Flyfunston

Proposed amendments to both the Fellow Feathers/Fort Funston, and the BAPA/Stables GGNRA Special Use Permits.

These amendments are intended to promote safety and improve cooperation between the Bay Area Paragliding Association and the Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston Hang Gliding Club by providing a method of regulation that will appease some of the concerns held by members of both clubs.

Freedom to fly the Funston ridge from the Stables launch could lead to an increase in BAPA membership, educating and integrating the community of pilots who frequent unregulated flying sites, i.e. Mussel Rock/The Dumps.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proposed permanent language for BAPA and Fellow Feathers Special Use Permits.

The following regulations apply equally to hang glider pilots and paraglider pilots.

1. All pilots shall observe International Ridge Soaring Rules.

2. All pilots shall use caution and courtesy when flying near other aircraft.

a. Pilots shall not pass upwind of another aircraft in such a way that would intentionally and dangerously wake the other aircraft.

b. Pilots shall respect a minimum safe distance from other aircraft of 25’ in all directions, unless prior mutual consent is obtained.

3. No pilot shall linger upwind or in front of any launch site in such a way that would prevent another pilot from launching safely.

4. No pilot shall linger upwind or in front of any landing zone or landing window in such a way that would prevent another pilot from landing safely.

5. No pilot shall enter an established soaring pattern if their joining that pattern would create a safety hazard or cause another pilot to take evasive action to remain in that pattern.

6. No pilot shall deliberately intimidate another pilot by flying in an aggressive or threatening manner.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proposed compromise language for BAPA and Fellow Feathers Special Use Permits:

Members of the Bay Area Paragliding Association (BAPA) are allowed to fly above the Fort Funston ridge under the following conditions:

1. When there are no hang gliders flying on the ridge or standing on the hang glider launch area preparing to launch, any number of paraglider pilots may fly on the Funston ridge.

2. When there are hang gliders flying on the Funston ridge and/or preparing to launch, only one paraglider at a time may fly on the Funston ridge, observing the following regulations:

a. The PG pilot shall hold a USHPA Advanced rating (P-4).

b. The PG pilot shall maintain an altitude of at least 120’ above the top of the cliff (300’ MSL). This will allow HG pilots enough room to set up a safe landing approach during periods of heavy park usage.

c. The PG pilot shall not linger between the Olympic club property line and the Observation Deck, but shall transit this area as quickly as safety permits to give HG pilots the ability to set up a safe landing approach.

3. Additional Terms.

a. Each club shall assign a representative that would attend the other club’s meetings or otherwise be available as a liaison. These representatives shall relay events or concerns back to their respective EC and club members for response / action.

b. Each club shall document and log details of any conflicts or other negative events. Details to include eye witness reports, photos, video, etc.

c. The success of this compromise shall be jointly reviewed at the end of each flying season by the EC and representatives of both clubs, and/or impartial third party (USHPA?), to determine if this compromise should be maintained as is or modified. Modifications may include expanding compromise to allow increased PG activity on the Funston ridge, reducing PG activity on the Funston ridge, or complete abolishment of compromise with reinstatement of the historical Training Bowl boundary.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proposed Disclaimer Language

It is acknowledged that some pilots, both hang glider and paraglider, operate from unregulated flying sites between Fort Funston and Pacifica. These rules apply to any interactions between aircraft regardless of whether the operations are from a club regulated flying site or not, and apply to both hang glider and paraglider pilots equally. It is also acknowledged that the Fellow Feathers and BAPA have no direct authority over the unregulated flying sites, yet each group agrees that its members will obey these rules because they constitute safe and courteous operations in the airspace. These rules do not conflict with existing FAA rules and FAA rules are assumed to be obeyed at all times in the airspace.

I would like to see this amended in such a way that allows Fellow Feathers leadership to suspend all paragliding use at Fort Funston if it's deemed that the rules as written and implemented aren't enough to maintain safety for all pilots.

