.

.

Post your flying stories and flight reports here. Make sure to attach pictures if you got em!

Moderators: sg, mods

By free-flight
#379558
NMERider wrote:
free-flight wrote:
....In theory pilots should be able to fly at Funston without USHPA membership if they have their own insurance. However USHPA prohibits clubs from allowing non-USHPA pilots to fly at its insured sites. If an insured, non-USHPA pilot flew at a USHPA site, USHPA would pull its insurance...
Consider that freeflight wiii thrive long after USHPA has gone away.
A straw man argument from a brand new anonymous poster that contains at least one major falsehood as quoted above. Please save it for US Hawks. :crazy: :crazy:
Thank you for the warm welcome here anonymous poster nmerider dude!
User avatar
By NMERider
#379560
free-flight wrote:
NMERider wrote:
free-flight wrote: Consider that freeflight wiii thrive long after USHPA has gone away.
A straw man argument from a brand new anonymous poster that contains at least one major falsehood as quoted above. Please save it for US Hawks. :crazy: :crazy:
Thank you for the warm welcome here anonymous poster nmerider dude!

Next time try introducing yourself rather bursting onto the scene and telling everyone how it really is. How do you suppose that Dan Brown fellow might react if some unidentified poster signed on to flyfunston.org and without any kind of introduction starts telling the club what their rules really mean and how it really is? :wink: The relevant section of the SOP is attached.

:welcome: :welcome: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Only 61 to go. :ahh:
Attachments
06-02.03D.jpg
06-02.03D.jpg (139.42 KiB) Viewed 3735 times
By free-flight
#379563
NMERider wrote:
free-flight wrote:
NMERider wrote: A straw man argument from a brand new anonymous poster that contains at least one major falsehood as quoted above. Please save it for US Hawks. :crazy: :crazy:
Thank you for the warm welcome here anonymous poster nmerider dude!

Next time try introducing yourself rather bursting onto the scene and telling everyone how it really is. How do you suppose that Dan Brown fellow might react if some unidentified poster signed on to flyfunston.org and without any kind of introduction starts telling the club what their rules really mean and how it really is? :wink: The relevant section of the SOP is attached.

:welcome: :welcome: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Only 61 to go. :ahh:
Goodby nmerider dude.
User avatar
By miraclepieco
#379566
Edited. Sorry about that!
Last edited by miraclepieco on Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
By old newbie
#379567
miraclepieco wrote:I just checked the USHPA's list of "endangered" sites for my state. I am intimately familiar with most of these sites, and can attest that they WILL NOT be lost if USHPA insurance disappears.
From the USHPA list:

Oregon

Peterson Butte:
Only one takeoff and LZ will be affected. There is an upper launch and huge LZ on private property which requires no insurance. Pilots will still fly Peterson's.
Pine Mountain: Not sure about Pine ownership: I know there are multiple takeoffs and LZ's, some on BLM property - no insurance required.
Sunset Beach: Huh? I've been flying here for 35 years and never heard of this site - is it actually Oceanside...maybe Moolak? Some PG-only site?
Woodrat Mountain: BLM takeoff - no insurance required, not even USHPA membership. The only USHPA requirement is for the Hunter LZ (paraglider). The launch and the main hang glider LZ (Longsword) are not insured. Also, Woodrat Mtn is one of at least a dozen excellent sites in the vicinity; flying will continue unabated in southern Oregon.

So it is obvious that, at least for this area where I fly, the USHPA assumption the "The Future Of Free Flight Is At Risk," is greatly exaggerated.
Upper launch at Peterson Butte is 4 wheel drive and pay to fly ( $100 season not sure) so you obviously will not be flying there. Not at all the same or convenient.

Sunset beach is north of Seaside a dune site and we can tow on the beach there.

Be a shame to lose Mt Howard our national org pilot insurance and work of local pilots is why we can take a tram and fly there

Never heard of any paraglider only sites in OR

By the way did you ever make that contribution to Foundation for Free Flight for me for delivering your glider never heard back.

Steve Forslund
User avatar
By miraclepieco
#379568
PM sent about payment.
Last edited by miraclepieco on Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Helix3
#379569
miraclepieco wrote:Woodrat Mountain: BLM takeoff - no insurance required, not even USHPA membership. The only USHPA requirement is for the Hunter LZ (paraglider). The launch and the main hang glider LZ (Longsword) are not insured.
...
My statement stands: If USHPA insurance is lost, there will be virtually no impact on flying in Oregon.
A well-respected long-time local pilot notes:
"Woodrat launch is on public land, but the LZs are on private land and they actually are insured by USHPA."

