Discussion on proposed 2024 Bylaws changes

[Bret Hess]

The board has approved these Bylaws changes. We’ll start an electronic vote on them on May 20, after a week of discussion and possible revision. Red text is new or deleted language

1.  Annual board elections clarification. 

The annual election of Directors will occur at a time close to the annual meeting, no later than May 31.

2.  Associate membership clarification.  The PPG requirement holds at all times. 

Associate Members. Associate Members shall hold a Private Pilot Glider or higher glider rating. at the time they join the Association or at the time they renew their membership for a given year..

3.  Current insurance practice added to Bylaws. Several years ago we changed from hull insurance to paying for hull damage ourselves. We still believe in this practice, and need to get it into the Bylaws.  I guess we didn’t notice this section before.  See complete text changes marked here.

The Corporation will carry adequate hull insurance on all Association aircraft against ground and flight damage, or the Board shall establish an insurance fund and funding plan to address possible costs associated with loss or damage to equipment. The Corporation will carry adequate liability insurance to protect the Association and its members against suit by third parties or another member of the Association.  The Board of Directors may obtain other insurance as deemed prudent or necessary.  

4. Member financial liability rewording, higher damage assessment and damage waiver. 

To get us on a sound financial footing and promote greater care for club property, we need to raise the damage assessment from max $1000 to max $5000, and extend damage assessments to all club equipment and all activities where equipment is damaged.  Members can purchase a $200/year damage waiver from the club if they wish to protect themselves from the risk of a damage assessment.   See complete text changes marked here.

Each and every operation of any aircraft owned or operated by the Association shall be conducted at the risk of the member(s) participating.  Such member(s) and any member(s) engaged in any activity that damages Association aircraft or other equipment shall be assessed as follows: for each accident, loss, or destruction of such aircraft or other Association equipment the member(s) will (jointly) be assessed the lesser of (1) $5000 or (2) the costs associated with the accident including, but not limited to, repairs and transportation, as determined by the Board of Directors. These assessments shall be made without regard to any volunteer work of the member or the member’s financial situation.  The member shall pay in full no later than 60 days after the assessment, after which 1.5% monthly interest will accrue.  Members shall be exempt from a damage assessment if before the incident they purchased an active damage waiver at a cost determined by the Board.  Damage waivers expire at midnight on the day that annual dues are due.

[Bret Hess]

This was sent from groups.google.com/g/utah-soaring, a public discussion forum.  You can reply to this email to participate in the public discussion, or post on the site. 

[Richard Kennedy]

I have questions re: higher damage assessment.

1. Does the BOD have a protocol for reviewing incidents that damage club ships?

2. Can the assessments be appealed?

I support the concept of placing the financial burden on a member that operates a club ship in a negligent or careless manner, but there are several scenarios that I can think of that might result in damage to the ship that the PIC cannot avoid or be expected to predict. 

A premature termination of tow under 200' at Morgan, Nephi or Logan would almost certainly damage the glider (depending on a host of other factors), but the PIC is responsible if the towplane has an issue that requires a 'rock-off'?

I had the rope separate from the towplane at Morgan 2 years ago, fortunately I was at a high enough altitude to make a normal pattern back to the runway, but had it happened under 200' the result would not have been as successful..

Canopies are a huge expense and on club ships they almost always have an existing crack or damage that has been stop-drilled or temp repaired. Cumulative wear and tear could cause a failure or more damage and the PIC who happens to be using the plane that flight would be on the hook for $5k? 

Again, I want to stress that I agree with the BOD's intent, but it is a little vague in application and enforcement.

RK

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Utah Soaring" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to utah-soaring...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/utah-soaring/3e3535d8-efa5-4df8-9cb7-be7fab0aa2ccn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bret Hess]

Good questions:

The Safety Officer generally reviews incidents.  Yes, the board takes into account a lot of things   The only thing that the board can't consider is "volunteer work or the financial situation of the member". 

Feel free to suggest alternate language that captures what you think is the right balance.  

[Bruno Vassel]

Thanks Richard for joining in on the discussion and thought process.  The way I look at this is we should consider the responsibility of taking an aircraft flying just like the same as when we own it completely ourselves.  If there is a low tow break and the glider gets damaged, does the insurance company say, "don't worry about it, it wasn't your fault?"  We are responsible for it still because we decided to take it flying.  The board understands that the $5000 is a much larger liability and cost if something happens so we came up with the $200 waiver payment option for those members that don't already have coverage due to their own ship's insurance.

Here is another way to look at it:  If a club member damages a club ship (no matter who was at fault), the entire club membership has to pay for the loss/damage since the club is self insuring.  Does it really make a difference who was at fault?  If we use club equipment and it gets damaged, I think it is unreasonable to expect not to have any financial responsibility at all.  Again, more than half the membership has insurance already that would cover the $5000 deductible due to owning their own ships and the club has the $200 waiver to cover anyone who wants it which is less cost than going and purchasing a renter policy.  Hope this perspective helps.

Bruno

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/utah-soaring/c6a5744d-a8f3-4c59-a9f3-41b0cb0e9fe8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rob Eckel]

These are good points that Richard brought up.

1) w.r.t. a protocol for reviewing incidents, there is nothing formally in writing that I'm aware of, but Bret briefly described the process we took with the most recent incident involving 0PX.

2) w.r.t. appeals, again there is nothing formally in writing, but I think the board that we currently have in place would be receptive to hearing an appeal.

