Mark,

I've been reading most of the posts and just want to give you one more
voice.  I'm not an instructor or tandem pilot.  I'm just one of those pilots
who wants to go fly when the weather is good.  There are a lot of us out
there.

Instructors promote safety and keep the sport alive-We need to support them.
Tandem pilots generate interest in the sport with tandem "instructional"
flights.  Beyond that it is just added thrill seeking that offers marginal
if any additional interest in the sport.    

I am willing (and actually presume that I am) subsidizing some portion of
insurance for instructors. I am not in favor of any action that would result
in increasing my dues to support base jumping or D-bagging from tandem
flights.

We elected you and we have to trust you to work out the best deal you can on
insurance.  

Most of the posts have been by a few people.  I'm copying the list and would
encourage all CPC members (or anyone else in our region) to forward their
thoughts on this to you one way or the other.

Dan

Dan Wells

danbwells @comcast.net

503 804-1077

Australia contact number

+61 477-418-947

  OK how about acro, can tandems pilots actually show pilots what is
possible or do we need to dumb it down and have tandems fly like P2? How
do we determine if this will be an increase are we giving multiple
options and asking for prices.

How about certified gliders if we offered that up it may lower our rates
even if there is no prove it lowers exposure to risk.

While many are happy to just fly there are others that will be attracted
to the sport that is more dynamic.

I notice your quote marks on tandem "instructional" flights by that I
take it you think they are many joy rides. USHPA is concerned about our
tandem waiver and the FAA why not do something positive to make sure
there is some instruction going on instead of giving away our options
which once gone will be hard to restore.

Other lists out there with discussions and plenty of USHPA pilots have
signed the petition

Has the rain stopped? How about some more photos.

yes it is raining and windy here

SF

On 3/15/2012 3:36 PM, Dan Wells wrote:

I'll mention something we discussed around Woodrat lately, as it
relates.

While d-bagging from tandems is surely a marginalized activity, it is
clearly an activity that some pilots do.  If you put all USHPA minority
activities on the block, two bad things can happen.  One, your group
size may diminish, and/or some other faction in the group might decide
your own preferred activity is a minority.

So when we review decisions as they impact our sites, we consider them
in this hierarchy:

1)      Is it good for landowners?

2)      The local community?

3)      USHPA pilots?

4)      RVHPA pilots?

And I'd put each individual pilot as #5.  By pleasing all of the groups
before us, we ensure that we have a lot of sites to fly.  If one is too
myopic, one might become a one-man wolf pack.

Of course we'll have to slide insurance companies somewhere in there
around 2.5.  Still, if they aren't complaining....

Paul Murdoch

Gary West Smoked Meats

www.garywest.com <http://www.garywest.com/>

541 899 1829

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential or proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.

From: cpcl@googlegroups.com [mailto:cpcl@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
skf...@effectnet.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:52 PM
To: cpcl@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: CPC: I don't want my USHPA dues raised to support jumping
from tandems how about acro?

 OK how about acro, can tandems pilots actually show pilots what is
possible or do we need to dumb it down and have tandems fly like P2? How
do we determine if this will be an increase are we giving multiple
options and asking for prices.

How about certified gliders if we offered that up it may lower our rates
even if there is no prove it lowers exposure to risk.

While many are happy to just fly there are others that will be attracted
to the sport that is more dynamic.

I notice your quote marks on tandem "instructional" flights by that I
take it you think they are many joy rides. USHPA is concerned about our
tandem waiver and the FAA why not do something positive to make sure
there is some instruction going on instead of giving away our options
which once gone will be hard to restore.

Other lists out there with discussions and plenty of USHPA pilots have
signed the petition

Has the rain stopped? How about some more photos.

yes it is raining and windy here

SF

On 3/15/2012 3:36 PM, Dan Wells wrote:

Mark,

I've been reading most of the posts and just want to give you one more
voice.  I'm not an instructor or tandem pilot.  I'm just one of those
pilots who wants to go fly when the weather is good.  There are a lot of
us out there.

Instructors promote safety and keep the sport alive-We need to support
them.  Tandem pilots generate interest in the sport with tandem
"instructional" flights.  Beyond that it is just added thrill seeking
that offers marginal if any additional interest in the sport.    