I don't have anything against paraglider pilots, but it's scary to think of them launching and flying at the fort with HGs. Before we kick off this experiment, wouldn't it be good to have some kind of safeguard? It can be a temporary suspension, if need be, just so that we have an opportunity to resolve any safety issues without damaging the spirit of cooperation too much.

To be very clear, PG's will NOT be allowed to launch or land at Fort Funston. The issue is them launching from the Stables and flying north into the airspace above the Fort.

Also note that the GGNRA SUP's only apply to pilots launching from GGNRA lands and can NOT regulate pilots launching from unregulated sites like Mussel Rock/Dumps. In other words, BAPA and other pilots, USHPA members or not, can simply launch from the Dumps, or anywhere else outside the specific location of the Stables launch site, and avoid any GGNRA regulations that apply to the Stables.

The caveat to all this would be that if BAPA wanted to, they could agree that the Stables regulations would apply to all BAPA pilots regardless of where they launch from. This is a point of negotiation that has not been agreed to, is in the draft proposal simply to provide more options for a workable solution.

I'm curious as to why there aren't any respective restrictions for hang gliders flying in front of the PG launch. It would make sense that if PGs can't fly in the area of HGs, then the opposite should hold true, right? All of the language is about what PGs can't do, yet HGs can do whatever they want, wherever they want. I don't think that goes within the spirit of a compromise.

Mike, There ARE restrictions that keep HG's from messing up PG launch sites. Please refer to #3 and #4 in the first six rules that apply to *everyone*.

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Mike, There ARE restrictions that keep HG's from messing up PG launch sites. Please refer to #3 and #4 in the first six rules that apply to *everyone*.

Yup, and those same rules would apply in the opposite manner, so why do we have the proposed compromise language?

Proposed Disclaimer Language

It is acknowledged that some pilots, both hang glider and paraglider, operate from unregulated flying sites between Fort Funston and Pacifica. These rules apply to any interactions between aircraft regardless of whether the operations are from a club regulated flying site or not, and apply to both hang glider and paraglider pilots equally. It is also acknowledged that the Fellow Feathers and BAPA have no direct authority over the unregulated flying sites, yet each group agrees that its members will obey these rules because they constitute safe and courteous operations in the airspace. These rules do not conflict with existing FAA rules and FAA rules are assumed to be obeyed at all times in the airspace.

I'm guessing language in the above quote is meant to apply to 1 to 6, but because they're listed underneath the proposed compromise language, I wanted to make a clarification. The language in the second sentence is not accurate, as it only applies to items 1 to 6, and the last sentence is also inaccurate as the proposed rules do conflict with existing FAA rules, as they are not part of the FAA rules.

msoultan wrote:

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Mike, There ARE restrictions that keep HG's from messing up PG launch sites. Please refer to #3 and #4 in the first six rules that apply to *everyone*.

Yup, and those same rules would apply in the opposite manner, so why do we have the proposed compromise language?

Proposed Disclaimer Language

It is acknowledged that some pilots, both hang glider and paraglider, operate from unregulated flying sites between Fort Funston and Pacifica. These rules apply to any interactions between aircraft regardless of whether the operations are from a club regulated flying site or not, and apply to both hang glider and paraglider pilots equally. It is also acknowledged that the Fellow Feathers and BAPA have no direct authority over the unregulated flying sites, yet each group agrees that its members will obey these rules because they constitute safe and courteous operations in the airspace. These rules do not conflict with existing FAA rules and FAA rules are assumed to be obeyed at all times in the airspace.

I'm guessing language in the above quote is meant to apply to 1 to 6, but because they're listed underneath the proposed compromise language, I wanted to make a clarification. The language in the second sentence is not accurate, as it only applies to items 1 to 6, and the last sentence is also inaccurate as the proposed rules do conflict with existing FAA rules, as they are not part of the FAA rules.

FYI, the disclaimer language was submitted by another pilot based on the first 6 rules. I see your point about the second sentence in the disclaimer not applying to the compromise language, the disclaimer needs to be attached to the six, not the compromise. All this is a proposed DRAFT, so your input is appreciated!

