.

.

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 Marcos70
#379984
mgforbes wrote:USHPA has two policies.

The CGL (Commercial General Liability) policy covers USHPA itself, its chapters and its individual members for 3rd party liability. It also covers landowners as additional insured parties, and we call this "site insurance". Each of those landowners has to be specifically named as an insured. All of that coverage is wrapped up in one single policy, and you can download it and read it at your leisure from the USHPA website, members only, insurance tab. Prepare to be both bored AND confused.

The PL (Professional Liability) policy covers USHPA instructors only. It protects them in their individual capacity as instructors for liability related to teaching HG/PG. It does not cover landowners, and it does not cover instructors teaching as employees of a school. In that case, the school should carry a CGL policy which covers itself and its instructors.

Certain of the larger schools (Windsports, Torrey, Kitty Hawk, Discover PG, etc) have individual CGL policies through the same broker and syndicate that covers USHPA. This is the insurance which we were notified would be non-renewed back in mid-August. We evaluated the loss ratio on the USHPA policies and asked whether they'd be renewed too. The insurers said they did not plan to renew our instructor policy, and they did not offer an opinion on our commercial policy (that I'm aware of, anyway). That's not very comforting.

Talk of "just let the schools figure it out on their own" is the same as saying, "let 'em go out of business". This is not the sort of insurance you can just go out and buy anywhere. We are already dealing with the one source of this kind of specialized coverage that exists. The specialty insurance market is already very small, and we're a tiny little fish that's barely worth considering at all. The amount of premium we generate collectively, between both USHPA policies and all of the school policies is just barely enough to interest an insurance syndicate in investing. Once the commercial policies are off the table, is there enough left for the insurers to even bother with? I don't know...and I don't really want to find out too late that the answer is no.

Given the financial realities of how insurance works, the size of the market and the way claims are handled at present, we think the RRG is our last, best hope of getting a handle on insurance and managing it in a way that minimizes the long term cost to our members. We're not interested in milking it for short term profits. Our overriding interest is the long term health of our sport, and we'll run things in a way that maximizes the benefits to our sport and our members. We own it, we run it, we live or die by the decisions we make. It's all on us, not on somebody outside our sport who's interested in collecting the maximum return in a given policy period, regardless of the long term consequences.

Mark G. Forbes
USHPA insurance chairman
So it is true that the commercial insurance is and will be intact. Making ominous allusions to the withdrawal of the commercial policy seems to contribute to the hysteria on this forum when their is nothing definitive. Thanks for the info....at least I can rest assured that the ushpa will make the commonsense decision to insure
Sport pilots and sites in the short run if the RRG fails and then figure out how to continue subsidising the bucket list joyrider industry.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#379987
Helix3 wrote:Mark,
Couldn't the Pilot and Site insurance continue to be covered by Lloyds and the RRG cover the commercial schools and instructors?
Possibly we could keep the pilot/site policy (CGL), but we'd still have to fund the RRG somehow. The RRG needs a minimum level of aggregate premium to be sustainable; it's not a linear function of the number of insured parties. There are fixed operating costs that don't scale, and even with all of the policies (USHPA, PASA, Foundation, individual schools) we're still at the lower edge of what's feasible. Breaking it into smaller pieces as you suggest would probably push it below the minimum size needed to be self-sustaining.

As I've said before, this is complex and multifaceted. I see a lot of interesting questions that derive from a very superficial understanding of how insurance works, how risk pools are managed and what the financial realities are. I've spent the last ten years as USHPA's insurance chairman becoming more educated on how it all works, and I'm still learning a lot. I'm an electronic design engineer in real life; I took the insurance chair job because I was asked and I figured, "How hard can it be? Sign something once in a while, chair a couple of meetings, maybe make a phone call or two...easy!" If only I'd known...... :roll:

So my point is that this is REALLY complicated stuff, with a lot of interlocking pieces, and some of them are fairly sensitive to discuss in a public forum. Some of the questions that are posed here really can only be answered under the terms of a non-disclosure agreement that bars any public discussion of the details. I'm trying to be as open as I can be, within that limitation. (Yes, I'm legally bound by such an agreement, as are other board members.)

