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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By USHPA7
#404461
I'm glad this got back on topic and no longer is a discussion about PDMC. That needs to go in another thread.

I have suggested some very sensible and needed changes to USHPA.

An insurance only membership does not make it any more possible for an unqualified pilot to fly a site than the present setup. An inexperienced person can right now buy a membership in USHPA and get the insurance and go fly. It wouldn't be any different with a insurance only member.

One comment was whether I was suggesting this because of one person. Yes, that person is the example that identifies the problem that needs to be solved. That person is a long time HG & PG pilot (H4 & P4) with a perfect safety record. He didn't violate any laws or club rules but because he testified in court for an injured party, he fell in disfavor with the hierarchy that runs USHPA and they pushed the RD's to approve his removal. Yes, it is a private club so they have the right: don't like a pilot, because he is assertive, boot him out. However, that should have nothing to do with that pilots ability to fly any site he chooses since he is perfectly qualified in every way but the club denies him insurance. That is the injustice that needs to be addressed and corrected by all pilots! You could be next!

Now to the person who said I used to be innovative or something like that - thank you. But he went on to say I was not encouraging this newer form of personal flight and therefore I was no longer innovative. Please look at my 21'st century swing seat harness photos in another thread on this forum and try it next week at Point of the Mountain UT. I just made another improvement in the design today. I have also been helping Jim Fenison with his suprone flight system development. You could also follow my "Hang glider basic trainer thoughts" postings on the US Hawks Forum under general topics. It has quite a large following of "lurkers". Yesterday, I did the first flight tests on the 1/5 scale model of my design (see photo). My goal is to come up with a basic trainer hang glider that would be as easy as the old standard Rogallo to learn on (so many pilots did just that) but higher performance and without the dangerous aerodynamic flaws that the Rogallo had. So please stop this BS about my no longer being innovative. What are you doing?

I am not encouraging this newer form of parachute gliding flight precisely because it also has dangerous aerodynamic flaws. It has nothing to do with my innovativeness or lack thereof.

Frank Colver
Testing the HG Basic Trainer model.jpg
Testing the HG Basic Trainer model.jpg (249.27 KiB) Viewed 926 times
User avatar
By LoganR
#404462
Another observation for you to "LOLZ" at:
The justification for requiring club membership via the Special Use Permit is:

36 C.F.R 2.17: (a) (3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

This only applies only to tandem operations, which you cannot charge for.... and you aren't allowed to charge for lessons. Legally speaking, your Special Use Permit allows you to fly with friends if you have the club's blessing.

Also, your SUP does *NOT* give you exclusive use of any facilities.

Logan R
User avatar
By TjW
#404464
USHPA7 wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:47 pm I'm glad this got back on topic and no longer is a discussion about PDMC. That needs to go in another thread.

I have suggested some very sensible and needed changes to USHPA.

An insurance only membership does not make it any more possible for an unqualified pilot to fly a site than the present setup. An inexperienced person can right now buy a membership in USHPA and get the insurance and go fly. It wouldn't be any different with a insurance only member.
I don't think at most sites insurance is the only qualifier. Generally, there's some level of hang rating required as well.
So I don't think an inexperienced person can just buy a membership in USHPA and fly any site.
User avatar
By TjW
#404465
LoganR wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:43 am Another observation for you to "LOLZ" at:
The justification for requiring club membership via the Special Use Permit is:

36 C.F.R 2.17: (a) (3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

This only applies only to tandem operations, which you cannot charge for.... and you aren't allowed to charge for lessons. Legally speaking, your Special Use Permit allows you to fly with friends if you have the club's blessing.

Also, your SUP does *NOT* give you exclusive use of any facilities.

Logan R
Obligatory "not a lawyer", but I think a lawyer could argue that you are delivering yourself via airborne means. Otherwise, why would a SUP be necessary for single pilot operations? BASE jumpers at Yosemite would be allowed any time, any where. In reality, they get their equipment confiscated and occasionally jail time. The Park Service seems to think an SUP is required.

I also think "no exclusive use of any facilities" doesn't mean what you think it means. There's no benefit to the Park Service if they issue a SUP to some entity that can't enforce rules. They might as well just allow whatever it is.
There is some benefit to a Park Service manager if they can issue a permit to some group and have some expectation that the activity will be managed sorta kinda responsibly.
So I think that while the club can't say "This is a pilot-only observation deck" or "pilot parking only", they can probably exclude non-club members from flying on the basis that non-club members aren't part of the SUP.
User avatar
By LoganR
#404467
TJW: I am also not a lawyer... And I tend to agree with your overall assessment of there being no point in the SUP. Neither Fellow Feathers nor USHPA are enforcement agencies.