I am willing (and actually presume that I am) subsidizing some portion
of insurance for instructors. I am not in favor of any action that would
result in increasing my dues to support base jumping or D-bagging from
tandem flights.

We elected you and we have to trust you to work out the best deal you
can on insurance.  

Most of the posts have been by a few people.  I'm copying the list and
would encourage all CPC members (or anyone else in our region) to
forward their thoughts on this to you one way or the other.

Dan

Dan Wells

danbwells @comcast.net

503 804-1077

Australia contact number

+61 477-418-947

Drove by PB earlier today.  You could have benched up to the top starting
at the lower pasture and once reaching the top, probably XC'd to Salem.
 Wouldn't have been pretty though.  Except for the "pretty wet" part.

I'd like to see lots of flexibility in our rules and regs; and the fewer
rules the better.  I'm assuming that if we end up with more restrictions it
will be because it was a trade-off for keeping costs down and still
providing protections that will benefit the majority.  I'm with Dan for
keeping costs down, although I'm guessing that money doesn't factor into
the equation for the FAA's perspective on tandems.  But I'd also like to
let wild people be crazy if they choose, especially if I'm not penalized
for their risk.

It is good to see everyone engaged.  Even better to see comments that
exhibit civilized and mature thought instead of disrespectful emotional
responses based on limited information.  A lot of people follow this blog
without participating - it is not private.  It is very possible that some
of the folks working for the FAA already have their own link to a certain
cool video showing a tandem/skydiver event, complete with location,
names...

One more thought - Email is sometimes ineffective for sharing complex
information.  If one really wanted to understand the situation and also
know how our representative is going to represent, they might want to meet
in person.  Surveys and rants are pretty incomplete IMHO.

Two-bit Bill

I see you point Dan,

But I wonder if non-comp flying pilots like paying for your activities :)

Let's twist the words a bit to provide a counter point.... let's call this  
Skydiving from an ultralight aircraft for a second. Something that is legal  
under FAR rules. The key here is that the FAA isn't in the business of  
providing insurance coverage to pilots or aircraft. The FAA knows it's  
place as a regulator and not as an insurance agent. They set the minimums  
required for coverage and leave the limits of flying open for exploration.  
And I'm assuming high risk aircraft (aerobatic- "acro", racing "comp",  
experimental aircraft "uncertified" aircraft), might have a higher  
insurance rates than say "Mr. Airline Captain's" weekend flying J3 Cub...

The problem in my mind is that USPHA is trying to provide equal coverage  
for a multitude of different flight activities. It's not USHPA's fault.  
It's just the way the system has evolved. The solution? USHPA needs to move  
away from blanket coverage and require members to buy specific coverages  
with your annual dues based on what you do. USHPA should remain responsible  
for setting the minimums required to fly at USHPA insured sites, and set  
rules for flying at USHPA insured sites (based on landowner preferences),  
but more importantly in my mind, they should be leading the fight to  
challenge insurance companies on the limitations of their policies. If the  
landowner says no acro so be it, but I can't stand a pencil pushing  
insurance adjuster telling me what I can and can't do.

If we are currently paying $20-$30 out of our annual dues each year just to  
take morning sledders that's cool, but I will gladly pay $40-60 a year to  
have the freedom explore different avenues with my flying. And yes... I am  
one of those guys wanting to do tandem acro! What a great instructional  
tool!

So add a speed flying rider, add an acro rider, add a competition rider,  
add a tandem acro rider, add a d-bag rider!... I will buy the extra  
coverage I need and be happy as a clam.

We are trying to fit too many odd shaped pegs through square holes here  
with our current system... There has to be a better way.

I can see the validity of this viewpoint too.  Best solution would involve
insurance only-- if need be-- and not a change to USHPA rules regarding
tandems.  Steve

So, is Dan a comp pilot then?  I must assume so from "pilots"
response.

Do you fly a uncertified glider Dan?  If you do, then at what point
are you worried about USHPA restricting your fight because your glider
is no longer considered safe enough?  In fact, even if you fly a 2/3
glider... at what point does that become deemed not safe enough.  Oh,
wait... your fully qualified and believe that you have the skills
required to handle such a "hot" glider???  Well, our insurance
underwriter begs to differ. So sorry, we have now passed a blanket ban
on your "dangerous" wing.

Get the point...

