Flyfunston

During the last 2 years, I have recorded 7 incidents of paraglider pilots endangering pilots at Fort Funston by flying into the no paraglider fly airspace, 4 of which have occurred in the last month. These are by no means all of the cases, only those that I have recorded.

Following are a series of photos and a list of dates and times when paragliders have intruded into the Fort Funston no paraglider fly airspace:

8/14/2010 7:46pm

7/14/2011 8:00pm
I have a series of pictures showing the pilot performing aerobatic maneuvers directly in front of the observation deck, endangering spectators.

12/10/2011 3:42pm
Two paragliders flew into the Funston airspace, obstructing the airspace over the entire Funston immediate ridge, preventing the launch of hang gliders.


In the last month, there have been 4 incidents with paragliders in the Fort Funston airspace:

During the Fort Funston Air Races on August 25, 2012 at approximately 2pm, a paraglider pilot flew into the area immediately to the south of launch, endangering pilots in the air races, and forcing us to suspend the Air Races until he departed the area. The pilot appeared to be in communication with other pilots using the same ham radio frequency we were using. The pilot was asked to leave the airspace, and he refused.

9/6/2012 5:31pm
9/16/2012 5:02pm
9/19/2012 1:31pm

The Fort Funston airspace, from the south bowl to the north gap, is a small airspace. Even in the best of conditions, it cannot support a large number of gliders and the presence of paragliders is an immediate danger to hang glider pilots. For this reason paragliders have been banned from this region.

We want the USHPA to take action against these offending pilots to prevent this from happening in the future and avoid an accident at Fort Funston.
If these pilots continue to endanger the Fort Funston site, we will file reckless endangerment charges against these pilots.
Please let us know what actions you intend to take.

I don't know how to post the pixs here, so I've uploaded them to one of my websites:

I've posted the pictures at:
www.custompowersolar.com/paragliders_at_funston

I spoke with Rich Hass of USHPA.

One of our options is to have their ratings pulled.
We need to know who they are. Can anyone ID them from their wings?

tom rust wrote:I don't know how to post the pixs here ...

Does this help? You can use the scroll bar(s) to the right (and possibly bottom) of the pictures to see them all.

Tom Rust said:

I spoke with Rich Hass of USHPA.

One of our options is to have their ratings pulled.

Good call Tom. Perhaps I'll call Rich and the GGNRA rangers tomorrow. Let's definitely escalate this thing. How do you suppose that'll work out?

Maybe it'd be a good idea to get into the actual violations of FAR part 103. You're doing a bang-up job if you really want to get the site closed down.

I kind of get the air races issue. But from the little I heard, our words over the radio to the PG pilot weren't very polite, and he returned the favor. Did we explain that we had a planned event taking place?

What do we care if a PG flies by all alone? Our club's agreement with the GGNRA is concerning HG. PG or skydiving or sailplane activity isn't our business. The GGNRA can take it up with them if they have a problem with what they're doing.

If a PG makes it to Funston, they have the same sense of self-preservation as we do. If it were me, I wouldn't want to enter the fray of HGs on the Funston ridge. I'd quickly see the problem and get scared out of there, not to mention yelled at by a crowd of people on launch. Has a PG ever mixed it up with HGs, going back and forth on the Funston ridge? At the Dumps, have they ever done anything but give HGs a wide berth (if we don't surprise them)? We make plenty of safety errors on our own and have no need to fear PGs for the possibility that they somehow someday might try to fly Funston with us.

As for Torrey and POM, it's either fly together or don't fly at all. Different situation.

Dave

I am an H4/P4, and I enjoy flying both wings.

I first came to Fort Funston around 2004 or maybe 2005. I had my Arcus (paraglider) with me on that trip, but no hang glider. I tried to arrange to rent a hang glider from a local instructor, but it didn't work out (through no fault of his). So I was a little aggravated that I couldn't fly Funston with my paraglider. That was then.

Now flash forward about 8 years after all I've seen happen at Torrey and a few other sites.

