_css_nate_ wrote:This is the key clause:
Under FAA Exemption 4721, all participants in two-place flight must have a pilot rating issued by USHPA.
So, the FAA recognizes USHPA in an official manner here and it appears not legal per federal regulation to fly a hang glider tandem without proper USHPA certification. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
designbydave wrote:_css_nate_ wrote:...it appears not legal per federal regulation to fly a hang glider tandem without proper USHPA certification. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
This is my understanding of the Tandem Exemption, yes.
JackieB wrote:Nate and Dave are correct. The FAA granted the exemption to the USHGA (originally) and it has authority to offer or rescind that to members. No tandem operation is allowed without USHPA permission.
Also, USHPA has to have the exemption extended every two years. Any concerns about compliance could jeopardize extension.
BubbleBoy wrote:gotandem wrote:They chose to continue without USHPA. I think that makes perfect sense for them.
Well currently it makes no sense since they can't tandem.
I have no idea if they can get their own exemption (I seriously doubt it).
red wrote:sg wrote:Just got the email. WHOA. Can they still fly tandems in any way at all?
They have their own insurance. What are all the implications here?
Insurance is no part of the issue. Without the USHPA exemption, tandem ultralight flight (anywhere in the USA) is illegal at the federal level. Part 103 only allows the operation of single occupant ultralights. Outside of Part 103, there are numerous requirements for aircraft certifications, inspections, registration, and FAA pilot licensing. TP would have to pursue their own FAA exemption, pertaining to Part 103.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 4.2.103_11
Source: Docket No. 21631, 47 FR 38776, Sept. 2, 1982, unless otherwise noted.
This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;
davisstraub wrote:I'm going to predict that Torrey Pines (ACA) will not be able to have their own tandem exemption outside the USHPA, so that tandem instruction will not take place there until the USHPA is ready to let it happen there.
What would Bob say?
Mark Forbes on Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:25 pm wrote:If you're working for ACA (Torrey) in any capacity, you're not authorized to fly under our tandem exemption. If you're a T1, then you'd only be flying recreationally with other rated pilots, and you would not be taking compensation for the flight or operating as an instructor, so therefore would not be working for ACA. You might be flying at the site, but so long as you're not employed or contracting for them, that's fine.
As mentioned earlier, we have to request that FAA renews our tandem exemption every two years. In that renewal letter, we must discuss significant accidents, injuries, fatalities and other factors that relate to our tandem operations. The justification for issuing the exemption in the first place is that it promotes flight safety by giving students a way to train alongside an instructor, as is done typically in other sectors of aviation. That's why tandem instructional flights must have some at-least-basic elements of flight instruction, and are not simply joyrides.
A school openly defying the rules and the requirements of the exemption is one such factor that must be disclosed, along with USHPA's response to that behavior. The same goes for other significant incidents; we have revoked some instructor appointments, and in two cases the tandem instructors were fatally injured. One of those accidents killed the student too, and in the other case the student safely landed the glider after the instructor slipped out of the harness due to failure to hook in leg straps.
Bob Kuczewski wrote:Excuse me, but I saw a post on the US Hawks by dhmartens that he's been banned from the SHGA forum.
Is that true? Can anyone share the circumstances?
Bill Cummings wrote:Would somebody please help me? I can't get this smirk off of my face!
This is a very interesting development.
As to activity over on that other web site, perhaps all links to topics over there should be placed under the title of "ignorantville.org". Or, maybe "gullibleville.org".
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JoeF, MSNbot Media and 12 guests