We see no viable option for commercial instruction or schools without forming the RRG. The RRG isn't going to be viable without both those entities and USHPA being in the risk pool and funding it through premiums. So abandoning the schools to "figure it out on their own" just means closing them all down. We don't think that's wise. We really are all in this together, pilots, instructors, schools and manufacturers. We're all participating to whatever level we can afford, and we MUST all help out as much as we can to make this work.

As pilots, we need instructors and schools to train the next generation and provide a continuing source of equipment and training. We need the manufacturers to have a market to sell to, so we can have new and better gliders and instruments. And they need us, to bring in new people and provide a market for their products. We don't thrive unless we all work together and support each other.

MGF
User avatar
By sg
#379988
Marcos70 wrote: Very good point. I'm surprised it wasn't censored like my post about indemnity laws.

So you define censorship as breaking the rules and and posting anywhere you want? If you cant post absolutely anywhere, its censorship? :roll:

Nope... you are free to post in a ton of places here and anywhere on the internet. Oh look! You just did!!! Where is the censorship????? Your claim of censorship is absurd. This was was the absurd attitude BobK took on the HGAA forum.

We would vote on a set of rules. Special threads were started with rules associated with those threads that stated off topic posts would be deleted. Then BobK would flagrantly break every rule and s--- on every thread against the agreed upon rules, the group, then cry like a little baby about censorship.

You dont believe in moderation? Youre going to whine like a little cry baby???
Door is right there buddy ---->>>> (EXIT)

Seriously... anyone who cries about censorship because they cant post to 0.01% of threads with extra rules, while free to post anywhere else, *STFU* already. Ive had it with the cry babies.
User avatar
By sg
#379989
A note on insurance pools....

Ive had so many friends lose their insurance due to Obamacare, not because their insurance company decided to dump them, not because they weren't grandfathered in, they were, but because of the effect on the pool they were in.

So many people left the sub-pool they were in to move to new Obamacare plans, that the pool became too small, which made it too risky, and thus, that whole pool got dumped, even though that wasnt originally the plan. Had an insurance agent explain that to me when my pool got way small, which caused the premiums to triple over time. (which causes MORE people to leave, which makes it smaller.... its a death spiral).

Shrinking insurance pools eventually get dumped or get so expensive everyone leaves them. Just a matter of time.
So we lose half the insurance... now we're looking even smaller. Writings on the wall.

The new student life blood is getting extremely cut starting march. Doing nothing is suicide.

People with better ideas better start posting them. Crapping on the only reasonable option put forth so far does not help.
By Comet
#379993
sg wrote: So you define censorship as breaking the rules and and posting anywhere you want? If you cant post absolutely anywhere, its censorship? :roll:

Nope... you are free to post in a ton of places here and anywhere on the internet. Oh look! You just did!!! Where is the censorship????? Your claim of censorship is absurd. This was was the absurd attitude BobK took on the HGAA forum.

We would vote on a set of rules. Special threads were started with rules associated with those threads that stated off topic posts would be deleted. Then BobK would flagrantly break every rule and s*** on every thread against the agreed upon rules, the group, then cry like a little baby about censorship.

You dont believe in moderation? Youre going to whine like a little cry baby???
Door is right there buddy ---->>>> (EXIT)

Seriously... anyone who cries about censorship because they cant post to 0.01% of threads with extra rules, while free to post anywhere else, *STFU* already. Ive had it with the cry babies.
I am shocked. This level of rage and cursing by the forum moderator is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. If this is hang gliding, I want nothing to do with it.


.
User avatar
By Marcos70
#379995
Marcos70 wrote: (parting shots removed)
User avatar
By sg
#379996
Just as I thought..... Have fun hanging out with the rest of the BobK lunatics, keyboard warrior. BANNED.