Even though I still fly both wings, I have come to recognize that hang gliding is in a fight for its life. Torrey has been taken over by a paragliding concession (no hang gliding lessons ... only paragliding). South side Point of the Mountain (as mentioned) is unflyable by hang gliders until the wind blows out the PGs. Even USHGA has been taken over as our President and Executive Director and Magazine Editor are all primarily paragliding pilots.

With all respect to Rick, I think the benefits of him being able to land in some small corner of Funston are far outshadowed by the threat to hang gliding at that site if paragliding is allowed to gain any footholds at all. Once that camel's nose is under the tent, there goes the tent.

Torrey has been "ground zero" for the paragliding take-over, and it's been an uphill battle to try to reverse what's already happened there.

Finally, I want to state very clearly that I am not against paragliding. I think it's a great sport, and I do think we should try to get along. But there have been too many examples where paragliding pilots have taken over sites and given no consideration for how their actions are hurting the sport of hang gliding. Rick, if you want to create some good will for your cause, then why don't you help with some of the cases where paragliding is strangling hang gliding? In San Diego, for example, the paragliding pilots have completely taken over the San Diego Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. Because of their takeover of the SDHGPA (and their takeover of USHPA), there isn't a single pilot on the 7 member Torrey Pines Soaring Council who flys hang gliders at Torrey. Not ONE!! All of the supposed "HG/PG" representatives are paragliding pilots. That's what we got for trying to "play nice" with the Torrey PG crowd. I'm sure it started innocently enough ("we just want to share the air with you"), but it has ended up as a disaster for hang gliding. We've been fighting an uphill battle ever since. Please don't let that happen to Funston!!!

Regarding Rich Hass...

Tom, I want to warn you about my experience with Rich Hass. I've communicated with him on many occasions (in person, on the phone, on forums, and via email). He always sounds like he's going to do something reasonable, then he ends up stabbing hang gliding in the back. I've got many examples where he's done this. The best example is (again) the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. Rich Hass voted to support balancing the Council, so he looked great on paper. But his actions (not on paper) have been just the opposite. In all of his time as President and Secretary of USHPA (both Executive Committee positions) he hasn't lifted a finger to actually change the balance on that Council. In another case (when I was Regional Director), I reported directly to Rich about an incident where a USHPA instructor was radio-flying an unrated PG student who crashed into hang gliders at Torrey (fortunately, there were no injuries). There were many instructors on radio at that time, so I asked the student who his particular instructor was. One of the Torrey instructors (Brad Geary) told the student NOT to tell me (a USHPA Regional Director) who his instructor was. So I contacted Rich about this, and he sounded very concerned - as if he might actually do something. Guess what, no action was every taken. So based on all of my experience with Rich Hass, I publicly predict that he will take no action in this case. Let's watch to see if he proves me wrong.

bobk wrote:Even though I still fly both wings...

I thought you told me on the phone yesterday that you haven't flown a paraglider in years.

With all respect to Rick, I think the benefits of him being able to land in some small corner of Funston are far outshadowed by the threat to hang gliding at that site if paragliding is allowed to gain any footholds at all. Once that camel's nose is under the tent, there goes the tent.

I strongly disagree. The HG/PG community can easily come to an agreement that will not result in PG's flying the Funston ridge, or a subset of HG pilots can continue to act aggressively toward PG's both in the air and on the ground. That option results in either a site closure or a biwingual site.

Rick, if you want to create some good will for your cause...

I have been attacked, threatened, and lied about. I'm not in the good will business at the moment.

That's what we got for trying to "play nice" with the PG crowd.

Good point. Keep playing rough. Let's see where it gets us.

In all of his time as President and Secretary of USHPA (both Executive Committee positions) he hasn't lifted a finger to actually change the balance on that Council. I publicly predict that he will take no action in this case. Let's watch and see what happens.

If you're talking about the case of paragliders flying in unregulated airspace, I predict you're right. USHPA does not govern that airspace.

spork wrote:

bobk wrote:Even though I still fly both wings...

I thought you told me on the phone yesterday that you haven't flown a paraglider in years.

