BPA insurance... Need some clarification

[TrickyDicky 0]

As people probably know, at the BPA agm is was voted that German jumpers should be able to jump at any BPA dz without BPA membership. This looks like its a great step forward, and hopefully the rest of the world (with valid 3rd party insruance) should be able to jump at a UK dz without having to become a BPA member.

But, after some discussions with some people, it was brought to my attention that the BPA policy states that ALL jumpers on a lift should be members of the BPA, and if one person isnt, then nobody is covered.

If we were to get separate policies (like the german system), where instructors pay more, then the prices for everything would skyrocket - all student jump prices would increase, briefings would no longer be free, and then some costs would be added onto normal jump ticket prices (which are already some of the priciest in the world). Also bear in mind that at present, we only have one insurer willing to insure the BPA.

Is this unwillingness to insure the BPA because we are trying to insure the BPA as a whole? why wouldnt insuring individual jumpers bring the costs right down. I dont pay my car insurance to cover some irresponsible 17y/o with a flash motor. Would trying to change the policy just put the insurance prices up so much then that skydiving in the UK would stop?

Ive also been told that CCIs will be given the discresion to turn forein jumpers away without BPA membership, reguardless of the ruling made at the AGM.

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[brabzzz 0]

I can't see why anyone would want to come to the UK to jump...most of the traffic is going the other way!

Given what an assload of money BPA insurance is at the moment, I'd have thought that the proponents of the 'individual insurance system' would have costed the whole thing up and presented their case if it were actually cheaper. Granted, it's a LOT of work to calculate. And the proportion of BPA fees it currently constitutes is less than a night out/2.5 jumps in what's a bloody expensive sport in every other sense...

That said, if foreign jumpers DO get equal treatment here whilst BPA premiums rocket, I'll join some cheap foreign skydiving association and be covered by them instead.

---------------------------------------
Ex-University of Bristol Skydiving Club
www.skydivebristoluni.com

[TrickyDicky 0]

Quote

That said, if foreign jumpers DO get equal treatment here whilst BPA premiums rocket, I'll join some cheap foreign skydiving association and be covered by them instead.

I think thats all fine, but I think most foreign organisations require you to be a citizen for you to have cover abroad. So as a Brit getting German insurance, you'd be covered in Germany, but not at any DZ outside Germany :(

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[brabzzz 0]

Lol, I knew having two passports would come in handy at some stage! . That and for car insurance...

There IS something about the UK that seems to let insurers shaft the insured...it doesn't happen elsewhere in Europe, not to this extent.

---------------------------------------
Ex-University of Bristol Skydiving Club
www.skydivebristoluni.com

[vt1977 0]

Quote

Ive also been told that CCIs will be given the discresion to turn forein jumpers away without BPA membership, reguardless of the ruling made at the AGM.

The whole insurance issue pisses me off royally. But - assuming what you post is factually correct - this part does more than most.

We are forever being told in the most patronising way possible that it is "our BPA" and that we, the membership are the BPA. Well, we, the membership made our view on the issue pretty clear when it was voted on at the AGM last month.

Do BPA Council hold the membership in such utter contempt that they will give DZs discretion to go against our (the membership's) decision???

Vicki

[pincheck 0]

Quote

We are forever being told in the most patronising way possible that it is "our BPA" and that we, the membership are the BPA. Well, we, the membership made our view on the issue pretty clear when it was voted on at the AGM last month.

Do BPA Council hold the membership in such utter contempt that they will give DZs discretion to go against our (the membership's) decision???

I think part of the problem is that the BPA Have a monopoly of the sport and that can't be a good thing. What ticks me off big time is if you want to jump in the Uk you have to be a member perhaps that is why our membership seems to shrink on a year to year bases.

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[freekflyguy 0]

Quote

We are forever being told in the most patronising way possible that it is "our BPA" and that we, the membership are the BPA. Well, we, the membership made our view on the issue pretty clear when it was voted on at the AGM last month.

Do BPA Council hold the membership in such utter contempt that they will give DZs discretion to go against our (the membership's) decision???

Vicki

Vicki

Before you start ranting its best to make sure you are in possesion of all the facts.

When the proposition was voted on at the AGM, it was done with the best of intentions. However the BPA insurers found a clause in the policy that states something along the lines of

"Any person making a parachute descent at a BPA DZ must be a BPA member. Should a non BPA member make a descent at that DZ all members jumping at that DZ will not be insured BPA member or otherwise"

As I said this is not verbatim, but pretty close.