Please point out the specific FAA rule that you believe the last sentence conflicts with so I know what you are looking at, thanks.

FYI, the disclaimer language was submitted by another pilot based on the first 6 rules. I see your point about the second sentence in the disclaimer not applying to the compromise language, the disclaimer needs to be attached to the six, not the compromise. All this is a proposed DRAFT, so your input is appreciated!

And since the first 6 rules take care of anything that happens in the air, anything that would try and restrict flight (of any aircraft) would have to be very well justified.

Please point out the specific FAA rule that you believe the last sentence conflicts with so I know what you are looking at, thanks.

In other words, the compromise language suggested by the other user conflicts with the FAA rules because the FAA rules say nothing about PGs not being able to fly anywhere a HG can fly. Like you said, the disclaimer language was in relation to the original 6 points, not the compromise points, but I just wanted to make sure that distinction was clear.

IMHO, the compromise would be well justified because is keeps the Funston landing zone and landing approach clear and uncongested from larger, slower moving aircraft. Fort Funston had more than eight hundred thousand visitors in 2014 (832,218 ), and on busy weekends with the thousands of pedestrians crossing the LZ, a clear approach is essential to landing safely.

It is true that the FAA does not address this specific issue, but that does not mean that two or more party's (FF and BAPA) can't agree to address the issue themselves, *as long as their agreement does not violate a specific FAR*. None of the points, even the compromise, would violate any FAR.

Another thing you should be aware of is that the GGNRA SUP requires that the Fellow Feathers observe FF rules, not just at the Fort but also all the way down to Pacifica (Please see "on lands south" below). This means that a FF member may not go down to the Dumps and buzz PG's on the ground (25' rule). If the GGNRA holds the FF to those standards, why shouldn't they also hold BAPA to the same standards and require they observe Stables rules be observed wherever BAPA members fly?

Current FF/GGNRA SUP states: "Permittee shall make every effort to ensure that club members respect all rules and responsibilities and have the required pilot qualifications. Permittee shall make every effort to closely monitor club activities and club members flying at Fort Funston and on lands south, to ensure that all rules are enforced."

Steve Rodrigues wrote:IMHO, the compromise would be well justified because is keeps the Funston landing zone and landing approach clear and uncongested from larger, slower moving aircraft. Fort Funston had more than eight hundred thousand visitors in 2014 (832,218 ), and on busy weekends with the thousands of pedestrians crossing the LZ, a clear approach is essential to landing safely.

Airspeeds are all relative, so I don't think that makes for a good argument. If that were the case, a Falcon would be a problem for a Sport, a Sport would be a problem for a T2C, a Falcon would be a really big problem for a T2C, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, slower-flying aircraft are more predictable in their flight path, where a T2C is hard to see and fast, which is a dangerous combination - there have been many times when I haven't seen a T2C coming and then all of a sudden it's right there next to me.

So, if number of aircraft is going to be the argument, then it will have to apply to all aircraft, PGs and HGs, especially because there are some PGs that can fly faster and are more maneuverable than the slowest HGs. Also, if crowding is an issue, and a PG is flying anywhere near launch (vs a HG), you know the PG will never be making a turn in the same direction towards the LZ (as a HG could) because they're not allowed to land there, so it's almost more beneficial to a HG pilot trying to land if a PG is around because they know the LZ is clear, where sometimes it's difficult to tell if another HG is trying to land when you want to land your HG.

To further expand on the busy day issue, you're not going to see a lot of PGs flying north towards the Funston ridge on a busy day because it's already crowded, just like you're not going to have many HGs flying down by the dumps on a busy day with a lot of PGs in the air. As of now, any PG pilot has the opportunity to fly in front of Funston on a busy day, but do they? I know I'd avoid going north on my PG when it's really busy at Funston, just as I'd tend to stay north on my HG if there are a lot of PGs flying at the dumps. Have PGs been a major problem at Funston, and if so, in what way? Are they clogging up the launch/LZ any more than HGs already do?

