.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

By USHPA7
#404343
So carry insurance and guarantee that land owners will get sued and in the case of the RRRG it goes belly up. Dan Poynter once told me that the only parachute company in the US that ever got sued was the only one that carried product liability insurance. I found out yesterday that High Energy Sports, maker of HG harnesses for 30 years and now a big business of making many different types of parachutes for commercial and US government, plus amusement ride harnesses, zip line harnesses, etc., doesn't carry liability insurance. There's a reason for that.

The waiver makes it a quick case in favor of the land owner. Another function USHPA should have is a list of volunteer pro bono HG or PG pilot lawyers who will defend any land owner without charge.

Sorry to disagree but there is no valid argument against land owners getting liability waivers. That's why USHPA requires them - duh.

Frank
User avatar
By DMarley
#404346
Frank, perhaps you are not as learned as your age would suggest. Any time a person or entity OWNS land, buildings, residences, has businesses, is a business, or is a government, there is always someone who may think that there might be a free meal waiting to be snacked upon. Not everyone is honest. Families of injured parties don't care about the sport of HG/PG. Especially when an injured party is a bread-winner for the family. They will attempt to go for the jugular. They will always consult an attorney or three to find their money tree. If the property that is being flown is owned (it is all owned by some entity), then the owner has enough value to bring charges against.
A land owner, especially one who has many hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of dollars invested in valuable real-estate (large parcels of land), better have a plan as to how to deal with the inevitable case brought against him/her. No waiver is completely bullet-proof.
So, in respect to you, I won't say 'duh!'
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404347
DMarley wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:08 pm
Frank, perhaps you are not as learned as your age would suggest.
. . . .

Boy, while reading this forum, I can’t tell you how many times this weekend I’ve had to pick myself off the floor from laughing so hard.

DMarley just a suggestion, before you make a statement like that, you should not make it in the blind. Respecting Frank’s privacy, let’s just say your characterization is baseless.

Don’t attack the person. Just argue the principles of your case. When someone starts attacking the person, it just projects they believe their case is weak. Stick to the facts.

Duh!
User avatar
By Paul H
#404348
USHPA7 wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:44 pm
The waiver makes it a quick case in favor of the land owner. Another function USHPA should have is a list of volunteer pro bono HG or PG pilot lawyers who will defend any land owner without charge.
Frank



That's a great idea. When can you start on it? Do you know any lawyers willing to volunteer to do it?
USHPA is its members, ideas don't mean anything if the members having them don't act on them. There's no one else to do it.
By USHPA7
#404349
I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure there are plenty of them flying HG's & PG's who could step up to the plate and give back to the sport they love. Can you do it?

I do what I can within my abilities, including donating $500 for a number of years to USHPA foundation's site preservation fund, when I renewed my membership. If you have been doing that also, we thank you.

However, when a lot of that money went into the RRRG and I realized that the org had become a gatekeeper, able to lock those folks they don't like of out of great flying sites, I decided to not donate anymore. Locking good, dedicated to safety, people out is not "site preservation".

If USHPA starts a legal fund to help property owners with lawsuits I will be glad to donate a substantial amount to that fund, if it is set up properly, with good public accountability, not a slush fund for somebody's lawyer brother in law.

Rather than just criticize ideas, please do what you can. The current situation is not sustainable.
User avatar
By Paul H
#404351
USHPA7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:35 am
I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure there are plenty of them flying HG's & PG's who could step up to the plate and give back to the sport they love. Can you do it?

I do what I can within my abilities, including donating $500 for a number of years to USHPA foundation's site preservation fund, when I renewed my membership. If you have been doing that also, we thank you.

However, when a lot of that money went into the RRRG and I realized that the org had become a gatekeeper, able to lock those folks they don't like of out of great flying sites, I decided to not donate anymore. Locking good, dedicated to safety, people out is not "site preservation".

If USHPA starts a legal fund to help property owners with lawsuits I will be glad to donate a substantial amount to that fund, if it is set up properly, with good public accountability, not a slush fund for somebody's lawyer brother in law.