These BobK proxies are a little too obvious.

If anyone else wants to join the org and egg me on into banning them so they can cry censorship like a big baby, go right ahead. :rofl:
Last edited by sg on Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By sg
#379997
Comet wrote:
sg wrote: So you define censorship as breaking the rules and and posting anywhere you want? If you cant post absolutely anywhere, its censorship? :roll:

Nope... you are free to post in a ton of places here and anywhere on the internet. Oh look! You just did!!! Where is the censorship????? Your claim of censorship is absurd. This was was the absurd attitude BobK took on the HGAA forum.

We would vote on a set of rules. Special threads were started with rules associated with those threads that stated off topic posts would be deleted. Then BobK would flagrantly break every rule and s*** on every thread against the agreed upon rules, the group, then cry like a little baby about censorship.

You dont believe in moderation? Youre going to whine like a little cry baby???
Door is right there buddy ---->>>> (EXIT)

Seriously... anyone who cries about censorship because they cant post to 0.01% of threads with extra rules, while free to post anywhere else, *STFU* already. Ive had it with the cry babies.
I am shocked. This level of rage and cursing by the forum moderator is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. If this is hang gliding, I want nothing to do with it.


.
You can blame me, not hang gliding.
Ive had it up to here with Bob style cry babies. Cant take anymore. Yeah, im pissed.

Crying censorship at every possible moment when the tiniest of moderation occurs is not reasonable at all. Thats not what censorship is, and I wont accept this ridiculous definition at all. OVER IT. That crap ends today.
User avatar
By DAVE858
#379999
Marcos70 wrote:
Marcos70 wrote: (parting shots removed)
So hacking into someones account & posting things under their name that they did not say & using that as justification to ban them off of the forum under false acusations that they are Bob K, whoever the f--- that is, is the definition of crazy...

SG, you need to talk to someone or maybe get one of those free hugs I see poeple in Ashland holding signs for. Seriously dude seek help.
User avatar
By sg
#380009
Hacking? LOL. Can you get anymore dramatic? Its obvious he didn't write that... but ill edit it for you. Sorry, but when you take parting shots in an attempt to get banned, your graffiti doesnt get to stay in your hosts living room as your'e thrown out the door.'

" & using that as justification to ban them off of the forum" <--- THAT never happened, you are seriously confused here. I did not ban him for what I wrote. I banned him for the predictable attack designed to get banned.

I don't think he is Bobk. BobK proxies are people are refer to that work on behalf or act like BobK.

BobK refused to the follow the simplest of rules on the HGAA forum and turned it to complete crap. This was his MO. The group agreed that THIS thread was a voting thread. You can post your vote, thats it. Anything else would be deleted. Then of course he would post a long rant on the thread and immediately cry censorship when it was immediately deleted as stated by the rules.

The Donation thread in for donation posts only. All posts non-donation related will be deleted.

People who post there and then call me a censor, can cry me a river.

He called me a sensor, I called him out for being a cry baby. He attempted to get banned, he got banned. No surprises. The censor babies are not going to be coddled anymore.


I havent written a post (outside of dealing with immediate technical issues) in many many months. The DAY I come back, and moderate in the slightest, someone cries about censorship again, just like BobK.

OVEEEEER IT. If people want 100% moderation free anarchy, the cesspool known as 4CHAN is for you. If you cant handle the slightest bit of moderation without calling the mod a censor, you are not compatible with any forum period.

Could I have handled it better... yup, 100% correct. I agree. Im just way past my limit with coddling the vocal minority that bitches about every little thing.


