[wingspan33]

Looks like enough people had enough faith in the U$hPa and their RRG Plan to make it work (as far as initial funding goes). What the future holds ? ? ?

Personally, I don't think insurance is needed except at sites where potential liability issues are frequently present at the launch and/or LZ (i.e., spectators in either location or other property that may be damaged by a bad landing/crash). Otherwise, Recreational Land Use statutes (in every State?) cover land owner liability due to a pilot getting hurt or killed on impact with their property.

[dhmartens]

I am glad Bob said to donate through your local club, so he would be remembered on the right side of history.

[wingspan33]

I am glad Bob said to donate through your local club, so he would be remembered on the right side of history.

Since we don't yet know how history will go, it's hard to know how Bob's suggestions will be considered. Besides, certain individuals LOVE to lie about what Bob did or did not say and therefore the "history" of such people is more or less in their own biased minds - and absolutely not objective (as history should be).

I would add that -

As Rick and others have said, if (or when) a big liability claim comes rolling into the RRG, the whole thing may just unravel.

I've also read someone's comment (elsewhere) that the RRG needs to "fight" (i.e., litigate) claims rather than just pay-out the damages.

Well, having the RRG's lawyer(s) fight/litigate a claim to the end of a jury trial can cost close to, if not over, $1,000,000 .

So, let's see, the RRG has a $2 mil kitty and spends half of that to defend the Nat org from one serious liability claim? That can't go on very long!

And, in such a case, if the plaintiff's lawyer is better than the RRG's lawyer, then they win their damages AND the RRG also loses the amount needed to pay their lawyers. If the plaintiff happened to sue for $2 mil and the RRG lawyer(s) charge $1 mil, but loses, . . . hmmmmm, . . . that costs the RRG $3 mil .

Somehow the math just doesn't seem to work out except in certain ideal circumstances.

So, fighting/litigating the pay-out of a claim - particularly ones involving smaller dollar amounts - can actually be bad/stupid business.

Any claim that would cost more to litigate (even if the RRG's lawyer wins) than to simply pay-out, is the kind of claim that you DO simply pay-out to the claimant.

All in All -

In a fantasy world the RRG receives no claims.

In the real world, the RRG will have to pay-out one degree or another of small and large claims. If the RRG litigates a claim they spend money - and if the pay-out a claim they spend money. It's not a question of IF the RRG will pay-out/spend money. The question is HOW MUCH and HOW QUICKLY they will have to spend $ from the kitty to deal with inevitable claims.

And all those individual folks who "donated" money to the effort, . . . I have little doubt that their money will be the first to disappear out the "claims window".

.

.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Very good analysis Wingspan.

It may be the height of hubris that Mark Forbes and Tim Herr feel they can do a better job of defending against claims than the inurance industry. On the other hand, it might just be a way to fund Tim Herr's retirement.

[Rick Masters]

...the RRG needs to "fight" (i.e., litigate) claims rather than just pay-out the damages.

Well, they should put up a level of defense. What I find disconcerting is an implied attitude that a more vigorous defense will work.
As I understand it, an RRG in court is no different than any other insurance company. So are we to believe that the RRG legal team is smarter, more capable, more likely to profit than those big, seasoned insurance companies with scores of years experience? That their fight vs. capitulation cost analysis was faulty?
Somehow, I don't think so.
These were words to attract funding. That's all.


Now there's a big pot of money for lawyers to look at, guarded by amateurs.
Does anybody besides me think a minimally-funded RRG for extreme sports is a phenomenally bad idea?    
Now the fun begins.
The big celebration of USHPA isn't that the RRG was funded.
IT'S THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEND THE MONEY BACK.
They scored. Not the membership, imo..

...I am glad Bob said to donate through your local club.

How can the RRG fail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1224528.html
Another way is for the kitty to fall below the minimum and the assets get seized by a state it operates in.
The RRG is dissolved, claims and legal costs are paid and if anything is left, that money is returned to the owners.
The owners. Not the donors.
Are the clubs owners? If they are recognized as such, the courts will return a percentage of the original funds to them. If not, then to USHPA Inc.
Of course, USHPA can keep the RRG solvent by passing the hat to the members again and again.
With all those future donations added to the profits rolling in from the new insurance premiums, what me worry?
Well, one thing to worry about is a growing number of members choosing to put their donations into gas money, instead, and go fly more distant unregulated sites. That would result in higher expenses and smaller returns. In the financial world, this is known as a "death spiral" -- a term 60-percent of membership is intimately familiar with.

[Bill Cummings]

So the minimum was met and now USHPA is shooting for a higher threshold.
At what point will the new dues of $150.00/year start ticking back in the direction of the $99.00/year annual dues?
I remember talk of lowering costs to members should the RRG funding exceed expectations.

