.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

#406139
Good for you on clearing up Utah. I don't live in Cali so I don't deal with the site but it all comes down to money and kickbacks. With the school that is set up as a concession they are giving a certain percentage back to the county that gave them rights of the land to conduct a private business on public land. With stipulations in their contract they must adhere to the county's request for certain criteria to be met since the county owns the land. In doing so the county receives funds from the school operations. a Quid pro Quo scenario. I believe personally I should be allowed to fly wherever I want to as long as I'm doing it safely and with respect to others.

And I'm Out.......








#406140
"I believe personally I should be allowed to fly wherever I want to as long as I'm doing it safely and with respect to others."

Generally speaking; you can.

As to the exclusive rights and/or access. I have never seen exclusive rights for an activity given to any individual concessionaire or private entity at a public site. The National Park System has a twisted set of laws regarding the "delivery" of persons that I am slowly chipping away at.
#406141
The person who has sought and looked at the documentation is no longer allowed to post on this forum. I will look back through the emails I have received from him and see if I can find various pieces of the documents since he was commenting about specific parts of it at different times.

I was ignoring your request because I thought it was not worth all that effort since it might satisfy your personal curiosity but not help anything with our ongoing efforts at opening the site for all days of the week. That said, I also appreciate your interest in our Dockweiler situation.

Please also remember we are dealing with a sensitive situation here because we want the school to continue to be profitable and help with the site operations. If we have one pilot, trying to soar, who blows back over the very busy bike path that is directly behind us, and kills or seriously injures people, the hang gliding will end there forever. Sometimes we have to wait several minutes before we can even carry a glider across that path, from the parking lot, because of the heavy traffic. This is the reality.

Frank
Bike path background.jpg
Bike path background.jpg (408.67 KiB) Viewed 899 times
#406142
Frank,

I do very much appreciate and respect the nature of your efforts at Dockweiler, and I am not trying to hinder your progress. Everything I have seen from and about you is that you are indeed working to free up as much space for as many pilots as possible. If you tell me that the flight school owner worked 16 years to open the beach to Hang Gliding and has done his best to open the beach to non-students, I will make the personal choice to believe *YOU* based on our interactions.

On the other hand; it seems to me that club power grabs use paranoia and ignorance to achieve short term goals. This leads the public to believe in false dangers and regulations which quite simply do not exist. These fears and regulations do not help the pilot community, and it would behoove us to educate ourselves and others.

Logan
#406146
Frank,

One observation:

"If we have one pilot, trying to soar, who blows back over the very busy bike path that is directly behind us, and kills or seriously injures people, the hang gliding will end there forever."

If there is a small club/business owner which can open flying to a portion of the pilot community then it is useful for the rest of the community to support these efforts, even if it means *NOT* flying there as the activity is being established.

The safety concern is a problem weather it is a club member, instructor, or independent pilot. The mentality of "us" and "them" doesn't lead to a cooperative environment or sharing of information, which puts everyone at risk. If people rush their pre-flight or avoid talking to the locals because it just isn't worth the ass-pain involved, that isn't a good way for the locals to keep their favorite sites open.

If I have to bring the NPS to court to convince them to start following the law, that also risks flying for everyone. I have tried for over a year to get the local clubs and park service to follow the law, they seem uninterested at the moment. I was hoping for word on my SUP for Funston, but the Govt. shutdown hasn't helped with that any.

Logan
#406150
When we are flying there we spend a lot of time doing public outreach, mostly to people who stop in from the bike path and ask questions about our gliders and our flying. Many ask about trying it if only to fulfil a "bucket list" desire. If we are flying on the two days the school is closed we tell them about the school and what days they are operating. If it is when the school is operating we will send anyone who shows interest over to talk to one of the instructors. This may be one of the most publicly visible hang gliding sites in the country. Between the bicycle path and the beach crowds there is a lot of public awareness of our activity. People going to and from the beach walk through the launch areas and often stop to take photos and ask about what they are seeing.

When we got the site open to flying on the two days the school is closed we discovered that there were quite a number of people who always used the bike path on those days only and had never seen the hang gliders there before. Amazing!

We could probably gather a lot of petition signatures from the public, supporting our activity, if the county was threatening to close the site. I hope we never have to do that but it's there if we need it.

Frank
#406160
I have no idea. When we are at Dockweiler people are stopping all the time. I'm sure it's the same when the school is operating.

I haven't been there when the school is open very much lately. Ever since we got the two "off" days, because my flying buddies are not USHPA members, so I fly those two days also, even though I'm a member and could fly the school days.

