Flyfunston

Our WEB site has a topic, “IMPORTANT: National Park Service reviewing its policies”, that encourages Funston pilots to write the National Park Service to end its policy requiring special use permits to hang glide and paraglide in National Parks. The unintended consequence of ending special use permits may be paragliding at Funston.

We hang glide at Fort Funston under a special use permit issued by Supt. O’Neil of the GGNRA. Paragliders have attempted to obtain a permit but have been denied for obvious safety reasons. If Supt. O’Neil looses his authority to determine who flies at Funston, the site may be open to paragliders and hang gliding will be limited or marginalized as at Torrey Pines.

Several years ago a USHGA Regional Director threatened to revoke our site insurance unless we allowed paragliding at Funston. We responded that the decision to allow paragliding was the GGNRA’s. We do not want to undermine the GGNRA’s authority to make that decision by abolishing or limiting its right to issue special use permits.

Support our landlord. Maintain special use permits at least at Funston. Preserve Supt. O’Neil’s authority.

Dan Brown

Could someone have a chat with O'Neail and see if we can have both? (hg only flying at the fort and open up the parks)....Does anyone know why Torrey Pines can't do what we have at the fort?? (or do we have a special "in" with O'Neil and what happens when he is gone?)...also why can't they just draw a line (setup some rules) and say "you guys stay over there and we stay over here...sorta (small lift area?)...I have not flown down there yet but from all I hear it's not that fun anymore.....)
just some thoughts and ponders.....thanks for getting the weather equipment back up (all who were involved)
diev

a great point that got me thinking...

>We responded that the decision to allow paragliding was the GGNRA’s. We do not want to undermine the GGNRA’s authority to make that decision by abolishing or limiting its right to issue special use permits.

Support our landlord. Maintain special use permits at least at Funston. Preserve Supt. O’Neil’s authority

We have a line separating HG and PG's. Several years ago I helped write the PG permit for the Stables launch. No PGs north of the south end of the Bowl.

It took a great deal of effort to get the permit to fly at Funston. For us to seek to abolish the permit is like people in the Delta petitioning Congress to eliminate the levees.

Dan Brown

OK, I may be dragged through the mud through this, but is this issue not bigger than just who flies at Funston?.... In my very cursory reading, the issue is about opening up sites all across the country, and that that would be in general a good thing for the whole community. At a local level, it might have consequences for Funston... but if 50 (I have no idea the appropriate number) sites were not opened across the country because of our turfism, that could be a real loss...

Jeff

We seem to loose more and more flying sites as time goes by, so it is essential to our sport that we open new sites. Eliminating a needlessly cumbersome special use permit process would be a step in the right direction, but even if the policy is changed, I can't envision the parks department allowing a free for all type of scene. While BLM land does have an anything goes feel to it, it is usually far enough away from the public eye that such a policy can work. The opposite is true for high visibility locations like Fort Funston, and I expect that site insurance and site regulations will always be required. I would hope that our management of Fort Funston would not be endangered in the process. It will be to our advantage to maintain our relationship with the parks department, and prove to them that we have the right ideas on what activity is appropriate for the Fort.