Critical Issue from USHPA HQ meeting

[Dan T]

The question of site insurance and insurability was far and away the most important issue addressed at the recently completed USHPA semi-annual Director's meeting. As most of you know, we are facing a crises regarding our ability to maintain affordable site insurance. The reason that this is critically important is because all of our sites on public lands require site insurance, and nearly all of our sites on private property do as well. This is true throughout the Nation and not just the sites maintained by the CHGPA. The loss of site insurance will result in the loss of most, if not all, of the sites most frequently visited by CHPGA member pilots.

In a previous post I mentioned that we are facing a significant increase in our site insurance costs. Unfortunately that is not the major concern. The major concern is that we might not be able to obtain insurance at all. This is a very real possibility that should not be ignored by any foot launch pilot desiring to continue in the sport. The USHPA HQ staff considers the potential loss of site insurance to be among the most serious threats to our existence it has ever faced.

Our existing insurer has advised us that producing and implementing a "risk mitigation plan" could significantly increase the likelihood that they will continue to insure us in the future. (To date our existing insurer is the only one who has expressed a willingness to insure us at any price.) The USHPA Site Committee has produced the 'framework' of such a plan. It is a framework because the plan requires appending so that it addresses the unique characteristics of each individual insured launch and designated landing area. Each USHPA chapter that has insured site maintenance responsibilities will be expected to contribute to this risk mitigation plan.

The agreed upon method of assuring that the site specific documents are completed and implemented is to have each chapter appoint two safety officers (one each HG and PG) who will be responsible for assuring that their chapter completes it's documentation and implementation obligations. The safety officers responsibility is to assure that the written document provides an appropriate and realistic safety margin to assure that non-waivered personnel (i.e. spectators, etc) are kept out of harms way and that the risk of property damage (particularly resulting from collisions with power lines) is mitigated. Additionally the safety officers will be responsible for assuring that the written risk mitigation procedures are implemented. This means, for example, that if our written document says we will provide space behind launch sufficient to keep spectators at least X feet from the launch area, that we will in fact construct and maintain the launch site such that the space exists. It does not mean that the safety officers are individually responsible for assuring that all spectators remain in the designated safety zone. That is the responsibility of all of the pilots utilizing the site at that time.

Our insurer has provided us with a 90 day extension to our existing policy. They expect us to have a reasonably comprehensive risk mitigation plan in place by that time. Their emphasis is on sites that pose hazards to insured personnel and property. Remote seldom visited sites that do not have nearby power lines or similar personal property hazards are secondary priorities. In order to meet the 90 day requirement all of the chapters need to appoint two safety officers to spearhead this task. They may be existing officers of the local chapter, in which case they would simply take on the additional title and responsibilities.

By this announcement I am requesting that the CHGPA and each of the other chapters located in the southern portion of Region 9 promptly appoint two safety officers for the purpose of fulfilling our obligation to produce and implement site specific supplements to the USHPA produced risk mitigation plan. My expectation is that the other Region 9 co-director will make a similar request for the northern portion of the Region.

Dan Tomlinson
Co-Director
Region 9

[tomceunen]

Dan,

For which sites is the insurance applicable?

Regards
Tom

[Dan T]

Good question Tom. To my understanding just in the area containing sites maintained by the Capitol and Maryland clubs, the following sites would be affected:

All 3 Skyline sites, they are under National Parks Service jurisdiction and the NPS like all local state and federal government agencies require proof of insurance
Woodstock, administered by the USFS
High Rock, the launch is on Washington County property
Oregon Ridge in Maryland, is on city or county property
Taylor Farm (not certain about this one but I know they require waivers and I presume they do insurance as well)
I don't know about the Pulpit LZs. Since we own the Pulpit launch we presumably don't have to insure it but that may mean that we would be at risk of forfeiting ownership of the site in a law suit should one of our pilots seriously injure a spectator there.

Daniel's and Bill's Hill are maintained by other Chapters so I'm not certain about their status. I believe that Bill's Hill is on Pennsylvania State Forest property. If so it is almost certainly at risk as well.

[theflyingdude]

Dan,

Will the USHPA be sending out some type of formal announcement and providing specific guidelines as to what is needed for compliance? Adding another layer of bureaucracy and/or additional regulations on such short notice puts a lot of extra burden on those of us that are already maintaining and preserving the local flying sites. Do you have any background on our claims history that prompted this sudden change?

JR

[sailin]

Dan,
To somewhat echo JR's post, does USHPA have, or are they developing some sort of document template for the safety officers to fill out??? It seems like this should be a priority as it will streamline the process, give the safety officers specific instruction and keep everybody on the same page.

thanks,
Jon

[Matthew]

I believe the following sites are insured--

Pulpit
Bill's Hill
Fisher Road
High Rock
Oregon Ridge
Taylor Farm

Fisher Road may have been dropped as we don't have an LZ-- not sure.