Until TH, MS + DP confirm they will continue to allow pilots to land on their private property without 3rd-party liability insurance, miraclepieco's statement is unfortunately not true.
By old newbie
#379587
miraclepieco wrote:Access to upper launch at Peterson's is $20 per flight. I happily leave my $ in the shack when flying there. My Astovan makes it to the top with ease, loaded with multiple gliders, pilots and equipment. No sheep poop at top launch, either. Flying won't miss a beat.

Sunset Beach - tow hang gliders? When is the last time that was done there? I've never heard any HG pilots speak of it, in person or on any local forum. This site obviously gets VERY little (if any) use and, if still insured, is a very poor use of funds.

Mt. Howard: not insured, therefore irrelevant to this topic.

My statement stands: If USHPA insurance is lost, there will be virtually no impact on flying in Oregon.

PM sent about payment.
Clubs pay site insurance and it is inexpensive(I agree insuring public sites is best avoided)

Mt Howard is relevant you need a USHPA rating need to sign a waiver and the pilot insurance is a major reason the tram company allows us to ride up to fly

Last time I flew my hang at Peterson I drove to the regular launch set up flew up and had a couple landing launches on top flew down landed next to my vehicle broke down and drove home. Saying the 20 day 100 dollars a season much more time drive up and turn around time to the lz site is the same is just not true

I have flown many sites and nonsites in Oregon and having the insurance has helped ease the minds of some property owners. It is not just about site insurance

Steve Forslund
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#379612
miraclepieco wrote:
old newbie wrote:
Mt Howard is relevant you need a USHPA rating need to sign a waiver and the pilot insurance is a major reason the tram company allows us to ride up to fly

Steve Forslund
Pilot liability insurance vs. landowner liability insurance. Pilots often confuse the two.
When I have flown Mt. Howard I was never asked to show proof of USHPA membership, rating or insurance. Just load on the tram and go - just like all the hikers, bikers and cross-country skiers who also ride the tram without benefit of any national organization or insurance.

USHPA has you people so brainwashed that you need them to fly, that you are arguing against me when I try to give you GOOD NEWS that you can STILL FLY if the Association collapses! :crazy:


.
You can still be able to fly a lot of sites, do your homework. We should be using this time to figure out what sites really will and which sites won't be flyable after ushpa folds. The list of sites is just a list from their website that are insured. That is no proof they need to be insured. Has anyone heard of the chicken little story? THE SKY IS FALLING! Look at the headline they want us all to believe... The Future of Free Flight in the U.S. is At Risk! Just give us money and we will fix it for all of you stupid pilots. Give me a break. WE should be working on keeping our sites open instead of waiting for the ushpa to do it for us.
User avatar
By jjcote
#379616
In New England, we would be left with (as far as I know):
Wellfleet, which is a coastal site open only from October 2 to April 14, and which requires somewhat infrequent E-NE winds.
and... um...
Mohawk Trail is the only real "unregulated" mountain site I can think of. Although there's a protocol in place for who can fly there (H3 requires an observer, by mutual agreement of the pilots), I think the launch itself is town-owned land, and we just launch without permission. But the bailout LZ is privately owned, and if we lost that, the site would be unusable.
There's Hinesburg, a nasty little site with a substantial hike required, that has been flown by very few.
Mt. Tom (I think) which also has substantial hike and is used almost exclusively by paragliders.
Talcott Moutain (maybe?), which has a less unpleasant hike, but is limited by a ceiling due to Class C airspace of the nearby airport (Bradley). Not sure what its status would be if the club that owns the LZ lost the insurance.
Possibly Race Mountain, which has a worse hike than any of the others, works only in east winds, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who has flown it.

That's all I'm coming up with. No BLM land around here.
User avatar
By danmoser
#379623
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
miraclepieco wrote:
old newbie wrote:
Mt Howard is relevant you need a USHPA rating need to sign a waiver and the pilot insurance is a major reason the tram company allows us to ride up to fly

Steve Forslund
Pilot liability insurance vs. landowner liability insurance. Pilots often confuse the two.
When I have flown Mt. Howard I was never asked to show proof of USHPA membership, rating or insurance. Just load on the tram and go - just like all the hikers, bikers and cross-country skiers who also ride the tram without benefit of any national organization or insurance.

USHPA has you people so brainwashed that you need them to fly, that you are arguing against me when I try to give you GOOD NEWS that you can STILL FLY if the Association collapses! :crazy:


.
You can still be able to fly a lot of sites, do your homework. We should be using this time to figure out what sites really will and which sites won't be flyable after ushpa folds. The list of sites is just a list from their website that are insured. That is no proof they need to be insured. Has anyone heard of the chicken little story? THE SKY IS FALLING! Look at the headline they want us all to believe... The Future of Free Flight in the U.S. is At Risk! Just give us money and we will fix it for all of you stupid pilots. Give me a break. WE should be working on keeping our sites open instead of waiting for the ushpa to do it for us.
Yes, I agree 100% .. you need to do your homework and not be deluded into thinking that a ton of money thrown at USHPA is required to keep sites open.
It's true that insurance is going to be required at a limited number of sites, but we ought to explore alternatives to obtaining insurance through inflated USHPA dues.

