- Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:09 am
Logan, I believe there is an aspect that you have not addressed as yet.
Most HG sites have taken much effort by prior and present pilots to establish, improve, and maintain over many years. Doing so always requires funds, resources, and volunteerism. To protect all their hard efforts against the typical ideals of the general public and bad actor 'pilots', these founding pilots usually create a system whereby they have more control over choosing the pilots that are allowed to fly at their sites.
As you may well be aware of , there are bad-actor pilots who don't give a rat's ars about anyone but themselves. They litter, they tear up and down fragile access roads, they argue, they don't listen to local pilots about appropriate flying conditions, likely traps, and no-fly areas, and of course they don't follow the local rules. These are the pilots who ultimately ensure that clubs are generated to guard against. I'm not talking about the ushpa. I'm talking about local clubs that do all the real work in keeping HG alive.
Typically, even the independent (from ushpa) sites require a ushpa rating if the pilot is unknown to the local pilots. This system does have some merit in the determination of appropriate pilot skills.
So even if a flying site is on public land, there has obviously been large efforts by other pilots to legally open, develop, and maintain sites such as these. Give these local clubs their fair due and do your part to help support them. If they abide by the ushpa rules due to a requirement for being insured, then respect their decision. If you decide that you don't agree with the u$hpa, then fly at sites that don't necessarily require all that baggage.
Perhaps with this turmoil within the ushpa, more sites will adopt alternative methods of determining pilot skill levels, as well as insurance if it is required.