Going to put my level headed hat back on now. My apologies for the ugliness, but this whiney crap ends today.
Last edited by sg on Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By joefaust
#380014
Scary stuff. Directors probably shouldn't put their association at risk like this.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aana.com/insurance/Documents ... oups14.pdf


Potential Assessment


Unlike standard insurance companies, RRGs can be “assessable,”
meaning that if it needs additional capital to survive, the RRG can
charge, or assess, the policyholder additional monies over and above
the premiums already paid. These assessments can come at any
time—while your policy is in force, or after you are no longer a policyholder,
or even after the RRG is bankrupt.
Better get really CLEAR about this idea of becoming part of this system!
What lawsuits are in the pipeline NOW. What lawsuits are just waiting for the pot to be stuffed? What lawsuits are waiting for there to be many people in the assessable pot?
Consider not having a pot that attracts.
Consider helping each other on merit when something happens in our hang gliding community. Consider having a hang gliding community
... one that has recreational hang gliding as its focus; the Internet allows a great future for recreational hang glding.

The quote clip was not the full quote. Here is the full quote:
Scary stuff. Directors probably shouldn't put their association at risk like this.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aana.com/insurance/Documents ... oups14.pdf

Reinsurance provides no financial
guarantee to you, the policyholder,
if the RRG becomes insolvent.

If you are insured by an RRG,
particularly one that has no Best’s
rating, we strongly suggest you
request that a cut-through endorsement
be added to your policy. If either the RRG or the RRG’s reinsurer
is unwilling to provide this endorsement, you should have serious reservations
about continuing your coverage with an RRG.

No Guaranty Fund Coverage

As indicated previously, because RRGs are regulated on the federal
rather than the state level, some issues can have a negative impact on
RRG policyholders. One of them relates to state guaranty fund coverage.
Every state has a guaranty fund to protect policyholders if their
insurance company goes bankrupt. Unfortunately, this only applies
to companies regulated by the states. Since RRGs were formed as a
result of federal legislation that exempted state regulation, CRNAs
with an insurance policy from an RRG would receive no protection
from their state guaranty fund if the RRG fails. The Declaration Page
of an RRG policy will often contain the following statement: “State
insurance insolvency guaranty funds are not available for your risk
retention group.”2

Without access to your state’s guaranty fund, you will have no
safety net if you are insured by an RRG. The odds that your claim will
not be covered get even greater if you are insured by an RRG that has
no Best’s rating.

The lack of accessibility to state
guaranty funds is not the only area of
concern for this federally developed
form of insurance company. Regulation
is another.

Lack of State Regulation

The primary difference between
RRGs and other insurance companies
is how they are regulated. According
to the LRRA, an RRG needs to
be licensed in only one state, but it
can operate in all other states. Federal
laws exempt RRGs from state regulation
of policy forms (the coverage
provided by the RRG), the premiums it charges, and numerous other
state insurance laws and rules. Being licensed in one state allows the
RRG to operate in all other states without the need to meet the same
standards required of other types of liability insurers in those states.
Lacking oversight in all but one of the states in which it does
business, an RRG can change its policy terms and premiums at any
time—without knowledge of the policyholder—without any regulatory
approval or oversight.

Potential Assessment

Unlike standard insurance companies, RRGs can be “assessable,”
meaning that if it needs additional capital to survive, the RRG can
charge, or assess, the policyholder additional monies over and above
the premiums already paid. These assessments can come at any
time—while your policy is in force, or after you are no longer a policyholder,
or even after the RRG is bankrupt.

Eventually, the RRG that sets its premiums too low won’t have
enough money to pay its claims. If the RRG becomes insolvent or
is unable to pay its claims, your state guaranty fund will afford no
protection, and your personal assets will be exposed to any claims
made against you.

• Does the insurance company only insure one class of business?
This question applies far more to a company without a Best’s
rating than to a financially sound company with a “Secure” Best’s
rating For RRGs, the answer of course is “yes.” The federal law that
allowed the formation of RRGs (the LRRA) requires that all of the
policyholders of the RRG be of a similar nature. That means an
RRG insures only one type of liability coverage, e.g., malpractice for
healthcare providers.