The list of "threatened sites" on the USHPA website is definitely inflated.. to what extent, I don't know.
But I do know from looking at the list of "threatened sites" in Utah that many of those listed do not require insurance now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Here in Utah, we have many launch sites on BLM land.. no insurance, permits or fees needed... it's the LZs that can be tricky, so talk to the landowner(s) and show some respect for them and their property concerns.
They are far more likely to shut down an LZ due to a$$hole pilots, than uninsured pilots.
Most of them are totally cool with you landing on their property, and they're not worried about insurance.. they're more worried that you'll leave a gate open or leave litter behind.
User avatar
By wsu-nicodemus
#379645
danmoser wrote:
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
miraclepieco wrote: Pilot liability insurance vs. landowner liability insurance. Pilots often confuse the two.
When I have flown Mt. Howard I was never asked to show proof of USHPA membership, rating or insurance. Just load on the tram and go - just like all the hikers, bikers and cross-country skiers who also ride the tram without benefit of any national organization or insurance.

USHPA has you people so brainwashed that you need them to fly, that you are arguing against me when I try to give you GOOD NEWS that you can STILL FLY if the Association collapses! :crazy:


.
You can still be able to fly a lot of sites, do your homework. We should be using this time to figure out what sites really will and which sites won't be flyable after ushpa folds. The list of sites is just a list from their website that are insured. That is no proof they need to be insured. Has anyone heard of the chicken little story? THE SKY IS FALLING! Look at the headline they want us all to believe... The Future of Free Flight in the U.S. is At Risk! Just give us money and we will fix it for all of you stupid pilots. Give me a break. WE should be working on keeping our sites open instead of waiting for the ushpa to do it for us.
Yes, I agree 100% .. you need to do your homework and not be deluded into thinking that a ton of money thrown at USHPA is required to keep sites open.
It's true that insurance is going to be required at a limited number of sites, but we ought to explore alternatives to obtaining insurance through inflated USHPA dues.

The list of "threatened sites" on the USHPA website is definitely inflated.. to what extent, I don't know.
But I do know from looking at the list of "threatened sites" in Utah that many of those listed do not require insurance now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Here in Utah, we have many launch sites on BLM land.. no insurance, permits or fees needed... it's the LZs that can be tricky, so talk to the landowner(s) and show some respect for them and their property concerns.
They are far more likely to shut down an LZ due to a$$hole pilots, than uninsured pilots.
Most of them are totally cool with you landing on their property, and they're not worried about insurance.. they're more worried that you'll leave a gate open or leave litter behind.
I feel really bad for you guys that are so against an $83 donation (if everyone pitched in) and have to exaggerate a $50/yr increase as 'inflated'. You must have serious financial problems to attend to. Let me know what your gofundme site is, I'll pitch in.

What you are proposing (flying without insurance) is based on the HOPE that everyone can continue to fly their current sites (or most). That's crazy talk. Funding USHPA and getting this done means a 100% chance we all continue our flying opportunities for the near term. You can't say that about your strategy. Do the research while you have a sure thing, not when you don't.

Personally, I like my flying odds by keeping USHPA alive. I also realize what a great value hang gliding is at its current costs.
User avatar
By Tontar
#379648
So, let me get this straight. These separatists are claiming that a lot of our insured sites can still be flown without insurance "when" USHPA folds. And the. Say something about USHPA thinking local pilots are stupid?

Well, how stupid do these local pilots have to be in order to be laying site insurance on sites that don't need it? USHPA doesn't make them pay it. The local pilots and clubs pay it. Why are they doing that if they don't have to? Who is stupid?

You guys who really believe you can fly without membership and without insurance, why are YOU so stupid to be paying for membership and insurance? You introduced the term "stupid", I'm just trying to figure if it was properly applied to the rightful owners.

What I think is going to happen is this. The smarter, more responsible people will pay whatever is necessary to keep our sites open. The sky will not fall on them, because they are not expecting it to or hoping it will. Those people look for solutions to prevent catastrophe, and will do what's necessary to keep us all flying. And then the separatists, the ones who want to secede from the association, the ones who want it to fail, the ones who hate paying anything to fly, will pay only what they have to pay to keep their minimal membership and rating so they can fly the sites that remain open through the efforts and funding of others. In spite of all their bold talk about flying without USHPA, without insurance, they will not bail, will not go it alone, will not fly uninsured sites. Because they aren't REALLY independent rogues, they just like to be seen that way.