This is from the BPA insurers not the BPA Council, so please make sure you know what you are talking about in future.

I cant believe you have made me defend council, guess ill have to ring the bell.

Buzz

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Ive also been told that CCIs will be given the discresion to turn forein jumpers away without BPA membership, reguardless of the ruling made at the AGM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The whole insurance issue pisses me off royally. But - assuming what you post is factually correct - this part does more than most.

We are forever being told in the most patronising way possible that it is "our BPA" and that we, the membership are the BPA. Well, we, the membership made our view on the issue pretty clear when it was voted on at the AGM last month.

Do BPA Council hold the membership in such utter contempt that they will give DZs discretion to go against our (the membership's) decision???

Remember it's the CCI's DZ (well they run it for the owner anyway, not the BPA). As far as the BPA is concerned they can turn anyone away for whatever reason they want - because they swoop dangerously, pull low, try to get on loads drunk, are abusive, or even if they are German.

Course... that last point is where EU anti-discrimination legislation might just rear its ugly head... but as far as the BPA rules are concerned I'd be surprised if they were going to try and tell CCI's that they must let X, Y, or Z, jump at their DZs. The CCI must always have the final say as to who jumps at their DZ.

As pointed out above, the whole rumor about CCI's being advised by the BPA to prevent German jumpers from jumping at BPA centers came about because of a letter sent round to CCI's reminding them that at present it is still not possible for Germans to jump at BPA DZ's on their own insurance, although this may well change in the light of the recent vote once the insurance paperwork has been sorted out.

I'd be wary of any letter going round after the insurance has been sorted out however, suggesting some kind of blanket exclusion of foreign jumpers by CCI's - that would simply be an invitation for people to start eyeing up the BPA insurance fund!

[vt1977 0]

Quote

Vicki

Before you start ranting its best to make sure you are in possesion of all the facts.

I freely admit that I was not in possession of all the facts which is why early in my reply to the original poster I stated, "But - assuming what you post is factually correct" making it clear that I was basing my post on what had originally been posted and had no factual basis for my comments apart from the original post. But either way Buzz, mine's a pint when you're ringing that bell!

Quote

This is from the BPA insurers not the BPA Council, so please make sure you know what you are talking about in future.

As I said above (and should have been clear from my original post), this is new info to me - so thanks for clarifying.

Quote

When the proposition was voted on at the AGM, it was done with the best of intentions. However the BPA insurers found a clause in the policy that states something along the lines of

"Any person making a parachute descent at a BPA DZ must be a BPA member. Should a non BPA member make a descent at that DZ all members jumping at that DZ will not be insured BPA member or otherwise"

A couple of points/questions do arise from it though...

1) When was this term agreed between the BPA and the BPA insurers? Before or after the vote at the AGM? I'm assuming it was before, but I would quite like that clarified (general question - not addressed just to you Buzz!)

2) Assuming it was agreed before, why were the membership not informed of this clause at the AGM? It was clear that many BPA officials were keen to see the vote go against the German proposal, and surely this would have been an excellent argument in their favour.

I have to conclude from this that either the insurance comany representative didn't know of this clause or for some reason withheld it from the membership during the debate. Neither is acceptable IMHO.

Furthermore, since (I assume) a representative of the BPA must have signed a contract containing this clause with the insurance company, why did they not see fit to inform the membership at the AGM? Since this would have been a good argument against the German proposal, I'm assuming that no BPA official was aware of this clause. I hope I am safe to assume that several people from the BPA read the insurance contract thoroughly prior to signing us up to it????? In which case why was this clause not not picked up and noted? Worrying.

Thanks for this info Buzz - for me it raises more questions than it answers.

Vicki

[fsjumperuk 0]

"Any person making a parachute descent at a BPA DZ must be a BPA member. Should a non BPA member make a descent at that DZ all members jumping at that DZ will not be insured BPA member or otherwise"

Buzz if this is correct. How can my insurance become invalid as a result of an action by another individual. The analogy would be if someone drove in the UK without insurance and crashed into my car my insurance would not pay out. I think in the paarchutign case the CCI could be held culipible since they invalidated my insurance - CCI may wish to therefore increase their liability insurance.
Whatever the situation is this forum is not the place where are finding this out. It should be posted on the BPA website and clearly articulated.
Like Vicki, I cannot understand why the BPA did not arrive at the AGM with all the information and impications to hand - this matter should have been discussed with the insurance company before the vote. AoB had to be cleared with the BPA 2 months before the AGM

[dropoutdave 0]

I had enough of the BPA the day they tried to charge me the full annual price for membership even though I only wanted it for the last 2 months of the year.