Rather than just criticize ideas, please do what you can. The current situation is not sustainable.
I didn't criticize your idea, I just pointed out that expecting someone else to take action on it won't work.
The current legal climate in this country is very different than it was in the seventies when hang gliding really got going. It would be nice if everyone would let us fly from their land, both public and private, but the sad reality is that even the best waivers don't guarantee that a land owner won't get sued. Every state has laws that supposedly protect landowners when they let people use their land for recreation, but too many land owners don't know about them and those laws can't guarantee protection from idiots who hurt themselves. Hang gliding will probably always be viewed as a fringe sport by the public. If there were as many people doing it as there are skiing, scuba diving, cycling, kayaking, etc, then we would have more acceptance. That's never going to happen. So we are unfortunately stuck with waivers and site insurance at far too many sites. It's not fair, but it's reality. The only way that it can be effectively dealt with is for hang glider pilots to be good representives of the sport by being respectful towards the site owners and engaging in polite conversations with the same. Those individuals who threaten landowners with legal action and exhibit the "nobody is going to stop me from flying" attitude do serious harm.
As far as the org being a "gatekeeper" goes, the org doesn't control any flying sites. Flying sites are only controlled by the land owners and the local groups/clubs. They are the ones who make any decisions about who can fly there.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404355
Mike,
Frank is only telling one part of the story, the same small part that you are, merely to make the point of his and the rest of you who seemingly have a need to disassemble the ushpa, seemingly because you don't like the dues. There is no such thing as free flight when it comes to protecting it. So when Frank indicated that we don't know what we are talking about by ending his post with "duh," it's merely a similar statement that I made back to him, only his was more guttural. So I ask, who is it that deep down believes their point is without merit?
The political and legal environments have changed drastically since even the eighties and nineties. Certainly not for the better. Our sports have to be able to maneuver and protect their existence if we are to retain our flying sites. How are we to retain any flying site if we do not regulate our own sport?


There are thousands of accounts where industry and businesses have been saved the court processes by being well protected by teams of attorneys. When a plaintiff asks an attorney for advice in the possibility of bringing charges against an entity for wrong-doing, or product liabilities, etc., if the target is known to be well protected by a law firm or a group of attorneys on retainer, most potential attacks are be thwarted before any move is taken by an outside attorney. The ushpa has kind of protection already set up as far as I'm aware of. And they have also record of successful defense that helps create a legal buffer surrounding those sites and the owners of the sites. It is my understanding that we already have a legal defense system in place with the ushpa. Perhaps Mark can expound upon this.

Perhaps the ushpa is not as perfect as many of us would wish, but to try to disassemble our only protection is reckless and irresponsible.
Perhaps back in the day there was such a thing as 'free flight,' but that has long been done away with, with the advent of a larger population, steeply rising property values, over-abundance of legal help, and people demanding the 'justice' they envision as their right regardless of the laws.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404356
Submitted by Bob Hawk on August 11, 2018 - 3:12pm.

Logan speaks the truth, but Ben Reese just speaks to obfuscate it. Ben attacks the person rather than addressing the issues.

The fundamental question here is whether the private organization known has USHPA should be the gatekeeper to our public recreational sites. Ben says "yes" and Logan says "no". Logan is right.

The issue becomes clear with a few thoughtful questions. For example, would it be appropriate for the National Park Service to require KKK membership for citizens to use our parks? Would it be appropriate for the NPS to require membership in "Antifa" to use our parks?

The answer is clearly "no" in both cases because those private organizations can have membership standards and/or goals inconsistent with the public's right to use public land.

So what about USHPA? Does USHPA have membership standards inconsistent with the public's right to use public land? Yes. It does.

USHPA has enforced membership "standards" which exclude citizens for things like:

- Testimony in a court of law

- Speaking at City Council meetings

- Creating competing associations

When USHPA bars membership on those grounds they move from being an objective rating organization into the territory of the KKK. That's what they've done. They have made themselves - by their own documented actions - incompatible with public use of public land. Logan sees this very clearly, but Ben Reese is trying to cover it up.

