If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Cant wrote
And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little less liability damage potential than a Nimbus A lot less. It's much slower and much lighter, and probably is capable of delivering no more than a quarter of the energy on impact that a Nimbus can deliver. they are flown by unlicensed pilots Not true. Those pilots are licensed by USHGA. Sure, the instructional program is not under FAA control. However, my experience as an instructor both in an FAA-controlled environment (gliders and airplanes) and in a non-FAA-controlled environment where a sport association issues licenses and has a liability insurance program (parachutes) leads me to believe that FAA involvement in the training program does not add any safety or proficiency value - only increased cost and bureaucracy. under loosely controlled conditions. Are they any less controlled than the conditions at a privately owned grass gliderport? My (admittedly few) lessons with a USHGA instructor suggest otherwise. It seems that the two risks might be comparable. It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Clearly the gliders involved are not capable of causing near as much damage, and the proficiency of the pilots is probably about the same. Michael |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I stand corrected. Ian At 14:36 10 June 2004, Michael wrote: Ian Cant wrote And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little less liability damage potential than a Nimbus A lot less. It's much slower and much lighter, and probably is capable of delivering no more than a quarter of the energy on impact that a Nimbus can deliver. they are flown by unlicensed pilots Not true. Those pilots are licensed by USHGA. Sure, the instructional program is not under FAA control. However, my experience as an instructor both in an FAA-controlled environment (gliders and airplanes) and in a non-FAA-controlled environment where a sport association issues licenses and has a liability insurance program (parachutes) leads me to believe that FAA involvement in the training program does not add any safety or proficiency value - only increased cost and bureaucracy. under loosely controlled conditions. Are they any less controlled than the conditions at a privately owned grass gliderport? My (admittedly few) lessons with a USHGA instructor suggest otherwise. It seems that the two risks might be comparable. It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Clearly the gliders involved are not capable of causing near as much damage, and the proficiency of the pilots is probably about the same. Michael |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
insurance for Sport Pilots! | Cub Driver | Piloting | 4 | September 11th 04 01:14 AM |
Make sure of Your Liability Insurance | Icebound | Piloting | 1 | April 25th 04 09:19 AM |
Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability | Caracole | Soaring | 18 | April 1st 04 09:17 PM |
Aviation Insurance History, data, records? | cloudclimbr | General Aviation | 0 | February 17th 04 03:36 AM |
How find out one's aviation insurance claims history? Aviation Claims Information Bureau? | cloudclimbr | Owning | 1 | February 15th 04 11:16 PM |