.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By mtpilot
#404119
Logan, yes what you said was true but I couldn't see the gain or profit. My point is disclosure so more pilots can
understand what is really going on. We did not seem to have this mess as a HG org.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404146
I was talking with the owner of a long-time flying site yesterday after a nice soaring flight. He indicated that he is NOT affiliated with the USHPA.
Why?
His understanding is that if he was under the *protection* of the ushpa, he would have to follow their rules and allow any pilot that the ushpa deems worthy. He does allow some PG'ers, but only the pilots he can trust. He reserves the right to suggest to any pilot that he deems unworthy to leave the premises for a period of time or forever and a day. No refunds necessary. Under ushpa's guidelines, he believes he would not have those options.

However, he does require ushpa-approved pilot ratings. If a pilot doesn't have a ushpa rating, he's/she's gotta be on his good side to fly his site. But his beautifully maintained site (launch and LZ) is pristine, and ya gotta pay to play. More so than any other site within 400 miles or so. But to most, it's worth every cent.

Sounds fair to me.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404147
DMarley wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:12 pm
His understanding is ...
Not suggesting for a second that he change his current procedure ... just commenting that *as written*, his understanding is incorrect.

There is wide local latitude given to create site specific criteria for pilot usage of affiliated sites.

JB
User avatar
By mtpilot
#404149
I like the owners attitude. It seems to jive with my own experience. I like the value concept but not the pay,pay and
pay again USHPA stuff. Sometimes goodwill means a lot more to people with land and money. Not so much waivers,
insurance papers and talk.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404150
Well, many of the older pilots, themselves EX-biwingals, do not particularly like pg'ers. Hmmm. And the owner feels that if he would rather not have pg'ers fly his site at some point in time, he'd have too many hoops to jump through to exclude them if the ushpa was invited to the party.
Always leave yourself an out.

Myself, the pg pilots I've met at this site are A-1 guys (It may be because the site owner hand picks 'em). At other sites.... eh. Not as much. I could say the same about HG pilots. But in reality I can't.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404151
magentabluesky wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:08 pm
First, most managers in the National Park System have college credit in Biology, Physiology, and Physics. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the outcome of two broom sticks and a bed sheet. They let us do what we do because we have shown them that we are responsible.

I would totally agree with you (LoganR) there seems to be a double standard on the requirements of the climbing community and the flying community. but . . .
Ok, let me argue with myself.

The private “land owner” can place any requirements including minimum rating requirements, but can the National Parks Service?

Under 36 CFR 2.17(d,) it states the National Parks shall be in accordance with the regulations of the FAA.
36 CFR 2.17(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.
Part 103 states:
§ 103.7 Certification and registration. (b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.
If Part 103.7 is adopted by the National Parks Service, how can they require you to be rated by a private organization to fly from public land?
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404177
Regarding the story on "Quiet Skies":

Former FAA Safety Inspector David Soucie speaks about the new program that tracks unsuspecting US citizens.

Quote: “But it is hard to remember that flying is a privilege and it really is not a right.”

Federal Aviation Act of 1958
PUBLIC LAW 85-726-AUG. 23, 1958

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
SEC, 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.

Video Link
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404182
magentabluesky wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:48 pm
Regarding the story on "Quiet Skies":

Former FAA Safety Inspector David Soucie speaks about the new program that tracks unsuspecting US citizens.

Quote: “But it is hard to remember that flying is a privilege and it really is not a right.”

Federal Aviation Act of 1958
PUBLIC LAW 85-726-AUG. 23, 1958

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
SEC, 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
Not to defend shitty government surveillance programs, but "rights" are a human construct which are only as good as the humans allowing them. Rights are merely privileges which (sometimes) are considered extra special and granted special protections. In the end, any external human action of choice is either 'privileged' by other humans or not.

JB
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404186
Kyle Ambrose wrote:The Difference Between Rights and Privileges

What is a right? Here are the necessary characteristics for calling something a right:
1. It is something that human beings possess naturally and inherently. It belongs to you because you are a human being made in God’s image. You are born with it.
2. It has not been given to you by other people and should not be taken from you. No government can grant it, and no government should violate it. If a government violates people’s rights, it is usurping God’s authority.
3. It is universal. Since it is inherent to human beings, all human beings have the same ones.
4. It is recognized universally–or very nearly so. Since everybody wants his or her rights recognized by others, it logically follows that he or she must recognize the rights of others.
5. It imposes only a passive (or negative) obligation on other people. It says what others may not do to you.

Here are the characteristics of a privilege:
1. It is something that is given to you by somebody else.
2. It is usually something that certain people have while other people do not have it. For example, some people receive the privilege of going to college at no cost to them, while other people must students must pay full tuition.
3. It is open to dispute and is often disputed. For example, should people have the privilege of free health care? That question is debatable.
4. It imposes an active (or positive) obligation on other people. It says what somebody else must do for you.Here are what I consider a valid definitions for the two words:

right–something that is claimed by almost all people and recognized by almost all people as an inherent property or quality of human beings that imposes a passive or negative obligation on other human beings

privilege–something that people ask for or that somebody voluntarily grants to another as a special favor that imposes an active or positive obligation on the one providing it
Link

We have a declared right to the airspace. Do we have a right to access the National Parks or is that a privilege?
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404206
magentabluesky wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 pm

Kyle says:
// "What is a right? Here are the necessary characteristics for calling something a right:
1. It is something that human beings possess naturally and inherently. It belongs to you because you are a human being made in God’s image. You are born with it." //


We have a declared right to the airspace. Do we have a right to access the National Parks or is that a privilege?
Sorry, but the US has not declared traversing the airspace a right given to us by some unnamed, undefined and not agreed upon "God" no matter what some dude named "Kyle" says.

