.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401590
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:05 am
I know of a lot of good instructors who do not teach any more because of the whole PASA RRRG thing. Ryan, did you say you quit teaching or you didn't join PASA so your teaching for free now?
Yes, I'm not teaching anymore, but it wouldn't be very honest to say it's because of the insurance changes. I wasn't loving many things about living the life of a hang gliding instructor, from the hours- mostly mornings, evenings, and most weekends- time I was missing spending with my wife and two kids doing family stuff. Also the income was not commensurate to the effort, or the hours... some might call that my fault since I was free to set my own prices... but pricing a product or service is a complex thing, and we can't just charge whatever we want can we? And then there was what would happen whenever I went to the hill to fly myself... "hey can you come take a look at this?" and "Ryan, what do you think of this?" and "can I give you my harness for a repack?" (while I'm stuffing ribs excited to get off the ground). When your work and the thing you do to unwind are the same, you don't get to really unwind because you're always at work. You get it too I'm sure!

The insurance changeover just tipped the equation farther in the wrong direction from what I wanted my life to look like. It wasn't actually the increased costs, or P.I.T.A. of applying for PASA cert. I actually very much philosophically agree with the addition of PASA! USHPA's instructor training program is ok... for a weekend seminar... but instructing is an art, with a lot of complexities and delicate nuances... and teaching (anything) takes a lifetime of commitment and study and continual refinement to do it right. Very few HG/PG instructors embrace that- so many feel that since they know how to fly, they're equipped to teach other people to fly. A couple days at an instructor clinic doesn't help much, even if the content is good. So many instructors struggled with PASA cert EXACTLY BECAUSE OF WHY PASA IS SO NECESSARY! So-called instructors that didn't have a training syllabus, and their training processes exposed students to unecessary risk, and/or was incomplete leaving gaps in knowledge, skill set, and guiding student pilots into more-or-less guided self-teaching... while paying lesson prices. All that was another big reason for me stepping away from teaching- with all the complaints about PASA I came to realize the greater HG/PG community mostly had no interest in patching these problems and actually becoming great, thorough flight instructors. People don't know what they don't know I guess... and one of the first requirements to learning anything is the DESIRE to learn. I was tired of being a part of something that wasn't what I feel it should be, needs to be, yet most of my peers didn't- couldn't- see it. And despite much effort, I couldn't change it... I had too many debates with too many instructors who had no interest in changing, even if I was coming to them to HELP them improve. I vaguely remember having some discussion with you after a landing clinic session that went similarly... can't recall the details though. You remember?

So... yea, I'm not teaching... but no, it isn't due to PASA or RRRG insurance... and I'm comfortable saying anyone else who claims those are the reasons they dropped out, isn't being entirely honest (with you/us, or possibly with themselves- maybe they don't even realize)
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401591
Ryan,

I do remember attending your clinic at Andy Jackson. I had taught about 75 ushpa pilots at that time and was still open to suggestions and the sharing of information between instructors. I have since taught over 100 ushpa pilots with several of them becoming very successful instructors and top notch competition pilots. Many instructors don't want to work with or share what they know with other instructors and that is sad. One of my tipping points was the lack of help from the ushpa in dealing with instructor conflicts and concerns. The ushpa seems to continually allows terrible instructors to keep teaching after several accidents including deaths and then harasses others for not going along with their petty rules. They enforce rules on some but allow others to do what they want, right John Simpson? They take over our flying sites and actually told me I would not be able to teach if I did not join PASTA. The only requirement for PASTA membership is the ability to write a 500 dollar check every year.

Ryan, I know you are a good instructor and pilot. I remember the only thing we disagreed about was hand position on final approach. I am sure we agree way more than we disagree when it comes to teaching hang gliding.

Pilots have been talking about creating a new organization for years. Some have actually brought together large groups but failed to follow through with insurance and the procurement of flying sites. I have purchased insurance on my own and I have taken back my flying site, Ed Levin Park. I think it is time to move on. The ushpa has gotten too big and too corrupt to help me grow the sport, so I am out.

