.

.

All topics the user community has voted to take off the front page are moved here.
Click on the "BURY this topic" link at the top of each topic to vote to bury a topic and take it off the front page.

Moderator: mods

User avatar
By miraclepieco
#404696
You USHPA fluffers and shills are fighting a loosing battle. While you may be BMOF (Big Men On Forums), the names on the involuntarylist includes some of the greatest and most venerable names in hang gliding. I know this upsets your well-established web hierarchy, but the USHPA has proven that is doesn't have the best interests of hang gliding at heart and its time is rapidly coming to an end - as is yours.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404697
DMarley wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:51 pm
joefaust wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:45 pm
....Upon studying such linked information, a property owner may choose to exclude that particular pilot from use of involved land; property owners will vary on their personal choices; involuntarylist will not make the decision for the property owner or land manager. ....
Whoa..... hold on there.... you're saying that someone representing the owner/entity will need to be on-site during all flying hours in order to verify each pilot's rating and acceptance?
. . . .
Doug why do you make up stuff that just is not said?

Joe is clearly saying the property owner may choose to manage his property any way he chooses.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404698
magentabluesky wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:41 pm
So, as a self certifying community, what better way to document a pilot’s skills and abilities than to have an on-line "Pilot My Space" with personal affidavits, third party affidavits, log book entries, videos, and knowledge based tests? This can be stored on-line, in your phone, computer, or in the cloud.
. . . .

I forgot to add the digital use of "tracklogs" as a method of validating a pilots experience.

Tracklog
User avatar
By Paul H
#404700
miraclepieco wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:37 pm
You USHPA fluffers and shills are fighting a loosing battle. While you may be BMOF (Big Men On Forums), the names on the involuntarylist includes some of the greatest and most venerable names in hang gliding. I know this upsets your well-established web hierarchy, but the USHPA has proven that is doesn't have the best interests of hang gliding at heart and its time is rapidly coming to an end - as is yours.
That's a very mature response, resort to name calling.
A couple of those names may have been something back in the day, but they seem to have forgotten that it's no longer 1975 and the world has changed and moved on. The liability concerns, both real and perceived, that society has forced on hang gliding have changed the sport and wishing otherwise won't change that.
Continuously attacking the USHPA and its members is not going to help anyone. You have already made your anti-USHPA bias well know and that makes it difficult to take you very seriously, especially when you post comments like these.
User avatar
By joefaust
#404701
DMarley wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:42 pm
Joe,
How do you believe any property owning / managing entity will take your organization seriously when:
...
3) The org believes that video of flights are good enough for proof of skill for a rating level. Any gov't agency will balk at that because they have their own rating systems in place for their own people, and those don't have the risk associated with their positions that HG does, and they certainly don't approve position increments on video, so how would any owner/manager entity believe that they can trust your rating system?
...
DMarley,
I face your "3)" question now.
There is no evidence in my present view for the statement about "video of flights are good enough." involuntarylist does not have the belief that you stated for it. Please quote the source; perhaps we would need to face a quote differently; thank you for any effort you make to find a quote that moved you to declare what you did about the belief. The involuntarylist indeed easily can get some matter in the process from some videos; but the certification process rarely would consist of just videos. In very rare cases very well planned video sets could reveal much more than casual single video. A wide variety of data types go into some rating cases: observer reports, pilot text, instructor conclusions, mentor comments, video, flight records, interviews, written and oral test responses, etc. People arrive to hang gliding with unequal backgrounds and talents; learning occurs differently among those advancing in hang gliding skills and related knowledge. A wide realm of types of HG participation is available.

DMarley, it is unclear to me what you are remarking in the remainder of the above paragraph in your quoted text. In any case, the sentence has "will balk at that" has us for the moment with the meaning of "that" which was just discussed in my answering above. Since it is is not true what you claimed, then the "that" need not be faced further, unless you see something in your lines that does not depend on the removed first leading sentence's claim. I'd welcome any unpacking you think would be helpful. I'm moved to suggest that the model of involuntarylist full process could be useful in other settings, not all settings. Note though, that some industries do have video input for core decison-making; auditions for acting, singing, dancing, filmmaking come to mine. "Samples of your work, please."