Considering that price includes the mag, of which there was only 1 edition remaining and only when I mentioned it did they ofer to "try" and get me copies of all back editions for the year. Erm, no thanks, i've already read them and I would rather have the the money off thanks!

Also, they offer reduced rates to newcomers who join at later stages in the year and not to people who have been with them for years who have realised they will not be jumping that year and therefore decided not to renew until a later date.

No wonder so many of us are deciding to do our jumping abroad.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[TrickyDicky 0]

One thing that got me at the AGM was how terribly David Hickling tried to make a point at the AGM. He stuck to the same point over and over, and it didnt really make any sense.

Also, although I didnt really hear what was going on and didnt really understand as I was at the back, and maybe a little hung over, I am informed that the insurance representative said he was actually quite happy to change the policy, the current terms were dictated by the BPA.

I from these two points, I cant see how we have ANY confidence in the "Insurance Forum" members, who seem to be made up of volonteers who dont know what they're talking about, looking at it the way things came across at the meeting.

I make this point with no experience myself, so Im probably not allowed to say anything. But surely they should be trying to get someone like me to understand, not alienate me?

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[paraman1 0]

Am I correct in saying that any Brit jumping in Europe has to satisfy the local authority and prove that they have insurance that covers skydiving - rgardless of BPA membership? This is the situation I had in France.

If this is the case, surely it is fair to expect the same in return, non Brits are not covered by the NHS so should produce sydiving qualified insurance to jump at UK DZ's? .......... and get temp BPA membership.

As for the exclusion in the policy about disqualifying all skydivers if 1 is not a BPA member ....... I think that's illegal anyway as the insurance is individual and the individual canot be panalised for what someone else does. Known as unfair/restrictive practice.

However I stand to be corrected.

[TrickyDicky 0]

Quote

Am I correct in saying that any Brit jumping in Europe has to satisfy the local authority and prove that they have insurance that covers skydiving - rgardless of BPA membership? This is the situation I had in France.

That is likely because the BPA policy only covers members for a pityful £50000 3rd party insurance abroad, excl. US. Some countries probably want more cover than this, which is why they'll make you get other cover. They shouldnt need you to have anything other than 3rd party. If you your injure yourself and you have no medical cover, thats your own fault.

I dont know of any parachuting organisation that provides medical cover of any sort (other than 3rd party) with its membership.

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[vt1977 0]

Quote

I dont know of any parachuting organisation that provides medical cover of any sort (other than 3rd party) with its membership.

I believe the Spanish membership includes medical cover for parachuting injuries sustained in Spain as well as a decent level of 3rd party only cover in other countries. The Swedish one possibly does too? But less certain of that. Last time I looked, the Spanish one cost about the same as BPA membership (according to Empuria’s website, the cost is E165 pa) – but clearly you get a LOT more for your money.

Vicki

Edited for clarity.

[skydog 2]

Here is the latest from Paul Moore.

Having spent about 10 hours in various meetings at the BPA Office
yesterday where the hot topic was of course the whole insurance
issue,
I am now able to give you an update. Those who want a full update
should attend the FSC PB AGM at the DZ on sat 18 March where I will
give the full picture. In short the detail is this:

1. There is not enough time to change the BPA insurance to
accommodate
the Germans / eurpeans on all UK DZ's for this coming insurance
year.
The premiums were already voted in before the crucial vote to allow
all experienced germans etc.

2. BPA members face a substancial increase in their own insurance
if
this were to go through now without changes in the policy to
accommodate european skydivers in UK. This could be as much as £20
per head for every full BPA member. This would probably be
unacceptable to the membership therefore they would either (a)
reject
the premium therefore the BPA would not have insurance or, (b) vote
to
stay as they are and all europeans would have to join the BPA etc.

3. The BPA Council have decided to have a 'consultation period' of
about a year in which time we will look at ways of accommodating
european skydivers on the current insurance structure or possibly
getting an amended policy ready for the 2007 season. I am on the
Insurance sub committee of the BPA and I will continue to promote
the
cause for european skydivers at that table. I am not alone in
this.
There are others who recognise the same.

4. In the meanwhile.....all experienced european skydivers at Bad
Lippspringe will take BPA insurance (but not membership)by one of
two
methods:

a. Pay the BPA temporary insurance premium lasting one month
including multiples thereof. (about 40 euros each)
b. Pay the BPA full insurance premium (about 75 euros) which will
last one year by which time we will hopefully have the definative
answer to the problem.