Insurance is all about spread of risk. You don’t want an insurance
company that has all of its eggs in one basket.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#380025
Is the RRG a perfect solution to our insurance needs? No.
Do we really need insurance? Absolutely!
Is there a better solution to our insurance needs? Probably not.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#380026
$91,388 raised to date over the first 10 days.
$9,138.80 average per day.

$738,612 to go in 79 days.
$9,349.52 per day average needed from now on.

I'm concerned.
User avatar
By sg
#380030
Considering how many voices here are actively fighting it, with no rational alternative in sight, Im concerned too. Better hope they are loud voices of a small minority. I see people with the attitude, hey, MY site is fine, so who cares. Hard to fathom.
Last edited by sg on Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By NMERider
#380031
sg wrote:Considering how many voices here are actively fighting it, when no rational alternative in sight, Im concerned too. Better hope they are loud voices of a small minority. I see people with the attitude, hey, MY site is fine, so who cares. Hard to fathom.


I have already seen posts on Facebook and elsewhere where USHPA members openly declare they aren't contributing anything until they are sure that there's is needed. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way. One fallacy of this strategy is that donation momentum is lost. When everyone who has not made a donation sees the lack of interest by their peers it gives the impression that there must be a good reason that no one else is donating and so the whole thing slows to a crawl. I know this mentality well from 17 years of selling on eBay. Auctions with lots of bids will typically get bid up higher than auctions starting with a high initial bid and only get the one bid.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#380034
NMERider wrote: I have already seen posts on Facebook and elsewhere where USHPA members openly declare they aren't contributing anything until they are sure that there's is needed.
I derive a certain amount of self respect by NOT being a free-loader. I feel a certain amount of shame in receiving a benefit when I have not done my fair share to make it happen, or given some equal or greater benefit in exchange.

That applies to all areas of my life, work, finance, friendships, marriage, etc...
By LW
#380040
mgforbes wrote: The CGL (Commercial General Liability) policy covers USHPA itself, its chapters and its individual members for 3rd party liability. It also covers landowners as additional insured parties, and we call this "site insurance". Each of those landowners has to be specifically named as an insured. All of that coverage is wrapped up in one single policy, and you can download it and read it at your leisure from the USHPA website, members only, insurance tab. Prepare to be both bored AND confused.

The PL (Professional Liability) policy covers USHPA instructors only. It protects them in their individual capacity as instructors for liability related to teaching HG/PG. It does not cover landowners, and it does not cover instructors teaching as employees of a school. In that case, the school should carry a CGL policy which covers itself and its instructors.
Mark,

Under the current USHPA policies all pilots are required to purchase the general liability policy and all instructors are required to purchase the professional liability policy. However the (very expensive) special commercial liability policies that a few schools have are not mandatory. This is good because it keeps operating costs of instructors and smaller schools down while providing the coverage large schools require.

Now USHPA is currently moving in a direction that will require all instructors to operate under (the more expensive) school insurance policies. This includes schools that make their primary income doing commercial tandems. However the tandem exemption #4721 does not require insurance, and the FAA does not even require USHPA to insure tandem flights.

This new policy of school insurance is not required by law (the FAA), and it is potentially very damaging to the sport by making it too expensive for independent instructors and smaller schools to continue operating. It also puts the professional liability policies at higher risk because every tandem flight will be insured on that policy.

I suggest maintaining a system more similar to what we have now and let instructors and schools decide what level of coverage they need and purchase accordingly. I would suggest removing any insurance associated with the 30-day waiver since it is not required by the FAA, in other words the H0/P0 ratings would be free to issue by any tandem instructor, and it is up to that instructor to purchase the appropriate level of commercial liability insurance they need for the tandem flights.