In any case, involuntarylist, has no policy of across-the-board depending just on video input for the certification process. Live witnessed actions for skill sets is a core means of data input for most rating cases.

I will face the other final parts of your post in coming posts. Thanks again, Doug, for sharpening your pencil on the topic.
Lift,
Joe
deflexor.png
deflexor.png (27.01 KiB) Viewed 568 times
User avatar
By DMarley
#404702
magentabluesky wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:31 pm
magentabluesky wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:41 pm
So, as a self certifying community, what better way to document a pilot’s skills and abilities than to have an on-line "Pilot My Space" with personal affidavits, third party affidavits, log book entries, videos, and knowledge based tests? This can be stored on-line, in your phone, computer, or in the cloud.
. . . .

I forgot to add the digital use of "tracklogs" as a method of validating a pilots experience.

Tracklog
So all this sounds totally awesome.... where do I sign up?
.... except who is going to review all these pilots that want to join your club, along with all their vids, all their tracklogs, etc?
I still don't know how an ownership (who likely has no idea about flying HG) will have the time or the fortitude to go reviewing all the pilots that want to fly his/her site? Does that make any sense to you?
Just asking.

miraclepieco wrote: You USHPA fluffers and shills are fighting a loosing battle. While you may be BMOF (Big Men On Forums), the names on the involuntarylist includes some of the greatest and most venerable names in hang gliding. I know this upsets your well-established web hierarchy, but the USHPA has proven that is doesn't have the best interests of hang gliding at heart and its time is rapidly coming to an end - as is yours.
And Miracle, why are you threatening 'my end?' Are you feeling threatened somehow? You must be really steaming to say such a ridiculous statement.
User avatar
By magentabluesky
#404703
DMarley wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:38 pm
.... except who is going to review all these pilots that want to join your club, . . . .
. . . .
The only club, organization I belong to is the USHPA, and I welcome you and everybody else as a member.

I don't tell people how to manage their property. That is up to them.

mbs
User avatar
By joefaust
#404705
DMarley wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:42 pm
Joe,
...
If I were developing my property for HG flight, there would be little chance of me allowing anyone rated under your system to fly on my property. You provide no assurances that any pilot under your rating system
a) is trustworthy (no mechanism for skill or behavioral correction)
b) can control himself (no training mechanisms in place)
c) possesses the appropriate skills (no training mechanisms in place, nor rating definitions)
d) is himself/herself financially responsible and is backed by a large organization of responsible pilots.
--.
DMarley,
I'll herein address your closing text of the post I have been facing. Thanks again for this process of clarifying things.
"system" Since it has become evident that your conclusion were based on untenables, then we await your new appraisal as to whether or not you would have respect for the ratings stated at involuntarylist for the pilots. Indeed, since the ratings stated represent the equivalent or better for recreational hang gliding purposes that might be declared by special-interest corporations, then if in your personal planning for a private HG site you might respect a declaration from the special-interest entities, then you might reasonably consider the ratings declared for pilot from an independent certifying agent (involuntarylist) that need not play for pay or play for "ours" (some subtotal faction of the whole of our community). The core interest in the mission of involuntarylist is the safety and joy for the full spectrum optionally available to those who wish to recreationally hang glide within a broad spectrum of hang gliding activity; there is no pay or tertiary concern; one focus. The workers of the process at involuntarylist have a profound drive that recreational hang gliding is well served; involuntarylist is just one corner of the grand spectacular activity of recreational hang gliding.

As to the "a)" , I answer: Already I faced the matter of your comment. That is, indeed , there are mechanisms for skill and behavioral correct. So, again your reappraisal is invited. However, note that any trusted pilot could turn on a dime and become untrustworthy. If such poor turning occurs, then involuntarylist has the stated methods to signal the hang gliding community and interested managers. There are no guarantees that a pilot won't change directions. Let's all work together to make a great recreational hang gliding community. involuntarylist is not responsible for the actions of rated pilots. We do what we can to get some assurance, but no guarantee.

