Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: USHGA

1397 articles, page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13 

Rincon Trail Appeal Accepted by Carpinteria City Council

Fri, Apr 1 2022, 12:56:08 pm MDT

Santa Barbara launch site

Foundation for Free Flight|petition|Santa Barbara Soaring Association|site|USHGA

https://www.independent.com/2022/03/30/rincon-trail-appeal-accepted-by-carpinteria-city-council

Santa Barbara’s ‘Soaring’ Community Appealed a Planning Commission Decision from January

Three appeals were filed regarding the Carpinteria Planning Commission’s decision on the Rincon Trail Project — a 2,800-foot bike and pedestrian trail connecting the city to Rincon Beach Park — leading the Carpinteria City Council to conditionally accept the appeals, reversing the decision and sending city staff back to the drawing board to come up with another alternative.

The major push wasn’t against the trail itself but instead surrounded concerns over bicycle and pedestrian safety and preserving the favorite flying spot for the local soaring community. Paragliders and hang-gliding enthusiasts flock to the Carpinteria Bluffs to fly out from their favorite launching point, called “Little Diamondhead.” The option chosen by the planning commission in January, “Alternative 3,” would have forced the gliders to launch elsewhere.

One of the three appellants was attorney Stan Barankiewicz, on behalf of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association. Pilots and members of the association, along with others from the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Foundation for Free Flight, Friends of Bates Beach, and Santa Barbara Bike Coalition were among those included in the letters urging the city to appeal the decision. A petition was also circulated and accrued more than 2,500 signatures.

Discuss "Rincon Trail Appeal Accepted by Carpinteria City Council" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Mitch McAleer's take on the RRRG trial

Fri, Mar 25 2022, 12:26:51 pm MDT

He was in the court room

Andrei Firtat|Brad Hill|Crestline Soaring Society|Gil Dodgen|GPS|injury|insurance|lawyer|Marcello de Barros|Martin Palmaz|midair collision|Mitchell "Mitch" McAleer|PASA|Peter Pivka|RRRG|Tim Herr|USHGA|USHPA

Mitch writes:

The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association executive management lies, all the time.

Mitchell McAleer

November 01 2021 at 10:36 PM

I spent three days in San Bernardino court watching the Peter Pivka, USHPA vs. Andrei Firtat trial. The USHPA, Tim Herr, and hired attorney Kirshbaum are defending Peter Pivka, a known liar, expelled from the USHPA, and the Crestline Soaring Society for lying about the mid air incident he caused, badly injuring Andrei, resulting in 4 fused upper lumbar vertebrae, long term care, loss of work, and long term chronic back pain for the victim of Peter Pivka's colossal ego, coupled with poor judgment and poor piloting skills.

At breaks in the trial Pivka walks from the defendant's chair, past me in the gallery never looking me in the eye, head high, shoulders back, a purposefully arrogant liar. Tim Herr, the lifetime USHGA, USHPA attorney is no different.

Pivka came to my house the day after the incident in 2017, asking for a couple broken upper brake lines replaced. He told me his version of the mid air story, claiming Andrei appeared below him in a steep climbing turn and impacted trailing edge of Andrei's canopy to Pivka's chest. Marcello de Barros came up the following day and showed me Andrei's GPS track, a virtually straight course along the front of Cloud peak ridge until impact and a straight line descent under a canopy collapsed by Pivka's body running into the trailing edge until Andrei's glider stalled and fell 100 feet to impact with the terrain above the 750 launch.

After looking at Andrei's GPS track, it's clear Peter Pivka was lying, and the cause of the mid air. From the GPS track and witnesses in the air that day Pivka was trying to milk the last weak lift and stay above Andrei, 2 minutes before this incident, Andrei turned 180º away from Pivka, who then followed him around the north west face of the Cloud peak ridge toward regionals launch, turning 180º left traveling toward the 750 for at least 200 yards, attempting to stay higher, or possibly wing walk on Andrei's canopy, to be cool, you know, like the pro's, except he caused a total collapse by impacting trailing edge at chest level continuing forward without any attempt to slow down or change course until Andrei's canopy stalled, collapsed and fell 100 feet impacting hard enough to break bones.

Day two, Kirshbaum attempts to claim the USHPA membership waiver excludes Pivka from any responsibility. That's absurd, self serving, as if the USHPA executive never had any intention of supporting membership by paying out liability claims and simply wants to keep all the self insurance fund for some other purpose. Kirshbaum asks a few leading questions alluding to Andrei's failure to deploy his reserve as the cause of his injury, another lame attempt to shift blame, based on a fiction, like it's a good idea to abandon control near the terrain and deploy a reserve and not control the main canopy at under 100 feet above ground.

Brad Hill, Discover Paragliding out of central Oregon coast showed up last Friday, October 29, and lied like a rug, claiming it's standard USHPA practice to teach entry level students to twist their risers 180° in flight to look behind them to see and avoid traffic closing from behind. Twisting risers and flying a paraglider with the pilot facing backwards is an advanced maneuver reserved for high time aerobatic pilots in the appropriate setting, most of the time, 1000 feet above ground over water, definitely more than 100 feet from terrain for a recreational pilot.

Turning around and facing away from direction of travel when this close to terrain is stupid and dangerous, and that's exactly what Brad Hill suggested should be standard procedure for low skill novice pilots. The premise is ridiculous, endorsed by USHPA attorney Tim Herr, every paraglider pilot must be alert as if we are all constant targets of suicidal kamakazie weekend warrior pilots, the same pilots we rode up with, drink beer with in the LZ after the flight. This is another lame attempt at blame shifting, and more delusional, poor ethical behavior from USHPA.

Tim Herr is a lawyer, he evidently hired Mr. Kirshbaum, who did all the work at the trial. Herr never questioned any witness, or said much, if anything the entire 3 days I was there. My experience indicates Mr Kirshbaum costs around $50K per year, and this case is 3 years old. That's potentially $150K wasted on a losing case, that might cost the PASA, RRG, USHPA self insurance scam millions in court costs, compensation for Andrei's medical expenses, pain and suffering, and long term care.

Verdict 11/2/2021

Jury found the defendant liable for $6 Million. Tim Herr USHPA attorney is visibly upset. The USHPA PASA, RRG self insurance scam started with $2 Million in donations from membership, and my guess, Palmaz, Herr, and the USHPA Colorado Springs office staff has absorbed a good part of that money in salaries, and there isn't anywhere near $6 million between Peter Pivka and the USHPA self insurance scam to pay Andrei Firtat compensation according to the jury verdict today.

Pivka's behavior coming to my house the day after the incident and spinning his actions to render himself blameless for Andrei's injury, and his story changing 3 times between depositions and the trial tells me he's lying, and in denial of the consequences of his actions. Peter Pivka's colossal ego compelled him to milk the last of the day and stay above Andrei, following directly behind and above for two minutes until he plowed into Andrei's glider.

If the USHPA had attempted a fair settlement, would the case have gone to trial? Between Pivka's ego, Tim Herr's ego, his vested interest, conflict of interest paying out multi million dollar injury settlement from the USHPA PASA funds, evidently no other outcome was possible.

Tim Herr and Martin Palmaz have been the USHPA executive management through both the loss of the Lloyd's of London coverage that used to cost USHGA, USHPA members $59 a year, and included a bi monthly magazine edited by Gil Dodgen. Now it seems their management style is also going to collapse the PASA self insurance scam.

Discuss "Mitch McAleer's take on the RRRG trial" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Eye Witness Account

Sat, Mar 12 2022, 10:15:22 am MST

Re the paragliding midair

Bo Frazier|injury|Mark Forbes|midair collision|RRRG|USHGA|USHPA

"Bo Frazier" «flyingdawg2003» writes:

I read Mark Forbes article regarding RRRG litigation that was published here recently. I felt compelled to respond to and dispute much of what Mark said in his article.

I started flying hang gliders in 1980 and paragliders in 2001 and have continued to fly to this day. I have remained a USHGA and USHPA member throughout my years of flying.

I was flying at Marshall the day the collision between the two pilots took place. I was a short distance away from the pilots when they collided and clearly saw what happened prior to, during and after the collision.

Mark's article is biased, false, very close to libelous, and just represents the horrendous way in which RRRG handled this claim.

First, Mark attempts to hide behind the defense of him not being able to fully answer questions because of the ongoing litigation. That simply is not true but is just an excuse to avoid confronting all of the legitimate questions that are being raised. This was not normal "mid-air collision" as Mark wants you to believe. Instead, this was an act of pure stupidity by one pilot that lead to a serious injury to another. One pilot was fully at fault. The other pilot had no fault. Do you really buy into Mark's argument that as free flight pilots we must accept whatever another pilot does to us in the sky and not pursue any legal claims against such a pilot?

Since the Oz Report is focused on hang gliding, I'll explain this in hang gliding terms.

Are you okay with another hang glider pilot flying his hang glider directly into the trailing edge of your glider and knocking you out of the sky? Is that a normal risk that we must just accept without recourse? I certainly don't think so. The defendant in the lawsuit flew around behind the plaintiff and then flew directly into the trailing edge of the plaintiff's paraglider. The defendant's chest impacted the trailing edge of the plaintiff's glider, not once, but twice, before the plaintiff's glider collapsed and spun into the mountain.

The defendant then flew away to the lz, packed his gear, and went home. I saw all of this with my own two eyes. The unanswered question is why did the defendant do so.

The problem is that the defendant has offered multiple conflicting answers to that question ranging from the plaintiff was flying too slowly to "I couldn't see" the plaintiff's wing. Not once has the defendant ever accepted any responsibility for the collision. Juries don't like liars and they made that clear in their judgment and award of damages.

The plaintiff didn't break any promise by filing a lawsuit. I have never promised to not take legal action against a pilot who either intentionally or completely recklessly knocks me out of the sky, and I never will make such a promise. Mark is full of crap in making that argument. Mark and the RRRG don't give a damn about pilot safety or responsibility based on what Mark wrote.

What Mark refused to discuss are the facts that RRRG could have settled this claim by paying a minimal amount of money but they refused to do so. If RRRG had acted responsibly, RRRG would not be worrying about it's financial situation but, instead, RRRG got its back up and refused to pay a penny. They refused to ever enter into any negotiations with any intention of doing the right thing for the injured pilot, the free flight community, or the RRRG. Instead, they forced this case to trial and tossed the dice and lost big time. All of this could have been avoided by RRRG acting as a responsible insurer, something they clearly are not.

I certainly don't want free flight to end because of this or any other claim but sometimes actions of pilots may be so egregious as to leave the injured pilot, or a dead pilot's family, no option but to seek help through the legal process. RRRG and Mark are pathetically naive to think or argue otherwise. Mark should be ashamed of himself for attacking the plaintiff pilot in this case. His comments are despicable.

Discuss "Eye Witness Account" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

The Transition

March 4, 2020, 7:55:40 EST

The Transition

The Oz Report will continue but in a different format

USHGA

Tom Curbishley <<tomcurbishley>> writes:

The news in your last post that the Oz Report was going away came as a bit of a surprise, but it also made sense. The hang gliding community is shrinking and it's very difficult to recoup any kind of costs from those of us who are left. Although I am an automatically renewed subscriber, I sent another subscription fee just to help with your extra costs. I hope it helps in some small way. I was relieved to read in your latest post, that you will continue the Oz Report in some form or another.

Count me in, whatever form it takes.

I wanted to let you know that the Oz Report has been important to me. I am or maybe was a recreational pilot who joined the USHGA in 1973. I have never been interested in competitions or in the politics of our organization or related organizations, yet the Oz Report helped keep my finger on the pulse of the sport. Especially in recent years, when I log very little airtime, the Oz Report keeps me connected to the pilot community. And I just enjoy reading it.

So thank you, and good luck with the transition, whatever you decide to do. And keep us fans updated!

Discuss "The Transition" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Support for instructors

May 3, 2019, 7:47:40 pm EDT

Support for instructors

What are the burdens that have been placed on instructors?

Foundation for Free Flight|Paul Voight|PG|Risk Retention Group|Rob Kells|Steven "Steve" Pearson|USHGA|USHPA

D. Randy Leggett, RRRG Customer Service Officer, <<randy.leggett>> writes:

I had been unaware of your railing against the work we have been doing to keep everyone interested insured and drive down the number of accident/incident events.

Your Oz Report comments that we have done nothing to help the small instructors is misleading at best and just a plain lie at worst.

Just what I personally have been involved with (and I am certainly not the only one involved):

1) Developed and implemented a Foundation For Free Flight Grant system for a $500 award for anyone successfully completing PASA certification to offset initial costs.

2) Reduced the cost of SBSF PASA dues 18% between 2016 and 2017.

3) Increased the number of flight schools with risk and safety management plans and commercial liability insurance operating in the US from (9) 2014 to 66 in 2018.

4) Kept open approximately 250 hang gliding sites nationwide that would have closed without landowners insurance.

5) Developed a one on one outreach to every instructor nationwide who wanted to continue teaching to guide them through the insurance program.

Virtually every school we insure has experienced steady growth over the last three years except for two of the largest hang gliding operations. Many small hang gliding operations have experienced year over year increases.

Striving to improve professionalism, safety and long term viability has been the concerted effort of all three (USHPA, Foundation for Free Flight, RRRG).

Railing that Risk Management is at the epicenter of hang gliding's decline and that the volunteers and staff aren’t doing enough is a sad excuse, counterproductive and just plain wrong.

The small hang gliding schools that you lost refused to do 10 hours of homework and invest less than $1000 to continue to grow in a professional environment. Instead they quit. And that’s our fault? While none of them accept responsibility for injuries and fatalities that precipitated the loss of their25+ year run of virtually free liability insurance.

Wills Wing should have championed our efforts and set an example by partnering with us to improve the programs and the sport. Helping each and every small hang gliding school develop. Instead you rail against our efforts.

Steven Pearson <<Steve>> responds:

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it’s clear from your tone that you’ve entirely mis-characterized my comments.

1) Unconditionally great

2) Unconditionally great

3) I’ve seen nothing but a sharp decline in the number of hang gliding instructors and new hang gliding students since the new programs. I would have no complaints if the number are up. I’d appreciate if you can share the data that supports your contention that these programs and administration are consistent with supporting and growing our community.

4) Great, but keeping sites open is totally independent of increased costs, bureaucracy and overbearing administration. I don’t seen any increase in safety as a result of these policies and in fact I can point out several example of how excessive focus on risk mitigation has compromised safety. A glaring example is the accident reporting system that was discontinued for years and is now neutered. Very few programs rise to the level of advancing safety in aviation communities as effectively as accident reporting. This was a fundamental program at the USHGA for years initially administered by RV Wills, an attorney and father of Chris and Bobby.

Ironically, the biggest threat to our local flying site was an aerobatic event promoted by the USHPA over our strong objections that resulted in a fatality and almost setting the National Forest on fire. I still remember the shock in the face of a mother after watching someone die in front of her—meanwhile the next round continued. I’ve got lots of other examples but I don’t want to belabor the point.

5)Your contributions have been very helpful and I’ve used your volunteer efforts as an example of the best intentions of efforts of USHPA staff and volunteers.

You said, “Virtually every school we insure has experienced steady growth over the last 3 years except for two of the largest hang gliding operations. Many small hang gliding operations have experienced year over year increases.”. I’m hard pressed to think of more than one or two hang gliding flights schools whose business is up since the new insurance was implemented. What am I missing? Where is your information coming from? If I have to distill it down to 2 points (1) hang gliding is participation is sharply down since the new insurance rules (2) safety is not up.

You said, ”Instead you rail against our efforts.” Please read all of what I wrote before you rush to judgment. While I appreciate and respect your position, I think it’s fair to say that the overwhelming response to my comments has been positive with you, Steve and Alan dissenting.

I’m not trying to pick a fight. I somewhat reluctantly shared an email that I sent to Bruce (to be shared with the USHPA) with Davis. This followed several other emails, a trip to CO where we listened to the USPA executive director share how they turned around our sister sport skydiving from the same magnitude of crisis, several phone calls with you, a meeting with Alan, and many-many conversation with dealers about their common concerns—all acknowledging problems but without any corrective action. Almost none of this is addressed by your comments.

I’ve been flying hang gliding for 46 years and working 3000 hours or more per year at WW for 42 years so I’m looking at this from a comprehensive outside perspective—not to say I’m right, only that what I’m saying represents many in our community and deserves an audience.

How many at the USHPA who as contributed as much WW in terms of USHPA meetings attended, USHPA programs authored, trips to DC for ARAC on behalf of the USHPA, promoting and facilitating the merger of the APA and USHGA, conducting the first (and free) paraglider SIV course in the US, free dealer seminars, parachute repacking clinics, instructor clinics, administration of the HGMA, numerous magazine articles like “how do we get a handle on this safety thing”, and countless other community support activities. I think we deserve a little slack for our contributions.

Maybe you’re not aware that the roots of PASA at KHK is from Rob Kells, John Harris and others working to develop a professional dealer association. Finally, I’ve identified the failures of manufacturers (me - Wills Wing) as more at fault for the long-term decline of hang gliding by failing to address the fundamental issues of hang gliding than the USHPA. I don’t expect you to fix hang gliding. I don’t expect the USHPA and PASA solve safety issue. I do hope for an objective accounting of the impact on the insurance program in hang gliding activities and growth. In my dreams, I would hope that the USHPA would invest and incentivize growth as we do with product development at WW.

Two of the examples I shared were Paul Voight and Zac. Paul, as you know is probably the most experienced pilot and instructor on the board aside from Matt. Why is it so out of bounds for me to suggest that the head of safety and training and the tandem committee should be able to conduct am instructor clinic at our local site?

I know all the work-arounds, like having Andy hire Zac, the only west-coast tandem administrator, for a weekend so he can participate in a clinic to train other instructors. How is this advancing safety?

How are the event fees that are now applicable whenever we want to designate a day for a barbeque and fly-in helping? How about the vague restrictions about me conducting a free clinic to improve pilot skills and safety without an event fee?

My email to you yesterday was to help address and diffuse a high degree of anger from a local instructor who said that Tim required him to pay for an additional site (3 in total) to use our local landing area. As I said to you, there are at least 6 take-offs that I routinely use at Crestline and it’s crazy that would require me designating 4 addition sites as a small school application.

I can retire and walk away, and that’s what I’ll do if your comments represent the consensus of our community and USHPA leadership. If so, I truly hope you are right.

Matt Taber addresses the USHPA voters

January 7, 2019, 8:26:03 EST

Matt Taber addresses the USHPA voters

The governance proposal

Mike Meier|Paul Voight|Risk Retention Group|Russ Locke|Tiki Mashy|USHGA|USHPA

Matt Taber <<matt>> writes:

USHPA Voters

The time is now for voting on the new Governance proposal. If you want all the details please use the link on the USHPA website https://www.ushpa.org/.

Please vote on this proposal. It would be a real shame to have this proposal pass with 5% of the membership voting. Our goal should be at least 25% membership voter participation. This is an important issue that will have a great effect on all pilots and the sports as they are."

I will be voting no on the governance proposal. There is way too much risk.

There are a lot of assumptions on how this will work and before I get into these assumptions I'll share what RD Paul Voight said "My main objection is that I don't think the old system is broken. I saw it work great for many, many years." I agree with Paul on this.

I also agree with Russ Locke, a highly regarded former USHGA president of 6 years and a board member for almost two decades. "The Planning Committee has obviously done a lot of work putting this proposal together and their efforts should be applauded. While I don't agree with the concept of replacing the Regional Director structure with a smaller Board, there are a number of good suggestions on ways to communicate better between our members, committees, Board and employees. Some of those suggestions should be acted on whether or not we restructure the existing Board and its meeting schedules. It's true that some of the membership views the Board of Directors negatively. That has always been a piece of the puzzle. Taking away our members' ability to send a locally elected representative to our national meetings will most surely make this situation worse. I believe the USHPA will be considered a complete success when a significant majority of our members belong to the Association because they want too, not because they have to. In other words, the Association isn't viewed as a necessary evil. That may be setting the bar a bit high, but we should all be working towards that goal. The core of the existing system is the Regional Directors. These volunteers bridge the gap between the membership and its national governing body."

The assumption regarding the diversity formula is flawed. USHPA needs diverse skill sets, not diversity by age, by PG pilots, HG pilots and gender. Many directors and pilots have spoken out on this. Like others I believe that the membership will not react well when they learn that the person that is most qualified and who received the most votes did not get elected because of the voting formula. Tiki Mashy Region 9 & 11 Director "If a Member gets the most national votes but does not fit into the "diversity equation" that member will not be selected to the Board. Imagine that…the person the membership deemed will do the best job is counted out because of the "diversity equation." Conversely a Member who may only get a small number of votes has a better chance of being elected if they have the needed diversity make up."

The smaller board will limit the talent and diversity in skill sets with the Board of Directors. If you have an opportunity to have 26 volunteers for free wouldn't that be preferable to 10? Maybe all 26 are not the strongest; at least you have a strong group. What happens if you get weak directors and have only 10?

The assumption that the proposed 5 regions are better than our current regions is also flawed. I believe members need to be able to get in touch with a director who can help out with an issue in the region they represent. That director works for the USHPA member to resolve the issue. Will this even be possible with such large regions? Will you know who to vote for? All members are to vote for all directors.

I believe this will provide minimal regional representation to support flying communities in rural geographic areas. Is this what you want? Quoted from a director "This proposal will tend to have a bias towards the populated pilot areas regardless IMO." One of the best membership services that you pay for with your membership dues are the directors in your region that you elect. How do you feel about having 8 directors in the whole country voted in by the whole membership? Will your interest be represented? Secondly, there is a built in checks and balance that the size of the board facilitates that helps minimizes problems for members, schools and instructors. We will lose this if this proposal passes.

What about the assumption that the work will be done by volunteers from the membership base? This has happened in the past but at a very low level. Will there be the volunteers - will they have staying power? As RD Paul Voight said in his statement, "I don't believe committee work will happen as they hope it will, outside of this small board. Why would it ?" I agree with Paul.

I say, why take the risk? Prove it first and if member volunteers are a reliable way to move forward doing the necessary work then you can entertain an alternative number of directors.

Another assumption is that the smaller board will fix communication issues. This is already being fixed with the hiring of communications director Erica Klein.

This was said by Mike Meier from Wills Wing, "I think that all of the big changes that we've made over the years, the waiver, the RRG, PASA, Board reorganization would have and will go over a lot better and a lot easier if we do the hard work of getting the members to believe that we are really on their side first." I feel this is so true! Also from Mike Meier and also true, "I mean, if the USHPA was a product, would anyone buy it? The benefits of membership in parachuting and EAA are self-evident but the only reason most of us belong to USHPA is for site access." Shouldn't this be a priority to address and try and change before we get rid of more than half of the volunteers?

The notion that the insurance problem indicates the need for a smaller board is flawed. The example of the need to act fast using the insurance issue as an example is not a good reason to change - it was because of the size of the board that there was the talent to deal with the issue. I don't mind being asked to step in and help when an issue comes up and I don't mind being excluded if I have limited skills or experience to offer with a particular problem. Some directors did mind being excluded and that's unfortunate but at times I feel this is also unavoidable. When we are out of session, the Executive committee makes the decisions; they keep directors informed and ask for help if needed. We have never had something that needed acting on fast until the insurance issue came up. I feel strongly that a membership organization needs to move slow and carefully weigh solutions to issues. I think the insurance reason is a knee jerk solution to a difficult problem - a small board would have the same problems and anxiety having to make those far reaching immediate decisions.

Another assumption with the proposal is the promise of a cost savings associated with the smaller board. In reality, that is not why there will be a cost savings. There will be an offset of less directors but a promise to pay for committee members. End result will be no cost savings. There definitely will be a cost savings but this will come from having just one, in person, board meeting instead of the two we have now. This can be done now with the current board and have the same savings.

USHPA needs to focus on anything that keeps members and anything that brings in new members, everything else is a distraction. If our USHPA focus doesn't link to keeping or getting new members then it shouldn't be a priority. Fewer directors will give the members less voice and less service. Having no real region and no director voted on from your region will also be a negative for the members. I feel the members will not feel that they are represented.

In closing, I totally agree with RD Tiki Mashy when she says, "This Governance Proposal isn't going to help get more members; we need to leave it and begin the real work. Again we need promotion from within and that comes from the local level, with just some basic support from USHPA in the form of insurance, rating programs, representation with the FAA, a magazine, etc. USHPA as a membership facilitator. Passing this Governance Proposal with its diversity agenda, supersized regions and fewer member representation is a recipe for disaster. We don't need a smaller Board, we need to fix what we have, focus on surviving this downturn and growing the membership. A smaller board is not a recipe for growth."

Please understand what this vote is about and vote your voice for your USHPA because you will have to live with the results.

Matt Taber, region 10 director

Russ Locke on the USHPA BOD reform proposal

December 6, 2018, 7:03:55 CST

Russ Locke on the USHPA BOD reform proposal

From last May.

Russ Locke|USHGA|USHPA

RussLocke <russ> via ushpa.onmicrosoft.com May 30, 2018, 9:30 PM:

To ushpa_board_list

I've read through the proposal to replace the current Board of 26 Directors with a smaller group of 7 Directors. While I agree that the smaller group would be able to make decisions in a quicker and more concise fashion, I fear this approach misses the bigger picture. I was a member of the Board for almost 2 decades, including being President for 6 years and being on the Executive Committee for several more years. I am well aware of the challenges represented in getting small less contentious issues through this large group, let alone more meaty and significant issues. Having said that, I cannot think of any time in our history that this Board has failed to properly react to an important issue that was dropped in its lap. We can and should be proud of the fact that we are the only group in the FAA's sphere of influence that started out being self regulated in the late 1970s, before FAR 103 was created, and maintains that status today. That isn't accidental. It has happened because of a ton of work by countless people, almost all of them within the USHGA/USHPA's structure.

The core of the existing system is the Regional Directors. These volunteers bridge the gap between the membership and its national governing body. The level of work done by these Directors will not diminish if the size of the Board is cut down. Nor will this body of work be able to be handled by 7 Directors. Expecting the slack to be picked up by the Chapters and the Committees will be a significant task that has the potential for a lot of confusion at best and the loss of critical processes at worst.

If we do make this change, a couple of things concern me about this proposal. One, electing the new 7 member Board by a vote of the membership without any concern for regional issues is a big mistake. This allows the higher pilot populated areas, like California to control the election. Over the years, the Association has significantly benefited from the efforts of Regional Directors elected by members in places like Idaho, Kansas, Texas, etc. In a national election, the members in these areas would have little say in the makeup of the National Board and their ability to elect one of their own to that Board would be severely limited. Two, the current Revocation of Ratings policy starts with the local pilot community and only involves the National Organization (Safety and Training Committee) if there is a concern that the appropriate decision wasn't reached. The proposed process moves all decision responsibility to the National Board. I believe the current process puts more responsibility on the pilots actually affected and as such should be left in place.

The Planning Committee has obviously done a lot of work putting this proposal together and their efforts should be applauded. While I don't agree with the concept of replacing the Regional Director structure with a smaller Board, there are a number of good suggestions on ways to communicate better between our members, committees, Board and employees. Some of those suggestions should be acted on whether or not we restructure the existing Board and its meeting schedules. It's true that some of the membership views the Board of Directors negatively. That has always been a piece of the puzzle. Taking away our members ability to send a locally elected representative to our national meetings will most surely make this situation worse. I believe the USHPA will be considered a complete success when a significant majority of our members belong to the Association because they want too, not because they have to. In other words, the Association isn't viewed as a necessary evil. That may be setting the bar a bit high, but we should all be working towards that goal.

Discuss "Russ Locke on the USHPA BOD reform proposal" at the Oz Report forum   link»

A teaser: Bill and the RRG

Wed, Mar 16 2016, 6:50:37 am MDT

Bill and the RRG

Getting our liability insurance in order

Risk Retention Group|Bill Bolosky|USHGA

Bill Bolosky «Bill Bolosky» writes:

As you may or may not know, I’ve been appointed as the president & CEO of the Risk Retention Group for self-insuring free flight. We’ve been scrambling to get all of the pieces put together, from financing to regulatory approval, to setting up the corporation, to figuring out the terms of the insurance policies and fees, etc. One of the goals I have for the RRG is to establish it with a culture of transparency, much like what I tried when I was president of USHGA. We on the RRG board have to remember that we’re dealing with money that largely came from the pilots, either in the form of dues or donations, and so we have an obligation to them both to be very careful and to explain what we’re doing.

Right now, there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation out there about the RRG, which is a natural consequence of changing so many things at once. So, we think that it’s incumbent on us to provide correct information to clear things up. This effort will take many avenues, but if you’re willing, we’d like the Oz Report to be one of them.

I’m proposing that we write a series of articles/press releases that we’d ask you to run… Once the articles ran, then we’d do a Q & A with you (through email) so that you can address anything that we didn’t cover or weren’t clear about.

Discuss "A teaser: Bill and the RRG" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Choosing the US National Team

August 2, 2012, 8:50:26 CDT

Choosing the US National Team

Including the month of September and the SCFR

PG|USHGA|USHPA|Zac Majors

I sent out the following email a few days ago (7/29/2012 10:04 PM):

Zac Majors has raised some questions about whether the 2012 Santa Cruz Flats Race, the last major US competition of the year, will count toward determining the composition of the US National team that will be participating in the 2013 World Championships in Australia in January.

As USHGA Competition Committee Chairman I was involved in the discussions and decisions regarding the composition of the last US team to go to the Worlds in Australia and in particular the amount of time required before the Worlds to make sure US pilots knew with sufficient time to make preparations to attend the meet. That was long before the SCFR was moved to September. Over the last two years, the Competition Committee hasn’t been looking at the issue given that move.

It was/is always the case that we want all the sanctioned competitions from the previous year to count for the composition of the team. We also do not wish to undercut our meet organizers by devaluing their competitions. We want competitors to be able to count two meets from 2011 and up to four meets (for a total of four) in 2012.

Pilots will have sufficient time to make arrangements to travel to Australia after the SCFR. Having traveled often to Forbes, I have a very good idea of what it takes.

I suggest that the USHPA Competition Committee make a ruling that the SCFR will count for the composition of the US National team for 2013 and that only meets from 2011 and 2012 count.

In a extremely rapid response Jeff Mosher the program manager at the USHPA office sent out this email:

USHPA UPDATE
July 31, 2012

USHPA Headquarters
Contact:
Jeff Mosher,

Program Manager
800-616-6888

 

 
Amendment for World Championship Selection Process

 

Dear Hang Gliding Competition Pilot,

 

As a 2012 Competition Pilot, would you support an amendment to the rules, and allow the points collected during the 2012 Santa Cruz Flats National Championship to count towards the selection process for the 2013 Hang Gliding World Championship?