4. I ask that those that this affects be patient and rest assurred
that many people are working hard to find a solution that
accommodates
not only German skydivers in the UK but also all europeans too. I
will
answer your questions as best I can at the FSC PB AGM on 18 March.

Journey not destination.....

[fedykin 0]

gotta say im more or less onside with Vikki on this one. Taking it one level up, heres a couple of things I feel strongly about in regards to the BPA

1- Exclusivity in membership. The fact that the BPA effectively runs a parachuting cartel and gets away with it, even in the UK, goes beyond belief. In all markets and industries competition best serves the customers. Were USPA membership become an option in the UK, im pretty sure the BPA would become defunct. Quiet simply its a organisation that much better serves its membership in a number of senses. The fact that you arent obliged to join in able to jump forces it to become relevant to the needs of jumpers otherwise people dont join. The BPA operates regardless.

2. Insurance. I find it very hard to believe that the council is unable to find a cheaper insurer. In litagation prone US, the premium is infinately cheaper. Cost of goods and services in the UK is higher, but paying three times as much for an inferior service(BPA vs USPA) just seems ridiculous. Were not so many council member to have a personal comercial intrest in skydiving I believe an extra premium for instructors(or anyone who makes money at skydiving) or students could be passed. The risk of these two groups is higher, why is everyone else paying money so instructors and DZs can make wonga.

3. Not allowing BPA members to use forein ratings. The claim by some STC types that our standards of safety and training are the envy of the world, are laughable. In terms of fatalities and injuries per 10000 jumps, we have one of the highest ratios in the world(some council members and editors would have you believe that the US in dangerous, really...). Fair enough in the USPA you can be a secondary AFF instructor with alot less jumps, but the knock on effect is that they have more instructors, and at the point they qualify, due to the environment they jump in, they're already at a higher skill level than UK instructors 500+jumps on. Again, its another protectionist measure. Not in terms of safety but in terms of influence.

4. Accounts. By investing a significant amount of money in low risk investments the BPA is effectively insulating itself against the membership. Ive heard a council member say that its unwise to only have a single source of income ie.. the membeship. I feel this is irresponsible. Not in a financial sense, but bad policy as a matter of course. It somewhat like a legistlative body that stays in power irrespective of the politcal swing. If we loose 50% of the membership, council can with little difficulty run its affairs as normal, not being responsive to the best means most of us have in affecting affairs ie... voting with or cheque book(going elsewhere).

Im going totaly USPA now,only jumping abroad(hey cheap flights allow you to go to europe every second weekend quiet cheaply and get alot more done then you could in the UK), and hit the wind tunnels(very impressed with bedford).

I think if you could somehow add up all the UK non BPA members that only jump abroad vs. the BPA members, the figures would be very revealing. I think the abroad types would outnumber the BPA ones. Im sure this is really going to rile some people up.

[pincheck 0]

got to agree with most of the comments here. I find it very strange when we have to be Bpa members to jump in this country ?, why ! as already pointed out there are other associations that we can join, From what i see not much gets changed to favour members this topic has been going on since i started jumping 2 years ago, nothings changed

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[mr2mk1g 10]

1. That's down to the legislation surrounding skydiving in the UK and the CAA, not the BPA. If you want to start up a different organization, call it Piers' Parachute Club and get the CAA to give you a Permission and Exemption then go ahead - it is them who say you must be part of the BPA after all.

2. I can't say I'm terribly surprised that there aren't that many companies wanting to take on the job of insuring skydiving. It's a specialist niche with specific legislation relating to it. Insurers are all about risk, appreciation of that risk and the valuation thereof. If the insurer does not know the sport and the law surrounding it they are in a very poor position to start appreciating that risk and as such their premium will be a stab in the dark.

Additionally the past few years claims history has meant that the insurer has not made any profit. If they are not making a profit then there is no reason for them to take the risk and thus they wont want the job of insuring us - that's why rates went up a couple of years ago, so they make some profit instead of a loss. That said... (and fully acknowledging I'm contradicting myself) I really would have thought there ought to be someone else out there...

I have to dispute your suggestion that the BPA insurance is an inferior service to the USPA insurance. The BPA policy covers everyone involved in skydiving ops, not just the individual jumper. This is not America, waivers simply do not work here (again not the fault of the BPA).

Instructors need insurance here, as do packers and riggers and DZO's whereas it's less important in the States. We all have that insurance under the BPA policy at the moment whereas we would not under the USPA.

