More information about USHPA's plans for the RRG

[mrobin604]

This is from Mark Forbes' post to hg.org. I had some concerns about the capital reserves of the RRG being wiped out by a single huge award, but they are addressed pretty well here:

(I know this is futile, but I'd like to ask BobK to refrain from turning this into a political thread... I'm just trying to post information about the plans for the RRG here)

1) Every tandem student is required to be a member of USHPA with a signed waiver. 30-day or full member, must have signed the waiver. We're implementing an online electronic waiver system, but it's not quite done yet. If the student is not a member with a waiver, there is NO INSURANCE COVERAGE. If a paid instructor is not affiliated with a certified school, there will be NO INSURANCE COVERAGE under the RRG.

2) The waiver says that you won't sue anybody over a HG/PG injury, no matter what the reason, no matter who's at fault. It also says that you agree to pay all costs for defense if you violate that promise.

3) Our insurers to date have not been very assertive about using our waiver for defense. I've gone into their reasons elsewhere in the FAQ, but it boils down to having different motivations than we do.

4) The RRG will cover the first $250,000 of a claim. It is purchasing a reinsurance contract that will cover the remainder of a claim up to the $1 million level, should expenses and settlement come to that. We've only seen a few claims in our entire history that broke the $250K threshold. It would take multiple policy-limiting claims in a single year to drive the RRG under.

[Bob Kuczewski]

No politics ... just information.

We've started gathering Recreational Use Statutes from various states here:

http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2236

So far, Scott has posted New York, Bill has posted New Mexico, I've posted California, and Rick has posted Alaska and Utah. Much of the wording is almost identical, and I'm guessing almost every state has such laws. As an observation (draw your own conclusions) USHPA has not been active in promoting the use of these laws over the insurance that they sell and control.

2) The waiver says that you won't sue anybody over a HG/PG injury, no matter what the reason, no matter who's at fault. It also says that you agree to pay all costs for defense if you violate that promise.

I didn't know much about waivers prior to the Hamby case, but I now know that waivers can protect against negligence, but not gross negligence. If you read enough waivers, you'll find some that have you sign away your rights even if you are intentionally injured. That reads like a license to murder, but that doesn't hold up under law. Gross negligence falls in that category.

3) Our insurers to date have not been very assertive about using our waiver for defense. I've gone into their reasons elsewhere in the FAQ, but it boils down to having different motivations than we do.

I've also heard this, but I find it hard to believe. Insurers are in the business of collecting money and not paying it out if at all possible. They know what they're doing far more than an amateur like Mark Forbes does. They also know when they're throwing good money after bad on a gross negligence case that they're going to lose. The only way to lose more money than settling a case is to spend a lot of money fighting it and still lose. Of course Tim Herr doesn't mind.

[dhmartens]

I think somewhere MGF posted that the "Recreational Use Statutes" don't stop lawyers from filing expensive lawsuits anyway. Somehow Europe Recreational Use Statutes that actually work.

This video explains why the RRG lawyers will fight harder and send a message to lawyers that suing a crossfitter is a "waste of time"
https://crossfitrrg.com/what-is-rrg


United Educators RRG has defended a client all the way to the Supreme Court
https://youtu.be/-C_HRAF2DZ8?t=6m56s


Somehow California in 2009 kept an RRG from entering the State.

RRG DEFEATED BY STATE ECONOMIC POWER

Despite victories in court, AD-RRG was defeated by California's deeper pockets
http://www.roughnotes.com/rnmagazine/20 ... 02p066.htm

[JD]

I think somewhere MGF posted that the "Recreational Use Statutes" don't stop lawyers from filing expensive lawsuits anyway. Somehow Europe Recreational Use Statutes that actually work....

Nothing stops lawyers better than the threat of having to pay all the legal fees of the defendant if they lose.

I found a well-researched paper about the realities of recreational use statutes and apparently the biggest issue is convincing private landowners that the statues really do protect them. My guess is that it's a lot easier to just show up and say, "I have $1mil in liability insurance plus an iron-clad liability waiver" than it is to show up and say, "Please let our club use your private land free of charge and you will be protected by these recreational use statutes...."

There's more to it of course. The private landowner is not protected if they charge a fee for land use or even ask for a voluntary donation. They may not be protected if there are hazards on their land that could foreseeably injure a participant engaging in a permitted activity.