Jon

On Mar 15, 5:37 pm, Steve Seibel <sseibel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Promised myself I was going to stay off the forums, being that I was
the guy who started this entire discussion.

But, we are missing some perspective here.  The present paragliding
community completely owes its sport to those crazy French parapenters
who hurled themselves off of cliffs using... oh dear, can it be so...
parachutes.  Parachutes are just a paraglider... yes... ram air, 7 or
9 cells, a harness, line cascades, and even break toggles.  The poor
buggers just only have a crappy glide ratio of about 2/1...  But, it
still flies, goes left and right, and they even have to flare it too
land.  Something about ducks comes to mind.

So basically when I either drop... or drop someone, out of a tandem I
am just giving them another platform from which to launch from.
Sometimes we only take a two second delay, or like in some of my
videos... more in the range of 10-15 seconds... pop the "flying
canopy" and go land.  Watch some paragliding cliff takeoffs and/or
speed wing take offs...  Kinda is starting to look like someone
running off a cliff eh?  Thus... those people taking the stance of
being the refined paraglider who has nothing in common with the
parachutist are in denial about the very roots of their sport.  Just
because you have chosen your avenue for flying, don't cut off those of
us who still dabble in the "original form" of it.

Free the mind, and keep all forms of flight... free...  Including all
the platforms from which to "launch" from.

Jon

  Dan competes on serial glider not even a 2-3. Just because you compete
does not mean you are flying a comp gliders and like me just because you
are flying a comp gliders does not mean you compete.

It is unfortunate but the best we can hope for is probably a status quo
with none of this activity at USHPA insured sites and  no more of this
talk of pulling ratings. If they insist on this there will probably be
some pilots that will get tandem ratings elsewhere or not at all which
is not a good idea since the FAA only requires a rating for tandems. I
am hoping that the insurance problem can be addressed without starting
to chop away choices as that does seem to lead down a path we don't want
to travel.

That said I do want to fly and it would be a shame if insurance troubles
lead to lose any site that we have had to work hard to secure and keep,
at many sites insurance has been a key part in gaining  public and
private parties confidence. I think this is also a reason to try to open
new sites without insuring when possible.

sf

On 3/15/2012 7:43 PM, Jon Malmberg wrote:

  Actually climbers if you want to go that far back. Hangs in the 70's
when free flying was a reality but the world sadly has moved on. We
actually have it fairly good in the USA and the NW. I am still amazed in
this fearful country that the FAA has left us alone. They reeled in
illegal (over weight) ultralights at the same time that they were
creating Sport Pilot class and created requirements for aero towing and
have been serious about stopping joy rides for hire by amateur pilots.

I understand why our org wants to make sure we stress teaching when
tandem flying and I don't think that precludes acro and see value even
with new temp rated tandem students. Pushing for a more structured
presentation and debriefing could help keep tandems instructional.

Regarding jumping the waiver does say recreational so if both are rated
pilots so, JUMP

Steve Forslund

    FAA Exemption #4721L

[This] exemption to � 103.1(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations allows USHPA to operate unpowered ultralight vehicles (hang
gliders) weighing less than 155 pounds, with another occupant, for the
purpose of sport, training, or recreation.

*Conditions and Limitations*

1. Each operation must comply with all sections of Part 103, except �
103.1 (a).

2. For training purposes, this exemption applies only to flights for the
purpose of giving instruction in two-place unpowered ultralight vehicles
from USHPA-approved launch sites.

3. Both occupants on all two-place training flights must possess a
current pilot rating issued by the USHPA and at least one occupant must
possess a current USHPA instructor rating.

4. Prior to all two-occupant training flights, the student must be
informed that the flight is conducted under an exemption granted by the
FAA and that the ultralight vehicle does not meet aircraft certification
standards set forth by the FAA.

5. Both occupants on all two-place flights, other than for training
purposes, must possess a current pilot rating issued by the USHPA and at
least one occupant must possess a current advanced hang gliding rating
issued by the USHPA.

6. For identification purposes, the USHPA shall issue an individual
authorization to each person allowed to conduct operations under this
exemption. Each authorization shall include an identification number and
a copy of this exemption. The USHPA shall also have a procedure to
rescind this authority when needed.