I don't think I said that Rick, so maybe you misunderstood me. I've flown my PG many many times in the last few years. My most recent flight was just this spring. I would have flown my PG even more recently, but it's beginning to exhibit porosity problems. So you are wrong to quote me as having said that I haven't flown a paraglider in years.

spork wrote:

Bob wrote:Once that camel's nose is under the tent, there goes the tent.

I strongly disagree. The HG/PG community can easily come to an agreement that will not result in PG's flying the Funston ridge, or a subset of HG pilots can continue to act aggressively toward PG's both in the air and on the ground. That option results in either a site closure or a biwingual site.

As I mentioned on the phone, I do not support aggressive behavior in the air (or on the ground). However, it is unrealistic of you to expect that once you get the ability to land at Funston, that someone else won't then want to launch and someone else won't then want to fly the ridge. You seem like a pretty smart fellow, and I know that you have to see that's what will happen. There goes the tent, and Funston becomes another Torrey Pines.

spork wrote:

Bob wrote:Rick, if you want to create some good will for your cause...

I have been attacked, threatened, and lied about. I'm not in the good will business at the moment.

Hey, I've been attacked, threatened, and lied about as well. But I'm happy to take the time to talk to you and even try to help you in some other way. But I cannot endorse giving any ground on this issue because I really believe that it will only lead to more ground being demanded. We can respectfully disagree, but I think most people who understand human nature will agree with my analysis.

spork wrote:

Bob wrote:That's what we got for trying to "play nice" with the PG crowd.

Good point. Keep playing rough. Let's see where it gets us.

Review Britian's history with the Third Reich (especially the role of Neville Chamberlain). It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that sometimes you make progress with the carrot, and sometimes you make progress with the stick.

spork wrote:

Bob wrote:in all of his time as President and Secretary of USHPA (both Executive Committee positions) he hasn't lifted a finger to actually change the balance on that Council. I publicly predict that he will take no action in this case. Let's watch and see what happens.

If you're talking about the case of paragliders flying in unregulated airspace, I predict you're right. USHPA does not govern that airspace.

No, I'm talking about paragliders violating an understanding with the Fellow Feathers and the GGNRA that paragliders will not fly the ridge. I have a letter from Rich Hass threatening me because I was requesting information from the Soaring Council which would have made it clear that the Council was unbalanced. In his letter, Rich Hass wrote: "USHPA reserves all rights to take whatever action it deems is in the best interest in the USHPA pilot community at-large to protect this important flying site." So USHPA claimed (in my case) that they reserved the ALL RIGHTS to take WHATEVER ACTION they deemed necessary. Let's see what they do in this case. As I said, I predict zero.

bobk wrote: So you are wrong to quote me as having said that I haven't flown a paraglider in years.

I didn't quote you. You're wrong to claim I did. It seems I misunderstood a statement you made to me on the phone.

As I mentioned on the phone, I do not support aggressive behavior in the air (or on the ground). However, it is unrealistic of you to expect that once you get the ability to land at Funston, that someone else won't then want to launch and someone else won't then want to fly the ridge. You seem like a pretty smart fellow, and I know that you have to see that's what will happen. There goes the tent, and Funston becomes another Torrey Pines.

I disagree. I think having an actual agreement with the PG community is clearly a better way to go - for everyone.

Review Britian's history with the Third Reich (especially the role of Neville Chamberlain). It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that sometimes you make progress with the carrot, and sometimes you make progress with the stick.

So continuing to police airspace you don't have any legal right to through threats and dangerous behavior is the road to progress in your mind!?

I'm talking about paragliders violating an understanding with the Fellow Feathers and the GGNRA that paragliders will not fly the ridge.

Neither the Fellow Feathers nor the GGNRA has the right to make an agreement to keep a 3rd party out of airspace they don't control.

