Flyfunston

And couldn't they say the same about you?

Of course they can tell me to shut the fuck up. And they can continue to escalate this to USHPA - to the very person they once kicked off the property for simply HAVING a paraglider. I'll do as I please. So will they. I don't have a flying site to lose. They do.

It seems that you're escalating it as well. Even worse, it seems that you've started it.

It seems you aren't paying attention. Did I contact USHPA? Did I threaten to fire upon pilots in the air? Did I in fact intentionally endanger pilots in the air? Where do you get this stuff!?

if it's going to degenerate to the current situation again (with PG pilots ignoring agreements and flying where they want)...

Again, you're not paying attention. There are no PG pilots ignoring any agreements. There ARE no agreements. The Fellow Feathers saying "stay away - or else..." is not an agreement.

Rick,

I am paying attention. But just to be sure I understand you, please state exactly what you want and tell me exactly how you think you can keep the granting of your request from being followed by another and another and another (the rest of the "camel"). Please be specific.

Thanks.

Let's educate everyone here, since not everyone is aware of the FAR's or the GGNRA agreement with Fellow Feathers.

1. The dumps is an unregulated site. You do not have to be an USHPA member to fly the dumps or any class G airspace.
2. The GGNRA controls take-off and landing on their property, they have no control over the airspace (there is an exception but it rules out everyone, including hangggliders, so we won't go there).
3. The PPA has no affiliation with USHPA, Fellow Feathers, BAPA or the GGNRA.
4. The PPA answers only to the FAA.
5. Fort Funston airspace is class G airspace open to all aviation, including paragliders and PPA members.
6. The FFA encourages all aviation to use the airspace, thus the reason federally funded airports can't keep skydivers out of their airspace although general/commercial aviation would love to boot a few dropzones.
7. The pilots in those pictures are not endangering anyone since there are no hanggliders in the air. It's almost always the case that the hanggliders chase down the paragliders, then pout when they force themselves to the beach.
8. If those pilots are PPA members, they are not breaking any USHPA or Fellow Feathers rules since they have no affiliation to USHPA or Fellow Feathers. Can someone explain to me the exact FAR they are breaking? Then we can talk with them and let them know that if they continue to break that FAR the FAA will be contacted. Keep in mind, this is a two-way street, any FAR violations by hangglider pilots will also be reported to the FAA. Is this really how we want to live?

Threatening the paraglider pilots with taking away their USHPA membership/ratings will only encourage them to join forces with the PPA and fly fort funston more often, most likely in gaggles for protection just like the B17's during WWII. Fellow Feathers and USHPA will lose any bit of bargaining chip they may have. There will be nothing to stop them from launching at the dumps (or the funston training bowl) and flying over any part of the class G airspace above funston so long as they do not take-off or land from ggnra property other than the Olympic Club Easement and they will be perfectly legal as they have been all along. In reality paragliders are allowed to take-off and land from the training bowl. The line of demarcation is the north end of the training bowl per the compendium signed by fellow feathers and the ggnra. Someone changed the line to the south end of the training bowl in the fellow feathers paperwork but the ggnra has the original paperwork online:

36 CFR § 7.97 (b) POWERLESS FLIGHT
(b) The use of devices designed to carry persons through the air in powerless flight is
allowed at the following locations pursuant to terms and conditions of a permit.
• Hang gliding is permitted only within designated portions of Fort Funston. Paragliding is only allowed on the Olympic Club easement and ocean cliffs south. Locations and conditions for use of these areas are specified in attachement of this compendium. (again, this only applies to take-off and landing, the ggnra does not control the airspace)

The Olympic Club easement includes the entire training bowl.

Many of the paraglider pilots are not aware of their right to the airspace as many of the hangglider pilots are not aware of the FAR's. Escalating this to USHPA and bringing all this attention to it will only educate the paraglider pilots of their right to the airspace. I see more paraglider pilots flying funston airspace in the near future due to all of this attention. After all there is no FAR exempting them from that airspace. You can argue that the ridge is too small for both wings but the argument is useless if there are no hanggliders in the air, like in those pictures sent to USHPA. Even then, it is the responsibility of the hg pilot to avoid the pg pilot and vice-versa. There is an FAR regulating that.

