I asked Paul Murdock, USHPA president, about the decision to pull
the use of the tandem exemption at Torrey Pines

The original email from the USHPA:
http://ozreport.com/20.196#0

I ask: When did the USHPA Regional Director first receive a complaint? Or did
that in fact happen?

Paul writes: There was no complaint. USHPA became aware of a
number of incidents and asked for accident reports as required by USHPA SOPs.
Many times we were told the reports would be coming, but we never received any.

We became aware from several sources, including ACA, that they would be using
the ASC tandem exemption.

I ask: How was the validity of the complaint checked and when and
by whom?

Paul: There was never any question of validity. ACA freely
communicated that the accidents had transpired. Our issue was in the passive
refusal to submit incident reports.

I ask: Basically I’m looking for the narrative that gives us an
idea of how these things come about and how the USHPA deals with them. The final
result (which the USHPA sent out) is not a satisfying story, at least not
completely satisfying and I would think that USHPA members should hear the
story.

Paul: ACA flies a site that is not insured by USHPA. As such, they
have the option of being PASA certified and insured or using another form of
coverage. ACA decided to use ASC for the tandem exemption, and to use
alternatives for their insurance coverage. The timing coincided with USHPA’s
tandem exemption renewal. USHPA has always reported both tandem incidents and
significant changes on our renewal application. ACAs unreported accidents and
their departure from our exemption are material to that process.

ACA chose to use the ASC exemption. ACA also chose not to engage in the PASA
process.

Since ACA tandem instructors are not flying students in possession of a USHPA
membership, they are in violation of USHPAs SOPs. We are not certifying tandem
ratings for ACA tandem pilots performing flights outside our exemption and
outside our SOPs.

I don’t think the story is as compelling as it might seem – other than how USHPA
communicated the situation. We should have recognized how the timing and
verbiage would generate more questions. USHPA did so because Torrey Pines is a
very popular flying site. There was sentiment that we should notify all members
so that they would know the situation before planning a trip with TPGP as the
destination.

I ask: Also, Robin says that you are in negotiation with ACA (http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49805&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10).
If so, what is the negotiation about?

Paul: PASA and the RRRG are in their infancy. Both need as much
participation as possible to assure their longevity. They can survive without
100% participation but lower participation makes the process more difficult, and
will take longer for the RRRG to show a reduction in insurance costs. ACA is a
major player in solo and tandem instruction. We wanted their participation for
fiscal reasons and for the sense of community in our effort.

We spent several days speaking with ACA about their specific situation and their
challenges with the new paradigm. They had some concerns about the PASA process,
specifically around revealing proprietary instruction practices and also around
financial disclosure. We tried to negotiate an acceptable process for these
concerns.

ACA found the 30-day membership fee challenging. USHPA was at that time working
on a rebate program for PASA schools. We discussed those fees and at what level
they might be feasible. Those discussions were somewhat moot given the obstacle
PASA certification presented.

I ask: Also, speaking with other instructors in perhaps similar
situations and those not in a position to purchase RRRG insurance and become
PASA certified, this may be more than just ACA. Is this a general problem?

Paul: There are several schools which are using or are considering
using the ASC exemption. For reasons I’ve stated, any dilution of participation
in the RRRG and PASA is a problem. Both entities can survive a degree of
non-participation, but it is not optimal. The RRRG strategy will payoff much
sooner with full participation. So that is one problem. There are others.

Some of the schools are planning to use the ASC exemption and alternative
insurance policies. Based on our review of proposed alternative policies, we do
not believe they provide sufficient coverage. We have seen clauses in these
policies excluding instruction, aviation, vehicles and other critical components
of our activities. It is our position that use of these policies by schools at
USHPA-insured sites leaves us open to liability. The scenario might be as
follows – incident occurs, plaintiff’s attorney realizes that the primary policy
is worthless and then comes after USHPA’s site policy.

Should those schools pursue alternative policies, USHPA will ask to review them
prior to providing site insurance. If they are insufficient, USHPA will not
provide site insurance. That will be a problem.

I ask: Does the USHPA want to revoke USHPA instructor ratings if
the instructors provide tandems under the ASC tandem exemption?

USHPA SOPs require that tandems students must be USHPA members. If
instructors are flying students who are USHPA members but under the ASC
exemption USHPA currently has no issue. If students are not USHPA members then
the tandems are being conducted outside USHPA SOPs. USHPA would then review
those cases and potentially revoke ratings.

I ask: Is there any validity to the argument that by paying for
30-day memberships that they are paying for liability insurance that they do not
receive?

Paul: I’m not familiar with this argument. The 30-day membership
provides 3rd party liability coverage for the student. I suppose the answer to
your question depends on who the second ‘they’ in your sentence references.