.

.

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.
#402039
John Simpson offers recreational tandem flights at Fort Funston.

Check his website here,

http://www.californiahg.com/tandem-flights-1.html
#402049
lizzard wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:46 pm
......
Insurance is on one level just for the irresponsible covering their arse and if lawyers were any bloody good we would have air tight waivers ..but in whose interest would that be ?
In my viewpoint the best thing about site insurance in covering private landowners is that it provides $ for legal representation should someone sue over a situation related to USHPA flying at that site. People can and do sue others for less than intelligent reasons - whether there is a waiver involved and/or state law that protects landowners for allowing recreational activities or not. Those that sue may have zip chance to win but when sued a landowner has to defend themselves in court. USHPA site insurance covers that expense. We're very, very grateful to landowners who allow us to use their property to get into the air and back on the ground on a regular basis. I feel that the least we can do is to make that situation as enjoyable and worry free as possible for the landowner(s) involved.

Our Chapter has one private land site insured. The main reason it is insured is to keep the site open to flying as long into the future as possible. If our use of the site should precipitate a lawsuit against the landowners, and the landowners were not insured, it could create a rather costly legal defense situation that could very likely lead to the landowners deciding not to allow further access for flying. To lessen that possibility AND to protect some very fine landowners - we have USHPA Site Insurance for the site.

The above being the case of my thoughts on protecting landowners and our continuing access to their lands ..... I'm not about hitting up every private landowner where we fly to insure their site. For whatever reason some landowners just do not want the additional "OK" for us to fly from or to their land. They'd like to be able to have the freedom of allowing us access or not at their total discretion. If insured they might feel obligated to allow us on their land when they may wish otherwise (for whatever the reason). Hence, any discussion of insurance is only stated to a landowner that we can obtain it if it were something they were interested in. Landowners can be a fickle lot to deal with and understandably so. The larger the amount of land the more sensitive the flying situation can be. One of the landowners we deal with doesn't even want us asking to help out on their property as they have expressed the feeling that they do not want to be put into a position where they feel obliged to allow us on the property. This situation actually works out very well. We've gotten to know them well, they understand our love for flying and how cool their site is for it and we do our best to make sure our use of their land leads to no negative impacts. Access to this site is limited to local pilots and their guests and always via regular trespassing requests to the landowner (there is no waiver nor insurance - but there is a lot of trust & history/experience involved).

When it comes to public lands .... that's a different ball game due to the "public" nature of the lands. It's a rather difficult proposition to only allow USHPA members to fly on public lands due to USHPA Site Insurance requirements. Our Chapter is working with Washington State Parks and a National Forest on flying sites. In our goals for these sites we hope to totally avoid an insurance requirements. The only situation where insurance MIGHT come into play is for a flying event on public land approved site. Public lands often have some sort of insurance requirement for an 'event' - whatever sort of event that might be (flying or otherwise). We've yet to explore much about obtaining any USHPA event insurance. We may investigate that route this year should we explore options for having a flying event at the State Park site (if an event were only allowed with insurance).

It all boils down to each flying site having its own unique qualifications that lead to it being kept open as a long term destination for us to enjoy. In my dealings with USHPA I feel they understand this fact to a great depth and have been very helpful to me in working on our insured site as well as their counsel on obtaining new flying sites in general - and in particularly the help/advice I've obtained from Mark Forbes (we live in adjacent states). One of the main reasons I've been able to help open up new flying sites in our area is that we have a USHPA. The Association helps give my requests more credence when promoting our sports to a landowner or public land manager who may not only know much about our sports but who invariably have ingrained misconceptions about our sports. The USHPA Magazine has also been a huge PR benefit in representing our sports to those who know zip about us - it is hard copy evidence that the USHPA exists. I'm always leaving multiple copies of it to whoever I deal with outside of our sports. It is indispensable for that purpose.

Shade made it tough for Tony and I. Lift was very […]

Tough day at the hill. Mike S launched 10 min befo[…]

Thanks! It was a lot of fun. I love flying!!! (I[…]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. No, I do it manually.[…]