As to the "b)", I answer: Your note might be interpreted a couple of ways. If you meant by "can control himself"matters of interaction with other people during frustrations, then the ratings from involuntarylist include getting evidence toward good social decorum during frustrations or wants. You mention training toward such behavior. The training consists of observation and knowledge review on such matter. If you were meaning "control" for flying actions, then indeed ratings stated involve witnessed controlling skills. Maybe you had something else in mind; if so, thanks for any further effort to clarify this section of your remarks.

As to the "c)":: "c) possesses the appropriate skills (no training mechanisms in place, nor rating definitions) ".
The rating speaks towards possessing appropriate skills, knowledge, social conduct habits, attitudes, situational awareness, ownership of effects of actions, practice habits, gear caring, and risk managing , and more. Training is multifaceted; most pilots get bulk of their training from a combination of professional instruction, listening to mentors, responding to observer remarks, planning actions following planning informed by studies (directed and undirected), and studies on and off the flying field. A reviewer of an involuntarylist rating may be assured that the pilot at one time cleared a certifying process for skills and knowledge equivalent or better than any presently known widely-applied rating system, not necessarily better than graduates from the very best instructing pilots of our community; that is there are some instructors that are profoundly of top quality in their relations with their learning pilots; a rating from involuntarylist statements does assures of a robust process effected for a pilot. The world is not perfect and no system of rating can guarantee any certain specific result. It is the pilot's responsibility to so act that no injury occurs to people or things by recreational hang gliding actions.

Toward your final "d) remark which was "d) is himself/herself financially responsible and is backed by a large organization of responsible pilots." involuntarylist does not get into pilots' asset portfolios. Each rating has the pilot be reviewed for the taking 100% responsibility for any and all of his or her actions. Such would include being responsible for making good for any losses stemming from the pilot's actions in and out of hang gliding activity. Such includes review over the refraining from holding others responsible for one's action effects. The entire community of hang gliding and beyond may share in the pathos of some community member; such option is ever available to all. There are mechanisms available for all the pilots of our community to focus on healing and amendments. involuntarylist will participate in such healing and mending by direct contributions and communications.

May your site project be a grand success, Doug, :goodidea:
Best,
Joe
User avatar
By hgflying
#404707
I have relatives with land that has a 70' grass hill that can be used for training. A few years ago, some pilots approached them and ask if they could use it for their training, so my relatives asked my opinion.

I said, yes, it's great to support pilots, ...

(1) make sure they are members of USHPA. $1M third party liability coverage - if they hit a cow, or damage fences, whatever, it’s important.
(2) make sure they are H2 or P2 rated, to make sure they have had proper instruction, because I have no desire to attempt to screen people.

This is a real case. As far as I understand so far, a involuntarylist rating would mean nothing, and provide nothing, to a land owner. "watch my video, I'm good, my friends say so" doesn't cut it for a land owner.
User avatar
By joefaust
#404708
hgflying,

Rated pilots have been reviewed for consenting to be responsible for damages they create; they'd be responsible for mending the cow and mending the fence and mending their own bodies from having hit the cow and the fence. Straighaway. If word got out that the pilot did not cure the matter, then a warning signal would be placed on the pilot's rating line. Local fellow pilots may even have a culture of teaming to fix the fence and mend the cow. Bulk of recreating people do not play the insurance game. We do not know if a involuntarylist pilot has or has not this or that insurance for things in his or her life.

Best to act to avoid hitting cows, fences, powerlines, people. Proved incidents get on the pilot's line via informational links.

Your relatives very well might like HG pilots who are up front self-responsible. Pilots that might be over-confident and risky as a result of carrying third-party insurance may well be a sort disfavored by your relatives. It might be better to allow pilots that are more conservative because of self-responsibility. Please send me in email the relative's contact data; I'll talk with them about the question; thanks.