As to BASE jumping. Another part of the 36 CFR is something about only launching or landing at designated locations or facilities. As there are no base jumpjng facilities I would tend to suspect that is the violation. I would be very interested in seeing the specific citation.

The legal definitions of delivery and retrieval both have to do with the interactions of another person or object. The 36 CFR reduces the definition to one person delivering another person via aircraft. The 36 CFR does *NOT* say the use of an air facility requires a permi or that travel via aircraft requires a permit..... I will run this all through a lawyer, but based on this and other laws it seems to me that USHPA has no more standing at NPS property than they do in Utah.... They can fly in groups whereas everyone else gets to fly as an individual (Strictly referencing the standard purpose of a generic SUP).
#404468
I believe the USHPA has established a program that ultimately helps the free flight community and functions as a gatekeeper, in order for many of "us" to fly where we might NOT be able to, and has done a good job in doing so. You (LoganR) are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and for no apparent, pertinent reason.

The good folks that are members of the USHPA have followed along willingly (both good and bad) for years and the FAA is paying attention, believe it or not. "To what level?" one might ask. Doesn't matter. However, if you step on enough toes just to satisfy your own personal vendetta, you are worse than those you despise in this matter. This is the way it "works" here in the US, like it or not. Why is this not obvious to you?

Let's say you succeed in your personal attack on our flying freedom. What will we/you do when, due to your attack on our fairly established rights (permissions whatever you want to call them at the moment), many if not all locations that we fly from are taken away from us? Do you think that when you are done with Torrey or the USHPA or FAR 103 that everyone should be able to go out and fly a location without an established and safe manner, thus endangering "John and Jane Q Public!! What about those that have, in many cases dedicated their lives and money to establishing, maintaining and growing areas all over the US so that we can fly? They jumped through all the hoops, with the help of the USHPA and the FAA and in many cases the Forrest Service, etc. What will you have to say to them? "Oops! I'll just go fly my sailplane now."

In truth, the heart of this matter is so that the FAA can keep the "unknowing, possibly uneducated public" from harm. The USHPA has established a safe and easy to understand program of keeping total idiots from jumping off any cliff they wish to, thereby creating a hazard and bringing freeflight to a halt in this or any other location. Why would the USHPA NOT want to help establish and protect this freedom, right, privilege?

Don't get me wrong, Torrey Pines has always been on the shady side of this whole matter and it "seems" they now have to get along with the folks that want to fly there and I'm no great proponent of the USHPA, BUT unlike you I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face.

I speak only for myself, as a former USHPA Reg Director, a former flight park owner and a HG Dealer since 1998. I was involved in the background when the FAA adopted the Sport Pilot program as our LLC had just purchased a tug and were trying to establish a growing pilot base in Kansas City. I know very well how much (or not) the FAA is watching. They would consider you a tic at this point, sucking unnecessary manpower and resources (if they do in fact decide to look at your diatribe) away from other more important issues. The only guarantee I can give you is that if "pilots" start doing harm to the public, then you will see a s--- storm of regulations and control.

I also am NOT supporting Ben Reese or Bob K. I write this only to say you are not going to be successful in your endeavor here, so please stop the madness (I know you won't because your ego won't let you). I also apologize for MY diatribe and realize it is not very well written. I'm just tired of all the bullshit that means little or nothing, except to a few people having a pissing contest that's successful outcome will not be good for any of us.

8)
User avatar
By DMarley
#404469
LoganR wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:43 am Another observation for you to "LOLZ" at:
The justification for requiring club membership via the Special Use Permit is:

36 C.F.R 2.17: (a) (3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

This only applies only to tandem operations, which you cannot charge for.... and you aren't allowed to charge for lessons. Legally speaking, your Special Use Permit allows you to fly with friends if you have the club's blessing.

Also, your SUP does *NOT* give you exclusive use of any facilities.

Logan R
The use of the words "delivering" and "retrieving" in the context of the rule has nothing to do with hang or paragliding within the park lands.