Frank
#406177
Clubs are very interesting. Sometimes I comply. Usually not though.
We have a pretty annoying one in anchorage. Arctic Air Blockers.
They tried to force me to join to fly one of their sites once. Attempted to stop me from launching.
Should have sent a scarier guy.
Police sate mentality bleeding into everything.
I fly there when I can. Long drive though.
Anchorage is the California of Alaska.
#406179
AlaskanNewb wrote: Attempted to stop me from launching.
I wish you would elaborate more on this.

This is where things are going to get messy. Depending on the circumstances, this could be considered kidnapping or assault & if the guy were scary enough, you would have been completely justified to defend yourself by any means necessary to stop the threat.

This needs to be reported because somebody somewhere is going to escalate this to a point where it becomes physical. We cannot have this. I do not care how justified or passionate someone feels about USHPA or Insurance or what have you, trying to physically restrain someone is just plain wrong. Law enforcement should be involved if things go this far.
#406180
I don't believe in bringing law enforcement in ever. Very bad idea. Never do that. Have some personal dignity and take care of yourself. Talking to the police is almost ALWAYS a very bad idea. They are trained to lie and manipulate.

I handled it as a man should. I said as few words as possible. I politely let him know i was going to defend myself to the utmost of my ability if his body contacted mine. He was standing in front of me in a very vulnerable stance (weight on heels, slightly down hill from me, hands occasionally pointed at my chest always down, arms partially extended and longer than mine, chin at the perfect for my reach) I knew if he tried to assault me I would be able to easily defend myself no big deal. In fact i remember I noticed his pants were really tight jeans no weapons in pockets. Thankfully he went to "go get his cell phone (this was interesting because I am pretty sure there is no cell phone service there)" and no confrontation resulted. I finished my set up, launched and flew, had a nice landing and went on with my day.

We all need to be more assertive in defending our freedoms. We really do.


anyway.

In California I have just folded in the past, which I am ashamed of. Those people think you need a permit to go in the forest.
I literally had a public servant tell me I need an Adventure Pass. Insanity down that way. Insanity. The nanny state mentality is strong there. I found it overwhelming, great sites to fly though so I just play nice since I am a visitor. Kinda ashamed of that. You just have to pick battles I suppose, mentality there is just so entrenched, its like another country.

Not in Alaska though. No f'ing way.

Good luck man.
#406181
The stupid "Adventure Pass" is (was) a federal thing (US Forest Service), it has nothing to do with California. So, no "nanny state" in this case.

The general information on it has always been that it was Disney company who lobbied the government, in Washington, for the pass because they saw it as a door to an opportunity to operate the forest campgrounds and make money. In those Adventure Pass areas you even had to buy the pass just to park beside the public highway in the forest. Fortunately it never turned into Disney's idea and it was a trial program that I think is gone now. I haven't seen the signs where I used to see them.

Surprisingly, the idea started in the Reagan (Republican) administration because he was pushing for Americans to have to pay to recreate on public land to help defray the cost to taxpayers for upkeep and facilities. His argument was that if everyone didn't use it why should everyone have to pay for it? I personally don't agree with his thinking here because if everyone didn't help support and protect our public lands they would fall into terrible condition. A few hikers, hunters, fishermen and HG / PG pilots aren't going to keep up an entire forest land. In all likelihood, to pay the cost, it would be turned over to timber companies and then closed to all public use.

Frank
#406187
"So what recourse are u left with if someone attempts to block u from launching? If u hit them because they refuse to move is that assault?"

I can't imagine that it would be other than assault. I suspect you would simply be in a standoff to see who is more determined to get their way.

Anyone know of any other sports where these kinds of discussions happen, or are these ideals of control unique to the FAR 103 participants?
#406188
<<"Anyone know of any other sports where these kinds of discussions happen, or are these ideals of control unique to the FAR 103 participants"?>>

Surfing. Where surfers don't want "outsiders" on "their" waves.

One famous case on the central CA coast made a lot of news Because the cops tended to back the local surfers.

All CA beaches belong to the general public below the mean high tide line.