I think the association doesn't need them. I think if they want the association to fold, they should leave and find their own way in the wilderness, instead of pissing in the pool and then pimping off those who clean it up.
User avatar
By Paul H
#379651
The attitude demonstrated by a few of the posts here is the "I've got mine, f--- everybody else" school of thought. I would really like to believe that it's only a very small minority who think that way.
Hang gliding is still perceived by the general public as something that only crazy people do. Anything that closes down any of our flying sites hurts all of us. A large number of flying sites suddenly shut down could signal to other site owners that there is good reason to believe that the risk of allowing us to fly would be too much. This isn't the 70's, we now live in a very litigious and risk adverse society.
By old newbie
#379657
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
miraclepieco wrote:
old newbie wrote:
Mt Howard is relevant you need a USHPA rating need to sign a waiver and the pilot insurance is a major reason the tram company allows us to ride up to fly

Steve Forslund
Pilot liability insurance vs. landowner liability insurance. Pilots often confuse the two.
When I have flown Mt. Howard I was never asked to show proof of USHPA membership, rating or insurance. Just load on the tram and go - just like all the hikers, bikers and cross-country skiers who also ride the tram without benefit of any national organization or insurance.

USHPA has you people so brainwashed that you need them to fly, that you are arguing against me when I try to give you GOOD NEWS that you can STILL FLY if the Association collapses! :crazy:


.
You can still be able to fly a lot of sites, do your homework. We should be using this time to figure out what sites really will and which sites won't be flyable after ushpa folds. The list of sites is just a list from their website that are insured. That is no proof they need to be insured. Has anyone heard of the chicken little story? THE SKY IS FALLING! Look at the headline they want us all to believe... The Future of Free Flight in the U.S. is At Risk! Just give us money and we will fix it for all of you stupid pilots. Give me a break. WE should be working on keeping our sites open instead of waiting for the ushpa to do it for us.
I could not find the post you are quoting. We actually have it better then others and can take multiple rides up the lift. I was first asked to show a rating back in the early 90's I was asked this summer no doubt there has been times in the past when they did not check. Pilots have been working with the forest service and the tram company to keep this site open. A lot of work to improve enlarge launch.
User avatar
By HGXC
#379666
I think the bigger threat to HGing specifically and GA in general is low numbers and lack of representation. As a guy who has flown thru 99% of the history of our sport you would think its a miracle we have survived and thrived as long as we have.

You need a critical mass of participants to have glider manufacture and development, site maintenance and pilot training. We are dangerously close to not having enough pilots to have a future so anything that threatens membership threatens the sports future development.

We need to "hang" together or surely we will all hang separately!

Dennis..... Apologies to Ben
User avatar
By Dave Gills
#379797
mgforbes wrote: Our corporate attorney, Tim Herr, is a hang glider pilot.
An H0 with a member number of 48274 & no skills?
:roflcat:
That may explain why we're loosing all our money.
User avatar
By Darbbb
#379800
I have started another thread with a more positive tone, to champion and celebrate the coming together of pilots to save our sport from almost certain extinction. I hope to see you there.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=33769

:thumbsup: :goodidea:

Brad
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#379810
Dave Gills wrote:
mgforbes wrote: Our corporate attorney, Tim Herr, is a hang glider pilot.
An H0 with a member number of 48274 & no skills?
:roflcat:
That may explain why we're loosing all our money.
Yea, I asked mgforbes where Tim flies but I got no reply. Maybe Mark doesn't get notice to replies on this thread. Most of what the ushga goons tell us is either a straight up lie or a vague misleading statement. Like the statement, "The future of free flight in the US is at stake! Just like marks statement that has been proven to be a lie or at least a misleading statement. I would also like to add that I have had some dealings with this Tim Herr guy. It is the opinion of several of our club members that he is a completely incompetent attorney and not a very nice person.

Also, Tim Herr is NOT A PILOT.
User avatar
By HGXC
#379811
Herr doesn't fly and if he did I don't know if that would make him a better attorney.

In regards to Mark I have to say that I was strongly against many of his ideas and rulings over the years, I thought we gave away the farm to pgers and thought the process of opening enrollment was terrible. But the results turned out to be the better way over the long run and Mark himself has proven to be very knowledgeable, a hard worker and advocate of the sport of free flight.

At this time and place hacking at each other will only lead to a bad end.

Just my 2 cents,

I still listen to AC/DC the Albums with Bon Scott.[…]

2018 MINGUS MOUNTAIN FLY-IN

strings Buy 4'x8'x1/4" Luan plywood, it's lig[…]

SOGA Canada Hang Gliding July 7, 2018 Click the[…]

Saving hang gliding — please help!

Saving hang gliding is such a multi faceted approa[…]