Donations

[Busto]

Up to this point the narrative has been straight forward. If we gather the money... sites are open for business. If we do not get the money gathered by the due date... most sites are legally non flyable. Financially we haven't been misled or persuaded down a road, which is farfetched... USHGA has been pretty straight forward.

It's skiing season... go and get a ticket for a weekend... Ouch! If you like skiing... you'll pay the price. The money, which USHGA is asking for seems desperately reasonable. An Extra $100.00 from each pilot to keep flying alive is nothing.

[OP]

Troll food for Bob:

Why did USHPA organize an RRG and not a mutual?

Simplicity. Mutuals are regulated at another level not appropriate for our small group. Captives are similarly complex tax avoidance self insurance.

Conspiracy theory: Bob is actually the secret 100K challenge donor. He going to use it to exercise final control of USHPA.

[magicpotato]

I don't get it, Bob. You use USHPA rated sites, you like to fly, and you don't want to contribute to something that serves you (like it or not, those sites didn't come without hard work). Why not find your own hill that you require a US Hawk rating to fly off of and see how well it works out? It's pretty clear most of us are siding with USHPA, so why try to convince us otherwise when you make it sound like there is a grand alternative? Please, show us its done. If I saw a group of people building a boat that obviously wasn't going to float, I would make my own raft.

[Jim]

So the free rides are now taken, although, I count eleven, including Dan. And Dan, you are welcome to a ride anytime you decide to come out, flying or not.

So the list now stands at Rob Burgis, Ron Keinan, Jonathan Dietch, Orian, Price, Steve Murillo, Marshall Robin, Ken Manatt, Mike Moacanin, Michael Bastan, Mario Miralles and Dan Barley. My thanks for this small success for flying and let me know when you're coming, guys.

I urge anyone who can to help with whatever they can; it will result in its own reward for all of us.

[Bob Kuczewski]

OP, thanks for the food, but I'd call it food for thought rather than food for a troll.

You can call me names if you like, but I was down at the courthouse today and I heard a "rumor" of two more lawsuits in the pipeline at Torrey (April and December 2015). As I mentioned in the other thread, the details are sketchy, and this is still in the rumor stage, but it does bring up the key question:

"What is USHPA doing differently at places like Torrey to keep them from carelessly bleeding your RRG to death?"

I don't get it, Bob. You use USHPA rated sites, you like to fly, and you don't want to contribute to something that serves you (like it or not, those sites didn't come without hard work). Why not find your own hill that you require a US Hawk rating to fly off of and see how well it works out? It's pretty clear most of us are siding with USHPA, so why try to convince us otherwise when you make it sound like there is a grand alternative? Please, show us its done. If I saw a group of people building a boat that obviously wasn't going to float, I would make my own raft.

Hello magicpotato. I don't fly USHPA rated sites anymore because they expelled me for testifying in a case where a young woman was injured due to gross negligence by the Torrey crew. It wasn't so much that I testified (after all, Dennis Pagen and Marti Devietti also testified), it was that they simply didn't like what I said.

Why am I trying to convince you otherwise? Because I value sites like Sylmar, and I see a trainwreck on the horizon. USHPA is making an emotional appeal: "save hang gliding". That sounds great, and I'd be 100% behind that cause. But they're not trying to save hang gliding. They're trying to save USHPA. They're trying to maintain the stranglehold that they have over our sports. Flying insurance should be like car insurance or homeowner's insurance. You should be able to buy it regardless of what "club" you belong to.

This fiasco is a blessing in disguise if we use it to form a single insurance pool that awards insurance based on a pilot's objective safety record and not based on subjective politics. But if we were to do that, then USHPA would lose the control they have, and they're desperate to cling to that control. That's why they're not offering "ownership" to clubs like Sylmar. That's why they've structured this RRG so only USHPA, the FFF, and a few big schools will control it. Yet they want YOU to help pay for it.

As I said in the other topic, I'm not against pilots pledging money to form an insurance pool - even USHPA's insurance pool. But if you just give money with no strings attached, you're going to get the same result. When a business comes begging for money, you should be getting a share of that business. When a business that's screwed up with money you've already given comes begging for money, you should be getting a share and some control. USHPA is giving neither to the pilots, but instead they're giving it to the schools. I'm sure Mark Forbes and his cronies are having a good time watching the "shmucks" fall all over themselves donating money to the rich schools.

Lastly, since this is all about money. I have estimated that the Torrey concessionaire pulls in between 1/4 and 1/2 million dollars a year - after paying their tandem pilots. How many people donating make that kind of money every year? Yet USHPA is effectively asking the pilots to bail out these schools. I'm sorry, but it makes me sick to see that kind of abuse of our flying community.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, I hope you realize that the more you post things like that, the less persuasive you become.

Or at least that's my personal reaction to reading your posts.

Which is a pity, because you sometimes have a point that I find I could agree with... but then you go and post these sour grapes type posts and it just puts me off.

It's a shame, people might actually listen to you if you didn't do that.

Hello mrobin604,

I've been through a lot of garbage with USHPA, and I apologize if it shows.

