.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By magentabluesky
#402807
Thunderchicken wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:20 pm
Has the FAA actually made any indications that they are displeased with the exemptions?
Yes.
First see FAA quote Link
The FAA wrote:In the preamble to the rule establishing part 103 (47 FR 38776; Sept. 2, 1982), the FAA explained its rationale for permitting no more than a single occupant in an ultralight vehicle. The FAA noted that the general public might incorrectly assume that an ultralight operator possesses certain minimum qualifications and has met specific requirements resulting in the issuance of a pilot certificate. In addition, extending current training exemptions on a long term basis would be an inappropriate use of the exemption process. It would not allow the FAA to address the many other regulatory changes contemplated in this rulemaking. Sport Pilot NPRM July 27, 2004 Ref page 44777.
The instability addressed in this thread will be a driving factor for new regulations addressing the tandem issue. The deal is when there are new regulations anything can be put on the table.

Are you so in love with Tandem Flying that you are willing to trade Part 103 for Sport Pilot Rules?
By Thunderchicken
#402808
Magenta blue sky wrote "Are you so in love with Tandem Flying that you are willing to trade Part 103 for Sport Pilot Rules?"
Nope. I'm not. Even though I'm already a pilot that owns a few aircraft.
And....two of the three pilots I personally know with their own exemptions, not piggybacking on the USHPA exemption, are already FAA rated pilots, and the third is well on his way to get his. But I don't get that the FAA is in that much of a hurry to "fix" a problem that isn't wracking up sufficient problems. It seems easier for them to deal with the (few hundred?) comercially operating tandem pilots with waivers. It took decades of flagrant abuse for them to kill the fat ultralights, and I don't see that same level of abuse here. I may be wrong.
User avatar
By TjW
#402811
Thunderchicken wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:20 pm
AlaskanNewb, the FAA is actually increasing the number of tandem exemption in several FSDOs. I can understand why they cut out two seater training exemption for ultralights--"fat ultralights" as we used to call them were rapidly becoming 2 place cross country machines. These were a far cry from the 254 lb limit. Maybe if they hadn't strayed far from the two place Quick, the exemption could have stayed. But Hang gliding two place exemptions make sense, from safety and performance. They weigh WELL under the 154 lb weight limit for unpowered aircraft, and their performance doesn't exceed that of their single place brothers. That wasn't the case for ultralights. But I concede that it could be a solution. But the steps to build a two place glider as an SLSA so that it could be used for profit would be onerous for the manufacturers. And expensive for the consumers Has the FAA actually made any indications that they are displeased with the exemptions?

And yeah, the punitive aspects of member management by the USHPA is a little disconcerting. I've heard more than one pilot say that they have dropped their membership over this. What you say, USHPA? You have to have heard the complaints. What is the justification for not just putting the membership on hold?
Registering a Raven 229 as an Experimental glider was how Rob McKenzie did legal tandems back before there were exemptions.
For a manufacturer to build an LSA for that purpose probably wouldn't be profitable. If you got a sympathetic inspector at the FSDO to work with you (Rob's inspector actually did an inspection flight with him, even though legally he was entitled to simply watch Rob demonstrate it single place), I think you might be able to register one as an ELSA. AIUI, that's the whole purpose of ELSA registration. To bring the fat ultralights back into the legal fold.