I will continue to teach hang glider pilots and fly two place discovery flights under FAA law and vow to help any other instructors to do the same. I have enjoyed all the emails and phone calls regarding this new movement away from the ushpa.
By Seahawk
#401596
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:02 pm

Pilots have been talking about creating a new organization for years. Some have actually brought together large groups but failed to follow through with insurance and the procurement of flying sites. I have purchased insurance on my own and I have taken back my flying site, Ed Levin Park. I think it is time to move on. The ushpa has gotten too big and too corrupt to help me grow the sport, so I am out.

I will continue to teach hang glider pilots and fly two place discovery flights under FAA law and vow to help any other instructors to do the same. I have enjoyed all the emails and phone calls regarding this new movement away from the ushpa.
A glimmer of hope for the future of hang gliding in the USA! Thanks for your efforts, Mike.
By bickford frederick
#401605
No Seahawk, it's not a glimmer of hope.

SlopeSkimmer,

Your tandem was revoked a few years ago already because you were flying a WW Condor with a flailer at Ed Levin if I remember correctly. Blatant disregard of the manufacturer..

Recently you got all your ratings revoked for flying tandems at Funston. I know you're not the only pilot doing it and it's been going on for years... Blatant disregard of site rules..

Now you're using Ed Levin for your business with your own blah blah..
** There can not be any monetary or other compensation for instructing, observing or sponsoring at Ed Levin.
That's from Santa Clara County, not USHPA or WOR.

What a mess..
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401612
Fred,

I am so sorry this has upset you so much. This thread is about Non-USHPA Tandem Exemption. I have an FAA tandem exemption so I know a thing or two about it. Your anger seems to be pulling you in a direction that is not helpful to those of us seeking alternative solutions to keeping the sport of hang gliding alive.

About my revocation for doing tandem flights at Fort Funston. You have a good point there but failed to tell the whole story. The USHPA took away my tandem rating because I flew a couple thousand tandem flights there over the last 10 years. You forgot to mention that they were all incident free. You also forgot to mention that the day after my suspension and just about every flyable day after that, John Simpson has been flying tandems for compensation despite several letters to the USHPA. Tell me Fred, is this a case of the USHPA unequally applying their rules or is it retaliation because I found another insurance plan and refused to buy into the USHPA owned insurance scam? When I was paying the USHPA for those 10 years everything was fine. Either way it is criminal, I know it is and that is why the hang glider mafia dislikes me so much.

Lets talk about this statement from you,

"There can not be any monetary or other compensation for instructing, observing or sponsoring at Ed Levin.
That's from Santa Clara County, not USHPA or WOR."

This statement is completely false. You should do some fact checking before you start typing. Starting with my permit, the county of Santa Clara has issued a total of 6 commercial use permits to the HG/PG instructors working at Ed Levin Park. Besides some of the instructors turning on each other and ratting each other out to PASA and the RRRG for cheating on their books, everything is working well. Because I have my own FAA tandem exemption, my own park permit and my own insurance, I try stay out of those conflicts.

Since you know me so well and I have no idea who you are, can you tell me a bit about yourself? Where do you fly? Where do you teach? What sites have you opened? What plans do you have to grow the sport when the USHPA goes under?
By bickford frederick
#401613
Mike, you should be able to remember me flying at McClure and at Hull. I think it was Dan's daughter you had tandem when you overshot the LZ and luckily hit the flagpole crashing into the bushes basically unharmed. Glenn and Robert were there and maybe a dozen or so other pilots.

I don't know all the details at Funston. My uncle did tandems there and all around California for years. I've only flown there twice myself.

That quote is from here. Scroll down. http://wingsofrogallo.org/sites/ed_levi ... mmary.html

USHPA won't go away..

Being able to lessen federal flight regulations is my goal.
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401615
bickford frederick wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:55 pm
Mike, you should be able to remember me flying at McClure and at Hull. I think it was Dan's daughter you had tandem when you overshot the LZ and luckily hit the flagpole crashing into the bushes basically unharmed. Glenn and Robert were there and maybe a dozen or so other pilots.

I don't know all the details at Funston. My uncle did tandems there and all around California for years. I've only flown there twice myself.

That quote is from here. Scroll down. http://wingsofrogallo.org/sites/ed_levi ... mmary.html

USHPA won't go away..

Being able to lessen federal flight regulations is my goal.
Dude how much of that s--- have you smoked? I am sure your uncle is a cool guy but this topic is Non-USHPA Tandem Exemption. Did your uncle have an FAA tandem exemption? Did you really just say you don't know all of the details at Funston? Do you even know what the federal flight regulations are for non-powered ultralights?

