shall not require fees for hang gliding, hang gliding instruction or any related activities. Permittee shall not sublet any part of the permitted premises or grant any interest or privilege whatsoever in connection with this permit without permission in writing from the NPS"

When I asked Rob how I can fly Ft. Funston without paying club fees his reply was:
"Hi Logan, mike, Bob, (and whoever else)

I'll keep it real simple for you guys..

The answer is NO! That's our policy.
We are an Ushpa chapter site and 100% ok with that.
If you want to fly "over" fort funston you can launch 2.8 miles south at the Dumps..

Aside from that...
No USHPA = no launching or landing at fort funston...

Rob johnson
President\fellow feathers "

So, they do by definition require fees for instruction and flying. They are trying to clam that USHPA is requiring the fees, not the chapter... NPS law doesn't distinguish between the beneficiary and the lessee.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#403891
When in the Course of human events,

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Happy Independence Day!!!
User avatar
By DAVE 858
#403893
The club otherwise enforces the "members only" requirement
How exactly? What are the club members supposed to do to "enforce" the USHPA agenda? Nobody is legally bound to be USHPA a member, so if by "enforce" I assume you mean coerce or persuade. This is a very bad idea. The last time someone tried to get the land owner to call the sheriff on another pilot it nearly resulted in us losing the LZ.

I don't care which side of this thing any of you are on. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Think twice before trying to involve land owners or law enforcement in hang/para glider drama. This will help nothing.

Mark, I think that you guys need to accept the fact that some pilots are not going to join USHPA & are going to fly wherever they want to and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Involving Landowners law enforcement or government agencies in an attempt to "enforce" USHPA / Club policies is going to do nothing but bring the heat down on everyone.

INSURANCE IS A CHOICE!
User avatar
By Underdog
#403896
ushpa is the antithesis of free-flight.
It is capture and control for the sake of business interest and drunk on dues.
No other sport organization has caged and created such a bureaucracy that limits it's purpose.
unfortunately it will continue to do this ,, insiders have interest in it ,, not making free flight free.
User avatar
By DMarley
#403898
As much as I dislike quoting "if ya wanna play, ya gotta pay," it's true in every way.
I don't fly on public lands. I would if there were any around here, but all the sites I fly are privately owned, and some have been patiently acquired, piece by piece, through many years by pilot owners at great expenditures.
Every one of us has had some experience with the trappings of the U.S. legal system. We all understand that it is complicated beyond belief, and that anyone who owns flyable lands will require some compensation from pilots in order to maintain those lands for easy(er) access with reasonably safe launching and landing areas. Fuel for tractors isn't free. Cutting grass and grading mountain accesses requires much fuel, time, and equipment. Decent-sized LZ's require large tractors and heavy cutting equipment to keep LZ's reasonably safe. Leveling, filling, maintaining drainage structures, and replacing stone on mountain accesses isn't free. Nor is the machinery that all this requires isn't free. Do you know how much all that equipment costs these days? Do you know how much gravel quarries and haulers want for merely one truck load of gravel? I do. This stuff ain't free. In fact, this equipment and material are very large investments. Much more than most of you could ever think to incur.

As soon as a land owner requires any amount of compensation for all the improvements / maintenance work / materials, he/she/they open themselves to lawsuits by the naive zombie pilots who believe it is the American way to blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes and follies. Many of the private sites are sections of farms, the LZ's certainly being usable pasture lands. Being a farm owner myself, there is no chance I would allow anyone to routinely use my land for any purpose in which I had to improve the conditions for said purpose, and not ask for some compensation especially with weekly maintenance involved, and/or the use of my land not being used directly for farming. As soon as I ask for compensation of any kind, I become responsible for everything. Without compensation from pilots, there would be far less private flying sites.
The arguments for completely-free free-flight sound very similar to the argument against aerotow facilities simply because they require additional insurance, they provide "joy rides" to paying passengers to cover operating expenses, and because "real pilots don't need to be aerotowed." Sound familiar? Ridiculous.

The ushpa ain't perfect. Nor is the U.S. legal system. If all of us pilots were 100% honorable, perhaps we would not require either. But we are not perfect. So we get to play after we pay.
By Seahawk
#403900
mgforbes wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:07 pm

It's clear that trying to explain reality to LoganR is a losing proposition. For the rest of the peanut gallery, I will comment on his utterly absurd statements.
I suspect that I will be reading lots more reality about USHPA's losing propositions in the near future. You utterly absurd USHPA Clowns will become extinct and then we will witness a renaissance in U.S. hang gliding.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 17

MIKe, Is Martins truck tow system only set up for […]

Back to westerly winds and Mt Tamborine. A wind sh[…]

Well said Windlord, thanks Col..

Launching Hang-2s at Dunlap

Outstanding! :thumbsup: Keep up the good work and […]