7. Each individual who operates an ultralight vehicle under the
authority of this exemption must be familiar with the provisions
contained herein and must have in his or her personal possession a copy
of the authorization issued by the USHPA and a copy of this exemption.
These documents shall be presented for inspection upon request by the FAA.

[This] extends the termination date of Exemption No. 4721, as amended,
to October 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

Raymond Towles
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 2, 2010

On 3/15/2012 8:06 PM, Jon Malmberg wrote:

Great idea. Let's start with the notion that a tandem instructional flight
is not intended to be a thrill ride for a brand new pilot. They should be
learning the basics of control; mild pitch variations, roll up to 15 degrees
or so, weight shift, brake feel and so on. They should be getting instruction
on weather conditions, altitude and position judgment, how to set up a
safe approach and how to land safely.

None of that requires high bank angles, extreme G-forces or anything else
"acro". Student instruction is what FAA has granted us an exemption to do,
and we exceed it at our peril.

Now, once it's a couple of trained and rated pilots, fully cognizant of
the risks and interested in learning more extreme maneuvers, I'm fine with
them going out tandem and winding it up. In fact, I'd love to do it myself,
though I'd prefer cranking it over water instead of dirt. It's not such
a good idea at an insured site, or at a place where passers-by might be
moved to call 911 to report an "accident", but at an appropriate venue
I think it's fine. I'd say P2-and-above, with a tandem instructor.

So given that position, how do we develop flight rules that support it?
That's what we'll be discussing next week. I realize that some guys like
Jon or Matt may think I'm being extremely conservative and unreasonable.
Maybe I am....but the guys who decide whether to renew our exemption
are *professional government bureaucrats*. You know...the people for
whom the definition of a successful career is "Never had his name in
the paper."

Jon sent me a link to some great video from Jackson Hole. They're
cranking it up, horizon inverted, "passengers" screaming with thrills
at the awesome roller coaster ride. I can imagine what the FAA guys
will say when we come up for renewal, and they pull *that* out and
ask us just what the hell we think we're doing, and why these guys
still have ratings. And what will we say? "Aw gee, it's fun and we
haven't killed anybody yet."

'Cuz that's where we are right now. Do we continue to hope that
no acro fatalities happen, and our insurers don't get wind of it
and blow up, and the FAA doesn't come down on us? Or do we do
something now with some *reasonable* limits, to avoid it all
hitting the fan later? (Or sooner, given the amount of recent
public discussion of this topic. Yes, they're lurking.)

It would be more fun to just go fly and not worry about this stuff.

MGF

Steve,

Okay, lets assume that Dan is actually an unknown regular "Steve"
guy...  Who let's say, does not compete... but, enjoys the performance
of his "uncertified" glider to really allow him to fly far distances
as he choses.  Lets then ask "Steve" about the number of accidents
involving "uncertified" gliders over the past ten years?  Hmmm, seems
like suddenly there are some real hard numbers/incidents that
insurance types might be interested in knowing about?

By giving up any aspect of free flight, we are encouraging USHAP to
explore in others as the accidents and incidents continue, insurance
premiums continue to rise, and extensions become more difficult.
Banning both the BASE/Parachuting and Tandem ACRO will have zero
effect on safety.  Remember, zero incidents.  And when the next rash
of incidents occur involving the average paraglider on average gear,
those insurance guys will be scratching their heads and right back
knocking on USHPA's door asking for the next round of initiatives to
reduce risk.  The PWC just made the decision to ban uncertified wings
in competitions, due to some extremely unfortunate incidents.  Will
that same logic be taken up by USHPA in the next insurance iteration?
When it does happen, I will be standing right there with you fighting
for your rights even though I am not a XC flyer... but, damn if I
don't support what you like to do in the air and on what gear you
chose to use.

Pretty sure we are on the same page here.  In fact, I know we are on
the identical page, because guess what...  That little tiny weenie 19m
ACRO wing and that awesome 10m Speed Wing I fly... yeah, fully
unrated.

Sorry Dan, I am not going after you personally in any manner...  Just
trying to make a point.

Jon

Really? You might recall that it's a bit more expensive to buy individual
coverage, compared to a group policy.

