Should the club accept ratings from the AUA (American Ultralight Association)?
Jérôme Daoust ( E-mail )
2022/8/16-a
Some CSS board members are interested in the AUA (run by a single person, Ed Pittman of Pitman Air). It is confirmed (ref), that 3 board members have visited the owner of the AUA. Excerpt: “Stan, Jai Pal and I (Marcello) took a trip to AUA headquarters to ask questions…”. Also, Marcello clearly stated (ref) “We’re trying to add to the bylaws of the club to accept other forms of rating system such as USHPA, IPPI, FAI and AUA.”. So, it is likely that there will be a club proposal in the near future, similar to:
Do we (CSS) want to accept AUA ratings for pilots and/or instructors without another accepted rating (like USHPA, IPPI equivalent)?
To help CSS members have time to think about it and start their own research, I gathered some reasons that can motivate voting one way or another…
Reasons to vote YES:
· You will please the few people promoting it. They are people you meet, fly with, maybe learn from.
· More options are better: People who do not hold (for any reason) another association rating, will have a new path to keep flying/teaching at the site.
· If you only maintain an AUA membership, you can reduce your yearly association fees. As of July 2022: $49/year for AUA, $150/year for USHPA.
· It makes the club less dependent on a single (USHPA) association.
· AUA does not force pilots or instructor to have insurance: Freedom prevails. No insurance = less lawsuits?
· Instructors/Schools are no longer forced to create a formal business and share their financials with PASA/RRRG. Maybe schools could already avoid being PASA certified since the club no longer holds USHPA insurance.
Reasons to vote NO:
· On the pilot side: Suspected low number (I emailed AUA’s owner on 2022/7/6, no answer) of AUA members that would benefit. Even less, when considering AUA members not holding an USHPA rating.
· On our club’s side: If there is a low number of pilots to benefit, there will not be a significant financial benefit to the club. Compared to USHPA offering about 8000 (ref) potential clients (club members).
· AUA’s website and 3-page rating & training SOP seems like a one-day effort. Lots of claims, but low on substance. Is this representative of their association’s presence? What’s the point of paying AUA $49/year without significant value or services?
· As of 2022/07/15, there is no current AUA rating system and needs to be invented. If they did, they would likely just be copied over from USHPA.
· Low value/recognition of AUA ratings by other country’s associations. Even in this country, AUA accepts USHPA’s ratings, but not the reverse (confirmed). Where is AUA’s list of instructors/schools and how can we verify ratings online?
· Lower standards: Possible loophole for pilots/instructors banned from USHPA, to fly/teach at our site. Do you want to fly with pilots rejected by USHPA or see them teach students?
· Possibly more visiting instructors allowed, which are less likely impacted by damage/repercussions caused at the site than for local pilots and schools. Already possible since the club no longer holds USHPA insurance?
· Minimize the number of accident reports: In addition to USHPA, AUA would also require a report (page 1 item 6 of SOP). Can a pilot or instructor clear his accident record when switching associations?
· Will USHPA/RRRG continue to offer insurance or cover claims for members/instructors/schools at the site if this happens? Existing USHPA rules (if still applicable, since the club no longer holds USHPA insurance):
o "Chapters are required to limit flight activities at USHPA-insured sites to USHPA members only.". From USHPA SOP > 06-02.03 Site Insurance Requirements > Section D.
o "In all cases, coverage is only provided to landowners for incidents involving USHPA members. If any pilots involved in an incident are not USHPA members then there is no coverage for anyone.". From USHPA > Types of insurance for Sites.
· AUA does not offer insurance:
o Pilots: No 3rd party liability insurance. Hit a car, house, or powerlines and there is no financial help.
o Instructors/Schools: Find separate liability insurance against potential damage or student lawsuits.
o Club: Find insurance to satisfy the LZ landowner (DWR) and hope it remains a stable provider. This must already be found since the club no longer holds USHPA insurance.
· Without an USHPA membership, rating and skills (student of an AUA-only instructor, or former USHPA member with expired rating/skills):
o You are without 3rd party liability insurance, unless your purchase elsewhere.
o You cannot fly at sites like: Point of the Mountain, Torrey Pines, Santa Barbara, Bay Area, Sylmar, and innumerable others. Only CSS and unregulated sites.
o New AUA skills and ratings are not transferable or recognized by others. You will have significant work to restore them later.
o You cannot participate in fly-ins and comps like Red Rocks, Chelan, and many others.
· A bad message to send to USHPA and the Foundation for Free Flight, who have helped the club in the past (tractor purchase for example). We currently benefit from having 2 of the 4 USHPA officers calling our site "home". This gives us an extraordinary level of access to the leadership of the internationally recognized national body. Surely if we have issues with USHPA, we should discuss them with our representatives before taking other actions.
· Short-sighted leadership is jeopardizing the site: It’s naive to expect that the insurance policy is secure and won’t be subject to scrutiny in the future. What happens when current leadership leaves in a few years?
· The idea generated from, and is promoted by a few buddies, some with conflicts of interest:
o At least one board member considering some/all ownership of the AUA. Promoting AUA now and resigning later from CSS board is not OK.
o At least one board member is an instructor that has expressed dissatisfaction with USHPA/PASA and motivated to seek alternatives.
Thanks to those who reviewed and contributed. Discussion on the CSS forum. When the time comes, may your preference prevail.