My read on the creation of the recreational use statutes is that it is intended to help the lobbying landowners save money on stopping trespassers from accessing their property without their permission. It costs money to clean up hazards that can injure trespassers and attractive property can create an attractive nuisance that invites trespassing. Frequently this means hunting or fishing and hunters get injured. Haven't we all seen the funny videos of the drunken hunters shooting one another. Maybe I was thinking of Dick Cheney or was that the last part of Monty Python's Upper Class Twit of the Year episode?

Nearly every time I fly X/C and land out I engage in unintended trespassing. Telling the land owner or property manager that they are protected by recreational use statutes does little to allay their speed-dialing of the local sheriff. However, informing the land owner that I have $1mil in liability insurance and that I had to waive all of my rights to sue for injury in order to get that coverage carries a lot of sway.

[JD]

Here is the above-referenced research paper:
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/RFF_ ... RFrank.pdf

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think somewhere MGF posted that the "Recreational Use Statutes" don't stop lawyers from filing expensive lawsuits anyway.

Of course Mark Forbes will say that. Insurance it the "felicium" of our sport, and it's what gives USHPA the control over who can fly and who can't. That's why they won't open the RRG to non-USHPA competitors like the US Hawks. It's not about protecting the sport. It's about protecting USHPA.

Nothing stops lawyers better than the threat of having to pay all the legal fees of the defendant if they lose.

The first question lawyers ask about a case is "Where does the payoff come from?". It's the deep pockets of the insurance and/or an RRG that fuels frivolous litigation. If you don't like litigation ... don't feed it.

The Recreational Use statutes are something that USHPA won't push because it undermines their monopoly.

[JD]

....The Recreational Use statutes are something that USHPA won't push because it undermines their monopoly.

What's great about the recreational use statutes Bob, is that you are now free to fly anywhere you like with no liability insurance or financial responsibility whatsoever. You don't even need a liability waiver or reserve parachute for that matter. Just go fly wherever you please, anytime you like. In fact you don't even need a USHPA rating, training or a certified glider of any kind for that matter thanks to both the recreational use statutes plus the hands-off regulations written by the FAA. Go have fun Bob then let us all know how it went. There is no monopoly stopping you from exercising your freedoms. The law is clearly 100% on your side.

[mrobin604]

Bob... no politics, remember? Start your own thread (in the political forum)...

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is from Mark Forbes' post to hg.org.
.
.
3) Our insurers to date have not been very assertive about using our waiver for defense. I've gone into their reasons elsewhere in the FAQ, but it boils down to having different motivations than we do.

That's a political statement in your opening post. Mark Forbes is tearing down the people who've insured the sport of hang gliding for decades. He's also questioning whether their motivations are aligned with ours as pilots.

Don't you think it's fair to question Mark Forbes' motivations as well? Or is it only "politics" when you don't like it?

I'll ask again why USHPA has structured this to benefit "investors" at the direct cost to pilots? You're donating your money to USHPA so USHPA can turn around and charge you to be insured by your own money (that's not yours any more because you've DONATED it). Every dollar you give goes right into the pocket of the OWNERS. That's why I've been urging Sylmar and all other clubs to pool your money to become OWNERS rather than DONORS.

That's notl "politics". That's just rational economics.

[r8pistol]

good read

http://airthug.com/why-rrg-will-succeed ... ce-failed/

[Bob Kuczewski]

good read

http://airthug.com/why-rrg-will-succeed ... ce-failed/

I read Ryan's entire article, and it's full of hogwash.

Insurance companies are all about doing the math on their profit. Ryan and USHPA are floating the notion that Tim Herr will somehow do a better job of protecting our money than the people who've been playing in the big leagues before Tim was born. What Ryan is really saying is that USHPA will fund Tim Herr's retirement by spending good money after bad on cases that he won't win. Watch and see.

USHPA also floats the lie that they're going to do better at "watching each other". In 2010 I reported an incident very similar to what caused the Hamby crash. When the Hamby suit was settled in 2015 for an undisclosed (ie large) amount of money, did USHPA come meekly back to me with an apology for having been bitten by ignoring my report? No, less than a year ago they expelled the one person who had the sense and guts to report what was going on there. That's a direct contradiction to Ryan's claim that USHPA will magically do a better job. Furthermore, that "kangaroo court" expulsion sent exactly the opposite message - speak up and you'll get what Bob got.