What we are doing here is attempting to limit the airspace to one type of aircraft (I know we are not considered aircraft, that's a mute point). We should be doing all we can to keep the airspace open to all of us. If we band together we will be stronger, this type of behavior - by both sides only wedges us apart. The presidents of both clubs - Fellow Feathers and BAPA should get together, talk it over and encourage all pilots to respect the old school boundaries. USHPA may oversee this discussion since it's been escalated to that point. I'm sure our regional directors would love to weigh in on this point, the majority of them are paraglider pilots. The PPA has no leaders and will most likely stay out if it since it's not any concern of theirs because they are legally flying in class g airspace, any issues with the PPA can be taken up with the FAA. That's all you can really do unless you want to get the FAA involved, in which case they will most likely tell you to figure out a way to share the air. This is not a war we want to get ourselves into, we will lose big time.

You can argue these points all you want. Pull out the FAR's and show me exactly which FAR the paraglider pilots are breaking then let's talk about figuring out who they are and having a discussion with them. Until then, let's not get our panties all tied up in a knot, it causes collapses, like the breakdown in communication between the two clubs.

(I'm curious to see how long it takes for this post to be censored/deleted like the post on the fellow feathers facebook page, the minute it is censored/deleted I will post in on all the paraglider forums.)

I believe Rick's demands here are to land on the Fort Funston property. That has nothing to do with airspace.

So let me again ask Rick (or Jose) why the Fellow Feathers should allow any encroachment in their landing area ... especially given the "in your face" belligerence of the previous post?

That previous post does not reassure me in any way that the Fellow Feathers should give an inch of ground for any reason. It provides no assurance or guarantee that if the Fellow Feathers were to relent and allow PG landing that they still would not be taken over by "gaggles" of PG and PPG pilots. In fact, your arguments (Jose) about the PPG not being under USHPA control further points out that there is no one (not even USHPA) who can assure the Fellow Feathers that any agreement can be kept on the paragliding side of the equation. So why should the Fellow Feathers give up anything? It's like trying to deal with terrorists. You can make a deal with a hundred terrorists, but there are ten thousand more who claim that deal does not bind them.

Both Rick and Jose are making the clear case (unintentionally) that the Fellow Feathers should stand strong against this threat and not give any ground at all.

Rick, I am still waiting to hear how any "agreement" can be kept by the paragliding (and now the powered paragliding) community. Can you tell us?

P.S. I just called Rick and left a message to talk about this since we seemed to reach better understandings on the phone than on this forum.

Nice try to derail it, Bob, but you are going to have to go back and do your homework. The PPA has nothing to do with PPG.

I'll let you & Rick hash out your issues, I will state facts.

And those guys (PPA) are very well educated pilots who can quote you the FARs.

Regardless of what you think, its the FAA that controls the airspace, no organization is giving up anything.

Exactly which FAR is being violated?

Nice try to derail it, Bob, but you are going to have to go back and do your homework. The PPA has nothing to do with PPG.

And those guys (PPA) are very well educated pilots who can quote you the FARs.

Regardless of what you think, its the FAA that controls the airspace, no organization is giving up anything.

It's helpful to look back at what's been said already on this issue. Back in April, there was a discussion in the topic titled "Cavallaro messing with Funston" ...

spork (with emphasis added) wrote:My interest is in negotiating an arrangement with the club and potentially the GGNRA that would have little or no impact on hang gliding operations. I have put a number of restrictions in my proposal to make sure that we don't inconvenience HG in any way and that we don't open the door to PG's flying at the Fort. I have invited the inclusion of additional restrictions as necessary to satisfy the club that this arrangement is safe, doesn't inconvenience, HG, and doesn't lead to other problems.

bobk wrote:I believe you Rick, but once the camel's nose is under the tent ... well, there goes the tent.
:
My point to you, Rick, is that while your intentions may be noble, they may end up destroying the relative peace you currently have. You may be willing to draw the line where you've stated, but others may carry it beyond that regardless of what you say or intend. If that happens, are you really willing to go down in history as "that guy" who ruined hang gliding at Fort Funston? I'm not asking that as a rhetorical question, but as a question that you should really consider carefully before you move forward. You're taking a very big risk for what seems like the small inconvenience of driving a few minutes between flying your PG and hanging out with your HG friends.