We were able to get instructor insurance for a mere $310/year/instructor because
it's a group policy and everybody is covered with the same, consistent single plan.
Before that, instructors had to buy individual policies if they were required to
by landowners, or if they needed to protect their assets from loss in case of a
claim against them. Such policies ran anywhere from $1500-$20,000 per year
depending on revenue, coverage limits and number of flights. Not many instructors
bought them because they were almost unaffordable for all but a few high
volume operations, or wealthy individuals who had too much to lose.

What you're talking about, essentially, is buying individual coverage. Even
assuming that the insurers would write such coverage (and from what I know so
far, they won't), I don't think you could afford it. Maybe you're rich,
and I'm wrong. :-)

There are many kinds of risk in our sport. Some of it is individual risk,
and that's easier to deal with since we have a waiver and we've all agreed
not to file lawsuits if we get hurt. As soon as you involve two people, the
stakes get higher because now "A" claims that it was all the fault of "B",
and that's a recipe for a lawsuit. As long as it's two rated USHPA pilots,
things are still pretty much ok, because we're all knowledgeable and we
all have signed waivers.

Things get even more dicey when it's a 30-day member who hasn't had the
level of training that a rated pilot does. It's easier to argue that they
didn't really understand what was going on, they were confused, they were
coerced, they were caught up in the moment and enthralled, or whatever.
Juries have more sympathy for them, and the financial risk to us all is
far higher. Even if they're unsuccessful, the chance of them filing a
suit is much higher because they're not yet part of our culture of
personal responsibility. Whether they win or not, we're out a ton of
money for legal defense, and it all comes out of the insurance premium.

Worst of all is a spectator....no waiver, no clue, no worries. WHAM!
And now, no income/career/eyesight/walking/breathing/etc. That one
goes for the big bucks.

We must strike a balance between fun and responsibility. I don't care
if we as individual pilots want to go out and be crazy....that's who
we are! As soon as tandem is involved, things get more difficult. If
we add minimally-trained people to the mix, it gets VERY difficult.

MGF

  It sounds like you agree then for more advanced training or recreation
with rated pilots there is nothing that should stop tandem acro?

15 degree bank? Really Mark there are plenty of sites/lzs that may
disagree with that extremely conservative flying. We disagree on the
value of teaching and attracting/keeping new pilots, I think there is
value in showing them more.

SF

On 3/15/2012 8:41 PM, Mark G. Forbes wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:20 PM, skf...@effectnet.com wrote:

Well....maybe 30 degrees. But keep it within the normal bounds of what a
student pilot is expected to experience, not aerobatic maneuvers. I think
you understand the point. 60-degrees-to-inverted is "right out" for a new
student. That's a thrill ride, not student training.

MGF

Mark,

I finally have to chime in here and agree with Steve on this one. I've
been through the conservative training you're talking about and have
my pilot's license. The only thing that makes me occasionally think
about getting back behind a propeller is a day I had with an
instructor, an old bush pilot, who got to know me well enough to know
that I'd really be into going out in MVFR conditions and bouncing
around under a low ceiling to get a taste of real flying. Challenging
and fun flying that was 'perfectly' safe. And it also taught me a
great deal about control, power management, landing approaches,
weather...

A paraglider is a very different sort of aircraft. Floating around in
calm conditions is fine, but these things are capable of so much more,
and I think that pilots (including brand new, first time, 30-day
ones ) that don't feel something outside of a 30 degree bank angle
just have no idea what's going on up there. I've only been to one SIV,
but I'm in the camp that feels like it's an essential part of
training. (Hey, there's another rule to add to the list: mandatory SIV
for all P2's) I'd be a lot more comfortable sending someone I cared
about up on a tandem with a pilot who's comfortable with the full
range of flight characteristics of their wing. Aerobatics definitely
has a place in early training flights and that place can be discovered
with good communication before the flight so both pilot and student
know what the goals are for the tandem. There should be a push within
USHPA for tandem pilots to continue to develop their flying, including
aerobatic maneuvers and other advanced skills.

Using words like "we exceed it at our peril" to describe your personal
and very conservative views on what the limitations of training should
be is dangerous for our organization and for retention of future
pilots. I applaud the hard work you have done to protect our insurance
policy (and the many other things I'm sure you've done behind the
scenes at USHPA) but I am also concerned about your tone in this
recent discussion. Yes, there is a problem with the insurer's
perceptions of our sport. We need to be working together to correct
their misconceptions.

