[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way, I think it's great that USHPA has changed their regulation, but I would have preferred to make it mandatory only for novice and below and during instruction for novice and below. Here's how I would have worded it:

"All H0/P0, H1/P1, H2/P2 pilots must wear protective headgear whenever connected to a glider. All instructional demonstrations for pilots of those ratings must also comply with that rule to set an appropriate example."

There are two elements that students (novice and below) might not have: judgement and skill. Judgement is needed to decide when it might be safe or unsafe to be hooked in without a helmet. Skill is needed to provide a reasonable backup even when judgement fails.

And when instructing students, the instructor should always set an example that the students are expected to follow.

[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way, here's what I found at http://www.firstflightinsurance.com/Sit ... ATIONS.asp:

Insurance_Application_2014_12_07.png (122.35 KiB) Viewed 5224 times

That document doesn't define "participant", but I suspect it would include anyone kiting a paraglider. The fact that helmets are listed as the first item supports Wingspan's comments that insurance was a major motivating factor behind this change. Wingspan also correctly understood that Gabe Jebb may have been jeopardizing more than his own site with his conduct. Good job on the research Wingspan!!

Also, the SOPs for any organization must reflect and incorporate the organization's other obligations. The page I published above was from First Flight's web site, so I am not certain if that helmet requirement is in force with USHPA's current policy. But if it is, then USHPA's SOPs should either quote those exact same requirements or prominently refer to the insurance policy as part of the SOPs that pilots are expected to follow. It's probably a failure of long-time USHPA Insurance Committee Chairman Mark Forbes that this wasn't done until now. He should have known about this requirement (if it exists in USHPA's policy), and he would be the person responsible for disseminating it to pilots and instructors via the SOPs, rating tests, and general notifications.

While I would still prefer the regulation that I drafted above, if this were non-negotiable with the insurance carrier, then the insurance carrier's requirements would need to be honored.

Regarding the topic of this thread, it's quite likely that Gabe Jebb (given his life-long involvement with both USHPA and Torrey insurance requirements) knew about this particular requirement, but chose to ignore it. That explains his aggressive effort (assault and battery) directed at keeping me from documenting his conduct. The restraining order is the concession's concerted effort to keep me from documenting similar violations in the future.

[JoeF]

Work place versus public recreational play place?
A national treasure has been being squeezed into a no-oversight work place
when the place should be a public recreational play place.
It may be time to reduce the "concessionaire" to a side-line STORE
without ANY rights to ruin the flight play of the park.
"No More Flight Involvement" by the store keeper!
Move the store away from the cliff edge.
Let people play at the park.

JoeF

[Bill Cummings]

Very good point Joe!
Other points I would like discussed are:
Since the lease has run out at Torrey Pines it follows that the legal authorization for the concessionaire to collect fees no longer has any more authority outside of his squatter structure.

Since the lease has lapsed there can no longer be any legal demand for a daily fee by the concessionaire. They lack the authority on park lands.

The concessionaire is no longer a legal agent of the City of San Diego.

If San Diego wants fees collected they have to show up and collect.
Maybe even issue a annual permit for flyers.

U$HPA pilots already have signed a legal waiver. They can’t effectively sue the City since they are hamstrung by signing the U$hPA waiver.

A work place order of protection would be confined to inside the squatter structure because outside is City Park where no person can be excluded.

Any lawyer worth the money will be able to show in court that a work place order of protection will not include anyone outside the building.

Park lands are not a work place. If there is a lease or statute that says otherwise I am unaware of it.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Good thoughts Bill, but the lease does have a "holdover" clause:

SECTION 2. : TERM

2.3 Holdover. Any holding over by Flight Director/LESSEE after expiration or termination shall not be considered as a renewal or extension of this lease. The occupancy of the premises after the expiration or termination of this agreement constitutes a month-to-month tenancy, and all other terms and conditions of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect; provided, however, CITY shall have the right to apply a reasonable increase in rent to bring the rent to fair market value and to terminate the holdover tenancy at will.

So the actual "expiration" of the lease isn't really an expiration. This clause was used to keep the lease from being put up for a public re-bid in 2008 when it expired (over 6 years ago). This was a "sweet heart" deal for David Jebb, and it enabled him to cash in on the lease by "selling" it to Robin Marien even when it had already expired (Robin Marien took over in late 2008 or early 2009, and the lease expired in August of 2008).

The deal at Torrey is "dirty" in so many ways it's hard to count them.   

[Bill Cummings]

Bob,
Now I am aware of a lease agreement that I didn't know about.
Is Sherri Lightner failing in her fiduciary responsibilities to her district?
EDIT:
Still the work place order of protection should only include the building and not the park--Right

[Bob Kuczewski]

Now I am aware of a lease agreement that I didn't know about.

I'm sorry Bill. I've been at this so long that I forget who knows what and who's seen what. Back when the lease was expected to be coming up for renewal (anticipated in August of 2008) I established "TakeBackTorrey.com" as a web site to disseminate information about the upcoming lease so there would be healthy competition in the bidding process. You can find the actual lease there (click on "Documents" and then "Gliderport Lease").

Is Sherri Lightner failing in her fiduciary responsibilities to her district?

Absolutely. She clearly knows that the lease has been expired since 2008 and it hasn't gone up for re-bid in the 6 years since then. Whatever corruption in the City of San Diego that allows that to happen has surely touched her office in one way or another.

Still the work place order of protection should only include the building and not the park--Right

The original order was 500 yards from the workplace. That included not only the Gliderport but the parking lot where I park at work and most of the buildings that I work in.