 

The USHPA national team selection process is defined in Section 3.5 of the USHPA Race-to-Goal Rulebook. For international meets between October 1st and March 1st, the ranking for selecting the team excludes results for meets within four months of the international meet in question. This year, USHPA's national championship event is the Santa Cruz Flats Race in September; just two weeks short of the required four month separation requirement.
 

The proposal to request an exception to the four month separation requirement could be beneficial for several reasons:

 

* It allows the US team to be selected from a greater number of sanctioned events.

* Results from the US national championships should be included in selecting a national team.

* The SCF event would be the most recent event.

* The four month exclusion rule was adopted to avoid creating a hardship for pilots who need to plan and budget for international competitions. Reducing this period by a couple of weeks should not create a significant burden for those involved.
 

Reasons to deny the request might include:

 

* The selection process shouldn't be changed once the season has started.

* Pilots may have planned to skip the Santa Cruz Flats event in order to be able to attend the international event in January.

 

USHPA is interested in your opinion on this issue and would like you to support or reject the proposal by replying to: http://ozreport.com/emailer.php?toName=Programs&code=50726s6772616q7320617420757368706120646s74206165726s. Your feedback will be compiled and sent to the Competition Committee where they will make the decision to file a formal request to amend the rule for this year only. Only replies received by Monday, August 6th will be considered in the decision process.

 

Thanks,

------------------

Jeff Mosher, Program Manager

United States Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association, Inc.
This is flying. This is freedom.

<programs>

I am very happy to see this rapid response from the USHPA office regarding an important issue.

Oregon Hang Gliding Reunion Antique Glider Fly-in

March 15, 2012, 8:48:10 CDT

Oregon Hang Gliding Reunion Antique Glider Fly-in

Pilot Conference

calendar|Ken de Russy|USHGA|USHPA

miraclepieco <<miraclepieco>> writes:

Good News: Everything is coming together for a memorable 40 Year Oregon Hang Gliding Reunion Antique Glider Fly-in and Pilot Conference!

Really Good News: Frank Colver (USHGA #7, Colver Vario, Colver Sailwing, Cover of Groundskimmer, 1st Otto Meet) is driving up from Costa Mesa with a rare 20 foot Eipper. He will talk about his role in the beginning of modern HG. He was there at the first HG meet ever held in the world.

Please call every pilot you have ever known and make sure they know about this one-time event.

Not So Good news: The following release was sent to Eric at USHPA on Dec. 20. On follow-up a few weeks later, nobody had seen it so it was re-submitted to Terry. On follow-up a few weeks later nobody had seen it, the march magazine deadline had been missed, but it would be in the next. On follow up a few weeks later, the ushpa online calendar of events listed our event WITH THE WRONG DATES. The release was (yes) re-submitted a THIRD time. USHPA has never sent me a confirmation of any communication sent or action taken. I assumed a 5 month lead time was sufficient to get our event into the calendar.

The dates on the online calendar have been corrected, but the April Magazine may or may not be. The correct dates are still May 11-12-13, 2012

May 11-13 Pacific City, OR

40 Years of Oregon Hang Gliding Antique Glider Fly-In

A gathering at Cape Kiwanda State Park and Sandlake Grange Hall.

Fri. Grange Hall Open, Free- Fly.

Sat. 9:30am-5:30pm Antique Glider Flying on the dunes at "Mother Kiwanda". Judging for best Monoplane, Biplane, Standard. Spot Landing, Dollar Grab.

Sat. 6:30pm-9:30pm Pilot Convention at Sandlake Grange Hall (1/4 mile south of Sandlake Store). Multi-media Presentation and Display by Ken DeRussy. Awards, Posters/T-Shirts, $30 at the door.

Sun. Grange Hall Open, Free-Fly

Enjoy the spectacular Tillamook County coastal sites during the prime season. Low tides for big LZ's and beachcombing. Onshore winds and longer daylight for flying.

All Foot-Launch Glider Pilots Welcome! We are all connected. Come see how your sport began.

Contact: David Raybourn, 425 233-9429, http://ozreport.com/emailer.php?toName=airbourn55&code=616972626s75726r3535206174207961686s6s20646s7420636s6q

Hang Gliding Museum Update

January 5, 2012, 8:27:33 AEDT

Hang Gliding Museum Update

Request For Items

PG|photo|record|USHGA|USHPA|video

Ken de Russy <<weflyuniv>> writes:

The sport of hang gliding in the USA has no sanctioned museum. My hang gliding history preservation work along with my large collection and extensive library serves as the closest our sport has gotten to something like a National Hang Gliding Museum. Whenever inquiries about our history or offers to donate equipment come to the attention of our USHPA office or to our sporting community they are often referred to me. By now my work is known and well supported by the hang gliding community both in the USA and abroad. I spoke last month at the Soaring100 event as one of the "Legends of Hang Gliding" and had many offers of donations from attendees. Our community is enthusiastic to know that there is a place for preserving our history and seem to be ever more eager to see that their artifacts find a home in my collection. To the many of you who have donated material to the collection let me say thank you. Each of you have made a huge contribution and deserve credit for what is now a far larger collection than it might have been without your thoughtful and generous support.

I am still looking for 2 issues of Glider Rider to complete that set. May 1976 Volume 1 #4 and October 1976 Volume 1 #9. My collection of Glider Riders is short just those two issues. The collection of Whole Air, Hang Gliding, and Joe Faust's various publications are all complete as are the Paraglide USA and Paragliding the Magazine sets. I have the first 2 years of the French and German magazines, a few of the first issues of the UK magazine plus most of 1978, 79, and 80, donated by Dan Poynter, and a collection of La Mouette Gazette/Cross Country that is nearly complete. As well I have many years of a couple dozen different early US newsletters and many other English language publications including sundry issues of Australian Skysailor and a NZ magazine. There are about 100 hang gliding specific books plus newspaper and magazine articles numbering in the hundreds, organized chronologically providing an easily viewed timeline of the 1960's and 1970's. There are many manuals, plan sets and batten diagrams. I am doubtful anyone else in the world has assembled such a collection and assume no one else has done as much. I hope I am wrong and that there are other comprehensive collections.

I offer a photocopy service for those interested in obtaining copies of any of this material. The small profit helps me in continuing my hang gliding history preservation work. It is a joy when I receive a request for some arcane and obscure material that I am then able to locate and make available. I have had a small number of occasions to assist research into our history and I encourage contact for such purposes.

My attention lately has turned more to writing and making good use of the comprehensive library that has been expanded so much through individual pilot donations. What I would very much like to have is back issues of "Soaring" from about 1960 through 1975 as well as any other issues outside that range that contain articles about hang gliding. Since hang gliding is the oldest form of heavier-than-air flight, print coverage of it has been present throughout aviation history in all eras since Lilienthal so it is tempting to seek a larger range and even expand the search to other aviation publications. But that range of "Soaring" serves a particular need to enable a fuller understanding of our history. In the event you have back issues that might be available for donation I would hope you will remember my work and refer them to me. Should you wish to assemble any hang gliding library material or if you seek any display gear please considering contacting me and I would enjoy reciprocating. I would be happy to supply back issues of most any issues of hang gliding magazines as I have a large surplus of most issues and other related publications. In many cases I can provide those surplus items for no more than shipping costs.

Virtually anything connected to hang gliding is of interest to me. Please do not underestimate the value of even the seemingly insignificant to my historical preservation work. Just last week I was sent a shipping label from a box used to ship parts to a dealer in the east. It adds another piece to the puzzle that our early history is. Here are some items I am looking for - the older the better!;

General categories of items of interest;

Magazines, books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, films, video, slides, photos, logbooks, autographs (autograph EVERYTHING!), USHGA and club membership cards, club and regional newsletters, flight diaries and construction notes, correspondence, receipts, licences, certificates, posters, contest or event notices, event or club signs, banners, flags, windsocks, imprinted pens, drink holders, advertising featuring hang gliding, contest programs/rules, x-rays and damaged parts from crashes/accidents, stolen "No Hang Gliding" signs, old hardware, instruments, land use and site access documents, leases, waivers, warrants, tickets, or any legal documents, t-shirts, hats, neckties, jackets, patches, badges, buttons, plan sets, drawings, artwork, stickers unused or affixed, postage, awards, toys, board games, puzzles, product brochures and specifications, catalogs, order and price sheets, batten diagrams, blueprints, clocks, Christmas ornaments, trophies, plaques, tools, refrigerator magnets, site guides.

Gliders with record setting or contest winning history or fabricated in 1972 or earlier or featured in widely publicized events or feature films or owned by famous or top ranked pilots, celebrities or political figures.

Specific items wanted:

Flap Chaps, Sports Aloft Stall Warning Indicator, Mehil Airspeed Indicator, Double French Connection, 1976 Hang Ten World Open Hang Gliding Championships poster, Bennett Back Pack Engine, Mariah Control Bar, 1976 Hang Ten World Open hang Gliding Championships Poster as well as video copies of any of several television shows of the event and TV news coverage, back issues of "Soaring" from about 1960 through 1975 as well as any other issues outside that range that contain articles about hang gliding.

Please do add written comments and notes to any item. I think very often donors are reluctant to do so thinking that writing on an object diminishes the value. I think it actually increases the value and interest as well as adding important interpretation. Please sign, date, and add some comment, memory or explanation as to what an item may be connected to. It helps me to understand its significance in the context of your experience and to know its origins and place in the larger history. Your willingness to contribute material is invaluable to the steady growth of the collection. It is very satisfying to see such support and together we are helping to assure that the history of a great aviation epoch is preserved for posterity.

Please mail to;

Ken de Russy
6812 Carolina Street
Anacortes, WA 98221

Museum Images: http://tinyurl.com/75oqdhk

Hang Gliding Museum: http://tinyurl.com/89c2n6s

Historic Movies: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=weflyuniv

Discuss "Hang Gliding Museum Update" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The missing USHPA accident database

August 12, 2011, 8:37:17 CDT

The missing USHPA accident database

A front end with no back end

record|USHGA|USHPA

http://ozreport.com/10.048#2

http://www.ushga.org/emailacc.asp

https://www.ushpa.aero/member_emailacc.asp

http://ushpa.aero/safety.asp

If you go to the last link above you'll find that there isn't much there about hang gliding accidents. No one is taking whatever hang gliding accident reports the USHPA gets (and apparently they aren't getting very many) and telling us what is causing these accidents. Seems like the whole USHPA hang gliding accident reporting system has gone missing for the last five years.

Last Thursday I had an email conversation with Dave Wills, vice-Chairman of the USHPA Safety and Training Committee. He asked me what I could do to promote the accident reporting system. I told him that if there was no recognizable output from the accident reporting system why would anyone use it?

I told him if he gave me access to the full accident database (redacted for names), I would write up stories from material that I found there. I felt that telling the stories would promote the accident reporting system.

You can see the front end to the accident reporting database at the send and third links above. I have used these links before to report my accidents, but you'll also notice that they are well hidden. You will find the accident report form here: https://www.ushpa.aero/member_forms.asp.

Something that would help the accident reporting system would be to make this link a bit more prominent. I don't recall ever having seen it referred to in the USHPA newsletter, for example.

Dave didn't think such a database existed but went looking. I couldn't believe that to be true given the obvious on-line database front end on the USHPA web site and the many previous discussions that I had heard at USHPA BOD meeting. I mean this was under the purview of the Safety and Training Committee Chairman and it was a big deal for him. Of course, it existed.

Wait, a minute. Dave came back with news that it didn't exist after all. So Dave wouldn't be able to give me access to the accident reporting records (as in a database) because they didn't exist.

Again, this is the vice-Chairman of the Safety and Training Committee and he didn't know whether a accident reporting database existed or not. He had to check to be sure. And it didn't.

And, so I don't have an accident reporting database that I can use to write articles that would perhaps encourage pilots to use the on-line accident reporting system to report accidents. In fact, I have this article to tell you that if you use this accident reporting form to report your accident it apparently falls into a black hole. Not very encouraging. So much for Dave Wills efforts to encourage you to use it.

If you want to know something about hang gliding accidents go here: http://ozreport.com/toc.php_volume=0&full. Press Ctrl+F. Search for "accident."

Discuss "The missing USHPA accident database" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Talking about silos

Thu, Nov 19 2009, 9:20:25 am PST

Matt Taber finds fault with my judgment about the USHPA plans for competition

Foundation for Free Flight|Matt Taber|record|Steve Kroop|USHGA|USHPA

Matt Taber has taken me to task for my article on the USHPA Competition Committee proposals for the future structure of the USHPA Competition and Event System found here. He has challenged me to review my article and look at where the positives about the proposed program might lie. He is concerned that there have been countless volunteer hours put into these proposals (and others) and that because I have pointed out what I see as negatives, volunteers will be discouraged. That the USHPA relies on volunteer efforts and if I'm always pointing out the problems, the USHPA may not be able to count of them in the future.

He is concerned that a small percentage of USHPA members are involved in the current USHPA competition program, and that this needs to be extended to encourage more participation. That all of us see that extending the reach of competition could encourage membership retention (and therefore aid growth in membership). That cross country flying is the most prevalent form of advanced pilot flight and that having a national cross country champion based on a points system would be a very good thing. That aerobatic competition and speed gliding create interest and make our sports visible.

Matt wants me to list the benefits of the proposals, before I listing what I find wasteful about them. He sees this as a more balanced and fair approach, in the original meaning of those terms (until they were turned into their opposite by Faux News). Matt would like it if I were more positive, if I broadcast the good news, and was not "unbalanced, biased, and contentious."

He states that the USHPA has gone from 10,000 hang gliding members in 1999 to 5,000 ten years later and that clearly the leadership of the USHPA is trying its best to correct that slide. He wants my help in taking on that task, instead of engaging in "the constant undeserved criticism and toxic reporting."

Well, first of all my thanks to Matt for taking the time and making the effort to write to me about these deeply felt issues. I consider Matt to be one of the good guys, a BOD member who has made the effort to understand the issues about the current USHPA competition program and to protect the existing system from unwarranted intrusions. I certainly take his criticism seriously even if I in part disagree with it.

Let me go back and, out of the heat of the battle and on the line reporting, look at first where this all came from, the 2005 USHGA Strategic Plan:

Flying Events

Fly-Ins and competitions provide USHGA many opportunities for all aspects of the strategic plan. For internal marketing, flying events are a significant factor in promoting an overall sense of community and should not be understated.

More competitions at the local and regional level need to be fostered and encouraged. This will require examination of USHGA's current competition structure with evaluation and modification to focus on growth of the sports. Fly-ins also need to be fostered and encouraged at the local level.

Action: Competition Committee to work with Membership and Development Committee to develop programs to increase the number of fly-ins and unsanctioned "fun" competitions.

Action: Competition Committee to develop program to increase the number of sanctioned competitions, focusing on Regional and National Level. This includes a comprehensive review of the USHGA Competition System and how it can be revised to support the long term goals of the Association.

Timeline: Status Report to EC by August 2006 Conference Call. Competition Committee to have action plan developed for presentation at Spring 2007 BOD Meeting. Finalized version of plan to be presented at Fall BOD Meeting with implementation starting January 1, 2008.

The current proposal from the Competition Committee for dividing up our competition program is the latest response to the second action item above. Here again is the graphic that displays the overall structure:

This chart was originally produced in September by the Competition Workgroup, according to my sources. It was produced in recognition that there was just too much resistance to the proposed changes to the NTSS and that it was best to separate out other types of competition from Race to Goal types of competition.

You can find the complete Competition Workgroup proposal to the BOD here: a power point display, http://bit.ly/3aZ4bQ.

I support this proposal. I think (and wrote earlier) that it is an excellent idea to keep separate types of competition separate. That is doesn't make much sense to try to shoe horn in "open distance" competitions with race to goal type competitions. That both are valid competition types, and that both provide great tests of our pilots' hang gliding skills.

Unlike some pilots, I also wrote (long before this proposal came to light) that it was quite legitimate to have a national champion based on an "open distance" competition and that "open distance" competitions were a completely legitimate form of competition.

So let me state again (and repeat myself) that I support the proposal and appreciate the effort that went into creating it and salute the Competition Workgroup for coming up with it.

Let me state that I support open distance flying. I, like Matt, think that it is advanced flight and I certainly support it as can be seen from my efforts since 2000 with the World record Encampment, with my position as meet organizer for the Chelan Cross Country Classic in the late nineties, and from my long history of encouragement of cross country flying.

I support the idea of a national cross country champion, a national aerobatic champion, and even though it isn't mentioned, a national speed gliding champion, and even a national on-line contest champion. I think that it would be great to be able to do this. I think that it could be done.

I also support local competitions and encourage more of them. Local competitions and Sport Class are excellent ways to bring new pilots into competitions (of all kinds).

Now let's look back at my article about this chart and the Competition Workgroup presentation and evaluate it. It sure looks really negative, and it sure doesn't seem to reflect the statements I'm making above. What's going on here?

In that article I am focusing on one thing, to the detriment, no doubt of the big picture: the money. The money and the process that the Competition Workgroup has proposed to go about implementing this proposal. In my narrow focus about the implementation plan, I ignore (no doubt to my peril) the proposal itself. What is the implementation plan:

Motion to direct the Competition Committee to organize a Symposium for Competitions and Events as soon as practicable and not later than 4/30/10 as said symposium is described in the Competition Work Group Presentation to USHPA’s Board of Directors in its presentation of 11/12/09. And, to authorize up to $500 per participant and $7,000 total for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses of its participants associated with attending this symposium.

How here is where I found the problem. But first let me say, as Matt asks, what I liked about this proposal. Well, I liked the fact that the USHPA was putting money into competition and thereby supporting competition. Okay?

Now, what is problematic?

1) Why a symposium? Why not a virtual get together with no travel expenses and no outlay of $500/participant? Couldn't that work as well or better?

2) Why not use a small portion of the money to hire someone to set up a USHPA supported HOLC (hang gliding on-line contest) for the US, each region, each flying site that wanted one?

3) Why not find the influencers in each competition type and ask them if they think that a national program would be helpful? Would it encourage participation in the Chelan Cross Country Classic, for example, or the King Mountain meet?

4) Why not use a small portion of the money to implement Team Challenge type events at suitable sites around the country?

5) Why not hire someone part time to network a bit, see who is doing local competitions, get the lay of the land so to speak, determine what competitions are out there locally (Steve Kroop says that there are about 30 each year) and see what they want in the way of support from the USHPA?

6) How about shelling out a little prize money to the King Mountain meet and the CXCC to encourage participation?

7) Why not appoint chairmen of each of the subcommittees of the Competition Committee devoted to each of the competition types and let them organize their sub-committees of pilots interested in those sports to come up with programs?

8) Why not encourage a bottom up approach contacting pilots out in the community and let them design a program?

I have pointed out previously that the USHPA doesn't put any money into their competition program, and that the competition pilots put all the money into it. I have also pointed out at the USHPA doesn't put any money into the National team.

Brad Hall has pointed out to me that in fact the USHPA does have a matching fund program for national team fees at the Worlds. When you turn in your membership renewal you can donate to the fund over at the Foundation for Free Flight and that donation is matched by the USHPA. I don't have any idea how much money the USHPA puts into this matching fund each year. So the USHPA does indeed support the national team at the Worlds, just not the USHPA Competition Program.

So when I see $7,000 going to fix up the competition program, it galls me a bit. The existing competition program didn't have to pay the expenses of the volunteers that created it to create it. They created it based on an obvious need coming from the competition pilots who were clamoring for a fix to the situation. It was a bottom up process.

This is a top down (and bureaucratic) process. There may be a demand from the pilots, but I don't see it. I see Dennis trying to deal with three or four aerobatic pilots who may have wanted to go to the 2009 World Air Games. I see pilots flying in "open distance" competitions enjoying themselves and not worrying about a national program. Maybe they are, but I don't see it. They didn't send in a petition to the board asking for a national program, for example.

I believe that things should be real. If there is a manifest need, then let's fill it. If we are making empty silos, what's the point?

I don't want our volunteers to waste their time. I want them to do constructive tasks. I want to help keep them from wasting their time. By pointing out constructive alternatives (which I have done time and time again) I hope to make better use of everyone's time. What could be more positive than that?

I agree with Matt that my article was unfair and unbalanced. That it dwelt just on the negative aspects of the proposal. That it only provided two alternatives and they were not fully thought out.

I hope that this follow up article (and the dozens of other articles that I have written on this subject) has addressed his concerns. While I believe that he has fairly characterized that particular article, he has been neither fair nor balanced when looking at the big picture. I'll assume that he just wanted to make me see how it feels to be the brunt of unstinting criticism.

I have been assiduous when it comes to making critiques of the proposals before the USHPA that I not just criticize but provide plausible alternative motions. I understand that these are the efforts of volunteers, so I am careful to volunteer my thinking and proposals and not just be negative. I'm sorry that Matt, who has read many of my emails on this issue, has neglected to remember that.

Doug Hildreth

Tue, Jul 28 2009, 9:24:43 am EDT

Doug Hildreth

USHGA Accident Review Chairman

Rodger Hoyt|USHGA

Rodger Hoyt <rodgerhoyt> writes:

Doug Hildreth has passed away. I have no other details yet. Doug of course was known primarily for his years of service as the USHGA Accident Review Chairman, as well as one of the pioneers of Lakeview area hang gliding.

From his obituary:

He entered the sport of Hang Gliding in its infancy and took great pleasure giving back to the sport. He served as Director of Region 1 and Chairman of Accident Review, of the United States Hang Gliding Association for twelve years and was one of the founding members of the Rogue Valley Hang Gliding Association.

Discuss "Doug Hildreth" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Again, what are the goals in the USHPA strategic plan?

Wed, Apr 1 2009, 9:44:40 am EDT

Wait, it doesn't say anything about finding the most skilled pilots to compete in the Worlds

Quest Air|USHGA|USHPA

What are the goals for competition of the 2005 USHPA Strategic plan? They can be found here: https://OzReport.com/12.238#1.

In short the goal is to increase participation in competition (and fly-ins) as a means of promoting a sense of shared community among hang glider pilots and thereby increase the USHPA pilot retention rate. Increased participation means more pilots going to competitions and more competitions for them to go to.

It is not a goal of the USHPA strategic plan to increase the skill level of the pilots who make the US National team, or increase the chances of the US National team winning the World Championship.

But, it is the primary goal (there is a secondary goal) of the existing National Team Selection System (NTTS), to choose the best pilots to represent the US at the World Championship.

But something strange happened when the Competition Workgroup went about suggesting changes to the competition system. They focused almost exclusively on changing the one part of the system that is dedicated to choosing the best pilots for the US National team. They apparently didn't look hard enough at all the things that they could have done to encourage competition beyond changes to the NTSS. This has lead to a great deal of confusion.

Some pilots apparently feel that the NTTS discourages wide participation in competition. Others feel that top pilots manipulate the system to their benefit and the disbenefit of the broad majority of pilots. In contrast, others feel that the NTTS could be made stronger to make sure that it chooses the strongest team, irrespective of its affect on the perception that the "average" pilot has about it. That at the very least it should not be "watered down" or "warm bodied."

Some feel that for the pilots chosen by the NTSS to be considered as the "best" pilots for the US National team, there has to be some means of guaranteeing equal participation in all the meets that could possibly count for one's ranking. That is, the obstacles of time and distance need to be overcome so that everyone with the request skills is there at the meets going head to head. (Maybe someone could win the lottery and become the USHPA competition benefactor.)

Some feel that only certain types of meets are valid indicators of pilot skills (apparently open distance, bonus points to favored LZ's, not timed, handicapped, at mountain sites in strong winds). These same pilots seem to feel that competition against foreign pilots should not be counted whether in the US or overseas. The Competition Workgroup apparently agrees with them.

Other pilots feel that the overseas competition is much stronger than US competition and as they have the time and means they want to compete against the best.

All pilots feel that it would be great to have more Regional competitions (and make it a requirement to do well at them to get to go to the Nationals). Unfortunately they don't say how we are going to encourage meet organizers to put on Regional meets and how the meet organizer for the Nationals is going to afford to put it on with the now reduced participation (which seems to be the opposite of what we want). There is also no recognition of the problem of the vast differences in population and participation amongst the various Regions.

Also, there is no recognition that this is not just a US problem, but is true of all countries. Over twenty years ago or so the regional competitions were dropped in all the countries that had any hang glider pilots. There weren't enough pilots and interest to hold Regionals any more. It wasn't something about the US pilots or the USHGA, or conflicts between Regions that caused the Regional competition system to collapse in the US.

So what if we want to achieve both goals: Encourage wider participation in US competitions and choose the best US National team (again, this is not part of the USHPA strategic plan)?

I would suggest that we focus on those elements outside the NTSS that encourage participation and that we change the NTSS to better ensure that we select the best team (see yesterday's article). But at the same time we have to deal with the perception that the NTSS interferes with participation in competition generally.

An open letter to the USHPA President

February 27, 2009, 6:51:46 PST

An open letter to the USHPA President

Where are the real elements of leadership?

Lisa Tate|Mike Meier|PG|USHGA|USHPA

Lisa Tate, you have been the USHPA President for going on four years, an unpaid/volunteer position. Now, I see that you have written an editorial in the March issue of the USHPA magazine regarding leadership. I'd like to respond to the issues that you raise and engage you in a conversation:

You write:

According to a 2004 study by the Hay Group, trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of member satisfaction in an organization. Effective communication by leadership in the following three critical areas was the key to winning organization trust and confidence.

1. Helping members understand the organization's overall strategy and nation-wide goals.

2. Helping members understand how they can contribute to achieving key strategic objectives.

3. Sharing information with members on both now the organization is doing and how specific programs are doing relative to the organization's strategic objectives.

I would certainly agree with this. I would also state that receiving help and input from the membership would help evolve the plan so that its objectives could be met. Often a plan is a first stab at the problem and that it needs to change over time when confronted with reality.

Effective communication and the development of trust requires, in my humble opinion, transparency on the part of leadership. The membership needs to be able to see who is doing what when and where and how that relates to the plan.

Effective communication is timely and complete. It doesn't wait for six months (think USHPA BOD minutes). It may not be the whole story from day one, but it is the story early enough to be relevant. Early communication invites the membership to participate in the decisions before they are cast in concrete.

As you state the USHPA BOD launched the strategic plan in 2005 with very specific (numerical) goals. Relative to the numbers in 2005, can the USHPA show us exactly how we have done year to year since the plan was launched? (I, of course, have written about this, and as you are well aware, the numbers don't look very favorable.)

I would love to see the USHPA actually carry out effective communication as you have defined it above. Perhaps you can tell us when this is going to come about.

You write:

USHPA believes there are many benefits of competitions and events.

I assume that this is supposed to be somehow related to the first key area in the strategic plan, "Develop and Execute Strong Internal Marketing." Could you explain how competition (I'll ignore events for the time being as I'm not sure what you mean by events), relates to Internal Marketing?

You start your editorial with the grand statements and the big picture but it turns out to be only about the Competition Work Group's proposal. I don't get the point of being so grand when you really are just going to complain about a specific issue with a rather tenuous connection to that picture.

You write:

For several years, the sole focus of USHPA-sanctioned competition in the U.S. has been to create a team of five pilots, for both hang gliding and paragliding, to represent the U.S. at the World Championships.

I believe that you know quite well that this statement is false. Before you were elected to be the USHPA President by the BOD, I was the USHPA Competition Committee Chairman and I made sure that this was not the case. You can find the focus that I placed on competitions by my actions (I'll be happy to provide examples) and by my words in the USHPA Competition Rulebook:

Under Purpose of sanctioning:

"In addition, the role of the Competition Committee is to encourage the growth of the sport of hang gliding by sanctioning competitions that encourage pilots from all locations and with a wide range of skill levels to participate. The CC shall endeavor to build a system of sanctioned meets that allow regional pilots to gain NTSS points and thereby encourage them to participate in national level competitions."

Under Purpose of the NTSS:

"In addition, the purpose of this ranking is to encourage U.S. hang glider and paraglider pilots to participate in competitions and earn NTSS points through their participation."

I have written quite extensively about this and have sent you emails pointing to these articles, so I am quite certain that you have been made aware of this issue. I would appreciate a retraction of your false statement above.

You write:

In 1986 the focus of competitions changed to focus entirely on the U.S. Team selection, and the number of sanctioned events fell from 30 to 40 to as few as 5 or 6 and participation in sanctioned competitions fell to less than 2% of our membership.

I was not involved in competition in 1986. I was at the site of the US National at Chelan Butte, but only to fly my Pacific Airwave Vision 20 down to the junkyard LZ, as I had only been flying for two years. It was later that I got excited about and drawn into competition by the Chelan Cross Country Classic, and the Regional and National level competitions available to me and to anyone who wanted to participate.

I especially appreciated the opportunity to go to the 1989 Manufacturer's League Meet at Pine Mountain, Oregon put on by your former husband without having any competition experience and with having flown only one cross country flight longer than 25 miles. This was a great learning experience for me and certainly one of the highlights of my "competition career," (as I placed 25th out of 75 and beat every single pilot from the Cloud Base Country Club).

But, I believe that your statement above has been refuted by someone who was around during the 80's and watched what was going on. Mike Meier from Wills Wing has written extensively on this issue here in the Oz Report.

He wrote:

In January of 1986, before the new system had even taken effect, I wrote in a letter to Liz Sharp, "I suspect that the new points system is about to be blamed for a precipitous decline in participation in competition at the regional level. This is unfortunate, I think, since the new system has yet to take effect, and since there already has been a steady decline in such participation for the last seven years; a decline that amounts to, over that period, about 80 percent."

While it is not clear from your statement above that you are assigning cause to the effect, it is clear that at least one well respected observer disagrees greatly with your statement about when the events occurred and therefore what can be blamed for them. If the NTSS system can't be blamed for the decline in participation in hang gliding competition, then perhaps we have to think carefully about whether redoing the NTSS system will in fact revive it. I would argue that it is unlikely.

You write:

In 2008 the board formed The Competition Work Group to help develop a new competition system that will serve all the potential benefits to our entire membership, while still maintaining a strong U.S. Team. … Top pilots, along with meet directors, organizers, and marketers were invited to provide input.

You know quite well that this second statement is false or, at the very least, disingenuous. The Competition Work Group did not invite participation from these groups (I never got my email), and the only top competition hang glider pilot invited to join the Work Group quickly dropped out (can you name a top competition paraglider pilot from the US National team on the Work Group?). As you are well aware the USHPA Competition Rulebook states that:

"1. 4. Amendments

Amendments to these rules shall derive from the USHPA Competition Committee (CC). The Competition Rulebook shall be amended once annually, if necessary, at the scheduled fall meeting of the USHPA Board of Directors. Recommendations and comments from USHPA Directors, meet organizers, meet directors, ranked competition pilots and others shall be used to determine whether or not amendments are necessary."

