[JR]

This was just posted by Dan Tomlinson, our Regional Director, on the message board of one of the local flying clubs (CHGPA.org).

JR


Critical Issue from USHPA HQ meeting

Postby Dan T » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:36 pm
The question of site insurance and insurability was far and away the most important issue addressed at the recently completed USHPA semi-annual Director's meeting. As most of you know, we are facing a crises regarding our ability to maintain affordable site insurance. The reason that this is critically important is because all of our sites on public lands require site insurance, and nearly all of our sites on private property do as well. This is true throughout the Nation and not just the sites maintained by the CHGPA. The loss of site insurance will result in the loss of most, if not all, of the sites most frequently visited by CHPGA member pilots.

In a previous post I mentioned that we are facing a significant increase in our site insurance costs. Unfortunately that is not the major concern. The major concern is that we might not be able to obtain insurance at all. This is a very real possibility that should not be ignored by any foot launch pilot desiring to continue in the sport. The USHPA HQ staff considers the potential loss of site insurance to be among the most serious threats to our existence it has ever faced.

Our existing insurer has advised us that producing and implementing a "risk mitigation plan" could significantly increase the likelihood that they will continue to insure us in the future. (To date our existing insurer is the only one who has expressed a willingness to insure us at any price.) The USHPA Site Committee has produced the 'framework' of such a plan. It is a framework because the plan requires appending so that it addresses the unique characteristics of each individual insured launch and designated landing area. Each USHPA chapter that has insured site maintenance responsibilities will be expected to contribute to this risk mitigation plan.

The agreed upon method of assuring that the site specific documents are completed and implemented is to have each chapter appoint two safety officers (one each HG and PG) who will be responsible for assuring that their chapter completes it's documentation and implementation obligations. The safety officers responsibility is to assure that the written document provides an appropriate and realistic safety margin to assure that non-waivered personnel (i.e. spectators, etc) are kept out of harms way and that the risk of property damage (particularly resulting from collisions with power lines) is mitigated. Additionally the safety officers will be responsible for assuring that the written risk mitigation procedures are implemented. This means, for example, that if our written document says we will provide space behind launch sufficient to keep spectators at least X feet from the launch area, that we will in fact construct and maintain the launch site such that the space exists. It does not mean that the safety officers are individually responsible for assuring that all spectators remain in the designated safety zone. That is the responsibility of all of the pilots utilizing the site at that time.

Our insurer has provided us with a 90 day extension to our existing policy. They expect us to have a reasonably comprehensive risk mitigation plan in place by that time. Their emphasis is on sites that pose hazards to insured personnel and property. Remote seldom visited sites that do not have nearby power lines or similar personal property hazards are secondary priorities. In order to meet the 90 day requirement all of the chapters need to appoint two safety officers to spearhead this task. They may be existing officers of the local chapter, in which case they would simply take on the additional title and responsibilities.

By this announcement I am requesting that the CHGPA and each of the other chapters located in the southern portion of Region 9 promptly appoint two safety officers for the purpose of fulfilling our obligation to produce and implement site specific supplements to the USHPA produced risk mitigation plan. My expectation is that the other Region 9 co-director will make a similar request for the northern portion of the Region.

Dan Tomlinson
Co-Director
Region 9

[Windlord]

That's a good post JR. Shows the trend that eventually will engulf most if not all regulated sites.
Since we live in a sue happy environment, guess we have to keep adapting to the changing times. It's the American way.
Keep us posted!

[tom emery]

Just wondering if it's possible to "self insure" or post a bond to satisfy legal requirements. If only one insurance company is willing to insure then they can pretty much dictate any conditions. Sounds more like coercion.

[Hangskier]

[jjcote]

It all depends on what the landowner/manager requires. There's only one insured site in Massachusetts, which is a motel, where the owner wants coverage if people are going to be flying off of his back lawn. Most of the other sites I can think of are on public land, and the ones that are on state park property are presumably covered by the park's insurance, or for some other reason they don't require us to supply coverage. A couple of other sites are on public land where the governing authority is presumably aware that we fly (some of them have regulations regarding flying), but they don't seem to require insurance, either. Another site is (I think) on private land, and nobody says anything (as long as it's only PGs -- flights by HGs risk spurring the neighbors to call the police), and there are a couple of others that I don't know the status of, but they aren't flown very often. Bear in mind that all but two of these sites rarely get used by more than a half-dozen pilots in a day, and there's only one that gets used more than a few times a year.

[HangDiver]

Many complain about the USHPA. Our Chapter has five active flying sites. We would lose four of them without site insurance. Providing site insurance (even if it is not your particular site) is an indispensible objective of our national organization.

[mgforbes]

Just off work and grabbing a bite after getting back today from the BOD meeting. I need to get back to work early, so I can't spend a lot of time tonight typing. (New job in the robotics/automation industry as of last week.)

You'll be getting an email tomorrow from me via the USHPA office with some more details. We have a lot of work to do, but I think we have a good chance of making this all turn out OK in the end. We're going to need everybody to work together and focus on risk management, but we CAN do that.

It's not just about insured sites. They're a small percentage of the total, though they may be some of our higher-profile stes, but the insurance applies wherever we fly. It does not defend the landowner directly except at insured sites, but everywhere else we get site access privileges because landowners know that we're responsible and able to make good on any damage we might cause when flying. Lose the pilot policy, and I expect most landowners would shut us down.

This is NOT about the insurers ducking out of covering accidents, or looking for loopholes. The intent is to convince them that we can bring down the recent spate of claims and associated legal defense costs, so the loss ratio goes back to something reasonable. They are NOT carving out exceptions to the coverage.

Self insurance is a last ditch desperation move. We REALLY don't want to go there. We'd need to raise a lot of cash, either with a massive fundraising campaign, or by selling high-yield corporate bonds. Either way, it's a huge task and very risky. We'd have to be prepared to put a couple million down as security, and then convince landowners that we'd be good for the money if a claim happened. That doesn't even begin to consider the legal and regulatory hurdles, some of which could be deal-breakers.

Gotta sleep for a bit and go to work. More tomorrow evening maybe.

Mark G. Forbes
USHPA insurance chairman

[Hangskier]

[CHassan]

[davisstraub]

This is third party liability insurance.

It means that when we hit a spectator, they can sue and our insurance company basically pays for the lawyers or settles the claim.

Now, does how much damage would a hang glider do to a spectator compared to a paraglider?

[Hangskier]

[Fred Wilson]

[Fred Wilson]

Prior to the outcome of this USHPA meeting, and with no knowledge of it,
Dion Vuk, an excellent PG instructor and WCSC Director developed the following questionairre.

I made a couple of minor adjustments and posted this on the FlyOK.ca Website:
http://www.flyok.ca/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=771

It is an initial rough draft.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
No one has had time to respond to it yet, so give with ideas to add!

[Fred Wilson]

Regional Paragliding & Hang Gliding Site Survey 2012

[fakeDecoy]

Let this be a lesson. Never let a non-pilot get injured without finishing the job. Take his whole family down too if you see a glimmer of sue-happy entitlement in their eyes

Wait, is it too late?