Dave Schy just posted an important perspective on the future of hang gliding site negotiations here:
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 4&start=10
I've included Dave's message below. This might be considered a "politics" issue by some folks, and I think it could be moved to the politics section at the moderator's discretion. Thanks.
By DaveSchy Ã‚Â» Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:03 pm
It is time for all site negotiators to review their agreements, this winter, whether for private or public land access for recreational flying. The coming USHPA implosion is obvious, and USHPA "Insurance" is not a prerequisite to liability protection for any land owners or agencies. References to USHPA and their RRRG scheme should be removed from the next round of negotiation, before they become moot.
Now is not the time for site stewards to be lazy or complacent, the times are changing. A fresh approach to renewing our site agreements will be rewarded with more pilot/users and less legal and financial gymnastics. USHPA "insurance" has become a problem, not a solution. States are investigating RRGs' legality. 8000 members will never replace Lloyds of London's coverage.
Outdoor Recreation Acts and properly written road use and maintenance financial agreements are viable and preferable, as seen in Los Angeles, Utah, and at Ed Levin.
Self regulation has stood the test of time, RRRG's are a short term solution at best. Self regulation is gentle, viable and non-confrontational. Launch directors asking for "your papers" are not! Part 103 says it all.....
Removal of USHPA exclusivity will bring in more users to share costs, where cost reimbursement is a part of site agreements.
Commercial operations and competitions bear the cost of any "insurance" as an expense, and are excluded from Outdoor Recreation Acts in any case.