Dockweiler Closing due to Loss of Insurance

[Bob Kuczewski]

Yesterday morning I got some very very bad news for the sport of hang gliding.

It appears that Windsports is losing the insurance policy that they need to keep the Dockweiler Beach site open to hang gliding. The closure will happen on September 9th, 2015.

Here's the letter that Joe sent around noon yesterday (August 11th, 2015):

Friends of Dockweiler Hang Gliding,

I'm afraid I have terrible news.

My insurance company has declined to renew Windsports insurance policy for the coming year due to a high insurance claims rate in industry during the past year. After 2 weeks of researching, my broker is not optimistic that I will be able to get insurance that will satisfy the county of Los Angeles as required in my contract to run Dockweiler.

All of this in spite of a 16 year history without a single insurance claim from Windsports.

Nevertheless, it remains likely that Windsports will be required by the county of Los Angeles to cease operating the Dockweiler Beach site beginning September 9th.

Unless something changes, and it's unlikely things will change, hang glider flights at Dockweiler will become illegal under LA County Ordinance on that date.

This is of course devastating for Windsports, but also for hang gliding and the clubs, pilots and friends that have come to rely on the site, as the current structure of the hang gliding permit requires an exclusive, county licensed operator to manage and monitor all hang gliding activities there. That operator is required to have insurance that is currently unobtainable through USHPA or any other source at this point in time.

Dockweiler Beach is a tremendously valuable resource for hang gliding as it is the only training location in the city of Los Angeles. Without it, it may be impossible for any hang gliding instructor or school to bring new pilots into our sport, thus leading to a slow attrition of hang gliding participants in and around L.A.

Windsports will continue booking and teaching students through Sunday, September 6th and the site will remain open as usual until that date. After that, I anticipate the site will be closed to flying of any kind as county code makes it illegal to hang glide or paraglide on any L.A. County beach unless in a county designated area and with a permit from the Department of Beaches and Harbors.

I have lots to try to do in a short time so I apologize if I'm not able to take every phone call or answer every email in a timely fashion. I expect I'll be using the SHGA forum to keep pilots aware of what transpires in the weeks ahead.

Currently there will be no changes in our mountain training operations.

All the best,

Joe Greblo
Windsports International Inc.
windsports@earthlink.net
(818) 367-2430

Joe has discouraged any finger pointing, but from my first hand experience at Torrey Pines, I believe that Mark Forbes and Rich Hass have mismanaged USHPA's insurance program leading to what will likely be a widespread loss of coverage for flight schools in both sports. I say this based on the known reports they've had of the problems at Torrey Pines and their protection of that operation in spite of those reports. If that pattern has been repeated in other instances then it was only a matter of time until insurance was lost.

I am calling for the resignation - in disgrace - of Mark Forbes and Rich Hass for allowing this to happen.

[Bob Kuczewski]

We should organize a presentation to the County Board of Supervisors next week:

      http://bos.co.la.ca.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=A-u-4wKmFC8%3d&portalid=1

AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015, 9:30 A.M.

BOARD HEARING ROOM 381B

KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
500 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

AGENDA POSTED: August 13, 2015
MEETING TELEVISED: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:00 p.m. on KLCS

PUBLIC INPUT AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS

The meetings of the Board of Supervisors are open to the public. A member of the public requesting to address the Board on an agenda item will be allowed a total of three (3) minutes per meeting, and a request to address the Board must be submitted in person to the Executive Officer of the Board prior to the item being called. The Board may limit the public input on any item, based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Board.

In addition, a member of the public has the right to address the Board on items of interest which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. A person may make a presentation on a non-agenda item, but the presentation shall not exceed three minutes in length.

[Rick Masters]

... high insurance claims rate in industry during the past year.

Tandem joyriding accidents stemming from a small clique of "instructors" making a lucrative living are destroying the insure-ability of solo hang glider pilots.
This represents the betrayal of the USHPA toward the lovers of free flight who founded the organization.
The formation of instructor guilds was locked in by the USHPA by doing away with Special Observers who did not use schools to train new hang glider pilots.
And you all say the solution is to have as many hang glider pilots and soaring parachutists insuring the sites together.
Really?
You're losing the sport.
I want the old USHGA back.
Before the tandem exemption.

[Jacmac]

... high insurance claims rate in industry during the past year.

Tandem joyriding accidents stemming from a small clique of "instructors" making a lucrative living are destroying the insure-ability of solo hang glider pilots.

This is exactly what I'm afraid is happening, although not just tandem accidents. It's schools/instruction. I'm wondering about USHPA instructors insurance as well. It could mean that schools and instruction in general will soon not be insured. First Flight may be willing to insure pilot 3PL, but maybe not much else.

[dhmartens]

I posted a Lloyds of London subject at shga.com
I read in Australia the hang glider membership is about $300/year and provides $20,000,000 (twenty million) of liability insurance as required by cities.


This Australian Paraglider accident victim is suing for $2 million dollars.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 7441897152

David Lee Roth used LLoyds to insure "Little Elvis" (paternity suit insurance)


USHPA has not yet released their last 3 months financials that may show massive legal overruns and the nominations close the 16th?
OP was nominated and Forbes sent him an email saying it was a joke.

[wingspan33]

The first thing that needs to be determined is - Who is Windsports' current insurance carrier? Is it actually First Flight or is it some other insurer?

Jumping ahead with the assumption that the USHPA (and First Flight?) are "at fault" for Windsports loss of coverage is improper.

And if Windsports insurance carrier is not First Flight (and the USHPA is also in no way involved) then placing blame on either party is WRONG!

The first thing that needs to be done is to find out the FACTS connected with the issue.