Get out of your dream world. Humans grant rights to other humans and they grant them conditionally. Sometimes those conditions are reasonable and sometimes they may be unethical or even immoral. That's just reality.

Trying to claim that you are carte blanch entitled to traverse airspace because "God" says you can is not going to fly (pun intended).

JB
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404209
JB,

I don’t know what country you live in, but I was born, raised, and live in the United States of America and am a U.S. citizen. The United States of America started with these words by Our Founding Fathers:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .
The next document of significance of importance starts out with:
We the People
So we, the people of the United States, collectively, the vast majority, pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Now, on August 23, 1958 congress, a representative form of government of the people by the people and for the people, passed PUBLIC LAW 85-726 known as the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and declared:
PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
SEC, 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.


If you wish to bow down to those that rule over you and convince you that your rights are really just a privilege granted by their great generosity, you are free to be a sheep and have your rights sheared from you.

I will stand with the Founding Fathers of Our Great Country.

I believe accessing the National Parks is also Our Right.

Michael Grisham
magentabluesky
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404212
Michael, when was the last time you saw a god (any god) act to protect this supposed 'god granted' right to freely traverse the airspace? Yeah ... that's what I thought..

World over, humans (not gods ... humans) allow other humans to traverse the airspace under a given set of rules and circumstances. If humans don't follow these rules, these humans step in and restrict these allowances. Sometimes they do this for the good of all, and sadly sometimes its done for the good of a few.

You're free to not 'bow down', but it's not going to change that humans will step in and impinge on your traversing the airspace in question. Rules broken, they will do this in ways that range from civil penalties to sidewinder missiles.

This god who supposedly granted you this right isn't going to step in and make sure you can do your own airspace thing willy nilly or he would have done so starting a hundred years ago and there would be no FAA.

JB
Last edited by BubbleBoy on Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404213
magentabluesky wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:42 pm
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I will stand with the Founding Fathers of Our Great Country.
BTW, what the hell does the "one nation under god" in the POA have to do with the founding fathers?

Seriously?

JB
User avatar
By mgforbes
#404214
Not to mention the fact that the "under god" thing was put in during the red scare of the late '50s, when "godless communism" was a thing the congresscritters were afraid of. It's nothing to do with the founders of our republic. In fact, the whole pledge is an early 20th century invention by moralist types.

None of which is remotely relevant to the question of whether managers of public lands have the right and duty to control access and activities on those lands. Law and custom says they do, and USHPA has far more immediate things to work on than to take on a quixotic challenge to the entire government's land management policies.

Back to your regularly scheduled idealistic ranting among yourselves. :popcorn:
MGF
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404216
JB,

And which man would that be?

Our Founding Fathers?

The 85th Congress who passed the Federal Aviation Act of 1958?

Of great importance is the 85th Congress did not say they were granting the citizens of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.

What they said is “There is hereby recognized and declared to exist” the right.

The 85th Congress clearly understood the origins of a citizen’s rights. It was not a right for them to bestow on the public. The public already had the right. The 85th Congress was just declaring the right publicly and legally in the legislation so the right would be clearly understood. They continued on in the legislation stating where government money was spent, there could not be an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility.

The 85th Congress in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave the FAA the task of insuring the public airspace would be safe for the citizens exercising their right in the use of that airspace. In the pursuit of safety and airspace use Part 103 applies to ultralight vehicles including hang gliders. I find it truly amazing we have the freedom to share the public airspace in personal free flight, our right.

I don’t fly willy nilly. I am respectful of everyone’s right to the airspace.

Be safe. Save Part 103.

Michael Grisham
magentabluesky
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404217
magentabluesky wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:48 pm
JB,

And which man would that be?

Our Founding Fathers?
Doesn't matter *which* human -- the only point is that the right to traverse the airspace (like all other 'rights') are granted to humans by humans. When a human tells you that they are telling you something god told them - it's just a human talking after all.

The proof is in the pudding -- the FAA doesn't report to god on this.

(And I'm still trying to figure out what you think the "one nation under god" in the POA has to do with the founding fathers.)

JB
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#404218
magentabluesky wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:48 pm

I don’t fly willy nilly. I am respectful of everyone’s right to the airspace.
It wasn't an accusation. It was illustrating a principle.

For the airspace to be used safely -- there must be rules. Rules impinge on freedoms. For rules to be effective there must be penalties. Since no god has thought to write a set of rules nor penalties down, it's been left to humans.

Humans invented the means for human flight. Humans recognized the need for regulations to ensure safe use of the airspace. Humans put the airspace management structure in place and humans enforce it.

Neither the founding fathers nor any god have had a single thing to do with it.

JB
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 17
Snowy peaks at Villa, everyone soared

... Great to see Villa Grove with autumn scenery a[…]

I tried to run the Python script but it only gener[…]

Merely theorizing here, again... (beware of specul[…]

Burning Desire to Fly on Friday

Wow, those guys get in close with their big birds.[…]