.

.

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 DAVE858
#379951
sg wrote:
DAVE858 wrote:I find it ammusing you are using that particular Thomas Jefferson quote & are furious because people are hesitant to fork over a bunch of money to USHPA...
I find your non-sequitur amusing. How does that quote relate to anything in any way whatsoever?


So what is your plan? When the land owners are called to let them know the insurance is gone, Dave says WHAT????

Doing nothing is making a terrible choice.
Thomas Jefferson along with a few others wrote the declaration of independence from England because they did not want to pay taxes & be exploited by an overbearing & controlling government.

The situation is one & the same with Hang Gliding & USHPA.

& just so you know, I did donate $100 to the RRG. There are some good things USHPA does & I believe in the mission. I just do not believe that the pilot populous should have to shell out a bunch more money because instructors & schools cannot find, or do not want to pay more for their own insurance & they refuse to pass this cost on to their customers.

So the solution now is that USHPA is becoming its own insurance company. An insurance company has to be profitable or it goes out of business. The nature of our sport is inherently frought with risk, in fact ITS ALL ABOUT RISK! This is bad for business if your an insurance company! I find it ludacris that Mark Forbes comes on here & actually says that if we pay more now, we will pay less later. If that is truly the business model, which I know it isnt, then this thing is doomed to fail...

You can preach all you want to about a culture of safety & that we pilots must reighn in our unsafe practices & police our own peers, but truth be told there are variables we just cannot control & that this hang gliding thing is fucken dangerous! Knowing that, HOW THE f--- ARE RATES EVER SUPPOSED TO GO DOWN!?!?!? They will need to keep going up because accidents ARE GOING TO KEEP HAPPENING! Its the nature of the game.
User avatar
By sg
#379953
Helix3 wrote:
sg wrote:Really need clarification here from ushpa.
Contact your Regional Director. I did.

Ask point blank if Lloyd's refused to renew the member insurance in March 2016.

The answer is no.
We already knew this. Ushpa communicated they are expecting to lose the insurance in March, not that they have been flat told its going away with 100% certainty. Sounds like they are actually trying to get a little ahead of the huge ball rolling at them.

But that doesnt answer my question at all.

*WHICH* coverage specifically are they expecting to go away? Some? All?

If we only lose the instructors insurance, it just means were going to die a SLOWER death by losing our new student blood line.

If we lose insurance for land owners, we die a lot faster and a lot of HIGH VOLUME sites get shutdown very quickly.


If anyone thinks we survive as a sport by losing any of these major things I think you are entirely off your rocker. We're on life support as is. We do not need to accelerate the decline in any way or form, period.
User avatar
By sg
#379954
Like I said, your claim about the Jefferson quote made absolutely no sense at all.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

^^^ He is asking for people to speak up about things and not remain silent, to be active.

That is clearly NOT happening here. Everyone is voicing their opinion all over the place. So again, you reference to the quote made absolutely no sense at all.


As to the rest of your post... WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION???
This is not a time to just b----, but to problem solve.




DAVE858 wrote:
sg wrote:
DAVE858 wrote:I find it ammusing you are using that particular Thomas Jefferson quote & are furious because people are hesitant to fork over a bunch of money to USHPA...
I find your non-sequitur amusing. How does that quote relate to anything in any way whatsoever?


So what is your plan? When the land owners are called to let them know the insurance is gone, Dave says WHAT????

Doing nothing is making a terrible choice.
Thomas Jefferson along with a few others wrote the declaration of independence from England because they did not want to pay taxes & be exploited by an overbearing & controlling government.

The situation is one & the same with Hang Gliding & USHPA.

& just so you know, I did donate $100 to the RRG. There are some good things USHPA does & I believe in the mission. I just do not believe that the pilot populous should have to shell out a bunch more money because instructors & schools cannot find, or do not want to pay more for their own insurance & they refuse to pass this cost on to their customers.

So the solution now is that USHPA is becoming its own insurance company. An insurance company has to be profitable or it goes out of business. The nature of our sport is inherently frought with risk, in fact ITS ALL ABOUT RISK! This is bad for business if your an insurance company! I find it ludacris that Mark Forbes comes on here & actually says that if we pay more now, we will pay less later. If that is truly the business model, which I know it isnt, then this thing is doomed to fail...

You can preach all you want to about a culture of safety & that we pilots must reighn in our unsafe practices & police our own peers, but truth be told there are variables we just cannot control & that this hang gliding thing is fucken dangerous! Knowing that, HOW THE f*** ARE RATES EVER SUPPOSED TO GO DOWN!?!?!? They will need to keep going up because accidents ARE GOING TO KEEP HAPPENING! Its the nature of the game.
User avatar
By DAVE858
#379955
My solution is simple. Let the instructors & schools figure it out for themselves & bring USHPA back to supporting the pilots & not the commercial interests of a few parties.
User avatar
By Helix3
#379956
flyingdawg wrote:I've also got nothing against the "commercial" interests who seem to be attached constantly. Someone has to bring in new pilots. I'm certainly not doing so. If we subsidize them a bit, who cares. They keep the sport alive by creating new pilots. Why are pilots such whiners?
Yes, instructors and schools are important + should be supported.