The BPA policy is also worth about x67 the USPA policy! TRUST me; $50,000 is NOT anywhere near enough to cover you if you hurt someone or damage a plane – that'll barely cover the legal costs, before you even start worrying about damages.

As for instructors paying a separate insurance premium – yes that may well be the way to go with the policy. You better bet it won't be any cheaper mind – the money for that insurance coverage is going to have to come from somewhere and will find its way to the pockets of everyone through increased costs as the skydiving industry as a whole passes their new insurance costs onto the consumer (ie you and me).

It would be "fairer" though, if not actually any cheaper – the current set up is a little like communism even if it does mean it's a bulk purchase, (and we all know buying in bulk means saving money, right?)

And this same change could also mean we're all on individual policies which may or may not work out as a good change. I'm all for investigating it as the current situation is obviously unsatisfactory to many, but I'm concerned it may lead to big costs increases, not least because of recent legislation massively increasing the amount of paperwork required for individual policies.

You also have the same problem of finding an insurer - who thinks they can turn a profit. And then I wonder if they're going to want to know my wing loading, number of jumps, jumps per year, age, and if I swoop? We've met - you know you could find yourself in one of the top paying brackets if this change is made. It's all possible – but as I said it needs looking at.

3. The BPA does recognize foreign ratings (see Ops manual Section 4.12). You can instruct in the UK as a foreigner holding a foreign instructor rating so long as you also meet the BPA minimum experience requirements. If you don't then I'm sorry, I'd much rather uphold the higher standards we have here rather than allowing them to slip. If the foreign rating requires higher standards then there isn't an issue as they can already jump. If you feel that there are examples of foreign ratings which demonstrate greater requirements than the BPA but which are not recognized as such then perhaps this is an area where there is room for change and the BPA should indeed be lobbied.

4. The BEST way of changing the BPA is to vote people in to change things and vote people out who you feel are doing the BPA no good. The council is only there because we voted them in. If you want things to change use your vote and change the council make up. Voting with your cheque book does nothing as the council doesn't make money off the membership fees and well, if you're not a member it's no longer their job to give a damn what you think.

I agree with you that jumping abroad may well soon become an economically viable alternative to jumping in the UK. That's a sad state of affairs. I'm not entirely sure it's all the BPA's fault mind.

I agree entirely that there is a lot more they should be doing and it was only last week that I was having an argument with John Hitching about the adequacy of the BPA insurance policy. But some of the accusations leveled at the BPA are simply nothing to do with them.

[fedykin 0]

well, ive heard the CAA vs FAA argument before and it falls apart for a couple of reasons. the CAA effectively needs to be able to stamp the BPA as having an relevant ops manual and make sure we are insured. by and large all they care about is heavy metal(planes), as a regulatory body as they relate to us all they need is another regulatory body that can give some plausable duty of care. To claim that the USPA cannot do this, is ludicrious.

There were DZs awile back with grandfather rights(they operated before the BPA and thus were allowed to operate as non BPA DZs). The BPA aparently devoted a great deal of resources in getting them shut down.

With insurance, well waivers can be just as solid or as pourous here as the US(from a legal point of view if you can prove negligence on an operators part then the waiver falls apart). At least the USPA one is valid worldwide.

I find it very hard to believe that there is only one insurer in the UK that is willing to cover the BPA, ive had personal insurance covering me for jumping worldwide that only costs me 61 pounds a year(3 million 3rd party + medical etc...). So i think something is going on there.

When it comes to forein ratings. FORIENERS can use thier ratings but brits have to get brit ratings to use them in the UK. I believe this is devised to stop people doing their quals abroad and making the BPA system irrelevant.

Well the argument of staying in the BPA to change matters, well, no thanks... The council members by and large all have a comerical intrest in the sport this clearly affects thier decision making process.

i think it would be more productive for me to take my 120ish quid, stappel it to my forehead and run around a doggy area in Cape Town naked, im pretty sure id get the same result. Id be robbed and have a really sore behind.
One of the hardest things in the world to do is convince a myopic group of dinosaurs that serving their own intrests in a semi-politcal means isnt good for the whole.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

To claim that the USPA cannot do this, is ludicrious.

Yes, the USPA could perhaps do what the BPA does - but that's not up to the BPA - that's up to the CAA. Shout at the BPA all you want but it's not them who make that decision, it's the CAA. As I said, you could just as easily set up your on association and get the CAA to issue a P&E and you'd be away and then there really would be no requirement to join the BPA as we could choose to join the PPC instead.