That is, it is the USHPA Competition Committee that shall make amendments to the Competition Rulebook (not an ad hoc Work Group). That the rules changes should come about from recommendations made up front by directors, meet organizers, meet directors, ranked competition pilots and others, not by a semi-secret Work Group that meets without input. That is, the changes asked for need to come from these groups to start the process. What has occurred is that the semi-secret Work Group has made a plan, which at least one member of the Work Group has characterized as a "done deal," and only then are these stakeholders invited to make comments about an already completed document and plan.

Not only that, but the USHPA Competition Rulebook states (as above) that the changes shall only be made at the Fall BOD meeting, but you, the Work Group, and the EC have already pushed through some of the changes and apparently plan to implement them immediately. While the EC and the BOD are apparently free to make up any rule at any time and change their documented standard operating procedures (and rulebooks) after the fact, one has to wonder why that rule was put in place to begin with.

I'll tell you why. In the interest of fairness. The competition committee felt that it was basically unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game. Apparently the EC and the Competition Work Group doesn't mind doing just that.

You write:

The USHPA board reviewed the plan at the fall 2008 meeting. The board endorsed the direction of the work group and supported a limited implementation for the 2009 season, with full implementation to start in 2010.

First, I find the wording of the statements above to be very careful, perhaps too careful. I was not at the fall BOD meeting, so I can only listen to what those who were there tell me (as we don't yet have the official minutes of the meeting). They say that they did not in fact endorse the 2009 implementation, and that the vote was only to encourage the Work Group to continue with its efforts.

What does it mean when you "endorse the direction of the work group?" I suggest that it could mean anything, from full approval to all that they laid out (I doubt that many, if a majority, of the BOD read the report as it was put to the BOD late and without consideration in the Competition Committee meeting, which is the standard procedure to keep things from being jammed through the BOD), to a general approval of them to continue working on the issue. Your statement above sure does not help us understand exactly what the BOD was approving.

I sure don't believe that the BOD was approving 2009 implementation and 2010 full implementation of a proposal that they hadn't read and that wasn't even a final proposal. How were they supposed to approve the implementation of a draft proposal? They wouldn't even know its final contents?

You write:

Unfortunately, a great deal of false and misleading information has been generated through various channels about the new plan.

Lisa, I thought you were from Idaho. In Idaho we talk straight. Pretty much the only "channel" that was generating anything about the new plan was the Oz Report. It was about the only "channel" where there was anyone interested enough in this issue to say anything. You are certainly right about "a great deal" as anyone who wishes to go back to the many many articles that I have written on this issue (^F, "Competition") will see. Whether my statements are false or misleading or both, well we'll see. You have made a broad charge without backing it up with evidence, and we know what that leads to.

So, can you back up your statement here with actual examples (or all the cases)? Show me the statements that I have made (they are all on line and easily available with minimal effort) and present your evidence that my statements are in fact false and misleading. Let's see your proof.

You end your editorial with:

Looking forward.

I would suggest that you are in fact looking back. Way back to 1985, when I was just learning to be a hang glider pilot and sure didn't know what the USHGA was. You appear to me to be holding an old grudge. A grudge against the USHGA. The grudge dates from the incidents (which I am only barely aware of now) that involve your former husband and the meets that he was running in Idaho.

That now is your chance to get back at the USHPA for what happened back then. This is sure what it felt like when you first approached me about changing the competition system (I had already read many of your thoughts in the preceding years) as chairman of the competition committee.

So are you really looking forward or are you using the Competition Work Group to settle an old score?

I am interested in real leadership at the USHPA. I am interested in trust and transparency. The USHPA could do a lot to increase the membership's trust in the leadership, but always seems to do just the opposite.  Is there something in the water?

I invite you to continue this written conversation, perhaps on some web site/forum that is perceived as neutral. A little transparency couldn't hurt.

Mike Meier on the USHPA competition system

December 18, 2008, 8:09:02 PST

Mike Meier on the USHPA competition system

Points aren't what bring pilots to competition

Gerry Uchytil|John Woiwode|Mike Meier|USHGA|USHPA|US Nationals|weather

Mike Meier «Mike» writes:

When I was asked two weeks ago for my opinion on the current USHPA Competition restructuring project, I mentioned that I hadn't really followed the situation in any detail. I'd glanced through some of your comments on the Oz Report, and I'd seen the graph purporting to show the steep decline in competition in the mid 1980's, but that was about it.

I've since taken the time to read through some of the USHPA documents on the current project, and some of the comments on the Oz Report Forum. I've also gone back and re-read some articles and correspondence from the mid 1980's to refresh my memory. (I was there, and very much involved, but it was 25 to 30 years ago.)

There is a great deal of very complex history behind the issues of the NTSS and its relationship to the rest of the competition scene. Few of those involved in debating those issues today are fully aware of this historical background, because they weren't there when it happened. I have to say that the dominant feeling I had reading through the old correspondence was déjà vu - so much of what is being discussed and argued today is almost identical to what was argued then.

I will say that I don't know if I can be of much help in the current discussion. Not because I'm not current in competition (which I'm not, but certain principles don't really change), and not because I don't understand the issues, because I do, but because my opinions were largely minority opinions then, and, from what I've read, they're still minority opinions today. Still, I did promise some comment.

As to the question of whether something the USHGA did in 1986 decimated the competition scene in the U.S., no, I don't agree that that happened. I know what the USHGA did in 1986, because I was largely the one that did it. What we did, or what we tried to do, was remove the competition points system from what I (and others) felt was an inappropriate place as a centerpiece and focal point of the competition program, and attempt to make it what it should have been all along, just a small, unimportant algorithm that sat on the sidelines and quietly picked the six or eight truly best pilots, out of the maybe as many as 20 pilots who might be qualified to be considered, to put on the next US National Team for the next international competition.

Regarding the general history of competition, and the points system, and their relationship, as I remember it, it went something like this:

In the early and mid 1970's competition was very popular and meets were well attended. (There was no competition points system at that time, so clearly the competition points system was not the cause of this popularity.) The 1976 Hang Ten World Open (featured recently in Oz Report discussions) drew more than 300 competitors. In either 1976 or 1977, if memory serves, the Region 10 (southeastern US) Regionals drew 100 competitors. During this period, most regions had regional meets, and most were well attended.

You had to qualify in a Regionals to get into the Nationals because the demand exceeded the number of slots that could reasonably be provided. Ironically, it was during this period that participation in competition was probably the most frustrating. No one had yet figured out how to set up a valid competition task, meets were commonly run in heats of eight or more pilots, around some form of pylon course, the flight was short, and the difference between happening on lift or sink, during your time on the course made infinitely more difference to your score than your skill level.

Adding to the frustration for pilots, the scheduling of a competition virtually guaranteed unflyable weather. By the late 70's and early 80's we had started to figure out how to run competitions that were more valid, and how to pick sites and dates that provided reasonably reliable weather. The One-on-one format was an early success for accurately measuring pilot skill, by pitting one pilot directly against another in each competition round.

Competition locations like the Owens Valley, where thermal densities were artificially enhanced to an unusual degree, allowed, for the first time, for the 7:1 L/D gliders of the day to compete in valid cross country tasks, without the problem of an excessively high percentage of competitors failing to reach the next thermal before they glided into the ground. Ironically, as competitions became more valid, (and less frustrating for the truly competitive pilots), participation actually began to decline. All of this was still occurring before the institution of the first competition points system.

In 1980 - 1981 I helped to draft the first competition points system, to be used to pick the US Team for the 1981 FAI World Championships in Beppu, Japan. That initial system was a reasonable first effort, but it suffered from a number of problems. On the plus side, it used, in an arithmetically specific way, the value of (previously) ranked pilots in the computation of points earned by a given placing in a meet. This was a new idea (for us, at least) at the time, and it worked. On the negative side, the system also added significant points for what in today's discussion are being called "warm bodies" - pilots without any ranking, and it added far too large a percentage of points for various considerations of "format validity." In defense of this shortcoming, it was true at the time that competition formats were still evolving, and it was felt that the system needed to encourage / require the use of the best, most valid formats. But inevitably, trying to make the system serve two purposes simultaneously made it less able to do the best possible job of just ranking the pilots.

An interesting, unanticipated (for me at least), and unfortunate (in my opinion) byproduct came out of that first points system. Pilots and meet organizers began to look at the number of points awarded to the winner of the meet as the primary measure of the value of flying in, or having organized the meet. Up until then, pilots had enjoyed organizing and flying in meets for the direct, tangible benefits that came out of the experience, but all of a sudden, those benefits seemed unimportant, and all that counted was how many points the meet was worth. For the very small percentage of pilots who were seriously aspiring to be on the next national team, this may have made some sense, but for everyone else, it was really a sort of lunacy in my mind. A complicating factor was that there was a lot of regional pride, and the top ranked pilots weren't distributed evenly geographically - they tended at that time to be clustered in Southern California.

The points system was modified for the 1985 season, and unfortunately the modifications, which were misguidedly intended to address some of the complaints that arose primarily from the regional pride issues, increased the invalidities of the system substantially. This came to a head in the then infamous "Uchytil controversy" at the 1985 US Nationals. What happened at that meet was that two classes - a Sporting Class and a World class, were run and scored in a single combined meet, but the pilots were then re-ordered, and CPS system points awarded, as if the two classes had been two separate meets.

Because of the way the tasks were run and scored as one combined meet, it was possible to see exactly how each pilot would have finished in the overall order if the meet had been scored as a single class. Gerry Uchytil registered in the less competitive Sporting class (fewer ranked pilots). He won that class, and earned 398 CPS points for his win. However, had he registered in the World Class, and had exactly the same performance, he would have earned only 297 CPS points. This invalidity arose because the points system gave points for other than the number and ranking of the pilots one was competing against. (The invalidity had always been there, it had simply been hidden until the specific way the meet was run and scored revealed it). Any system that awards points for other than the demonstrated value of the opponents one finishes ahead of will inevitably have this same invalidity - we don't have to argue about whether this type of invalidity will surface, it is a proven historical fact that it has, it does, and it will. (An even larger discrepancy in the same meet applied to John Woiwode - he earned 353 points in the Sporting class with a placing that would have earned only 100 points in the World Class).

What we did in 1986 was to change the points system to remove almost everything from it except the number and ranking of the ranked pilots who flew in the meet. The only other factor in the system was an adjustment formula for ensuring a certain minimum validity of the results on the basis of which points were awarded - depending on the meet winner's points, a minimum number of rounds and airtime were required, each of which were higher in proportion to the number of points the meet winner would earn.

At the same time we tried to de-emphasize the points system as the focal point of the competition system, and get pilots re-focused on what the real, tangible benefits of competition participation were. This idea had not entirely been lost even at that time - almost certainly the best attended meet of 1985 was the Telluride Fly-In - which wasn't even a competition, and earned no points at all. But for many meet directors and pilots, the 1986 version of the points system (which in my opinion is probably still the best one we've ever had), was a gross insult, and removed all of their incentive for running, or flying in a meet. A meet without significant ranked pilots could no longer earn significant points, and this was seen as a great unfairness.

Pilots argued passionately that points should be awarded more based on the difficulty of the task that one flew in a competition, rather than the quality of the opponents one was able to beat. I never understood this argument, and I still don't. I never understood how anyone thought that a ranking system could serve also as a promotional program, a mentoring program, a training program, a regional pride program, or any of the other myriad burdens that the points system was being saddled with.

In January of 1986, before the new system had even taken effect, I wrote in a letter to Liz Sharp, "I suspect that the new points system is about to be blamed for a precipitous decline in participation in competition at the regional level. This is unfortunate, I think, since the new system has yet to take effect, and since there already has been a steady decline in such participation for the last seven years; a decline that amounts to, over that period, about 80 percent." The 1986 points system was indeed severely and bitterly criticized by a number of people, and it wasn't long before it was watered down and largely invalidated by well meaning people who lacked a basic understanding of what is required in the design of a valid ranking system. (There was no question that the system, before it was gutted, was valid - as just one example, at the end of 1986, the four pilots ranked one through four in the system were also the top four U.S. finishers in the 1986 U.S. Nationals, in exactly the same order.)

We have meets today that demonstrate how competition can be revitalized. The Team Challenge has to be the prime example. I don't believe it earns any competition points. It does provide real tangible benefits to its participants. Its existence and continued and increasing popularity proves that a points system is not necessary to promote competition participation.

There should be a ranking system to choose the National Team. It should be a small thing, operating quietly on the side or in the background. It should have one purpose - to look with a high degree of accuracy and validity at the perhaps 20 pilots, that, at any given point in time (they won't be the same 20 pilots from year to year), are legitimate candidates for the next National team. From those twenty, it should accurately and objectively select the top six or eight. That's all it needs to do, and, for it to be designed to do that job correctly, that's all it can do. It should be left alone to do that. (That doesn't mean it can't extend the ranking down to a larger number of pilots - to work, it pretty much has to. Within two years of the institution of the first cps in 1981 we had more than 200 pilots who had earned points and been ranked in the system, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that isn't the goal, and the number of pilots who get points, or who are ranked, should not be any measure of the value of that system).

Vintage Hang Gliding Video at Escape Country

December 11, 2008, 8:10:22 PST

Vintage Hang Gliding Video at Escape Country

Who and what?

Brian Porter|Ground Skimmer|Mike Kelsey|Mike Meier|photo|USHGA|USHPA|video

Mike Kelsey «kelsey.mike» writes:

I just finished publishing a YouTube Video that was from footage of a Hang Gliding competition in the mid 1970's. Lot's of Wills Wing product, Delta Wing, Seagull, Easy Riser, Mitchel Wing and others going for the Bulls eye as well as a few of the aerobatic component. I am trying to get input to see if we can identify makes and models as well as names of pilots that are shown. I am pretty sure a lot of the big names of the day were attending.

See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJD77QeZSHM. Please take the time to review and pass on to others.

 

Mike Meier «Mike» writes:

Looks like the Hang Ten World Open, held at Escape Country, Southern California, April 10th - April 18th, 1976. It was written up in the May 1976 issue of Ground Skimmer Magazine (USHGA). A DVD copy of the entire collection is available through the USHPA office. Comparing photos in the article with the video would allow identification of some pilots and gliders.

Just from quickly watching the video, I can make educated guesses on some of the gliders:

4, 5, 10, 24, 28, 30 - Wills Wing SST

7- Mitchell Wing

14 - Seagull 7

20, 21, 22, 23 - Delta Wing Phoenix 6B

I saw what were probably two Sun Swifts, and the truncated tip gliders would have been either UP Dragonflies or Eipper Cumulus V's in all likelihood.

Bob flew in the meet, and finished 9th. Brian Porter won it on an Easy Riser.

Possible USHPA Competition Goals

November 28, 2008, 8:38:56 PST

Possible USHPA Competition Goals

Can we come up with some more focused goals for the USHPA Competition Workgroup?

USHGA|USHPA

Previous articles in this series

I have already written that the USHPA Competition Workgroup should restart its process (good luck on that) by looking at the goals that they are trying to accomplish with their reworking (slash and burn) of the competition system. Sure there are some general goals in the strategic plan, but that's the problem, they are too general. It's hard to measure how well you are doing when you measure your progress against a vague goal. Let's get specific.

First, here are the competition goals from the 2005 (geez, how time flies) USHGA Strategic Plan:

Promote sense of community by promoting fly-ins and competitions.

More competitions at the local and regional level need to be fostered and encouraged.

Fly-ins also need to be fostered and encouraged at the local level.

Competition Committee to work with Membership and Development Committee to develop programs to increase the number of fly-ins and unsanctioned "fun' competitions.

Competition Committee to develop program to increase the number of Sanctioned competitions, focusing on Regional and National Level. This includes a comprehensive review of the USHGA Competition System and how it can be revised to support the long term goals of the Association.

The point of competitions and fly-ins, as far as the strategic plan is concerned, is to enhance "internal marketing," to retain members (so that we can grow the USHPA), by promoting a sense of community through competitions.

So let's just say that the general goal here is to increase number of competitions (and fly-ins) and participation in competitions.

Can we refine this?

How about these goals? There are currently three well known "regional" competitions: The Chelan Cross Country Classic, the King Mountain meet, and the Team Challenge. Let's have a goal of having four additional similar regional competitions in 2009. And four more in 2010.

Let's list what the USHPA can do to strengthen these competitions to make sure they continue and get increases in participation and implement those items on the list (see here: http://ozreport.com/12.229#0).

Let's find at least four meet organizers/clubs in California, Utah, Wisconsin, and the Northeast who will put on meets similar to these meets in their region and give them the support from the USHPA that they need to it in 2009 or 2010. Let's add four more regions the year after that making sure that we give them the support that they need as well as supporting the existing regional competitions.

Goal: Let's get a west coast version of the Team Challenge going.

Let's take the Team Challenge model and see if one of the LA clubs wants to put on such a competition.

Goal: Double and triple participation in "national level" competitions in 2009 and 2010.

Sanction the Florida Ridge meet, the Flytec Meet, and the Santa Cruz Flats Race meet. Implement the suggestions listed in the URL above to support these competitions. Put large ads in the magazine for them. Contact the meet organizers and see what they need to help make their meets successful.

This is just the beginning of the discussion re refining the goals, finding the strategy, and coming up with the tactics to implement these goals. The means that I have outlined here require the commitment of an individual (so far that is the Competition Committee Chairman) to make the connections needed to get this to work.

Discuss Possible USHPA Competition Goals at the Oz Report forum   link»

The US National Championship series

October 31, 2008, 8:40:07 PDT

The National Championship series

We use to have a National series, sort of

Mike Meier|USHGA|weather

Mike Meier «Mike» writes:

The USHGA did for a time (between 1983 and 1987 if memory serves) implement rules under which the National Champion title was supposed to be determined and awarded based on a pilot's point total over a series of meets. (My memory is that it was best three meets over the one year period between subsequent "Nationals" meets, but I'm not 100% sure on that.) The background behind the proposal for that rule was that at that time, the competition scene was largely centered in Southern California, but there was a desire to move the Nationals around to different parts of the country. This often resulted in "Nationals" meets that were held in less than ideal weather conditions, and in situations where those meets were seen as less than optimally valid. Choosing the champion based on a series of meets was seen to be a solution to this problem, which, I guess, is sort of the same thinking that is going on now.

The rule was, I think, less than completely successful, in part because it was hard to change people's thinking about what the Nationals competition signified. Instead of having one "National Champion" - chosen on accumulated points, and in addition, having winners in various classes of the "Nationals" competition, as the rules provided for, we ended up with multiple National champions - where each Nationals meet winner was considered a National Champion and the actual National Champion chosen on accumulated points was given the somewhat devalued label (in my opinion at the time, at any rate) of "National Points Champion."

This was, it seemed to me, nothing other than an artifact of the reality that decisions made within the committee meetings of the USHGA were often not optimally or completely communicated to, or translated into action within, the hang gliding community at large. Since the intent was to make the National Champion title more meaningful, and the result was that it became (again, in my opinion at the time) less meaningful, it was somewhat unfortunate. In any event, the system was eventually abandoned, and we went back to choosing the "National Champion" as the winner of the Nationals.

Just some historical background, not intended as an argument or advice on where to go from here. There aren't very many of us old guys left that remember any of this stuff.

Discuss The National Championship series at the Oz Report forum   link»

What do the competition pilots want?

October 23, 2008, 8:12:05 PDT

What do the competition pilots want?

Gary Osoba, on his own initiative, did a survey of the competition pilots at Big Spring

David Glover|Gary Osoba|record|USHGA|weather

Gary Osoba «wosoba» writes:

We need not guess at what competition pilots want.

During the 2008 Big Spring Invitational and with the help of meet organizers, I conducted a survey looking at several key questions. The participating pilots represented a broad range of experience and hailed from diverse regions. Collectively, they have much experience with competitions and various venues. To encourage as much veracity as possible, the responses were required to be submitted in writing and the pilots were assured that these would be held anonymously. A total of 150 responses (answers to the questions) were tallied, with a goal of identifying the relative importance of the issues.

Here are the cumulative results, ranked in order of importance. The valuation was based on a 1 to 10 system, whereby the top factor, if given a perfect "1" by every respondent, would have factored in at "1".

Cumulative Rank Consideration for Meet Planning

#1: 1. 7 Maximum Number of Flyable Days

#2: 2. 1 Good Racing Conditions

#3: 2. 7 Readily Landable Terrain, Easy Retrieves

#4: 4. 0 Sanctioning Points

#5: 4. 2 Good Restaurants, Night Life, and Accommodations

#6: 5. 0 Proximity to Other Major Meets in the Same Time Period

Additionally, one quantitative issue was asked of the pilots. "What is the highest cloudbase you are comfortable flying to without oxygen in a racing environment?" The mean average response, by far, was 13,000' msl.

It is clear from the responses that maximizing the number of flying days at any competition is the top priority, followed by good racing conditions and readily landable terrain with easy retrieves. By these measures alone, no other venue that I am aware of in the US even comes close to the record (a rather long one now) of the meets at Big Springs, TX. Additionally, the consistent and excellent conditions do not normally pierce the maximum height pilots are willing to fly to without oxygen- which adds additional expense, complications, and results in less safety. For an example, big mountain conditions usually require oxygen and present much more turbulence, etc.

Please feel free to share these results with your readers and the individuals who make decisions regarding competition venues. I would like to add that I have no agenda in this regard, and although I was a founding regional director of the USHGA I have not even been a member of it for many years now.

Although David Glover consulted me about the weather and other matters involving flight conditions before selecting Big Spring as a meet location, I have no stake whatsoever in the meet. When asked and able to, I have been happy to serve as an unpaid volunteer assisting in weather analysis and task planning. However, I have done the same for several other venues and do not have a personal bias toward any site.

Discuss What do the competition pilots want? at the Oz Report forum   link»

Gene Mathews⁣ is no longer with us

Thu, Aug 28 2008, 1:08:25 pm MDT

Gene Mathews

Gene was the former Regional Director to the USHGA

Aaron Swepston|Gene Matthews|Rob Kells|USHGA

Aaron «Tontar» writes:

It’s really sad to hear of Gene losing his battle with leukemia; he struggled with it for a couple years now and he was very positive about recovery last we talked about it, which I think was at Frostbite. He was upbeat and optimistic and it sounded like he was on the right road to recovery, but struggles like this are not so easily won, sometimes the fight only gives us a bit more time.

I lost my brother to lung cancer about two weeks before Rob Kells passed away from bone cancer about two weeks ago, so it’s been a bit of a sad month for me so far, and Gene’s passing adds to that. It used to be not that long ago that if we lost our friends, it would be a terrible accident that claimed them. Live through all that and then we start losing them to age and lifestyle related diseases, and a lot of us are right in the middle of that demographic! As always, treasure the time we have with family and friends because the clock is ticking! :-) And a fine bunch of friends and extended family we’ve found through discovering hang gliding.

Discuss "Gene Mathews⁣ is no longer with us" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Should the USHPA apologize

August 7, 2008, 7:29:38 CDT

USHPA

and ask for forgiveness?

David Glover|USHGA|USHPA

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12798

Over the years the USHPA EC and BOD have taken actions that have caused concern and often anger among some USHPA members. I ask the question of whether the USHPA would benefit from going back, looking at these incidents and apologizing for them. I suggest that such a review and an examination of the things that were done that shouldn't have been done in the way they were would help the USHPA restore trust with its membership.

I don't think that it serves the interests of the USHPA, EC or BOD, to continue to stonewall, and justify their actions when they have been shown to be, well, let's say, they could have done a better job. All of us make mistakes, and it always does us good to admit them up front. But I have never seen the USHPA EC or BOD recognize this problem (if I am wrong about this, please point out my error). They have always proven to be defensive. See Mark's comments at the thread above.

I have always been a supporter of the USHPA (and USHGA), but I have always asked for reforms. Others want to destroy it. I want just to make it better.

Wouldn't an apology been a first good step?

One big area of concern for me is the attitude of the USHPA EC and BOD toward David Glover, the US's best hang gliding meet organizer. I find the USHPA is very ignorant of competition in general (yes, I am aware that Lisa runs a nice little regional meet at King Mountain) and really has never come to grips with how much good David Glover does for the sport (we don't need plaques, we need real understanding).

The USHPA BOD almost didn't sanction the Big Spring Internationals, this meet. What is up with that? Was it animosity toward David Glover? The fact that the Big Spring Internationals and the Nationals were scheduled one week apart (the USHPA is specifically prevented by its own rules from dealing with competition dates)? What exactly?

They sent Jim Zeiset to the 2007 Worlds to give a very poor speech to "welcome" the Worlds competitors to the US. It was a disgrace. It shamed us all in front of all our friends from around the world.

I would hope that the USHPA would take this opportunity for a little self examination. I do this as a friend of the USHPA (although I doubt that they agree that I am).

What about wing loading?

April 16, 2008, 6:43:02 PDT

Wing loading

We know that higher wing loading makes for a better glide ratio at higher speeds

Brett Hazlett|USHGA

Long long ago (when I was a lot smarter) I wrote a few articles for the USHGA Hang Gliding Magazine about how ballast (and weight overall) affects your glide performance. They became available on Mark Forbes' Hang Gliding Magazine DVD's. They were just JPEG's on the DVD inside of the Adobe PDF format. Using Acrobat 8.0 I copied the pages from the articles and placed them up on the Oz Report web site (it's called repurposing) as JPEG's. They are accessible through thumbnails here.

These articles provide the background to a discussion of the effect of weight on glide performance. What we do know is that heavier pilots (like Attila and Balasz) have an advantage with a better glide ratio when going on glide, but perhaps a bit of a disadvantage when thermaling.

I looked at all the gliders and sizes shown in the previous articles and determined first which models would give me a wing loading of 2 pounds per square foot. The optimum wing loading proposed by the manufacturers was generally in the neighborhood of 1.8 pounds/square foot (it varied considerably), but I considered the optimum competition wing loading to be somewhat higher.

I then ranked the gliders that met this criteria by their span (in meters). They are as follows:

10.4 -Aero Combat L 13
10.3 - Moyes RS 3.5 (I need little ballast)
10.1 - Icaro Z9 13.2
10 - Moyes S 3.5 (I need a small amount of ballast)
10 - Airborne C4 - 13.5
9.8 - Wills Wing T2 - 144

So these are the gliders in span order than would give me 2 pounds/square foot. You would have to calculate which gliders would work for you and your hook in weight.

I then looked at which gliders I could fly and get 2 pounds/square foot if I added up to twenty pounds of ballast but no more than that (and often quite a bit less).  I then again ranked them by their span (in meters):

10.7 - Aeros Combat L 14
10.5 - Icaro Z9 14.1
10.4 - Moyes RS 4
10.4 - Moyes S 4.5
10.4 - Airborne C4 - 14
10.1 - Icaro Z9 13.7
10.2 - Wills Wing T2 - 154
10 - Moyes S 4

Have I done this correctly? Are spans comparable across these gliders?

Of course, these last three articles don't address the issue of climb rate and handling. Brett Hazlett writes:

But amongst similar designs span costs handling, so many choose to fly 'short' to enjoy flying more. Fair enough. The advantages of span are obvious on special days but mostly they are quite subtle. Still, this can be decisive in winning a competition. Handling, on the other hand, or rather the lack of handling is felt all damn day.

What to do about the handling issue is a matter of personal choice. You can go for ease with a short span but your performance will usually suffer to some degree unless you find ways to overcome the span effect with other effects. There are many. Generally, though, you should fly with as much span as you're willing to fly with. Going big with the span and having a ballast system is the most versatile.

Read both his articles here and here.

The 2008 US competition season - applications for sanctioning

October 4, 2007, 2:04:22 pm PDT

US Comp Season

Turn in your application soon

competition|Elizabeth Sharp|John Greynald|USHGA|USHPA

Elizabeth Sharp «Elizabeth.Sharp» writes:

The Competition Committee will be reviewing Sanction Applications for the 2008 competition season at the BOD meeting in Salt Lake City, October 12 and 13.

Please send all applications to the attention of Erin Russell. Signed Sanction Agreements must be faxed to Erin. Only complete packages will be reviewed (including all forms and fees) at the BOD meeting.

Sanction Applications need to be submitted by October 9 via fax (719)-632-6417 or mail to USHGA, PO Box 1330, Colorado Springs, CO 80901. Fees and bonds are due at the time of submission. Payment may be made by credit card.

Sanction applications will also be reviewed at the Spring 2008 BOD meeting but only for competitions with a start date after August 1, 2008. If necessary applications may also be reviewed between BOD meetings.

The Sanction Application Package is available on the USHGA website on the Competition Rulebook web page. Hard copies of the application forms can be requested from the USHGA office by phone (719) 635-8300 or fax, and will be available at the BOD meeting in Salt Lake City.

LIZ SHARP and JOHN GREYNALD, USHPA Competition Sanctioning Subcommittee

I'm here at John's house in Santa Barbara, down at the bottom of Rattlesnake Canyon, and he wants to be sure that all the prospective meet organizers get in their paper work.

Wow!

September 24, 2007, 9:14:05 PDT

Wow!

A new direction in hang gliding instruction

Jay Scovill|PG|scooter tow|USHGA

http://wowclub.aero/

Jay Scovill «jay-scovill» writes:

I am forming a USHGA club for the purposes of recreational flying in the metro Atlanta area. Charter membership in the club means no cost to join and an opportunity for you as a pilot to get some air time, practice static tow launching /landing and, in general have a great time flying instead of driving two hours plus to hang wait on the mountain (Lookout, Hensons, you name it). I currently have very graciously been given the use of the Atlanta Paragliding (http://www.atlantaparagliding.com/) field in North East Georgia; however I am in negotiations with a field owner fifteen minutes from the Mall of Georgia that is just plain awesome!

I'm writing you and any pilots/potential pilots you may know who would like to support/join/get involved with this very worthwhile adventure. I have a strong scooter tow system with a return line for quick launching multiple pilots and the capability to pull an experienced scooter towing pilot to 1000' AGL.

I am not looking to rake in big bucks on this deal. Initially I am trying to get some pilots involved, get them their scooter tow rating if the don't have one (I am a USHGA basic instructor and can give H1 and H2 instruction including a scooter tow rating) and just have some fun without the long drive. Think of the sled run days you've spent at Lookout. Drive two plus hours: Set up, fly six minutes, land, break down, get a ride to the top, set up (repeat). Compare that scenario to a forty five minute drive from down town Atlanta and a tow system that allows you to set up once and fly ten to twenty flights in a day, wind direction not a factor, fly a circuit where you land where you started and go again!