The bottom line is if we require all instructors to operate under expensive school policies it is going to dramatically reduce the availability of instruction across the country. It would be better to allow instructors and schools to decide their own level of coverage needed. Make the tandem exemption free to any (appropriately rated) pilot to issue, and provide professional liability coverage at different levels to meet the instructor's or school's individual needs. This would reduce the overall exposure of liability from commercial tandems to all USHPA insurance, allow small schools and individual instructors to keep operating with minimal increase in premiums, and allow big schools to still get the level of coverage they need. Additionally if we remove the liability tandems pose to the general policy it would reduce that $2million or whatever amount is we need to raise to fund the RRG since the overall risk would be lower. What do you think?
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#380044
LW wrote:I would suggest removing any insurance associated with the 30-day waiver since it is not required by the FAA, in other words the H0/P0 ratings would be free to issue by any tandem instructor, and it is up to that instructor to purchase the appropriate level of commercial liability insurance they need for the tandem flights.
I would think that any tandem student injury lawsuit is going to name USHPA regardless of whether the 30 day memberships carry insurance or not. It could always be argued that USHPA issued the instructor's rating, the instructor messed up, and therefore USHPA must have issued the rating to someone who shouldn't have had it. If USHPA is going to wind up getting sued in such cases anyway, we'd better be collecting some premiums from those 30 day memberships in order to cover those costs. I think the current $8 is too low. $20 to $30 seems more like the right number to me. Someone who is going to pay $195 for a tandem will just as happily pay $207 or $217, and this will raise a lot more, much needed, money. Per USHPA's 2014 financial report, 30 day memberships generated $180k that year. I think that number could easily be $400k to $500k or higher
User avatar
By davisstraub
#380046
Mark writes:
Certain of the larger schools (Windsports, Torrey, Kitty Hawk, Discover PG, etc) have individual CGL policies through the same broker and syndicate that covers USHPA.
I don't believe that any of the flight parks that I visit (or have visited) or stay at are covered by commercial liability insurance. I may be wrong on that in one case. (Quest Air, Cowboy Up, Florida Ridge, Highland Aerosports, Luling)

None of the instructors at the flight parks that I visit are employees, therefore they are supposedly covered by the USHPA professional liability policy.
The insurers said they did not plan to renew our instructor policy,...
For almost all of the sites that I visit, the landowners are covered by event insurance (which is a version of site insurance). Some landowners during the Flytec Race and Rally were airports not covered by USHPA event insurance.

For some landing zones that occurred serendipitously along the various pilots' routes, the land owners were not named and therefore not covered by site insurance.

I am aware of commercial "schools" looking for commercial liability insurance outside the USHPA.

All our pilots entering any of our competitions are required to have USHPA membership and therefore 3rd party liability insurance.

All our competition sites (assuming events other than Race and Rally) are required to have site insurance/event insurance for their site. This applies to Sheets, Americus, Ridgely, Big Spring and Francisco Grande.

We (Belinda and I) don't have, and I believe this is true of others, commercial 3rd party liability insurance to cover the meet organizers.

I do believe that the tug pilots are not covered by any 3rd party liability insurance. Could be wrong on that, but they are not covered by the USHPA.

If I am in error, please correct.

If most hang gliding schools or flight parks do not have commercial insurance (most likely because they can't afford it) perhaps there should be a survey of these places to determine their requirements.

Wasn't it not too long ago that hang gliding instructors taught without being covered by 3rd party liability insurance and their USHPA membership was the same as every one else's?

I support (monetarily) the USHPA efforts here. I just wonder if they are aware of the exact situation with say maybe a representative sample of 50 schools and instructors regarding their insurance status.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#380064
$97,908 raised to date over the first 11 days.
$8,900.73 average per day.

$732,092 to go in 78 days.
$9,385.80 per day average needed from now on.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

This thread got me digging for a flight I did in m[…]

https://youtu.be/IfkIk5-jOXg Wonderful thermal f[…]

Campfires tales . . .

Those "elite warfighters" are some of t[…]

Untitled (無題)

We only had one day in Kyoto, but I enjoyed it. […]