As a side note, it's been a year now since the County of Los Angeles has removed their USHPA requirement after seeing how USHPA retaliated against me for my expert witness testimony in a court case where a young woman was injured. There has been similar action in Ed Levin park (near San Francisco) and the Utah State Parks system. USHPA's KKK-like behavior is being recognized and rejected. I trust the NPS will recognize this in due course despite the vocal protests of USHPA loyalists like Ben Reese.
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2 ... hip?page=2

Kinda sad how Bob has devalued the position of those who feel the overwhelming desire to rid flying sites of the ushpa. Comparing the ushpa to the kkk, antifa? Come on. Some of what Bob has said in the past makes some sense, but much of the time he runs right off the cliff, full tilt, without any real desire to truly change things for the better, with most of you following close behind. All without any wings. This cliff is too high to recover from. :crazy:
User avatar
By DMarley
#404358
Re: Heroes in Hang Gliding: Frank Colver

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:25 am

Rick Masters wrote:

Why is hang gliding somehow the only sport that's put the noose of insurance around its own neck?


Nah. Nobody could be that dumb.


:srofl:

Paul H wrote:
I didn't criticize your idea, I just pointed out that expecting someone else to take action on it won't work.


Isn't that criticism?

Paul H wrote:
Every state has laws that supposedly protect landowners when they let people use their land for recreation, but too many land owners don't know about them ...


Maybe Paul spaced out when he skimmed over this part:

Frank wrote:
Inform members on the recreational liability laws of the states. Hold on line workshops on how local flyers can approach a public agency or a private landowner on requesting to fly on the property without insurance.


So Frank is suggesting that USHPA hold on line workshops to help pilots inform land owners about recreational use statutes. But Paul says it won't work because too many land owners don't know about recreational land use statutes.

Paul's illogical comments shed light on how the sport of hang gliding got that noose around its neck in the first place.
http://www.namelessforum.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 5401119db8
Ah, the forum that pats everyone on the backs of those who are trying to destroy the ushpa. I'm so honored to be referenced in their little forum (in a previous post to this)

(probably shouldn't have posted that forum's garbage, as it is just that)

It's just too bad that these 'pilots' don't expose the whole truth about the law and how landowners are subject to it's whims. Undoubtedly, they understand the law, but they have an agenda to pursue, so the truth will be merely swept under the rug. How convenient for them.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404359
Kinda sad.....
I attempted to log into my account on u s hawks merely to say a few positive words in attempts to smooth things over. Well, Bob must have put a posting-block on my account, even though I was able to log in.
Just another example of the one-sided-ness of Bob? You'd think he'd want to have intelligent conversations, but any words that are not in full agreement with Bob's are to be redacted and prevented. Too bad.

At one time I thought Bob was an ok kind of person, merely miss-understood. And unconventional in his actions. Well, perhaps I was mistaken. He had the perfect position within the ushpa to effect positive change toward his vision. But he couldn't control himself and blew any meaningful chance completely away. At least that is how it is presented in many, many discussions. Too many to be untrue. And always with the same gist.

All one need do to see all this is to peruse his forum as of late, and one will taste the rancid toxicity. It's not a place of debate as this forum is. It is a place of complete disregard for anything that is not in complete and utter agreement with Bob.

I need a shower.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404360
// "Rather than just criticize ideas, please do what you can." //

Paul H wrote:
// "I didn't criticize your idea, I just pointed out that expecting someone else to take action on it won't work." //

// "Isn't that criticism?" //

Not of the idea. Reading comprehension?

JB
Last edited by BubbleBoy on Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404361
Re: Heroes in Hang Gliding: Frank Colver

Post by Bob » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:38 am

DMarley seems to have a hard time understanding analogies. My point is that a public agency cannot on one hand claim that their parks are open to everyone, and on the other hand require membership in a racist organization to use public parks.
Wow. Taking play by play actions from Alinsky's book of terrorism.
Racist? Now the ushpa is racist? Wow, that's a BIG leap off that cliff. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. You did so well in the NPS Traveler posts, and you continue to publicly shape yourself into the bad-guy of HG. Why do you do this? Can you not help yourself?

