Mark Forbes responded:
Mgforbes
Re: RRRG Litigation?
Post Thu, Mar 10 2022, 05:51:35 pm
Mark Forbes here. I serve as CFO of Recreation RRG. I can't answer most of the questions that you're all about to clamor for answers to, so don't bother asking.
What you saw in the announcement from the RRG is what can be released at present. What you read from people like Hanning and Mcaleer is misinformed ranting. This litigation is a long way from being over, and meanwhile Recreation RRG continues to operate, insuring pilots, schools, chapters, landowners and USHPA.
The fundamental understanding within our sport must be the belief that we're all responsible for our own safety, and on ourselves alone falls the duty of care to stay safe. We all agree as a condition of USHPA membership that we will not sue or make a claim against landowners, pilots or anybody else if we get hurt. The plaintiff in this case broke his promise and sued. He found a judge and jury sympathetic to his argument that his promise should not be binding. If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable. When members of our flying community actively encourage one pilot to sue another, or make public statements casting blame and calling for retribution, it damages us all.
The insurance policy now excludes claims between pilots, so a future mid-air collision would not be an insurable event. It also excludes claims for gross negligence, in addition to criminal negligence previously excluded. As we continue to gain experience, the insurance policies continue to be refined, expanding coverage where it's feasible, restricting it where unacceptable risk becomes evident.
Recreation RRG continues to operate normally, and I expect that a final resolution of this case is many months in the future. Claims are something that happens in the insurance business, and they don't generally rise to a level of concern within the pilot community. Perhaps once this is finally settled out and fully 'done', we can have an in-depth discussion about what happened and how it was handled. For right now, "I can't comment on pending litigation."
MGF
As usual, Mark Forbes ignores important aspects of the topic. For example Mark Forbes made this statement:
The fundamental understanding within our sport must be the belief that we're all responsible for our own safety, and on ourselves alone falls the duty of care to stay safe. We all agree as a condition of USHPA membership that we will not sue or make a claim against landowners, pilots or anybody else if we get hurt.
That sounds pretty good on the surface doesn't it? But think about what it means. We have a court system to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty. It's not a perfect system (believe me on that), but imagine what we'd have without it. We'd have all kinds of shysters preying on people in our sport. We'd have flagrant violations of laws and safety rules. We'd have extreme and reckless behavior In the sky. In a word, we'd literally have lawlessness. Any sane and responsible person would avoid getting into the sport.
In general we have laws and courts to discourage the kinds of behavior that would destroy our society. We have them for good reason. What makes Mark Forbes think that removing that system of accountability will somehow benefit the sport of hang gliding? Removing that accountability is like advertising to the world:
"Hey all you shysters, criminals, and reckless people, come join the sports of hang gliding and paragliding where we will do our best to protect you from the consequences of your illegal and/or reckless behavior."
Sadly, that's pretty much what has happened. The result is similar to the results of the misguided "defund the police" efforts. Criminal activity goes through the roof. Fortunately, the laws of our nation still stand regardless of any attempts to carve out so called "autonomous zones" of lawlessness. USHPA and Forbes discovered that (the hard way) in the Shannon Hamby case.
Now the USHPA/Forbes model to avoid the courts
might have had a prayer of sustainability if USHPA had made a legitimate effort to keep irresponsible criminals out of the sport (self-regulation). But that's another area where USHPA failed. In a healthy organization,
my February 2010 report to the USHPA Executive Committee (including Mark Forbes) and to USHPA's Chairman of Safety and Training should have triggered an investigation into the Torrey business that would have prevented Shannon Hamby's injuries in 2011. But USHPA and Mark Forbes did nothing. So when self-regulation fails, the courts take over. That's the lesson that Forbes should have learned from the Hamby case and from USHPA's subsequent loss of insurance. Sadly, his recent comment (just yesterday) reflects differently.
Of course, this is a perspective that should be posted to the Oz topic where Forbes is spewing his propaganda. But Davis Straub has banned anyone who will challenge Mark Forbes. That's what makes these bannings so significant. They silence the very voices (Faust, Masters, Reese, Wise, Narron, Kuczewski, and many others) needed to keep the sport from going off the rails. Frank and others can claim "vive la différence" with regard to the major hang gliding forums, but they are ignoring the consequences of trying to sustain a sport where important perspectives are suppressed in any venue.
Home
