.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

#401716
A commercial flight park does exist. It is a commercial (for-profit) business which makes money by offering itself as a venue for recreational flying. That it makes money does not therefore make the flights any less recreational.
#401721
mgforbes wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:55 am
In my time on the board, I have not seen a single case where I felt that a director was voting for his personal enrichment or business interest.
MGF
Mark,

Really? When were you first on the BOD?
None of the people of Wills Wing/HGMA have ever used the USA HG/PG Association to further their business interests?
Same question, concerning Torrey Pines Gliderport?
What USHPA officials are involved in the insurance issue, on any level?
Now you would know better than I do, about the other RDs having business interests in this sport. All have been beyond reproach?

No offense intended, but I would find it hard to believe that people with business interests in the sport would not use their RD positions to promote their businesses, or to actively oppose what might hurt their businesses.
Why else would the BOD unanimously oppose posting the voting records of the RDs?

I would bet money that a "popular vote" of the full USHPA membership would require a published RD voting record. Dare ya! :popcorn:
#401729
TjW wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:24 am
A commercial flight park does exist. It is a commercial (for-profit) business which makes money by offering itself as a venue for recreational flying. That it makes money does not therefore make the flights any less recreational.
TJW,

The FAA has seen all kinds of schemes. They have had Uber Air Taxis claiming to be just an information company connecting pilots and riders together. The FAA put their foot down squashing that scheme and demanded they comply with Part 135 or Part 121 rules.

Ultralight Airparks are covered under AC 103-6 and strangely there is no mention of Commercial Ultralight Airparks in the document.

You can sharp shoot the rules, but when you encroach on the safety mission the FAA is tasked with, there is an open invitation of more restrictive regulation by the FAA. That safety mission is to protect the general public in their declared right to have access and use the airspace, the public’s domain.

We have that same declared right to have access and use the airspace. The rules under Part 103 are amazingly simple and grant us unheard of freedom in our endeavors of flight for sport and recreation. Offerings to the general public in the commercialization of the sport of Hang Gliding directly threaten the intent of Part 103 of one occupant pilot taking the responsibility and risk.

Michael Grisham
#401732
magentabluesky wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:36 pm
TjW wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:24 am
A commercial flight park does exist. It is a commercial (for-profit) business which makes money by offering itself as a venue for recreational flying. That it makes money does not therefore make the flights any less recreational.
TJW,

The FAA has seen all kinds of schemes. They have had Uber Air Taxis claiming to be just an information company connecting pilots and riders together. The FAA put their foot down squashing that scheme and demanded they comply with Part 135 or Part 121 rules.

Ultralight Airparks are covered under AC 103-6 and strangely there is no mention of Commercial Ultralight Airparks in the document.

You can sharp shoot the rules, but when you encroach on the safety mission the FAA is tasked with, there is an open invitation of more restrictive regulation by the FAA. That safety mission is to protect the general public in their declared right to have access and use the airspace, the public’s domain.

We have that same declared right to have access and use the airspace. The rules under Part 103 are amazingly simple and grant us unheard of freedom in our endeavors of flight for sport and recreation. Offerings to the general public in the commercialization of the sport of Hang Gliding directly threaten the intent of Part 103 of one occupant pilot taking the responsibility and risk.

Michael Grisham
The rules under Part 103 are amazingly simple and grant us unheard of freedom in our endeavors of flight for sport and recreation. Offerings to the general public in the commercialization of the sport of Hang Gliding directly threaten the intent of Part 103 of one occupant pilot taking the responsibility and risk.

Every free-flight pilot including those members of USHPA deserve an individual response to that statement by every board member and regional director of USHPA.
#401733
TjW wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:27 pm
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... ain_02.tpl

is a link to the e-CFRs posted by the federal government. This particular link is an index to part 103. It says it is current as of Dec 20, 2017.
There is no 103-6.

Would it be too much to ask for a link to a reasonably official version of whatever it is you're talking about?
Never mind. Found it myself. Advisory Circular
Does define flight parks.

Still don't see anything that makes operating one in a for-profit fashion illegal.
Although a naive reading would seem to imply that virtually any hang glider site that has more than 10 flights a day, or has been used for more than 30 days would need to be operated as a flight park.
#401734
Every free-flight pilot, every board member, and regional director of USHPA should have a daily reading and meditation of the Preamble to Part 103 – Ultralight Vehicles.

PREAMBLE Part 103-Ultralight Vehicles

AC 103-6 - Ultralight Vehicle Operations-Airports, ATC, and Weather

AC 103-7 - The Ultralight Vehicle

14. RECREATION AND SPORT PURPOSES ONLY (103.1 (b) ).

(3) Is the pilot advertising his/her services to perform any task using an ultralight” If so, Part 103 does not apply.

(4) Is the pilot receiving any form of compensation for the performance of a task using an ultralight vehicle? If so, Part 103 does not apply.

There is a prohibition on advertising Hang Gliding Services (tasks). Do you think that is being abused?
#401735
Advertising Hang Gliding Services (tasks):
akraven wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:16 am
They all advertise both tandems for instruction, or simply for fun in either a towed hang glider, or the tug ultra lite. One school even offers a tandem thrill ride including mild aerobatics for the more adventuresome. Are they operating under the USHPA exemption, or some other tandem exemption?

Nothing against the flight parks in Florida.
#401736
I made a mistake in saying that the Florida glider parks advertise tandem flights for both instruction and fun only. After writing my post, and then getting an explanation from others on this site, I took anoter look at the websites on line. All of the Web sites for hang glider parks in Florida do mention, all introdutory tandem flights are good for their different instruction packages. One park does offer more of a thrill ride option, but that again is for addvanced instruction. I don't know how many tandom passenger, continue to get more instruction, and ratings, but that doesn't really matter as long as the wording in the add is correct. jSomeone correct me if I'm wrong, I would assume then the practice of each tandem passenger buying temp. USHPA membership would also elimante any question, as to wheather the tandem flight was for instruction or simply for fun. As I stated in my original post, I have had great experiences at flight parks in Florida. I simply curious as to what all the bickering is about. Thanks to all who have responded to my questions.

Brendan has a YouTube channel. Here is one of his […]

Right on Steve! I have always wanted to try truck[…]

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Visiting Wallaby 2017

Loved it and was grooving to the soundtrack. Thank[…]