In my opinion, in the case of a rope break or rock-off, the member should be held fully accountable.  It's one of the many risks we have to manage as pilots.  A few other examples that I think the pilot should be responsible for: Damage due to unseen hazards during off-field landings, and unforecast or unforseen weather (ie: downdrafts in the pattern, strong crosswind, etc) forcing a landing that causes damage.  We should not think of these things as being out of our control.  These are things that we should have planned for, possibly years in advance of encountering the situation.  As a side note, for an extreme example of downdrafts in the pattern, I recommend taking the time to read this article by Clemens Ceipek: https://chessintheair.com/invisible-microburst-kills-expert-glider-pilot/ and a follow-on article he wrote https://chessintheair.com/are-dry-microburst-really-an-invisible-trap-responding-to-reactions/ .  It has made me rethink and change how I fly the pattern.

In Richard's example about a canopy, and generally when it comes to wear and tear maintenance items, I think there's a lot more room for deciding the pilot is not responsible or only partially responsible, depending on the particular circumstances.  These are shared assets, and all members are causing wear and tear over time.

Rob

[Bret Hess]

Thanks for the discussion.  Here is the board's change in response to the input:

Each and every operation of any aircraft owned or operated by the Association shall be conducted at the risk of the member(s) participating.  Such member(s) and any member(s) engaged in any activity that damages Association aircraft or other equipment shall be assessed (jointly) as follows: for each accident, loss, or destruction of such aircraft or other Association equipment lesser of (1) $5000 or (2) the costs associated with the accident including, but not limited to, repairs and transportation, as determined by the Board of Directors. These assessments shall be made without regard to any volunteer work of the member or the member’s financial situation.  The Board may reduce or eliminate an assessment due to mechanical failure from cumulative wear, etc. The member shall pay in full no later than 60 days after the assessment, after which 1.5% monthly interest will accrue.  Members shall be exempt from a damage assessment if before the incident they purchased an active damage waiver at a cost determined by the Board.  Damage waivers expire at midnight on the day that annual dues are due.

[Rex]

I’m curious about this language “Such member(s) and any member(s) engaged in any activity that damages Association aircraft or other equipment”

I’m likely opening up myself to (undesired) criticism here, at the same time involvement could be a broad definition that I think needs clarification.

Based on the wording “involvement” I’m wondering what that means for ground handling incidents where more than one person is involved in moving a glider. I know there are more scenarios than can possibly be covered. Here are a few scenarios I’d like further clarification on.

I’m curious how it would be looked upon if you helped attach the ground tow out gear and then the glider gets damaged during tow while you’re on the other side of the field because you weren’t helping with the tow out procedure?

What about the case where you have two wing walkers and a vehicle driver and one wing gets damaged. Do all 3 get assessed?

In the case of student pilot solo, historically it has been that if the instructor is not on the aircraft at the time of incident, they are not responsible financially for damage to the aircraft. With this language it would be hard to say that an instructor is not involved if they are required to be at the field for solo (as per bylaws). Does this change how it would be seen?

What about the case where an instructor has taught a student to ground handle properly and attach tow out gear. The instructor has overseen many successful ground handling events with this student, the student says they are competent and capable and do not need help, the student doesn’t follow procedure that they’ve been taught and damages the glider. What’s the instructor’s liability in this case? Would they be considered “involved”?

When it’s come to these kinds of issues I’ve designated a PIC of the operation. In glider operations it can become very complex with so many trained PICs all doing their own thing, during ground handling for example. A clear designation of who to receive direction from on a specific operation has been helpful in my experience. 

Thanks,

Rex

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/utah-soaring/55257eb7-eaca-4fa6-9a09-0ef26cb465b6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bret Hess]

The Board will judge all these kinds of scenarios, and many of them fall into the "etc" of "The Board may reduce or eliminate an assessment..., etc. "   

But I'll give you my opinion on how the board would vote on some cases:

No fault (assessment) assigned:

You helped attach the ground tow out gear and then the glider gets damaged during tow while you’re on the other side of the field because you weren’t helping with the tow out procedure. 

You (as instructor) supervise a solo flight and the student damages the aircraft.

You taught a student to ground handle properly and attach tow out gear. The student doesn’t follow the procedure that they’ve been taught and damages the glider.

Probably fault (assessment) assigned:

You (as instructor) approve a solo flight in weather conditions that prudent glider pilots would avoid and the student damages the aircraft.

You are a wing walker or vehicle driver and a wing gets damaged because of your neglect.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/utah-soaring/CAFMf%2BuMyxoCCLZnTRwvzHSmTcFCrbqULB1e-qFyuZZi%2Bqxw2oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bret Hess]

Thanks for the input Richard and Rex.  We did one more round of edits on this section.   Here is the final version.

Each and every operation of any aircraft owned or operated by the Association shall be conducted at the risk of the member(s) participating.  Such member(s) and any member(s) engaged in any activity that damages Association aircraft or other equipment shall be assessed (jointly) as below, unless the Board votes to reduce the assessment or exempt a participant from an assessment.  Mitigating factors such as mechanical failure from cumulative wear may be considered. Volunteer work of the member or the member’s financial situation shall not be considered. For each accident, loss, or destruction of Association equipment the (joint) assessment will be the lesser of (1) $5000 or (2) the costs associated with the accident including, but not limited to, repairs and transportation, as determined by the Board of Directors. The member shall pay in full no later than 60 days after the assessment, after which 1.5% monthly interest will accrue. Members shall be exempt from a damage assessment if before the incident they purchased an active damage waiver at a cost determined by the Board.  Damage waivers expire at midnight on the day that annual dues are due.

And here are all the changes that we'll vote on:  

Bret