It is true that the FAA does not address this specific issue, but that does not mean that two or more party's (FF and BAPA) can't agree to address the issue themselves, *as long as their agreement does not violate a specific FAR*. None of the points, even the compromise, would violate any FAR.

I completely agree that the two parties can and should agree, but the compromise language is not a compromise. Per the definition of compromise (an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions), what is the concession of the HGs? Up to this point, the only language ever proposed has been what the PGs can't do. There has been zero mention of what kind of concessions the HGs are willing to make.

Another thing you should be aware of is that the GGNRA SUP requires that the Fellow Feathers observe FF rules, not just at the Fort but also all the way down to Pacifica (Please see "on lands south" below). This means that a FF member may not go down to the Dumps and buzz PG's on the ground (25' rule). If the GGNRA holds the FF to those standards, why shouldn't they also hold BAPA to the same standards and require they observe Stables rules be observed wherever BAPA members fly?

Current FF/GGNRA SUP states: "Permittee shall make every effort to ensure that club members respect all rules and responsibilities and have the required pilot qualifications. Permittee shall make every effort to closely monitor club activities and club members flying at Fort Funston and on lands south, to ensure that all rules are enforced."

So then this should be part of the compromise language. And in the spirit of compromise, if skills requirements are included for PGs, they should also be included for HGs flying in the vicinity of the dumps or the Stables launch, (crowded day limited to one HG, be of H4 rating, etc).

Mike, Please allow me to focus our attention on the primary issue: Safety for hang gliders landing at Fort Funston.

In order to land, a hang glider leaves the lift band and turns down wind, losing altitude as they go.
During the downwind leg of the landing approach, with a 20-25 mph tail wind, a glider flying at 25 mph is covering the ground at 45-50 miles per hour, and things happen very fast at that speed! In order to have enough ground clearance at the back of the landing area to turn back into the wind and land safely well clear of the pedestrian trails, the glider needs to begin their approach at approximately 150’ above the cliff top. If PG's stay above this minimum altitude, I doubt there would be any conflict at the Fort.

According to the Golden Stats Report Viewer for the Golden Gate NRA dated Sep 2014, the Fiscal YTD traffic count at Fort Funston was 832,218. On busy weekends, this results in a solid stream of pedestrians on the sand trail. As few as 500 visitors going to and from the beach results in 1,000 trips across the trail. On busy weekends I’m guessing the count easily exceeds 1,000 people per day, resulting in more than 2,000 crossings in front of the HG landing zone. Not to mention the dozens of people who randomly walk across the ice plant landing field. HG's MUST avoid pedestrians at all cost and any unneeded interference is selfish and irresponsible.

When preparing to land, it can be challenging enough for HG pilots just to maintain their altitude and avoid other hang gliders. Add to this the task of trying to time their landing approach to avoid pedestrians and spectators and you have a very big deal. Paragliders pose a larger sized obstacle than a hang glider, so while they may be flying the same speed as a Falcon, they create a much larger obstacle. Having to avoid one obstacle like this while trying to land creates a serious safety issue, let alone trying to avoid multiple PG's. You are a HG pilot so I'm dumbfounded that this needs to be explained to you.

And it is not fair comparing the Dumps to Funston. The bowl at the Dumps has a huge area of lift, much larger than the Funston ridge so it is easy to mingle different type wings there. PG's at the Dumps don't have anywhere near the landing challenges that HG's do at the Fort, so there is no comparison of the safety issues at hand. Not to mention that the Dumps is not insured, so an accident there won't affect USHPA insurance, whose cancellation could shut down every USHPA flying site in the US.

Try looking at the big picture rather than some restrictions on a quarter mile piece of a five mile long ridge. But it sounds like you have your mind made up so I'll stop wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.

