.

.

All topics the user community has voted to take off the front page are moved here.
Click on the "BURY this topic" link at the top of each topic to vote to bury a topic and take it off the front page.

Moderator: mods

User avatar
By davisstraub
#380153
Sure. Just charge non USHPA members more. :-)
User avatar
By ChattaroyMan
#380156
davisstraub wrote:.....So basically you are attacking my ability to continue hang gliding.
I feel this way myself - for the most part anyway. We're all in this together - Free Flight - and we might as well band together regardless of whether it's an ideal situation or not ... have each other's back so-to-speak. What goes around comes around. The more we support one another the better it all shakes out going forward and the more likely our flying locations won't just continue to exist but we'll have a better chance at procuring additional sites. The world isn't getting any larger and the hurdles to flying aren't getting any shorter.
User avatar
By SkyPoke
#380162
Jacmac wrote:
If Lloyds is willing to continue covering pilots at the same levels as past years (with normal minor increases), then raising the membership fee by 50% can only be interpreted as subsidization of the insurance that will not be provided by Lloyds any longer . . .
I'd like to throw something in here. Loyds of London is not an insurance company. It's a Broker. Lloyds was once (a long time ago) a tavern/bar where "investors" met and agreed to guarantee that cargo (on ships) would actually reach the intended destination.

The ship, it's captain, etc., helped determine if "insurance" of that cargo would be put in place by these "investors". Obviously these "investors" got a cut of the profits when the cargo arrived intact. They lost money when it didn't. More often than not, they made money.

The USHPA fits in the same way. Commercial HG and PG schools and Instructors (particularly tandem Joy/Thrill Ride providers) have begun to be seen as seriously HIGH RISK.

The interest of insurance "investors", which Lloyds of London facilitates, see the Hamby case (Air California Adventure's Gross negligence ruling) and Nevada's Jean Lake HG tandem incident, as indicative that the USHPA is itself negligent in working to insure that the commercial interests, that it "certifies" as competent, are actually responsible and in compliance with the USHGA's (at least implied?) requirements. The Lloyds of London insurance "investors" no longer have faith in USHPA's tandem Joy/Thrill Ride providers.

In my opinion, big money HG and PG schools (particularly tandem Joy/Thrill Ride providers) should be able to create their own RRG which would then allow them to insure themselves.

Let the USHPA separate themselves (and their average solo member HG-PG pilot) from these HIGH RISK groups! Tandem Joy/Thrill Ride providers would then finally be forced to realize exactly how much they endanger their own livelihood by way of negligent - or grossly negligent - behavior.
User avatar
By sg
#380165
I wonder what percentage of HG pilots did the big schools produce last year VS the remaining instructors. Anyone want to go through 1 year of magazines and figure this out? (I throw mine out)
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#380170
SkyPoke wrote:Let the USHPA separate themselves (and their average solo member HG-PG pilot) from these HIGH RISK groups! Tandem Joy/Thrill Ride providers would then finally be forced to realize exactly how much they endanger their own livelihood by way of negligent - or grossly negligent - behavior.
The story sounds good- but reality is much less simple: reckless behavior is not the sovereign territory of tandem instructors... nor universal among those. Let's just fix what's broken- rather than break what we have into pieces.
By LW
#380173
sg wrote:I wonder what percentage of HG pilots did the big schools produce last year VS the remaining instructors. Anyone want to go through 1 year of magazines and figure this out? (I throw mine out)
A month or two ago I did this for a single issue. About 90% of the hang ratings were issued by instructors that also offer tandems or work at schools that offer tandems. The remaining 10% included some instructors I couldn't easily find information about online, so it might be even more than 90%.
User avatar
By Aldpal
#380174
Mavi Gogun wrote:
magentabluesky wrote:Mavi,

Does Turkey require Hang Gliding/Paragliding Insurance to fly in Istanbul?

You say “we”. Do you have pony in this race?
I'll ignore the "ain't from around here, are you boy?" sub-text for a moment (it's an excuse to discount without consideration) and speak to the substantive question:

As to Istanbul, I know of only a few pilots that fly in the city; most are powered paraglider pilots, one with a mosquito. Some base jumpers did a commercial from a skyscraper- I don't know if they were insured.

What I am is a dues-paying member of the United States and Houston Hang Gliding and Paragliding Associations- vote Tiki Mashy, director, region 11!



(The idea that a US expatriate somehow lacks investment in our country is absurd; ask your friendly local member of the armed forces what they think of the suggestion- I'm sure they will be better equipped to express my feelings on the mater.)
As a former expat, it is good to see another one staying invested in what's going on stateside. Even if you do live in Byzantium. Sorry it's been so long since I lived overseas that I think that is what it was called back then :mrgreen: It is not my region, but you would have my vote for region 11, even as an expat. By the way if you are stationed in Turkey with our military, then thank you for your service. See you in the air, Alan
By darkcloud
#380192
For me anyway, I'm happy to subsidize guys and gals that are trying to earn a living giving tandems whether it's a joy ride or not. I know they can never earn enough to do so and I want everyone that wants to fly a tandem to do so.