Woodstock, Daniel's, Jack's Mountain and the Skyline Drive sites are not insured.

Matthew

[Dan T]

Yes the USHPA will be putting out a copy of the document with generic dimensions for clearance at the launch and landing sites. It will also have generic guides for positive control of spectators at meets and the like. This includes things like cones, signs, tape and other devices intended to assure that they are informed of the hazards and instructed to stay clear. It will be our responsibility to supplement the plan so that the guides are appropriate to our specific locations.

I am surprised to hear that our public landowners did not require third party liability insurance in order to fly their sites. My understanding is that this in not typical.

Dan

[Dan T]

I spoke with Matthew. It appears that there is some confusion regarding the particular insurance policy. The policy that I am referring to is the one that the USHPA holds that provides insurance covering claims against it by third parties who are not signatories to the waivers. Some local clubs, including ours, also provide insurance that protects the land owners against suits resulting from our activities on their properties. These are different policies. The USHPA policy paid out big claims recently resulting from a glider that hit the power lines and another that hit a spectator after being picked up and carried about by a dust devil.

Sorry about the confusion. The bottom line is we need to be prepared to contribute to the "Risk Mitigation Plan" on all of our sites that pose a potential hazard to un-waivered spectators.

Dan

[theflyingdude]

Now I am even more confused than usual. The site insurance coverage provided thru the USHPA via a third-party vendor provides coverage for landowners against claims made by non-members, i.e. spectators and other non-participants, for injuries or property damage caused by hang gliding/paragliding activities. The only site the Mountaineer HGA insures (High Point) has a launch on private property and is far enough off the beaten path that we rarely have spectators (other than drivers, spouses, or the occasional landowner). It's a slope launch so there's little intrinsic danger (no cliffs to fall off), no power lines, and the exposure to third-party claims would appear quite low. On the other hand, the LZ is on public property (Fairgrounds excess parking lot) owned by the county who permits us to land there, but we have no control over access to that property. There are power lines, but they're only used to power the parking lot lights that are used about one week out of the entire year. Again, the exposure to claims would seem minimal, but we have little ability to institute loss prevention controls, anyway. Would we be held to the same standard as sites like Torrey Pines, or even the Pulpit and High Rock, where there are often spectators (drunken and otherwise) and the exposures appear more apparent? I can see a risk management plan being used when there are high profile meets that attract large numbers of pilots and spectators, but it seems like over-kill when it's just a standard flying day with a handful of pilots and the occasional driver, spouse-spectator.

JR

[dbodner]

Dan's two accident examples and Mark Forbes' e-mail make me think we're talking about our individual pilot's liability insurance, not the insurance the clubs buy for our landowners. So, all sites are affected.

[Dan T]

Folks, I apologize for the confusion I caused. I didn't quite have a full understanding of the topic. I spoke with a representative at USHPA HQ today and I believe that I have it straight now. Here is my current understanding.

The USHPA provides insurance that at least partially protects it, and each of its members against liability for injuries to spectators resulting from accidents by it's covered members. It similarly provides some level of protection for both it and its members resulting from damage to personal property. For example it paid out on a claim resulting from a collision with power lines that knocked out power well down stream from the accident.

In addition to this, our club, the CHGPA, also obtains coverage through the same insurance policy that protects the land owners from liability from claims made by pilots resulting from incidents on the land owners' property. The CHGPA pays for this insurance by sending funds sufficient to cover its cost to the USHPA so they can add it to their existing policy. This part of the USHPA's policy is intended to put our local land owners at ease regarding getting sued by a pilot. The intent is to make them comfortable with permitting us to use their property.

There is a law in the state of Virginia that basically exempts landowners from liability resulting from accidents by people engaging in recreational activities on their property. Most land owners who are aware of the law, consider it to be sufficient to protect them and therefore do not require us to provide additional insurance for this purpose. Some land owners, either aren't aware of the law or are not convinced that it provides adequate protection to them so ask us to provide insurance anyway. If it is necessary to retain permission to use the land owner's property we provide it. That is the reason out policy covers Taylor Farm, for example.

The bottom line is that the USHPA carries the policy that covers itself and to some degree its members based upon accidents caused by its members harming a third party. It also carries riders to the policy that protects landowners against suits by the pilots. These riders are paid for by the individual chapters. Our riders cover the locations that Matthew identified. The other locations we fly haven't asked for them.

If the USHPA loses the insurance they lose all of it, since it is all on the same policy. This is the reason we need to do what we can to assure that they can retain the policy. What they have asked us to do is contribute to a site specific example on the Risk Mitigation Plan. They made this request of me earlier today.

More on it to follow when I get instructions from them.

I hope this helps to clear things up. I'm better informed than I was but there is still a lot to learn on the subject. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused.