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-com ... ltralights
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401618
bickford frederick wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:55 pm

That quote is from here. Scroll down. http://wingsofrogallo.org/sites/ed_levi ... mmary.html

USHPA won't go away..

Being able to lessen federal flight regulations is my goal.
Just say no to drugs Bro. Your not thinking clearly when you say those are Santa Clara County rules and not USHPA or WOR and then you post a link to the WOR website...
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401619
If we can get past The Who-are-yous and the Ed Levin rules for a moment... was there just an admission of rule breaking, with the only “argument” against rating revocation being others break the rules too? And... then you say something about people “ratting on each other” and how you stay out of that? Ummm....

And did you have a tandem overshoot incident? And did you fly tandem on a Condor? Like a WW, training only, don’t do turns Condor (not the old UP single surface)...

Lotta bickering detracting from the meat that was posted.... can’t tell if it didn’t get addressed or it’s true and there’s nothing to add?
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#401621
Of course I broke some rules. I never said I didn't and my argument is not a simple as "they do it too." My argument is that the USHPA enforces the rules only in retaliation. Ten years everything was fine. Once I bought insurance from outside of the USHPA then all of a sudden the rules are being violated and we MUST uphold the rules! The fact that the USHPA is allowing another pilot to break the rules they busted me for simply supports my assumption.

What part of this do you still not understand Ryan?
By h2os
#401643
Lets get back to the original thread and the use of tandem exemptions (USHPA and others).

Mark commented that by using the ASC exemption, tandem pilots are simply "paying to use the exemption".

That is exactly correct, but extremely ironic coming from Mark since he is a supporter of many of the policies that have lead to USHPA doing the same thing, which is simply charging instructors to use the tandem exemption (except charging a LOT more).

Mark replies with the same old argument about how the instructors are subsidized by the general policy. This has been an argument for a long time, but the math does not back it up. Specifically, as Bart points out, Mark continues to ignore the roughly $200,000 in 30-day waiver sales generated mostly from tandem flights that pay into the general fund. Remember, those waivers have relatively very little risk to the general fund because they are only insuring the tandem student from 3rd party liability on a tandem flight, not the instructor.

Ryan, if I understand correctly from his long worded reply, is basically arguing that this system is fair, it's pay to play, and instructors doing larger volumes of tandem flights should be paying more to use the tandem exemption. He tries to correlate increased volume with the increased risk, but again, the math doesn't add up. Ryan, remember before the RRRG, instructors who did tandems were protected by USHPA 3rd party liability insurance, even if they didn't have the special commercial policy. Back then you could argue the increase amount of tandem flights poses increased risk to the insurance policy. THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. Under current policies, Rogello members/instructors who are doing tandems without RRRG insurance have zero legal protection from USHPA or the RRRG. In fact USHPA even goes as far to say if the instructor is sued that USHPA is likely to sue them too! So a big percentage of the $200,000 going into the general fund comes from uninsured instructors buying rogello memberships and 30-day waivers, which amounts to a huge insurance premium for zero actual legal protection.

So the argument has gone full circle and proves my original point, that like the ASC, USHPA is simply charging to use their tandem exemption, except charging a lot more. I believe the arguments coming from people like Bart (and certainly my argument), is that this is a major mistake on USHPA's part. USHPA should be encouraging instruction, and specifically encourage small time semi-professional instruction, which used to be a huge driving force in new hang ratings, and which we all agree the lack of has contributed to the decrease in our numbers.

If USHPA really wanted to encourage this, it could easily stop charging to use the tandem exemption. Separate the 30-day waiver as it is now into 2 new waivers. One waiver remains largely unchanged and is used for visiting pilots, students taking multiple lessons, etc, and it could even cost $30 each like some have suggested. But the 2nd waiver should be a single use, 24 hours FREE waiver specifically for one time tandem flights. This would encourage professional instruction and build the instructor base, mostly among instructors who do not need RRRG insurance. But USHPA is not interested in this because USHPA's new mission is to SALE INSURANCE.