I don't know if there's a punitive aspect to USHPA's dropping of instructional ratings from instructors that go outside the USHPA "system" or not. Given the U.S. legal system's default strategy of "Sue anybody whose name you can discover plus fifty placeholders to be named later", the USHPA wanting to have the defense of "he/she was formerly in our instructional system, but was not at the time of <whatever action is the basis of the suit> seems reasonable. If that default strategy didn't exist, then I suspect the whole insurance problem wouldn't exist, either.
If there was a punitive aspect, it would appear cooler heads prevailed, since it looks like skill validation for non-instruction isn't being affected.
User avatar
By AlaskanNewb
#402816
A local FSDO employee recently told me, "you don't want the FAA to re-think Far Part 103...if they do you will lose it".
I believe him.
I also don't agree that tandems save the sport. I don't think many of the joy ride-style tandem passengers take up the sport. In fact It seemed to me like students take a back-seat to joy ride passengers at air parks, can't prove it though just my observations.
User avatar
By DMarley
#402819
AlaskanNewb wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:03 pm
A local FSDO employee recently told me, "you don't want the FAA to re-think Far Part 103...if they do you will lose it".
I believe him.
I also don't agree that tandems save the sport. I don't think many of the joy ride-style tandem passengers take up the sport. In fact It seemed to me like students take a back-seat to joy ride passengers at air parks, can't prove it though just my observations.
I can only speak of my experiences at Thermal Valley (Nc) and LMFP (Ga). Yes, they dole out joy-rides as you call them. But both do a lot of tandem lessons. Thermal Valley also does scooter tow lessons, while most everyone knows the extent that LMFP goes to teach young eaglets. Both of these parks put a priority on students, for the students are the people that will continue to return.

Thermal valley ignited my fire, while LMFP did much to teach me the basics, and their tandem aerotows very much accelerated my skills.

Without the paying 'joy-rides', how are the parks to pay for the skilled tug pilots, the skilled tandem pilots, and the purpose designed and built Dragonflies?!? The students and other aerotowing pilots would have to pay an exorbitant rate for each tow, supposing the aerotowing services were still in existance without the paying joy-rides. Presently at these parks, a pilot can hook an aerotow slot within minutes. Take away the 'joy-rides', and that near-instant availability will vanish. Tug pilots will be much more scarce and certainly won't wait around on the field for a few hg pilots that may show up to get some tows.

Pure economics, kids.

You prevent parks from providing payed tandem flights and instruction, you will be shooting a BIG bullet into the sport of HG.

Just as someone else indicated here, the biggest weapon the liberals choose to use is "the sky is falling! - better not provoke the anger of the gods!"
Oh please.

Where did you ever hear that the FAA is considering revoking HG tandem training exemptions, or that these tandem training flights are threatening Part 103 ?! Nonsense. The FAA likely understands that without any compensation, there would be very few tandem flights, and they also realize that tandem flights are a good tool to properly train young pilots. There would be far, far fewer tandem flights because of no compensation, pilots would not be as skilled with far less experience compared to what a high-hour, compensated, tandem pilot receives. Talk about tandem accidents rates per flight soaring higher than it is now. And it could be theorized that there would be more student accidents because they did not receive the valuable, direct instruction via tandem flights.

One FSDO employee is NOT the voice of the FAA. Did you ever think to consider that this chap was just on an ego trip? Government types are always ready to ride the ego-train and thoroughly enjoy putting the fear of their guberment deity into the poor little cowering citizens.

Don't be a sniveling, cowering citizen.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#402824
DMarley,

How about reading what the FAA has actually written, officially?

Everything.

Some of us see the beauty in Part 103.

Part 103 is the best document written by the government since the Declaration of Independence.

It is the embodiment of “In the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness” for an aviator.

When the FAA wrote Part 103 they were actually carrying out their mission of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 in guaranteeing our right to the public domain of the airspace and balancing the regulation with safety for everyone, Truly a Masterpiece.

Sadly, there are those in the ultralight flying community who haven’t a clue as to the vision and thought process the FAA put into Part 103. Not a Clue. Clueless.

Michael Grisham
By dbhyslop
#402828
DMarley wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:59 pm
One FSDO employee is NOT the voice of the FAA. Did you ever think to consider that this chap was just on an ego trip?
Worth noting that the FAA is aware of this problem and is in the process of reorganizing the whole FSDO model so rules are applied more consistently nationwide and stakeholders are less at the whim of individual local bureaucrats.
User avatar
By AlaskanNewb
#402873
DMarley wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:59 pm
AlaskanNewb wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:03 pm
A local FSDO employee recently told me, "you don't want the FAA to re-think Far Part 103...if they do you will lose it".
I believe him.
I also don't agree that tandems save the sport. I don't think many of the joy ride-style tandem passengers take up the sport. In fact It seemed to me like students take a back-seat to joy ride passengers at air parks, can't prove it though just my observations.
I can only speak of my experiences at Thermal Valley (Nc) and LMFP (Ga). Yes, they dole out joy-rides as you call them. But both do a lot of tandem lessons. Thermal Valley also does scooter tow lessons, while most everyone knows the extent that LMFP goes to teach young eaglets. Both of these parks put a priority on students, for the students are the people that will continue to return.

