Return to topic index

Pages: 1 2 3 4

BHPA membership and insurance
Posted by Geoff Minshull at 2009-08-17 10:51

Following recent events, the committee is having to investigate and consider a number of issues concerning safety and site use, one of which is BHPA membership and insurance. We have recently become aware that a small number of pilots who fly LMSC sites are not members of the BHPA. This could have a detrimental effect on every member of the LMSC (the vast majority of whom have paid their BHPA membership). The LMSC constitution says that ALL LMSC members must be members of the BHPA, and visiting pilots must be members of the BHPA or meet the current BHPA minimum requirements for Third Party Liability Insurance.

Why does this matter? Being a member of the BHPA doesn't make you a better, or a safer, pilot, so why should we care?

Well, ignoring any other benefits of BHPA membership, you do, by being a BHPA member, get third party liability cover of £2 million. So you should be insured (for third party costs) if you crash into somebody's car, wipe out the power lines going up to the Gliding Club, have a collapse and land on, and injure, another pilot or tourist, etc.

Furthermore, the BHPA insurance also covers the land owners of our sites for damage caused by pilots if they are BHPA members. Being able to reassure land owners with this regard is a great help when we negotiate (or re-negotiate) sites. If an accident or other damage was caused by a non-BHPA member and the landowner was therefore not adequately compensated, this could damage our relationship with all our site owners.

And if you haven't got insurance? Well, depending on the circumstances, and if we allow uninsured pilots to launch from and fly our sites and an incident occurs, a claim would be made not only against the uninsured pilot, but also any half decent lawyer would in addition pursue a claim where there are funds to pay it, namely the club (and, ultimately, its officers). Any claim involving the club would involve such costs, even if we successfully defended it, that we would almost certainly have to liquidate our only asset (apart from some cash in the bank) - i.e. sell the Mynd. And of course, any injured party might not receive what is legitimately due to them because a small minority of pilots are selfish enough not to bother with getting the correct insurance cover by joining the BHPA.

Therefore we are contacting everyone we know who is not a BHPA member (or does not have equivalent insurance) to say that they are not welcome at the LMSC sites (not just the Mynd), and are not allowed to fly there until they obtain BHPA membership or other equivalent insurance. Of course, we don't own the other sites - but they are BHPA registered sites, and the club administers the flying there.

This is no different from having to have insurance when you are driving. It is not the committee being 'politically correct'. It is the committee safeguarding the assets of the club - that is, your assets. Not to have the insurance, and so jeopardise the club's existence, is not acceptable, and I hope all club members will help to ensure that all pilots do have the required BHPA membership or insurance.

Signed,
LMSC Committee

Sportscover direct vs BHPA insurance cover??
Posted by John Kennedy at 2009-08-17 23:31

Hi all,
could you please clarify the following point for me please.

I quote...

"The LMSC constitution says that ALL LMSC members must be members of the BHPA"

or is the following correct?

"Therefore we are contacting everyone we know who is not a BHPA member (or does not have equivalent insurance)"

I ask because I am in the process of choosing my insurer and am not at all clear what the Comittee require insurance-wise

I also know of other members who are confused on this too..
JK

Posted by Geoff Minshull at 2009-08-18 09:10

According to the constitution, which I assume was passed at an AGM at some point, to be a flying member of the LMSC you have to be in the BHPA.

However, many of the LMSC sites are open to visiting, non LMSC, pilots, and for that "Visiting pilots ... must be members of the BHPA or meet the current BHPA minimum requirements for Third Party Liability Insurance". My guess is that this was primarily to deal with foreign pilots who would probably not be BHPA members, but it could apply to British pilots not in the BHPA.

The insurance cover the BHPA provides is £2 million third party liability, so the equivalent of that is what would be required.

Sportscover bronze
Posted by John Kennedy at 2009-08-18 18:06

So Sportscover bronze is OK then ?

Posted by Geoff Minshull at 2009-08-18 18:35

Does it provide that level of cover?

Posted by Thomas Murfin at 2009-08-18 19:20

It does provide the £2 million of third party liability and is underwritten at Lloyds. Jason has had a look at the policy that I hold with Sports Cover Direct and deemed it more than adequate.

Posted by Mark Dann at 2009-08-18 22:42

Hi Tom,

I totally understand where you are coming from but there are a few points to bear in mind.

The BHPA insurance covers the land owners of our sites for damage and also the chance of litigation against them.

Also if you let your BHPA laspe you lose your ratings so maybe in the small print of your insurance company they may then deem that invalid.

The Long Mynd Soaring club is a BHPA club so you have to be a BHPA member to fly BHPA Club status sites.

How can we push the rule Club Pilot + 10 etc when people have let their ratings lapse or how do we know they are current flyers.

All BHPA members receive skywings which keeps us up to date with all safety issues in the FSC section.

I can understand foreign pilots in this situation but they are usually in their own countries association equivalent to the BHPA and also will have holiday/accident insurance. What I cannot understand is UK based pilots trying to save £30 or so.

