CPC: I don't want my USHPA dues raised to support jumping from tandems - Cascade Paragliding Club

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion CPC: I don't want my USHPA dues raised to support jumping from tandems
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of Pilot...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.69 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.69;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <003601cd02fc$092905f0$1b7b11...@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <047d7b339c233cc49504bb511...@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:12:26 +0000
Subject: Re: CPC: I don't want my USHPA dues raised to support jumping from tandems
From: Pilot...@gmail.com
To: Dan Wells <danbwe...@comcast.net>
Cc: m...@mgforbes.com, CPC Groups <cpcl@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339c233cc46404bb511001

--047d7b339c233cc46404bb511001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes

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.

--047d7b339c233cc46404bb511001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see you point Dan,
<br />
<br />But I wonder if non-comp flying pilots like paying for your activitie=
s :)
<br />
<br />Let&#39;s twist the words a bit to provide a counter point.... let&#3=
9;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&#39;t in t=
he business of providing insurance coverage to pilots or aircraft. The FAA =
knows it&#39;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&#39;m assuming high risk aircraft (aerobatic- &quot;acr=
o&quot;, racing &quot;comp&quot;, experimental aircraft &quot;uncertified&q=
uot; aircraft), might have a higher insurance rates than say &quot;Mr. Airl=
ine Captain&#39;s&quot; weekend flying J3 Cub... =20
<br />
<br />The problem in my mind is that USPHA is trying to provide equal cover=
age for a multitude of different flight activities. It&#39;s not USHPA&#39;=
s fault. It&#39;s just the way the system has evolved. The solution? USHPA =
needs to move away from blanket coverage and require members to buy specifi=
c coverages with your annual dues based on what you do. USHPA should remain=
 responsible for setting the minimums required to fly at USHPA insured site=
s, and set rules for flying at USHPA insured sites (based on landowner pref=
erences), 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&#39;t stand a pencil pushing=
 insurance adjuster telling me what I can and can&#39;t do.=20
<br />
<br />If we are currently paying $20-$30 out of our annual dues each year j=
ust to take morning sledders that=92s 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 instructi=
onal tool!
<br />
<br />So add a speed flying rider, add an acro rider, add a competition rid=
er, add a tandem acro rider, add a d-bag rider!... I will buy the extra cov=
erage I need and be happy as a clam.=20
<br />
<br />We are trying to fit too many odd shaped pegs through square holes he=
re with our current system... There has to be a better way.
--047d7b339c233cc46404bb511001--
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
