Flyfunston

spork wrote:I thank you for your invitation to tip-toe through another mine-field, but no thanks.

That's OK. Tip toeing through minefields - like an M60 tank - is my specialty anyway.

By the way, I can't remember if this is one of the USHPA SOP's that was retracted or not, but it was passed in the fall of 2010:

USHPA SOP 06-01.04 Organizational Requirements - Paragraph C wrote:Chapters are required to allow membership by all USHPA-rated pilots who are also qualified to fly at Chapter-controlled sites, without restrictions. All Chapter members must have full voting privileges.

I believe this was targeted at either the Torrey Hawks or the Fellow Feathers - or maybe both. The wording is very tricky, and I suspect Dave Wills was involved. It reads as if it has a loop hole specifically for the Fellow Feathers: "... who are also qualified to fly at Chapter-controlled sites". This loophole exempts the Fellow Feathers from needing to allow paraglider pilots to be voting members because no paraglider pilots are currently "qualified" to fly at Funston. However, if Rick succeeds in getting even one toe into the site, then this SOP would apply. That would mean that all paraglider pilots who fit Rick's requirements (currently P3+?) would have to be allowed as voting members of the Fellow Feathers. That's the camel's nose that I was talking about earlier. Ooops, there goes the tent!!

Now, as I said, I don't know if this SOP was retracted or not. Neither Rich Hass nor Martin Palmaz have been very good at answering my questions lately. But even if it was retracted, there's no guarantee that it won't be passed again at the next Board meeting. That could end up turning the Fellow Feathers into an HG/PG club at the stroke of a pen. This is an aspect of this discussion that hasn't been touched on by any other Fellow Feathers members, and it's a good reason why it's important to keep this forum open to "outsiders" ... like me.

Be careful Fellow Feathers. Rick was right that USHPA topics are a minefield!!

Clarification...

I just checked the USHPA SOP and found that parts of the previous item "C" have survived in the new item "E". Here it is:

06-01.04 Organizational Requirements wrote:E. Chapters may not, as a matter of policy, negligently or willfully discriminate against pilots of one glider type, either hang glider or paraglider, or discriminate between pilots of equal pilot rating. Chapters must ensure that recreational flight privileges are made available to any and all qualified USHPA members meeting Chapter site requirements in a fair and equitable manner without discrimination.

Note: This requirement does not indicate that a site cannot be hang gliding only or paragliding only. Glider specific sites are permissible for safety, land owner, and possibly other conditions.

So this is the current SOP. According to this, if Funston becomes biwingual in any way (not "hang gliding only"), then your club must allow paraglider pilots as members, and presumably as voting members. They must also be able to use the site in a "fair and equitable manner without discrimination". So if nothing else, USHPA has backed your club into a corner where you can't safely open the door to Rick's proposal without becoming a fully biwingual club.

Booom. There goes one of Dave Wills' carefully laid mines!!

Now do you see why it's important for local clubs to keep up with national topics? Do you see why it's important to know what's going on inside USHPA? Why didn't your local Directors (Urs Kellenberger or Dave Wills) come to this forum and explain this to your club? Why did it take a former Director from San Diego to point out this gaping problem with Spork's otherwise reasonable proposal?

Beware, Fellow Feathers ... the camel's nose is almost under the tent!!

bobk wrote:Clarification...

I just checked the USHPA SOP and found that parts of the previous item "C" have survived in the new item "E". Here it is:

06-01.04 Organizational Requirements wrote:E. Chapters may not, as a matter of policy, negligently or willfully discriminate against pilots of one glider type, either hang glider or paraglider, or discriminate between pilots of equal pilot rating. Chapters must ensure that recreational flight privileges are made available to any and all qualified USHPA members meeting Chapter site requirements in a fair and equitable manner without discrimination.

Note: This requirement does not indicate that a site cannot be hang gliding only or paragliding only. Glider specific sites are permissible for safety, land owner, and possibly other conditions.

So this is the current SOP. According to this, if Funston becomes biwingual in any way (not "hang gliding only"), then your club must allow paraglider pilots as members, and presumably as voting members. They must also be able to use the site in a "fair and equitable manner without discrimination". So if nothing else, USHPA has backed your club into a corner where you can't safely open the door to Rick's proposal without becoming a fully biwingual club.

Booom. There goes one of Dave Wills' carefully laid mines!!

Now do you see why it's important for local clubs to keep up with national topics? Do you see why it's important to know what's going on inside USHPA? Why didn't your local Directors (Urs Kellenberger or Dave Wills) come to this forum and explain this to your club? Why did it take a former Director from San Diego to point out this gaping problem with Spork's otherwise reasonable proposal?

Beware, Fellow Feathers ... the camel's nose is almost under the tent!!

Bob, dude, take off the blinders. Can't you see that DW's "landmine" gives the club legitimate reason for not accepting RC's proposal?!? You are so intent in discrediting DW that you also discredit the tool he and USHPA has provided to keep Funston from becoming another Torrey. And are you actually saying Spork's proposal is reasonable? WTF!!! What happened to your "nose of the camel" reasoning? (that I agree with BTW)

thermal pirate wrote:Bob, dude, take off the blinders. Can't you see that DW's "landmine" gives the club legitimate reason for not accepting RC's proposal?!? You are so intent in discrediting DW that you also discredit the tool he and USHPA has provided to keep Funston from becoming another Torrey.

