I believe you are certainly attempting to provide a service that is needed in HG.
I apologize to you and Frank for being so gruff in my posts toward you two.
I was quite turned off by the whole idea as Logan began his seemingly belligerent push to do damage to the ushpa.
Not that I am a big fan-boy of the ushpa. But since it is already well established, and provides a large legal buffer for land owners / managers, the organization with all it's faults still has valuable aspects to it.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the next board vote regarding the elimination of most of the regional directors. If they do implement this radical reduction, there could be many pilots and possibly clubs that will be strongly tempted to step away from the ushpa and search for better alternatives. Perhaps not. I understand that the current situation has garnered plenty of opposition from pilots regarding the non-disclosure of the voting habits of their RD's.
Perhaps the involuntarylist will wake up the (remaining?) board members to be less opaque and more transparent in their voting, but if they do vote to drastically reduce the seat count, I can't imagine many, if any, improvements in transparency.
hgflying wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:34 am
I have relatives with land that has a 70' grass hill that can be used for training. A few years ago, some pilots approached them and ask if they could use it for their training, so my relatives asked my opinion.
I said, yes, it's great to support pilots, ...
(1) make sure they are members of USHPA. $1M third party liability coverage - if they hit a cow, or damage fences, whatever, it’s important.
(2) make sure they are H2 or P2 rated, to make sure they have had proper instruction, because I have no desire to attempt to screen people.
This is a real case. As far as I understand so far, a involuntarylist rating would mean nothing, and provide nothing, to a land owner. "watch my video, I'm good, my friends say so" doesn't cut it for a land owner.
This has been one of my main points. Land owners and managers, if not HG pilots themselves, don't go out of their way to invite pilots to fly on their lands. It's the other way around. "Can I please fly on your lands?"
Perhaps west of the dry line, properties don't require much maintenance due to sparse vegetation and little rainfall. However, east of said line, vegetation growth can be a real hindrance to launching and landing sites, and must be cleared, maintained, etc. Because of more rainfall, soil erosion occurs at a higher rate, and if there are no public roads leading directly to the launch, then access trails must be made and maintained against the erosive forces of nature and use. Either the land owner(s) of the site or clubs must maintain these lands.
Maintenance requires dollars, continuously. No state law that supposedly protects land owners against guests are going to protect them against pilots who have to pay something to cover the development and maintenance costs. And that is where the ushpa is such a valuable asset to pilots in that they provide a real legal and financial buffer. Otherwise, few sites would remain open. Not only those points, but the land owner/manager does not have to police the pilots using the land. No need for the owners to consume time and resources to check on pilots' flight skills and status. Because the ushpa is well known in the flying community, is nation-wide, and has established protocols and ratings, legal backing, insurance, etc., land owners/managers will more likely feel that pilots of the ushpa will be far less risky than allowing someone who has little to none of this backing.
As a land (farm) owner myself, I would have doubts about a pilot keeping his personal flying insurance up to date, and I would then need to add more liability insurance per added pilot for my property to protect myself from someone bringing suit against me and my properties. If said pilot was part of a large body of pilots that had proven insurance backing from reputable carriers and legal backing, I would feel much more comfortable allowing this pilot to fly on my properties, and my outlay for liability insurance would be minimal, if at all. Which pilot would I rather fly my properties?
Not so much for the public park services that has the backing of the federal gov't, but private land owners (including state parks services) with flying sites are paying property taxes, operate on the thinnest of margins, if not at hefty losses. To burden them with the task of ensuring adequate individual pilot skills and the pilot's personal insurance is up to date in order to protect their own assets against possible damages seems to me to be too heavy a burden (not to mention the added property liability insurance costs.). Especially if and when the site becomes more popular. Why would a land owner submit to this extra workload and risk for absolutely zero or negative gain?
However, just as I believe we need representatives in the ushpa who vow to well-represent the local pilots and their local flying environs and methods, so your organization will likely meet a need for pilots where you fly.
Even though I am not fully sold on your organization's ethos, thank you for providing an alternative.
Not only may it provide a need for other pilots, It may also be just the impetus that the ushpa needs to become more like something that will appeal to more pilots.
Thanks Joe and Frank.