Just so we're clear on this, I don't hate paraglider pilots - ANYBODY who loves free flight gets my vote. I don't think there is any lack of communication here either. The paraglider pilots know full well that the Funston space from the south bowl northward is off limits.
The flyable ridge down at Westlake is a far better launch area than Funston, with a shallower, more gradual slope with less turbulence, and the paraglider pilots have over 2 miles of ridge, with the high cliffs of Westlake which produce much more lift than Funston, to play with.
Here at Funston it's unusual to get more than 300' over, except in a sheer. We have more than 400 pilots who fly here, and on any weekend 30-50 gliders can attempt to get in the air. We have a tiny 1/4mi to work with, not including the even small
er south bowl which is always poorer lift and sketchy relative to the main ridge.
A paraglider flies much slower than a hang glider, takes up a much greater vertical volume, and throws off a larger wake. When a paraglider enters the Funston area airspace he effectively prevents hang gliders from flying, by dramatically increasing the danger to a hang glider pilot. A hg pilot can't go around him or end up on the beach or crashing on the cliff.
These are issues that were identified when paragliders first came on the scene, and it was decided then that paragliding would be banned from the local Funston airspace purely for safety reasons.

Wanting to fly Funston by a paraglider pilot is just plain greed. A paraglider pilot has a huge space to play in yet wants more, and at the expense of other pilots? To me that is just arrogance - sad and pathetic.

I know a number of paraglider pilots and most of them respect our having this tiny airspace over Funston for hg only. We get along great flying together at Westlake.

I spoke yesterday with Rich Hass, President of USHPA, who only flies paragliders. He also deplores this flagrant violation and one of the options discussed at his suggestion was pulling the ratings of the offending pilots.

I don't condone violence against paragliders - the last thing I want to see is anyone physically hurt over this. But I'm not going to sit around and let a few self-absorbed paraglider pilots prevent hang gliders from flying at Funston. We will identify the offending pilots and if they don't stop, we will petition USHPA to have their ratings pulled. And if they continue to try to fly Funston we will file complaints with the police.

spork wrote:It seems I misunderstood a statement you made to me on the phone.

That's fine. Let's leave it at that.

spork wrote:I think having an actual agreement with the PG community is clearly a better way to go - for everyone.

You can't have "an actual agreement with the PG community" because the PG community is not an entity. Even if every PG pilot in USHPA signed an agreement not to push it any further, what would you do about pilots visiting from France or Spain? What would you do about pilots who haven't been born yet? None of them has signed that agreement.

As I said, if the Fellow Feathers gives an inch on this, I guarantee that someone - maybe not you - but SOMEONE will come along and want another inch and then another. There goes the tent. I hope the GGNRA and anyone else who cares about harmony at the site will recognize this and support the status quo as a reasonable way of ensuring that hang gliding is preserved at Fort Funston.

Rick, I enjoyed our phone call, but we don't seem to be having the same success in our forum postings. Maybe we should stick to the phone.

P.S. Tom was posting his response as I was posting mine, and I agree with his analysis ... except that I am not as confident that Rich Hass will actually follow through.

For the record, here's an email message that I sent to Rich Hass on February 18th, 2012 - the day of the incident that I described in the message. I had called Rich earlier that same day to report the incident immediately after it happened while it was fresh in my mind. Rich listened and asked me to send him an email message describing it in detail so USHPA could take appropriate action. Rich said that this was a particularly serious incident because a tandem passenger was involved and might have been hurt. So I dutifully wrote up the entire incident and I even included other incidents as further background on this instructor's behavior. Here's the message that I sent to Rich Hass on February 18th, 2012 (just about 7 months ago):

Rich Hass (copy to others),

I'm writing to report the tandem incident that I experienced today (February 18th, 2012) at the Torrey Pines Gliderport.

The wind was relatively strong (12 to 15mph) crossing from the South (maybe 220 degrees on a 270 degree facing cliff).