Did you tell the relatives about how they could not be liable for the pilot's recreational injuries? Via the state's recreational-use statutes? Did you tell them the RRRG could fail at any moment? Did you tell the relatives that your suggested pilot screen could reverse at any moment for any of the involved pilots: the pilots selected could fail to pay MGForg or be expelled for any reason and the connection to whole deal could empty? Did you tell them that the supposed-covered pilot could run from the scene and the cow would be left unattended? Did you tell the relatives that an RRRG pilot may not apply for coverage benefit which might cause your relatives to press matters through the long haul with MGForg?
Different would be a HG culture that practices self-responsibility, operates conservatively knowing about the self-responsibility, and teaming locally and widely to face our community's impacts on others.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404713
Joe,
I believe you are certainly attempting to provide a service that is needed in HG.
I apologize to you and Frank for being so gruff in my posts toward you two.
I was quite turned off by the whole idea as Logan began his seemingly belligerent push to do damage to the ushpa.
Not that I am a big fan-boy of the ushpa. But since it is already well established, and provides a large legal buffer for land owners / managers, the organization with all it's faults still has valuable aspects to it.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the next board vote regarding the elimination of most of the regional directors. If they do implement this radical reduction, there could be many pilots and possibly clubs that will be strongly tempted to step away from the ushpa and search for better alternatives. Perhaps not. I understand that the current situation has garnered plenty of opposition from pilots regarding the non-disclosure of the voting habits of their RD's.

Perhaps the involuntarylist will wake up the (remaining?) board members to be less opaque and more transparent in their voting, but if they do vote to drastically reduce the seat count, I can't imagine many, if any, improvements in transparency.

But anyway....

hgflying wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:34 am
I have relatives with land that has a 70' grass hill that can be used for training. A few years ago, some pilots approached them and ask if they could use it for their training, so my relatives asked my opinion.

I said, yes, it's great to support pilots, ...

(1) make sure they are members of USHPA. $1M third party liability coverage - if they hit a cow, or damage fences, whatever, it’s important.
(2) make sure they are H2 or P2 rated, to make sure they have had proper instruction, because I have no desire to attempt to screen people.

This is a real case. As far as I understand so far, a involuntarylist rating would mean nothing, and provide nothing, to a land owner. "watch my video, I'm good, my friends say so" doesn't cut it for a land owner.
This has been one of my main points. Land owners and managers, if not HG pilots themselves, don't go out of their way to invite pilots to fly on their lands. It's the other way around. "Can I please fly on your lands?"
Perhaps west of the dry line, properties don't require much maintenance due to sparse vegetation and little rainfall. However, east of said line, vegetation growth can be a real hindrance to launching and landing sites, and must be cleared, maintained, etc. Because of more rainfall, soil erosion occurs at a higher rate, and if there are no public roads leading directly to the launch, then access trails must be made and maintained against the erosive forces of nature and use. Either the land owner(s) of the site or clubs must maintain these lands.
Maintenance requires dollars, continuously. No state law that supposedly protects land owners against guests are going to protect them against pilots who have to pay something to cover the development and maintenance costs. And that is where the ushpa is such a valuable asset to pilots in that they provide a real legal and financial buffer. Otherwise, few sites would remain open. Not only those points, but the land owner/manager does not have to police the pilots using the land. No need for the owners to consume time and resources to check on pilots' flight skills and status. Because the ushpa is well known in the flying community, is nation-wide, and has established protocols and ratings, legal backing, insurance, etc., land owners/managers will more likely feel that pilots of the ushpa will be far less risky than allowing someone who has little to none of this backing.

As a land (farm) owner myself, I would have doubts about a pilot keeping his personal flying insurance up to date, and I would then need to add more liability insurance per added pilot for my property to protect myself from someone bringing suit against me and my properties. If said pilot was part of a large body of pilots that had proven insurance backing from reputable carriers and legal backing, I would feel much more comfortable allowing this pilot to fly on my properties, and my outlay for liability insurance would be minimal, if at all. Which pilot would I rather fly my properties?

Not so much for the public park services that has the backing of the federal gov't, but private land owners (including state parks services) with flying sites are paying property taxes, operate on the thinnest of margins, if not at hefty losses. To burden them with the task of ensuring adequate individual pilot skills and the pilot's personal insurance is up to date in order to protect their own assets against possible damages seems to me to be too heavy a burden (not to mention the added property liability insurance costs.). Especially if and when the site becomes more popular. Why would a land owner submit to this extra workload and risk for absolutely zero or negative gain?

However, just as I believe we need representatives in the ushpa who vow to well-represent the local pilots and their local flying environs and methods, so your organization will likely meet a need for pilots where you fly.