By comparing the ushpa to the kkk and antifa, and now you describe it as racist, you are merely showing everyone how desperate you are and your disdain for the truth, and are barely treading water in the pool of your own making. Anyone who would step so low and state the things you have is certainly not trustworthy. Anyone who doesn't see this behavior for what it is and follows you in your footsteps are blinded to the truth and just as untrustworthy.
Last edited by DMarley on Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404363
USHPA's position seems to be that they protect landowners because they have insurance. Period. I have insurance yet we cant seem to find a way to play together. If this is really about protecting the landowner and flying sports, why is that? Why is USHPA so concerned about competing organizations and responsible independant pilots? The actions and stated purpose simply do not align. You seem to act like the biggest threat to flying is liability yet refuse to acknowledge your own arrogant stench. Your clubs basic unwillingness to engage in basic conversation is why you lost Utah, it is why I am working the parks. You quite simply do not own hang gliding. You are not the savior and authority you claim to be. You are a private club that has managed to destroy the freedom in free flight simply to preserve your ego. You advertise protecting land and landowners via insurance while creating fear of liability. You don't want pilots to be responsible, you want us to follow your orders....... That isn't freedom.
Last edited by LoganR on Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By joefaust
#404365
A different R word has been used: "repugnant".
Repugnant for:
1. Non-transparency
2. Expelling excellent pilots who are safe in conduct for causes that go against what is good in US concerning fair trade and fair competition and good citizenship.
3. For very poor facing of the meaning of PDMC.
4. For letting a non-HG soaring parachute culture snuff HG assets and culture.
Call: every HG pilot .... aim to form a HG-only national org. Exit your $ all at once; spread the word. Depend on states' recreational statues. Insist that a private corporation that is operating in a repugnant manner not be permitted any longer to damage recreational hang gliding.
By USHPA7
#404366
Please everyone go back and reread my first post on this thread. I've been accused of disassembling USHPA or of attacking USHPA, I did nothing of the sort!

I listed two things that USHPA needs to do to protect the future of HG & PG in this country.

I didn't say get rid of insurance I said make it available to anyone as a purchase policy without the gatekeeping policies of a private club membership. I'll add to that, requiring membership in a private club, for recreation on tax payer supported public property, is to me very un-American.

The second thing was for USHPA to inform people on the recreational use liability laws of the states, many of which protect the landowner. To instruct, by internet workshops, on how pilots could approach landowners to inform them about their liability protections. And for USHPA to lead the effort to get as many sites not requiring insurance as possible.

So far nobody has come up with a legitimate argument against either of these suggestions. I suggest we don't waste any more of our precious time, pissing around, until somebody has a good reason why these two suggestions are not workable. I say there is no good argument against what I have proposed!

I would suggest some more reading comprehension to the person who suggested it to me. You obviously didn't understand some of what I wrote.

The current situation is not sustainable. As soon as the RRRG goes bankrupt from a massive lawsuit(s) we are all kicked off our insurance required sites. The only protection we have for the future of these flying sports is to have as many good non-insurance sites as possible. I reiterate: USHPA should be leading this effort to get insurance and flying sites disconnected, to sustain the future of free flight.

BTW - The person who came back that I should be taking action myself - I did, by identifying two changes that need to be made in USHPA's policies. What have you done to improve the situation? If I had the power to act beyond that, I would leap to the opportunity. If you know how I can act to implement these needed changes please tell me how?

Frank #notattackingushpabutrequestingneededchange
User avatar
By red
#404368
USHPA7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:29 pm
I listed two things that USHPA needs to do to protect the future of HG & PG in this country.
So far nobody has come up with a legitimate argument against either of these suggestions.
Campers,

YEAH! . . . What he said! . . . . . . Frank has really said it straight!

Please notice his user name, one and all. That is Frank Colver talking. Colver Varios!
He has the standing, and the right!
.
User avatar
By joefaust
#404369
Yes, Red, Frank has two great suggestions. Thanks, Frank.

Yet there is a third thing that org could do to protect hang gliding: quit PG or as an alternative: disallow HG as an impetus for HG to form a single-focus HG national recreation org; too many HGs are too comfortable in the suicidal culture that is the u$hPa The pattern in place is hurting recreational hang gliding. Time for core change! Implement Frank's suggestions, but consider an enduring home for recreational HGs. (RHG)
User avatar
By Paul H
#404371
LoganR wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:29 pm
USHPA's position seems to be that they protect landowners because they have insurance. Period. I have insurance yet we cant seem to find a way to play together. If this is really about protecting the landowner and flying sports, why is that? Why is USHPA so concerned about competing organizations and responsible independant pilots? The actions and stated purpose simply do not align. You seem to act like the biggest threat to flying is liability yet refuse to acknowledge your own arrogant stench. Your clubs basic unwillingness to engage in basic conversation is why you lost Utah, it is why I am working the parks. You quite simply do not own hang gliding. You are not the savior and authority you claim to be. You are a private club that has managed to destroy the freedom in free flight simply to preserve your ego. You advertise protecting land and landowners via insurance while creating fear of liability. You don't want pilots to be responsible, you want us to follow your orders....... That isn't freedom.
Competing organizations is a very bad idea. Hang gliding is too small to have groups competing with each other, especially when some of them seem to be only concerned with tearing down the rest. Cooperative efforts are the way to go.
Your actions come across as self-serving and calling out the USHPA membership, the YOU that you claim is destroying freedom, makes that very clear.
User avatar
By Paul H
#404372
USHPA7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:29 pm
Please everyone go back and reread my first post on this thread. I've been accused of disassembling USHPA or of attacking USHPA, I did nothing of the sort!