Independent commercial tandem operators who fly without 3rd-party liability insurance, however, pose a risk to our pooled investment.

USHPA has 2 types of insurance -
1. Member insurance
2. Instructor insurance

USHPA instructor insurance does *not* cover 3rd-party liability.

This is why schools purchase "commercial school" insurance outside of USHPA to get 3rd-party liability coverage.

The Jean Lake tandem pilot only had USHPA instructor insurance. He did not pay for 3rd-party liability insurance.

The boy's family sued USHPA - probably as a 3rd party for the loss of their son. The case is ongoing and could have a significant impact on our pooled investment.

Responsible pilots fly with 3rd-party liability insurance.

The problem is independent commercial tandem operators who:
1. Don't purchase 3rd-party liability insurance
2. Damage 3rd-party persons or property
3. And leave us to pay the bill
User avatar
By Dave Gills
#379958
sg wrote: If anyone thinks we survive as a sport by losing any of these major things I think you are entirely off your rocker.
I'm not against the RRG.
I'm not against a year of Lloyd's with exemptions.
Let's keep everything in play.

Why would Lloyd's bring up exemptions if it was a flat out no?
User avatar
By Helix3
#379959
sg wrote:*WHICH* coverage specifically are they expecting to go away? Some? All?

If we only lose the instructors insurance, it just means were going to die a SLOWER death by losing our new student blood line.

If we lose insurance for land owners, we die a lot faster and a lot of HIGH VOLUME sites get shutdown very quickly.
Lloyd's told schools the commercial school insurance + told USHPA the instructor insurance would not be renewed in March 2016.

Lloyd's indicated the USHPA member insurance is still good for renewal come March. This covers site insurance.

USHPA says there is a possibility Lloyd's may decide to cancel member insurance a month before it expires. It's hard to know if this statement is a real possibility or meant to create a sense of urgency so the RRG gets formed in March with no disruption to schools/tandem operators.

***

When a car stops dead in its tracks twice, ya find out what the problem is and fix it. You don't keep pumping gas into it hoping for the best.

USHPA lost its insurance completely in the late 1980s. Sites shut down for several months.
This time only the instructor + school insurance have been cancelled.

Simply throwing $ at this won't make the problem go away. Yes, donate. But don't stop there.
Last edited by Helix3 on Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By sg
#379960
SOURCE of this info? (thanks for clarifying)


So we definitely lose the lifeblood of sport in march, and there is an expectation we lose the site insurance too eventually, or worst case, near march.

If the site insurance stays in march, for how long? A year? 3? 5? 10? Is there an expectation that this is only a matter of time thing?


This is a huuuuge risky move. Sounds like ushpa is pretty damned worried about site insurance going poof very soon.
User avatar
By sg
#379961
Sorry.... the "you" in my sentence was very general, no one specific.

Maybe they brought up exemptions because it was the best ushpa could negotiate next to NO insurance. Who knows. Really cant read into that too much.


Dave Gills wrote:
sg wrote: If anyone thinks we survive as a sport by losing any of these major things I think you are entirely off your rocker.
I'm not against the RRG.
I'm not against a year of Lloyd's with exemptions.
Let's keep everything in play.

Why would Lloyd's bring up exemptions if it was a flat out no?
By Jacmac
#379963
Helix3 wrote:
USHPA has 2 types of insurance -
1. Member insurance
2. Instructor insurance
It looks like there are two officially, but maybe should be three (from the 2014 financial report):

Insurance-Rogallo $237,246.08
Insurance-Site & Member $228,987.83

It seems like Site & Member should be two separate items: insurance-Pilot Member and Insurance-Site. Why they are combined, I do not know.

It isn't clear to me if the RRG would in theory cover all of these or not. But it could well be that the RRG already has the money to work for Pilot and Site insurance but not fully cover Instructors yet and that is why there is a big push for more money. It could be the other way around, again, it isn't clear what is going on. The communications all use the loss of sites as the reason, but I have a feeling that no matter what, all of the money will be use to fund a RRG with whatever they have collected at the time they move forward.