Also, if you merely looked a few more paragraphs down in the rules, you would have read this:
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition)
§ 2.18
(d) The use of aircraft shall be in ac-
cordance with regulations of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration. Such
regulations are adopted as a part of
these regulations.
(e) The operation or use of hovercraft
is prohibited.
(f) Violation of the terms and condi-
tions of a permit issued in accordance
with this section is prohibited and may
result in the suspension or revocation
of the permit.
...And therefore, because the USHPA is operating well withing the FAA's regulations, your arguments are without any merit.
Sounds like you are cherry-picking your regulations without regard to the full context. Typical BK tactics.

Also, tell us where in FAR part 103, or any other part, that the rules indicate that no compensation for flight lessons is allowed.

A lesson is not merely a flight. Lessons also include a ground-school part. There needs no compensation for the actual ultralight tandem flight for the instructor to be compensated.
But then, you wouldn't be aware of these because it is quite obvious that you don't fly hang gliders, nor have you taken any lessons.

You may want to peek at this official FAA document with this requirement:
5.
Both occupants on all two-place flights, other than for training purposes, must possess
a current pilot rating issued by the USHPA and at least one occupant must possess a
current Tandem Pilot rating issued by the USHPA.
http://www.southwestairsports.com/faqs- ... n_4721.pdf

What this helps to prove is that the FAA does acknowledge the USHPA's rating system as valid.

So far Logan has not proved one item within his arguments. Nor has he mentioned any proof about his claim of rescinding the USHPA's involvement with the Utah park services.

Nor has anyone vouched for Logan's HG flying prowess as of yet. Somehow, I don't think anyone will.

See logan, without being rated by an independent system, you have no credibility, and no site owner/entity would want to take a chance on your unkown (and likely no) flying skills. You still have the requirement of getting permission to fly on public lands. If the public land services choose to use the USHPA's guidelines and rating system, you have to meet those requirements, whether you like them or not.
By blindrodie
#404470
If the public land services choose to use the USHPA's guidelines and rating system, you have to meet those requirements, whether you like them or not.
BAM!

8)
#404471
blindrodie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:01 pm I believe the USHPA has established a program that ultimately helps the free flight community and functions as a gatekeeper, in order for many of "us" to fly where we might NOT be able to, and has done a good job in doing so. You (LoganR) are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and for no apparent, pertinent reason.

The good folks that are members of the USHPA have followed along willingly (both good and bad) for years and the FAA is paying attention, believe it or not. "To what level?" one might ask. Doesn't matter. However, if you step on enough toes just to satisfy your own personal vendetta, you are worse than those you despise in this matter. This is the way it "works" here in the US, like it or not. Why is this not obvious to you?

Let's say you succeed in your personal attack on our flying freedom. What will we/you do when, due to your attack on our fairly established rights (permissions whatever you want to call them at the moment), many if not all locations that we fly from are taken away from us? Do you think that when you are done with Torrey or the USHPA or FAR 103 that everyone should be able to go out and fly a location without an established and safe manner, thus endangering "John and Jane Q Public!! What about those that have, in many cases dedicated their lives and money to establishing, maintaining and growing areas all over the US so that we can fly? They jumped through all the hoops, with the help of the USHPA and the FAA and in many cases the Forrest Service, etc. What will you have to say to them? "Oops! I'll just go fly my sailplane now."

In truth, the heart of this matter is so that the FAA can keep the "unknowing, possibly uneducated public" from harm. The USHPA has established a safe and easy to understand program of keeping total idiots from jumping off any cliff they wish to, thereby creating a hazard and bringing freeflight to a halt in this or any other location. Why would the USHPA NOT want to help establish and protect this freedom, right, privilege?

Don't get me wrong, Torrey Pines has always been on the shady side of this whole matter and it "seems" they now have to get along with the folks that want to fly there and I'm no great proponent of the USHPA, BUT unlike you I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face.

I speak only for myself, as a former USHPA Reg Director, a former flight park owner and a HG Dealer since 1998. I was involved in the background when the FAA adopted the Sport Pilot program as our LLC had just purchased a tug and were trying to establish a growing pilot base in Kansas City. I know very well how much (or not) the FAA is watching. They would consider you a tic at this point, sucking unnecessary manpower and resources (if they do in fact decide to look at your diatribe) away from other more important issues. The only guarantee I can give you is that if "pilots" start doing harm to the public, then you will see a s--- storm of regulations and control.

I also am NOT supporting Ben Reese or Bob K. I write this only to say you are not going to be successful in your endeavor here, so please stop the madness (I know you won't because your ego won't let you). I also apologize for MY diatribe and realize it is not very well written. I'm just tired of all the bullshit that means little or nothing, except to a few people having a pissing contest that's successful outcome will not be good for any of us.