If you want to change the requirement that you must have the CAA issue a P&E itself then you have to go all the way to Parliament and start asking for an amendment to the 1982 Civil Aviation Act.

I don't dispute the utility of your argument; I'm simply saying you're arguing with the wrong set of myopic dinosaurs.

Quote

With insurance, well waivers can be just as solid or as pourous here as the US

No. Waivers here are rendered completely invalid by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. They carry no weight whatsoever and are literally not worth the paper they are written on. It is a very different position in the US (notwithstanding regional variations between States).

Quote

I find it very hard to believe that there is only one insurer in the UK that is willing to cover the BPA

You're not the BPA though. The BPA's exposure (and the exposure of all individuals those working within the sport) is far greater than your exposure as an individual jumper. I agree that there surely must be some company out there who will insure us, but I also have to accept that they are likely to come at a price.

If that price is too great then it is time to look at policies similar to those issued around the rest of the world where individuals are insured seperate to the governing body. As I indicate above, that could turn out to be one hell of a minefield, but I agree it's absolutely time we started looking into it.

The other thing to remember though is that a move to individual insurance policies will not nessaserily negate the need for the BPA itself to be insured... that's still going to mean a portion of our membership fee (albeit likely a significantly smaller portion) going towards a BPA insurance premium.

Quote

The council members by and large all have a comerical intrest in the sport this clearly affects thier decision making process.

The same allegation is continually leveled at the USPA - in fact there's a lawsuit going on at the moment based to a good degree on that fact.

[gremlin 0]

I am not interested in CAA or FAA. I am not interested in group or individual policy. I am not even interested in why no-one bothered to read the insurance policy they signed the BPA upto.

I just want to know why WE, the membership, voted, at an AGM, for a policy which the council will not implement.

We did not vote for a 'consultation period' of
about a year.

We voted to allow German jumpers to jump in the UK.

We are always told that WE are the BPA. Why have WE been ignored on what WE want?

I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine....

[cpoxon 0]

Adam, are you being deliberately obtuse? Did you not read points 1 and 2 in
Bryn's post of Paul's comments?

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[vt1977 0]

Quote

Adam, are you being deliberately obtuse? Did you not read points 1 and 2 in
Bryn's post of Paul's comments?

My question still hasn't been answered...

Why was the whole issue not discussed and clarified with the insurance company well in advance of the AGM? (The motion did, afterall have to be submitted 40 days prior to the meeting)

To my mind, when the motion arrived at the BPA offices the FIRST course of action should have been to make contact with the insurance company so that all the implications, facts and hard figures could be presented to the membership at the AGM. No figures were given with regard to this vote at the AGM. Why not?

We are being told NOW that there is not enough time to implement the changes to the policy required by the decision of the members and that a years consultation is neccesary.

What I want to know:

When were the insurance company contacted with regard to Ludwig's motion? Were quotes obtained? Was the possibility of an amended policy discussed? If not why not?

When did the BPA agree (i.e. sign) the current policy with the insurers?

I can appreciate that a one year consultation period on the matter is a definite step in the right direction. However it concerns me in this case that a consultation period is neccessary at all, given that the vote on this matter cannot have come as a surprise to anyone at the BPA.

Vicki

[skygeezer 0]

Vicky,

In short, somebody forgot to do their homework. I think that was because no-one really expected the membership to vote it through rather than a deliberate act of neglect.

However.....what this means now is that it has been voted on, the membership have spoken and it is now down to the Council and the BPA staff, and the insurers, and the legal bods to come up with a solution. It will not happen fast but it has to be done right.

I have a direct interest in this whole issue as it affects my DZ the most at the moment. I had another long meeting with Ludwig today and he is just as annoyed/confused/irritated/bugged/pissed off as anyone else. The germans expected to be jumping on UK dz's this year and now they have to wait for another year.......

This year we will see an increase in foreign jumpers at british dz's because of the influence / draw of the two wind tunnels. The dz's closest will notice it more than those further away but you only have to go to Bodyflight or Airkix and see who is flying there to realise that once the weather gets better these dudes are going to want to tunnel fly and jump locally in the same trip to uk.

One last point. I've been watching the thread here and other places about the whole insurance issue and there have been some real good comments by a lot of people both for and against. Vicky......you seem to have a real handle on it and your comments are both sensible and forthright. Thats good. Keep it up!!!

Paul

ps. For those who are an anti-council thing at the moment....dont go there. I'm on council too and I want all europeans in......but rest assured, everyone on council are working hard to find a solution. Granted, some more than others but thats the way that it is.