Even though I am not fully sold on your organization's ethos, thank you for providing an alternative.
Not only may it provide a need for other pilots, It may also be just the impetus that the ushpa needs to become more like something that will appeal to more pilots.

Thanks Joe and Frank.
-doug
User avatar
By joefaust
#404714
Thank you, Doug.

Inviting
to one's land is a whole different matter from
mere permitting. If I invite you to my property, then I am taking on a whole new set of liabilities.

The asking to land on a property and being given an "OK" is way different than a land manager saying: Here at my place: I invite you to come and dance.

involuntarylist does neither asking nor inviting nor accepting invitations about land.
involuntarylist certifies and states ratings for pilot proficiency for recreational pilots. And maintains some guardianship over the meaning of the ratings as time unfolds (communications, warnings, cautions, incidents related to a rated pilot, ... )

Best,
Joe
User avatar
By DMarley
#404716
joefaust wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:24 am
hgflying,

Rated pilots have been reviewed for consenting to be responsible for damages they create; they'd be responsible for mending the cow and mending the fence and mending their own bodies from having hit the cow and the fence. Straighaway. If word got out that the pilot did not cure the matter, then a warning signal would be placed on the pilot's rating line. Local fellow pilots may even have a culture of teaming to fix the fence and mend the cow. Bulk of recreating people do not play the insurance game. We do not know if a involuntarylist pilot has or has not this or that insurance for things in his or her life.

Best to act to avoid hitting cows, fences, powerlines, people. Proved incidents get on the pilot's line via informational links.

Your relatives very well might like HG pilots who are up front self-responsible. Pilots that might be over-confident and risky as a result of carrying third-party insurance may well be a sort disfavored by your relatives....
As you and I understand, Joe, the insurance of ushpa does not cover the pilot's injuries, but it does cover property damages. But the biggie part is that it is also liability insurance with legal support. I'm not sure how you can leap to the notion that a pilot may not fear to risk his neck merely because he carries property damage insurance through his org.

It might be better to allow pilots that are more conservative because of self-responsibility.
Most pilots are responsible, and being a member of the ushpa does indicate a higher level of self-responsibility.

Did you tell the relatives about how they could not be liable for the pilot's recreational injuries? Via the state's recreational-use statutes?
Most of these laws can be circumvented by good attorneys if the pilot's signed waiver is not perfectly worded to the individual state's legal requirements at the time of suit. Especially if the waiver was not drawn up jointly by the individual pilot and the ownership, which is very rarely the case.
Did you tell them the RRRG could fail at any moment?
Has it failed yet, in the many years that we have been backed by insurance from the ushpa? To my knowledge, the RRRG is backed by not only the ushpa. These insurances can't merely dissolve at a moment's notice. And because it is backed by a large, large organization of pilots, it is much more likely to remain intact compared to one single pilot's 'self-insurance' policy.
Did you tell the relatives that your suggested pilot screen could reverse at any moment for any of the involved pilots: the pilots selected could fail to pay MGForg or be expelled for any reason and the connection to whole deal could empty?
So, MGF is not an organization. I'd say he's not the best winner of hearts here on these forums, but I believe he's a straight shooter. I don't believe you'd want us to refer to the involuntarylist as BKorg, or JForg, would you?
Also, a pilot cannot be expelled from the ushpa for merely any reason. You understand that, too. In the long history of the ushga/ushpa, how many pilots have been expelled for reasons other than not maintaining his/her membership? One? But to a prospective site owner, the fact that the organization can discipline it's members means that associate pilots will be more likely to behave themselves in a respectful manner and more likely to adhere to the rules of the site and owner.
Yes, it's unfortunate that if a pilot does not renew membership dues, then at some point (within three years?) his ratings will be cancelled. But those are the rules we signed up for to be responsible pilots who landowners can more easily trust. How else could it be? What if you didn't renew and pay for your homeowner's and/or vehicle insurance every year? Would not the carrier cancel your insurance immediately?