The alternative to this is what we see in this thread. If USHPA continues to charge huge fees to use the tandem exemption, we see increased use of the ASC exemption and other individual exemptions. The reason this is a major threat to USHPA is because without USHPA instructors we can not make new USHPA rated pilots. This will further erode the site statuses as more and more sites are removed from the USHPA site insurance to allow instruction and freeflight of non USHPA pilots at those sites (the reality is that most sites currently under the USHPA site insurance don't actually need that insurance to stay open). Some sites do need insurance, but there is nothing saying this insurance must come from USHPA, as Mike has proven by obtaining his own insurance and continuing to do tandems at Ed Levin. This also creates tension in local sites and clubs, and also confuses land owners and people in charge of allowing access, further harming USHPA and the hang gliding community. I'm not saying Mike is in the wrong for doing this, but it's USHPA's own policies that are self destructive.

Without a major policy change regarding the tandem exemption, and the continued blatant discouragement of small time instructors who can't afford to buy the insurance, USHPA will soon see a major decrease in revenue from the sale of 30-day waivers and Rogello memberships, and will not be able to sustain the few big schools that actually require the big liability policies, it will see a major decrease in new USHPA "H" ratings issued, and see a decrease in site insurance (which also contributes to premiums), and will eventually fail. All in my opinion, of course.
By bickford frederick
#401646
Isn't it a strange coincidence the exemption is for the very first part of the 103 regulations?
Last edited by bickford frederick on Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401647
h2os wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:02 pm
Ryan, if I understand correctly from his long worded reply, is basically arguing that this system is fair, it's pay to play, and instructors doing larger volumes of tandem flights should be paying more to use the tandem exemption. He tries to correlate increased volume with the increased risk, but again, the math doesn't add up. Ryan, remember before the RRRG, instructors who did tandems were protected by USHPA 3rd party liability insurance, even if they didn't have the special commercial policy. Back then you could argue the increase amount of tandem flights poses increased risk to the insurance policy. THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. Under current policies, Rogello members/instructors who are doing tandems without RRRG insurance have zero legal protection from USHPA or the RRRG. In fact USHPA even goes as far to say if the instructor is sued that USHPA is likely to sue them too! So a big percentage of the $200,000 going into the general fund comes from uninsured instructors buying rogello memberships and 30-day waivers, which amounts to a huge insurance premium for zero actual legal protection.
Yes... but NO. You're not seeing the bigger picture... and it's not just you, so don't feel bad or take it personally. Many share your views quoted here, particularly what I bolded.

The missing part is that you are only looking at liability and "legal protection" for the instructor and the student. There is also liability exposure to the association. If an accident occurs, just about always the plaintiff lists multiple parties in the suit... the instructor(s) and the business they were working for... and who is the next most obvious target? The USHPA.

To the best of my knowledge, it is rare for a rated pilot to sue USHPA if they get hurt (usually hurt themselves). But students- training hill, scooter, tandem, etc... or their families that are left after tragedy... from what I understand those are the costly ones to defend, even if USHPA is not at fault in any way and there was nothing the association could have done differently to have prevented the incident.

Also, big picture- comparing the old policy to the new- NOT apples to apples. Why? ACTUARIES. What legal exposure exists, and how likely a claim or lawsuit is to arise, is a "guess" at the future, based primarily on the past. USHPA carried the old insurance for a long time without much of a hiccup. Then the provider began increasing the premiums drastically. USHPA took action, to both reduce the premium increase AND improve safety; Chapters were asked to assign a safety officer, and insured sites were required to assess site risk factors and address them as much as possible, and create plans or practices to mitigate the risks that couldn't be totally eliminated. Things like glider tie-downs, suggested (or insisted/mandated) approaches to keep pilots clear of power lines on one side of an LZ... stuff like that. Accidents and fatalities continued... and so did claims. Right up until the insurance provider chose not to renew the policy altogether, feeling we were too risky (from an investment standpoint) that it was not worth the effort to try to come up with how much our premium needs to be, and they still wouldn't know if they'll be profitable or lose money through our coverage.

So you can not say "instructors who do not purchase USHPA or RRRG insurance do not expose the policy to liability". They sure do! And that is also why USHPA clearly says, if they have to defend a claim that comes from someone who doesn't have insurance, they will have to file their own claim against that instructor. I agree that's a pretty messed up thing to say (not sure if it's actually happened, or if there would be follow through on actually doing that). But legal fees are insane, and insurance costs money for a reason... if someone isn't paying into that shared fund... the money they could cost the association's insurance has to come from somewhere.