I had launched my paraglider around 3:30pm and had a short flight (less than about 1/2 hour). During the mid portion of the flight, I was flying northbound along the "north face" (steepest and most consistent portion of the site) with the ridge to my right. Brad Geary was flying as a tandem "instructor" with a passenger. There were no other gliders in the area. As I was flying northbound, Brad Geary began to overtake me to my left (away from the cliff). This is a violation of the ridge rules which are in place at Torrey Pines. The ridge rules dictate that an overtaking glider should pass on the ridge side so that the pilot being overtaken is not "pinched" into the cliff. Brad Geary passed so close that his right wingtip was nearly touching my own left wingtip - pinning me against the ridge with little room for error. As soon as I saw him pinning me against the ridge, I realized that his intention was to "wake" me with his heavier glider. Given the circumstances (and my proximity to the ridge), I feared that the wake from his heavier glider so close might cause a collapse or similar loss of control potentially sending me into the cliff. So I called out very loudly for Brad to turn away because he was endangering all of us (myself, himself, and his tandem passenger). I called out several times. Brad could clearly hear my calls, but he persisted for a short time creeping closer and closer to my glider. I continued to warn him of the dangers, and he eventually turned out away from the ridge returning to the south where he landed with his passenger a short time later. I believe it was the presence of his passenger (who probably didn't appreciate being put in obvious danger) that caused Brad to break off his game of "chicken" trying to pin me against the cliff.

This is not the first time that Brad Geary has played "chicken" with other pilots at the Torrey Pines Gliderport. I have seen him do a similar thing to David Beardslee when Dave was flying a tandem flight. In that case, Brad Geary flew directly at Dave forcing him out of the lift band resulting in a beach landing. These are not "mistakes". These are willful acts of endangering the lives of pilots and passengers. These acts are not in keeping with the responsibility of a tandem pilot or a USHPA instructor.

Additionally, as you may recall, Brad Geary was at the center of another incident 2 years ago (February 7th, 2010). Brad's student (who was flying at Torrey WITHOUT a USHPA membership and WITHOUT any rating) had crashed into the hang glider setup area. Fortunately, no one was hurt. I was a Regional Director at that time, and I gave the student a short time to calm down before I approached and asked to speak to his instructor. As soon as I asked the question, Brad Geary inserted himself and told the student to NOT tell a Regional Director who his instructor was. It turns out that Brad himself was the instructor, and the student was Brad's younger brother. I wrote to Dave Broyles and the EC about the incident (see attachment below), but I did not take further action at that time. However, Brad Geary's subsequent disregard for the safety of himself and others is now forming a pattern.

I therefore request that USHPA investigate these incidents and take the appropriate action. Furthermore, I am giving notice that I have warned USHPA about the willful and dangerous actions of Brad Geary, and I believe it is USHPA's responsibility to take appropriate action at this time. Please keep me apprised of your actions in this matter.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski

Guess what Rich Hass did? Yup ... nothing.

The paraglider pilots know full well that the Funston space from the south bowl northward is off limits.

I assure you that area is not off-limits.

A paraglider flies much slower than a hang glider...

Many paragliders fly faster than some of the hang gliders at Funston.

When a paraglider enters the Funston area airspace he effectively prevents hang gliders from flying...

It's ridiculous to argue that HG and PG mix on the rest of the 5 mile ridge, both lower and higher, and in almost every flying site in the U.S. - but not on that 1/4 mile of ridge you wish to claim.

Wanting to fly Funston by a paraglider pilot is just plain greed.

Wanting to claim a portion of the airspace as your own, without having any such airspace reserved for PG is just plain greed. Attempting to protect that which is not yours through threats and intimidation is no different than the gang members that claim a street corner as their own and spray paint property that is not their own.

I spoke yesterday with Rich Hass, President of USHPA, who only flies paragliders. He also deplores this flagrant violation and one of the options discussed at his suggestion was pulling the ratings of the offending pilots.

I spoke to Rich 30 seconds ago. I can tell you that Tom has grossly mischaracterized his position.

We will identify the offending pilots and if they don't stop, we will petition USHPA to have their ratings pulled. And if they continue to try to fly Funston we will file complaints with the police.

Good plan. I'll see what the GGNRA and the local police have to say on the topic. I definitely think Tom should push this as far as he can.

spork wrote:I spoke to Rich 30 seconds ago. I can tell you that Tom has grossly mischaracterized his position.