On April 26th, Spork replied:

spork (with emphasis added) wrote:I have to respectfully disagree Bob. To my knowledge paragliders don't care about flying the Fort.

Rick, you only have to look at the pictures in this topic to see that your prediction about what paragliders will do or won't do is faulty. So again, why should the Fellow Feathers give up any inch of ground when you are not in a position to guarantee them anything in return?

Rick, you only have to look at the pictures in this topic to see that your prediction about what paragliders will do is faulty.

I think you're wrong. I haven't spoken to those pilots, so I can't be sure what their motivation was/is. I think it's quite possible that they were there to make the point that no one but the FAA controls that airspace. I think it's likely that ANY fair arrangement would be largely abided.

So again, why should the Fellow Feathers give up any inch of ground when you are not in a position to guarantee them anything in return?

With respect to the airspace they have nothing to give up. It's not theirs. How can the PG pilots insure that HG pilots don't fly south of the bowl and encroach on PG airspace?

spork wrote:I haven't spoken to those pilots, so I can't be sure what their motivation was/is. I think it's quite possible that they were there to make the point that no one but the FAA controls that airspace. I think it's likely that ANY fair arrangement would be largely abided.

So there we have it from "King Spork" himself that he thinks it's "likely" that ANY fair arrangement would be "largely" abided. Think camel. Think tent. Rick, you are not "King of the Paragliders" and you cannot guarantee what any of them will honor or not honor. So you are not in any position to make any deals, and the Funston club would be foolish to give any ground since you have nothing to offer in return.

spork wrote:

bobk wrote:So again, why should the Fellow Feathers give up any inch of ground when you are not in a position to guarantee them anything in return?

With respect to the airspace they have nothing to give up.

Excuse me, but you're not asking them to give up airspace. You're asking them to give you some landing area on park grounds. And yet you cannot guarantee anything in return because there is no authority that controls ALL PG pilots.

Rick, I've asked you before to state what it is that you want so we're not talking around in circles. Do you want landing area or not?

bobk wrote:I believe Rick's demands here are to land on the Fort Funston property.

I have no demands. I never had any demands. This topic is about pilots that "violated" Funston airspace. I'm not one of those pilots.

Jose I think your suggestion is one of the most rational ones I have seen.

I'm all for getting together with BAPA to try to find a way to respect the

old school boundaries. An just so we're clear, the no PG fly zone is from

the south edge of the south bowl northward. Forgive my ignorance, but who

should I be talking to?

For those who may not know, last year a group of biwingual pilots approached

the FF at a club meeting about opening up Funston for some paragliding

activities. Dave R, Damien, Jose were part of that group. I have a great

respect for them for their efforts to try to approach the FF to work things

out in this manner. We had a lengthy discussion, but in the end the concept

was voted down.
Again, the reasons we cited were primarily safety issues, but they also

include the issue of paragliding preventing hang gliders from flying.

Your argument that the paragliders were flying when no HG pilots were in the

air - well, let's look at these pictures:
www.custompowersolar.com/para_with_hg_funston
(and this is by no means all that I have)

And what about the pilot that deliberately flew in the middle of the Air

Races in the bowl immediately to the south of launch, forcing us to stop the

Air Races? How many witnesses do you think we have for that?

Let me try to explain it in another way.
When conditions are light, when the conditions are the type when a PG could

be flying Funston, if a PG is in the air, most pilots would NOT want to

launch, not because they don't want to, but they don't want to get waked or

driven to the beach. Because they won't be able to fly and get around the PG

SAFELY. So a PG is effectively stopping hg pilots from flying AT ALL. Do you

think this is fair?

When a PG flies into our no PG fly zone with HG already in the air, they are

forcing the HG pilots to go around them (not always possible), or land to

get out of the way. Especially in the south bowl, which tends to be

marginal, how is this fair? What gives PG the right to take away our right

to fly?