Did you tell them that the supposed-covered pilot could run from the scene and the cow would be left unattended? Did you tell the relatives that an RRRG pilot may not apply for coverage benefit which might cause your relatives to press matters through the long haul with MGForg?
Come on, Joe. You know this ain't true. A large point of being a member of ushpa (please, MGForg?!?!) is that the pilot is covered by the RRRG. It is my understanding that an active pilot can not 'not apply for coverage benefit'.
Different would be a HG culture that practices self-responsibility, operates conservatively knowing about the self-responsibility, and teaming locally and widely to face our community's impacts on others.
I believe the whole point of the ushpa is that it's pilots DO practice self-responsibility by ensuring that they are current members of an organization that provides many required securities for landowners.

Joe, in your neck of the woods, your organization (I won't even refer to it as JForg!) may fill a void. I don't know. I merely hope that if an accident occurs and the site owner is stuck in court proceedings because of it, that somehow your organization will help the outcome to preserve the site without burden to the owners.
Thanks Joe.
-doug
User avatar
By DMarley
#404717
joefaust wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:34 am
...
Inviting
to one's land is a whole different matter from
mere permitting. If I invite you to my property, then I am taking on a whole new set of liabilities.

The asking to land on a property and being given an "OK" is way different than a land manager saying: Here at my place: I invite you to come and dance.

involuntarylist does neither asking nor inviting nor accepting invitations about land.
involuntarylist certifies and states ratings for pilot proficiency for recreational pilots. And maintains some guardianship over the meaning of the ratings as time unfolds (communications, warnings, cautions, incidents related to a rated pilot, ... )

Best,
Joe
Agreed.
DMarley wrote: ...
This has been one of my main points. Land owners and managers, if not HG pilots themselves, don't go out of their way to invite pilots to fly on their lands. It's the other way around. "Can I please fly on your lands?"

-doug
The point I was attempting to make is that a landowner/manager does not usually seek out pilots since there is zero profit to be gained. In fact, most of it can be a great big hassle for landowners to allow pilots to fly on their lands. That is a good point for clubs under the ushpa organization to be able to help manage these sites.
Perhaps your organization will do the same? Otherwise, I cannot imagine, other than perhaps a national park under federal control, property owners willing to take on the extra tasks and legal responsibilities required to regulate HG on their own properties.
Thanks
By USHPA7
#404719
PLEASE REMEMBER EVERYONE THAT THE PERSON EXPELLED FROM THE RRRG (USHPA) WAS EXPELLED FOR PERSONAL HATRED REASONS. HE HAD NOT VIOLATED ANY USHPA SOP'S OR CIVIL LAWS AND HAS A PERFECT FLYING SAFETY RECORD EXTENDING BACK MANY YEARS. IT WAS A PERSONAL VENDETTA AT WORK THERE, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

EVERYTHING AGAINST HIM THAT HAS BEEN SAID ON THIS FORUM HAS BEEN FROM A PERSONAL HATRED STANDPOINT. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD OF PROOF OF WRONGDOING ON HIS PART. ALL ANYONE COMES UP WITH IS TO LOCK THE TOPIC AND/OR BAN HIS FRIENDS FROM SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF.

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE OTHERWISE AND THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I STAND CORRECTED.

IF THIS POSTING GETS ME BANNED, WELL THEN GOOD BYE EVERYONE.
FRANK COLVER, AKA: USHPA7
BTW -THANKS EVERYONE FOR THE NICE WORDS ABOUT MY HIGH FLIGHT, AT AGE 83, 1st IN 39 YEARS. THE PERSON MENTIONED ABOVE WAS A HUGE FACTOR IN GETTING ME AIRBORNE!
User avatar
By joefaust
#404720
involuntarylist may be coded by JoeForg for rhetorical purposes, if you wish; I do not mind; coding is easy; naming is a gift announced in early human dealings. Such coding might save some typing, but it might get confusing as it might be easy to code JoeForg for the first USHGA, for S-SA, for Lift, for EnergyKiteSystems, for AWEIA, etc. If no confusion, then easy does it. Same for MGForg as it codes a sector of concern; if it is not clear in context, longer description might be needed; I hope I did not confuse matters in our discussion as that was not my intent.

involuntarylist is merely a certifying agent with limited service focus, not a site constructor of other matters, not a business for profit, not a collector of fees, not an insurance company. If a HG pilot with a certified rating talks to another HG pilot, they might handshake over ratings and skills as they discuss the immediate launch potentials at some launch at some moment. If the launch is on public land where hang gliding is being permitted, then it should not matter whether either one or both or none of the two potential launchers are members of some private corporation. Fundamental mandates of state and federal agents do not allow forcing citizens to join a particular corporation for recreating. So, whatever inroads some club or association has made to temporarily fool an actor of the government concerning recreation visitors that excludes non-special-corporation members from equivalent access to enter the Federal airspace will eventually be pressed hopefully to stop such inappropriate inroading. A single pilot not incorporated can do his or her part in cleaning areas and avoiding damage to shrubs or disturbing animals or people.