Thermal valley ignited my fire, while LMFP did much to teach me the basics, and their tandem aerotows very much accelerated my skills.

Without the paying 'joy-rides', how are the parks to pay for the skilled tug pilots, the skilled tandem pilots, and the purpose designed and built Dragonflies?!? The students and other aerotowing pilots would have to pay an exorbitant rate for each tow, supposing the aerotowing services were still in existance without the paying joy-rides. Presently at these parks, a pilot can hook an aerotow slot within minutes. Take away the 'joy-rides', and that near-instant availability will vanish. Tug pilots will be much more scarce and certainly won't wait around on the field for a few hg pilots that may show up to get some tows.

Pure economics, kids.

You prevent parks from providing payed tandem flights and instruction, you will be shooting a BIG bullet into the sport of HG.

Just as someone else indicated here, the biggest weapon the liberals choose to use is "the sky is falling! - better not provoke the anger of the gods!"
Oh please.

Where did you ever hear that the FAA is considering revoking HG tandem training exemptions, or that these tandem training flights are threatening Part 103 ?! Nonsense. The FAA likely understands that without any compensation, there would be very few tandem flights, and they also realize that tandem flights are a good tool to properly train young pilots. There would be far, far fewer tandem flights because of no compensation, pilots would not be as skilled with far less experience compared to what a high-hour, compensated, tandem pilot receives. Talk about tandem accidents rates per flight soaring higher than it is now. And it could be theorized that there would be more student accidents because they did not receive the valuable, direct instruction via tandem flights.

One FSDO employee is NOT the voice of the FAA. Did you ever think to consider that this chap was just on an ego trip? Government types are always ready to ride the ego-train and thoroughly enjoy putting the fear of their guberment deity into the poor little cowering citizens.

Don't be a sniveling, cowering citizen.

It is written directly in the regs guy. Did you ever think to read them?
Tandem Joyrides are illegal. That is fact. Doesn't really matter the economics.
I never said FAA is considering revoking tandem exemption. I only said, in my opinion, Part 103 is pretty awesome and if we force FAA to eval it we will likely lose it.
Why bring "liberal" into this?? You don't know me or my political affiliation.
Cowering citizen? great assumption. Be careful what you assume about people you don't know guy.
User avatar
By DMarley
#402894
Alaska.... I wasn't directing those 'chicken little' or 'liberal' comments directly at you, just generalizing. Too many people become so sensitive when mere government workers (public servants) through out meaningless, ego-tripping words. (again, not directed at you, Alaska)
User avatar
By remmoore
#402898
DMarley wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:20 am
...when mere government workers (public servants) through out meaningless, ego-tripping words.
As an employee of a governmental agency, and a "public servant" I think I'm eligible to respond to your generalization. Government employees are just like anyone - and everyone. Tasked with responsibilities and (sometimes) authority by our employers, we struggle to balance on the line between bureaucratic robot and common-sense-using human. Some of us do it better, or worse, that others - just like everyone else. Yes, there are some of us who won't deviate a micron from their perceived interpretation of regulations. Others who may swing too far into their own perception of common sense, eventually getting themselves into trouble. Some may even relish any specific authority they wield over others, and brandish it like an extension of their own ego. Lastly, there are those who are generally successful at the balancing act - I strive to be in that group, and there are plenty of others who do, too.

These are all traits of the general population - not just "public servants". We're all just imperfect humans. If you have issue with individuals who perform their work poorly, take them to task. Nearly everyone has a supervisor - contact that person. Generalizing about government workers, though, is the same as generalizing about everyone.

RM
By blindrodie
#402901
Lastly, there are those who are generally successful at the balancing act - I strive to be in that group, and there are plenty of others who do, too.
As Sport Pilot and the insurance debacle was just under way back in 2001, I visited with the FSDO in Wichita KS. They were of your kind thankfully. They did not tell us to stop towing, just to get our "fat UL" DF registered before it was too late. They were very aware of what we were doing and genuinely interested in the Moyes Bailey DragonFly.