The best response I can give is that people should look at the message and not the person delivering it. If the message makes sense, then it should stand on its own.

Unfortunately, that's not the nature of people, and a charismatic presenter can often sway minds against otherwise logical arguments. Rumsfeld said that "you go to war with the army you have."

I'm sorry if my presentation puts you off. But if you find merit in the message, please feel free to rephrase it. I won't be offended.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Up to this point the narrative has been straight forward. If we gather the money... sites are open for business. If we do not get the money gathered by the due date... most sites are legally non flyable.

That's not exactly true. Most states - including California - have recreational use statutes which protect landowners from claims arising from recreational use of their land under common circumstances.

That law should be being used to free up our requirements for insurance at most sites. In fact, as you may know, there is currently no insurance requirement to launch at Sylmar, but there is one to land in your LZ. Why?

The requirement for insurance is a sword hanging over the head of hang gliding. The RRG is no cure. That pot of money - once assembled - will be sitting there attracting lawsuits. It will also be subject to all kinds of mismanagement. The only real long term solution is to put hang gliding on the same basis as other recreational sports which do not have that sword of insurance waiting to drop.

We may have to contribute to an insurance pool now, but there should be a long range plan to wean our sites from that requirement. Do you think that USHPA has such a plan? Do you think that USHPA would use their muscle to help local clubs free themselves of insurance? No. They like the insurance addiction because it gives them a reason to exist. It gives them a captive client base that has very few options. Giving them more money without any strings attached just feeds that monster.

[dhmartens]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voW0RiNTbGI[/youtube]

some quotes from hanggliding.org

Helix3

A number of intelligent pilots I respect express qualms about donating to the
RRG because donations essentially give up one's right to ownership.
That is partially true.
However, consider the context.
The first to know their insurance would not be renewed were those with
commercial school insurance.
USHPA + those affected arrived at the RRG model as a solution.
One commercial school owner with very deep pockets made it clear he wanted
majority controlling interest in the RRG.

USHPA rightly did not think it wise to form an RRG where the majority owner
would be one voice motivated by commercial interests.
This is why USHPA (a democratic organization with representatives elected by
the membership) is seeking donations from members so the donations can be
pooled under USHPA's name resulting in USHPA remaining the majority owner (aka
decision-maker) of the RRG.
One individual pilot (even all the chapter clubs combined) cannot come up with
enough capital to supercede that one commercial school owner's contribution.

Donations to USHPA are the only viable way to insure the RRG is not run by a
single commercially-motivated business owner.


Read more: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?

t=33827&highlight=#ixzz3vMs9pdyt

mgforbes

We did discuss whether a single school could bankroll the RRG to the point
where it would have control of its operations. We did not name specific cases,
and I don't recall any talk of KHK "taking over" the RRG. What we decided was
that schools could buy in as owners up to $100,000. That would allow schools to
make substantial investments, but not give any one school a controlling
interest which theoretically could be used to the detriment of other schools or
USHPA. We felt that sharing out the risk among multiple owners makes far more
sense.

MGF

Read more: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?

t=33827&highlight=#ixzz3vMrNqJcW

My Note: KHK = Kitty Hawk Kites.

---------
joefaust wrote:
Mark, a simple question was posed. Yes or no on he queston.
You skirt the question.
You want to silence query.
Will the open independent non-USHPA HGPilot have an equitable buyin to the

proposed RRG?

mgforbes
No. The entities which can be insured by the RRG are USHPA, the Foundation for

Free Flight, the Professional Air Sports Association and individual flight
schools. If you are one of those things, then you can purchase an equity stake
in the RRG (subject to meeting underwriting requirements, etc.) and negotiate
an insurance policy and premium payment. The RRG can insure only its owners
under federal law. It cannot write individual policies for pilots.
If a pilot wants to be insured by our captive insurer, then they need to be a
member of our association. That's how captive insurance works. USHPA covers
pilots and instructors (non-commercial). PASA covers instructors and schools
(commercial). Larger schools can negotiate directly with the RRG and purchase
policies tailored to their particular needs and risk profile.
In the future, if some other entity forms and needs the kind of insurance that
the RRG can provide, and it meets the underwriting standards, and it is
approved by all of the existing owners, and its interests and activities are
aligned with those of the RRG and its owners, then that entity may be able to
join the RRG as an owner and obtain insurance through it. That's a lot of
"ifs", and at present I see no other organized entity out there that would be
such a prospect. I won't say it can't happen though, but it's not likely any
time soon, if at all.

Thanks for asking a simple, answerable question.

MGF

Read more: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?

t=33782&highlight=#ixzz3vMt8iTic
------------
One question I have is after 10 years of paying in to the RRG and we have zero claims, who decides how much dividend is payed back to the pilot shareholders(recreational policy)? will USHPA keep it all and use it to promote paragliding only?

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'll probably alienate the remaining few people who might still see my point, but I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I saw him speak in person in 1984 (San Diego), and I stood in a long line to pass by his casket at the Reagan library when he was laid to rest (Simi Valley).

Thanks for the quote Doug.