The Torrey case is the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to how USHPA handles safety and insurance.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Jim]

For those of you who don't like to click on links and weren't able to make it out when Martin Palmaz and Paul Murdoch visited, here's the article R8PISTOL is referencing:

"Jan 18,016, by Ryan Voight

Why RRG Will Succeed Where Past Insurance Failed

First, the background- extremely abbreviated- hang gliding and paragliding is an inherently risky activity. While it is also something we can do quite safely through proper training and diligence, the risk potential is always there. For this reason, among others, the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA) has provided 3rd party liability insurance to all members. This insurance is a necessary level of protection because most of the places we fly, we would be considered a liability to landowners and anyone nearby.

Recently, the provider of our insurance policy issued a notice of non-renewal, leaving us looking for a solution to a potentially VERY big problem. There are a number of reasons for discontinuing our coverage, but let’s keep it simple and say that it was either too costly or at least not profitable enough to the insurance provider to insure us. The insurance provider USHPA has been using was actually the *ONLY* provider willing to insure them… which complicates things further- when the last bar in town closes, where do you go to get a drink?

Home! USHPA has considered self-insuring for quite a while, but the capital necessary to get that started is large… and the formation of such a thing wasn’t quite worth not just going with the insurance we had. With the notice of non-renewal, this has changed. It’s still a big amount of money, and a big pain in the butt honestly, BUT this will be much, much better for us if we pull it off…

For more information about the plan to self-insure by forming a Risk Retention Group (“RRG�), USHPA’s site has good info and FAQ’s HERE:
http://ushpa.aero/freeflightforever.asp

A question I am hearing often, and I would like to address: Why will the new RRG insurance be successful when our past insurance failed??? This is a great question, and something we should all logically be asking before investing our money into the RRG fundraiser. I haven’t seen a DETAILED answer to that question- and I think it’s holding a lot of people back from financially supporting this- so let’s answer it right here and now!

First, we have to understand that our past insurance was a bit difference from what you might purchase from Allstate or State Farm… it’s much more akin to stocks in the stock market actually. A group of rich blokes would “invest� (buy in) to fund our policy, in hopes of turning a profit on us. As with most investments, the higher the risk of losses, the higher the possible profit needs to be to attract investors. Insuring hang gliding and paragliding is a big risk of an investment, which means that policy we’ve had came at a very expensive premium. But if that’s the case, how could the insurance company still be losing money… and why would they choose we’re not worth the bother, rather than just raising our premium more?

I believe the answer lies in understanding how that insurance was structured- like stocks in the stock market, with the insurance company acting a bit like a stock broker. If you were to going to try to make money by purchasing stocks… you would probably want to check on how your stocks are doing once in a while (if not very frequently), right? And if you called your broker to ask, and they said “I don’t know�… how likely would you be to continue doing business with them? I wouldn’t either.

In the case of our insurance, claims and law suits can take time- often many years- to litigate. To an investor or their “broker�, litigating is equivalent to not having a read on how the investment is doing. In order to keep their investor’s balance sheets tidy, the broker (our insurance company) has been very keen to settle just about everything that has come up. Taking a case all the way to trial is costly and time consuming, and there’s always that chance- no matter how small- of losing in court. Settling is quick and definitive.

Insurance companies are very good at weighing the “cost� of fighting a case all the way to trial, putting a dollar amount to it, and settling for less than that amount. BUT- understanding how our insurance was structured, we can see they put a high value on wrapping things up quickly… something USHPA is not so concerned with. We can also see they put a high value on the sure-thing of settling, where as USHPA- being much more knowledgeable about our policies, flying, and probably the details of the case- might be much more confident in taking a case to trial.

So… Perhaps you are starting to see why it WAS economically best for the insurance company to settle, and yet it can be economically best for us to fight (because we have different values than the insurance “broker� and their fat-cat investors they answer to).

There is also a cascade effect to think about- the insurance company doesn’t really care how many claims are filed against their clients, do they? More law suits against is like job security for an insurance company. And they don’t really care about the settlement money, because that’s just an expense of doing business to them- and they pass it on to their clients in the way they price their premiums. Lawyers know all this… so insurance companies are great targets to go after, because they’re likely to settle. What’s more, giving out money attracts others who want their settlement, too!