8)
:thumbsup:
User avatar
By LoganR
#404472
You claim to be tha authority and work for the public good, yet work against the very laws you claim to defend.

As to the rest of the "LOL" and "BAM" statements... I have already stated the laws, your ignorance is quite obviously your (preferred) choice. The part about not being able to charge for a flight is a part of your contractual agreement with the park, your SUP. How is it that I have read the SUP when the USHPA fanclub has not?
By blindrodie
#404473
You claim to be tha (sic) authority...
I claim nothing. I speak from my own personal experience and what is currently written and accepted (good OR bad). You think you're correct but are only misinterpreting the FAA rules to suite your argument, much like a sleazy lawyer. At this point "law" has little to do with your misguided pursuit. Time is on our side.

Yes indeedy, down the rabbit hole you go go go...

8)
Last edited by blindrodie on Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By blindrodie
#404478
OK, how does this help YOUR cause LoganR? It's pretty straight forward as to how the USHPA cooperates with all the proper authorities. There is no strangle hold on anyone. The USHPA is just providing the required over site and procedures that are required of them...

What gives?

8)
User avatar
By LoganR
#404479
In addition to what I have previously said about the SUP: I appreciate that you recognize "There is no strangle hold on anyone." You have access for your club. You do not have exclusive access.
By blindrodie
#404480
You have access for your club.
Correct. Glad to see you are understanding of what you post. The rules apply to those that follow the SUP that was provided by the entity in charge. Just in case you can't understand that, it's NOT the USHPA.
You do not have exclusive access.
Apparently those that meet the guidelines DO!

So what or with whom is your beef? Rabbit hole dude! I can hear your voice starting to echo!

8)
User avatar
By LoganR
#404481
Where is exclusive access? A special use permit is a contract between an organization and the park. These requirements are for club members. I am not a club member therefore not bound by your agreement. No part of that agreement states that your club has exclusive use of any facility. No law states that a pilot must get a permit to use any of those facilities (as I am neither delivering or retrieving a person) nor would any such requirements be legal according to the FAA and DOT.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404482
Still not understanding your complaint Logan -- convince the land owner (any land owner) to let you fly on their land. Do this by whatever means you find effective. Done.

Other than the USHPA having a structure and history that is appealing to some land owners, nothing makes them have any special edge over you.

JB
User avatar
By DMarley
#404483
LoganR wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:32 pm In addition to what I have previously said about the SUP: I appreciate that you recognize "There is no strangle hold on anyone." You have access for your club. You do not have exclusive access.
Logan, you are waging a loosing battle because you have no foundation to stand on, and again you have not read the document in it's entirety. Or you have not discerned what it is indicating.

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Special Use Permit GOGA-8142-18-0510
For example:
F. 2):
Permittee shall make every effort to ensure that all rules, pilot qualifications, and responsibilities are enforced. Permittee shall make every effort to closely monitor club activities and club members flying at Fort Funston and on lands south, to ensure that all rules are enforced.
G. 1)
Unauthorized hang glider pilots will be penalized or cited.
Oh, and the biggies that you didn't want to read:
G. 2)
Pilots must be registered and obtain an annual permit sticker from the Permittee each year to be eligible for hang gliding at Fort Funston, GGNRA. Registration and permits will be available at local hang gliding shops and from Permittee officers and designated club members. The permit system will be coordinated entirely by the Permittee under the supervision of the NPS. The primary responsibility for rigid enforcement of USHPA and Fellow Feathers Hang Gliding Club regulations shall be the responsibility of the Permittee.
G.3)
To register for hang gliding at Fort Funston, each pilot must comply with the following requirements annually:

a. Present a current membership card of the USHPA to confirm their hang gliding pilot liability insurance and providing the above referenced level of coverage and naming the US Government, NPS, Golden GGNRA as additional insured while engaged in hang gliding activities:

g. Have a USHPA H-3 rating or higher....
Etc.

There are further many more references to the requirements of USHPA ratings. Absolutely no mention of allowing any other pilots that are not rated by and current with the USHPA. Please read it in it's entirety.

Logan:
But since you can't be bothered to do any research about your own club....
If you did any simple research, you would know that I am located in NC, have never flown in California, and therefor I am not a club member of the Fellow Feathers HGC. So why would I have any need of their SUP?
Every single statement that you make, makes your situation seem more and more clueless about hang gliding and it's pilot communities. Again, where do you fly, and who can vouch for you?
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16