Put another way... Teaching or flying tandems without insurance does not just expose that instructor to liability, and not just the instructor's family is at risk of losing everything. They also put the association at risk, as well as the insurance company too! As I said in my earlier post... not everyone needs or utilizes some or all of USHPA's member benefits to fly hang gliders or paragliders... but there are also many that do. Should USHPA be sued into non-existence, the loss of flying sites, and the impact that would have on free flight participants, manufacturers, etc... would almost guaranteed be devastating. We've got a toe in the grave as it is!

And also- the legal climate isn't what it used to be. Today more than ever, people are not taking responsibility for themselves. I am all for filing a suit if an instructor was being negligent or a dumbass and not teaching using the best practices that have been refined over many years of learning what works and doesn't work so well... but if an instructor is doing it all "right", to the best of their abilities... someone can still twist an ankle or some crap, and suddenly they're out of work, and they decide to sue for pain and sufferring, and lost wages. Probably won't win... but our previous insurance pretty much always prefered to settle rathan that litigate a claim... they say it's cheaper, and they had investors so they couldn't have cases dragging on for multiple years with unknown outcome, because they couldn't pay their fat cat gamblers their profits!

Just as I said about how instructors need to stay in business, to do the greatest good for the sport... USHPA and RRRG do too. And liability and exposure are far greater coming from instructors and tandem instructors, because that is where outside non-pilots come in and don't know enough to keep themselves safe, so they rely on someone else... someone trained and certified by the USHPA. USHPA and RRRG protecting themselves and ensuring long term stability is not those entities being self-serving... it is them doing what they can- what they have to do- to help the most people and do the greatest good for free flight as a whole...
By h2os
#401648
Ryan, I agree, USHPA as an organization is exposed to risk. However, this is largely due to the policies USHPA has adopted, especially over the last few years.

Very simply, USHPA/RRRG has a target on it's back because it has millions of dollars (of its member's money).

Other organizations in similar flying activities have been able to mitigate their own legal risks, and not at the expense of their member's benefits, but through their operational policies. This is even evident in our own sport from organizations like the ASC, who has been providing it's members with use of the tandem exemption for many years at reasonable cost.
By h2os
#401650
bickford frederick wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:23 pm
Isn't it a strange coincidence the exemption causing all of the problems is the very first part of the 103 regulations?

Revenue generated from tandem flights is just begging for trouble..
I completely disagree. Revenue generated from tandem flights is critical to the future of our sport.

USHPA should be working to further legitimize tandem instruction and the role of the professional tandem pilots in our community, rather than the self destructive behavior it has shown towards it's own instructors recently. For example, USHPA as the largest freeflight organization in the US, and has the best chance of lobbying the FAA to allow a recreational two-place exemption (as opposed to purely instructional exception like we have now). Or to work with the FAA and manufactures to setup a whole new aircraft category and certification for certified two place hang gliders and certified tandem pilots.

An exemption or regulation like this would give flight parks and tandem instructors the ability to simply market and sell rides, just like scenic flights in airplanes sold at airports, glider rides sold at sail ports, or parachute rides sold at jump zones. This would greatly increase the viability of flight schools and professional instruction, and would grow our sport just as it has grown those other flying activities.

Ryan admits he stopped instructing partly because of insurance costs, but mainly because it was not viable source of income. This is a damned shame, and nobody's fault but our own and the policies we've let USHPA enact on us all.

We all want, no, rather we all NEED excellent resources like Ryan to remain active in instruction, and the future of the sport truly depends on it. USHPA needs to make it easy for Ryan to make money in hang gliding. I believe, as most members do, that even subsidizing instructors like Ryan's insurance policy to some level from the general fund is acceptable because it greatly benefits the sport as a whole. Instead, USHPA is making policies that make it harder for Ryan to make money, and after the new RRRG was in place we saw MANY very experienced instructors all over the country, just like him, stop instructing . This is a serious issue that truly threatens the future of our sport, and is a major failure from USHPA.
Last edited by h2os on Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401651
USHPA does not have millions of dollars.