Ok, so mostly I’ve just talked about why our past insurance failed… and mentioned some ways the RRG will be different. I haven’t overtly answered the question yet though- WHY WILL THE RRG SUCCEED IF THE PAST INSURANCE FAILED?
•A Risk Retention Group is not the same as an insurance company. Money grubbing vulture lawyers know this. Filing a suit against USHPA (or a USHPA insured pilot, land owner, or instructor) is to go after OUR money. We- the people of USHPA- have worked hard to earn that money, and have chosen to put it toward the RRG because the future of free flight is very important to us. We will NOT be handing this money out. You want what’s ours? Prepare to fight. No, prepare to BATTLE. You come after us, we go to war.
•After reading the above, does that sound like something lawyers want to invest their own time and money into pursuing… where they make little or nothing if they don’t secure any funds for their clients??? Exactly.
•Also, USHPA and this RRG are committed to the never-ending existence of hang gliding and paragliding. Do we care if a suit takes two years, three years, hell- twenty years? Nah. Do money grubbers want to play a long game attempting to collect, or are they hoping to settle and walk with cash in their pockets NOW?
•The last, and possibly most important, reason I’m confident in the RRG’s success… is because of the increased awareness this debacle has triggered. In the past, many had the attitude the insurance wasn’t important, or yea right we’ll never lose our insurance, or yea that guy’s doing something stupid but that’s his problem not mine. I think a lot more of the USHPA membership have come to realize just how important the insurance is to keeping our sports alive… and how frail it can be if we’re not diligent. We are LITERALLY a self-regulating group… and that does not mean we each regulate our self… that means we regulate each other. If I see someone about to do something that’s likely to hurt them, or someone else, it’s my duty to speak up and help them do better. If I allow them to create a legal liability for us, I’m giving away my money, your money, OUR money… and that’s not OK!

I’m confident the RRG will be successful even though our past insurance failed because an RRG is different than insurance, because we are different than insurance brokers and rich profiteering investors, and because we are more aware now than ever before.

I’d like to wrap this up by saying THANK YOU to anyone that read this whole thing. Investing the time and effort to better understand what’s up is a great step… but it’s not enough. The RRG will only come to be with the contribution and financial support of those that benefit- all of us! It is my hope that better understanding this will help those with reservations thus far see why this is a worthy and reliable investment. And I would like to thank everyone that has supported the RRG already- big or small- I look forward to flying with you for many years ahead!"

[Jim]

For those of you who don't like to click on links and weren't able to make it out when Martin Palmaz and Paul Murdoch visited, here's the article R8PISTOL is referencing:

"Jan 18,016, by Ryan Voight

Why RRG Will Succeed Where Past Insurance Failed

First, the background- extremely abbreviated- hang gliding and paragliding is an inherently risky activity. While it is also something we can do quite safely through proper training and diligence, the risk potential is always there. For this reason, among others, the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA) has provided 3rd party liability insurance to all members. This insurance is a necessary level of protection because most of the places we fly, we would be considered a liability to landowners and anyone nearby.

Recently, the provider of our insurance policy issued a notice of non-renewal, leaving us looking for a solution to a potentially VERY big problem. There are a number of reasons for discontinuing our coverage, but let’s keep it simple and say that it was either too costly or at least not profitable enough to the insurance provider to insure us. The insurance provider USHPA has been using was actually the *ONLY* provider willing to insure them… which complicates things further- when the last bar in town closes, where do you go to get a drink?

Home! USHPA has considered self-insuring for quite a while, but the capital necessary to get that started is large… and the formation of such a thing wasn’t quite worth not just going with the insurance we had. With the notice of non-renewal, this has changed. It’s still a big amount of money, and a big pain in the butt honestly, BUT this will be much, much better for us if we pull it off…

For more information about the plan to self-insure by forming a Risk Retention Group (“RRG�), USHPA’s site has good info and FAQ’s HERE:
http://ushpa.aero/freeflightforever.asp

A question I am hearing often, and I would like to address: Why will the new RRG insurance be successful when our past insurance failed??? This is a great question, and something we should all logically be asking before investing our money into the RRG fundraiser. I haven’t seen a DETAILED answer to that question- and I think it’s holding a lot of people back from financially supporting this- so let’s answer it right here and now!

First, we have to understand that our past insurance was a bit difference from what you might purchase from Allstate or State Farm… it’s much more akin to stocks in the stock market actually. A group of rich blokes would “invest� (buy in) to fund our policy, in hopes of turning a profit on us. As with most investments, the higher the risk of losses, the higher the possible profit needs to be to attract investors. Insuring hang gliding and paragliding is a big risk of an investment, which means that policy we’ve had came at a very expensive premium. But if that’s the case, how could the insurance company still be losing money… and why would they choose we’re not worth the bother, rather than just raising our premium more?