Mike, Please allow me to focus our attention on the primary issue: Safety for hang gliders landing at Fort Funston

I think I just figured out the problem - it's been all about HG safety, and the primary issue for any agreement between FF/BAPA/GGNRA needs to be about safety for *all aircraft* along the ridge. Up to this point all of the proposals have been about HG pilot safety, when, unfortunately for the FF, the complaints presented to GGNRA/USHPA have come out of safety concerns of aggressive HG pilots. I think the language in any agreement between FF/BAPA/GGNRA needs to include how both types of pilots are going to respect their respective sensitive areas, and up to this point, it's been completely one-sided. As the perceived aggressor, FF is not in a good position to try and further exclude PG pilots when it is perceived that their membership is what has fueled this whole issue. And maybe I'm missing some facts (of which feel free to inform me), but this is what I've gleaned from my past few years of involvement in both of these communities.

And I get it, there's a general dislike of the growing PG community, and a legitimate concern that they'll outnumber the HG community and overtake the ridge. That would thus support your safety claims making it a safety hazard and limit the amount of pilots able to take off and land. I think that would be a horrible thing for the HG pilots, especially when there aren't a lot of options from which to take off/land. But that doesn't mean that the HG pilots should be able to claim the Funston ridge and everywhere else for their own use, and that seemed to be the mentality at the last meeting I attended, and subsequent proposed agreements. At some point if there is a compromise to be made, the HG community has to be willing to present a legitimate concession that shows that they're also looking out for the safety of the PG community. This could be as simple as something like HGs avoiding the Dumps, except for the purposes of transitioning airspace, or something similar. I would venture to guess that if something like that were presented, it would be much better received than just telling PG pilots where they can't go, when they know well and good that HG pilots are gonna go wherever they want to go. Would you be willing to stop flying the Funston ridge as a PG pilot if someone else tried to present the current proposed plan to you?


So like you said, it isn't fair to compare the Dumps to Funston because they are very different beasts. But what you do have are two different types of aircraft that need to be treated with mutual respect. If the FF are trying to make their priority the safety of flight around Funston, then they need to show how they're going to ensure the safety of all aircraft, which means respecting the same thing they're asking for, and avoiding the take off/landing area at the Dumps. And if the FF membership isn't willing to accept that, then I think they're just going to shoot themselves in the foot. We (HG pilots) already have such a great flying site, with great opportunities to fly all over the place. The Dumps, regulated or not, is where a huge amount of training takes place. Allowing the PG pilots to have their safe area is not unreasonable, especially when you're asking for the same thing in return. The GGNRA is telling us that we need to work together, so let's present something that shows a mutual respect for the safety of all aircraft and their respective sensitive areas.

Until this clown tells us who he is there shouldn't be an open discussion on this forum. He's obviously oblivisous to the hang gliding and paragliding history at Funston and what hang gliding has done for the paragliding community in the United States. I bet he's the guy that flys his PG by funston with his hands in his lap and not observing any international soaring regulations and whines when another glider gets too close for his own comfort. The P4/H4 is no longer a skill rating, it's judgement rating and I vote to revoke his P4.
Urs Kellenberger
52757
RD 2002-2010

Urs wrote:Until this clown tells us who he is there shouldn't be an open discussion on this forum. He's obviously oblivisous to the hang gliding and paragliding history at Funston and what hang gliding has done for the paragliding community in the United States. I bet he's the guy that flys his PG by funston with his hands in his lap and not observing any international soaring regulations and whines when another glider gets too close for his own comfort. The P4/H4 is no longer a skill rating, it's judgement rating and I vote to revoke his P4.
Urs Kellenberger
52757
RD 2002-2010

Urs,
My apologies for not signing my name on my messages - it's Mike Soultanian, and Steve knows exactly who I am - I also sat next to you at the FF meeting a couple months ago. I would have come tonight but I had a prior engagement. I'm a H3/P3 and I do not make it a habit to fly the Funston ridge in my PG, but I have flown it twice about a year ago when there were no other HGs in the air.

Now, if there is any kind of HG/PG history that can justify the proposed rules, I'm all ears.

