US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

Owners Not Donors Campaign

In a recent post on hanggliding.org, Mark Forbes (USHPA's Insurance Chairman) wrote:

Mark Forbes (mgforbes) on Jan 13, 2016 wrote:

Jaybird78 wrote:The only people who are privy to an RRG benefits are its owner members. Is everyone going to be an owner member?

The law says that every party insured by a RRG has to be a part-owner of that RRG. The law also says that every owner of the RRG *must* be an insured.

USHPA is one of the owners. The Foundation is another, and so is PASA, and so are some individual schools. Ownership and control of decisions is determined by the percentage of ownership of each entity. USHPA will be in for a little over a million (at present) and the Foundation will have about half a million in the pot. Another quarter-million will come from PASA and schools collectively. The remainder of the $2 million is either loans or additional fundraising money through USHPA. USHPA owns the majority share, followed by the Foundation, and then by PASA and the schools.

Individual USHPA members are not owners of the RRG. They are named on the USHPA insurance policy, as are clubs and landowners, but they do not own a piece of the RRG. The RRG is not allowed to sell insurance to entities which are not owners. If what you're fishing for is a statement that the so-called "Hawks" could purchase insurance from the RRG, then I'd respond this way:

If the "Hawks" was an organization with a structure, management and membership (rather than being an online-rant-forum) that offered a training and rating program, that had an established board of directors which met regularly, and in general operated as a real association, then it might apply to the existing owners of the RRG for approval to buy into it as an additional owner. If the other RRG owners agreed that the "Hawks" was a legitimate organization with a shared purpose and values, intent on promoting our sport and dedicated to our common interests, then they might even approve it. There would be a significant capital investment required, subject to regulatory review and approval. But as currently constituted, that's not likely. I'm speaking purely hypothetically here; there is currently no interest in adding any other organizations to the RRG.

The core purpose of our RRG is to provide a source for liability insurance for our sport; our pilots, instructors, schools and association. By owning our insurer, we gain control over the decisions that shape our future. We may have future problems, but we'll own those problems and their solutions.

MGF

Please read that carefully a few times. It is saying that clubs (like Sylmar and Crestline and Treetoppers and every other local club) can be an OWNER of the RRG if their members give their money through their local clubs first.

As I've said in other discussions, the difference between owners and donors is like the difference between the Green Bay Packers (still in Green Bay since 1919) and the Los Angeles Rams (now in Saint Louis).

Owners have control. Owners have a say. Owners share in profits. Owners have ... ownership!! Donors have none of that.

I am starting this topic to spread the word to all local clubs that they should be pooling their member's donations to buy into the RRG as OWNERS. If you are a member of a local club anywhere, please post this message and open the discussion about your club purchasing an OWNERSHIP of the RRG rather than having your members give away those resources.

Also, as mentioned in Mark's message, this does open up the possibility of the US Hawks also becoming part OWNERS of the RRG at some point in the (hopefully) near future. As Mark mentioned, we will have a few hurtles to jump, but there's nothing in his list of naysaying that we can't accomplish fairly easily. So if you would like to participate in ownership of the RRG and don't have a local club that's going that route, please consider holding that money in reserve to participate in the RRG through the US Hawks.

Controlling-interest u$hPa rep Forbes: "shared purpose and values, intent on promoting our sport and dedicated to our common interests, then they might even approve it."
That controlling interest will maintain the expelling of factions focused on hang gliding. The P marriage with PDMC forms for some of us purpose and values that simply are not shared; many of the interests of u$hPa are interests that some of us cannot be dedicated to. Ever cowing to Forbes' way with his controlling interest continues the loss of focus for recreational hang gliding; the whole system continues the belittling of the premise-managers' immunity for recreational hang gliding by neglecting to put such front, center, and dominant as a way to grow recreational hang gliding in the US. Recreational hang gliding (RHG) can be its best with focus on RHG sans morphings to match fear. The US deeply needs recreation for its citizens and economy and national defense; healthy citizens that have recreations mixed with their hard creative employments builds national strength and wellbeing. Every struggling to fit a PDMC-worshipping org that has proven that it will sell out its soul to serve P to the loss of H is not the way for RHG to shine best. The worship of unneeded 3PL continues to injure RHG. The 3PL insurance RRG in controlling interest by u$hPa is just one of several tools that seem to give power. Differently, a RHG faction will remain on the confident side of what is good for US; that faction may be small or large depending on how many HGPs are enlightened to the positive values of focusing on hang gliding recreationally.
For decades there will be some confused RHG pilots who will support an P-org that continues to eat away at open recreational hang gliding focus. Unnecessary burdens and losses to RHG will continue to arrive from the unholy marriage with P; such forms a cost of historical fact. Yet, right now, a RHP may be focused on RHG and form friendships and clubs with zero affiliation with Forbes' P org.

Becoming a small owner under the controlling interest of the Forbes' Party would be equivalent to being a simplistic donor.

A focused RHG US pilot cannot be married to a P-saturated org and expect to maintain focus with all of his or her assets of time, attention, reputation, money, aviation integrity, US citizenship, mind space, public regard, culture ... The Forbes' RRG is not a neutral item, but a Trojan Horse. The US Hawks Mission Statement includes "protect" RHG. Giving asset to P that belongs to H forms a failure process relative to "protect."