Yes, the big org coded by "MFGorg" (coded because he is large in this forum for his org that was once codeable as JForg in some scenes) can expel for any reason a member; legal transgressions may occur in the expelling; and the org may have to pay damages for illegal expelling. But bottomline is that the org can expel for any reason; they can form their structure by voting and proceed to expel for any reason they wish; they can do it openly or behind closed doors. If they happen to expel for some illegal reason, then nothing much may happen in consequence or there might be consequences directly or reactionarily. They could expel a member for being from the Inuit lineage, but there could be legal results and damages to be paid. The org might lose its ability to be a legal corporation if someone pressed charges for being expelled for a given reason of testifying in court as expert witness; such reason just makes the org repugnant to some of us. The big org could expel a member for being male, but there would probably be consequences for such. A judge might give an out and let the org amend its ways and pay some damages. My theory is that all members of MGForg share in the culpability of that org's decisions; one may vote for ill actions by remaining a member; one may vote against ill actions by not renewing. There are some huge matters about which the whole membership is voting by keeping membership or by not renewing. "Here is the reason I am not renewing: ________________________" That in a gathering could send a strong vote for things that matter.

Will involuntarylist fill a need in our HG community? Time will tell some story when we look back 10 years from now.
involuntarylist does not offer memberships; involuntarylist is not a club nor an association. There are no membership meetings as there are no memberships. The workers of involuntarylist are volunteers; there is no payroll. Nothing is sold by involuntarylist. The service given freely is a certification process resulting in a statement regarding a recreational hang gliding pilot. What anyone does with such collection of statements about pilots will be solely up to them.

Meanwhile an invitation is out for involuntarylist to certify and state a rating for you for all the world to be able to see at a collection place.
Last edited by joefaust on Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By DMarley
#404723
Well Joe and Frank, like I stated before, I hope your organization fills a void in HG.
We can agree to disagree on certain aspects, but if everyone agreed it might be a boring life. I hope I didn't anger you too much in our sometimes heated discussions.
I'm sure that you guys are a blast to be around and to fly with and I believe that you are sincerely passionate about flying HG.
Hoping to meet you sometime!
:thumbsup:
-doug
User avatar
By joefaust
#404726
It would be good to see you in the air or flying field also, Doug. Hope that occurs. :goodidea:

===========================================================
On topic. The involuntarylist uses a domain sector for website of org. It would be off to see it as a membership org; it is not such. Frank Colver does not own the involuntarylist and is not responsible for the legal status of involuntarylist. He has an H3 rating stated by the entity involuntarylist in the H3 file; hence he has been certified as having a lifetime H3 rating for recreational hang gliding. Right now he is a paid member in the MGForg, but if he stops paying for the membership and does that for three years, then at involuntarylist, his H3 rating will not expire whereas at MGForg, his rating stated there will be expired. The difference is stark.

The world may go to involuntarylist and find that Frank Colver has an active HG rating of H3 that is not tied to any private corporation's membership and the aura that rides with such membership. Auras may be good or not so good or repugnant or even deeply evil depending on the particular membership's parenting organization. Having an independent certified stated recreational hang gliding rating would be something he could have as a talking point with other pilots or people he greets when he lands someplace. It is up to him if he wants to be known or not with this or that association. The association that expels members for being an expert witness in our American court system or for exercising the freedom to associate with other citizens forms for some people a repugnance and awful air aura that won't be worn. H3 recreating should not depend on having to be a member of an org that carries such an aura. involuntarylist will be one part of a large flow that may rid our hang gliding community of associations that act very badly against important aspects of the American way.

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.[…]