Mike

msoultan wrote:

Mike, Please allow me to focus our attention on the primary issue: Safety for hang gliders landing at Fort Funston

I think I just figured out the problem - it's been all about HG safety, and the primary issue for any agreement between FF/BAPA/GGNRA needs to be about safety for *all aircraft* along the ridge.

Most of the rules listed apply to all pilots. Some only apply to PGs so they're written as such. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Are there any rules that need to be added? If we added a rule to try and restrict HG use in front of an unregulated site like the Dumps, it'd be the only one on the list that wasn't added purely for pilot safety.

I really only see tension arise when pilots do actions that disregard safety of others, safety of the site, or with intent to antagonize others. The latest set of rules at least look good on paper to me.

-Ryan

Most of the rules listed apply to all pilots. Some only apply to PGs so they're written as such. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Are there any rules that need to be added? If we added a rule to try and restrict HG use in front of an unregulated site like the Dumps, it'd be the only one on the list that wasn't added purely for pilot safety.

Why wouldn't adding restrictions for HG use at the Dumps not be for pilot safety? Not allowing HGs to fly through that airspace (unless you're a H4, at or above the ridge level, lower to transition back, etc) would most definitely be a request for the safety of PG pilots as they are the majority user of that airspace, as HGs are the majority user at Funston. If you're saying that allowing HG pilots fly anywhere they want to at the Dumps isn't a safety concern for PG pilots, then how can you justify that PG pilots flying around Funston *is* a safety concern? Having pilots fly in the vicinity of other pilots, regardless of aircraft, is always a safety concern. Up to this point, all of the language presented shows very little effort on the part of the HG community to show that they're willing to do what they're asking of the PG pilots, *especially* when there is no FAA airspace rules for any pilot to do otherwise. If you're going to ask the PGs to stay away from Funston, then wouldn't it be logical to included language that HGs are going to stay away from the dumps?

I really only see tension arise when pilots do actions that disregard safety of others, safety of the site, or with intent to antagonize others. The latest set of rules at least look good on paper to me.

Except that it's completely one-sided and includes no specific language to ensure that HG pilots will respect the take off/landing area around the Dumps, which is where aggressive behavior of HG pilots has been observed, and that is a huge concern for PG pilots. HGs want their take off/landing area protected, so do PGs, which is exactly what the HG pilots are explicitly asking of the PG pilots around the Funston ridge. Include some specific language that shows a willingness on the part of the HG pilots to respect the PG take off/landing site like you're asking of the PG pilots, and I think it will be an agreement that PG pilots will be more likely to agree on.

Mike

Mike, FYI:

In a gesture of mutual respect, I proposed creating an equitable HG "no-fly" zone at the Dumps, where HG's would not be allowed in a similar box to the proposed Funston PG no-fly zone. The area would go from sea level up to 300' msl (similar to Funston) and would include Tomcats, Lemmings, Walkers, and the flat road area where most students practice kiting. Please see the attachment.

The only exception would be that HG's could transit through the area (not soar back and forth) on a northerly heading if scratching back from Pacifica and their only alternative would be to land on the beach before Deadmans Cove.

My proposal was shot down because it concerned an unregulated site that has nothing to do with the GGNRA SUP's.

People keep asking what HG's would do in return, and here I offered something tangible only to have it disregarded on a technicality. Perhaps you might have more influence on BAPA compromising?

Yes, I think that is definitely heading in the right direction! I think that's interesting that it was shot down - I'd like to know why.

While I know it's an odd thing, I think that the ultimate agreement (which really is greater than GGNRA due to The Dumps being unregulated) should include flight rules along the entire flyable ridge down to Pacifica to show that the *community* is taking a proactive stance to being responsible in the air. I do think that there are a group of paraglider pilots launching from The Dumps that share a common interest with the whole flying group, many of them probably members of USHPA, and would probably be willing to go along with (and promote) proposed rules if they were amicable and showed general concern for the safety of all pilots. I think it would also be helpful to have endorsement from USHPA such that USHPA pilots not following the rules can be subject to disciplinary action, regardless of where they're flying - I think that might help add some further incentive for everyone to follow the rules along the entire flyable ridge.