Over the last 37 years of the Fellow Feathers, we have poured thousands of

man-hours of time and tens of thousands of $ into maintaining and improving

Fort Funston. Just this year we've put over $5000 in improvements and

maintenance & over 150 man-hours on the wood chips. Look at the launch and

LZ wood chips project. The new drinking fountain. All the repairs to weather

instruments, web site and new camera views. We pay $2700 to the GGNRA every

year. I personally went out and bought another valve for the drinking

fountain and replaced it just to keep the dog walkers happy.
If push comes to shove, who do you think the GGNRA will side with? The guys

who pour their hearts out and $ to improve the parks or the guys who just

want to crash it?

Part of my reason for pushing to stop these incursions now is to try to

prevent what could be a disastrous situation, where some hg pilot gets

entangled in a pg and they both auger in. I'm sure none of us want to see

this happen.

Let's be clear about this - it's a few PG pilots that are creating this

conflict, by trying to take away rights of HG pilots to fly Funston safely,

by flying in the Funston no fly PG zone. It's only reasonable that we take

steps to preserve our right to fly and right to fly safely.

Jose, I really appreciate your efforts to establish rational dialog. If you

or other PG pilots can come up with reasonable ideas on how to deal with

this issue, please let me know. Get me a contact number, and I'll give him a

call.

spork wrote:I have no demands. I never had any demands.

Rick, on April 25th, 2011, at 11:33 pm, you quoted your email correspondence in a post as saying:

What I am proposing is that a very small number of existing Funston HG pilots be given access to land their PG's in the south corner of the LZ so that we can hang with our hang gliding friends, carpool, etc.

Is that no longer of interest to you?

bobk wrote:So there we have it from "King Spork" himself...

I'm beginning to understand why you are so universally disliked by all sides.

Rick, you are not "King of the Paragliders"

I am not king of anything - nor have I ever made such a ridiculous claim. I'm beginning to understand why you are so universally disliked by all sides.

So you are not in any position to make any deals...

I'm not looking to make any deals. If you had paid any attention at all, you'd know I haven't said anything about such an arrangement in a year or more.

and the Funston club would be foolish to give any ground since you have nothing to offer in return.

No one is asking them to give any ground.

Excuse me, but you're not asking them to give up airspace.

Nope - it's not theirs to give up - and I'm not in a negotiation with them or anyone else - nor are you.

Rick, I've asked you before to state what it is that you want so we're not talking around in circles. Do you want landing area or not?

Bob - you're an outside instigator. You don't speak for the Fellow Feathers, and they've not indicated that they're looking to discuss this with me or anyone else. If and when they indicate that they'd like to talk, and appoint you as their representative - then I might feel more compelled to respond to your unfounded leading questions.

I'd like to second Tom's comments about paragliding pilots keeping hang gliding pilots grounded. It happens all the time at Torrey Pines when the conditions are light. In those conditions, hang glider pilots could easily launch, fly, and land on top ... except that the paraglider traffic makes it far too likely that they'll end up on the beach. I can't tell you the number of hours we've lost standing near launch watching the paragliders scratch along the ridge.

Honestly, if you want to experience this, please come down to Torrey. I think this is something you have to experience first hand to really understand the impact that paragliding can have on hang gliding in a confined ridge situation like you have at Funston.

spork wrote:Bob - you're an outside instigator. You don't speak for the Fellow Feathers, and they've not indicated that they're looking to discuss this with me or anyone else. If and when they indicate that they'd like to talk, and appoint you as their representative - then I might feel more compelled to respond to your unfounded leading questions.

Rick, I am someone who speaks from 7 years of experience with hang gliding and paragliding conflicts at a ridge site. I've watched what's happened at one of our most treasured sites in San Diego. How often have you flown at Torrey Pines to experience this yourself?

bobk wrote:Rick, I am someone who speaks from 7 years of experience with hang gliding and paragliding conflicts at a ridge site.

Get back to me when you speak for the Fellow Feathers - and aren't looking for a fight.

spork wrote:Get back to me when you speak for the Fellow Feathers - and aren't looking for a fight.

