All things hang gliding. This is the main forum. New users, introduce yourself.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By LoganR
#404408
Frank. As much as I genuinely do like and appreciate your objective on opening all flying sites to all qualified pilots via open insurance; insurance isn't the barrier. When I started with Ft. Funston I had insurance, a solid safety rating, and references. Nobody wanted to check to see if I was a responsible pilot. "I'll keep it real simple for you guys...The answer is NO! That's our policy," Rob Johnson. It isn't about being a responsible pilot, it is about club control.
#404409
You sure have got folks panties all in a bunch. What do you hope to gain from all this besides a smaller bank account if you try to go to court? Do you really think this is the best you can do with your time? Down the rabbit hole you go go go.... :twisted:

Your fight for the few is not helping the many.

8)
User avatar
By Paul H
#404410
USHPA7 wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:34 pm This thread is going off topic. There are people who claim the earth is flat, and people who claim the moon landings were fake, and people who claim the sun orbits the earth, and people who claim the PDMC is false. We cannot change these people's minds because they are basing their claims on belief instead of physical, scientific, and mathematical proof. So, lets not waste any more of this thread on trying to convince these true believers. ……….

Frank C
Wow, what a great way to back up your claims about the validity of your opinions. Just make bullshit comparisons to lump those who disagree with them in with the people who believe in crackpot theories.
Your claims that Masters PDMC is based on physical, scientific, and mathematical proof is right up there with the flat earthers. Any so called proof is not valid when it is derived from such an obvious example of confirmation bias. Belittling anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion is just sad. Who is the true believer?
You have a known history in hang gliding. What happened? You went from being an innovator and one of the people who got things going back in the day to what? Just a naysayer who tries to shout down a newer form of free flight? That would make you just like the people who were so vocally against hang gliding not that long ago.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404411
Rodie... It is very simple. Public land is not your land. You are using publicly allocated resources for your personal enjoyment at the exclusion of many. You are ok with theft of public services and funds. I am not.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404412
I've been attempting to find any proof to Logan's claims of relinquishing USHPA's 'authority' and pilot rating authentication in Utah's parks. Not one mention in many searches. Logan, can you provide some proof to your claims?

Also, Logan, when and if you convince public parks to allow anyone to fly regardless of organization affiliations, how are the parks personnel going to ensure that each pilot has enough experience, skill, properly-maintained equipment, and responsibility to fly in each location?

Frank, are you trying to convince USHPA to change it's insurance policy only for Bob-k's benefit? And those that have not earned and received a proper pilot rating? How is that supposed to work? So, if someone can't follow the proper procedures and rules outlined within USHPA, they can merely purchase the insurance and do what ever they feel like, when they feel like it. Is that correct? Am I the only one here that sees the fallacy in your thinking? (Likely not!) How are the underwriters of the insurance going to be ensured that these 'pilots' will at least attempt to adhere to the given rules? Answer: They will not be at all comfortable underwriting a pilot who has not proven him/herself as competent, and/or has a history of being detrimental to other pilots.

So far, none of your group's arguments make much sense. And all the rhetoric rings from one other forum (u s hawks).
User avatar
By LoganR
#404413
DMarley. Feel free/encouraged to try to stop me from flying... We actually have a freedom fly in scheduled for later this month. Or you can try to find the law requiring your approval (Hint, there never was one). The flier that you all designed which had the USHPA requirements in the safety section wasn't a law (nice try though).

As to ensuring proficiency, etc. Have you even READ far 103?
User avatar
By DMarley
#404417
As I asked before, Logan, how do you expect the flying sites to be reasonably safe flying environments without some kind of safeguards in place, similar to that which is already present with the USHPA? We have policed our own so that land owners and park services can have reasonable assurances that HG and PG pilots can be trusted. When removing those safeguards, you will be removing any trust that has existed. Removing all of USHPA's guidelines from sites will enable anyone to fly, no matter how poor their skills and preparations are. Experienced pilots, examiners, and mentors will no longer be able to prevent flying those who have not had any flight training, nor any pilot who has proven to be reckless or possessing faulty skills. What will this mean to your public lands? We can all imagine, and rightly so, that with the very likely sharp increase of serious accidents, those in charge of the sites will quickly act to halt all HG/PG flight.
And this, Logan, appears to be your aim. To seriously hamper, if not completely halt, all Part 103 flight.
Thanks buddy.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404419
I've stated my aim, free up public land. If USHPA started acting like a responsible steward instead of a bunch of thugs, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Do you realize that you aren't 103? Destroying USHPA and destroying 103 aren't the same. Besides, I like the FAA better than I like USHPA...... so, no loss for me and we'd have an objective system of proficiency verification.
By bacrdek
#404424
Just a suggestion, can this be moved to a "US Politics" section or similar? :goodidea:

I doubt if most people read this stuff but it's always one of the main threads and really brings down the vibe here.
User avatar
By red
#404427
bacrdek wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:04 amJust a suggestion, can this be moved to a "US Politics" section or similar? I doubt if most people read this stuff but it's always one of the main threads and really brings down the vibe here.
bacrdek,

At the top right of each post is a gear icon. Click it to make your request to the owner of the forum. It usually takes a number of people voting to send a topic to the Basement, but that is how it works here. I thought the discussion has been fairly reasonable (for us, anyway) so far. Getting everybody here going in the same direction is kinda like herding cats, even on a good day. :wink:
User avatar
By TjW
#404428
LoganR wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:49 pm I like the FAA better than I like USHPA...... so, no loss for me and we'd have an objective system of proficiency verification.
Part 103 doesn't have any system of proficiency verification, objective or otherwise.

It's not clear to me what the difference is between the FAA running an objective system of proficiency verification and killing Part 103.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404429
LoganR wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:49 pm I've stated my aim, free up public land. If USHPA started acting like a responsible steward instead of a bunch of thugs, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Do you realize that you aren't 103? Destroying USHPA and destroying 103 aren't the same. Besides, I like the FAA better than I like USHPA...... so, no loss for me and we'd have an objective system of proficiency verification.
So, Logan, you believe the USHPA is a group of thugs only because they do not allow those, who have proven themselves to be hindrances and dangers to HG/PG flight as well as those who have not shown proficiency in flight, to fly within flying sites that have USHPA guidelines enacted? How do you leap to such a conclusion? Is it because you could not pass a mere H1 test? So now you are crying like a spoiled child? There are absolutely no records that I could find indicating that you ever received a USHPA pilot's identification number, indicating that you did not test for (or failed the test) even for an H1 rating.

The USHPA has a very long history of competently and fairly upholding reasonable safety standards within it's self-controlled, tight-knit group of trained pilots. Once in a great while a rated pilot will not uphold the guidelines set forth by the rest of the group of pilots (USHPA) and when this happens, consequences are put forth. This is what rules are about. Without self-enforced behavioral and flight rules, anarchy takes hold and disruption and failure reign. You, Logan, believe, or want the feeble-minded to believe, that you are a freedom-fighter, fighting for their right for free-flight. There is no right for HG/PG flight. And you are attempting to bring HG/PG flight to a grinding halt by disassembling the large group of pilots of well-documented flight-skills (known as the USHPA) and their well-conceived and proven rules of behavior and flight, in order for a very small group of pilots of undocumented flight skills and behaviors, to fly while rejecting the simple safeguards and rules of their peers. You are not creating or liberating freedom. You are creating an environment that will lead to the complete extinction of unlicensed, unregulated by gov't, HG/PG/ultralight flight.

Not only is Logan attempting to redact a system of well-conceived and honed flying rules and safety from public lands, he is also, at the same time, attempting to reduce public safety, whether he understands this or not. Public safety on public lands and everywhere else is taken very seriously by the pilots of the USHPA. Every attempt to keep the non-flying public safe is ingrained deeply into every USHPA-rated pilot. Logan's free-flight ideas have not been thought out in detail. He has not been a part of the documented pilots' fraternity and therefore has no proven elegance to ensuring pilots' and the public's safety.

We are not talking about bicycling or equestrian-riding. We are determining the course of ultralight aviation. As in all aviation, there must be rules enforced to allow for a reasonably safe flying environment. And as Logan would have the FAA take reign over ultralight flight, we would no longer have any voice in the manners in which we fly. It would be only a matter of very short duration before people with little to no flying skill, and those with little concern for the safety of others, would make our flying environs so dangerous as to warrant stronger, heavier, outside control, and likely the halt of HG/PG flying on public lands. Logan is NOT a friend of HG/PG flight. Please read between the lines and understand what is at stake.

As for brushing this thread under the table so you don't have to look at it, it will all certainly go away soon enough along with your privileges to fly if Logan et al, succeed in their nefarious quest.
Last edited by DMarley on Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404430
TJW: apologies I may have been too brief in my reply.

There seems to be a circular logic loop in flying.

The law under 103 is, as you stated, virtually no requirements. If you physically can propel yourself off a cliff (with basic weight and power restrictions) you are free to do so and accept the consequences. This exists under the expectation that pilots self regulate.