I am looking for some pilots who want to get better, want to get involved with a program of instruction I have been working on since 1998 and actually like the idea of starting on the ground floor of a new hang gliding business. I have several gliders/harnesses/equipment for use: two falcons and a condor for the newbies. I'm interested in training new pilots from total rookies to H2's who just want to get in the air. I'd love to have some experienced pilots to give a hand, their advice, their friendship and to fly from the scooter too. For those of you mountain pilots who have not scooter towed before, it is much easier and no where near as squirrelly as aerotow. So what's next?

I have created a name from the origins of my working on this system called The WOW! Adventure Club. A logo is done, the website: http://WOWclub.aero is up and you can sign up for the club and club news emails there or just write back to this email and let me know who you are!

More to follow.

USHPA magazine - once and only once contributor's agreement »

September 11, 2007, 9:33:09 MDT

USHPA

You can get the USHPA to pay you for your article without too much hassle

USHGA|USHPA|USHPA Magazine

Martin Palmaz at the USHGA writes to say that the USHPA now has a one time only contributor's agreement (unless they change it, I guess). You only have to download it once, print it out, sign it, and snail mail it back to the USHPA headquarters. Then you can email in your "invoice," for your article.

The USHPA sends you out a notice about your article and how much they will pay you, so you can copy and paste from that into your "invoice." Pretty easy. Take the money!

Dockweiler

August 28, 2007, 8:55:04 MDT

Dockweiler

The beginner sites

Harry Martin|Joe Greblo|Richard Miller|USHGA

Harry Martin «harry» writes:

Here's a bit of history that may interest some folks...

Click on above.

This  is a copy of a water color image I painted for the Dockweiler Beach 34th Anniversary Hang Gliding Reunion Fly-in. This water color was auctioned off as a fund raiser to help preserve the Dockweiler Beach Hang Gliding site in September 2000. Painting was signed by early hang gliding pioneers such as Richard Miller, Paul McCready, Bill Bennett, and others. The image highlights the early plastic and bamboo gliders originally flown at Dockweiler Beach. Check out some of the very low USHGA membership numbers.

I recall that the painting was auctioned off for a very steep price and I do not know who won or where the painting is currently located. The bidding was furious at the end. I recently located the scanned image on CD and thought pilots may be interested in seeing it. There was a write up in Hang Gliding magazine, but I do not believe the painting was ever published.

Joe Greblo was instrumental in organizing the event and to my knowledge continues to work hard at preserving what is left of our precious beginner level flying sites. Without his efforts, I'm quite sure the Dockweiler Beach and other flying sites would have been forever lost to land developers. Fund raising and PR events go a long way in helping to preserve flying sites.

http://www.cafepress.com/hmcartoons/3551383

Discuss Dockweiler at the Oz Report forum     Digg This  Reddit  DelIcioUsdel.icio.us

The staggering cost of airtime

July 20, 2007, 9:42:38 EDT

Costs

Each hour of air time is precious

Bill Buffam|record|USHGA

Bill Buffam «ozzie» writes:

I'm a retired hang glider pilot. I miss it, but there are many reasons why I cannot get back into it, which I won't bore you with here. Anyway, it occurred to me that it might be mildly interesting to compute my average cost of an hang gliding airtime hour. For me that's a relatively straightforward exercise, because when it comes to record keeping--of both airtime and pennies spent--I'm an out-and-out anal-retentive geek.

In looking over the analysis that follows, there are several factors you should bear in mind, because your mileage will vary. These factors are:

1. I always kept a record of miles driven to fly, and I charged myself (against the hang glider account) a mileage rate equal to what my employer would reimburse me for company-expense mileage. (See? I told you I was an anal-retentive geek.) Thus, vehicle depreciation, maintenance, etc. are figured into my hang glider expenses as I go along.

2. As hang glider pilots go, I'm one of the clumsier ones. I had more crashes than the average bear, and did more damage. I bought an awful lot of down tubes.

3. I was a slow learner. I was 47 years old on my first day with the glider, and it took me 179 training-hill flights before I got to do a high flight. (But hey, on my first high flight I ridge soared for an hour, so I can do some things right.) Of course, being a slow learner translates to a big tab for instruction.

4. I love gadgets. Also, I have more money than sense. No, let me correct that: I had more money than sense. I spent over $1000 on state-of-the-art varios on two separate occasions.

5. After getting my H4, I moved up to a WW Talon. I found it too challenging and much less fun than my Ultra Sport, so I sold it (after less than 3 hours of airtime) at a thumping loss and carried on with the Ultra Sport.

6. Net equipment costs are included. I sold my glider, but still have harness, vario, GPSes, etc. All old and probably not worth a hell of a lot by now. And I'm going to keep them for sentimental reasons anyway.

7. I did not charge any medical expenses to hang glider. Ideally I should have (but it would have been more accounting hassle than it would have been worth), because my chiropractor put me back together numerous times after my crashes and less-serious mishaps. Also at least one knee operation properly belongs in the hang glider account. Oh, and the broken wrist.

8. Towing costs (106 out of 452 flights) are lumped in with flying fees, as is instruction. Flying fees also include club membership, USHGA membership, etc.

9. The "trips" category includes mileage, tolls, and overnight lodging where applicable, as well as any meals out. My nearest flying site is two hours' drive away, which makes for an expensive average trip.

Having said all that, I caution you about knocking too many of my listed expenses off your own hang glider-expense estimates. Having spent a lengthy period as club treasurer, I'm well familiar with how much whining and moaning a $10 annual dues increase provokes, which is peanuts next to the $45 it realistically costs many of us to run our vehicles to one flight day. But if you don't track your mileage expenses, how would you know? So don't underestimate them.

So here are the numbers, spanning my entire career, August 1995 to July 2005, 117 hours of airtime.

Equipment (net) $13369
Repairs $2187
Flying fees $4605
Trips $11836
Fundraiser contributions $314
Site maintenance $99
TOTAL $32410

That works out to $277 per hour of airtime.

And to round things off, here's an interesting comparison. I can go sightseeing from my local airport (10 minutes away) in a Robinson P-22 helicopter for $225 per hour. Yeah, I know riding in a helicopter is no match for soaring as free as a bird, but still.

Still only $70/flight.

Discuss Costs at the Oz Report forum     Digg This  Reddit  DelIcioUsdel.icio.us

Too much stuff

April 5, 2007, 8:50:37 EDT

Too much

A newbie instructor wonders where the real beginner pilot manual is.

Jay Scovill|PG|scooter tow|USHGA|USHPA|video

Jay Scovill «jay-scovill» writes:

I’ve been told one in five or more who begin training in hang gliding actually finish and become pilots. So to reach the gain of 1000 new pilots per year if we currently are rating 200 plus per year we have lost over 800 who potentially could have become pilots.

Once again my experience in risky sports is as follows: I am a H3 pilot, a PADI SCUBA instructor and a National Motorcycle Safety Foundation rated beginning motorcycle instructor (I can certify a rider so they can get a motorcycle driver’s license). There are some parallels in these sports I can see: potential motorcyclists, SCUBA divers and hang glider pilots come to the first class nervous. They may be wondering: “What am I getting myself into?” and They are excited, excited about doing something that does have some risk. They are frightened about those risks. As a motorcycle instructor my first job is to set riders at ease in every way that I can.

The training book used in forty nine states is called the Rider Handbook. It is fifty pages from cover to cover. A motorcycle has ten controls that are individually coordinated by the operator’s hands and feet while they balance it and it can weigh over 900 pounds. They average over 600.

To get a driver's license (it’s the same course in every state except Oregon) a rider must spend five hours in class, watch eleven videos, complete seventeen motorcycle exercises and then pass a test based on the Rider Hand Book and a driving skill evaluation. Are they any good when they get done with the course? They have been given the basics. With careful step by step practice in more and more complex situations they can become excellent riders.

Just looking through Pagen’s Hang Gliding Beginner to Intermediate pilot training manual (now that USHPA has figured out which one to use) I am looking at a 360 page manual for a vehicle with one control. The technical issues discussed in the first 100 pages are unnecessarily daunting. It is a wonderful book full of information, but “the rule” used in SCUBA (which uses an interactive DVD for the class room. No book at all!) and motorcycling is KISS. My USHGA instructor manual is only 125 pages! What are we doing to these beginning students with this thick book?

We can learn something from these much more successful extreme sports. Does a beginning H1 “need to know” all the data contained in the thirty pages spent on air movement? Or would a word like “turbulence” describe troublesome air enough to get them started flying in calm air?

They are freaked out trying to keep the wings level and the nose angle correct, don’t overload them! Get them some positive growth flying with the scooter, until they can climb to a hundred feet and land in calm air. Then as we begin to let them experience some “turbulence” we let them begin to study the air.

As they fly gaining some H2 skills: turbulence, thermals, ridge lift become “fun” to study. Studying complex air patterns that early on is just one example of too much (frightening sounding) information too soon. My opinion: We are scaring them off.

Two words of advice about training in this sport if you want growth: “baby steps”.

My experience has shown me that lots of people in hang gliding don't want to hear about other extreme sports so this perspective may not be interesting to you or your readers. I see parallels though and these other sports have conquered their demons to move forward and become true industries. I think that learning how to make the sport interesting to more people is going to mean that we will all have to look at models that have overcome an unpopularity that came from fear.

Hang gliding is safer than motorcycling, period. With the advent of the scooter you can do it anywhere and do it more cheaply than you can ride a modern motorcycle. People are fascinated by this sport. Someone is going to capitalize on these facts someday. But they are going to have to make it as fun to learn and as simple as motorcycling.

USHGA forum material backed up

February 21, 2007, 9:25:09 PST

USHGA

The forum is no longer, but the text is still there.

USHGA

http://ozreport.com/docs/USHGA-forums.htm Thanks Gerry.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

US Nationals in Lakeview?

November 27, 2006, 7:30:44 PST

US Nats

It looks like a big hang gliding meet is finally coming back to the west coast

PG|USHGA|US Nationals

Mike and Gail Haley «mphsports» write:

We sent the sanction application to USHGA last week. Hang Gliding Nationals at Lakeview July22-28th. We haven't heard back but should by this week some time.

Mike and Gail will be putting on two big paragliding meets in Oregon also. The Rat Race and an earlier meet in Lakeview. We talked them into running a hang gliding meet when they came to the BOD meeting. They didn't commit then, but have now. Lakeview really wants this to happen.

Discuss US Nats at the Oz Report forum

A hang gliding lead generation plan

October 27, 2006, 6:01:18 pm PDT

Leads

Use third party web sites to generate hang gliding leads

PG|USHGA|USHPA

You'll find Dennis Cavargno's lead generation plan here: http://speedgliding.googlepages.com/marketplan

Dennis writes that hang gliding is unique and therefore newsworthy. That it is an extreme sport. That is an extreme adventure, a thrilling experience, and has a highly unique status. One of the things he seems to mean "unique status" is that it is an elitist sport, that is, only a few will actually take it up.

I refer to this as the "romantic notion." It is a common feeling among the sport participants that they and their sport are somehow "special," a little bit better than the common man, that they have a higher perspective. While this may all be true, it, like all romantic notions, blinds us to the rest of reality.

The reality is that hang gliding is just one human activity among many possible human activities and that there are lots of interesting, fun, exciting, thrilling, extreme, and unique (all in their own way) sports out there and that we are in competition against these sports if we want to capture potential pilots imagination and later their commitment. Heck one of those sports is paragliding, our fellow pilots and fellow members of the USHPA.

So the first thing to do is see the sport without using one's rose colored glasses, and we all have them on. If we want to grow our sport, we need to look at what would make it appealing to others (even though to us it is obviously appealing and we wonder why we would have to do this).

Dennis critiques the USHPA basically for catering to the existing pilots and not looking for new ones. This is a very fair criticism. The marketing efforts of the USHPA are internal marketing efforts aimed at their existing customers. They have very little outreach.

So Dennis and I agree that the USHPA is not setup to bring in new students and it is unlikely that it can be retooled to do so (in spite of their strategic plan).

Dennis proposes using the www.hanggliding.org web site as a recruiting tool (leaving the www.ushpa.aero and www.ushga.org for the existing members). Seems like a reasonable solution to me. Using or creating a separate web site(s) for potential pilot outreach certainly couldn't hurt.

Dennis lists five reasons why web sites work to create leads and I have no basis for any argument with him. In fact I suggest that the owners of the web site begin today and get their lead generation business going. Charge for each lead a small amount enough to make it attractive to instructors to take the leads generated there.

Dennis is willing to volunteer to get the program working. Dennis also wants to reach out to other web sites through Google Adsense and other similar programs that would put ads up on hang gliding related sites and funnel prospective students to the lead generation system. Sounds good.

It seems to me that the USHPA doesn't actually need to be involved in this program, and in fact their involvement may be detrimental to it. They may insist that paragliding get equal footing for example. Of course paraglider pilots could just replicate this lead generation program on their own.

Of course, something needs to be done with the leads generated. That is there has to be a national wide system of effective hang gliding schools that can handle the leads and provide a product, hang gliding instruction, that has a much higher value than what is typically offered today. This is another area where we will be hard up against our competition.

Discuss Leads at the Oz Report forum

USHPA - marketing advice from 1997 »

October 26, 2006, 9:29:38 PDT

USHPA

Some things just don't change

USHGA|USHPA

Ed Stone «estone»  http://www.synernet.com writes:

August 26, 1997

Having read many discussions of the USHGA and some of the issues at hand, a few points seem crucial, in my opinion.

First, it seems to me that there is dancing around the central issue. The central issue is "Is the sport of Hang Gliding growing in a healthy manner, as evidenced by membership in the USHGA and active participation in the sport?".

The answer is not squishy nor ambiguous. The answer is "yes" or "no".

Waiver terms, forest service regulations, litigation, standard operating procedures, BOD control, list gripes --- all of these are nits and lice compared with the larger issue and distract from facing the central issue. If the membership and participation in the sport is growing robustly, then an executive director can point to that, and be given great latitude on the peripheral issues.

If the membership and participation in the sport is not growing robustly, then it is time to find out why and make changes. I submit that if the organization were growing at 20% annually, and four new sites were opening up each month, and increasing hang glider sales caused the cost per glider to decrease 4% per year, and novices could fly 20:1 L/D blade wings and land them with no-steppers, then no one would care if the Executive Director was a pilot. I submit that the executive director need not even be a Hang 1 and he can get airsick in an elevator, but he sure as heck needs to be a Sport Promoter 5 and Advanced Organization Manager.

I submit that neither the membership numbers nor participation in the sport is growing in a healthy manner, and our sport is in danger because of that.

The first point to be evaluated by the BOD is: "Is growing membership in USHGA and participation in the sport the primary item in the job description of the Executive Director?

If it is not, it should be put on the job description, at the top, in bold type.

Second, objective, empirical criteria must be determined up front, to describe exactly how "growing membership and participation in the sport" will be numerically measured. The guy doing the Executive Director job has to know this, and the BOD has to be clear about it.

Third, the board must set explicit goals (in terms of the measurements above) that are to be achieved by the Executive Director. These goals are generally negotiated by a the Compensation Committee or the Executive Committee of the BOD, with the Executive Director. Generally, the ED takes the tack, "if you want x% increase in membership, I need $z". The BOD responds with, "if you need $z, dues will have to increase to $y. Can you increase membership by x% if you increase dues that way?"... etc. It is a negotiation, but it is very healthy because it focuses the BOD and the ED on what it takes to grow the organization.

Fourth, (this is crucial) the compensation of the Executive Director must be tied, in part, to performance versus the goals. For example, say the ED makes $50,000 today (I have no idea what he makes, this is just an example.) If that is a flat rate salary, with no money at risk, then what is the incentive for achieving the central goal? If the ED doesn't like the idea of at risk compensation for membership development, you've got the wrong ED. Thank him and get a new one.

If performing the job at the current performance level is worth $50,000, then compensation is structured in a manner like this, approximately:

Assume (fictional) that the measure of USHGA and sport participation shows that for the past three years, the sport has grown 3% per year, and the BOD/ED negotiations have determined that the goal for the coming year will be 5% growth.

New rate of pay: $40,000 (yep, status quo gets the ED a $10,000 cut) End of year growth measure: 50% of goal (2.5% ): no incentive payout, ED earns $40,000 75% of goal (3.75%): $5,000 incentive payout, ED earns total of $45,000 100% of goal (5%): (par) $12,500 incentive earned, ED earns total of $52,500 125% of goal (6.25%): $20,000 incentive payout, ED earns total of $60,000 150% of goal (7.5%): $30,000 incentive payout, ED earns total of $70,000

Caveats:

1) the BOD and the ED must really believe in the measurement criteria. Both are betting dollars on the measures being fair.

2) this is a simplified example; the ED must also balance the budget and accomplish other objectives. (Obviously, he can grow membership 100% if he can eliminate all flying tests, and pay new members $20 each, instead of charging for membership...)

3) there must be some moderating "longer term" measures as well. Eliminating the waiver might help grow membership, but put all manufacturers out of business, causing the sport to grow this year, but collapse three-years out (No waiver flames please, this is just a fictional example).

Long term health of the sport must be incentivized as well. (In general, a full "at-risk package" has something like base pay set at 80% of midpoint compensation for running a similar sized organization, up to 10% of base as incentive for peripheral matters, up to 50% of base as incentive for the BIG TWO [on budget; growth meets goal]

I believe that such a compensation arrangement would:

1) put the hearts and minds of the directors and the BOD in the same place

2) reduce the focus on the peripheral issues

3) lead to healthy discussion with the ED focused on what the BOD sees as the central objective of the organization, and measures for them, removing wiggle room of both parties

4) lead to a healthy discussion of how participants in this sport depend on the health of the manufacturers, dealers and schools, and vice versa. If participation does not grow, then the manufacturers, dealers and schools decline. If manufacturers, dealers and schools decline, then unit costs rise, opportunity to bring in new people declines, and the cycle deteriorates. We are a very interdependent community. Pilots don't win when schools, dealers, and manufactures lose, and vice versa.

5) lead to a healthy discussion of how to better balance "site acquisition and protection" and "new member development".

When you have someone by the wallet, his heart and mind will soon follow. His own wallet manages him, and he can be left alone more. This can make life for both the ED and BOD better fast, if you have the right ED and a clear, definitive BOD.

A few other points I'd recommend to the organization.

1. Stop making excuses and get www.ushga.org up now. This is the cheapest recruiting exposure per impression that you can have. It hits a lot of self-reliant type people who have a some money and who venture out. The lack of progress on this is an indictment in itself. Every college student in the US has free access to the net. Do you want to market HG to college students?

At least 50% of sport participants use the net regularly. Get moving, and provide for "impulse buying" on the web: brochures should be in PDF format or compact HTML for instant downloading and printing; "Ask USHGA" should be a "mailto" that gets an answer within two working days. Set up an on-line application. If the waiver must be signed, get the app up front, and make the membership active when the signed waiver arrives. Make it easy. Provide a "finder", such that the user can enter his zip code, or click on a map, and get a listing of every school, dealer, club, and manufacturer in his area. Ask if you can give the visitor's email address, phone and snailmail address to to every dealer, school, club or manufacturer who wants it. (I hate junkmail, but this would be by permission.)

2. Get a complete demographic profile on every person who joins, and work hard to understand how and why these people come to hang gliding. You must know where your members are coming from. Print the summary in the magazine. Ask members to read it, and invite folks who meet that profile to visit a flying site with them.

3. Get a complete Exit Questionnaire from each non-renewing member. It should go to a BOD member rather than ED. Compile them and analyze them. Print the summary in the magazine. Allow for free form input as well.

4. Put a five-year membership chart on the desk of every USHGA employee, refreshed each month. In every USHGA meeting, internal and external, the ED starts with two charts: Membership/sport activity versus goal, and budget versus plan.

5. Major inflows of members occur when hang gliding is portrayed favorably in movies and other media. Media-experienced members should be asked to help in this regard, and the ED should have a goal for favorable sport placements.

6. We use airspace, and we are few and have no political clout. Our economic clout is dispersed. In terms of public power, we are nowhere. This will cost us if we don't change it. Listen to amateur radio sometime. It is a dying hobby. The number of 18 - 25 year olds in the hobby is flatlining at zero. The stores and catalogs that used to live off amateur radio have moved on to other things, or are dying. Washington could sell their frequencies for billions, and will. Likewise, our use of airspace can inconvenience others, or result in widely-hyped occasional accidents in a world that seems to expect perfect safety. If every HG pilot in the US could vote against a single House incumbent, it would not likely swing an election. We must join more closely with the AOPAs, EAAs, etc, or risk being summarily squashed. A DC lobbying presence, possibly not directly to congress/exec branch, but to the other associations as intermediaries with whom we could ride along, is crucial. Can we enlist a DC area HG diplomat for this?

7. Terminate the USHGA attorney with thanks and get another one. The ED should have seen the need for this a few thousand dollars ago. I make no determination as to whether the attorney is right/wrong, good/bad. He is a lightning rod, based on based statements in the magazine versus testimony, and based on authoring the waiver. He is naturally biased in the defense of a work he authored. Get someone else now and move on quickly. If the ED can't get beyond the waiver wars quickly, out of court, we need a new waiver, no waiver, or a new ED. Pick one and move on quickly. What you spend to bring a new attorney up to speed will be no more than a strident defense of the waiver would cost from this point forward. Count on settling. Our focus must be on growing the sport. If the waiver is reasonably required to accomplish that, get an attorney who didn't write it to tell us why honestly and dispassionately with factual supports for his points, sit down with the anti-waiver folks and talk with them, and call on us for maturity and reasonableness, as it is given in mutual respect.

In conclusion, my opinion is that the nature of a person who seeks the independence and self-reliance and adventure that HG provides, also brings to the table assertiveness, strong opinions, skepticism, a tendency to be hard to lead around, a tendency to confront, and other very positive attributes, all of which make organizing a group of such people analogous to herding cats or trying to teach a pig to sing. We are a feisty, suspicious, curmudgeonly bunch, and being the Executive Director or Board member of such a group is not easy. We should all try to be a little more tolerant. Of everything but stagnant growth numbers.

If any BOD member would accept my participation in bringing some of this to reality, I'd be happy to give some hours.

Discuss USHPA at the Oz Report forum

No USHPA sanctioned hang gliding meets in 2007, part 3

October 26, 2006, 9:29:10 PDT

No meets

Is the USHPA leadership out to destroy hang gliding competition?

Highland Aerosports Flight Park|Lisa Tate|PG|record|USHGA|USHPA

When Lisa Tate was chairman of the USHPA Planning Committee she put the following into the strategic plan:

More competitions at the local and regional level need to be fostered and encouraged. This will require examination of USHGA’s current competition structure with evaluation and modification to focus on growth of the sports.

Action: Competition Committee to work with Membership and Development Committee to develop programs to increase the number of Sanctioned competitions, focusing on Regional and National Level. This includes a comprehensive review of the USHGA Competition System and how it can be revised to meet the long term goals of the Association.

These are code words for a rewriting of the NTSS ranking system along the lines that Lisa outlined in an email to me in 2004 before she was on the Planning Committee or USHPA President. She wasn't able then to do more than outline what her ideas were. Unfortunately, her ideas were very sketchy and there was no clear path to their implementation. Perhaps that's why she left it up to someone else to come up with a plan.

But we (the Competition Committee) had already been working on goals similar to the ones that she mentioned at the time in 2004. We wanted to encourage more participation in competitions. I had already changed the USHPA Competition Rulebook to give guaranteed NTSS points to meets that didn't have all the top pilots (to encourage other pilots to attend) and to change the purpose of the NTSS system (so that it wasn't just focused on the National Team Selection).

In addition, I implemented the Sport and Single Surface classes which we introduced for the first time in competition in 2006. Of course, now there are no Sport or Single Surface competitions.

I suggested to Lisa that we could up even further the amount of guaranteed points to encourage newer meets that don't have a proven track record. She rejected that possibility. Again this was long before her current position.

As far as Lisa is concerned the USHPA competition system is broken. You've got to wonder why paragliding competition is doing the best it has ever done then, no thanks to Jim Zeiset who did nothing to encourage its growth. So it appears that if there are no hang gliding competitions next year, well, she told you so, and now she is proven right. Thanks for that Lisa.

In fact Lisa wrote that the current competition committee chairman (well Jim and now Dennis) are just there sort of as place holders as the whole rotten system falls down around their heads.

I get the feeling that Lisa is out there pulling down the whole system. She is the responsible person and it is because of her very direct actions that we now have this failure of leadership.

It apparently matters who we have in leadership positions in the USHPA. I used to think that the worst actors were just incompetent. I didn't really think that they were malicious. I don't think that any more.

If you want to attend a USHPA sanctioned hang gliding competition next year (or any high level hang gliding competition next year), I suggest that you contact a meet organizer and express your interest and ask them to organize a competition. I hope that we can get the Florida Ridge, Highland Aerosports, Dan Berecki, Dave Glovers and others to please send in applications for USHPA sanctioning and let's get this situation turned around. I contacted them a few days ago.

You don't have to be the Competition Committee Chairman to jaw bone folks into putting on meets (but it does help).

More here: http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4751

No USHPA sanctioned hang gliding meets in 2007, part 2

October 25, 2006, 8:23:38 PDT

No meets

Is the USHPA leadership out to destroy hang gliding competition?

Lisa Tate|USHGA|USHPA

So how did the USHPA President respond to my indictment of the USHPA leadership on the question of support, leadership, and guidance for hang gliding competition in the US? Well let's say that she wasn't pleased. While I won't quote her as I haven't asked for permission to do so (and won't), I'll accurately paraphrase what she said.

She wanted to make sure that I and all the other members of the Executive Committee knew that she felt that the problem with competition has been going on for years.

Going on for years?

THE PROBLEM? Exactly what was the problem was Lisa referring to?

The problem I was referring to was the fact that in 2006 we had four USHPA sanctioned hang gliding competitions and zero in 2007. But as far as Lisa was concerned that wasn't the problem. She had a much different problem in mind, and perhaps she wanted to solve that problem and not deal with the problem as I saw it, the problem that we've got right now, the problem of no USHPA sanctioned hang gliding competitions in 2007. The problem that we didn't have last year, when we had a different Competition Committee Chairman.

So I wrote back:

I wonder what problem Lisa is referring to.

Last year we had four hang gliding competitions that were sanctioned by the USHGA.

Same was true the year before.

This was due to a strong working relationship between the Competition Committee Chairman and the meet organizers.

In addition the Competition Committee Chairman went and got funds from the USHGF to support the training of a meet organizer in New Mexico.

This year zero. That is the big change that has happened under the current regime and it is due SOLEY to a failure of leadership at ALL levels. This is the PROBLEM.

Previously we had a Competition Committee Chairman that actually cared about supporting competition, recently we had a Competition Committee Chairman that cared more about free enterprise than about the competition pilots.

I certainly hope your statement above does not represent your personal agenda, the Idaho agenda. The failed agenda. Your position on the competition system (as was written into the strategic plan) in the US is a minority position and one that doesn't have the support of competition pilots in the US (as evidenced but the strong support of competition shown by these pilots).

I have been in contact with Lisa Tate for many years, long before she was elevated to the position of President of the USHPA. Lisa for many years has also been the King Mountain Meet organizer and has refused repeatedly to sanction the King Mountain meet as a USHPA sanctioned meet, even after she became the president of the USHPA.

She may or may not have honorable reasons for her decision to keep her meet unsanctioned, but the point is that she has a personal agenda re competition and as USHPA President she appears to be pursuing that agenda to the detriment of the US competition pilots. Her actions as President and as chairman of the USHGA Planning Committee indicate that she is pursuing this agenda, which is fine if it in fact helped increase and support competition, but if it is not, it is a bad policy and should be named as such.

I will have more to say about this in the next article. On going discussion here: http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4751.

USHPA Documents »

Tue, Oct 3 2006, 6:21:31 am GMT

As the BOD meeting approaches

USHPA

USHGA|USHPA

The agenda for the BOD meeting: http://www.ushga.org/documents/2006_fall_meeting_agenda.pdf

The strategic plan: http://www.ushga.org/member_board_info.asp

The documents outlining to be read in preparation for the BOD meeting: https://OzReport.com/docs/_USHPA_BOD_Packet_2006_Oct.pdf

More on these later.

Discuss "USHPA Documents" at the Oz Report forum   link»

USHPA - the goal's growth rate »

September 27, 2006, 9:08:27 PDT

USHPA

Losing 150+ hang glider pilots over the last year.

PG|USHGA|USHPA

Here are the numbers so far:

9/28/2005:
Family Rogallo26830738613
Rogallo472035428279089
Lifetime260228
Subscription00444444
Total50143849131110174

9/26/2006:
TypeHGPGBothTotal
Family Rogallo26032346629
Rogallo456236128879061
Lifetime280331
Subscription00425425
Total48503935136110146

The USHPA's growth goal of doubling their membership in one year would mean that they would strive to add about 750 members over the last year. They appear to have lost 28 members instead. While paraglider membership grew by about 100-150, hang glider membership (only) dropped by about 150. It would appear as though the USHPA didn't come any where near its growth goal.

Rick A. Butler «rick» at the USHPA office who was kind enough to provide these numbers comments:

Remember that these reports, as snapshots, are very volatile; the numbers change daily as they are processed and monthly as members expire. The more accurate reflection will be the trend line. We've been working on analysis to present to the Membership and Development Committee of this data for the last three weeks in prep for the BoD meeting - - definitely a lot (and I mean A LOT) of good reading in the packet.

The Membership Analysis that was done is three reports, the traditional seven-table report that we've always had, a fifteen page analytical look at that data, and a five page spreadsheet. This comprises the largest BoD packet I think the office has ever produced.

I'll be sure to publish the data when it is available. Still, I assume that it will show that we are not meeting our growth goals, no matter how many pages of analysis are available. Perhaps it will help us understand where the lack of growth is.

Discuss USHPA at the Oz Report forum

Buying a training site

September 19, 2006, 8:18:43 MDT

Site

Region Six uses this site for foot launching lessons

Roy Mahoney|Steve Prater|USHGA|USHPA

Oliver Gregory|Roy Mahoney|Steve Prater|USHGA|USHPA

Oliver Gregory «olliettt1955» writes:

In old Region Six )(which is now part of Region Eleven) there are hang gliding clubs trying to purchase their training hill. It is on Bellville Ridge and is where all the new pilots in the region have learned to foot launch. I know it is a rushed deal, but they are pursuing matching funds from the USHPA foundation and are soliciting pledges to help with the purchase. I have donated $100.

These people are class acts. Let me rephrase that! They are all honest and earnest hang gliding enthusiasts with many flying for thirty or more years. Any funds that head their way is money well spent. They will be responsible with donations. I know there are scams out there, but this isn't one of them. Steve Prater was the one to discover that the land was up for sale at auction with very little notice.