Whether I speak for Fellow Feathers (which I don't) or whether I'm looking for a fight (which I'm not) does not negate my comments on how paragliding has impacted hang gliding at Torrey Pines. If you are not convinced of that, then please come down here and experience it first hand. I'll lend you my Falcon 195 if you don't want to bring a glider.

In my recent trips I've been getting 4 to 5 hours of air time per day at your site. Do you know why I enjoy it so much? Because it's such a joy to not have to dodge paragliders and not be continually stressed about being driven to the beach.

You have a true hang gliding treasure at Fort Funston, and I think most reasonable PG pilots can respect that. I think it's unfortunate that you seem so determined to destroy that hang gliding treasure for a very small gain to the paragliding community.

I'll assert again, that I've seen what has happened to Torrey. Many of our hang gliding pilots don't even like to fly there any more. I've been fighting a 5 year battle to try to regain a foothold for hang gliding at that site. PLEASE DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN TO FUNSTON!!!!

bobk wrote:I think it's unfortunate that you seem so determined to destroy that hang gliding treasure for a very small gain to the paragliding community.

And you conclude this how - because Tom posted pictures of paragliders in front of the Funston Ridge that are NOT me? Because he escalated something to the USHPA against the club's best interests - that USHPA does not want to be involved in?

If you're going to address me - address my comments - not some nonsense argument that you made up yourself.

PLEASE DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN TO FUNSTON!!!!

WTF!? Who do you think I am - king of the paragliders?

Rick, I asked a simple question:

bobk wrote:... to state what it is that you want so we're not talking around in circles. Do you want a landing area or not?

You still haven't stated what it is that you want. Can you do that for me and for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading this? Please?

Tom great, the only way this is going to be resolved is if we communicate with BAPA and encourage everyone to respect the old school boundaries, maybe even update them if needed. That doesn't mean that everyone will obey those boundaries because not all mussel rock pilots are fellow feathers/bapa/ushpa members but it's what has kept paragliders out of funston airspace till the recent past. It's due to the threats and bullying from our community, as during the meeting you referred to last year, that the paraglider pilots started flying north of the training bowl and into funston airspace. They educated themselves and are aware of their right to fly in that airspace.

There are no FAR's being violated and they may not be members of any of the organizations therefore it doesn't matter what fellow feathers, bapa or ushpa say, the airspace is open to all aviation and those pilots flying in it are very well aware of this, including those pilots in the pictures and the pilot during the air races. They violated no FAR's since there was no notam filed to keep them out of the air. If you want to change this, you will have to take it up with the FAA or have an open dialog with those pilots. Regardless of the excuses for keeping paragliders out of the airspace fellow feathers, bapa, ushpa, and the ggnra have no authority to do so, only the FAA has that authority. If this war is started that is what you will face along with a barrage of pilots to prove to you that they are right, it has already started. This already happened at the dumps, resulting in more ppa members than ushpa members flying that site, this brewing fight being a direct result of that battle.

We should begin by toning it down and opening up the lines of communication with BAPA and yes, this also means with Rick (spork). This means civil discussions, not the threatening funston yelling matches of the past. It doesn't matter to me how it goes, I am just making you aware of what you are facing by threatening those pilots with pulling their ratings or reporting them to the police. Unless they are ushpa pilots none of this matters since there is nothing that can be done to them for flying in class g airspace. Figure out a way to communicate with bapa, encourage pilots, both hg & pg, to respect each other and abide by those boundaries. This will have to start with the hanggliding community respecting the paragliding community. That is the choice we have to make or we will have to deal with the FAA since I can guarantee you, the majority of those pilots are not ushpa members.

I don't know how to get it back but it's that old school gentleman's agreement from over 20 years ago that's going to resolve this issue.

Tom, let's take this offline and figure out a way to diffuse the situation. This has become another rickbob thread and although they have both flown funston in the past, neither of them fly funston on a regular basis now, any discussion here would be too distracting. I'll catch up with you at the fort.