Dan

[Dan T]

Folks, I apologize for the confusion I caused. I didn't quite have a full understanding of the topic. I spoke with a representative at USHPA HQ today and I believe that I have it straight now. Here is my current understanding.

The USHPA provides insurance that at least partially protects it, and each of its members against liability for injuries to spectators resulting from accidents by it's covered members. It similarly provides some level of protection for both it and its members resulting from damage to personal property. For example it paid out on a claim resulting from a collision with power lines that knocked out power well down stream from the accident.

In addition to this, our club, the CHGPA, also obtains coverage through the same insurance policy that protects the land owners from liability from claims made by pilots resulting from incidents on the land owners' property. The CHGPA pays for this insurance by sending funds sufficient to cover its cost to the USHPA so they can add it to their existing policy. This part of the USHPA's policy is intended to put our local land owners at ease regarding getting sued by a pilot. The intent is to make them comfortable with permitting us to use their property.

There is a law in the state of Virginia that basically exempts landowners from liability resulting from accidents by people engaging in recreational activities on their property. Most land owners who are aware of the law, consider it to be sufficient to protect them and therefore do not require us to provide additional insurance for this purpose. Some land owners, either aren't aware of the law or are not convinced that it provides adequate protection to them so ask us to provide insurance anyway. If it is necessary to retain permission to use the land owner's property we provide it. That is the reason out policy covers Taylor Farm, for example.

The bottom line is that the USHPA carries the policy that covers itself and to some degree its members based upon accidents caused by its members harming a third party. It also carries riders to the policy that protects landowners against suits by the pilots. These riders are paid for by the individual chapters. Our riders cover the locations that Matthew identified. The other locations we fly haven't asked for them.

If the USHPA loses the insurance they lose all of it, since it is all on the same policy. This is the reason we need to do what we can to assure that they can retain the policy. What they have asked us to do is contribute to a site specific example on the Risk Mitigation Plan. They made this request of me earlier today.

More on it to follow when I get instructions from them.

I hope this helps to clear things up. I'm better informed than I was but there is still a lot to learn on the subject. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused.

Dan

[Dan T]

Folks, I apologize for the confusion I caused. I didn't quite have a full understanding of the topic. I spoke with a representative at USHPA HQ today and I believe that I have it straight now. Here is my current understanding.

The USHPA provides insurance that at least partially protects it, and each of its members against liability for injuries to spectators resulting from accidents by it's covered members. It similarly provides some level of protection for both it and its members resulting from damage to personal property. For example it paid out on a claim resulting from a collision with power lines that knocked out power well down stream from the accident.

In addition to this, our club, the CHGPA, also obtains coverage through the same insurance policy that protects the land owners from liability from claims made by pilots resulting from incidents on the land owners' property. The CHGPA pays for this insurance by sending funds sufficient to cover its cost to the USHPA so they can add it to their existing policy. This part of the USHPA's policy is intended to put our local land owners at ease regarding getting sued by a pilot. The intent is to make them comfortable with permitting us to use their property.

There is a law in the state of Virginia that basically exempts landowners from liability resulting from accidents by people engaging in recreational activities on their property. Most land owners who are aware of the law, consider it to be sufficient to protect them and therefore do not require us to provide additional insurance for this purpose. Some land owners, either aren't aware of the law or are not convinced that it provides adequate protection to them so ask us to provide insurance anyway. If it is necessary to retain permission to use the land owner's property we provide it. That is the reason out policy covers Taylor Farm, for example.

The bottom line is that the USHPA carries the policy that covers itself and to some degree its members based upon accidents caused by its members harming a third party. It also carries riders to the policy that protects landowners against suits by the pilots. These riders are paid for by the individual chapters. Our riders cover the locations that Matthew identified. The other locations we fly haven't asked for them.

If the USHPA loses the insurance they lose all of it, since it is all on the same policy. This is the reason we need to do what we can to assure that they can retain the policy. What they have asked us to do is contribute to a site specific example on the Risk Mitigation Plan. They made this request of me earlier today.

More on it to follow when I get instructions from them.

I hope this helps to clear things up. I'm better informed than I was but there is still a lot to learn on the subject. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused.

Dan

[theflyingdude]

Sorry Dan, but I still don't think you have it right. The site insurance covers the landowners from claims made by third-parties, not from claims made by pilots. We sign a waiver that specifically prevents us from suing landowners in connection with our flying activities. Each pilot who joins the USHPA has liability coverage for third-party claims made against them for injury or property damage caused by their own negligence related to flying activities. The site insurance covers the landowners from third-party claims of non-pilots who claim the landowners negligence caused (or were a party to causing) their damages as a result of flying activities. That's why you are required to belong to the USHPA if you're flying an insured site - because to belong to the USHPA, you must sign the waiver agreeing not to bring claim against or sue the landowner.

My apologies if I have that wrong, but I believe that's the way it works.

JR