My donation is one small gesture to my flying family that I can only hope will keep the skies open for me and those with the dream of flying free, not to mention companies like WillsWing.

Can I fly free where I am without insurance? Yes. But I would also like to go to Oklahoma and Arkansas to fly with my buds there. Might not happen without liability insurance for the Launch/LZ owners.

Throwing my beer money at this regardless of outcome is just something I feel good about. YMMV.


I completely agree.
If giving tandem rides to the public helps our flight schools and instructors remain in business, I'm all for it.
Some of our most valuable resources in the sport will disappear overnight should these instructors be forced out of instructing. I am deeply indebted to my local instructors.
I contributed to the cause yesterday and will again in January.
User avatar
By sg
#380194
This REALLY needs to be researched further.
Could someone crunch these numbers for a full year?


Are we really staring at losing 90% of the new pilot blood line here?


What percentage of the schools producing nearly all the new students eventually go away without the ability to get insurance?




LW wrote:
sg wrote:I wonder what percentage of HG pilots did the big schools produce last year VS the remaining instructors. Anyone want to go through 1 year of magazines and figure this out? (I throw mine out)
A month or two ago I did this for a single issue. About 90% of the hang ratings were issued by instructors that also offer tandems or work at schools that offer tandems. The remaining 10% included some instructors I couldn't easily find information about online, so it might be even more than 90%.
User avatar
By joefaust
#380195
This fertile discussion could be made even more robust by also integrating the points within other forums that are caring for the issues. Workers on the issue of topic are encouraged to visit and study and post also elsewhere.

Here is one of many:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... sc&start=0

Also, workers are encouraged to visit and participate on topic at the forum that is specializing on recreational hang gliding.
User avatar
By Dave Gills
#380197
sg wrote: Are we really staring at losing 90% of the new pilot blood line here?
I'm well aware of how vulnerable our little group is in central Pennsylvania.
We have 1 instructor keeping it going.
He's been doing it for many years and there isn't anyone to replace him.

Here he's the "John Conner" of hang gliding. :thumbsup:
By LW
#380219
sg wrote:
What percentage of the schools producing nearly all the new students eventually go away without the ability to get insurance?
It depends on what type of insurance you are talking about.

If they lost the big commercial policy (which was likely), it would apparently affect the 9 big schools that carry it.

If they lost the professional liability policy (which was a maybe), it would affect all paid instruction.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#380225
LW wrote: If they lost the big commercial policy (which was likely), it would apparently affect the 9 big schools that carry it.

If they lost the professional liability policy (which was a maybe), it would affect all paid instruction.
It's worse than that. The commercial school policies AND the USHPA instructor policy are definitely not going to be renewed. We have not yet been told whether we can get the USHPA CGL (pilot/site) policy renewed, nor what that might cost, but we're operating on the assumption that it may not be renewed. In any case, losing all coverage for instruction would kill us off later rather than sooner, so if we're going to deal with this in a way that keeps us alive for the long term, we need to form the RRG and move ahead with insuring ourselves.

MGF
User avatar
By davisstraub
#380230
So, wait a minute, only nine school had commercial liability insurance. The rest of them didn't have it but they were still instructing. So apparently liability insurance wasn't a requirement for these schools (and I assume that they felt that they couldn't afford it).

So are we offering schools commercial liability insurance through our RRG because of these nine schools?

Are we going to require all schools and all instructors to be certified by PASA and have liability insurance through our RRG because of these nine schools?

Have we thought this through to know how this will be received by these other schools?

Again, I realize that 3rd party liability insurance is complex, I'm just asking if the USHPA knows what the other schools are considering?

I despair as Mark is swamped and not answered any of the questions I have raised here and at the Oz Report.

John Harris -> Kitty Hawk Kites -> First Flight -> PASA.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#380236
Our existing instructor policy covers instructors for both noncommercial and commercial operations, unless they are employees of a school. If they are employed by a school, then the school needs to be insured.

In the future, USHPA's policy will no longer cover commercial instruction. It will cover instruction that is strictly non-commercial only. If there's any form of compensation for instruction, direct or indirect, then USHPA's insurance policy does not apply. (Except as below)

Instructors wishing to teach and get paid for it need to be affiliated with a PASA-certified flight school. They can join one if it exists locally, or they can form one. That school can purchase a commercial policy through PASA, or through the RRG directly for larger operations. The school can also add a landowner as additional insured for commercial operations at sites where the landowner requires insurance. USHPA's site insurance policy will no longer cover any claims against landowners for accidents related to commercial activity. Commercial activity (training, tandems, clinics) will be prohibited at insured sites unless conducted by a flight school/affiliated instructor with separate commercial coverage for that landowner.

Flight schools will carry a base $250K coverage limit. Instructors affiliated with the schools will have an additional $250K backstop (for a total of $500K) through the USHPA policy, as an adder on top of the base coverage if it should be exhausted.