I believe the answer lies in understanding how that insurance was structured- like stocks in the stock market, with the insurance company acting a bit like a stock broker. If you were to going to try to make money by purchasing stocks… you would probably want to check on how your stocks are doing once in a while (if not very frequently), right? And if you called your broker to ask, and they said “I don’t know�… how likely would you be to continue doing business with them? I wouldn’t either.

In the case of our insurance, claims and law suits can take time- often many years- to litigate. To an investor or their “broker�, litigating is equivalent to not having a read on how the investment is doing. In order to keep their investor’s balance sheets tidy, the broker (our insurance company) has been very keen to settle just about everything that has come up. Taking a case all the way to trial is costly and time consuming, and there’s always that chance- no matter how small- of losing in court. Settling is quick and definitive.

Insurance companies are very good at weighing the “cost� of fighting a case all the way to trial, putting a dollar amount to it, and settling for less than that amount. BUT- understanding how our insurance was structured, we can see they put a high value on wrapping things up quickly… something USHPA is not so concerned with. We can also see they put a high value on the sure-thing of settling, where as USHPA- being much more knowledgeable about our policies, flying, and probably the details of the case- might be much more confident in taking a case to trial.

So… Perhaps you are starting to see why it WAS economically best for the insurance company to settle, and yet it can be economically best for us to fight (because we have different values than the insurance “broker� and their fat-cat investors they answer to).

There is also a cascade effect to think about- the insurance company doesn’t really care how many claims are filed against their clients, do they? More law suits against is like job security for an insurance company. And they don’t really care about the settlement money, because that’s just an expense of doing business to them- and they pass it on to their clients in the way they price their premiums. Lawyers know all this… so insurance companies are great targets to go after, because they’re likely to settle. What’s more, giving out money attracts others who want their settlement, too!

Ok, so mostly I’ve just talked about why our past insurance failed… and mentioned some ways the RRG will be different. I haven’t overtly answered the question yet though- WHY WILL THE RRG SUCCEED IF THE PAST INSURANCE FAILED?
•A Risk Retention Group is not the same as an insurance company. Money grubbing vulture lawyers know this. Filing a suit against USHPA (or a USHPA insured pilot, land owner, or instructor) is to go after OUR money. We- the people of USHPA- have worked hard to earn that money, and have chosen to put it toward the RRG because the future of free flight is very important to us. We will NOT be handing this money out. You want what’s ours? Prepare to fight. No, prepare to BATTLE. You come after us, we go to war.
•After reading the above, does that sound like something lawyers want to invest their own time and money into pursuing… where they make little or nothing if they don’t secure any funds for their clients??? Exactly.
•Also, USHPA and this RRG are committed to the never-ending existence of hang gliding and paragliding. Do we care if a suit takes two years, three years, hell- twenty years? Nah. Do money grubbers want to play a long game attempting to collect, or are they hoping to settle and walk with cash in their pockets NOW?
•The last, and possibly most important, reason I’m confident in the RRG’s success… is because of the increased awareness this debacle has triggered. In the past, many had the attitude the insurance wasn’t important, or yea right we’ll never lose our insurance, or yea that guy’s doing something stupid but that’s his problem not mine. I think a lot more of the USHPA membership have come to realize just how important the insurance is to keeping our sports alive… and how frail it can be if we’re not diligent. We are LITERALLY a self-regulating group… and that does not mean we each regulate our self… that means we regulate each other. If I see someone about to do something that’s likely to hurt them, or someone else, it’s my duty to speak up and help them do better. If I allow them to create a legal liability for us, I’m giving away my money, your money, OUR money… and that’s not OK!

I’m confident the RRG will be successful even though our past insurance failed because an RRG is different than insurance, because we are different than insurance brokers and rich profiteering investors, and because we are more aware now than ever before.

I’d like to wrap this up by saying THANK YOU to anyone that read this whole thing. Investing the time and effort to better understand what’s up is a great step… but it’s not enough. The RRG will only come to be with the contribution and financial support of those that benefit- all of us! It is my hope that better understanding this will help those with reservations thus far see why this is a worthy and reliable investment. And I would like to thank everyone that has supported the RRG already- big or small- I look forward to flying with you for many years ahead!"

[OP]

Bob, Two serious questions.

Why do you think the Crossfit RRG was such a success? Since it started 5 years ago, they be able to lower their annual dues per operator by 20%. Unaffiliated RRGs and similar insurance schemes have set up to try and make money from their market as well.
A) I guess you'll say "ownership and not donations" The crossfit makes the operators an owner of the RRG. I doubt this is the reason though. They are skeleton crew staffed by untrained idiots. http://i.imgur.com/eiUuO6N.gifv
B) I think the RRG is popular with things like city parks, law enforcement, schools and crossfit for fundamental reasons.