They also willfully admitted to numerous different interpretations of FAA regs...

8)
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#402903
remmoore wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:58 pm
DMarley wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:20 am
...when mere government workers (public servants) through out meaningless, ego-tripping words.
As an employee of a governmental agency, and a "public servant" I think I'm eligible to respond to your generalization. Government employees are just like anyone - and everyone. Tasked with responsibilities and (sometimes) authority by our employers, we struggle to balance on the line between bureaucratic robot and common-sense-using human. Some of us do it better, or worse, that others - just like everyone else. Yes, there are some of us who won't deviate a micron from their perceived interpretation of regulations. Others who may swing too far into their own perception of common sense, eventually getting themselves into trouble. Some may even relish any specific authority they wield over others, and brandish it like an extension of their own ego. Lastly, there are those who are generally successful at the balancing act - I strive to be in that group, and there are plenty of others who do, too.

These are all traits of the general population - not just "public servants". We're all just imperfect humans. If you have issue with individuals who perform their work poorly, take them to task. Nearly everyone has a supervisor - contact that person. Generalizing about government workers, though, is the same as generalizing about everyone.

RM
Thanks for joining the conversation Robert. What would you do if your local park employees (government employees) told you you could not use your public park because another group of private citizens are already using the park and you have to get their permission to use the park?
User avatar
By NMERider
#402904
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:27 pm
....What would you do if your local park employees (government employees) told you you could not use your public park because another group of private citizens are already using the park and you have to get their permission to use the park?....
Mike,
The federal regulations specifically allow this type of park restriction that you describe https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.5 effectively delegating park authority to that group of private citizens already using the park.
36 CFR § 1.5 Closures and public use limits.

(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:

(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.

(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.

(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
If the park superintendent delegated authority for control over that portion of a park to a specific user group then you must negotiate with that designated user group.

In other words, you have no other choice than to buy the liability insurance that you don't like but that the club tells you to buy or they have the authority to stop you from using the park for that purpose. I am certain the same thing happens for a multitude of different activities in different parks all across America. This is one of the ways that federal regulations work.

Talk to the ARRL people some time about their authority with respect to the FCC regulations and 2-meter radio. You see the airwaves are public in the same way that parks are yet access to the airwaves in certain radio frequencies is regulated by a group of amateur users.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#402906
remmoore wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:58 pm
Others who may swing too far into their own perception of common sense, eventually getting themselves into trouble.
NNERider wrote:. . . effectively delegating park authority to that group of private citizens already using the park.
In your citation of the Federal Code 36 CFR § 1.5 there is absolutely no mention of delegating any authority to anyone. The word delegate, delegated, delegating or any other word with any meaning suggesting delegating is not used in the citation.

Furthermore, the airspace above the United States is public domain, regulated by the FAA, and everyone has a declared right to use the airspace. When anyone is denying a person access to use the airspace, they are denying that person’s declared right.
remmoore wrote:Some may even relish any specific authority they wield over others, and brandish it like an extension of their own ego.
Even in the private sector.
User avatar
By SlopeSkimmer
#402907
NMERider wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:14 pm
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:27 pm
....What would you do if your local park employees (government employees) told you you could not use your public park because another group of private citizens are already using the park and you have to get their permission to use the park?....
Mike,
The federal regulations specifically allow this type of park restriction that you describe https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.5 effectively delegating park authority to that group of private citizens already using the park.
36 CFR § 1.5 Closures and public use limits.



(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:

(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.

(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.

(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
If the park superintendent delegated authority for control over that portion of a park to a specific user group then you must negotiate with that designated user group.

In other words, you have no other choice than to buy the liability insurance that you don't like but that the club tells you to buy or they have the authority to stop you from using the park for that purpose. I am certain the same thing happens for a multitude of different activities in different parks all across America. This is one of the ways that federal regulations work.

