Flyfunston

Hello Pilots and Friends,

Our Executive Committee Treasurer, Mark Forbes, sent an email to the USHPA membership today regarding obtaining the USHPA insurance required so we can continue to enjoy our free flight activities. Please read this email to keep updated on the challenges our organization has keeping free flight alive. If you did not receive this email, then check to see if your member contact info is correct, and/or contact Mark at his address posted on our USHPA member’s page and request the message be sent to you.

Here are some excerpts (emphasis added), hopefully within context:

“INSURANCE IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN SUPPORT OF FREE FLIGHT IN NORTH AMERICA…”

“USHPA HAS EXPERIENCED INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS…”

“RISK MANAGEMENT AND YOU”

“WE NEED TO TIGHTEN STANDARDS FOR SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS,…AND ENFORCE A ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES…”

This is all about us being able to continue to fly at our favorite sites that are allowed within the rules of the Special Use Permits we negotiate.
Regards,
David Egli

Hello Aviatorjames,
Good question.
My post does imply that the answer to your question is yes, but it is based on hearsay statements regarding various SUP governed sites.
I have not read the published SUP for The Fort. A good person to answer your question is GGNRA Liaison: Steve Rodrigues. Maybe Steve will see this thread and respond. Otherwise, Steve's contact info is on this site.

For those interested persons, RRG (Risk Retention Group) is discussed in the email with a link to further info, too much info for me at this time, maybe latter. As AJ states, it is a form of self insurance.

Regards,
Egli

Yes, the GGNRA does require insurance. Here is the language from our Special Use Permit:

"2) Permittee shall obtain and maintain liability or indemnity insurance providing the following minimum limits with respect to bodily injuries or death resulting there from and/or damage to the property suffered, or alleged to have suffered, as a result of the operations conducted on the permitted premises. The Permittee shall furnish to GGNRA’s Business Management Office evidence that such insurance has been procured, is in full force and effect, and names “United States Government, National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area” as Additional Insured.
Single Aggregate
Personal Injury $1 million $2 million
Per occurrence Per occurrence
Property Damage $50,000 $50,000"

FYI: We are also required to insure the clubhouse, but we get that through a local commercial insurance broker.

"3) Permittee shall maintain Property Insurance, including fire coverage, at an amount of at least the assigned building’s Insurance Replacement Cost as determined by the Service and estimated at the time of this permit to be $92,238. This minimum requirement is based on replacement in kind, not reproduction, and is subject to annual adjustments in order to reflect changes in construction costs and expenses. Permittee shall furnish to GGNRA’s Business Management Office evidence that such insurance has been procured."

I support transparency so please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions!

Does anyone else find it ironic that it was a pilot who chained himself down to stop the wrecking crew from leveling the clubhouse building years ago, and now we're required to pay insurance on the building? I'm sure it's not expensive, but I just find that hilarious.

Dave

It is a Concrete Building Used for Non-flammable storage.
98K to replace the Roof and lights? (assumes a Fire inside)

Is the club responsible for Natural disasters (outside vs occupancy caused)?

We are carrying just what the GGNRA requires, not responsible for anything more than that.

Yes, they Require that... But my question was are we 'Responsible' for covering the entire structure?

Insurance is purchased to cover our part of the financial Responsibility for loss of structure.

FWIW FF did a lot of work when that building became the club house. For all practical purposes, the building was abandoned. The Generator outbuilding across the road (restroom side, now gone) had been mostly scavenged. The Club members did a lot of work at Funston for the privileges they were granted. Payphone, Drinking Fountain were club projects, even if all the funding did not from the club .

Maybe the GGNRA need reminding that the FF is a partnership, with each party gaining benefits.
In 1978, Tour buses were NOT a regular thing. The Structures were decaying, There was no deck or dog path. No Phone. No Water fountain.

FF help put Funston on the public map. GGNRA Funding is because of Public use.

We are only responsible for the part of the structure that we actually occupy: our clubhouse/glider storage area. I had language added to our Special Use Permit to specify that we are *not* responsible for the westerly addition to the clubhouse, the lower structure that houses the Bay Area Air Quality Management room, as well as NPS storage and the now defunct heating system for the clubhouse.

I trust that I'm providing the info you are looking for, please let me know if I'm not understanding your question.

AFAIK the heating never worked. I am not even sure if it was GAS or Oil fired. The door was boarded up when we first occupied the space.

I just question how they arrived at $98K.
Sounds like they want all code UPGRADES to be paid for by OUR insurance. The clubhouse is basically a Warehouse/service company unit you find in many industrial parks (without some of the required amenities)

I know my homeowners will pay for the existing (1947) structure VALUE. I needed a separate policy just to cover CODE changes to rebuild.

When I bought a home in San Jose, the VA lender required that I carry flood insurance for the Entire Amount of the loan, not just the structure.
I was paying 3 times what the proper (Flood insurance will only pay to replace structure and excludes many things in a basement) insurance would have cost. The VA said 'whatever the lender requires'

This kind of stuff is what I am worried about here. This is FF money going down the bureaucratic hole

A number of years ago I contacted the Dept. of Interior attorney who was handling legal matters for the GGNRA about the insurance requirement. The GGNRA is part of Interior.

The attorney agreed that the insurance requirement was redundant because of the Recreational Use Immunity Statute. The Statute provides immunity for landowners allowing recreational users on their property. It does not apply to commercial users. The GGNRA rationale for the insurance is that it provides an extra layer of protection.

The attorney did not disagree when I said that the insurance requirement is discriminatory because it applies only to hang gliding and not to the other actives at Funston like dog walking. Dog bites are more common than hang gliding injures.

In theory pilots should be able to fly at Funston without USHPA membership if they have their own insurance. However USHPA prohibits clubs from allowing non-USHPA pilots to fly at its insured sites. If an insured, non-USHPA pilot flew at a USHPA site, USHPA would pull its insurance.

USHPA is attempting to establish a Risk Retention Group that will provide insurance to pilots. Doctors have similar Groups. California law requires that the Groups be “independent”. It is unknown if USHPA would respect the independence of the Group and allow all hang glider pilots to join or would restrict membership to USHPA pilots. If all pilots are allowed to join, USHPA would lose its monopoly and pilots could fly at Funston and at other hang gliding sites without becoming members of USHPA. USHPA would be like the Sierra Club. You can hike in a national park without joining it.