Hmmm... who was it who recently said we cannot trust what RIch Hass says? I suspect Rich Hass said one thing to Tom and then another thing to Spork.

Face it, Rich Hass is a PG pilot and he sees paragliding as the future of USHPA. He did nothing to help hang gliding at Torrey and I predict he will do nothing to protect hang gliding af Funston.

Just read the SOPs that Rich Hass presided over - and passed!! - which required all clubs to be biwingual!! It's right there in black and white.

Tom, you watch what Rich Hass actually does in this case, and then please think about how nice it would be to have a choice in national hang gliding associations.

It's my understanding that Torrey is not a USHPA site. Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong. It's also my understanding that Funston is one of the very few sites that have effectively been grandfathered in as a non-biwingual site. Interestingly, no one is pushing to make it a biwingual site. As far as I know, I'm the only one that made any proposal at all, and it did not involve flying in the "Funston air space". And, I haven't promoted that proposal in the last year or more.

If the site becomes biwingual it will be a result of Tom's escalation.

Rob Johnson just offered the following:

"Are you deliberately looking to make me your enemy and move this to a fist fight?"

The answer is - NOPE. But that's every bit as much of a threat as I made to Steve when so many people decided to lie about me. In other words - not a threat at all.

spork wrote:It's my understanding that Torrey is not a USHPA site. Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong.

I think you're wrong, but it depends on what you mean by a "USHPA site". The Torrey concessionaire does not purchase USHPA site insurance (although the Torrey Hawks applied for it and were denied by Mark Forbes), but Torrey does require current USHPA ratings and current USHPA memberships and current USHPA pilot insurance to fly there. I think that's a pretty strong indication that it's a USHPA site. And unlike almost any other site in the country, USHPA actually has a seat on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council which represents (supposedly) all user groups at Torrey. There are 7 members on the Soaring Council and 2 of them (including USHPA) are there to represent the combined sports of hang gliding and paragliding. Neither of those two representatives (USHPA's or the SDHGPA's) has flown a hang glider at Torrey in the last 5 or maybe 10 years. The USHPA representative (Ken Baier) is biwingual (H5/P5) but he doesn't fly hang gliders anymore and he runs a paragliding business (Airjunkies Paragliding). The other "HG/PG" club is the SDHGPA and they are almost a completely paragliding club (paragliding presidents, vice presidents, majority of members, majority of officers, and majority of selected representatives). There is no limitation on adding new clubs to the Soaring Council, and the RC pilots actually have 3 clubs representing their one sport. So why should hang gliding and paragliding (two separate sports with separate skills and separate ratings) be lumped together with only 2 representatives total? I have asked USHPA to work to add the Torrey Hawks so we would have at least one club out of 8 that represents hang gliding. USHPA (and Rich Hass) have done NOTHING to fix that imbalance, and yet there they are occupying one seat out of seven on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. So USHPA has their fingers (and fingerprints) all over Torrey Pines.

spork wrote:It's also my understanding that Funston is one of the very few sites that have effectively been grandfathered in as a non-biwingual site.

Show me that in writing. The USHPA SOP changes were very explicit about forcing clubs to not "discriminate" based on wing type. Some of those SOPs were withdrawn, but others are still there and are just being "overlooked" for now. Why weren't they ALL withdrawn? Why not Rich? Why not Urs? There is no "grandfathering" clause in those SOPs, and they foreshadow the future of hang gliding within USHPA. Please read them for yourself and post with proof if I am wrong.

spork wrote:If the site becomes biwingual it will be a result of Tom's escalation.

If Funston becomes biwingual, it will be because the Funston club didn't stand up to USHPA by joining with the Torrey Hawks, the Tooele Hawks, and the SouthWest Texas Hang Gliders which are all USHPA Chapters and are all supporting a new HANG GLIDING Association with their dual membership in both USHPA and the US Hawks. We can see the writing on the wall with USHPA. Rich Hass isn't going to do anything to PG pilots who invade Funston's space. Just wait and see. And those biwingual club requirements in the SOP's weren't an accident. USHPA sees its future as paragliding, and the sooner we act on that, the better our chances of keeping hang gliding alive at Funston and everywhere else.