Roy Mahoney writes:

The Belleville, Arkansas training hill has been the key site in maintaining a viable population of foot launched hang glider pilots in the Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma region (Ouachita Mountain Range). We have very little time to have a chance at saving this site. See Steve Prater's message below. Steve is a new H2 pilot and knows how vital this training site is to the health of hang gliding in this area. Please send your pledge of whatever you can give, ASAP, to Steve at «praters4». An account will be set up in the next couple of days for sending in the actual $ if we get enough pledges. Currently we are less than halfway there to get just the minimum $5K. Thanks for whatever you can do.

Steve Prater writes:

Some of you in Region 6/11 may know that our Belleville training hill is on the auction block and scheduled for the gavel to drop on the 22nd of this month. An effort to save this for future pilots and us is being made by Chris Price and myself. This 165-acre area has been divided into ten sections. The one we have used for 20+ years is #5 and about 16. 69 or so acres. Both Chris and I have had eMail and phone conversation with people at the foundation, but there is not enough time for funding request paperwork to go through.

Some folks there are looking for other contributors but with so little time left I don't want to wait or rely solely on them. Chris is planning on being at the auction and we are asking those who can to email a contribution.

NO MONEY. I DON'T WANT MONEY SENT TO ME.

Someone will set up a bank account for real money transactions. For now just send a promissory note. This way we can get an idea of what Chris has to work with.

Don't think we will get enough from our group so I plan to send out a general request. What's mine? Just $200. But with a worldwide request it wouldn't take but 150 like that. Yes that is thirty thousand.

You don't go to an auction expecting to win, raise hand to up your bid one more time but find there is nothing left in your pocket, but your other hand. I am being very optimistic and do not intend to loose.

From here we need to gain $5000 CASH for a certified check for deposit and a letter of credit from the bank. These two are required when we win. Who's name will it be in? One of our two local clubs or USHGA. Le'ts not worry with that just yet. We’ve got thirty days after we win to close. All this trouble for a training hill? Yep. But it is not for us but for those to come.

Send your promissory note to «praters4».

Discuss Site at the Oz Report forum

Vista Point near Palm Spring, California

September 13, 2006, 10:22:10 MDT

Vista Point

Maybe it will be opened up again.

Mike Hilberath|record|USHGA

Earlier Oz Report articles on Vista Point here.

Mike Hilberath «mikeh» writes:

Well HANG GLIDING COMMUNITY, you can all pat yourselves on the back yet again! The BLM, on Sept. 9th, 2006, has decided to re-open the issue of hang gliding at Vista Point!! This is monumental (ifnotslowinsomepeopleseyes)!!!

They are going to look at the issue of hang gliding at Vista Point again, in the light that the SRSJNM Trails Management Record of Decision (ROD) changed from "Precautionary" to "Adaptive" as the National Monument Management planned was formed. Thereby, allowing a "study" of the effects of hiking on the Bighorn Sheep, and not a complete ban on all hiking in the Monument.

And hence, in a round-about-governmental-way, the issue of whether or not the decision to ban hang gliding was made in the correct light, or correct at all? Comprende?

So now, the BLM has an opening for a "RECEATIONAL PLANNER". IF ANYONE KNOWS OF A HANG GLIDER PILOT/RECREATIONAL PLANNER, WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN PALM DESERT, please let me know! Once the BLM has this Recreational Planner on board, it will be late Spring of 2007 before he/she will even begin to start to look into the issue of Hang Gliding at Vista Point. Oh well. Thought the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet they do turn... Anyone want to hang glide with your adult grand son? Mike Hilberath 949-683-9519

Background (the beginning)

Hang gliding at Vista Point CA. Banned due to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto National Monument Land Management Plan. Without representation, and with no data, it was proposed that hang gliding at Vista Point causes harm to the endangered Bighorn Sheep in the area.

The hang gliding community became aware of this situation only after the fact.

The hang gliding community requested that the issue be revisited by the Monument Action Committee (MAC).

The MAC created a Monument Working Group to look into creating an amendment to the land management plan.

The Working Group held a meeting with concerned pilots and it was decided that they would not recommend that an amendment be added to the land management plan, but that other suitable sites be identified in the monument in lieu of Vista Point.

On April 29th, 2005, at the advisement of the Monument Working Group, representatives of the BLM, San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF), and USHGA drove all over the monument and forest in search of a suitable site to accommodate hang gliding. Santa Rosa Mountain peak, and a landing area located in the Pinyon Flats community, was identified as the only possible alternate site.

A letter has been submitted to the SBNF service requesting the creation of a "New" hang gliding site. The work put forth by the government agencies was unprecedented. They were actually helping to find a site that could be used in the pursuit of hang gliding!

(time passes)

Well HANG GLIDING COMMUNITY, you can all pat yourselves on the back! The MAC, on Nov. 5th, 2005, has recommended that the BLM consider amending the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa National Monument Land Management Plan to allow hang gliding from VISTA POINT. All I can say is THANK YOU ALL. Your great show of support, showing up for meetings, writing letters, staying informed helped invaluably in the efforts to get Vista Point re-opened. At this point in time, the decision to amend the plan is in BLM's hands. And also at this time, the BLM will not listen to the public concerning this matter; unless, someone had any new information about the effects of hang gliding on the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep. Anyone?

Discuss Vista Point at the Oz Report forum

NTSS updated

August 21, 2006, 8:44:55 CDT

NTSS

Ron missed Phil Bloom

Ron Gleason|USHGA

Ron Gleason «xcflying» writes:

The 2007 NTSS rankings have been revised. I missed the fact that Phil Bloom did not get credited with his results at the 2006 pre-worlds. The revised standings will be posted on the USHGA soon. With this revision Phil moves into 3rd. Sorry for the oversight.

http://ushga.org/compresults.asp

Discuss NTSS at the Oz Report forum

NTSS Ranking »

August 17, 2006, 8:19:00 CDT

NTSS

Ron gets out the rankings right after the pre-Worlds

Ron Gleason|USHGA

Ron Gleason <xcflying@gmail.com>writes:

The latest NTSS rankings are posted on the USHGA web site at http://ushga.org/compresults.asp.  These rankings reflect the results from the pre-worlds that finished last week.

Please review these rankings and report any errors, omissions or issues to Ron Gleason at «xcflying»

The USHGA competition committee is looking for folks to maintain the competition rulebook, NTSS rankings and other duties. Please forward your interest to Jim Zeiset at «jimzgreen»

An overview of the rankings are:

Class 1:

Class 5:

Tracy and Lisa nomination

August 11, 2006, 0:32:30 CDT

Tracy and Lisa

Add your thoughts to their nomination of USHGA presidential award

Chris Christophersen|scooter tow|Tracy Tillman|USHGA

Chris Christophersen «christotc1» writes:

Tracy and Lisa have been nominated for the USHGA PRESIDENTIAL CITATION. Please encourage the awards committee to honor them with the award by writing a short letter of recommendation yourself and submitting it online. Go to: www.USHGA.org, On the left sidebar click on: Forms +, Online forms +, Award Nominations.

You may reference my nomination and preferably use your own words. Many of you can add reasons that they should receive the award and hopefully you will forward your comments to the awards committee for consideration in their decision making.

Dear USHGPA,

Please consider Tracy Tillman and Lisa Colletti (husband and wife team) for the PRESIDENTIAL CITATION.

Lisa and Tracy are very devoted to and have made a significant contribution to our sport over the course of several years now. Their dedication to 1) pilot, equipment and environmental safety, 2) membership development and promotion, and 3) the enjoyment, comfort and pleasure of pilots and their families/guests qualify them for our highest honor we can bestow.

They are without peer in their hospitality and their investment of tireless human capital. Their unselfish financial capital investments certainly must rank near the top in comparison to the majority of HG/PG operations.

This year alone they have made significant time and capital investments. Just a few examples include: starting a “scooter-tow” operation, working to get an HG operation in our region to take action to comply with safety regulations and hosting a fun event designed to renew the interest of “drop-out” pilots to come back into the sport.

Without hesitation they have taken on national organization responsibilities as Region 7 Director(s).

Lisa and Tracy are members that other members should assimilate as much as possible. They certainly have my vote for the Presidential Citation.

Sincerely, Chris Christophersen

USHPA NTSS ranking »

July 31, 2006, 7:41:49 CDT

NTSS

Ron posts the latest NTSS rankings before the Big Spring meet

Ron Gleason|USHGA|USHPA

Ron Gleason «xcflying» sends:

http://ushga.org/competition/results/2007class1ntss.htm

There you will find the latest NTSS ranking.

Discuss NTSS at the Oz Report forum

Umpteenth Annual Free Flight Festival at Lakeview

Thu, Jul 6 2006, 10:38:07 am EDT

Lakeview

The festival wraps up

PG|record|USHGA|USHPA|video

Lakeview's Umpteenth Annual Festival of Free Flight this year was a little smaller than last year. Fifty-six (56) registered pilots as opposed to eighty-eight (88) last year. Worth noting was that the ratio of hangs to paras was even this year instead of ¾ paras to ¼ hangs last year.

The race from Sugar to Hunter's Hot Springs broke a new record this year. Terry Taggert made it in just under an hour (fifty-seven minutes, twelve seconds (it's an hour and a half in the car)).

The paraglide cumulative distance winner, Steve Young, flew 47.71 miles, with one of his flights just over 30 miles. Second place is Dan Wells with 25.16 and third place winner was Rob Stephens. He gets a trophy for three days flying and 16.9 miles.

Here would be a good place to note that we had a lot of rain two days before the event started and that really knocks down the thermals for about a week. The spot-landing contest was moved closer to launch (bail out field) hoping to get more pilots to attempt the spot.

I allowed hang gliders to launch after the window closed, so they could attempt another spot landing, if they would agree to give the paragliders the right of way. All of them agreed. The real problem was that it was just a nice glass off. I counted at least fifteen paragliders in the air over the spot, and none were trying to land. Is calm, rising air and a nice view worth 100 bucks? I GUESS SO! Mike used the USHGA rules. DAMM! The USHPA rules to handicap the hang glider spot landing.

Hang glider winner was Dave Frazer with an adjusted distance of 56 feet. David Cameron's second win was 84 feet with his best buddy Ray Berger behind him at 150 feet.

Before I let the paragliders launch for the spot landing contest (large crowd), I implemented an ad hoc paper airplane contest. I let the spectators and pilots see if they can build and fly a paper airplane the furthest. Anyone can enter and $25 cash for the furthest flight off launch. One piece of paper only, and I made them sign the purple paper I had before they made their airplane.

All these hot shot cross country pilots and the furthest paper to fly, for the next hour, was folded by a nine-year-old kid (Jeremy) for a distance of 45 feet. There was a disqualified entry that did fly 65 feet. It was a paper helicopter and instead of flying against the wind, it flew with the wind. I confiscated it and I am designing next year's hang glider model change, as we speak. Actually he told me he would rather see the kid win, so I gave the kid the cash.

The paragliders that did decide to try for the spot were Rob Stephens (3rd place cumulative miles winner) 1st place spot landing at 3 feet 3 inches (3'3"). Steve Messman (read my book) got second place with 3 feet and 9 inches (3'9"). Any one of the pilots in the air could have been closer than third place winner Tom Mooch at 24 feet but I guess they were having way too much fun.

We did have a couple of injures this year. Dennis flared too high and held on tight as he came in. His reward is a dislocated shoulder. James from Alabama did a bad landing at the Sugar bail out field and sprained his wrist. I did warn you guys about density altitude, didn't I?

I think that one of the highlights of this week was a tandem flight by Dave Beardslee off Sugar with a 72-year-old woman. She had been hounding us for three days for a flight. The conditions looked good Monday at Sugar, and we practiced for a "child" launch (as we could not expect her to run properly). I did get the launch on video, (if anyone wants) but all you can hear is me laughing after she yells at rotation. She was in the air for an hour, laughing, screaming, taking pictures, yelling at us ground based creatures. Most of the pilots have moved on to the King Mountain meet, but the season is "ON" in Lakeview.

There are no USHPA or USHGA rules re spot landing contests.

Discuss "Umpteenth Annual Free Flight Festival at Lakeview" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

2006 Team Challenge

July 5, 2006, 8:44:35 EDT

Team Challenge

The fall meet in Tennessee

Jono Fisher|Tennessee Tree Toppers|Tennessee Tree Toppers Team Challenge 2006|USHGA

Jono Fisher «jono» sent:

Mark Furst, 2006 Team Challenge Meet Director
October 1-7, 2006
TTT Henson Gap Dunlap, Tennessee
See www.treetoppers.org for info and application.

Pilots' Meeting Saturday, September 30, 6:00 PM CT

Team Challenge Mission Statement:

The Tennessee Tree Toppers Team Challenge is an event focused on providing Hang 3 pilots a fun learning experience in safe cross country flying and beginning competition skills. Teams will be led by experienced pilots who will guide, coach, and mentor their less experienced pilots in the discipline of cross country flying.

The primary purpose of this event is to encourage and expose hang 3 pilots to the challenge of flying hang gliders cross country in the Sequatchie Valley, one of the best cross country sites in the world. Additional opportunities for learning are provided with nightly presentations by local and national cross country hang gliding experts.

The rules reflect the focus on encouraging hang 3 pilots and aim to discourage stacked teams of A pilots or teams with multiple rigid wings.

1. All competitors must be current USHGA and TTT members.

2. Pilots will be scored by mileage flown. All flights will be pinned on the clubhouse task map. GPS is optional.

3. Pilot Rankings:

"A" pilot: hang 4 & 5s and all rigids and all of the regular cross country guys. Scored 75% of mileage flown.

"B" pilot: All other hang 3's and new H4's with no cross country experience. Scored 150% of mileage flown.

"C" pilot: hang 3's with no cross country experience. Scored 200% of mileage flown.

All pilot rankings will be reviewed in the first pilots meeting.

4. "A" pilot-scoring rule and bonus:

a. "A" pilots may score an additional 25% by escorting B And C team pilots into goal, giving the A pilot 100% of total mileage. Only one bonus will be given per B or C pilot making goal.

B. No more than 3 A pilots per team

Teams will be comprised of 5 pilots. H3 is required to fly at the TTT Whitwell site. There are no NTSS points available for this competition.

These rules are designed to give new hang 3 cross country pilots all the advantages and encourage their participation. Ideally, the winning team should be comprised mostly of C and B Pilots flying intermediate king-posted flex wings, with only one or two A pilots per team.

The Tree Toppers will even sponsor selected up-and-coming hang 3 pilots with free entry. To apply, email Mark Furst at mk1st@idcnet.com. Describe yourself, your hang-gliding experience, and why you think you should be here. Competition prizes will be awarded, in a ceremony at the closing party, to the top five teams based on overall team points. Other prizes generously donated by various manufacturers will also be presented.

Competition headquarters will be the TTT Henson's Gap launch near Dunlap, Tennessee. The club site features a clubhouse, pavilion, great camping, electrical hookups, and showers available on-site.

Join us over the beautiful Sequatchie Valley for some great gaggles and downwind Sprints in the Hang Gliding Capital of the East, home of the Tennessee Tree Toppers.

Hang Glide Chicago⁣ suspends operations »

Sat, Jul 1 2006, 5:42:08 pm EDT

Chicago

The USHPA brings the hammer down on a flight park that wasn't playing by the rules and was jeopardizing our FAA tandem and towing exemptions.

Hang Glide Chicago|Tracy Tillman|USHGA|USHPA|Arlan Birkett

http://www.hangglidechicago.com/instructor_credentials.html From their site:

Each instructor has undergone extensive training and is certified by the United States Hang Gliding Association.

We are proud to announce that Danny Hartowicz has agreed to instruct for us along with Mike Van Kuiken doing tandems.

Week-end of June 30th to July 2nd. This weekend is on hold. We apologize for the inconvenience. There are a few issues we need to take care of so we can get back in the air.

Under its previous owner, Arlan Birkett, Hang Glide Chicago had three fatal accidents over the last two years, including Arlan and his student's death (https://OzReport.com/9.182#0) while being towed up tandem behind an inexperienced and unrated tug pilot. The previous death occurred on tow on June 26th, 2004 (https://OzReport.com/9.179#0). The experienced pilot was flying a glider new to him, a Moyes Litesport, in the middle of the day, without a fin. The pilot "locked out," and dove into the ground.

Hang Glide Chicago's instructors as of last week were not USHPA certified for tandem (one is a T-1 and the other has no tandem rating) or instruction (as a review of the USHPA database can quickly tell you), contrary to the above statements from Hang Glide Chicago's web site and in violation of the USHPA's exemption from the FAA. In addition, their tug pilot was not USHPA ATP-rated as required by our FAA exemption. This situation obviously jeopardized the USHPA's relationship with the FAA. In addition, it raises concerns about the level of safety practiced at Hang Glide Chicago, given its history. You've also got to wonder how its students get USHPA rated.

Tracy Tillman, the USHPA regional representative in this region, contacted Joe Yobbka, Hang Glide Chicago's new owner numerous times last week (he had previously contacted him, also) and Tracy made absolutely certain that Joe was aware of the significance of the precarious situation he had inherited from Arlan and how much it endangered hang gliding towing and tandem flights through out the country.

Joe has been very cooperative with Tracy and Mark Forbes, USHPA vice president who at Tracy's urging (he wanted to avoid even an appearance of a conflict of interest) spoke with Joe on Friday. Joe has suspended tow operations until he has an ATP rated tug pilot doing the towing. He has suspended tandem and instruction until his tandem pilots have the proper tandem and instructor ratings. Joe is committed to making sure that Hang Glide Chicago is completely on the up and up with the USHPA and the FAA.

I have had my doubts in the past about the ability of the USHPA leadership (EC) and their regional directors to take effective measures to enforce compliance with USHPA regulations and our FAA exemptions, so this incident is to me a great example of what can happen when the USHPA takes its responsibilities seriously. Those exemptions need USHPA enforcement if they are to be honored. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that Tracy, working together with Mark, was able to obtain compliance without having to resort to an FAA inspection of Hang Glide Chicago. Congratulations to all involved.

Tracy is a FAA safety counselor for the FAA's Detroit FSDO area, in addition to being the USHPA regional director, and it is his duty in this capacity to work with outfits that have FAA compliance problems and to get them in compliance before the FAA inspector comes out and the hefty fines start. Tracy's position with the FAA is voluntary and he has no enforcement authority, but he can call in the FAA (as can any one else).

Here are the results from the USHPA database:

Name: Michael Vankuiken
USHGA #: 81044
Exp Date: 6/30/2006
Division: HANG GLIDING
Pilot Rating: ADVANCED By: ARLAN BIRKETT
Date: 6/1/2005
Appointments: Ratings and Special Skills: AT FL T-1 AWCL CL FSL RLF TUR X-C

Name: DANIEL HARTOWICZ
USHGA #: 39166
Exp Date: 5/31/2007
Division: HANG GLIDING
Pilot Rating: ADVANCED By: W. HENRY
Date: 2/15/1988
Appointments: Ratings and Special Skills: AT FL PA VA AWCL CL FSL RLF TUR X-C

Name: JOSEPH YOBBKA
USHGA #: 72929
Exp Date: 11/30/2007
Division: HANG GLIDING
Pilot Rating: NOVICE By: ARLAN BIRKETT
Date: 5/21/2000
Appointments: Ratings and Special Skills: AT

Discuss "Hang Glide Chicago⁣ suspends operations" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

USHPA instructor liability insurance

June 28, 2006, 9:29:01 EDT

Insurance

USHPA developing a program for individual instructors

Jayne DePanfilis|USHGA|USHPA

At the last USHPA BOD meeting, the BOD decided to create an individual instructor liability program which would be mandatory and cost $185 a year. I asked Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» about how it was going. She wrote:

I am working with Tim Herr, USHPA's legal counsel, to develop the policy attributes and discounted pricing for a USHPA-master policy for professional liability coverage. Eligibility requirements include a current USHPA membership and a current USHPA instructor rating.

It is impossible to determine the exact "per instructor" annual premium for this policy without knowing how many instructors will be participating in the program. The Insurance committee voted to approve the $185/year/per instructor fee to clarify their support for a "truly" feasible option but the $185/per instructor amount is not tied to any known premium amount for the policy.

Insurance committee recommended to the Board that participation in the program should be mandatory for all currently certified instructors to help make the cost for the policy much more affordable. It is my understanding that the board will reject a proposal that isn't considered to be feasible for most instructors. I think the cut off point for what's considered to be feasible exceeds $185 but not by alot.

The desired minimum per occurrence limit for the policy is $500,000. The desired (shared) aggregate limit is somewhere between 2 and 4 million but the premium and coverage limits are subject to change -- and therefore, subject to rejection as well.

If the Board approves the proposal for this policy at the fall meeting in San Jose, I would not expect implementation to begin before sometime during the first quarter of 2007.

We have also been advised that if schools hire or contract USHPA-certified instructors who are named individually insured to a Master Policy for Instructor Liability Insurance, the business entity's insurance premium should be reduced as well.

Previous discussion and the full version of her message here.

Discuss Insurance at the Oz Report forum

Towing Exemption Renewed

June 22, 2006, 9:49:11 EDT

Towing

USHPA gets its towing exemption

Jayne DePanfilis|Lisa Kain|Mike Meier|Quest Air|Tracy Tillman|USHGA|USHPA

Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» writes:

I am pleased to report that the Association's Towing Exemption, 4144K, is renewed until June 30, 2008.

Please keep in mind that the implementation date for the Sport Pilot rule is January 31, 2008 -- or five months in advance of the new termination date for the Towing exemption. This means that powered ultralights used to aerotow launch hang gliders (foot launching is completed outside the scope of the Sport Pilot rule) will need to be certificated as either ELSA or SLSA by January 31, 2008. (According to the Sport Pilot rule, once you have certificated the tow vehicle, you will be required to hold a private pilot's license to aerotow launch a hang glider).

It is possible that as we approach the implementation date, FAA will adjust the termination date of the Towing exemption to match the implementation date. It's also possible that the effective date for the Towing exemption will continue to supersede the effective date for Sport Pilot by 5 months.

Currently, as outlined above, a private pilot's license is required for a (tug) pilot to use an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA manufactured before September 4, 2004 )or Special Light Sport Aircraft (SLSA manufactured after September 4, 2004) to tow a non-powered ultralight (hang glider).

New Towing Exemption cards for 4144K will be printed this week and mailed ASAP to all current USHPA members with an ATP rating.

The Sport Pilot subcommittee that worked with Jayne on developing the strategy and letter of request to the FAA for renewal of our towing exemption was comprised of Chair Tracy Tillman, volunteer Mike Meier, and volunteer Lisa Kain (Quest Air Flight Park Manager and Tug pilot).

Tracy writes:

This is another example of our (USHPA's) good fortune regarding our renewed towing exemption:

The FAA has denied USUA's petition, asking for an extension of the deadlines allowed for ultralight pilots and vehicles transitioning into Sport Pilot. Details here: http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20060620/

Discuss Towing at the Oz Report forum

NAA - making it harder to get world records »

June 21, 2006, 10:55:28 EDT

NAA

Let me count the ways

Belinda Boulter|Bill Bolosky|CIVL|NAA|PG|record|USHGA|USHPA

Just as we get ready to go to Zapata again this year for the World Record Encampment, the NAA tries to make it more difficult to get world records. Apparently the NAA wants the USHGA to change its policy regarding its Official Observers. Here is the new proposal from Jim Zeiset, the head of the USHPA competition committee, apparently after his discussion with Art Greenfield at NAA:

They would have to be members of the NAA, approved by the USHPA Comp Committee and named as Official Observers by the NAA or be USHPA members with an Observers Rating.

What does NAA membership do to make these observers qualified? Anyone can be an NAA member. Might it be that the NAA is just looking for more money?

Approved by the USHPA Competition Committee? What criteria are used for this? Do you have to take a test? Is  the Competition Committee expert on the CIVL Sporting Code? Are they ready to appoint anyone now, now that we are going to Zapata?

And named as Official Observers by the NAA? Why this? The USHPA is the official delegated authority for hang gliding and paragliding records, why do the Official Observers need to be appointed by the NAA? What is their criteria? How long do they take to do this?

USHPA Observers? These are people that give out ratings, what do they know about the CIVL Sporting Code?

This is a travesty. The only requirement is that the USHPA keep a list of official observers. We've made up such a list for the USHPA. That should be the end of the story.

Here is what Art Greenfield wrote back in 2000 when I asked Bill Bolosky to check with the NAA about Official Observers:

I believe that USHGA decided that all of its members are eligible to become Official Observers. So, assuming both Davis and Belinda are USHGA members, there is nothing else that you need to do.

Discuss NAA at the Oz Report forum

World Records - did they just get harder to get? »

June 20, 2006, 8:19:30 EDT

World Records

Why does the NAA keep giving us reasons to hate them?

CIVL|David Glover|Kari Castle|record|Robin Hamilton|USHGA|USHPA|world record

Did the NAA attempt to get Robin Hamilton's Swift World Record set last year in Zapata annulled? Here is what Robin wrote when Art Greenfield's communication with the FAI  was characterized as only "due diligence:"

When Art Greenfield from the US National Aeronautic Association (NAA) saw my records announced on the FAI website he contacted the FAI which contacted the British Royal Aeroclub (the NAA equivalent in England) and questioned the validation and observer. This was then communicated to me by the RAC with the clear message that unless Art's issue was addressed/refuted then they would pull the record claim. I called Art directly to better understand his issue and his quote was "My information indicates that your flight was not made with an official observer".

When I read back the common understanding that any USHPA member with current understanding of the Sporting Code was considered a valid observer his response was that this was not his understanding of the process and that observers should be listed and known/approved by the NAA.

His was more than an inquiry made in an effort to clarify future processes or "due diligence." Maybe it was my Texan accent.... I however raised this issue with the USHPA as I realised this had wider implications for other recent hang gliding records and those we aspire to set this year.

It has been the USHGA policy for many years that their official observers for world record purposes are any USHGA members who has an understanding of the FAI/CIVL Sporting Code. All my Word Records, David Glover's, and Kari Castle's have used USHGA official observers as defined above and they have all been ratified by the NAA. There has not been a separate list of USHPA official observers beyond the USHPA membership list and never a need for one beyond that.

Official Observers must have the following qualifications: Observers must know the Sporting Code General Section and Section 7 and have the integrity to control and certificate flights without favour. I'd say only Section 7.0 D and really only parts of that section need to be understood as much of this section doesn't apply. Not much in the General Section that applies.

There is no requirement in the Sporting Code that the NAA has to approve the list of Official Observers. This is the job of the USHPA.

At the moment, Robin's World Records stand. In the next article I'll look at what the NAA now wants us to do.

What happened at the Canadian Nationals?

June 8, 2006, 8:42:53 EDT

Cdn Nats

Was it just economic nationalism?

HPAC|PG|USHGA

Gerry Grossnegger «Pres», the president of the Canadian Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (and my associate here at the Oz Report) interviewed Scott to find out what happened:

Q: The root of the matter is that the U.S. pilots don't have Canadian ultralight pilot's licenses?

A: Yep. (Transport Canada) would be more than satisfied if I used local pilots with local ultra-lights, as then there are no liability concerns. It doesn't seem to bother them that the pilots and the equipment are not at all safe or even remotely appropriate for towing hang gliders, and somebody would probably get killed but at least they are registered.

Q: Paul, Rhett, and Joe, at least, should have a rating that has a Canadian equivalent already...?

A: It is but it is not recognized by (Transport Canada).

Q: I thought U.S. Private Pilot Certificates were honoured in Canada...?

A: Only if it has a current medical and these guys don't.

Q: What's involved with getting a Canadian ultralight license, for experienced pilots like those?

A: Because their training is not recognized they would have to start from scratch here in Canada.

Q: Is this a tugging for hire problem?

A: All of the Tug pilots were "volunteering" their time and only their expenses were being covered. This was not the issue. I will be putting together a full report for all concerned as to my dealings with Transport as well as the issues that they had with the competition as soon as possible. I hope what comes out of this in the end is an improvement for the sport of hang gliding in this country as well as with Transport Canada.

I'm sure the Canadian Ultralight Pilot's Association, and the United States Ultra-light Association, would care about this. Maybe we can get some help from them. Even if it won't help for the Vulcan case there's still future possibilities.

We need to get together with all of the rec av pilots in Canada, we are all getting screwed.

The aircraft were also an issue. The registration that all the US ultralights was not recognized by transport either. I would of had to lease the aircraft and then register them in my name in Canada for the comp.

One of the bigger problems is that historically Mark has gotten an event certificate from transport which puts blanket coverage on all the event participants for HAGAR. I was told that all of the pilots flying in the nats would have to have written and passed the HAGAR exam prior to flying. This would mean that all of the foreign pilots that would have come would not have been able to fly until they had an opportunity to write the exam, wait for it to get marked etc before they could fly. When I went to the states I just had to buy USHGA insurance, not write a 2 hr test.

Something needs to change or any high level comp in this country is in serious jeopardy of being viable in the future.

Discuss Cdn Nats at the Oz Report forum

Can Hang Gliding be saved?

June 8, 2006, 8:37:41 EDT

Saved

It's been going down hill (in terms of the number of participants) for a long time.

Blue Sky|scooter tow|Steve Wendt|USHGA|USHPA

Last October the USHGA BOD adopted a strategic plan that called for doubling its membership within ten years. This is a very aggressive goal. Perhaps they really didn't mean it, because they have done little more than nothing to implement a plan to reach this goal

My point in convincing the USHGA (as it was known at the time) to put a little money into putting on the Steve Wendt seminar/clinic was to get a successful model that could be the starting point for a nation wide effort to training two hundred instructors in this specific method. It was clear to me at least that the USHGA could not meet its membership growth goal if we didn't radically change our approach to instruction.

We clearly need instruction that is vastly more accessible if we are going to bring up the numbers and actually have a chance to save hang gliding. Aerotowing is great, but high costs limit the growth in the number of operations that are possible in a short time period, and the USHGA strategic plan called for a lot of growth, very soon.

It was not clear to me that my plan would actually work, that is, that we could find two hundred instructors who could actually take advantage of Steve's methods and approach and start or continue successful businesses/schools near a large number of urban areas. But, I figured we might as well make the attempt as no one else had any good ideas of how to proceed.

I also submitted a proposal to the USHGA for setting up a scooter tow operation that would visit a bunch of outdoor gatherings (that are ten of thousands of these in the US each summer) giving rides for $5 or $10 each to kids and grownups who were willing. I figured that this would be a good way to introduce the general public to hang gliding and qualify prospective clients. They could they be directed toward local scooter towing instructors. That's  a lot to get together all at once. Of course, this proposal was killed at the BOD meeting, as I reported earlier.

The USHPA BOD has half agreed to fund further Steve Wendt clinics, but he hasn't heard a word from them and without a champion at the USHPA nothing gets done.  I expect that this whole initiative will be dropped by the USHPA.