Owners have control. Owners have a say. Owners share in profits. Owners have ... ownership!! Donors have none of that.

Donors also have none of that liability nobody seems to want to mention. For instance:

If the Company’s losses are substantial, the Company’s capital and surplus could be reduced below the $1,500,000
minimum amount that the Illinois Insurance Code requires the Company to maintain in order to continue in
business. In such an event, the Company could be placed under the receivership of state insurance authorities, and
the Insureds might sustain a total loss of the value of their Common and Preferred Shares as well as lose any benefit
of the insurance coverage issued by the Company. There can be no assurance that the Company will, at any
particular time, be able to make payment on any claims that may be made against a policy issued by the Company.
In the event that the Company is unable to make a payment on claims covered by the policies, the Insured will not
be entitled to the benefits of any state insurance insolvency guaranty fund.

At least donors will not get a bill for debt obligations if the RRG fails.
My question is could an RRG turn into a Trojan Horse that the participants have pulled into their fold thinking it was safe?

http://csimt.gov/wp-content/uploads/INS-2012-59-OS.pdf

-- "Trojan Horse" -- Hey Joe, I posted the above without seeing your post, proving that great minds think alike!

RickMasters referring to Joe Faust wrote:great minds think alike!

Two very great minds in my opinion!!!

I share Joe's underlying vision that we should work to free ourselves from insurance requirements to participate in hang gliding. I also share Joe's vision that we should encourage Recreational Hang Gliding to be independent of other activities (non-recreational hang gliding, paragliding, etc). I think Rick agrees on all counts (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The tricky part is figuring out how to get there from here.   

Right now, there are a lot of pilots who cannot fly their sites without insurance. We should work to fix that through use of Recreational Use statutes. But that will take time and it will take people. We won't have those people if they're all locked into a USHPA-only RRG. We need to find a path to get from a USHPA-dominated hang gliding world to a world where people can pick their own associations from a palette of choices. The first stone that I see along that path is separating the ability to get insurance from the requirement to belong to USHPA. Purchasing hang gliding insurance should be a choice just like purchasing other kinds of insurance. There should be a choice to purchase or not purchase, and there should be a choice in who to purchase from. USHPA's failure to maintain their own insurance policy has opened an opportunity for us to move - one small step - in that direction. I think we should take that step - along with all the others we can take - to provide the palette of choices that will help free our sport from the "one size fits all" model we have today.

Joe wrote:Becoming a small owner under the controlling interest of the Forbes' Party would be equivalent to being a simplistic donor.

Yes, being one small owner doesn't help much. But an RRG that's owned by many small owners (all the clubs across the country) begins to have some clout. All of USHPA's money comes from people giving it. Some of those people give small amounts and others give larger amounts, and some give through other organizations. But it all comes from people on one level or another. If those people can band together - even in small groups - they will have more say than if they don't.

I sent that message out to a number of club members, and here are some of the replies by email:

Thanks for the notice Bob. This is a confusing issue, and I am glad to hear your voice among the clamor. Keep up the good work.

Amen

superior idea

Stop making sense Bob! Remember, this is an emotionally driven illogical issue that defies reason or discussion.. we just need people to 'step up', how come you can't just 'get onboard?'

wuff!

I suspect these folks are from the otherwise silent 80% majority who don't want to throw more money at an organization that's mismanaged what's been given to them already.

How much did they spend out of the membership funds to persecute you?
I consider that a HUGE mismanagement of funds.
It's good to see the people behind that now have an opportunity to put your money where their mouth is. Who were they, again? Not the insurance committee people, I hope!
I am still trying to figure that out.
There was no safety violation involved.
Philosophical differences are best discussed over a beer or soda.
That's what, 3 or 5 bucks?
Mismanagement can be expensive.
Now give them two million dollars and see what happens.
I sent $100 to the Assyrian Christian relief, so count me out.

By the way, the biggest safety issue in free flight remains - by far - paraglider collapse.
Nearly 120 deaths worldwide in 2015 that I know of. Probably more.
How much have they spent solving that? Probably somebody else's problem, huh?
Hope nobody sues. You hang glider pilots might have to pick up the tab...
Oh, you don't mind? It's all for one, one for all in freeflight today. Right.
Makes the insurance cheaper, too, with all those paraglider pilots, I bet.
That's what I heard, anyway, from the insurance chairman.

And now kiteboarders. Oh, Boy!
Let me know how that works out.

Thanks Rick!!!

I remember when a UP hang glider had a frame failure, a lawsuit put them out of business. Now a paragliding collapse design flaw should do the same thing to the u$hpa. It's just a matter of time. Mark my wors, its coming. More insurance money does not solve the real problem.
But very few will acknowledge that facts.
The fact that Rick Masters disclosed this and was treated like a insane rebel for revealing the flawed science of inflatable wings is proof positive! Now what do the numb skulls say?

Somehow with Crossfit RRG the real owners keep control of the franchise, yet the insured owners are owners as well. How can there be 2 sets of owners? Crossfit RRG seems to have worked well for years despite an almost bankruptcy and they are established in California.

One thing Bob has overlooked is that PASA will be controlled by 3 hang glider pilots and will control all the hang and para glider schools.

...the flawed science of inflatable wings

As I recall, Tommy, you didn't need anyone to point that out.
Why don't you recount your last paragliding flight for the peanut gallery?
Thanks.