USHPA decides that they are going to be the regulating body for everybody, governed by nobody (since they are just a private club). They feel entitled to exclude people they dont like, regulate people and enforce their own standards. This is exactly what FAR 103 is *NOT* meant for. USHPA seems to think that if they can't regulate others, then FAR 103 will go away.... So the essential argument is something along the lines of "Do what we say so that the FAA won't interfere."

FAR 103 puts the responsibility on the pilot as you rightly pointed out; however, if there *must* be a regulating body I would prefer to have one which is objective.

Does this help?
User avatar
By DMarley
#404432
Logan, you are not addressing the real issues. You are merely attempting to pervert our flying environments and the public safety by allowing merely anyone, including untrained / non-rated people with little to loose, to infiltrate our skies and creating a dangerous flying environment. I don't think that anyone associated with public or private lands would want to experiment with your ideas and values of 'free-flight.' Especially when a large group of proven, skilled, responsible pilots has proven to be more than capable stewards with little need of the public lands authorities requiring additional resources for policing these sites.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404433
USHPA does not have legal superiority to the FAA. There is no reason fo anyone to join your club. You are using public lands to compel membership. Those are the real issues. If you were capable stewards we wouldn't be having this discussion. You refuse to recognize that you are interfering with public access to public land over political squabbles. Those are the real issues.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404434
LoganR wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:54 pm USHPA does not have legal superiority to the FAA. There is no reason fo anyone to join your club. You are using public lands to compel membership. Those are the real issues. If you were capable stewards we wouldn't be having this discussion. You refuse to recognize that you are interfering with pubil access to public land over political squabbles. Those are the real issues.
Is it untrue that the real reason that you have a burr under your saddle from the USHPA is because you couldn't pass the reasonable written and practical tests to become a proficient pilot?
User avatar
By LoganR
#404435
Both untrue and irrelevant. When I asked Fellow Feathers what I; an experienced pilot with a track record of safety, references, and insurance, needed to do to fly Ft. Funston I was told (quite rudely) that I need to be a member of USHPA to fly. There was no question about my proficiency, simply a question of club membership. You still havent addressed why anyone would want to join a club like that. Since I found no reason, I haven't.
User avatar
By mgforbes
#404436
USHPA is a non-profit, voluntary membership association. People are free to join, or not to join, as they see fit. USHPA is free to accept, or not to accept, people who wish to join. Very rarely, USHPA is compelled to expel a member (it's happened only a handful of times) for conduct so egregious that it cannot be overlooked. There is an extensive process with multiple appeals for this, and you have to do something *really* damaging to convince all of those layers that you should be expelled.

USHPA does NOT own sites. USHPA does NOT manage sites. Landowners own sites, and that includes government entities. Those landowners, and the people they designate to manage those lands, have law and custom on their side. They are entitled to make the rules about how the land is to be used and managed. This is settled law, dating back hundreds of years. The concept of "public land" does not mean that the general public has the right to do anything an individual might want on that land. It means only that the land is held in trust for the good of *everyone*, and managed by the officials whom we choose through elections and the administrative appointments that derive from them.

Private landowners exert absolute control over their property. They can make any rule they want about its use. Many require USHPA membership and insurance coverage against the risk they might be sued in relation to a flying accident. That coverage is only extended to USHPA members, and therefore only USHPA members are allowed to fly at those sites. USHPA is not excluding pilots from those sites; the landowners are, because of the legal risks posed by non-member pilots.

Public lands, while not owned by individual private citizens, nonetheless have similar use restrictions. There are land use rules that restrict what activities may take place. Wilderness is off-limits to mechanized transport, for example. Range lands have restrictions on grazing, herd density and development. There are rules in place to protect endangered species, conserve habitat or control the spread of wildfire. And there are rules about recreational uses; off-road vehicles, horses, mountain biking and yes, hang gliding and paragliding.

Public agencies don't like to get sued either, so they often have a requirement as a condition of use that pilots provide insurance naming the agency in the coverage. This works exactly the same way as coverage for private landowners. And just as with private landowners, they restrict use of the property to those pilots who have the insurance....USHPA members.

Public lands also have restrictions on their exploitation for commercial activity. If you're flying tandems for pay, then that's a commercial operation and you need to have a special use permit from the managing agency. That permit has an insurance requirement too, along with some sort of fee-sharing agreement that compensates the public with a portion of the private gain of the individual commercial operator. Recreation RRG provides commercial school insurance policies with the necessary limits and coverage for public lands, to satisfy this requirement.

Logan seems to think that he can overturn hundreds of years of law and precedent to satisfy his personal desires. I don't think that's a battle that USHPA should spend membership dues on, nor is it a good idea. But he feels differently and he's entitled to his opinion.

MGF
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 16