Frank
#406199
Logan, I believe there is an aspect that you have not addressed as yet.
Most HG sites have taken much effort by prior and present pilots to establish, improve, and maintain over many years. Doing so always requires funds, resources, and volunteerism. To protect all their hard efforts against the typical ideals of the general public and bad actor 'pilots', these founding pilots usually create a system whereby they have more control over choosing the pilots that are allowed to fly at their sites.
As you may well be aware of , there are bad-actor pilots who don't give a rat's ars about anyone but themselves. They litter, they tear up and down fragile access roads, they argue, they don't listen to local pilots about appropriate flying conditions, likely traps, and no-fly areas, and of course they don't follow the local rules. These are the pilots who ultimately ensure that clubs are generated to guard against. I'm not talking about the ushpa. I'm talking about local clubs that do all the real work in keeping HG alive.
Typically, even the independent (from ushpa) sites require a ushpa rating if the pilot is unknown to the local pilots. This system does have some merit in the determination of appropriate pilot skills.
So even if a flying site is on public land, there has obviously been large efforts by other pilots to legally open, develop, and maintain sites such as these. Give these local clubs their fair due and do your part to help support them. If they abide by the ushpa rules due to a requirement for being insured, then respect their decision. If you decide that you don't agree with the u$hpa, then fly at sites that don't necessarily require all that baggage.
Perhaps with this turmoil within the ushpa, more sites will adopt alternative methods of determining pilot skill levels, as well as insurance if it is required.
#406201
DMarley wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:09 am
Logan, I believe there is an aspect that you have not addressed as yet.
Most HG sites have taken much effort by prior and present pilots to establish, improve, and maintain over many years. Doing so always requires funds, resources, and volunteerism. To protect all their hard efforts against the typical ideals of the general public and bad actor 'pilots', these founding pilots usually create a system whereby they have more control over choosing the pilots that are allowed to fly at their sites.
As you may well be aware of , there are bad-actor pilots who don't give a rat's ars about anyone but themselves. They litter, they tear up and down fragile access roads, they argue, they don't listen to local pilots about appropriate flying conditions, likely traps, and no-fly areas, and of course they don't follow the local rules. These are the pilots who ultimately ensure that clubs are generated to guard against. I'm not talking about the ushpa. I'm talking about local clubs that do all the real work in keeping HG alive.
Typically, even the independent (from ushpa) sites require a ushpa rating if the pilot is unknown to the local pilots. This system does have some merit in the determination of appropriate pilot skills.
So even if a flying site is on public land, there has obviously been large efforts by other pilots to legally open, develop, and maintain sites such as these. Give these local clubs their fair due and do your part to help support them. If they abide by the ushpa rules due to a requirement for being insured, then respect their decision. If you decide that you don't agree with the u$hpa, then fly at sites that don't necessarily require all that baggage.
Perhaps with this turmoil within the ushpa, more sites will adopt alternative methods of determining pilot skill levels, as well as insurance if it is required.
Not to mention, the club and local community will still be around long after the latest crank, troll has come, and hopefully, gone. Balancing the demands of the property owner and the wishes of the pilots, is an exceedingly difficult task. These trolls seldom walk in a site managers shoes or step up to shoulder any of the volunteer work associated with keeping a site alive .
#406203
"Most HG sites have taken much effort by prior and present pilots to establish, improve, and maintain over many years. Doing so always requires funds, resources, and volunteerism."

I have helped manage a number of these sites in Utah, no club required.

Additionally, if the property is on public land then the public funds it.... Check out the SUPs.

One issue you haven't addressed. These clubs use public land, public funds, and other public resources while simultaneously charging the public *ADDITIONAL* funds for the use of their own property. How are these clubs not thieves for demanding extortion payments?


They litter <<< This is already illegal, clubs do nothing to affect this.
They tear up and down fragile access roads <<< This is already illegal, clubs do nothing to affect this.
They argue <<< This is America, they get to argue. You don't own jack.
They don't listen to local pilots about appropriate flying conditions, likely traps, and no-fly areas <<< Their risks to take
They don't follow the local rules <<< YOUR rules, which are irrelevant


It's very simple, you do *NOT* own public land. You do not get to force others to fall in line with your ideology, pay your extortion fees, or join your cult.

"Then fly at sites that don't necessarily require all that baggage." I do, regularly. I am just curious why so many people carry their club baggage to public sites where the clubs have no authority.
#406204
Rebardan wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:28 pm

Not to mention, the club and local community will still be around long after the latest crank, troll has come, and hopefully, gone. Balancing the demands of the property owner and the wishes of the pilots, is an exceedingly difficult task. These trolls seldom walk in a site managers shoes or step up to shoulder any of the volunteer work associated with keeping a site alive .
Exactly.

Logan, your words are falling on deaf ears as you continue to drone on about the same bs, over and over and over again without really seeing the issues below the surface.
Clubs and organizations are formed to protect themselves and their flying sites against bad actors. Perhaps you have proven yourself to be the bad-actor/troll at the sites where you seem to be not welcomed. Hopefully that is not the case, but by your continued antagonistic presence here, we can only assume the worst.
main page of the .org

Getting into the sport section could be moved up o[…]

https://www.amazon.com/Honor-Traders-Noodles-Paddi[…]

2019 Green Swamp Sport Klassic

Do you feel like it's too much money, too much ha[…]

Poll on latest USHPA Proposal

I just voted no. If there was a H#LL NO! option, I[…]