After all of that, let me say again that I am not against paragliding. If the sport of paragliding were being endangered I might have started the US Hawks Paragliding Association. But that's not the case. The sport of hang gliding is being endangered by the sport of paragliding, and the Funston club is wise to do what it can to keep that from happening there. As Tom has said, there is plenty of biwingual territory on that ridge for paragliders to enjoy. Why should they need to push hang gliding out of that last small section?

bobk wrote: As Tom has said, there is plenty of biwingual territory on that ridge for paragliders to enjoy. Why should they need to push hang gliding out of that last small section?

There's no point in addressing this strawman argument since no one has ever proposed any such thing.

spork wrote:

bobk wrote: As Tom has said, there is plenty of biwingual territory on that ridge for paragliders to enjoy. Why should they need to push hang gliding out of that last small section?

There's no point in addressing this strawman argument since no one has ever proposed any such thing.

I guarantee they will. It all starts with the camel's nose ... getting under the tent.

bobk wrote:I guarantee they will. It all starts with the camel's nose ... getting under the tent.

Evidence to the contrary. They appear to fly there now. It all starts with being bullied by people that try to control what's not theirs rather than coming to an equitable arrangement like civilized human beings.

bobk wrote:I think you're wrong, but it depends on what you mean by a "USHPA site"...

The president of USHPA says it's not a USHPA site. I can't find it on the USHPA listing for region 2. Whether a site requires members to have USHPA ratings and insurance has nothing to do with whether it's a USHPA site. The farmer that lets me tow from his field could require that I sign the USHPA waiver, have a USHPA rating, and USHPA insurance, but that doesn't make his field a USHPA site.

The president of USHPA says it's not a USHPA site.

Like I said earlier, it depends on what you mean by a "USHPA site". USHPA does have one of 7 seats on the Soaring Council, and the Torrey insurance policy relies on USHPA ratings and on individual USHPA pilot insurance as part of their coverage requirements. Personally, at this point, I wish USHPA would get off the Soaring Council since all they do is back the paragliding concession at that site.

But that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, so let me bring us back to the point:

I claim that if paraglider pilots are given landing rights at Fort Funston, then they will eventually want more and more and more. You claim that they won't.

I assert that the weight of human history stands behind my claim, and that wishful thinking stands behind yours.

Which do you think the Funston club should rely on when deciding what to do to protect hang gliding at Funston?

bobk wrote:Which do you think the Funston club should rely on when deciding what to do to protect hang gliding at Funston?

They have two easy choices...

1) They can shut the fuck up and let it go. Them choosing to escalate it won't end well.

2) They can act like civilized humans and come to a reasonable arrangement with the rest of the flying community. Trying to maintain soveriegnty through threats and intimidation hasn't proven the best approach in history either.

Either choice is far better than the road Tom seems to insist on leading them down.

spork wrote:They have two easy choices...

1) They can shut the fuck up and let it go. Them choosing to escalate it won't end well.

And couldn't they say the same about you? It seems that you're escalating it as well. Even worse, it seems that you've started it.

spork wrote:2) They can act like civilized humans and come to a reasonable arrangement with the rest of the flying community. Trying to maintain soveriegnty through threats and intimidation hasn't proven the best approach in history either.

Who is the "rest of the flying community" that you speak about? Who is the "king of the paragliders" whom all PG pilots will obey with 100% certainty once a deal is struck?

That's the problem. Even if the Fellow Feathers wanted to make a deal allowing paragliders to land in a corner of the LZ in exchange for them staying off the ridge, who would they make that deal with? Who would enforce it? And what if a paraglider pilot came along and said that he (or she) was not a party to that agreement and wanted to ignore it or demand even more "rights"? So even if the club wanted to accept your arrangement, there's no way to enforce it other than what may be happening right now. So if it's going to degenerate to the current situation again (with PG pilots ignoring agreements and flying where they want), then why on earth would the Fellow Feathers give up anything to end up in an actually worse position?

Why?