I listed two things that USHPA needs to do to protect the future of HG & PG in this country.

I didn't say get rid of insurance I said make it available to anyone as a purchase policy without the gatekeeping policies of a private club membership. I'll add to that, requiring membership in a private club, for recreation on tax payer supported public property, is to me very un-American.

The second thing was for USHPA to inform people on the recreational use liability laws of the states, many of which protect the landowner. To instruct, by internet workshops, on how pilots could approach landowners to inform them about their liability protections. And for USHPA to lead the effort to get as many sites not requiring insurance as possible.

So far nobody has come up with a legitimate argument against either of these suggestions. I suggest we don't waste any more of our precious time, pissing around, until somebody has a good reason why these two suggestions are not workable. I say there is no good argument against what I have proposed!

I would suggest some more reading comprehension to the person who suggested it to me. You obviously didn't understand some of what I wrote.

The current situation is not sustainable. As soon as the RRRG goes bankrupt from a massive lawsuit(s) we are all kicked off our insurance required sites. The only protection we have for the future of these flying sports is to have as many good non-insurance sites as possible. I reiterate: USHPA should be leading this effort to get insurance and flying sites disconnected, to sustain the future of free flight.

BTW - The person who came back that I should be taking action myself - I did, by identifying two changes that need to be made in USHPA's policies. What have you done to improve the situation? If I had the power to act beyond that, I would leap to the opportunity. If you know how I can act to implement these needed changes please tell me how?

Frank #notattackingushpabutrequestingneededchange

Who made an argument against informing people about the recreational use laws? The idea of informing land owners about them is not new and has been an ongoing thing for a long time. It’s not easy to educate the public and some landowners are rightfully skeptical about the protections those laws offer.
Allowing non-members to purchase insurance is a different story. There is definitely a down side to that. You claim the RRRG is going to go bankrupt. What do you think would happen if any person off the street claiming to be a hang glider pilot buys insurance and then goes out and has an incident? That would be chum in the legal waters for lawyers.
The training and ratings structure of the org gives the members some legitimacy when it comes to dealing with the issues of safety and qualifications. Those are some of the things that lawyers go after when there are injuries and damage.
User avatar
By Paul H
#404373
joefaust wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:08 pm
Yes, Red, Frank has two great suggestions. Thanks, Frank.

Yet there is a third thing that org could do to protect hang gliding: quit PG or as an alternative: disallow HG as an impetus for HG to form a single-focus HG national recreation org; too many HGs are too comfortable in the suicidal culture that is the u$hPa The pattern in place is hurting recreational hang gliding. Time for core change! Implement Frank's suggestions, but consider an enduring home for recreational HGs. (RHG)
The only suicidal culture is the old and old-thinking hang glider pilots who sat back complacently watching as hang gliding was slowly disappearing. The thinking that things would always be the same and not taking action to insure the continued existence of the sport was just plain stupid.
The inclusion of PG’s was something that I wasn’t exactly comfortable with, but I understood the reasoning behind it. New blood was necessary to bring back the enthusiasm that hang gliding once had and combining the resources of both helped both. We fly the same places in the same air and most of the issues we deal with are the same.
Cooperation is the key to a small group surviving and we are a small group.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 17
Snowy peaks at Villa, everyone soared

... Great to see Villa Grove with autumn scenery a[…]

I tried to run the Python script but it only gener[…]

Merely theorizing here, again... (beware of specul[…]

Burning Desire to Fly on Friday

Wow, those guys get in close with their big birds.[…]