Will the USHPA make the necessary Herculean efforts needed to revitalize hang gliding instruction in the US? I doubt it. I believe that there is only one entity in the US that could possibly do this (with a lot of help) and that is Wills Wing.

This is not just a national issue. Hang gliding is in decline (in terms of the number of participants) world wide. It can be saved but not without a wide ranging effort. Some folks are interested in the value of such an effort. I encourage them.

Scooter Towing - what is it really? »

June 7, 2006, 10:45:54 EDT

Scooter Tow

Not all towing operations are the same.

Blue Sky|cart|Quest Air|scooter tow|Scooter Towing|Steve Wendt|USHGA|USHPA

Regular Oz Report readers are aware that earlier this year and last I spear headed a USHGA effort to train a small subset of instructors in the Steve Wendt method of scooter towing instruction (http://ozreport.com/10.035#0). You can read a long series of articles about Steve Wendt's scooter tow clinic at Quest Air in February starting here: http://ozreport.com/10.038#3.

Numerous top instructors came to Steve's seminar and were uniformly impressed by his specific and detailed methods. It was clear to them, as their reports display, that Steve had developed a safe and effective method for bringing new students into the sport. Specifically, using a Wills Wing Condor, only flying in no or light winds early or late in the day, using a well designed pulley, using a low power scooter that makes it easy to have a wide range of throttle control, keeping students as low as possible, putting students on the ground if they don't do what they have been told to do, using a golf cart to bring back the student and discuss with him/her the flight. These and many other small details go into the making of a successful scooter tow instruction operation, of which there are very few.

Unfortunately, there are many different ideas about how to do winch or scooter towing many held by reputable or semi-reputable instructors and schools that while representing their experience aren't the best ideas available. And that's putting it kindly. There are a lot of bad ideas and unsafe practices that put scooter towing in disrepute. There are number of instructors and tow operators who are putting their students and clients at risk. For example, http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2266 and http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2556.

There is no mechanism for filtering through all this conflicting information and making good decisions about best practices. The USHPA has not taken upon itself the task of helping the hang gliding community sort out these issues and spreading the word about good practices. The main reason for this is the individuals in charge at the USHPA BOD level.

And the World Could Fly

June 1, 2006, 10:31:07 EDT

CIVL Book

The Birth and Growth of Hang Gliding and Paragliding

CIVL|PG|USHGA

USHGA HAS IN STOCK http://www.ushga.org/store/item_info.asp?pid=186

In the middle of the 1970s, there was an explosion of coloured fabric and aluminum tubing on the hills of the world. Hang gliding was there ! A decade later ski-lift operators found a summer demand from a new wave of adventurers with huge rucksacks containing even simpler aircraft : Paragliding had come of age.

Where had it all come from ? Who were these new pilots ? Why hadn't it happened centuries earlier ?



"And the World Could Fly" tells the story of how flying for the man and woman in the street became a possibility and then a reality. See how the happy conjunction of the research of NASA aerodynamicists and the determination of Australian water-ski showmen produced a hang glider anyone could fly. Read how the parachute changed into a self-inflating wing capable soaring for hundreds of kilometres. This is a tale of a free flight in every sense of the term.

"And the World Could Fly" is produced by the FAI Hang Gliding and Paragliding Commission (CIVL) to celebrate the centenary of FAI.

Discuss CIVL Book at the Oz Report forum

NTSS »

May 22, 2006, 5:57:08 pm EDT

NTSS

Up on the USHGA web site.

Ron Gleason|USHGA

Ron Gleason «xcflying» writes:

The NTSS rankings are available on the USHGA web site at http://ushga.org/compresults.asp or folks can navigate via the COMPETITION button off the main menu.

Any errors or feedback can be sent to Ron Gleason at «xcflying».

Discuss NTSS at the Oz Report forum

USHPA editor needs to contact a photographer

May 22, 2006, 5:14:48 pm EDT

Photographer

Missing photographer

USHGA|USHPA

C. J. Sturtevant «editor» writes:

The magazine staff would like to use a photograph from the magazine archive, attributed to Eric Muss-Barnes, as the center spread in the July magazine. Eric, or anyone who knows how to reach Eric, please contact C.J. «(editor»).

Discuss Photographer at the Oz Report forum

Worlds - postcards went like hot cakes »

May 20, 2006, 9:18:16 pm EDT

Postcards

The Groveland post office was here today.

Belinda Boulter|Quest Air|USHGA

http://ozreport.com/10.067#1

CJ, the USHGA magazine editor, with a big help from Belinda arranged for Groveland post office to come out today to Quest to make a special post mark for the Worlds. This turned out to be a very big success. The postal worker brought his family and they asked if they could stay and watch the take offs. Of course.

Hundreds of letters and postcards went out today with the Worlds postmark. People really loved this. You can still get this cancellation stamp for the next month. Send postcards or letters (in envelopes) in an envelope to the Groveland post office, and they will send back your letters and postcards cancelled.

East Coast Championship »

May 5, 2006, 10:58:21 pm EDT

ECC

CIVL Category 2 Sanctioned

calendar|CIVL|Highland Aerosports Flight Park|Ron Gleason|USHGA|USHPA

http://ozreport.com/calendar.php

Ron Gleason «xcflying» writes:

The folks at Highland Airports just received word from CIVL that their sanction request has been approved. Therefore, the East Coast Championships will be the 3rd, hopefully the pre-worlds in August will be the 4th, USHPA and CIVL sanctioned HG meet in 2006. All foreign pilots are encouraged to attend and for Class 1 USHGA pilots this is a great opportunity to gain valuable NTSS points for the upcoming words in 2007.

The East Coast Championships will be held June 4th through June 10th at Highland Aerosport flight park http://www.aerosports.net.

http://events.fai.org/hgpg/details.asp?id=4211

As I recall Big Spring was already CIVL sanctioned as per:

http://events.fai.org/hgpg/details.asp?id=4121 and

http://events.fai.org/hgpg/details.asp?id=3493

USHGA Competition Committee Report on sanctioning here.

When I was USHGA competition committee chairman, I asked all US 2006 meet organizers to apply for CIVL sanctioning. They did.

New Hang Glide Chicago

May 4, 2006, 11:09:19 pm EDT

Chicago

Jayne is favorably impressed with Joe's enthusiasm for his new flight park.

Jayne DePanfilis|USHGA

http://ozreport.com/10.055#1

http://www.hangglidechicago.com/

Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» writes:

I know you exchanged emails with Joe Yobbka, the new proprietor of Hang Glide Chicago, after Arlan's accident. I've spent some time talking to Joe about his plans for the air park and I attribute much of his success in setting up the flight park to his ability to ask the right questions. Joe is a true aviation enthusiast who is genuinely interested in establishing a flying community at his air park. He's extremely enthusiastic and optimistic about the potential for flying-related fun at the air park.

Discuss Chicago at the Oz Report forum

Looking for your NTSS points?

April 25, 2006, 10:57:52 EDT

NTSS

Contact the USHGA Competition Committee Chairman

Quest Air|USHGA

That would be Jim Zeiset at «JimZgreen». He's responsible for calculating your ranking,

Discuss NTSS at the Oz Report forum

USHPA closed meeting

March 22, 2006, 11:22:18 EST

USHPA

Thanks for your cards and letters.

Lisa Tate|USHGA|USHPA

Apparently Riss had the closed meeting (in another smaller room) to discuss the Strategic Plan. Riss stated earlier in a message to Warren, the chairman of the "Marketing" Committee:

I presented for the Strategic Planning committee a new organizational structure developed in conjunction with Organization and Bylaws. The idea was to get some project management capacity to align the board and volunteer activities with the strategic plan. It was not well received by the board. So, while we have done some tasks since last Fall, we really don't have a way to get serious traction on Growth.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1334

My informants tell me that Riss didn't want to embarrass BOD members with exposing their lack of effort regarding implementation of the strategic plan in front of non BOD members.

This is great! I'm very happy that Riss sees the importance of the strategic plan, or at least I agree that the USHPA must act if it wishes to meet its primary goal.

So let me get this straight. The USHGA BOD passed in March 2004 the Planning Committee's Report that calls for $10,000 to get professional help to have a full BOD planning session. The session is scheduled for the next BOD, is carried out and Lisa Tate is appointed to head up the Planning Committee to come up with the strategic plan based on the priorities set by the BOD at that meeting. By far the top priority is growth.

At the fall 2005 BOD meeting Lisa presents the strategic plan, it is accepted and she is elected to the USHGA Presidency, I assume with the mandate to carry out the plan.

Then not much happens. The USHGA goes on pretty much as before.

It seems to me that when you bring in a new CEO, and pass a whole new plan for the organization, you start implementing the plan. But there appears to be very little emanating from the top of the organization to actually start implementing the plan.

No money is committed by the initiative of the President. No restructuring of the BOD. No creation of new committees aligned with the plan. No holding the feet of the BOD members to the fire.

And, of course, no results to show for the lack of effort on the part of the president.

This to me is most curious. Why would a president with a clear mandate for change shrink from the challenge of change? Why would the person in charge of the initiative to create a plan to bring about change, wait for something to happen?

Sure you don't want to generate resistance to the implementation of the plan by stirring things up too much, but at least you could introduce new things that are aligned with the plan next to the old structure, promote them, and let the old structure just gradually fade away.

Discuss USHPA at the Oz Report forum

USHPA BOD closed meeting

March 22, 2006, 9:27:02 EST

BOD

A closed meeting at the end of the open meeting

Jayne DePanfilis|Steve Kroop|USHGA|USHPA

Riss Estes called for a closed meeting of the USHPA BOD at the end of the BOD meeting last Sunday. All non BOD members, including Jayne DePanfilis and all just USHPA members were told to leave the room.

I have attended a good number of USHGA BOD meetings and I have never seen a closed BOD meeting. The Executive Committee is sometimes closed to discuss Jayne's compensation, but that's the only closed meetings that I am aware of.

As the only member of the hang gliding press, ( :-)) I, of course, would argue that the people's (member's) business needs to be conducted in the open. I get very suspicious when our elected representatives choose to hide from us.

Many BOD members were already gone as the BOD meeting had ended and many BOD members catch planes around noon or 1 PM to get home to the east coast, so not every BOD member was there to hear what was going on. I know that Matt Taber and Steve Kroop were gone by then, for example.

If you ware willing to tell me what happened in that meeting please send me an email and I will put it anonymously in the Oz Report.

Discuss BOD at the Oz Report forum

Aerobatics Worlds

March 21, 2006, 8:51:20 EST

Aerobatics

Will the manufacturers allow their gliders to be flown there.

CIVL|Rob Kells|USHGA|USHPA

 1st FAI Acro World Championships (AWC) Villeneuve, Switzerland, 16 to 27 August 2006

Rob Kells is the hang gliding sub committee chairman for the USHPA competition committee. He has taken on the thankless task of trying to figure out who should represent the US in the First World Aerobatic Championships. I very much appreciate the work that Rob has done to make sure that there is a fair process.

There is one interesting fly in the ointment. Rob writes:

The following is an excerpt from a letter sent to the manufacturers from CIVL on FAI letterhead:

"This is to remind you that Section 7 A and B Chapter Aerobatics requires the following for the pilots to compete in the 1st Aerobatics Championship:

1.2 - Equipment: Each nominated competitor must show an authorization from the manufacturer to fly his glider for the current season.

By issuing this authorization the manufacturer undertakes the responsibility of certifying that the glider has been designed to support the “g” imposed in aerobatics."

Jim Zeiset, our USHGA CIVL delegate, has confirmed that its his understanding the letter described above will be required.

Here at Wills Wing, my partners and I feel it would be disingenuous to provide such a letter, because there is not now, nor has there ever been a standard for certifying aerobatic hang gliders. We are willing to provide them with factual load test data to see if that will suffice. I would be surprised if any manufacturer will sign such a letter, but I will ask them.

Wearing the Target on My Back

March 21, 2006, 8:39:45 EST

Targets

Wait a minute with this PADI thing

Michael Bradford|USHGA

Michael Bradford «MichaelB51» writes:

I've been waiting for the opportunity to renew my support in some way which recognizes the value of your effort. I've only been watching closely for a couple of years, but like everyone, I think I have a unique lens on some of the issues confronting this holiest of air sports. The discussion regarding PADI especially piques my urge to be heard. Thus, I'm wrapping my $ in this email and heaving it over your transom at this time.

In the decade from 1967 to 1977 I worked full time in the scuba business. During that era, all the major dive instruction organizations emerged in the midst of the technical and process developments which actually fueled the sport's growth. Attributing any of this to PADI alone is under informed.

Local Dive Shop keepers simply learned how to conduct the business of training and the pioneering instructors learned (by student attrition) where most of the hazards were hidden. PADI and its rival orgs make it easier to churn the instructor force, and formalize a system where instructor candidates can pay a good chunk of the total freight. It is not, in my opinion, responsible for the development of the important training protocols.

From 1976 to 1992 I earned my living in powered ultralights, first as a pioneering instructor, then flight park operator, then as Editor of Glider Rider and Ultralight Flying! Magazines. I not only watched the same processes unfold, but dog paddled in the core as one of the founders, VP and a Board member of USUA, and author of a number of their instructor programs. My editorial and personal energy was almost 100% focused on development of training and instructors.

The long long road uphill from Hang 2 is not a mere abstraction to me. I returned to hang gliding in 2003, in a very deliberate, and anonymous way, hoping to preserve for myself the simple pleasure of the act--and avoid all the big hairy bullshit of politics and personalities which can sometimes obscure the personal motives and rewards of human flight.

You sir, warts and all, make that easier for me. Without your efforts, your pedantic focus and willingness to wear the target on your back, I'd be much more tempted to enter more of the dialogs in a substantive way. And trust me, that would really suck for me.

So, I'm starting a new tradition for myself which I hope will catch on with others. Effective today, the Oz Report's annual stipend from my meager personal allowance will be raised to $60 (one dollar more than I yearly send to USHGA.) I figure that's about the variable cost portion of a day of flying for me, and I won't even be grimacing when I push the Paypal button.

Discuss Targets at the Oz Report forum

Fired as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman

March 21, 2006, 7:52:14 EST

CCC

My big mouth finally gets me into trouble

CIVL|Lisa Tate|USHGA

Lisa Tate «lisa» USHGA President writes:

First, I would like to thank you for your work as comp committee chair. I especially appreciate your efforts to conduct so much of the committees work prior to the BOD meeting. As you know, I believe we all need to make a greater effort to conduct committee business prior to meetings. I also value the fact that your report was ready for the BOD before the meeting for review.

Because I appreciate the above efforts on your part, I have very mixed feelings in notifying you that I will be selecting another individual to serve as our competition committee chair. You and I have had email communication prior to the Spring meeting where I described to you the level of professionalism I expect from committee chairs who, while they may not be directors, still represent our organization to others.

It is the position of USHGA that our relationship with NAA/CIVL/FAI is an important and mutually beneficial one. It is important to the board that those who represent USHGA, such as Committee Chairs do not deliberately damage those relationships. I further believe the competition committee chair should be willing to guide the work of the committee and subcommittees in all areas of competition, and to monitor, assist, and participate in the subcommittees to insure quality work is produced.

I suspect that because this email follows our recent BOD meeting you may think I was pressured into this decision. I was not.

Until I have appointed a permanent replacement to the position, I have asked Jim Zieset to act as interim chair.

Again Davis, I would like to thank you for your work and hope you will still participate on the competition committee under the new chair.

As I told Lisa not too long ago, "I serve at your pleasure."

Discuss CCC at the Oz Report forum

Wright Brothers Soaring Record

March 19, 2006, 7:04:44 pm EST

Soaring Record

Who was the first to break the Wright Brothers Soaring Record?

record|Terry Barnes|USHGA|Wright Brothers

http://ozreport.com/10.60#3

Ely, Dale R «dale.r.ely» writes:

I saw the film of Rob Keeler breaking the Wright brother's soaring record. It was shown at a monthly meeting of the Connecticut Hang Gliding Association way back when.

How did we get the film? Well, Lee Keeler was Rob's brother and Rob was the vice-president of Seagull Aircraft at the time. Lee was a dealer and I bought my Seagull III from him (475$ !!!) In the Spring of 1974. Lee had just set the eastern record by flying 4+ hours off of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire the previous fall.

I'd have to go find my logbook for exact details, but I made some significant flights in my Seagull III. With it, I was the second person to soar in a hang glider in Connecticut - it was at Avon Mountain and the flight lasted 40 minutes. Rick Williams flew a Chandelle just before me and was the first, with a 15 minute flight above takeoff. I still have the film on 8mm. Great pilot. Great bunch of pilots in the CHGA.

In the fall of '74 many of us went to Magic Mountain in Vermont for a meet. I got 1 hr and 5 minutes. Lee Keeler was up at least that long in his III just before me. We had the only Seagulls at the time and had a good margin in performance over the regular deltas of the period (most were Chandelles from California or Zephyrs, the local brand in Connecticut). All were great kites that enabled the beginnings of hg in New England. Tom Peghiny at SkySports was also making his first appearances with the SkySports Bobcat. His great Kestrel would come later.

Later on, we went to a GSI (GliderSports International, an early competitor to USHGA before things got sorted out) instructor clinic at Mt. Cranmore in New Hampshire. On the last day, Al Mulazzi and Doug Weeks organized a daring impromptu trip to fly Mt Washington. (Al was later lost in a tragic no-hookin accident at Avon Mt. in Connecticut). There were 7 of us and we flew the then unflown west side of the mountain, which has a 3300' drop to the valley. It was an 11-minute sled ride in my Seagull III. I was sixth off, I believe, and only one of two to make the parking lot at Wildcat Ski area (the rest landed on the main road).

tommy thompson «soar8hours» writes:

Terry Barnes does not ring a bell on the day I saw the record broken. But he may have a point.

Discuss Soaring Record at the Oz Report forum

USHGA BOD spring meeting results

March 19, 2006, 6:57:50 pm EST

BOD

Reporting through an earphone

scooter tow|Steve Wendt|USHGA|USHPA

No reports were posted by any of the committee chairs unfortunately. But there is a report from the EAR:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

Name change to USHPA

Powered harness inclusion still in the hands of the Task Force. No change to the Articles of Incorporation. Inclusion only at less than 15% if at all. Perhaps more on this later.

$10 dues fee raise (to keep up with mostly past inflation).

Mandatory liability insurance for USHPA certified instructors.

$2,600 for an HOLC USHPA contest (more on this soon).

$3,000 for more Steve Wendt scooter tow clinics (if $3,000 coming from the USHGF).

USHGA, be more like PADI »

March 16, 2006, 10:31:28 EST

PADI

Support for instructors.

Harry Martin|Scott Trueblood|USHGA

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11431#11431

Excerpts from what Scot Trueblood «Hang4av8r» writes (the full version at the URL above):

Several years ago, PADI as well as others in the dive industry recognized a looming crisis similar to what the HG/PG industry now faces. Dwindling numbers of divers and stiff competition from other activities (such as snow skiing) had drilled a hole in the numbers of diver certifications being issued, and existing divers were dropping out of the sport. Being action-oriented, in 1997 they took immediate steps to reverse some trends which involved a total shift in the entire marketing approach, which is now simply referred to as “THE CHANGE”. I believe that the USHGA needs to take steps to implement a similar “THE CHANGE”.



Cartoon from Harry Martin http://HarryMartinCartoons.com

In conclusion, I believe that the USHGA needs to do more to support instructors, but not necessarily make it cheaper or easier to become an instructor. The PADI IDC costs around $1500-$2000, which comes after the considerable expense of obtaining the Divemaster certification and the requisite minimum of 100 logged dives. Despite this, there are probably hundreds of dive instructors for every hang gliding instructor.

The USHGA should do everything in their power to throw down the money and start producing a better package for their instructors to offer.

Discuss PADI at the Oz Report forum

USHGA - Funancing »

March 16, 2006, 9:13:09 EST

Funancing

Warren proposes GE financing for your next glider.

PG|USHGA

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1254

Name: Equipment financing through GE Money Bank

Description: GE Money Bank has a program specifically designed to help individuals finance the purchase of outdoor adventure gear and equipment. It is called the "FUNancing" Program and it is currently available to help outdoor enthusiasts purchase items such as scooters, snowmobiles, ATVs, personal watercraft, and recreational vehicles. The FUNancing program can also be used to finance helmets, jackets, gloves and other accessories.

This proposal to USHGA is to investigate the possibility of adding hang gliders and paragliders to the FUNancing network. Consumer financing for HG/PG equipment (and possibly accessories) would enhance our product offering by making it easier for prospective and existing pilots to buy gliders. It would also provide an intangible benefit - credibility of HG/PG through affiliation with a large financing company such as GE Money Bank.

Discuss Funancing at the Oz Report forum

USHGA - instructor liability insurance »

March 15, 2006, 9:20:20 EST

Insurance

Should it be mandatory?

Jay Scovill|USHGA

A few excerpts from a letter from Jay Scovill about instruction and insurance found here: http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1304 

I do not believe that the BOD or this organization can continue with their current policy and expect substantive growth in the sport. All active instructors must be insured (even if they elect to go outside the USH(P)GA umbrella insurance which must be researched and obtained by the USHGA)

The discussion turns to this question: "Should "members" be represented by USH(P)GA or should its primary function be the support of instructors.

This can only be answered one way: Members are generated by instructors... period. There is no chicken/egg parallel. Members join this organization for one reason: for instruction. In PADI I never once heard a diver talk down the superior claim to power and representation with "the organization" the instructors had to have.

PADI, NAUI the major organizations related to scuba are all instruction driven organizations. They all saw who was saving their ass and respected the time and effort we as instructors took to be there for them... End of argument. I promise what's good for the instructor will benefit the students and the organization.

You are absolutely right Jayne, it must be a burden laid upon the schools and at the feet of the students. The reasons for insurance as I see it are: " When the USHGA "requires" all schools and instructors to go out and get insurance to set liability limits it will place all schools on an even footing from the standpoint of insurance costs thus training fee costs. Right now the school with no liability on its instructors or general liability can afford to teach more cheaply.

One or more of the schools will discover that standardization of instruction and delineation of instruction down to the most minute detail will affect insurance rates in equal measure. This type of "baby-step" instruction will save lives. " Whoever uses it will begin to see the potential for insurance numbers (of claims) within their organization getting better and they will not want to belong to the "sloppy" program offered by the USHGA. " That is If … the USHGA does not maintain standards that cover such incidentals. "

Those old school BOD members, who by the way, have my hat off to them eternally, need to take a complete look at the process by which a PADI instructor "becomes" an instructor and how that organization, its promotions and improvements to instruction are followed through. PADI is a group that learned the hard way how lack of standardization/ rigid follow through could adversely affect them and now have a training program that is directly tied to their liability program. By the way, I pay triple the fees each year to PADI to be an instructor than the fees I pay to stay in the USHGA.

Did anyone ever wonder why scuba which is at least twice the cost of Hang gliding to get good at and demands 10 times the maintenance on equipment is so much bigger than hang gliding? To go scuba diving where its actually fun (pretty views-warm water) also costs a fortune! Meanwhile hang gliding is beautiful wherever we can "get up" to do it. Anyone who has done both will vote for hang gliding. So why is HG/PG not pumping the numbers scuba diving is? Because HG/PG is more dangerous. Why is it more dangerous? Because it is not being taught with safety placed at the top of the criterion for training.

Discuss Insurance at the Oz Report forum

USHGA - the BOD meeting begins »

March 15, 2006, 9:19:53 EST

USHGA

On Thursday, the EC meets

USHGA

The USHGA BOD meeting starts this weekend. You'll hopefully find on going reports from it here. You can join in the discussion with the BOD.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

The Old Tin Cup »

March 15, 2006, 9:02:55 EST

You are not a captive audience

Davis Straub|USHGA|video



The USHGA has quite a racket going. In order to get their wonderful third party liability insurance (and site and event insurance) you have to send them lots of extra money for the magazine. The magazine that I am a staff writer for. The magazine has, relative to the Oz Report, a huge budget. It has 10,000 "readers." It's budget is more than ten times that of the Oz Report.

But the Oz Report comes to you five times a week, has much more up to date information, handles controversial issues, and doesn't waste a forest worth of trees. But you don't have to pay for it unless you actually want to. I hope you find the value here to support your subscription.

If you like and/or read the Oz Report, use the Oz Report forum, use our connections to Google Earth, sell or buy gear, download videos won't you do a little something to help support us? $20 per year (or more if you find the value here) for a year subscription:



If you want to send in a check it's:

Davis Straub
PMB 1889 PO Box 2430
Pensacola, FL 32513

USHGA - the strategic plan »

March 14, 2006, 10:08:41 EST

USHGA

What's the goal?

USHGA

Report to the USHGA BOD:

What's the goal?

The goal is to double the membership every ten years.

What does the goal look like?



In 2006 we need 700+ net new members. In 2015 it's 1,300+ net new members.

What are our past numbers?



What's happened since we adopted the strategic plan and our growth goal:

Here's where we were at the fall BOD meeting:



Here's where we are at the end of February:



We are losing members at a rate of 3.7% a year. We need 847 net new members over the next eight months to make our target growth rate. If we continue losing members at the current rate, that means we've got to bring in 1100 new members in the next eight months.

We are currently going in the opposite direction of our goal. Does this mean that we will score for the other team?

How can we possibly meet such a goal?

Instruction

We are losing instructors at a rate of 75 instructors per year (according to the strategic plan). At that rate we will be out of instructors in 11 years, one year after we are supposed to have our first doubling of membership. As all new members have to go through the funnel of instruction, how do we expect to have net new members with declining numbers of instructors?

What does the strategic plan offer as a way to make for a bigger instruction funnel? Very very little. See here: http://ozreport.com/9.248#0.

The strategic plan fails to address the major choke point in reaching our goal of doubling our membership.


I have addressed this issue with a plan to make instruction a viable business near all major metropolitan areas. This is a step in the right direction. You can find it here: http://ozreport.com/docs/scootertow2.htm.

Marketing

In addition to vastly opening up the funnel of instruction (people who want to fly can't fly if there is no one to teach them), it would be nice if the people that want to fly heard about us and how they can get to an instructor.

Unfortunately, the strategic plan is more than a little vague about just what we are supposed to do about marketing. It leaves it up to the chairman of the marketing committee to come up with something (exactly what is unclear). Not necessarily a plan of action, sort of a jumble of different directions. You can see that here: http://ozreport.com/9.251#0 as well as a follow on statement from the new chairman of the marketing committee here: http://ozreport.com/9.251#1.

The chairman of the marketing committee has spoken to this very issue in his report to the BOD spring meeting here: http://ozreport.com/docs/Spring2006MarketingReport.pdf

The USHGA doesn't have any idea how it is going to attract more potential students to fill up the instruction funnel.

I have made two proposals which address this issue: http://ozreport.com/docs/scootertowmarketing.htm and http://ozreport.com/docs/soartexaswre2.htm.

Like my proposal for improving instruction these are just first steps and they do not fully answer the question of what do we need to do to meet our goal.

The rest of the strategic plan is, as far as I'm concerned, marginal at best, when it comes to having any noticeable effect on achieving the main goal of the USHGA - growth, 7.2% growth per year (the clock is ticking). If we are to achieve our goal everything in the organization must be turned toward achieving it. All expenditures and actions need to be measured against the goal.

I suggest very simply that we take the goal of the strategic plan, begin engaging in vastly improving our support for instruction and in implementing marketing efforts in the short term as we develop a marketing plan.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

Incident report

March 12, 2006, 11:01:33 pm EST

Incident

Why doesn't the left wing want to fly?

cart|Paul Tjaden|Quest Air|USHGA

http://www.ushga.org/emailacc.asp

Accident Description: Actually three incidents.

First:

I was launching from the northwest corner of the Quest Air field next to the road. The wind was 5-7 mph out of the south southeast. The wing runner was on the east side, my left side, of the glider with the job of holding down the wing that would normally want to rise.

With a light wind I was doing a bit of a cross wind launch. After the tug started, the wing runner took a few steps and the left wing went down and not up. I felt the left wing being behind. I came off the cart, got ten feet in the air and the weaklink broke. Normal landing.

Second:

I went back to launch again from the same spot. The wind was a little more southerly. The wing runner went to the same side. The tug started and after a few steps, the left wing went down again, and stayed down.

I came off the cart with the right wing and went skidding across the grass. Scrapped right knee, the right tube weaklink in the down tube bend, the glider turtled and the nose cone suffered skid marks. No other damage to the glider or pilot.

No one understands why the left wing refused to fly.

Third:

An hour later Paul Tjaden in a Wills Wing T2 launched from the same site had a large dip in his left wing while at 10 feet off the ground. Swift that launched near there had rocky launch. Others launching there didn't experience problems.

Were there rotors coming off the buildings to the east? No one has a good explanation. Something similar happened twice to Jim Zeiset at Wallaby Ranch a few years ago.

Getting old

March 11, 2006, 8:04:47 pm EST

Age

The average age of US hang glider pilots and more.

USHGA

Steve Roti «steveroti» writes:

Averages ages of USHGA members by division and by rating (as of 3/10/2006).

Division  Avg Age  Std Dev
BOTH      47       10.4
HG        46    10.9
PG        43       11.0

Rating    Avg Age  Std Dev
H-1       42       12.4
H-2       43       11.5
H-3       46       10.0
H-4       50        8.7
H-5       53        7.1
P-1       42       11.6
P-2       43       11.1
P-3       45       10.9
P-4       45       10.1
P-5       48        7.8

Note: Some members don't supply their birth date so there is missing data; the calculated numbers above use the best available data.

Discuss Age at the Oz Report forum

The Old Tin Cup »

March 11, 2006, 8:02:25 pm EST

Hang Gliding politics

CIVL|Davis Straub|USHGA|video


We cover hang gliding politics. CIVL politics. USHGA politics. It's probably not your favorite subject, but I see it as part of my job to keep everyone aware of what our governing organizations are up to. If not the Oz Report, who?

If you like and/or read the Oz Report, use the Oz Report forum, use our connections to Google Earth, sell or buy gear, download videos won't you do a little something to help support us? $20 per year (or more if you find the value here) for a year subscription:



If you want to send in a check it's:

Davis Straub
PMB 1889 PO Box 2430
Pensacola, FL 32513

USHGA Competition Committee Report

March 9, 2006, 9:02:41 EST

USHGA

The USHGA BOD meeting is on line

USHGA

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1251

Eight USHGA sanctioned competitions this year.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

USHGA BOD agenda items

March 8, 2006, 9:58:04 EST

USHGA BOD

Calling on the USHGA to implement its strategic plan

USHGA

The USHGA spring BOD meeting: http://ozreport.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

I sent the following to the BOD:

Below you will find links to proposals that will go before various committees at the BOD meeting. If you find them interesting you might want to attend the committee meeting where they are discussed.

