Return to topic index

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Posted by David Broughton at 2009-08-19 17:52

Hi Tom,

Sorry I 'threatened' you - please don't report me to the police or set your brother-in-law's law dogs on me.

If you are a member of the LMSC this must be in contravention of the constitution which says you have to be in (or have to say you are in!) the BHPA to become a member.

I appreciate that you probably have insurance BUT if others are encouraged to follow your example of opting out of the BHPA not many will bother to take it out because everyone knows accidents can't happen to them!

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your antipathy towards the BHPA stem from a dispute you had with them over PPG training - or is my memory failing me again ?

I think the point about the CAA is valid. If the BHPA went under due to falling membership the authorities would soon accuse us of failing to self-regulate and step in with rules of their own.

Caa
Posted by John Kennedy at 2009-08-19 18:03

I too wish the CAA would regulate paragliding..

It would put a stop that all the hype that keeps getting thrown around by a certain few people that the BHPA govern paragliding... THEY DON'T.....
I assume too that it's probably unlawful to not allow choice of insurers , the UK is still a free trading country.

In the UK it's non regulated and is indeed legal , contrary to what some would have you believe.
Does anyone really think that an insurer as "huge" as Lloyds would get themselves involved with illegal activities??

When the club co-purchased the Mynd with the BHPA I believed it was a mistake and that we as a club would be beholding to them in future years....cue what is happening now "you have to insure through us, it's in your club constitution"
Very clever Mr Asquith.. no wonder you are/were a Barrister.
I wonder just who recieves the brokers commission ??

I also don't want Skywings anymore, to me it's a waste of the planets resources... If there was an option within the BHPA to opt out and reduce premium I'm sure others would consider this too.

I can see a breakaway group taking off from other parts of the mynd at this rate.. Is this what the committee realy hope for ?

Clarification is asked for now or it will be too late ...perhaps it is already too late and more people than you realise are already going "off the grid"

Posted by Mark Dann at 2009-08-19 18:37

Just to finish off on this subject for myself and it will be my last message. All Beyond Extreme sites are for BHPA registered and qualified pilots only.
Sportscover does not give the Landowner any protection whatsoever and I need to protect them from any litigation against them.
I have contracts with many of my sites and this in the Clauses of the contracts.
Sites included are Black Knoll, Long Mtn, Rodneys Pillar, The Berwyns, Arenigs, Wilstone Hill and Llangynog.
Dont be surprised if i approach you if you are not.
Thanks,
Mark.

Bradwell
Posted by John Kennedy at 2009-08-19 18:42

Just to add ..Bradwell in the peaks has owners that for the last 15 years have tried to stop paragliders launching from there.....
Police have been called many times and guess what? It's still flown !!!

Why? because it's legal to do so ! Doh....

re.
Posted by Wayne Millichope at 2009-08-19 18:48

What is the problem???
If the mynd club had not bought the site then maybe just maybe the farmer would have sold it off to the national trust or some other third party that did NOT want hg/pg on their land. So we would then have to find some where else to fly correct?
Or stick two fingers up and keep flying until the landowners make it so difficult for us that we had to move on.
Either way we would be up shit creak.
So many people over many years have put alot of their own time and money into protecting club flying site's and making them secure for future pilots, how can you say that buying the mynd was a mistake when clearly we have protected one if not the best west site's in the country!
What is so terrible about paying the subs to the bhpa??
If the CAA were to 'regulate' hg/pg then you might as well put all your kit on ebay, we as 'pilots' get away so lightly with what we do why the hell does anyone want to rock the boat??
If the CAA were 'incharge' then some of the 'new' rules may be things like: Yearly medicals/check flights/yearly glider permits to fly,transponders etc....who the hell wants that?
Do you really want to make it more complicated than it needs to be?? i for one dont.
There will always be people that feel the need to rebel against authroity,rules,laws,organisations,clubs and try and do it there own and i can accept that but why not work with the club/organisation and try to change what you view as wrong instead of against it?We only have one organisation that we can go to when we have site issues,landowner issues or other flying related issues so why not support them- one day you might need them.

Posted by David Broughton at 2009-08-19 19:00

Hi John,

I don't think anyone is arguing about the legalities of the situation.

The fact is that requiring club members to be in the BHPA and therefore automatically insured against 3rd party risks is the simplest and most effective way - if sh*t happens - of ensuring that landowners/bystanders/other pilots can be properly compensated without the club and its officers running the risk of financial ruin.

Dave

PS. I was told that we paid more for the Mynd than we otherwise might have done 'cos someone from dahn sahf stuck in a bid and if they had got it intended to impose a daily charge for ALL flying. (Mind you with the number of good flying days this year that might have worked out less than the 20 quid membership ;0))

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

Wayno, yearly medical checks ?? how old are you.

The class two is once every five years, then on a sliding scale as you get older. I would hope that we get the one below that where your GP can assess you, good idea perhaps.

The money that secured the site in the first place came from Long Mynd members via a few routes including the generous BHPA contribution that was made up of members subs in the first place, disbelief.

I have rebelled against no 'authority' and have not broken any laws.

And stop saying my third party liability insurance is not good enough to cover the landowners. It is underwritten by a proper syndicate where all insurance has to be underwritten at Lloyds.

Posted by David Broughton at 2009-08-19 20:21

Apart from multiple year memberships the biggest contribution to the Mynd purchase was from the Reggie Spooner fund - a charitable fund set up with profits arising from the Airsports Insurance Bureau.

So whilst it did come from UK pilots the route wasn't via BHPA subs.

BHPA Ratings
Posted by Andrew Donnison at 2009-08-19 20:29

Am I reading this correctly?

Without being a current member of the BHPA you lose your current CP, P or AP ratings so are technicaly un qualified and un insured?

Without a minimum CP rating due to no BHPA membership we cannot fly LMSC members only sites? With or without 3rd party insurance?

This could get interesting for all you non BHPA pilots if this is correct?

Posted by Thomas Murfin at 2009-08-19 20:37

hardly charitable is it if a commercial interest sets up a charity with 'profits' arising from the Airsports Insurance Bureau and then stipulate that you have to have BHPA membership and it's insurance policy that is by no co-incidence still negotiated through the Air Insurance Bureau, smells fishy ?? They'll have made it back in Spades and who's nest are they feathering. Is it legal? Should we begin a class action ?

Pages: 1 2 3 4

You need to log in to post on this forum.