These are the terms under which the Lloyd's syndicate is willing to extend a reinsurance contract to our RRG. They've seen our existing claims history, both on the commercial schools side and on USHPA's instructor policy, and they perceive our current structure as too risky to remain as-is. They have a good history with PASA and its school certification in kiteboarding and windsurfing, and they're willing to extend that oversight to our flight schools.

There's a lot of detail yet to work out, and I don't have all the answers. I have pretty much given up on the Oz Report Forum, because it's so infested with Joe Faust's ramblings that it's not worth trying to say anything there.

If you need to contact me, it's best to use email instead of posting things to forums. I'll answer when I can, but there's a lot going on.

MGF
User avatar
By g billow
#380239
So, at $250-$500,000. per claim limits going forward I guess it really wouldn't take much to knock that two million dollar RRG in half pretty quick. Am I looking at this right?
User avatar
By TjW
#380261
g billow wrote:So, at $250-$500,000. per claim limits going forward I guess it really wouldn't take much to knock that two million dollar RRG in half pretty quick. Am I looking at this right?
I don't think the killer is the occasional big claim, though that certainly hurts. The killer is a steady constant drain of more moderate claims, and the cost of representation to defend them. If things go well, the capital generates enough interest to pay for that.



On a completely separate subject, has anyone at USHPA considered sending a beg letter to Barron Hilton? He's been known to support motorless flight in the past. An interest-free loan, for example, might give the organization a little more time to cope.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#380264
g billow wrote:So, at $250-$500,000. per claim limits going forward I guess it really wouldn't take much to knock that two million dollar RRG in half pretty quick. Am I looking at this right?
No, you're not. You're assuming that the capitalization is all the funding that's available. Don't forget that the RRG is going to be selling insurance policies to each of the insured entities which own it. USHPA currently pays about $550,000 per year for insurance, and that was expected to increase about 35% in the next period. THAT is why dues need to go up. Schools will also be purchasing insurance, and they're part of the total premium package that supports the RRG. Claims will be paid from that premium income, with the capital reserve as a backstop in case of a really catastrophic run of separate claims. For a single-incident disaster, that's why we purchase a reinsurance contract to insure the excess over the RRG's base of $250K per incident. Such extraordinary claims are rare in our history.

The RRG will be charging premiums based on the insurance actuaries' study of our past claims history and their worst-case estimate of how bad things might go for us. We believe the recent history which is driving these high premiums is not typical, and over a 20-year viewpoint this appears to be true. We think we can do a better job of managing claims and risk, and we can push down the costs in the future. We have to prove that by doing it, so we're stuck with a high premium for a while until we do. Once we've demonstrated our ability to control costs, the actuaries will re-price our risk accordingly.

There's a lot of speculation and theorizing going on, some of it badly informed. We do actually know what we're doing here, and we've retained competent advisers to help us put the whole program together. Before jumping in with speculation on how it's all going to fall down around our ears, please do me a favor and send me email first with your questions. I'm happy to research things that I don't already know about and get back to you with answers. It also helps me as I do revisions to the FAQ, when I see multiple people wondering about the same thing.

MGF
User avatar
By davisstraub
#380272
Thanks Mark for joining back in.

Regarding Joe Faust who is both here and there, on the Oz Report all you have to do is click the Ignore button and you'll never see a post from him again.

Unfortunately you didn't address any of the questions that I have asked.

Do you know if any schools beyond the nine are asking for commercial liability insurance and are willing and able to pay for it?

Has the USHPA done a representative survey to determine if the schools wants PASA certification and the requirement for USHPA commercial liability insurance?
It will cover instruction that is strictly non-commercial only.
I must admit I do not understand why you even write such things. Hell will be pretty cold when free instruction is much of an issue. I guess you're covered if you give advice or mentor a pilot.

Here is a question for you.

All of our hang gliding competitions take place at either flight parks or locations which have site/event insurance. The flight parks are obviously commercial businesses. The competitions themselves are commercial businesses. The towing operations are commercial businesses (at the flight park) or commercial businesses set up at remote locations.

You write:

"USHPA's site insurance policy will no longer cover any claims against landowners for accidents related to commercial activity. Commercial activity (training, tandems, clinics) will be prohibited at insured sites unless conducted by a flight school/affiliated instructor with separate commercial coverage for that landowner."

How does this relate to our towing competitions? As far as I know none of the towing operations have commercial liability insurance. In fact I am aware of the fact that the towing operations are doing tandems before the competition starts on each day.

Our first competition is in early April. When will PASA certification be available?

So what if these commercial operations decide not to get insurance through PASA or the USHPA, that means that we can not have event insurance for our events?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
2015+ Subaru Outback HG rack

The subaxtreme brackets with crossbar would work. […]

Nice ramp and surroundings! Good launch! That was […]

La Muela de Alarilla, Spain

Cool place, nice edit! Thanks! I saw in GoogleMa[…]

Going to see Bent Knee 6 July 18. Courtney Swain, […]