Safety and Training and Finance and Membership and Development:

http://ozreport.com/docs/scootertow2.htm

Finance and Membership and Development (and Marketing):

http://ozreport.com/docs/scootertowmarketing.htm

http://ozreport.com/docs/soartexaswre2.htm

Safety and Training and Finance: http://ozreport.com/docs/accidentdatabase3.htm

Competition and Finance

http://ozreport.com/docs/USHGAHOLC.htm

Finance:

I received a confidential email from Jayne on January 11th that stated, "I agree that the strategic plan must be incorporated into the budget."

I point out the mismatch between the budget and the strategic plan here: http://ozreport.com/10.019#2. Jayne writes to the EC:

I am definitely not prepared to include the strategic plan into the 2006 budget. I require more data regarding plan priorities and I will need to conduct additional due diligence regarding the costs for plan priorities. I simply wasn't able to address the costs associated with implementation of the plan after the fall meeting because I spent so much time documenting the procedures for the membership vote.

How are we to accomplish our goals, as detailed in the strategic plan, if we don't align our budget with that plan?

Agenda item: The finance committee shall take the 2006 budget and restructure it to actually reflect the strategic plan.

The strategic plan lays out one goal above all others, to double our membership within ten years. This is a growth rate of 7.2% and implies 700+ net new members in 2006 (double that amount at the end of ten years).

The budget priorities don't reflect this goal and priority. There is little or no funding for the dramatic efforts that will be required to accomplish this goal and achieve this growth in 2006 and the years beyond.

The budget shall incorporate and fund all necessary efforts that work strongly toward the goal of membership growth. All other budget items shall be evaluated based on whether they strongly promote the growth goal or not, and if they do not, they shall be dropped.

Discuss USHGA BOD at the Oz Report forum

Now as to John's article on the CIVL web site

March 7, 2006, 7:19:42 pm EST

CIVL article

The favor he has done me.

CIVL|Dean Funk|Guido Gehrmann|USHGA

http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/node/363

I took a copy of the article as I just wasn't sure that it would actually stay up on the CIVL web site. It is so uncivil and so unCIVL like. I sure hope it stays there.

First, as I made clear in my original article, the article was my responsibility as editor and publisher of the Oz Report and not as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman. That my statements are not official USHGA policy in any way and the USHGA is not a party to the article. To identify me as the USHGA Competition Committee Chairman in the first paragraph serves to confuse the reader as to whether he is referring to official USHGA policy or not. I don't think that John did this carelessly, or unknowingly, but on purpose.

John accuses me of being anti-CIVL. Well apparently he hasn't heard from those who really are anti-CIVL and would advocate that CIVL be destroyed and that the USHGA leave CIVL. I have never argued for these actions and have vigorously defended CIVL against such attacks. John mistakes criticism of CIVL policy and actions with a jihad against CIVL itself.

Let me make myself very clear. I disagree with some (maybe many) CIVL policies and actions. It is my perfect right to do so. It's called democracy. And freedom of the press. I'm exercising that freedom.

When CIVL does something right, you hear about it from me. When they screw up, you also hear about it from me (that is the editor and publisher of the Oz Report).

John apparently doesn't understand what the "royal we" stands for: "Me, myself, and I."

John accuses me of being certain that my views are superior to the "collective views and decisions of CIVL." Well, that's easy, you are damn right I do. Sometimes I'm even right about that.

CIVL is a once a year meeting of the delegates for two days to make a whole series of decisions with little background. They've got to get it wrong most of the time. CIVL is structurally designed for failure and it shows.

Now I know how this work as I go to the USHGA BOD meetings (twice a year for two and half days) and I can see much of the same dynamics. I've seen the results from CIVL Plenary's and CIVL Bureau meetings. Frankly, the work is not of the highest caliber. But then it is being done by volunteers and they don't get much support, so it is understandable.

I've already discussed the FAI Sporting License issue and meet organizer fees.

John is absolutely right when he says that I mistakenly sent Dean Funk to the Worlds in Oz, not realizing that he had not qualified in the top 2/3rd's of a CIVL Category 2 sanctioned meet. It was purely a mistake as I really didn't even think that that could possibly happen as I had seen Dean at the Flytec meets. I got that wrong. It happens. I believe that I apologized profusely at the time and thanked John for his consideration.

I very much appreciate the fact that John and the other countries at the 2005 Worlds agreed to allow Dean to fly in the Worlds (which he did quite safely, by the way, which some other "qualified" pilots did not).

Well, there really isn't that much else that's new in his on-line screed. John seems to think that I have some hope that CIVL will realize that they screwed up when they invalidated the FAUX meet. Oh please, give it up. I wouldn't have written the original article if I had thought that there was any hope of that. Hello, anyone out there?

No, I don't expect CIVL to realize that they made a big error and chose to screw two pilots who didn't deserve their condemnation and who are perfectly qualified to fly in the Worlds, no matter the pieties from CIVL and John.

I do put one challenge before them though. Judge these pilots not on the basis of whatever residual bad and vindictive feeling you may have about the editor and publisher of the Oz Report, but on their own performance.

Finally, it is my considered opinion again as editor and publisher of the Oz Report, that CIVL's actions are killing hang gliding. I saw this again when Guido Gehrmann (look him up, guys) said at the last Worlds that he would never come to a Worlds again. Until I see CIVL stop putting up barrier and start to tear them down, I'll keep this position.

This is so great!

March 7, 2006, 6:40:17 pm EST

CIVL takes on Davis

Wow, John tears me a new asshole on the CIVL web site!

CIVL|John Aldridge|Lauren Tjaden|Paula Howitt|PG|Steve Kroop|USHGA|US Nationals|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

I can't believe my good fortune. John Aldridge has taken up the challenge and responded to my CIVL-bashing article with his own Davis-bashing article. I am so honored to be attacked in the primary article on the CIVL web site. I'll have to see if I can keep this up.

The article is linked to above and here. Go ahead and check it out.

Now for a few clarifications. First, to the short article above. Last weekend, I sent the article out to Paul and Lauren and to John Aldridge and Paula Howitt with CIVL and to Jim Zeiset the USHGA CIVL Representative for them to review for accuracy, any comments that they wanted to make, and to let CIVL prepare a rebuttal. I had originally planned to publish the article at the end of this week, but given some later actions by CIVL (asking Paul and Lauren for the FAUX meet competition rules), I decided to go ahead and publish it in my blog on Monday and in the next Oz Report issue on Tuesday morning. I would have liked to have given CIVL a bit more time, but frankly I didn't know the meaning of their actions (now I do). I suspected at the time that they were trying to come up with another reason to invalidate the meet. I was proven correct.

It is my understanding that Paul and Lauren had been asked by the Flytec meet organizer, Steve Kroop, to help with the only US hang gliding meet that was CIVL sanctioned in 2005, and therefore could not participate in the meet. They flew in all the other national level meets in the US in 2005 (none of which were CIVL sanctioned). This would explain why he and Lauren weren't able to fly in the only meet that would qualify them for the Worlds.

I provided their competition history and showed in the previous article that they were SUBSTANTIVELY qualified (they would be safe and competitive) to fly in the Worlds. John has not disagreed.

I don't know what the Gross National Product of the US has to do with whether pilots are qualified to fly in the Worlds. Paul and Lauren are not responsible for USHGA policy but CIVL, because it is vindictive and wants to teach the US and the USHGA a lesson, chose to make a case of it, and Paul and Lauren suffered because CIVL hates USHGA policy.

The CIVL Sporting code would certainly have allowed Paul to fly in the Worlds if the CIVL Bureau chose to see it that way. They had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe. He was not flying in Class 1 but in Class 5. It's right there in the rules and the CIVL Bureau could have easily said, go for it. But, in their vindictiveness they chose not to.

Lauren was disqualified basically because CIVL did not feel that she had enough competition experience. At least that what I get from their explanations. It is the judgment of the people who know her that she would be a safe and competitive competitor at the Women's Worlds. I think that we know better than the CIVL Bureau in Europe. But then, CIVL hates the USHGA, so if a women pilot, who everyone thought was a shoe in, doesn't get an exception, well, that does send a message, now doesn't it?

Now, as to the validity of the qualifying meet which CIVL encouraged us (well Paul and Lauren) to hold. I have already argued and made my point that there were enough competitors in the meet to meet the criteria laid out in the CIVL Sporting Code. John doesn't bother to make an argument against that as there were sixteen pilots entered in the meet which is one more than the criteria in the CIVL Sporting Code. John even foregoes the word competitor and refers to them as pilots. Well, they were all indeed pilots.

It is my understanding that there were two valid tasks flown on the last day. I have seen from Lauren a detailed description of the meet and that's what appears to be the case to me. In my detailed discussions with Paul there was never an issue of whether not enough tasks were flown. If this is not true, then CIVL has a good leg to stand on. John unfortunately doesn't lay out any evidence for his case here so I can't examine its validity.

Perhaps this is why Paula asked for a copy of the competition rules after CIVL had invalidated the meet and after they had received from me the copy of my article. Perhaps they were now going back and looking for another reason to invalidate the meet after they saw that their case was weak re the number of pilots. I'll just bet that they came up with this after the fact. Nice going John!

As I'm good enough to let CIVL know that this article is coming out and solicit their input, corrections, comments, and rebuttal, and they take it as an opportunity to prepare their case by emailing Lauren, getting a copy of the rules, and going over it with a fine tooth comb to see if, now that they need another reason to invalidate the meet, they can find one. Gee, I wish I always had a second chance like that.

Paul and Lauren will be competing in the US Nationals at the Florida Ridge and the Flytec Meet in April. They have the opportunity to qualify unambiguously for the Worlds by placing in the top 2/3rd's of the either of these meets. But, let's say that Lauren doesn't quite make it, after all many women don't quite make that cut off and that's why CIVL has a special exception for women competitors. Then Lauren would have to go back to the CIVL Bureau, the one's that I have hopefully just hang out to dry, and beg for an exception. Not only that, she has to ask them before the Flytec meet, because she needs to apply for an exception one month in advance of the Worlds. So she won't even know how well she is going to do at the Flytec Meet, before she applies for an exception.

You might think that Lauren fears retaliation by CIVL for the trouble that I've caused. After all, I feel that CIVL has already punished these two US pilots for USHGA actions, so why not just continue in that vain. Put every meet under the microscope so to speak. Find some little flaw and hold it up to a spot light and make sure that this is the reason that Paul and Lauren unfortunately can't be allowed to fly in the Worlds.

So who is to blame? John wants to blame the USHGA Competition Committee and/or the US meet organizers for not bending over for CIVL and mandating CIVL sanctioning for their meets. As the USHGA Competition Committee Chairman I have continued a policy that predates me of not requiring that meet organizers get CIVL sanctioning for their meets. Why doesn't the USHGA require meet organizers to sanction their meets as CIVL Category 2 meets:

1) CIVL Category 2 sanctioned meets require that pilots have FAI Sporting Licenses. This is a barrier to competition attendance and we want to put as few barriers in the way of attending competitions as possible. FAI Sporting Licenses must be purchased from the NAA at $35. IN the US, unlike in other countries, competition pilots must obtain their FAI Sporting Licenses on their own and pay for them separately. The USHGA does not wish to burden the general USHGA membership with subsidizing a small minority of pilots to pay for their FAI Sporting Licenses.

2) CIVL requires meet organizers to pay them the price of one entrant to the meet. This adds to the fee that pilots would have to pay to enter the competition. Again another barrier to competition. The USHGA is trying to encourage competition and encourage new meet organizers. CIVL appears to be trying to kill hang gliding.

3) We would rather that the USHGA and the meet organizers be in charge of their meets and keep CIVL out of it. CIVL has many rules which we do not find appropriate. If CIVL wants to run our meets, well then they should come over here and run them and not require us to kowtow to their every whim.

4) The only benefit for CIVL sanctioning is that pilots get listed on the WPRS world ranking system. 95% of our competition pilots could care less. Therefore they would be required to pay for something that is no benefit to them. BTW, even if our meets are CIVL sanctioned we are not requiring that pilot have FAI Sporting Licenses because we get around CIVL (quite upfront and legally, and discussed with CIVL) by running concurrent meets, one CIVL sanctioned, and one not, but score everyone together).

5) Some of us in the  USHGA are very unhappy that we have to pay $10,000 a year for NAA membership (which makes our connection with CIVL) for nothing in return. It is blackmail. We don't appreciate being blackmailed. This does not make for a good relationship.

6) We are not happy that our USHGA CIVL representatives appear to turn into CIVL clones and forget whose interests they are supposed to represent.

The USHGA policy, as per the last USHGA BOD meeting, and at Jim Zeiset's (USHGA CIVL Representative) request, is to encourage (but not require) meet organizers to obtain CIVL sanctioning. I, in my official capacity as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman, have done just that. I basically took a document that Lauren Tjaden wrote about how they got CIVL sanctioning and sent it to all the meet organizers. It would appear that we might get all the hang gliding and all the paragliding meets (nine US meets) CIVL sanctioned in 2006. You would think that CIVL would be jumping up and down for joy as opposed to trying to screw us further.

I personally have not changed my position on CIVL sanctioning. While I believe that for me personally it is a benefit for me to have all the meets CIVL sanctioned, it is not a benefit to the general USHGA membership nor to the vast majority of US competition pilots, and frankly my job as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman is to look out for their interests, not mine.

There will no doubt be a discussion at the fall USHGA BOD and Competition Committee meeting regarding whether the USHGA should continue to encourage CIVL sanctioning of US meets and whether it should be made mandatory for USHGA sanctioning. I doubt that we will do either, but that is not up for me to decide.

So, no, John, you've got it wrong about how I stand with respect to CIVL sanctioning as both chairman of the competition committee and as editor and publisher of the Oz Report. In both capacities I continue to argue for what is the greater good for the greatest number.

As for your article at the CIVL web site, I take that on in the next article. Thanks for opening up this discussion and making the inner workings of CIVL and the USHGA more transparent.

CIVL rebuts my condemnation of CIVL's actions

March 7, 2006, 5:35:04 pm EST

CIVL

John Aldridge stands up for CIVL

CIVL|John Aldridge|USHGA

John Aldridge «HGMeethead» writes:

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond to your article before you printed it. You will not be surprised that we (the CIVL Bureau) do not accept your criticisms, but unfortunately other business (and some personal life) prevented us sorting out a response before you went to print. Anyway, to address some points in your article:

I will start with the matter of exemptions for Paul and Lauren. The rules for this are clear and we received a submission from the USHGA. Paul's case was based upon a lack of opportunity to qualify. This was clearly nonsense as the submission made clear that he lives near the only flight park to regularly run FAI Category 2 events. The failure of other US competition organisers to get FAI sanctioning for their meets is an internal matter for the USHGA and not a reason why pilots from the richest nation in the world should be excused the normal entry requirements. Nations such as Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Colombia etc all manage to qualify their pilots so why not the US? Lauren's case was different but we do not believe it appropriate to discuss such things publicly, suffice to say that we did not feel an exeception was justified, although we gave one to two other US women pilots at that time.

You go on to argue that a meet that Paul arranged so that he and Lauren could meet the letter of the Section 7 requirement, if not the spirit, should be counted as valid. Well, it failed on more than one count, primarily pilot numbers, but also on valid tasks. Section 7 requires a minimum of 15 pilots and 2 valid tasks for a Category 2 event. This event did not meet the minimum pilot numbers (as you admit in your article) and only one task was valid under the competition rules. Paul and Lauren have accepted that the meet was not valid - and they did so with good grace. I understand they intend to compete in the April Flytec meets to gain the qualification they were so unfortunate to miss this time around - and the whole CIVL Bureau wishes them the very best of fortune in this.

But, who is really to blame for this sorry state of affairs? CIVL which sets out simple criteria for Category 2 meets and does its best to advertise them so pilots can compete, get their world ranking points and attempt to become eligible for Category 1 meets? Or is it the USHGA Competitions Committee or US meet organisers?

 Until recently you were advocating a policy of working around CIVL rather than with that body instead of using your online platform and communication skills to persuade US meet organisers that they could provide a better service to US pilots if they got FAI sanctioning for their meets? Might I also suggest that, now you have come around to the view that more US meets should be FAI sanctioned (your mail to me on 13th February) you or your committee should be better prepared to advise US meet organisers on the basic requirements for Category 2 meets.

I have written a fuller response on the CIVL website if your readers are interested in that.

Discuss CIVL at the Oz Report forum

Paragliding author

March 7, 2006, 9:02:25 EST

David Jebb

And ex-cop

David Jebb|PG|USHGA

www.thethirteenthtimezone.com

David Jebb, the concessionaire at Torrey Pines (http://www.flytorrey.com), and Regional Director for the USHGA, has come out with a book that draws on his life as a San Diego Sergeant. Check it out at the URL above.

Discuss David Jebb at the Oz Report forum

Steve Wendt's Scooter Tow Clinic

March 7, 2006, 9:02:00 EST

Scooter

How did the participants feel about Steve Wendt's clinic and what did they learn?

Dave Broyles|John Matylonek|Michael Robertson|Pat Denevan|PG|scooter tow|Steve Wendt|USHGA|weather

John Matylonek «john» responds to the questionnaire from Dave Broyles, the USHGA Chairman for the Safety and Training Committee:

Did this program show you how to run a profitable small hang gliding business?

Since the point of the scooter tow clinic was primarily the optimum mix of technology and instructional methodology of Steve Wendt, I did not expect much formal presentation of business methods. However, various business tips and spontaneous presentations were offered regarding instruction, sales and service as a sidelight. It turned out that the participants were as much a part of the show as Steve Wendt. So, in that regard, in turned into conference - not a sage on a stage. That is why it was so successful.

I went away with many ideas regarding effectiveness of instruction, marketing, and how can I steer students to purchase equipment and remain in the program and also how to improve the quality of the business. Pat Denevan and Matt Taber in particular, are the masters at the business side of hang gliding. Both Pat and Matt know it is critical to not only provide efficient and effective, consistent and regular instruction but to also sell the equipment that will keep an operation afloat. I found the instructional discussions with Michael Robertson regarding visualizations, timing of new challenges, and new research on how brains learn very stimulating. For me, the blend of practical, theoretical and economic aspects of hang gliding instruction was perfect.

What new marketing ideas for hang gliding did you get?

The technology and this particular instructional method together opens up any field near population centers and even near major roads to view hang gliding first hand. As long as you remain low and slow, we can have hang gliding schools everywhere. Also, we need to stop calling it scooter tow. Call it "tow assisted" hang gliding, otherwise people will have visions of being pulled by a scooter!

What conclusions did you come to about equipment?

Less is more. A 90 CC tow engine is enough. Simple and inexpensive enough for any instructor with caution and common sense to operate it easily and effectively. It also is extremely reliable and simple as any winch system can be.

What conclusions did you come to about training with scooter tow?

The low and slow and incremental USHGA method of foot launch still applies with tow assisted instruction. I still believe that this method is best utilized in conjunction with a training hill, just because the kinaesthetic differences, complexities of airflow around terrain, and environmental cues (starting from low to higher) are great enough to be not transferable to mountain launches. But, if the pilot will be primarily a tow pilot than this can method can stand only too as many winch operators have shown. Hill launching than becomes a "special skill" for tow-trained pilots.

However, if one lowers the sights about the ultimate aim of tow assisted flight

- that it fills gaps and provides consistency and regularity in a comprehensive training program - than this method will be powerful way of speeding progress in instruction at all sites around the country. This will make instructors and schools more efficient at providing instruction to groups. As long as it is kept and low & slow - the complexity and potential dangers are minimized so that even instructional assistants can operate the equipment.

The main fault of all new instructors is the inability to control incremental steps in the program of instruction. In part, this is because of inability to control site conditions and the effort of physically assisting those beginning ground skims. Impatience and wishing to see results (on both the students and instructors part) leads to the tendency skip necessary fundamental steps. When they start to have accidents, bending aluminum and incurring expense and seeing how frustrated their students get, they intelligently quit. An impatient tow operator can still be tempted to solve control technique problems by adding power, so training is necessary in constitutes incremental steps. That's what I was paying attention to mostly. But this knowledge is minimal compared to using high power hydrostatic line retrieval winch system and doing high tows.

What Steve showed is that by under powering the system the tendency to rush the student in the air before gaining fundamental skills can be avoided. This particular use of the technology can help create the ideal situations so that students can improve in an incremental way, just like an ideal training hill that has all wind directions. But, it also is less work and frustration for the student since their legs are not being used in acceleration and carrying themselves and/or glider back the hill. This method allows some of the physical effort to be minimized so that students can concentrate on body movement and control (tiring enough for most students). This does not mean the student will not experience frustration and/or hang gliding will be open to all. After all, as instructors we are still setting up ideal, assisted and supervised learning situations. The trick is still getting people to take instruction well into their hang two stage in the mountains. The main reason people drop out of the sport now is they don't get enough support at this stage.

What did you like best about the clinic?

This has been the first clinic where high quality ACTIVE and Successful instructors shared their knowledge, wisdom, problems, and frustrations. It was one in which we all showed and DEMONSTRATED what we knew - as opposed to only sitting in a room talking about what we knew. It was truly more like a instructors professional conference, where we made spontaneous presentations of what works, what doesn't, and possible reasons why. The spirit was that of sharing and helping one another other become more successful.

I especially liked the personal discussions regarding instructor's relationships with manufacturers of equipment and other instructors. We have come to the point in hang gliding where cooperation not competition will keep the industry alive. Even my paragliding instructor buddies see the advantage of sending students to each other (from hang gliding to paragliding and vice versa) and/or using our specialized skills to assist each other in instruction and promotion.

What did you like least about the clinic?

That not everyone got the same immersion that I did and the weather interfered with first one. Since I participated in all four clinics I was able to see most of the situations in which the tow technology and instructional methods could be used to fill in most gaps in instruction - use of the 90 CC, 125 CC and even 225 CC (the one available to me) winched could be used appropriately. Also, not everyone got the benefit to hear Pat Denevan, Matt Taber and Michael Robertson talk about measuring quality, effectiveness and efficiency of instruction and marketing solutions.

If a clinic like this were not free, what would be a fair price to pay for it?

Making a truly sincere and promising beginning instructor pay for anything about professional development is a bad idea in this stage of hang gliding's decline. We need instructors. Simply deciding to make a go at teaching hang gliding is a sacrifice in itself. But, if a similar conference can be duplicated the way I experienced it - 8 days of high quality immersion in demonstrations, participation and presentation - I would pay $150 to $200 to do it again. You must remember, in part, I created my own experience because of my commitment to attend all the clinics.

The following questionnaire is to find out what exactly was covered in the clinic and what you think should be covered. Please note what was covered with a C, what you would like to have heard about with an L and what you don't care about with an X.

What information were you given about equipment for scooter tow training?

Was there a discussion about what scooters are appropriate?

Small, medium, large? - C

Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) vs. manual shift - C

Centrifugal clutch vs. manual clutch. - X

Was there a discussion about where are they available?

New, used, wrecked? - C

Was there a discussion about scooter tow systems design and building?

Trailer, modular, trailer hitch mount, free standing? - L

Were line tension measurement and methods explained? - L

Was the value or lack of value of line tension measurement discussed? - C

Wheel drum building? - C

Was there a discussion about equipment maintenance? - C

Was the cost of various approaches to setting up a scooter tow operation discussed? - C

Was a type of rope suggested? - C

Were the advantages and disadvantages of various types and sizes of rope discussed? - C

Was splicing or tying knots in tow rope explained or demonstrated? - C

Was a turn-around pulley demonstrated? - C

Were mounting and use of turn-around pulleys discussed or demonstrated? - C

Was any source of turn-around pulleys suggested? - C

Was a tow line parachute discussed or demonstrated? - C

Were size and construction of tow line parachute covered? - C

Was the need for a tow line parachute explained? - C

Were retrieval winches discussed? - C

Were accessory vehicles such as ATV, motorcycle or bicycle discussed? - C

Was rope retrieval discussed? - C

Were glider and student retrieval discussed? - C

Was a stationary winch mentioned and how it compares to scooter tow? - C

Were various gliders for training discussed? - C

Did you get a suggested syllabus for a course of scooter tow training? - C

Was how to teach foot launch with scooter tow discussed? - C

Was active pitch control discussed? - C

Was active roll control discussed? - C

Was PIO discussed? - C

Was active yaw control discussed? - C

Were you shown how to train the student to release? - C

Were stages of learning and accomplishment discussed? - C

Was advancement through stages discussed? - C

Were appropriate wind speeds for training discussed? - C

Were methods for various wind speeds discussed? - C

Was cross-wind launch discussed? - C

Were high tows for training discussed? - C

Did you get a list or discussion of safety precautions for scooter tow training? - L

Were you shown standard tow signals? - C

Were you shown a standard towing procedure? - C

Were check lists mentioned? - C

Was failure to hook in discussed? - C

Were weak links discussed? - C

Did you get a list or a discussion of risks and dangerous practices in scooter tow training? - C

Were lockouts discussed? - C

Were rope or weak link breaks discussed? - C

Were release failures or failure to release discussed? - C

What recommendations were made for tow bridles and releases? - C

Were you shown various ways to rig tow bridles? - C

Were you shown how to prevent release failures? - C

Were you showed how to rig a safety nose line release? - C

Were you trained to operate a scooter tow system? - C

Were you trained about how to use the brake properly? - C

Were you shown how to prevent rope tangles? - C

Were you shown how to undo rope tangles? - C

Were you shown how to judge pilot angle of attack? - C

Were you towed with a scooter tow system? - C

Were there any suggestions about how to incorporate recreational scooter towing in your operation? - L

Were high tows discussed? - C

Was step towing discussed? - C

Were you given any ideas about how to get appropriate land for scooter towing? - L

If any of the above subjects were not discussed, did you get hand outs on the subjects? - L

USHGA and the HOLC Cross Country Contest

March 7, 2006, 8:59:43 EST

USHGA-HOLC

How about giving prizes to pilots who fly cross country?

PG|USHGA

Here's a proposal for the USHGA BOD:

http://ozreport.com/docs/USHGAHOLC.htm

USHGA HOLC Cross Country Competition

Amount requested:

$2,250

Total Project Budget and breakdown of financing:

$500 first prize for topless flex wing, $250 for rigid wing, $250 for king posted, and $250 for single surface.

$500 first prize for open class paraglider, $250 for serial class paraglider ((DHV 2-3 and below - roughly equivalent to kingposted hang gliders), Intermediate (DHV 1-2 and below - roughly equivalent to single surface hang gliders).

I will match the $250 in rigid wing to make it $500. I got the $250 from winning the Flytec XC Championship last year and put it back in for this year.

Summary of project:

Use the HOLC to run an on-line competition. The HOLC rules for US flights. The total of your best three flights. Do it the same as last year, but with USHGA funding instead of Flytec funding and add two classes.

The critical nature of the project:

Retain membership. Give pilots an incentive to go cross country. Build camaraderie. Help make pilots think that the USHGA is a cool thing. | Proposed start and completion dates.

HOLC dates.

How do we define success for my proposal? How do we know if doing this has succeeded?

100 pilots sign up for the HOLC and participate in the first year.

The next year or the year after could be self supporting after we build up a critical mass of participants. $25/pilot. Pretty cheap competition.

Discuss USHGA-HOLC at the Oz Report forum

US Nationals at the Florida Ridge

March 7, 2006, 8:59:24 EST

Florida Ridge

Single Surface and Sport Class competitions also

Oleg Bondarchuk|USHGA|US Nationals

Florida Ridge

http://OzReport.com/10.041#4

With the well known Flytec Championships over subscribed, pilots are moving to the US National Championships in order to secure a possible spot in the Flytec meet. Also this meet provides great benefits to pilots who want to go to the Single Surface and Sport Class Nationals in Big Spring in August, with reduced entry fees.

We have heard that there is great interest in Sport Class and Single Surface. The USHGA is pushing hard to open up competition to new pilots and these are our entry points.

I love flying down at the Florida Ridge. You're going to love it also. Do whatever it takes to get down there. Meet Oleg Bondarchuck.

Not USHGA branded clothes

March 6, 2006, 4:04:34 pm EST

Clothes

Warren didn't actually mean USHGA branded clothing

Quest Air|USHGA|Warren Schirtzinger

I got a chance to speak with Warren Schirtzinger, the chairman of the USHGA Communication/Promotion Committee (formerly the USHGA Marketing Committee) on Sunday night. He came to Quest Air for a tandem flight and to reacquaint himself with aerotowing having learned from Larry Jorgesen years ago up in the Pacific Northwest at the Wannaby Ranch.

Warren assured me that he wasn't proposing the USHGA store (or estore) reopen with t-shirts emblazed with USHGA. Rather he wants to see clothing that celebrates our sports not the USHGA. Right on, Warren!

Discuss Clothes at the Oz Report forum

USHGA wearable's

March 6, 2006, 9:10:17 EST

USHGA

I wouldn't wear that if you paid me!

Quest Air|USHGA

I wrote the following to the USHGA BOD:

If you want pilots to happily purchase clothes from the USHGA you've got to give pilots a reason to want to do this. Would you purchase clothes that branded you an "All State Policy holder?" Would you wear something that said "FAA?"

The USHGA doesn't see itself in the business of making pilots happy and frankly it isn't making pilots happy (see what they said to Lisa when she went out and met with them). So why should they be happy to identify themselves with the USHGA?

Flytec and Quest Air make me and many others happy and produce cool clothes also. I'm happy to wear clothes with their labels. I'm also happy that the clothes represent my sport and show it off.

What could the USHGA do to make pilots happy? Why don't we write down a list of things that would make pilots think that the USHGA is pretty darn cool? Then decide if we want to do them.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

CIVL screws US pilots

March 6, 2006, 9:09:39 EST

CIVL

Long, slow, and uncomfortable

CIVL|John Aldridge|Lauren Tjaden|Paula Howitt|Paul Tjaden|Quest Air|record|USHGA|weather

The World Championships are coming to Quest Air in May. We're (the royal we) very excited about holding the Worlds here and would be even more excited if we didn't have to deal with CIVL. It's one horror story after another. I don't think it's bad people, but there sure seems to be a bad system.

Last year in August at the prize giving party after the Big Spring Open I told Lauren Tjaden, that as the 6th ranked by NTSS points US female pilot she was a member of the US National team and eligible to fly in the 2006 Worlds (http://ozreport.com/9.170#0). Her husband, Paul Tjaden, ranked 10th in rigid wings in the US would be eligible to fly on the "second team" at the Worlds.

