Liability insurance

David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
and sure enough they have a master policy covering
every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
a $1000 deductible.

Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
a magazine sub.

And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.

Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
all members ? What would it require, and how much
might it cost ? And how many more members might join
SSA just for that ?

Ian

On 8 Jun 2004 23:30:15 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote:

David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
and sure enough they have a master policy covering
every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
a $1000 deductible.

Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
a magazine sub.

And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.

Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
all members ? What would it require, and how much
might it cost ? And how many more members might join
SSA just for that ?

Ian






Don't even think about it.
You and the SSA will be in an immediate conflict of interest in the
event you make a claim. The SSA will want to keep the premium low by
a low successful claims history, you will want the insurer to pay out.
The SSA will only annoy you by not paying out, annoy all the members
if premiums increase- and they will anyway as this will be a
relatively captive market for the insurer.

Don't believe me? Then find out what happened to the Brits who got hit
by the parachutist in France and if the BGA insurance paid out.
The one case I know of in Australia under a similar scheme had the
insurer knocking back the claim and the GFA (Gliding Federation of
Australia) deciding not to get involved in backing the claimant.

The Hang Gliding Federation of Australia has a similar scheme which
has now caused a huge problem as the insurer has decided not to cover
the training operations unless the premium goes up by a factor of 3.

Mike Borgelt

Mike,
Thankyou for the insight, which may very well
be good advice.

However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest
between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having
the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that
fact.

The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested
in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability
claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety
program. That would hardly be bad for us.

The large pool might well be a captive market for the
duration of any one contract; but at renewal time,
it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus
attract competitive rates.

Am I hopelessly naive ?

Ian



At 04:12 09 June 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 23:30:15 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote:

David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
and sure enough they have a master policy covering
every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
a $1000 deductible.

Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
a magazine sub.

And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.

Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
all members ? What would it require, and how much
might it cost ? And how many more members might join
SSA just for that ?

Ian






Don't even think about it.
You and the SSA will be in an immediate conflict of
interest in the
event you make a claim. The SSA will want to keep the
premium low by
a low successful claims history, you will want the
insurer to pay out.
The SSA will only annoy you by not paying out, annoy
all the members
if premiums increase- and they will anyway as this
will be a
relatively captive market for the insurer.

Don't believe me? Then find out what happened to the
Brits who got hit
by the parachutist in France and if the BGA insurance
paid out.
The one case I know of in Australia under a similar
scheme had the
insurer knocking back the claim and the GFA (Gliding
Federation of
Australia) deciding not to get involved in backing
the claimant.

The Hang Gliding Federation of Australia has a similar
scheme which
has now caused a huge problem as the insurer has decided
not to cover
the training operations unless the premium goes up
by a factor of 3.

Mike Borgelt

Ian Cant wrote:
Mike,
Thankyou for the insight, which may very well
be good advice.

However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest
between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having
the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that
fact.

The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested
in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability
claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety
program. That would hardly be bad for us.

The SSA via the SSF (Soaring Safety Foundation) is already very
interested in the soaring safety statistics, and has been for a couple
decades. The SSF works closely with Costello Associates (the agent) to
get these statistics (a lot more accidents are reported to the insurers
than to the FAA!) to aid in the development of safety programs.

The large pool might well be a captive market for the
duration of any one contract; but at renewal time,
it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus
attract competitive rates.

The SSA insurance program does represent such a pool, and it is used to
obtain decent group rates. I don't think these could ever be as low as
hang glider rates, given the aircraft flown, so adding the cost to the
membership fee would not be practical. In any case, _liability_ costs
are quite low, at only $143 for 2004 for me. It's hull insurance costs
that cause most people to wince, as they are many times the liability costs.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
*because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
pilots.

The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.

The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.

If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.

None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.

Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
Gliding?

Ken

Not that I know of but I think its stupid to run the two sports seperately.
Trouble is the 'governing organisations' of the two are probably so totally
incompatible it would never get off the ground.

Ian


"ken ward" wrote in message
...
One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
*because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
pilots.

The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.

The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.

If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.

None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.

Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
Gliding?

Ken

The post said the "You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event
of many
types of accidents". I doubt this would hold up in court. How do you get
your underage kids give up their rights ? They can't ign the form and I
doubt the courts would let the legal guardian take their rights away Does
your spouse sign the waiver and agree not to sue?
S Gibson


"ken ward" wrote in message
...
One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
*because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
pilots.

The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.

The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.

If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.

None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.

Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
Gliding?

Ken

It says: "Pilot and the parent or legal guardian of Pilot if Pilot is a
minor, for themselves, their personal representatives, heirs, executors,
next of kin, spouses, minor children and assigns, do agree as follows:"

Only the pilot signs.

I don't know of any test cases.

Ken

In article ,
"Steve" wrote:

The post said the "You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event
of many
types of accidents". I doubt this would hold up in court. How do you get
your underage kids give up their rights ? They can't ign the form and I
doubt the courts would let the legal guardian take their rights away Does
your spouse sign the waiver and agree not to sue?
S Gibson


"ken ward" wrote in message
...
One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
*because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
pilots.

The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.

The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.

If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.

None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.

Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
Gliding?

Ken

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:10:06 UTC, "Steve"
wrote:

: The post said the "You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event
: of many
: types of accidents". I doubt this would hold up in court. How do you get
: your underage kids give up their rights ? They can't ign the form and I
: doubt the courts would let the legal guardian take their rights away Does
: your spouse sign the waiver and agree not to sue?

I believe that UK gliding clubs have given up the disclaimer of this
sort (lovingly knbown as the "blood chit") because it was legally
untenable.

Ian

--

On 9 Jun 2004 16:52:47 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote:

Mike,
Thankyou for the insight, which may very well
be good advice.

However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest
between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having
the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that
fact.

The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested
in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability
claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety
program. That would hardly be bad for us.

The large pool might well be a captive market for the
duration of any one contract; but at renewal time,
it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus
attract competitive rates.

Am I hopelessly naive ?

Ian
Ian,

It hasn't worked that way in Oz. You can also end up with the
insurance company dictating the rules or the organisation buying the
insurance adding yet more rules over the legal minima to convince the
insurance company not to raise premiums.

Imagine the effect of your SSA disowning you or not getting involved
on the insurance company's decision to pay out.

Hvaning soaring advocacy bodies making too many rules is a really bad
idea.

Right now in Australia someone like Eric Greenwell, who as I
understand, operates a self launcher out of a trailer at an airfield
with no other soaring pilots around cannot be covered by the GFA's
third party insurance as there is a requirement for a second qualified
inspector's signature on the maintenance release for that day.

Yes, we've had a couple of accidents with controls not hooked up or
assembled backwards but what the rocket scientists in the GFA have
ignored is that at least two checks in the current rules were not done
or not done properly to get to this point. Instead of reinforcing the
need to carry out these checks properly they simply added another one
which now has the effect of putting at risk the other person's assets
etc . This will probably end after the first time someone who signs
some else's maintenance release gets sued.

Mike Borgelt