OK, Let's examine what Dave Wills (DW) actually did ...

Here are USHPA's HG/PG Chapter requirements before the fall 2010 Board meeting:

Exhibit A:

That's right, they said nothing. The SOPs did not impose any restrictions on having hang gliding clubs or paragliding clubs. That's the way it was before the Fall 2010 Board Meeting.

Now here's what Dave Wills proposed (and the USHPA Board passed) during the fall 2010 Board meeting:

Exhibit B:

C. Chapters are required to allow membership by all USHPA-rated pilots who are also qualified to fly at Chapter-controlled sites, without restrictions. All Chapter members must have full voting privileges.

G. Chapters may not, as a matter of policy, negligently or willfully discriminate against pilots of one glider type, either hang glider or paraglider, or discriminate between pilots of equal pilot rating. Chapters must ensure that recreational flight privileges are made available to any and all qualified USHPA members meeting Chapter site requirements in a fair and equitable manner without discrimination.
Note: This requirement does not indicate that a site cannot be hang gliding only or paragliding only. Glider specific sites are permissible for safety, land owner, and possibly other conditions.

Here's how USHPA supposedly "fixed" their mistake:

Exhibit C:

E. Chapters may not, as a matter of policy, negligently or willfully discriminate against pilots of one glider type, either hang glider or paraglider, or discriminate between pilots of equal pilot rating. Chapters must ensure that recreational flight privileges are made available to any and all qualified USHPA members meeting Chapter site requirements in a fair and equitable manner without discrimination.
Note: This requirement does not indicate that a site cannot be hang gliding only or paragliding only. Glider specific sites are permissible for safety, land owner, and possibly other conditions.

OK, who can see a difference between Exhibit A and Exhibit C? That's right, there's a big difference. USHPA took two steps toward forcing all clubs to be biwingual, but they only took one step back. Why didn't they repeal the all of those changes? Liberty is seldom lost all at once. More often it is lost inch by inch.

Hey F-wad Bob,
Aint you got enough threads going with your bullsh1t, you gotta take over this one too? We got it handled up here, don't need your butting in so stay down in So Cal where you belong. I'm tired of seeing your same BS over and over. Leave this thread alone and please F-off.

Thermal Pirate,

Your post is pretty much without content. If you had it "handled" up there, then your buddy Dave Wills wouldn't be screwing up the SOPs trying to force all USHPA Chapters (everywhere) to be biwingual.

Please try to stay on topic and drop the name calling. Thanks.

thermal pirate wrote:Hey F-wad Bob,
Aint you got enough threads going with your bullsh1t, you gotta take over this one too? We got it handled up here, don't need your butting in so stay down in So Cal where you belong. I'm tired of seeing your same BS over and over. Leave this thread alone and please F-off.

For the record ...

I just got a call from Rick Cavallaro.

We had a fairly long and reasonably pleasant conversation mostly centered around hang gliding and paragliding at Funston.

I shared my concerns about how paragliding has really hurt the sport of hang gliding at Torrey Pines.

I also shared my observation that ridge sites are essentially a one-dimensional line of lift while thermal sites offer a much larger 3-dimensional space. I offered my opinion that this spatial difference makes it much easier for thermal sites to offer biwingual harmony (Crestline is my typical example). But ridge sites (like Torrey and Funston) are much more one-dimensional and that can make it much harder for the two wing types to coexist. I further suggested that the area near Westlake is high enough that the lift band becomes much broader there, and that portion of the ridge lends itself better to sharing the air between hang gliders and paragliders.

With regard to paragliding at Funston, I voiced my opinion that I was against it because I felt that it would harm the sport of hang gliding. I expressed to Rick how much I enjoyed being able to fly there without having to dodge paragliders. I also said that I feared that any attempt to allow paragliders to land there would be the "camel's nose" under the tent, and that was my main reason for opposing it. I also expressed that while Rick may not want to take it any farther than just landing, that there would be people who would come after him who would want to push it further and further. Pretty soon, the whole "camel" would be in the tent. I think Rick disagreed with that, but he was unable to really reassure me how that wouldn't happen.

At one point we touched on what it was that Rick would like to see happen, and I'm not sure if we got to a final answer. We parted by sharing email addresses, and I encouraged Rick to contact me any time and let me know exactly what he'd like to accomplish. We did tend to agree that hang gliding is shrinking while paragliding is growing, and I offered my concern that over time, USHPA will care less and less about hang gliding. That's why I was starting the US Hawks.

Overall, I was very happy that he took the time to give me a call, and I wish more people would simply pick up the phone once in a while and talk to people who they might otherwise end up "flaming" on the forum. My own phone number is 858-204-7499, and anyone on this forum is welcome to call me any time.

Thanks for the call Rick!!