Also, if Joe Greblo isn't looking for help, or doesn't want help, then it's time to hold your horses.



I would, however, go on to say that if First Flight is Windsports' insurance carrier (their web site does claim that they insure HG Training Schools) questions may then need to be asked.

Such questions could be -

How many other HG training facilities in the US are losing their insurance coverage (in connection with First Flight issued policies).

If the answer to the above is "Only one or two HG Training Schools nation wide.", then what makes Windsports one of the few to be dropped?

If the answer to the above is "Almost every HG and PG Training School that First Flight insures in the US.", then the Bigger picture becomes much clearer. But clearly this all depends on WHO the insurance carrier is!

And - please notice - a VERY Important request was made connected with this matter -

"Joe has discouraged any finger pointing . . ."

Looking at the above posts, . . . there's significant "finger pointing" going on. And, if based on false assumptions/presumptions, then such finger pointing (and focusing of blame) can be seen as inappropriate, negative and destructive.

The idea of going to a Los Angels City Counsel meeting is great, once again if all the relevant and important FACTS are known and understood before hand and comments are thoughtfully and respectfully delivered. Heart felt comments can certainly be made about the loss of an historic flying site.

However, regarding liability issues, city leaders are unlikely to be able to do anything about the insurance requirements - those have been determined by L. A.'s Legal/Insurance Department. For these reasons I see little likelihood that attending and speaking at a Los Angels City Counsel meeting will have any real effect on restoring Windsports' insurance coverage. And isn't that the single truly relevant issue here?

.

.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your comments.

It's clear from Joe's message that his carrier (whoever that is) is dropping his insurance "due to a high insurance claims rate in industry during the past year" (those are Joe's exact words).

So whether Joe's carrier is the same one that:

   (a) settled the Torrey case,
   (b) is facing a potential Jean Lake case,
   (c) was involved in the Chelan case

each of those events - in the industry - are being quoted as the reason for the loss of coverage. That's true whether Joe's carrier is the same as USHPA's or not.

But each of those events are under the jurisdiction of USHPA and their policies. I don't know the details of all of the other cases, but I know for a fact that UHSPA has failed to provide the oversight needed at Torrey Pines. I was a Regional Director reporting one of the Torrey Instructors crashing students into parked hang gliders while under radio control ... and USHPA did nothing. That was long before the Hamby accident, so appropriate action by USHPA could have not only averted the Hamby lawsuit but saved the pain and suffering of the young woman who was needlessly injured in that incident.

With regard to attending a County Supervisor meeting, I think hang gliding should be requesting that we be treated like other sports (bicycling, surfing, kite boarding, roller blading, etc) that are NOT required to carry liability insurance to operate on the people's property. Such a decision at Dockweiler would be entirely up to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, so attending such a meeting is exactly what needs to be done if that is a desired result.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

Bob

[wingspan33]

Bob,

" . . . high insurance claims rate in industry during the past year . . ." is a very vague statement and can mean whatever the insurer (whoever they may be) wants it to mean - either narrowly or broadly.

Consider, . . . is there such a thing as the Hang Glider (and Paraglider?) Insurance Industry Association? I don't think so. So who exactly is the "industry"? ? ? ? Give me Joe G.'s insurance carrier's phone # and I'll give them a call and ask.

Having said that, if the insurer (in all cases involved) was First Flight, then I would guess that the incidents you bring up under "a" "b" and "c" probably have had a negative effect. But I would only call that a "guess" since I haven't received an on-the-record call from First Flight confirming such an assumption.

When it comes down to it, an individual can jump as far as they want, to as many conclusions as they want. But making statements and taking steps based on those conclusions, . . . Well, each conclusion should be based on facts that can be confirmed before serious statements are made and/or actions are taken. I would like to assume that you agree. Would I be correct or in error?

The old adage, "Better safe than sorry.", applies quite often in life.

[JoeF]

Scott's encouragement to get available facts seem spot on good.
Joe G. right now is asking for some quiet, as stirring the pot might disturb something that may be cooking.
================================

I would like a new Dockweiler HG site to emerge: One that had two activities going:
1. Free HG, equitable with surfing and kiteboarding and bicycling.
2. A concessionaire that had zero dominance over Free HG, but served the public by giving commercial instructions and renting equipment (as bike rentals do).

Both activities would cooperate civilly (like pedestrians cooperate and cyclists cooperate and surfers cooperate) to fulfill basic safety rules.

The "business" of the concession would have whatever insurance it needed to protect its business.
The Free HG would be equitably positioned as a cyclist or surfer; if a HG person was responsible for hurting another human, then the regular courts would be involved sometimes, if settling could not be achieved before court. Equitably with surfing: a surfer could be negligent and kill another surfer or swimmer; similarly for a pedestrian or cyclist. A surfboard tip into the temple of another surfer is a fatality-teasing matter.

=====================

[Bob Kuczewski]

... if the insurer (in all cases involved) was First Flight, then I would guess that the incidents you bring up under "a" "b" and "c" probably have had a negative effect. But I would only call that a "guess" since I haven't received an on-the-record call from First Flight confirming such an assumption.

If you don't want to guess, then please check into it and get back to us.

I believe that Joe wrote his statement very carefully, and when he said he was not being renewed because of high claims in the industry, I believe he meant exactly that. That would certainly include the recent settlement at Torrey Pines.

I am hopeful that Joe's exceptionally good record (perfect from what I can tell) will be cause for them to re-evaluate their decision in his case. But whether they do or not, it's clear that the industry's claims include the situation at Torrey where USHPA had been informed of their bad practices and intentionally failed to take corrective action.