Liability insurance

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

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:22:21 UTC, (Michael)
wrote:

: 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.

I'm going to guess a bit, but assuming that a Nimbus weighs about 5
times as much as a hang-glider all up (750 vs 150kg) and flies twice
as fast (60 vs 30kt), it'll have twenty times the energy on impact...

Ian

--

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

What is the liability insurance all about ? I thought
it was things like crop damage, damaging vehicles or
buildings, hitting innocent bystanders - either relatively
inexpensive or relatively infrequent claims. But if
it is being abused as a substitute for carrying life
insurance, then that's a whole new bucket of snakes.

Ian



At 13:12 13 June 2004, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:22:21 UTC,
(Michael)
wrote:

: 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.

I'm going to guess a bit, but assuming that a Nimbus
weighs about 5
times as much as a hang-glider all up (750 vs 150kg)
and flies twice
as fast (60 vs 30kt), it'll have twenty times the energy
on impact...

Ian

--

In article ,
Ian Cant wrote:

What is the liability insurance all about ? I thought
it was things like crop damage, damaging vehicles or
buildings, hitting innocent bystanders - either relatively
inexpensive or relatively infrequent claims. But if
it is being abused as a substitute for carrying life
insurance, then that's a whole new bucket of snakes.

Ian

the worst case was a landowner who collected daily use fees, a
certificated but dangerous & indigent instructor, the weather turned,
the student crashed and died. the instructor had no assets to attach,
so the heirs (appropriately) turned to the certificating organization
(USHGA) and (inappropriately) to the landowner. laws have now been
changed to deny liability for landowners provided they allow access for
free; only if they charge, do they have liability. still USHGA is on
the hook for the instructors and commercial pilots, the people most
likely to be sued. with all students and ride passengers signing the
waiver, the organization is theoretically in the clear.

in a nutshell, the liability insurance protects the landowners from
lawsuits due to injuries sustained when they allow HG/PG to occur on
their property.

in other sports like scuba, even though an international organization
certificates the instructors, the instructors provide their own
liability insurance. you can imagine the liability if a scuba
instructor tossed a student into the ocean w/o making sure their air was
on.

Ken