This has been a long and valuable discussion (things always seem to
grow so fast when it rains a lot here in Oregon...) but shouldn't our
energies be focused on how we can deal with the real problem of
spectator injuries? Very little of this discussion has contributed to
that.

Alan

On Mar 15, 11:41 pm, "Mark G. Forbes" <m...@mgforbes.com> wrote:

Repeating something I said earlier: our exemption specifically *allows* sport
and recreation tandems. It's right there in the wording. It may be that our
insurance requires us to be instructing, but as far as the FAA is concerned
they're saying "go have fun". It may also be that by claiming the flight is
for "instructional" purposes it gives some very grey wiggle room with
respect to the commercial aspects of the flight...but that's a door that's
best left closed for now.

..glen

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Mark G. Forbes <m...@mgforbes.com> wrote:

None of that requires high bank angles, extreme G-forces or anything else

No, student instruction is *one* of the parts of the exemption. Sport and
recreation tandem flights are also specifically allowed.

..glen

It's raining here in Manilla today so I have some time to reflect on some of
the responses to my post yesterday.

. For those of you who don't know me I'm 63, recently retired, and have been
flying paragliders for over 10 years now.  Just last year I earned my first
safe pilot award for 1000 flights without serious injury.  I have competed
in only three comps.  Mostly for the challenge of flying the course and
hoping to improve my skills.  I fly a DHV 1-2 wing.

. I understand the desire to keep the free flight spirit in the organization
and let individuals and small groups do their own thing.  

. I am not opposing D-bag launches, or base jumps from tandem paragliders.
I just don't believe the general USHPA membership should be burdened with
the insurance cost for those activities.  I agree that banning them should
be a last resort, but if that is what it takes to keep our insurance and
sites open then so be it.

. I didn't comment on tandem acro but I can see some benefit in allowing
some maneuvers for training purposes.  I was a little surprised that
wingovers and spirals were really considered acro.  Usually when I see them
done they are pretty benign.   Maybe we are victims of YouTube on this one.
But is USHPA endorses tandem acro then I believe they have to have that as
demonstrated skill in getting a tandem rating-or perhaps an added skill.  

. There are pilots here in Manilla from South Africa and Switzerland and we
had some discussions on how it is handled in their countries.  Specific
signoffs tandem pilots taking up D-baggers in South Africa and if I
understood correctly in Switzerland the individuals buy their own insurance.

. In Australia you cannot fly in a sanctioned completion with a glider that
is not certified.  Guess that's true everywhere now.  Right?  So hold on to
your hat guys, it may be what Jon fears may be next on the list of
requirement for insurance for regular flyers.  

The day is still not flyable here but I need to post some pictures of flying
to satisfy Forslund.  Too much rain and resulting green fields for epic
thermal days in Manilla but still great fun.

Dan
Dan Wells
danbwells @comcast.net
503 804-1077
Australia contact number
+61 477-418-947

On 3/16/2012 10:29 PM, Dan Wells wrote:

  Actually  category 1 comps are still free to choose what they will In
some countries.

  I think the Ratrace open class you are able to take a speed wing D-bag
tandem along and use his time to goal provided he takes the gps when he
drops, yeah that's it.

Where are those pictures?

SF

paragliders. I just don't believe the general USHPA membership should be
burdened with the insurance cost for those activities."

It might be useful to review what we know so far.

1. There's no measurable "insurance cost for those activities." The USHPA
3rd party liability insurance covers all Pilot and Rogallo (instructor)
members for all non-commercial activities. The only a la carte insurance
cost is the instructor liability insurance for those pilots who choose
Rogallo membership which costs $195/year more than Pilot membership. Note
that Pilot members are subsidizing the instructor liability insurance to
some extent because the extra $195 Rogallo members pay doesn't cover the
full cost.

2. There's no evidence that banning skydiving/jumping from tandems will
make the difference between being able to renew the insurance and not being
able to renew.

3. The insurance underwriters haven't asked us to ban skydiving/jumping
from tandems. As far as we know the insurance underwriters haven't said
anything at all about it.

4. There haven't been any reported accidents or insurance claims as a
result of skydiving/jumping from tandems.

5. There's no evidence skydiving/jumping from tandems is any riskier than
traditional tandem flights.

Steve