RRRG is an insurance provider, and "insurance" is basically a show of "hey, if something happens, I make sure you are covered". I hope I never need it, but if I somehow damage property or hurt someone, I absolutely want to do right by them so they are not out of pocket (or up s---'s creek) because of me. I could keep my own millions of dollars held aside in case that happens... if I had millions... or I can pay my USHPA dues and have that "just in case" insurance... because most members don't end up using it, but we share in pooling our money. It is not like RRRG took anyone's money... they are holding everyone's contributions, for if/when something unfortunate occurs.

RRRG issues the policy to USHPA. USHPA is who trains and certifies instructors, administers their tandem program, etc... and in doing so accepts legal liability (but USHPA feels it's a necessary risk to take). It would be quite the jump for a student to sue the instructor, flight school, national association, AND THEN SUE THEIR INSURANCE PROVIDER? How could they justify the insurance provider is in any way involved in any responsibility or fault? Your fears make sense by surface value only, but in actuality are unjustified and non-existent.

As for ASC and their "reasonable cost"... again, not apples to apples. What are you "buying" from ASC... and what are you "buying" from USHPA? Yes, both can come with access to a tandem exemption... but what else along with that? Hint: how much Rogallo Member dues divides out to being for use of the tandem exemption? I bet it's actually a hell of a lot less than ASC!
By h2os
#401653
AIRTHUG wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:50 pm
USHPA does not have millions of dollars.
If USHPA doesn't have any assets, then what is the big risk? Lawyers know better than anyone you can't get blood from a rock. But USHPA has had a big insurance policy for decades, and is now the largest stake holder in the RRRG, and that offers a huge perceived potential payout.

I really don't understand your comments about the ASC and USHPA exemptions not being "apples to apples". Both are almost identically worded tandem exemptions. Both are used to do the exact same thing. The ASC costs a flat $130 a year. The USHPA costs $300 plus $6 per flight, justified (by you) because of additional risk to the organization. The ASC does not perceive that risk, and after many years of offering the exemption they are still around. What else is the tandem pilot getting by using the USHPA exemption to justify the potential thousands of dollars in additional costs?
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#401654
$300 for USHPA membership; not $300 for USHPA tandem exemption usage.

  • USHPA lobbies and works with FAA in the interest of free flight
  • USHPA negotiates and procures third party liability insurance for all pilots
  • USHPA manages the addition of non-pilots to that insurance, protecting land owners and controlling entities, which is necessity for access to many flying sites and LZ's
  • USHPA purchases non-commercial insurance for instructors and tandem instructors
  • USHPA has and regulates a tandem exemption (remember exemptions can be revoked, or chosen not to renew... so whatever exemption you use is only as "safe" for long term use as who and how it is granted and used and monitored/regulated)
  • USHPA has a standardized proficiency-based rating system, and coordinates that system for international cross over as well
  • USHPA sanctions and insures competitions
  • USHPA has an exemption to allow for aerotowing (towing one Ultralight Vehicle with another Ultralight Vehicle is prohibited within 103)
  • USHPA is the primary shareholder of RRRG, allowing not just monitoring what direction that company is headed, but guiding and steering it in the best interest of free flight
  • USHPA promotes free flight in various ways, Nick Greece has been an outstanding asset of USHPA!
  • USHPA publishes and distributes a bi-monthly magazine
  • USHPA has an office, staff, web site, database of pilots, membership cards, manages the complexities of all the different ratings, special skills, sign offs, appointments, blah blah blah...
I'm sure there's more... but do some math, put dollar values from an instructor's $300 to each of those things- just the stuff off the top of my head mind you- and you tell me if a USHPA tandem pilot is paying more or less than an ASC pilot for use of a tandem exemption?
User avatar
By mtpilot
#401655
As a pilot I don't want any of that stuff, including the non pilot magazine. it would be useful if USHPA provided something
of value, like flying sites! Examples of other sports where clubs provide tangible stuff. Ski areas, golf courses, archery
range. I don't mind paying for value, just hate getting ripped as now is the case with USHPA. I certainly don't want ushpa
in it's current state to represent me with the forest service or BLM or FAA. We do need to find a better way to work with
the FAA.
Should we go back to our roots?

Well all I can add is: "I just want to fly.&q[…]

Another cool day in the alps

Just flying, for enyone interested... Enjoy https[…]

GSSK 2018 vlog

Yes that's correct, any suggestions? Try somet[…]

THE FUTURE OF HANG GLIDING

Verily, it would be cool to see a P-51 thermalling[…]