Do you have similar issues in other aspects of your life? Have you ever been arrested at a dog park, been kicked out of a PTA meting, tried to fist fight a Boy Scout troop leader? You're the kind of guy who has a restraining order from the local bowling alley.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, Two serious questions.

Your counting may be off, but I'll do my best to answer all of them.

Why do you think the Crossfit RRG was such a success?

I don't know if it's been a success or not. But if it has been, then I suspect it wasn't managed by people who "shoot the messenger" when people report problems.

Do you have similar issues in other aspects of your life?

Nope. I've had a great career and I am currently working in the best job I've ever had. I've published a number of scientific papers over the years, and all of my work has been about getting to the truth in matters of science and engineering. People in those fields generally hold honesty in high regard, and I've earned the trust of many people in my field.

Have you ever been arrested at a dog park, been kicked out of a PTA meting, tried to fist fight a Boy Scout troop leader?[.quote]

No, no, and no.

You're the kind of guy who has a restraining order from the local bowling alley.

And now you've crossed the line. That's an accusation that's untrue and reflects your bias. The only restraining order I've ever faced was the false allegations made by Robin Marien and Gabriel Jebb. Their false allegations were not upheld in a court of law and their request for a restraining order was denied.

So now that I've answered your questions, can you tell me what actions USHPA has actually taken that give you any confidence that they will respond differently to the problems that I reported at Torrey Pines in 2010?

[Mike M]

I'll say this once.

Personal attacks are off limits.
Let's keep the conversation on topic.

I appreciate that some of the parties may not like each other. That's OK.
However, if this continues to degenerate into personal attacks and dredging up of ancient history not relevant to the topic I'll need to either lock it or move it to politics.

The subject matter is important. Let's try and keep it relevant.

Mike

[OP]

The crossfit rrg has been an overwhelming success. My A/B where options on why.

And now you've crossed the line.

It just seems you've spending a tremendous amount of time/money on this. Created multiple web sites. Hired lawyers. Made numerous 'visits' to the city board. Been arrested a bunch of time. Recalled from USHPA. Ejected from USHPA. Kicked off every nation wide HG web forum. Made no friends on this forum. Been on the local news acting crazy. It just seems you're really spiraling down right now. Pulling big ears on your PG. Doesn't seem your sanity vario is beeping right now. I can't imagine your effort turning in your favor.

... what actions..

In quick order of being informed of the insurance loss they figured out developed and have nearly funded the most aggressively safe form of insurance available. These things need aggressive management. I think they can tailor the coverage to each site and make it work for us. It appears most think you're incredible. Making all sorts of weird claims about all sorts of things, being litigious about the mundane.

[Bob Kuczewski]

... what actions..

Let's assume that you were posting at the same time as Mike and didn't see his warning.

I had asked what actions has USHPA actually taken that give you any confidence that they will respond differently to the problems that I reported at Torrey Pines in 2010?

Your reply was essentially that they started an RRG:

In quick order of being informed of the insurance loss they figured out developed and have nearly funded the most aggressively safe form of insurance available.

Collecting money to start an RRG does not fix the oversight problems at Torrey which led to this disaster. It just throws more money in the pot for the next law suit. So let me ask again - and everyone is invited to answer - what has USHPA actually done to convince you that they will not allow Shannon's accident at Torrey to happen again?

More specifically, how has the oversight structure at Torrey been changed to keep history from repeating itself?

I answered your questions, so please give some consideration to mine. Thanks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for the moderation Mike.

However, if this continues to degenerate into personal attacks and dredging up of ancient history not relevant to the topic I'll need to either lock it or move it to politics.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my 2010 reference as ancient history, but it's highly relevant to this topic.

The Hamby case from Torrey settled just this past spring (2015) and I believe the timing is consistent with the insurance cancellation. The actual Hamby accident happened in the summer of 2011 (the wheels of justice do turn slowly). My warning to USHPA's Executive Committee about a similar incident happened in early 2010 (when I was still Director).

It takes that kind of long-term view to see that the root problem has been USHPA allowing the Torrey Concessionaire to operate without any oversight (even though USHPA itself has a seat on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council). That's the reason for the 2010 reference, and I believe it is relevant.

[mrobin604]

https://www.youtube.com/v/GZR58d77a4A&s ... autoplay=1

BobK : Torrey :: Walter Sobchak : Vietnam