Talk to the ARRL people some time about their authority with respect to the FCC regulations and 2-meter radio. You see the airwaves are public in the same way that parks are yet access to the airwaves in certain radio frequencies is regulated by a group of amateur users.
NME,

I wish the 36 CFR was that succinct too. You simply cannot take one part of a massive regulation and say, see that's the law in its entirety. This small portion of the federal parks regulations does not address many other factors. A lawyer could argue that the park was discriminative against one group over another. All he would have to do is prove the park has had a history of this kind of behavior. In the case of the dog walkers, the GGNRA was found to be discriminatory against the dog walkers and was proved to have colluded with other organizations that opposed them.

https://www.woofieleaks.com/
User avatar
By NMERider
#402908
SlopeSkimmer wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:45 pm
....I wish the 36 CFR was that succinct too. You simply cannot take one part of a massive regulation and say, see that's the law in its entirety. This small portion of the federal parks regulations does not address many other factors. A lawyer could argue that the park was discriminative against one group over another. All he would have to do is prove the park has had a history of this kind of behavior. In the case of the dog walkers, the GGNRA was found to be discriminatory against the dog walkers and was proved to have colluded with other organizations that opposed them.

https://www.woofieleaks.com/
Mike,
When I was in school our business law professor looked our class in the eye and said, "Life's not fair." and it isn't.
JD

Love that name: Woofie Leaks. :lol:
Attachments
Woofie Leaks.jpg
Woofie Leaks.jpg (213.79 KiB) Viewed 832 times
By thermaleo
#402909
Thank you Robert, for stating this. In many years of dealing with various government agencies on behalf of hang gliding, I generally found government much easier to deal with than private agencies. Government agencies and workers were far more likely than not, to take their jobs seriously as "working for the people" , and were generally responsive and helpful.

It would do us well to take to heart the realization that our government (various politicians notwithstanding) is one "of, by, and for the people". - more so than almost anywhere in the World. I for one get fed up with people who constantly blame the "Government" for their perceived problems, especially when the same people are usually the first ones with their hands out for government (that is taxpayers') money.

Leo Jones
remmoore wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:58 pm
[
As an employee of a governmental agency, and a "public servant" I think I'm eligible to respond to your generalization. Government employees are just like anyone - and everyone. Tasked with responsibilities and (sometimes) authority by our employers, we struggle to balance on the line between bureaucratic robot and common-sense-using human. Some of us do it better, or worse, that others - just like everyone else. Yes, there are some of us who won't deviate a micron from their perceived interpretation of regulations. Others who may swing too far into their own perception of common sense, eventually getting themselves into trouble. Some may even relish any specific authority they wield over others, and brandish it like an extension of their own ego. Lastly, there are those who are generally successful at the balancing act - I strive to be in that group, and there are plenty of others who do, too.

These are all traits of the general population - not just "public servants". We're all just imperfect humans. If you have issue with individuals who perform their work poorly, take them to task. Nearly everyone has a supervisor - contact that person. Generalizing about government workers, though, is the same as generalizing about everyone.

RM
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#402910
Here you go SlopeSkimmer:

Using JD’s liberal interpretation of the rules,
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
(e)No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.—A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended.
person
(37)“person”, in addition to its meaning undersection 1 of title 1, includes a governmental authority and a trustee, receiver, assignee, and other similar representative.
air navigation facility
(4)“air navigation facility” means a facility used, available for use, or designed for use, in aid of air navigation, including— (A)a landing area;

Let’s see, So SlopeSkimmer wants to exercise his right as a citizen of the United States transiting through the navigable airspace using the landing area of a government facility (National Park Service) where Government money has been expended under the control of a person (GGNRA / National Park Service – Fellow Feathers of Fort Funstion Hang Gliding Club).

Now what’s the problem?
User avatar
By TjW
#402914
Try flying your hang glider into SFO using that theory.

One reason the Park Service offers concessioner contracts is so they don't have to get involved in slap fights like this.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

I still listen to AC/DC the Albums with Bon Scott.[…]

2018 MINGUS MOUNTAIN FLY-IN

strings Buy 4'x8'x1/4" Luan plywood, it's lig[…]

SOGA Canada Hang Gliding July 7, 2018 Click the[…]

Saving hang gliding — please help!

Saving hang gliding is such a multi faceted approa[…]