It could be that the partially funded RRG will initially cover specific commercial sites that make a large amount of money, plus pilots and instructors. Then as time goes on and it gets bigger, it will be able to go ahead with site coverage on a larger scale.
User avatar
By DAVE858
#379964
What then was the point of having instructor insurance if it did not cover 3rd party? Why did the instructor membership cost more if it covered less??? What the heck did it cover!?!?
User avatar
By Helix3
#379965
sg wrote:SOURCE of this info? (thanks for clarifying)


So we definitely lose the lifeblood of sport in march, and there is an expectation we lose the site insurance too eventually, or worst case, near march.

If the site insurance stays in march, for how long? A year? 3? 5? 10? Is there an expectation that this is only a matter of time thing?


This is a huuuuge risky move. Sounds like ushpa is pretty damned worried about site insurance going poof very soon.
Again, call your Regional Director. Don't just take my word for it.

Personally, I think it's fantastic USHPA is preemptively hustling to self-insure.

$ speaks. Unions get their demands met because workers go on strike and profits are lost.

Find out what prompted Lloyd's to cancel the commercial school + instructor insurance then fix it.
By Jacmac
#379966
Helix3 wrote:
Lloyd's told schools the commercial school insurance + told USHPA the instructor insurance would not be renewed in March 2016.

Lloyd's indicated the USHPA member insurance is still good for renewal come March. This covers site insurance.

USHPA says there is a possibility Lloyd's may decide to cancel member insurance a month before it expires. It's hard to know if this statement is a real possibility or meant to create a sense of urgency so the RRG gets formed in March with no disruption to schools/tandem operators.
OK, now this makes more sense. It's be a nightmare trying to figure out what is going on exactly because the USHPA communication are all generalized and vague about exactly what is happening to what insurance. So there is actually three insurance segments and the financials just combined member with site for some reason.

It does seem like sites are being scapegoated as the problem or big risk of loss, when the problem is actually commercial school operations and instructors. Couldn't the Pilot and Site insurance continue to be covered by Lloyds and the RRG cover the commercial schools and instructors?
User avatar
By Helix3
#379968
Jacmac wrote:It does seem like sites are being scapegoated as the problem or big risk of loss, when the problem is actually commercial school operations and instructors.
Bingo.
Jacmac wrote:Couldn't the Pilot and Site insurance continue to be covered by Lloyds and the RRG cover the commercial schools and instructors?
That's a great question I would like to hear the answer to.

USHPA talked of hosting a live webinar where questions can be submitted and answered real-time.
Email USHPA + your Regional Director today emphasizing how much more informative + useful a live webinar would be compared to a static FAQ webpage.
User avatar
By Dave Gills
#379974
Jacmac wrote:It does seem like sites are being scapegoated as the problem or big risk of loss, when the problem is actually commercial school operations and instructors.
If it was the Jean Lake incident & I was a PG pilot in the USHPA, what would I be thinking? :shock:
User avatar
By mgforbes
#379976
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
User avatar
By Helix3
#379977
Dave Gills wrote:If it was the Jean Lake incident & I was a PG pilot in the USHPA, what would I be thinking? :shock:
Oh behave.

We are all in this together.
Just need to suss out what caused the commercial school + instructor insurance to be cancelled and fix it.

And no - the solution does not involve forming a hg-only organization. That's like saying men-only then pretending to be happy having a small sausage party around a very small coffee table.
User avatar
By Helix3
#379980
Mark,

Couldn't the Pilot and Site insurance continue to be covered by Lloyds and the RRG cover the commercial schools and instructors?

(Great question posted by Jacmac.)
User avatar
By Marcos70
#379982
Jacmac wrote:
Helix3 wrote:
USHPA has 2 types of insurance -
1. Member insurance
2. Instructor insurance
It looks like there are two officially, but maybe should be three (from the 2014 financial report):

Insurance-Rogallo $237,246.08
Insurance-Site & Member $228,987.83

It seems like Site & Member should be two separate items: insurance-Pilot Member and Insurance-Site. Why they are combined, I do not know.

It isn't clear to me if the RRG would in theory cover all of these or not. But it could well be that the RRG already has the money to work for Pilot and Site insurance but not fully cover Instructors yet and that is why there is a big push for more money. It could be the other way around, again, it isn't clear what is going on. The communications all use the loss of sites as the reason, but I have a feeling that no matter what, all of the money will be use to fund a RRG with whatever they have collected at the time they move forward.

It could be that the partially funded RRG will initially cover specific commercial sites that make a large amount of money, plus pilots and instructors. Then as time goes on and it gets bigger, it will be able to go ahead with site coverage on a larger scale.
Very good point. I'm surprised it wasn't censored like my post about indemnity laws. I'm pretty over the fear mongering hysteria. Your post points toward the crystal clear short term solution....keeps sites open...keep pilots sport pilots insured....and dealing with the training issues later
User avatar
By bigbird
#379983
:popcorn: If the USHPA pulls this off our future is sure to be secure...
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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. […]