I will invite more PG members to comment to hear their thoughts.

Thanks,
Mike

msoultan wrote: I will invite more PG members to comment to hear their thoughts. Thanks, Mike

Thanks Mike for talking to other PG pilots, it is important that we get participation and input from everyone involved, members and non-members alike.

The Stables SUP will most likely contain some kind of compromise rules about PG’s flying in Funston airspace, and while technically it might only apply to the one or two pilots who use that launch, the agreement will mean very little without buy-in from the rest of the PG community.

With mutual buy-in from HG and PG alike, the coast can become a safe and wonderful playground for everyone! That is why we need to truly understand each other’s needs and give each other safe leeway, not because of some GGNRA rule, but because we respect each other as brothers and sisters of the sky.

Steve Rodrigues wrote:My proposal was shot down because it concerned an unregulated site that has nothing to do with the GGNRA SUP's.

Whoa now... let's keep this conversation constructive and focused. The need for compromise in relation to these specific changes has everything to do with the GGNRA SUP's, so in order to keep this issue from avalanching we really do need to keep our focus there.

In terms of safety, the fort has a narrow lift band, which as always been the reason for exclusion of PGs from launching or landing there. The reason PGs can fly at the fort is because neither FF nor USHPA regulates that airspace. Last I checked no PGs were complaining about HGs flying safely and non-aggressively at the Dumps because there isn't a narrow lift band there.

I'm curious now, though, if we're treading on uncharted waters or not. Now that we're trying to regulate airspace, is this something new? Probably not... We have USHPA to unite us and allow us to self-regulate international ridge soaring rules.

So what, then are we changing?

Let's challenge the idea that an "unregulated" site is a technicality; maybe it's a matter of logistics.If we're trying to self-regulate and enforce rules, it's a problem because we're not defining USHPA rules.. we're defining BAPA/FF rules. This means I can fly a HG all I want at the dumps if I'm a H2 but not H3/H4 because the dumps isn't a regulated site. Is there a precedent for local sites trying to enforce airspace at unregulated sites? If I am somehow punished by a local site outside of that local site's jurisdiction, they can only exclude me from launching/landing in *their* location so It would force me to fly at the "restricted" site more. As a self-regulated sport, who from FF would even be at the dumps monitoring the airspace? Will we rely on gossip and he/said she/said in a time when we're supposed to be demonstrating cooperation?

This is clearly only the beginning of the problems that would need to be addressed by trying to add airspace use restrictions at an unregulated site. Hyperbole: If our rules are so great, and we're so good at cooperating, why not extend the scope to enforce these rules in any airspace anywhere?

Reality: GGNRA SUP's aren't requiring this. This isn't supposed to be an equal give-and-take relationship.. We're just supposed to cooperate, and agree to rules that allow us to enable that. Cooperation means that we're on the same team. It means that PGs and HGs might not have the same restrictions.

To conclude, I hope we can all focus on the solutions and cooperation instead of analyzing the differences and try to balance the score like children. We only earn the privilege to self-regulate, fly, and have a good time when we all work together. It's always been this way and we can always lose it all if we don't. I, for one, want us all to win. BAPA/FF FTW!

-Ryan

I just think it would be good if HG's didn't buzz through PG launches and training areas. (and vice versa) Because the Dumps IS an unregulated site, any air space restriction would be a gentleman’s agreement to not interfere with another pilots safe enjoyment of their sport.

Most of this is about education, pilots of both types of aircraft need to understand the needs and capabilities of the other.

I'm only a P-1, and while I don't have the insight a higher rated PG pilot might have , I think I have a better understanding of PG than most other HG pilots. By the same token, not many PG pilots truly understand what it's like to scratch along a cliff or top land a HG and all that requires.