[Rick Masters]

At what point will the new dues of $150.00/year start ticking back in the direction of the $99.00/year annual dues?

First the USHPA has to pay back the outstanding loans they made to fund the RRG.
You are still paying for that and will be paying for that for a long time.
But as a USHPA member, you know all about it.
Right?
Mind sharing the details? Stuff like interest rates, size and number of loans, amortization schedules, etc.
Add in administrative costs, legal fees and any claims in the pipeline, of course.
That would give me an idea.
I thought about joining but I sent my money to Syrian Christian relief because it is more important to me.
Sorry.

[Bill Cummings]

At what point will the new dues of $150.00/year start ticking back in the direction of the $99.00/year annual dues?

First the USHPA has to pay back the outstanding loans they made to fund the RRG.
You are still paying for that and will be paying for that for a long time.
But as a USHPA member, you know all about it.
Right?
Mind sharing the details? Stuff like interest rates, size and number of loans, amortization schedules, etc.

Thanks for reminding me Rick.
I was feeling so elated for a few minutes thinking that we now had the money gathered up so that we could enjoy, "Free Flight."
I totally forgot that we dug ourselves into a debt hole that might take a while to fill back in.

[wingspan33]

So the minimum was met and now USHPA is shooting for a higher threshold.
At what point will the new dues of $150.00/year start ticking back in the direction of the $99.00/year annual dues?
I remember talk of lowering costs to members should the RRG funding exceed expectations.

Bill,

As Rick implies, I wouldn't bet that the $150 yearly dues is going to reduce anytime soon. However, I would bet that U$hPa dues WILL go up even more over the next few/several years.

Take a look at the video Rick linked to in his first post above. Two or three people were plowed into by a low? skilled (or no skill?) pilot who blew a launch with lots of spectators gathered not too far away. Stupid move. Can similar incidents be prevented? Well some steps can be taken, in some places, to reduce the likelihood of this kind of serious third party liability accident. But eliminating the possibility all together is, I would say, impossible. That means that BIG third party liability claims are just as likely to show up at the new RRG's doorstep.

And if a claimant's (or multiple claimants') case is good, this is what happens - If the RRG attempts to fight it in court, spending lots of money doing so, then loses, this creates the double whammy I described above - where the RRGs lawyers are paid big bucks AND the claimants are paid big bucks!

Or, the RRG could decide not to fight the validity of the claim and pay out $3 million in damages to 2-3 innocent spectators who were - let's imagine - pulled off a cliff by a mis-launched, partly deflated, PG canopy or hit at 20 mph by the leading edge or side wire of a hang glider during a blown launch or (let's say) crowded summertime beach landing (both possible scenarios include detailed cell phone or "action cam" video as evidence, of course).

Have no doubt that Mark Forbes knows of the possibility/likelihood of the above taking place. I also expect that he knows very well that his request for "donations" and a (temporary? ) yearly dues increase are only enough to get the ball rolling, as they say. Or, perhaps "the tip of the iceberg" analogy would better be inserted.

As I see it, the best bet for hang glider pilots is to -

#1) Seek out low (or no) potential liability flying sites.
#2) Once found, if required, inform the landowner(s) about that State's Recreational Land Use Law so they may feel secure.
#3) Have nothing to do with tandem flying (unless unpaid and with another skilled HG pilot). And NEVER do a tandem with a minor!
#4) Stop paying the U$hPa anything, since you won't need what they are selling.
#5) Work positively toward the creation of a new Recreational Hang Glider Pilot's Association (or Union?) - with its aim being "By Hang Glider Pilots, For Hang Glider Pilots!

.

.

[Rick Masters]

I have just learned that Ms. Miray Caner has been awarded US$271,000 by a Turkish court for the death of her husband, who fell from a tandem paraglider on a commercial flight from Mt. Badabag. The commander had forgotten to secure the leg straps of his passenger. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that Ms. Caner will ever see any money as the man has been sentenced to nearly five years in prison for manslaughter. The trial was a nightmare for the widow because in Muslim Turkey a woman's word is only worth half of a man's, so when the commercial operator made the outlandish claim that Mr. Caner had unfastened his own leg straps, Ms. Caner's defense had to amass a great deal of evidence to the contrary.


USHPA insurance chairman prepares to pass the RRG hat again. "It's a one-time deal this time, just like last time!" he says.

If this had happened in the United States, the award would probably have been about ten times higher, and the USHPA would need to pass the hat again to make up for any shortfall below the two million dollars required to keep the RRG solvent. Good thing the USHPA has higher standards, huh?