First I'd like to point out that Bob K called and spoke with me for what must have been two hours. He made it quite clear to me that my posts are being taken to mean something that simply isn't true. He believed (believes?) that I have an agenda to open the Fort to paragliding in some manner. This simply isn't the case. I proposed (maybe a year ago) an arrangement that would allow pilots with a minimum of both H3 and P3 to land in a corner of the LZ - but not fly the ridge, not do touch & go's, etc. That discussion ended long ago. I have made no demands or requests since that time - and I'm making none now.

Bob also asked that I make my agenda crystal clear for everyone's benefit - and so I will...

I'm responding on a forum with my thoughts, facts, and opinions. Whenever I see something like "Paragliding violations at Fort Funston" I will set the record straight. There are no paragliding "violations" at Funston. That is intentional propaganda intended to incite. Tom is obviously welcome to follow his own conscience when determining how to represent the club. But I firmly believe he is walking the club down the road to ruin. I think it's reasonably well accepted that the Fellow Feathers have a bad reputation among the flying community. That reputation unquestionably improved notably for a time - and I'm actually confident I played a role in that change. Some of the folks that assisted in making that change have moved on, and the club is beginning to earn back its old reputation.

Jose wrote:I don't know how to get it back but it's that old school gentleman's agreement from over 20 years ago that's going to resolve this issue.

Jose, I very much appreciate your contribution - but as you might guess, we're not quite in complete agreement. It' my belief that there has never been a "gentleman's agreement". I think if you tried to express what that "agreement" was, it could only read "paragliders stay out, or else..." An actual agreement must involve mutual consideration. There must be something in it for both parties. An example of an agreement might be "if paragliders will allow us this airspace, we will work with the authorities to help the PG community to obtain a legal place to fly". Saying "if paragliders allow us this airspace we will not endanger their lives" is *not* and agreement.

If someone can point me to something that looks like an equitable agreement that has ever been reached I will stand corrected. If and when an equitable agreement is reached, whether I directly benefit or not, I will do my best to educate people with respect to that agreement and encourage them to abide by it for the mutual benefit of both communities.

But I must say... I am NOT in any way negotiating with anyone or promoting an agenda at this time - nor do I have any plans to. I did make a proposal some time back. It was denied. And that was the end of it as far as I am concerned. I will continue to voice my opinions (and offer facts) about the pilots that choose to assert their equal rights to uncontrolled airspace.

spork wrote:First I'd like to point out that Bob K called and spoke with me for what must have been two hours.

It was a good conversation. Thanks for your time. I think people should talk much more often!!! My phone number is 858-204-7499 if anyone else wants to talk person-to-person.

spork wrote:It' my belief that there has never been a "gentleman's agreement".

I have to disagree here. When I drove through from San Diego to fly the Oregon coast in 2004 or 2005 (I can look it up if the date matters) I only brought my paraglider. I was in contact with my PG instructor from San Diego and he told me that I could fly the "dumps" but not Funston itself. I did visit Funston with my paraglider in my van (wishing I could fly), and yet I did not fly because I was honoring the "gentleman's agreement" that was well known as far as San Diego.

I am sure if people asked around, there's plenty of similar evidence of this "gentleman's agreement" being honored for many years ... maybe decades ... by both local and visiting pilots at Funston.

I appreciate your time as well Bob. It should be pointed out that you spent additional hours talking with me after the initial call. It wasn't always easy going, but I was certainly impressed with the effort you made.

With respect to the "gentleman's agreement" I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You were told there was an agreement, and you abided that "agreement" without investigating it.

Perhaps we can agree that there has been a long time understanding - and that is "don't fly here - or else..."

If anyone is aware of anything that sounds more like an agreement than that I am very eager to hear it.

Now your onto something......
I think one of the main issues is.....ther are no more "gentlemen"....so that type of agreement just won't work anymore...
Jose, your spot on...as harsh as it sounds.....thanks for your input.
Diev

diev wrote:Now your onto something......
I think one of the main issues is.....ther are no more "gentlemen"....

And yet no one has attempted to express what the "gentleman's" agreement is. Would you say the gentlemen are the ones willing to discuss possible solutions, or the ones that wish to police airspace they have no claim to through intimidation?