We went to court last Friday (December 5th) to ask for a continuance to prepare more material (lots of video to plow through) and to request the distance be reduced to 100 yards. Both requests were granted, and the new date for the hearing is December 17th. I've basically taken off work during this time to work on all of this "stuff".

[Bill Cummings]

So when Robin rented the HG LZ was he in violation of 1.2 or something else?

no other purpose whatsoever.JPG (35.69 KiB) Viewed 5150 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

So when Robin rented the HG LZ was he in violation of 1.2 or something else?

Good eyes Bill!!!      Yes, I believe he was in violation of that section of the lease.

The first sentence is basically the topic sentence. Its use of the word "solely" is key - as well as the later phrases "other related or incidental purposes" ... "and for no other purpose whatsoever". Renting the LZ to a florist for their company picnic is NOT "related or incidental" to a gliderport concession, the use of non-powered aircraft, or the general public (especially since the general public was not allowed to use the property rented for the picnic). So even with approval from the City Manager, that activity should not have been allowed. Here's that section with spacing to help break it up:

It is expressly agreed that the premises are leased to Flight Director/LESSEE solely for the purposes of the operation and maintenance of the premises for

     a gliderport concession,
     the use of non-powered aircraft
     and the general public.

The sale of hangliding and paragliding parts and accessories; radio controlled models; sailplane equipment and parts and the sale of merchandise including but not limited to apparel and food and beverage shall be limited to the existing building in its present location or for such other related or incidental purposes as may be first approved in writing by the City Manager and for no other purpose whatsoever.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I sent a message this morning to the Torrey Hawks Club about today's Second Sunday:

Hello Fellow Torrey Hawks,

Today is our club's normal Second Sunday at Torrey Pines. The forecast is light winds (5 and 6 mph) from the west between 1pm and 5 pm.

Unfortunately, I will not be there today because Robin Marien has filed a Workplace Violence Restraining Order against me with a request for the Court to make it permanent. I have attached a PDF document containing the false claims made by Robin Marien, Gabriel Jebb, and Danielle Kinch in order to get such an order issued. See discussion on our club's forum at:

     http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1629

The trial for this restraining order is this Wednesday (December 17th, 2014) at 2:30pm. I already know that Robin will be bringing a number of his instructors willing to claim that I have acted "violently" or have threatened them with "violence". This is absolutely false, and those of you who've known me will know that. Fortunately, a number of pilots who attend our regular Second Sundays are willing to speak at this hearing to counter these claims. The judge will end up deciding on the weight of testimony and evidence. Fortunately, I do have a video of the event (November 9th, 2014), but they will try to make claims on other dates where I might not have such evidence. So the testimony of others will be important.

In Robin's declarations, he is asserting that the Torrey Pines Gliderport is an "airport", and he is quoting the laws that govern conduct in airports to justify his ability to use his own discretion to remove anyone. If this claim is allowed to stand, it could set a precedent allowing all of our flying sites to be declared as "airports" and for the laws applying to airports - especially in the post 9/11 era - to be enforced at all of our flying sites. Robin's claims are based on his interpretation of San Diego City's definition of an airport. According to Robin's interpretation, this makes every one of our flying sites an "airport" and subject to the laws that are applied at airports. Note that when I originally read his statement about "airports" I assumed he was talking about the old sailplane runway adjacent to his lease. But on further investigation, I've found that he isn't relying on that runway to claim that his leased area is an airport. He is actually asserting that the portion of the Gliderport we use is an "airport" because "aircraft" take off and land there. Please read the attached document for details on Robin's claims to the court.

To summarize, Robin Marien's interpretations and claims in this case could seriously damage our ability to enjoy our sports as we have for decades. I am asking all pilots (HG and PG) to work together to keep Robin's twisted interpretation from setting a precedent in this case.

Thanks again for your membership in the Torrey Hawks.

Bob Kuczewski
Club Secretary - Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club
858-204-7499

I haven't included the entire PDF document in this post although I may add it later. But here are the particular claims that Robin Marien has made with regard to the Torrey Pines Gliderport being an "airport":

I ROBIN J. MARIEN, declare as follows:

1. My name is Robin Marien, and I am the principle shareholder of Air California Adventure, Inc., the leaseholder and concessionaire of the Torrey Pines Gliderport (the “Gliderport”). I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration.
2. The facts set forth below are true and correct of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters set forth on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called upon to testify in this matter, I could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is made in support of my request for a restraining order against Mr. ROBERT MICHAEL KUCZEWSKI (“KUCZEWSKI”).
3. The Gliderport is situated in the La Jolla section of San Diego and is part of the Torrey Pines City Park land. The Gliderport is a site world-renown for its beauty and for its importance to the sports of hang gliding and paragliding. The principle purpose of the Gliderport site is to serve as a launching and landing space for “full scale glider soaring,” "hang gliding,” and “radio-controlled model glider operations,” as those terms are defined by San Diego Municipal Code § 63.0201(a). Because the Gliderport serves these functions, it is also known as an “Airport” as that term is utilized in San Diego Municipal Code § 68.101(c).
4. Because the Gliderport is an “Airport,” it must have a “flight director.” Pursuant to its lease with the City of San Diego, Air California Adventure, Inc. is the flight director of this airport, and I am the individual who actually fills that role. Attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy of this lease.
5. I am empowered by San Diego Municipal Code § 68.0120 to, “... for good cause appearing to [me] to deny any person admission to an airport by any means.” I am also empowered by San Diego Municipal Code § 62.0201(b) to restrict the use of the Gliderport by individuals who willfully or wantonly disregard the safety of persons or property, or to revoke or suspend the permit of any individual to use the facility.
     :
     :