Basically what's stopping Joe blogs picking up a glider off Ebay and then flying off the mynd after getting Sports cover insurance!!! The answer is rules and being courteous to all other flyers who want to tow the line and just get on with their flying without all the politics involved.

This is not a get at anyone but rules are rules and lets try and work with them.

Cheers,

Mark.

Posted by Thomas Murfin at 2009-08-19 00:53

Thanks Mark - in answer to your bullet points but not directed at all at you.

The BHPA and the training schools operating under the auspices of the BHPA offer the only proper 'safe' entry in to our sport. My boots would be filled with dread if my actions gave the green light to some Joe Bloggs to follow the scenario you presented me.

My decision was not based on politics (well not entirely)..

To only allow one organisation (the BHPA) the ability to offer their membership a route to insurance in their chosen sport stifles competition and for any club to have a clause written in to the 'rules' making what is effectively a contract between their members and the club (LMSC) to have to be a member of the BHPA then 1. there is a conflict of interest within the BHPA both being the governing body and the insurance provider; and 2. the collusion on the clubs part by having this rule in the first place.

"Also if you let your BHPA laspe you lose your ratings so maybe in the small print of your insurance company they may then deem that invalid."

Unlikely, if I were to have remained in the BHPA then nothing would have changed.. there would be no annual validation checks etc etc once a CP always a CP (or of that ability). There is nothing in the small print of my policy (underwritten by Lloyds) to tell me otherwise.

"I can understand foreign pilots in this situation but they are usually in their own countries association equivalent to the BHPA and also will have holiday/accident insurance. What I cannot understand is UK based pilots trying to save £30 or so."

Without me going off on a tangent re. race relations act.. It would cost me £99 to rejoin the BHPA (£84 + £15 admin fee). I chose to take out my policy with Sports Cover Direct as it offered additional benefits for less money - more comprehensive than the BHPAs own offerings and a saving of £50 to boot! Isn't that what the free markets are about.

"All BHPA members receive skywings which keeps us up to date with all safety issues in the FSC section."

It's not even good enough to be used for toilet paper, what with it's expensively furnished glossy pages :) anyway, I prefer the live feeds that forums offer me.

Posted by David Broughton at 2009-08-19 10:03

Hi Tom.

I don't understand your hatred of / rantings against the BHPA and Skywings. All they do is try to ensure that we can pursue the sport we love as freely and safely as possible.

If everyone took your attitude 90% of pilots would not bother with BHPA or club memberships OR insurance and the sport would descend into a free-for-all. Sites would be lost and we would be ripe for heavy-handed CAA intervention.

Trying to save a few quid going individually to other insurers is false economy in my view. Maybe if you want more from your insurance than the BHPA provides they could look at offering different levels of insurance.

Mark's point about ratings is very valid and you could encounter problems if you ever wanted to fly abroad.

The top and bottom of it is we can't stop you from flying when and where you want but if you want to continue flying LMSC sites we EXPECT you to join the club AND the BHPA. If you don't then you are a 'visitor' and you will be asked to pay the visitor fee at the Mynd and you should not be flying 'members only' sites - like The Wrekin.

If anything you do f##ks it up for the rest of us - I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE !!

Posted by Thomas Murfin at 2009-08-19 16:51

Dave please dont act like a belligerent old fool!

I have never **ever** felt or expressed a hatred of the BHPA. I live in a free and democratic society and as such I am entitled to an opinion and I do not appreciate you being my mouthpiece. Please do not besmirch my good character. However, I do confess to believing the BHPA to be an arrogant and toothless organisation.

Joe Bloggs doesn't exist and the other '90%' who wouldn't bother with the BHPA or Club Membership OR insurance are just a figurement of your active imagination. Relying on imaginary people as there aren't any real instances out there of people recklessly pulling apart our flying community only weakens your case in point and the wheels haven't dropped off yet. As it happens I am a member of the LMSC and have 3rd Party Liability Insurance so whats your point??

Marks point is an unvalidated one, an 'opinion' if you like that he is perfectly entitled to. It is not 'fact' - possibly a little biassed (not a dig). There is nothing in the small print to say that I have to be a whoopie do BHPA member and nothing that I had to tick to say otherwise when I took out the policy.

I don't give a flying toss about flying abroad right now with a small family to look after and I will apply careful consideration to the legal requirements before I do.

Mark Dann et al work extremely hard at securing our flying sites, not the BHPA and I fully support the LMSC and would like to continue doing so. It makes me laugh that my flying buddies throw tar on our imaginary rogue Joe Bloggs who is indeed an awful man so of course it's only natural that you want to slap the no insurance thread on him too because the real person your having a go at - me - is a fully insured LMSC member.

I am tired of the old 'and if the heavy handed CAA intervened' argument, it won't wash with me. In fact, I would welcome the CAA to drop self-regulation and take control. I'll dust off my JAR PPL and get right back up to date :)

Please don't make any threats to myself, property or family in the future. At the time I believed your I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE !! threat to be genuine and very nearly had this crimed with West Mercia Constabulary today. I know the law and have access to free legal advice from my brother-in-law who is a partner in very successful London law firm.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

You need to log in to post on this forum.