There was only one problem. The CIVL Sporting Code requires that pilots finish in the top two thirds of a CIVL sanctioned category 2 meet in order to be eligible to fly in the Worlds. Neither Paul nor Lauren had flown in the 2005 Flytec Meet in April, the only CIVL sanctioned category 2 competition in the US in 2005. 

Paul had finished fourth in the South Florida International, first in the East Coast Championships, and seventh in the Big Spring Open, but the meet organizers didn't attempt to obtain and pay for CIVL category 2 sanctioning for these meets. And the USHGA does not require it, as we feel that it puts too great a financial burden on meet organizers and all pilots for the benefit of only a few pilots.

Lauren had won that Sport Class at the South Florida International, was thirteenth in the East Coast Championships, and fifty fourth in the Big Spring Open.

Paul and Lauren live near Quest Air. They fly there all the time. Lauren has been an active equestrian competitor. The Worlds meet organizer, meet director, and USHGA Competition Committee chairman (that's me) all felt that they would be both safe and competitive at the Worlds, and we wanted them to fly there.

Let me state this important point once again. It was our judgment as officials that Paul and Lauren had the skills, experience and expertise to safely and competitively fly in the 2006 World Championships. This was the SUBSTANTIVE point.

The option was to apply for exceptions from CIVL which are provided for in the CIVL Sporting Code. Here is the rule:

"2. 12.2 Guideline for approval

Exceptions will not normally be granted in Class 1 (except for Women's Worlds). Exceptions in other classes will not normally be granted unless there is clear evidence of a lack of opportunity to qualify."

We felt that Lauren qualified on the basis that this is for the Women's Worlds and her standing in the US ranking system, and her experience and safety record. We felt that Paul qualified in Class 5 because clearly due to USHGA policy (and through no fault of their own) that there had been a relative lack of opportunity for him (and Lauren) to qualify. We were wrong in both cases as both were turned down by the CIVL Bureau.

But then Paula Howitt from CIVL suggested a way around this problem. Hold a meet with at least fifteen flex wing pilots with valid FAI Sporting Licenses, get it CIVL sanctioned as a Category 2 meet, finish in the top two thirds and all according to the rules you are now qualified and eligible to fly in the Worlds.

Let me state this point again. This was a way to use the rules to formally qualify Paul and Lauren. We felt that they were already qualified in a substantive sense but CIVL (in the person of Paula Howitt) felt that this was a way to get them qualified in a FORMAL sense. Just play by the rules and it will all work out.

So Paul and Lauren organized not one but two meets that were sanctioned by the CIVL Bureau as Category 2 meets. The first meet was canceled due to bad weather but the second one was held in early February at Quest Air. Seventeen pilots entered. Sixteen, as it turned out later, had valid FAI Sporting Licenses. Paul won the meet and Lauren was third.

End of story, right? Nope.

Now let me make one more serious point here. My approach is if you are going to argue a point with CIVL you argue it based on the facts and on the rules. This is the approach that I took with John Aldridge the CIVL Jury President at the 2005 Hay Worlds and that proved to my satisfaction that no matter what else, arguments would be decided based on the rules, just as John stated that they would. You may not like it but at least you know exactly where they are coming from. Well, or so I thought.

The CIVL Bureau has invalidated the meet. They state that there were not fifteen competitors. Now things get interesting. Were there fifteen competitors or not?

It turns out that there is no explicit definition of the word "competitor" in the CIVL Sporting Code (which, by the way, John Aldridge is responsible for). What is the rule we are discussing here?

"3. 3.1 Minimum Numbers

The minimum number of competitors required to validate a Second Category event shall be stated in the regulations for that event and shall not be less than 15."

So how is "competitor" defined in the Sporting Code? It isn't defined, but can we infer a definition from the use of the word in the Sporting Code. Perhaps. I would suggest that the word competitor as used in the Sporting Code is equivalent to ENTRANT. A competitor is someone who has registered for the meet and been accepted to fly in the meet.

You can find the Sporting Code using the word competitor with this meaning (ENTRANT) here: Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6.3, 2.5.1, 2.7.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.4, 2.9.5, 2.11, 2.13.1, 2.17, 2.18, 2.20.10.2, 2.21, 2.27.1, 2.27.2, 2.27.3, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2, 10, 12, 13.1. This would suggest that the use of the term competitor in section 3.31 is entirely consistent with this meaning of the term.

I would suggest that because there were sixteen competitors in the sense of ENTRANTS participating in the meet that CIVL should declare the meet valid. This is a FORMAL argument only, not a SUBSTANTIVE one. I'm not arguing about the actual meaning of the word competitor, only how the CIVL Sporting Code uses the word.

The CIVL Bureau has argued that there were only thirteen "competitors" on one day. That is only fourteen competitors flew at all on any of the tasks. They are using a different meaning of the word competitor than that found in the Sporting Code.

There was indeed poor weather. One task was attempted on the third day and two pilots flew but the task was subsequently cancelled. Thirteen  pilots with valid FAI licenses flew on the last day when two tasks were held. A total of fourteen pilots with FAI Sporting licenses actually flew in the meet.

So did CIVL play by the rules? I don't think that they used their own definition of competitor in section 3.31 of their own Sporting Code. I suggest that they played fast and loose with the rules (using the SUBSTANTIVE meaning of the word competitor, when the FORMAL meaning was called for) when, as John and the Jury did in Hay, we should have expected them to play by the rules as written.

Now, finally, let me state that this article is entirely my responsibility as the editor and publisher of the Oz Report and has nothing to do with my official function as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman. Neither Paul or Lauren approve of this article or were aware that I was writing it and completely disassociate themselves from it and asked me not to publish it.

And really finally, thanks to all those who have sincerely attempted to do the right thing here including Jim Zesiet, the USHGA CIVL Representative, and Paula Howitt with CIVL.

USHGA - the communication plan »

March 3, 2006, 10:26:34 EST

USHGA

How are we going to relate?

CIVL|Rob Kells|scooter tow|Steve Kroop|Steve Wendt|USHGA|video

Hope you've all read the USHGA promotion or communication plan by now. http://ozreport.com/docs/Spring2006MarketingReport.pdf

Here's my assessment:

First of all I find this to be an outstanding and professional report. Very clear and easy to follow. I have a few critiques and issues, but they are only meant to "beef up" some areas that show more bone than muscle.

Page 16 (see already thought the first 15 pages were great), membership relations: Re-brand USHGA merchandise and re-launch USHGA store

I wear almost exclusively hang gliding t-shirts. I don't wear any USHGA branded gear, although I have a bunch of it. I love my Flytec t-shirts. I wear hang gliding clothes that are made with love and artistry.

I get the feeling about USHGA branded gear that no one really is invested in it, that no one really cares, that it is only a job (that its done by people who don't like hang gliding). I think that the USHGA should find someone with heart and vision and love for the sport who can actually produce stuff that I would wear. Talk to Steve Kroop about how this is done.

• Ongoing survey of USHGA membership

Do you mean talk to USHGA members? Who is supposed to talk to them? Do you mean actual surveys, ongoing, about what? Lisa seems to have received an earful lately visiting clubs. Is that what you mean?

How does this get into the "right" people's ears? Who's doing the relating? Are we talking about being on the mailing lists (the USHGA one for example)?

• “Meet the EC” forums

On the USHGA web site? In the Oz Report? Where? Physical or cyber?

• “What You’ve Been Missing” direct mail piece to former members

What have they been missing? Well, a lot of rancor as far as I can tell. :-) What is our positive story for the members?

What's missing?

Articles in the Oz Report or on the lists with questions to members. Support the Oz Report.

Request to Regional Directors to go out and hear what the members are saying in their region.

There can be a lot more here, but I can't think of what it is at the moment. We need to build a strong positive relationship with the members in order to hold on to them while we bring in new members.

Page 17, For Dealers, Schools, Clubs and Chapters

Teach how to build relationships with the press and maximize exposure

I'm skeptical of this.

• Business/organizing tips?

I want to include how to set up a successful business in Steve Wendt's scooter tow clinics (that was supposed to be part of it) because he is an obvious model of how to do it (by yourself).

• Other?

Vastly increase the support for instructors as their health is the key to meeting our growth goal. This is where we really have to put a lot of new effort.

Page 18, For Alliance Partners and Governing Bodies (FAI, CIVL, etc.)

Periodic updates and progress summaries

We are constantly communicating (and bickering) with CIVL as we have two world championships coming up in the US. I've had significant communication with Heather the upcoming CIVL steward for the flex wing worlds and am currently working on the local regulations.

The Competition Committee through its CIVL Rep and very often directly works with (and against) CIVL on many issues. See the Competition Committee Report out before the BOD meeting.

• Other?

I can't think of who the other Alliance Partners might be. Our insurance company?

Page 19, For Manufacturers and Suppliers

Strategy and business review tours

There are so few. Other than Wills Wing they are all over seas.

• HGMA/USHGA conferences?

Really this is just sitting down with Rob Kells and Steve Kroop, which wouldn't be a bad idea.

Page 20, For Related Associations and Industry Experts

Periodic updates and progress summaries

I wonder what we have to tell them. Our numbers are going down also? :-)

• Information exchanges (the stuff Jayne already does)

Would be great to get more of this.

• Cooperative programs?

Supplant the NAA with the SSA in leadership

• Other?

It's all a little too vague for me.

Page 21, For Government Agencies

USHGA booth at SSA Convention

Not that useful. Attending the conference and talking with folks in more useful.

• Other FAA bonding opportunities? (ask Dave B)

We have a lot of work to continue to do in this area.

• Park Service campaign?

Yah, that's a good one, but really not the highest priority for the USHGA.

• Other?

Can't think of any.

Page 22, For Press and Media (National/Regional /Local Press Aviation-related, Sports and Outdoor Publications)

Identify 10-15 top tier editors in each category

Maybe. Why would they care? Until we crash, that is.

• Designate relationship builder within USHGA

They have to volunteer.

Page 23, For Prospective Pilots

USHGA booth (or tent) at selected sporting or outdoor events

Booths are static and not much fun. I suggest definitely going to a lot of outdoor type events, but with something better than a booth.

• Offer demo and discovery flights

We have plenty of those. According to the latest articles in the Oz Report (out in a couple of days), they don't work, but something else does. See it soon. Also see the P,P,P flights that do work.

• Use USHGA Discover DVD video series as give-a-ways

Good idea. I am giving away videos on my web site. People are downloading them at the rate of 15 GB a day. It's amazing.

• Test program at Sun 'n Fun and Oshkosh (see next page)

Yah, baby!

USHGA, the communication plan »

March 2, 2006, 8:03:17 EST

USHGA

It's not marketing, it's communication

USHGA

This is a great report from the USHGA marketing committee written in preparation for the spring BOD meeting.

http://ozreport.com/docs/Spring2006MarketingReport.pdf

If you are interested in growth in our sports, you should take a look at this report and contact your regional director to tell him or her your views. I'll have more to say on this later.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

USHGA On-line accident reporting system

March 1, 2006, 10:44:34 EST

Accident reports

Easy to use reporting system.

calendar|CIVL|Joe Gregor|PG|USHGA

http://www.ushga.org/emailacc.asp

Steve Roti «steveroti» writes:

We received approximately fifty paragliding accident reports submitted through the online form in 2005, plus a few submitted on paper.

Joe Gregor «air_medal» writes:

As of today we have received nineteen, count 'em nineteen, accident reports on the hang gliding side for the calendar year '05.

The CIVL form for reporting incidents and accidents: http://ozreport.com/data/IncidentreportFAI.xls

Discuss Accident reports at the Oz Report forum

Scooter Tow Clinic, part ten

February 27, 2006, 9:02:43 EST

Scooter

Just who came to the clinic?

Allen Sparks|Bob Lane|Bo Hagewood|Jeff Beck|John Matylonek|Lisa Kain|Michael Robertson|Pat Denevan|Quest Air|Rob Kells|scooter tow|Steve Kroop|Steve Prepost|Steve Wendt|USHGA

Steve Wendt, Michael Robertson, Pat Denevan, Billy Vaughn, Matt Taber, Allen Sparks, Jim Proehl, Bo Hagewood, Mike Brown, Rob Kells, Steve Kroop, Bob Lane, Tracey Tillman, Lisa Colletti, Jeff Beck, James Gardner, John Matylonek, Jeff Nicolay, Steve Prepost, and Aric Paulson.

Rob Kells «Rob» writes:

I have begun promoting the idea to aerotow flight parks that they will likely double their student sign-ups for lesson packages if they do some training hill or scooter tow before going tandem.

Think about this; ten years ago we had about 8500 HG members, and now we have something like 5500. Over that same period, due to aerotow flight parks, I'll bet there were (at least) 20 to 50 times more tandems than in the previous ten years. Could it be that those that seek out HG instruction are being scared away by the very method we all thought would revolutionize instruction. I think the answer is yes!

Michael Robertson «info» writes:

I'm quite sure a series of low powered stationary winch clinics with Condors will help the sport. Especially in helping new instructors get started. I think assistance from the USHGA is good, especially in promoting what we're doing, but I've always felt these things should be self-supporting.

Steve Kroop at Flytec USA «flytec» writes:

I am all for seeing more scooter instruction and I absolutely agree that scooter training has great advantages for aerotow flight parks. I, however, caution against an expectation of doubling the number of students.

I totally get what Rob is saying but I do not believe that we are loosing as many prospective students as suggested. I think that there are pilot types and there are non-pilot types. Scooter towing will help get people to take more than one flight (i.e., hang 1 package) but I think the ones that want to become “pilots” (i.e., proceed to H2 and higher) will do do so regardless of the training method.

I do agree that the slower altitude progression of scooter training well help with the altitude timid students. But, look at how many H1s KHK churns out compared to the number that stay with it to the H2/H3 level.

What will make more pilots is broadening our reach - more instructors in areas that lack instruction. Scooter towing can do this.

Lisa Kain at Quest Air «questair» writes:

While I still need to get approval from the Quest owners, I'm on board. Having a virtual training hill would be incredibly beneficial to our students. For the obvious reasons, scooter towing fills in some important gaps for Quest Air. For a variety of reasons many of our seasoned pilots request additional approach and landing instruction, and scooter towing can provide a more efficient and cost-effective solution to AT pattern tows.

Naturally, if scooter towing can double the number of students who want to solo our business will benefit greatly. For us, caution is necessary when pitting the much cheaper intro scooter tow flights against intro aerotow tandems. If we don't see more signups, we may only price ourselves out of the intro AT sales while recruiting the same (hopefully) number of students. I'm sure we'll find a balance between offering scooter tows and minimizing the risk of lost revenues until we get some first-hand results.

From helping with the clinic signups I know that most who didn't sign up could have attended if travel expenses were covered. Just two had time constraint issues. I heard Steve Wendt and Matt Taber suggest requiring a refundable deposit, which I think would have helped with the last-minute cancellations and no-show.

To increase membership I agree that USGHA support is critical, and I believe scooter towing is an incredibly promising part of that effort.

Scooter Towing Clinic, part nine

February 24, 2006, 11:37:41 EST

Scooter Tow

Rob Kells loved the clinic

Blue Sky|cart|PG|Rob Kells|scooter tow|Steven "Steve" Pearson|Steve Wendt|USHGA

Rob Kells «Rob» writes:

Overview:

A 50cc, 4.5 horsepower scooter is mounted to a trailer. A drum replaces the back wheel and is wound with several thousand feet of spectra line. Wheel chocks are placed in front of the trailer's wheels. A return pulley is attached to a screw in the ground about 1000 feet upwind of the scooter. The tow line is taken buy an ATV to the pulley and then back to the glider beside the scooter. A traffic cone is placed on the ground along side the tow line 200 feet short of the return pulley as a target to land beside .

A standard aerotow top release is mounted about 6 inches ahead of the control bar apex. A v-pull is attached to the top release with a weak link, through a loop in the the tow line, and then to the student's harness via tow loops at the hips. A barrel release is used on the lower v-pull.

A back strap is used to prevent the tow line from pulling the harness away from the student's body. With the student standing next to the scooter operator/instructor, it is easy to give instruction in a conversational tone. In no wind the launch consists of two walking and several running steps to get flying.

If the student makes a mistake you simply close the throttle and land them. The tow line stays attached to the student for early flights right through the landing, so they do not have to worry about releasing it.

After about ten flights Steve switches them to a Falcon 2 and gradually pulls them higher. During this phase of training he teaches them how to release the tow line and do small turns. These tows go up to an altitude of about 75 feet.

Once they have mastered the release and small turns Steve switches to a 125cc scooter. With more power and a longer tow line he will pull them up as high as 700 feet. The release and bridle for this stage of towing is similar to a truck tow set up, with the tow bridle going through loops near the pilot's hips and then up to the carabineer.

There are two different length bridle lines attached to the tow line and then to a three string release, and a barrel release. The top line is released by the pilot at about 100 feet and now the line running under the base tube provides the tow force.

In this stage of training the student will learn approach patterns and they will eventually be landing right back at the scooter for their next tow. Now they can get multiple tows with virtually no walking at all! He also demonstrated launches out of an aerotow cart with this scooter.

Because one line is supposed to go below the base tube, I believe it would be extremely important to place a fabric cover between the front and back cross tubes of the dolly, otherwise it is just a matter of time before someone takes the cart for a flight on the tow line. This mistake has resulted in two fatalities that I know of, one in Argentina, and one in Arizona. Both of those flights were aerotow where the v-bridle should have bee above all tubes.

Low cost:

Steve has done more than 16000 tows over the past eight years with two different scooters. He built each of them for under 2000 dollars. The only maintenance he does is to change the oil once a year, charge the car battery that starts the scooter once a month, and puts in gas. He's using the old spectra line from his ATOL truck winch and has never needed to replace it. This makes his out of pocket cost for a tow less than 50 CENTS!

Low stress:

This is probably the least stressful flying I have ever done. The 330 Condor flies very slowly, and you are gently pulled for hundreds of feet across level ground just five feet above it. Committing to running head long down a hill is not required.

Low operator skill required:

Unlike more powerful tow systems, the small scooter does not require a highly skilled operator. I was surprised at how easy it was to pull Steve on my very first try. It was very simple to control his height and to set him down right next to the target cone. Steve actually lets his students operate the scooter to pull him on his demonstration flights.

Any open field becomes a training hill:

Open fields are easy to come by, good training hills are not. Just think about how often a student goes for a lesson only to find that the wind direction is wrong. With the scooter, when the wind changes direction, the tow direction can be changed in five minutes by simply relocating the return pulley. I believe there would be more quality instruction going on if it was possible for the instructors to make a decent living. This method is the best I've seen for giving the instructor a tool to allow him to get results, and make a living teaching hang gliding or paragliding.

Low fatigue:

Steve drives a four wheeler out to pull the tow line back for the next flight while the student just rolls the glider back on the wheels. Steve uses the time driving next to the student to critique their flight. Because there is no hill to climb, the student can get many more flights in a day before becoming tired.

Lots of takeoffs and landings:

It's easy to get ten or more flights per hour. This gives the students lots of practice in the two most import aspects of flight operations - launches and landings.

Replace other forms of towing? Like other forms of winch towing you can't necessarily tow the pilot to the lift like you can when aerotowing. However, because it is so inexpensive to operate, and so easy to get multiple flights, you can get in a lot of flying (and launches and landings) in a very short time. The scooters are also very low noise compared to tow planes so there should not be problems with the neighbors.

Not foolproof:

Steve describes all forms of towing as being like a loaded gun. He believes that even a small scooter, if misused, can be dangerous. If the scooter is used in conditions that are too strong, or if the pilot were allowed to over-fly the return pulley while attached to the tow line the results could be disastrous. As we've all learned the hard way over the years, when towing is involved there seems to be an almost infinite number of things that can go wrong if extreme care and judgment are not used.

It does seem that the lighter the available tow force, the slower, and safer the tow will be. Steve is very conservative in his methods and stops towing the Condor as soon as the wind becomes more than a gentle breeze. In 16000 tows he has had two minor injuries, which probably is much lower than comparable training hill stats.

Steve was a high school math teacher by profession. His enthusiasm for teaching is obvious, and he is really good at it. I've encouraged him to do a thorough write up on his methods so they can be used by other instructors. I believe that if we can make flying easier and less intimidating to learn, more profitable for the instructors, and more accessible to the public, we can help the sport to grow again.

Make more new pilots?

A number of major schools that teach both solo flight and tandem have told me that they get a much larger percentage of their students to sign up for a lesson package and become pilots if they learn to launch solo before going tandem. The major trend in hang gliding instruction in recent years has been to take a student up for a tandem as their first hang gliding experience. We have seen a decline in the number of people flying over this same period.

Could it be that a tandem is a scary experience for most people, or that they get to say they have "flown a hang glider" and have therefore scratched the itch? Or perhaps the solo flying experience allows them to see that they can actually control the glider prior to going to altitude so the experience is less intimidating.

Big slow glider:

Steve Pearson designed the 330 Condor for small training hill use, and did not intend it to be towed, or flown higher than a few feet off the ground, or flown in turns of more than a very gentle bank angle. The design goal for the Condor was to achieve a very slow ground speed in very light wind or even no wind at all.

With a normal size glider, to achieve such slow ground speed would require a moderate wind, and moderate winds almost always involve gusts or turbulence, which complicate the training experience. The goal for the Condor was to allow flight at slow ground speeds in winds light enough to be reliably smooth.

To achieve this design goal, Steve made the Condor very light and very large (53 pounds for a 39 foot span and 330 sq feet). With its very light structure it is only good for a little more than 3 Gs. Also, there are some stability and control characteristics in the Condor that are not a problem if the glider is used only within the stated limitations, but which would never have been tolerated in the design of a utility class glider.

The Condor can become unstable at bank angles of more than 25 degrees, and can be unstable in pitch at even moderately higher speeds. We sell the Condor only to schools, for solo pilot training under direct instructor supervision, and we recommend that bank angles be limited to 15 degrees, that airspeed be limited to no more than 24 mph, and that altitude be restricted to no more than 20 feet above the ground (lower than that is better). We are very concerned that the Condor NOT be flown outside its placarded limitations.

We don't feel that towing, in the usual sense in which that term is understood, is in any way suitable on the Condor. We recognize that if special techniques are skillfully used, towing with a very light and controlled pull can be used to simulate the gentle pull of gravity on a shallow training slope. Having directly observed Steve Wendt's techniques, I am comfortable with the way Steve is using the Condor in his scooter towing program - as I never saw anyone get more than seven feet off the ground and he tows it VERY GENTLY. It is extremely important, however, that anyone using the Condor in this manner be fully aware of all of the limitations of the glider, and consistently use techniques that properly take those limitations into account.

Specification Condor 330 Condor 225
Area (ft2) 330 225
Span (ft) 39 35.8
Aspect Ratio 4.6 5.7
Glider Weight (lbs) 53 48
Hook-In Weight(lbs) 100-265
USHGA Rating 1
Vne (mph) 32
Va (mph) 24
Vms (mph) 13 15
Vd (mph) 32 43
Length (in bag) (in) 290 249
Short Pack (in) 170 180

Davis, thank you for your efforts to convince the USHGA to sponsor the sessions! Thanks also to the USHGA for doing so, to Quest for hosting the clinics, and especially to Steve Wendt of Blue Sky for so unselfishly sharing his scooter tow method.

TFR »

February 23, 2006, 9:30:30 EST

TFR

The government is not going to play nice

Tracy Tillman|USHGA

Tracy Tillman at « Cloud9SA» writes:

It is important for hang glider pilots to know that the Feds will not take a joke when it comes to TFRs. The Air Force stated they would shoot down TFR violators in the Detroit area during the Super Bowl--then, this happened yesterday, when the President was in town:

"According to news reports, including an interview w/ a 217th Fighter wing spokesperson, a Cessna 182 violated the TFR. F-16s were scrambled, intercepted the C-182, dropped flares to get the pilot's attention, and the C-182 left the TFR area. The F-16 pilots were able to get the n number of the violator, and will pass it on to the appropriate authorities for further action."

One of our club pilots and his family saw this happen at a low altitude, right over their home. Pilots must check to see if there are or will be any TFRs in their area before flying. The best source is to call your local flight service station (1.800.WXBRIEF), but online sites with TFR information are also available. For example:

1. Http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html

2. Http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html

3. Http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/tfr.cfm

It would be helpful if USHGA could put links on its web site with instructions to pilots on how to get this information before flying.

Discuss TFR at the Oz Report forum

Scooter Tow Clinic, part eight

February 23, 2006, 9:29:04 EST

Scooter Tow

Best thing the USHGA has done for instructors in twenty plus years (maybe the only thing)

Allen Sparks|Bo Hagewood|John Matylonek|Michael Robertson|Pat Denevan|scooter tow|Steve Wendt|USHGA

william vaughn «billyfly» writes:

I'm really optimistic about the future of scooter towing (specifically using the Condor for first day students), and I think that the recent clinic (and hopefully others to follow) is the best thing the national organization has done for instructors in my 20+ years in hang gliding. Thanks for pushing it all in a good direction.

Allen Sparks «allensparks» writes:

The clinic was an extraordinary learning experience for me. In particular, it was a distinct and very memorable privilege to witness the considerable knowledge and instructional talents of Steve Wendt, Pat Denevan, Michael Robertson, John Matylonek and Bo Hagewood.

I agree fanatically with all prior comments on the ''Scooter' (more appropriately called Stationary Winch) tow system, and offer this additional perspective: The stationary winch is an excellent teaching tool, but if operated without appropriate instruction and experience, such a system can be as dangerous as a loaded gun.

During the clinic, we worked with Steve's 50cc system and larger 125cc system and I learned a key concept that: "less is more". I recently purchased a 250cc system and now I realize that Steve's lower-powered systems are much better suited for instruction of inexperienced or less-experienced students.

I urge USHGA/USHGF to consider sponsoring additional clinics, and I strongly urge instructors considering the use of a stationary winch in their program to attend a clinic before they attempt to use a winch.

Scooter Towing - the last day »

February 22, 2006, 11:23:34 EST

Last Day

We get to see the last of the Steve Wendt clinics

Belinda Boulter|Bo Hagewood|John Matylonek|Michael Robertson|Pat Denevan|Quest Air|scooter tow|Scooter Towing|Steve Wendt|USHGA

Belinda and I arrive a little after 6PM at Quest Air and Steve Wendt is training an actual student on the scooter tow operation as the sun nears the horizon. This student has been following our scooter tow clinic announcements around and after not so great experiences in other locations has come here to learn.

It's great to be able to arrive after Steve Wendt has spent fourteen days training instructors and others (up to fifty folks came by to check it out) and hang out with him, Pat Denevan, Michael Robertson, John Matylonek and Bo Hagewood. Both Pat and Michael have long experience training using winch and scooter tow setups and are big advocates for this technology and the business practices that come with it.

Now that the first set of scooter tow instructional clinics are done and the early adopters are going home with great ideas for new business models, we are ready to take the next step, totally improving the way hang gliding instruction is carried out here in the US and eventually around the world. Steve has many folks asking for his time and attention. Matt Tabor is arranging for him to teach all his instructors.

I will be going back to the USHGA for more funding for similar clinics and further steps. The USHGA has a huge task in front of it and it needs a lot more high level instructors like Steve to meet its growth goals.

Dan's Complaints

February 21, 2006, 9:33:34 CST

Dan

He's not the only one concerned

USHGA

Take a look at Dan's paper linked to above. While I disagree with some of what he says (and think the growth figure that the USHGA is shooting for is actually 7.2%), I do have to agree that the USHGA has not focused on growth. Now the new strategic plan adopted at the last USHGA BOD meeting focuses on growth, but the strategic plan hasn't been worked into the USHGA budget yet (except in a minor way and there grudgingly), and after all the budget determines where the money goes.

I've reported extensively on the USHGA strategic plan in the Oz Report as well as extensively critiqued it. But, apparently no one is listening. I will have further reports soon, but I assume that you will also continue to not listen. I will also make valiant attempts to change the situation. We'll see how that goes.

Discuss Dan at the Oz Report forum

USHGA - the $100,000 to the USHGF »

February 21, 2006, 9:33:14 CST

USHGA

What about the money that went to the USHGF?

Dan Brown|USHGA

You can find numerous articles on this issue and other USHGA issues in previous Oz Reports. Dan Brown «danielncf» who famously sued the USHGA (and lost) writes:

I have written a six page paper for publication (see here) on an issue raised by Martin Beresford in his Planning Committee Report. In the interest of full disclosure, Martin is a good friend. We hang glide and have been skiing together for the last several years. I have high regard for him as an individual and for his corporate expertise. USHGA's operations never have been examined by someone with his qualifications (see the above paper).

Martin's findings are disturbing, indicating, in my opinion, gross mismanagement. USHGA has blown through almost $700,000 in the last few years while spending almost nothing on growing or preserving the declining sport it was organized to support.

The paper discusses the transfer of over $100,000 of member funds without prior member discussion or approval, to a third party, the United States Hang Gliding Foundation, an organization over which USHGA members have no control. The transfers are of doubtfully legality and serve no legitimate business interest.

I have been a long time critic of USHGA. I was the attorney in Carylye v. USHGA. I am not a USHGA insider but I have a certain insight into USHGA's operations from research I have done and talking with knowledgeable people like former Executive Director Jerry Bruning.

I hope my research will stimulate discussion and force the small group who actually run USHGA to be held accountable for their conduct.

Discuss USHGA at the Oz Report forum

Scooter Towing Clinic, Part 5

February 20, 2006, 7:32:54 pm CST

Scooter Tow

How it's going at Quest Air

Quest Air|Rob Kells|scooter tow|Steve Kroop|Steve Wendt|USHGA

Steve Kroop at Flytec USA «flytec» writes:

I too am very impressed with Steve’s Scooter tow system. I have been watching from a distance for the past few days and the towing looked safe, fun and productive. On Friday, I was able to participate with Steve, Bo, Billy Vaughn, Rob Kells and others.

It is easy to see that this method of instruction is safe and fun and can be done with minimal physical and emotional stress. Students do not have to repeatedly climb a training hill and they can become comfortable with flight close to the ground with much less fear of falling in contrast to the altitude anxiety often felt by new students learning via tandem (foot launch, platform or aerotow).

It is also easy to see how the low cost and omni-directional nature of scooter towing could greatly increase instruction and accessibility and availability. I was also impressed by the fact that an instructor can teach via scooter towing by him/herself and be completely effective. An assistant/apprentice would be helpful but is unnecessary.

I have often said that increasing the number of instructors is not in itself the solution to growth we need to increase the number of instructors in areas where instruction is limited or unavailable. I would like to see more of our Instructor Clinics centered around this method. I would like USHGA to run an instructor recruiting campaign and offer low cost scooter-based instructor clinics.

On a personal note Steve Wendt is a fantastic instructor. His concern for safety and his enthusiasm for instruction is infective and inspiring. He is a credit to our sport!