I'd love to do some tandem-swap days, where pilots can catch a ride in the other type of craft. That would open a lot of eyes!

Dear rated PG,

Love your no-BS frankness! I don't agree with everything you say (esp the fucking pussies part ), but you do bring much truth to light.

I felt nothing but support last time I was practicing with Harry, and I enjoyed sharing beers around the BBQ pit and getting to meet folks. For sure, more of that kind of thing would be the best way for our communities to work things out.

I don't think online debates are productive (and name calling even less so), but I'd like to share something that PG pilots who aren't biwingual don't understand about flying a topless (high performance) HG. This doesn't apply quite as much to a low performance HG that can turn in an instant on a dime.

When I'm scratching past the Dumps on the way back from Pacifica and have to maneuver through a gaggle of PGs, it's hair-raising. It's nothing like passing a bunch of HGs. I keep running up against PG pilots who don't clear their turns. They don't look around and have no idea I'm behind them and plan on overtaking them. Some of them that are actually looking around don't follow right of way rules. Some PG pilots are aware of course, but that doesn't make things any more predictable when we're trying to get past. Add to that the fact that we don't have experience flying PGs ourselves and don't fully understand the mentality or the safest way to deal with it due to the characteristics of the wing, just as you don't understand ours, going through this isn't the most relaxing thing in the world.

So you may think we're just barging straight through with a topless HG without a care, making everyone move, but the fact is we can't turn quickly or tightly without losing lots of altitude, and we need to figure out a line that might not put us on a collision course with a PG 1000ft ahead who may or may not know or care we're headed his way. Even just passing a PG on the lower cliffs makes us nervous as we wonder whether he even sees us and whether he's going to take or give us the cliff side.

When a HG pilot fails to clear a turn, not even causing a near-collision but just enough to make another HG pilot nervous, or even simply appears to not see another pilot overtaking him before it happens, he gets chewed out. The other pilot bitches once he lands, and everyone hears about it, and everyone will start watching out for the guy who doesn't know what's going on around him. The offending pilot gets the point and feels guilty about it. It's a big deal. It's usually a newer pilot. If we can't all trust each other's awareness and decisions, the right of way pattern breaks down and it's chaos. There's a lot more overtaking and passing going on than when PGs are flying together, and it requires a lot more planning ahead with topless gliders.

When we set up top landing approaches at Funston, it's like threading the needle on a topless or for a new H3 on any glider. Watch for other pilots making an approach at any altitude from the West, North, or South, watch for pedestrians (and dogs, which have attacked us on landing occasionally) walking throughout our entire LZ, check for the rotor areas depending on wind direction, watch for launching gliders creating rotor, and when you reach the right altittude at the right location, thread it in. There's sometimes not much room for error. The way we have it organized works, but any additional factor like too much traffic or very strong or turbulent wind makes it often too much to handle, forcing us to try to wait it out if possible or beach land. We do constant mentoring with new H3s to get them to work in the system. We suspend pilots who don't.

In that situation, a random unknown PG with different flying characteristics (no, it's not just about speed) who is mixing it up near our launch/LZ can be too risky to deal with and more likely at least piss us off from the stress. A lone PG making a pass at Funston in little or no traffic doesn't cause a problem, with the debatable assumption that it won't gradually escalate into something that does cause a critical problem with our system that just barely works.

Maybe I wasted my time here. Forums are usually a waste of time and plagued by people who just want to argue. But I started typing and so there it is.

Dave

I get that there are plenty of opportunities for HG and PG pilots to better understand each other and turn misunderstandings into glorious warm fuzzy feelings.

For this thread... the only question is this: https://youtu.be/1sONfxPCTU0

FF/BAPA leadership are burdened with the task of satisfying the GGNRA SUP requirements, with membership cooperation of course. They have a proposal on the table and no one seems to have anything to add to it.

Steve Rodrigues wrote:# Don't fly lick a dick!

You missed some critical punctuation...

"Don't fly. Lick a dick!"

Not my personal preference, but to each his own. Just here to help.