[DaveSchy]

It is time for all site negotiators to review their agreements, this winter, whether for private or public land access for recreational flying.
The coming USHPA implosion is obvious, and USHPA "Insurance" is not a prerequisite to liability protection for any land owners or agencies.
References to USHPA and their RRRG scheme should be removed from the next round of negotiation, before they become moot.
Now is not the time for site stewards to be lazy or complacent, the times are changing. A fresh approach to renewing our site agreements will be rewarded with more pilot/users and less legal and financial gymnastics. USHPA "insurance" has become a problem, not a solution. States are investigating RRGs' legality. 8000 members will never replace Lloyds of London's coverage.

Outdoor Recreation Acts and properly written road use and maintenance financial agreements are viable and preferable, as seen in Los Angeles, Utah, and at Ed Levin.

Self regulation has stood the test of time, RRRG's are a short term solution at best. Self regulation is gentle, viable and non-confrontational. Launch directors asking for "your papers" are not! Part 103 says it all.....

Removal of USHPA exclusivity will bring in more users to share costs, where cost reimbursement is a part of site agreements.

Commercial operations and competitions bear the cost of any "insurance" as an expense, and are excluded from Outdoor Recreation Acts in any case.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Great post Dave!!

I just reposted it to the Sylmar forum:

    http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=23297#23297

Thanks very much!!!   

[Frank Colver]

Right on Dave! The momentum is building.

Frank

[Bill Cummings]

I am in agreement with Rick, Bob, Joe, Frank and Dave. (Posted here.)
When I got into the sport of hang gliding Jan 1978 most of the gliders flying
had no luff lines, dive sticks, curved battens and sprogs or reflex to save a pilot
from a luff dive. A deadly situation.
The Hang Gliding Manufacturers Association (HGMA) formed and then we
started seeing equipment that was airworthy.
We enjoyed positive and negative G safety testing that all gliders had to meet.
Even though I knew the risk of a luff dive, that most often was unrecoverable, I
signed a last will and testament and took to the air.
For most of the old pilots of today this is the risk we were willing to take on to
be able to fly.
I completely understand the mind set of the paragliding community.
They are presently in the risk situation that I was in 1978.
Although PG’ing is nothing I am going to do I know the level of desiring to fly
that they are unable to resist.
My favorite saying is, “Everything about the sport of paragliding is better than
Hang Gliding except for the airborne part.”
I still will drive for and assist PG pilots in their sport locally but that’s about it.
Some know that I am a tow pilot but I understand why towing and tandem is not an
endeavor that the US Hawks are going to support. Towing will be done here locally
and apart from the US Hawks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Just a comment. I don't think the U.S. Hawks has ever opposed recreational towing or recreational tandem. Did I miss a vote?

[JoeF]

Just not solve, not resolve, not SOP it, and the like. Not oppose, just not control or regulate. Leave towing to local experts. Towing is a specialized method that may lead to hang gliding when released. Towing is adjacent to some RHG; using a car to drive to a launch is adjacent to RHG. Pay-in, pay-out, AT, platform pay-out, scooter tow, raft-drift towing, human towing, horse towing of wings, etc. ... scores of means. Each method is to be handled by a local highly-focused set of people who hopefully would research well, engineer well the total towing system, etc. Not opposed. But the towing is adjacent to RHG, sometimes core for some localities.

Similarly for tandem and tandem towing.
A PIC for tandem or tow tandem reaches a space of operating that may be beyond the direct focus of a RHG flow. Let experts grow their particular tandem and tandem towing operations. Octopusal control and specification of such operations may well be adjacent to RHG. There may be enough to do to have a robust flow for RHG without the flow controlling or specifying tandem and towing operations. Solo non-tandem non-towing non-motoring RHG?????????

[Bob Kuczewski]

I still don't understand the adjacent aspect.

Can't someone tow recreationally?

Can't someone tandem recreationally?

[JoeF]

The "adjacent" aspect: Exterior matters, often other persons are integral; the systems and person-combined systems have specialized liabilities that skyrocket in importance and weight. Yes, the involved persons and added equipment may all be "recreational" and enjoyed and given eventual expertise; and such may be studied. But what will be the domain of a particular organization?

There are forums specializing in towing, motoring. I do not know of a forum specializing in tandem HG, joyriding, etc. with two or more persons in one wing, free launch or towing launch; but maybe a forum might open for that specialized liability space. Any forum may discuss and develop any aspect, adjacent or not. But what will the org have as core focus? Exemptions. Exceptions. Medusa all over again?

Tow a wing and then release the wing for free-flight hang gliding; the free-flight hang gliding begins at the release.
Towing forces may be derived from:
== Friends ... skilled or not.
== Bungee linear or Vee, single or multiple aggregate. Fresh or aged rubber ...
== Truck or car or ship with pay-out with trained or not drivers and observers, et.
== Truck or car or ship with winching pay-in
== Horses
== Drifting raft
== Motorized drone (s)
== Ambient-wind kiting
== Dropped-mass
== Fast powered aircraft using payout to obtain desired airspeed for the towed wing
== Parachute driver with block of pulleys for multiplication of airspeed for towed wing
== Rockets
== Motorized boats
== Cruise ships
== Motorcycles
== Scooters
== Fixed motorized winches
== Drone or set of drones ...
== ... or many more.

[Rick Masters]

Can't someone tow recreationally?

Sure. Once you release, of course, you are hang gliding. If it works.

Can't someone tandem recreationally?

No. Under FAR 103 tandem requires an exemption for instruction purposes only.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Can't someone tow recreationally?

Sure. Once you release, of course, you are hang gliding. If it works.

I think we disagree on the definition of hang gliding. Mine would include being towed.

Can't someone tandem recreationally?

No. Under FAR 103 tandem requires an exemption for instruction purposes only.

First, people can instruct others recreationally. I do it all the time.

Second, the FAA may issue any exemptions it chooses. Part 103.5 does not limit the kinds of waivers that the FAA may grant:

103.5 No person may conduct operations that require a deviation from this part except under a written waiver issued by the Administrator.

Tandem flight does require a waiver, but that waiver could allow it for any purpose the Administrator grants. The words "instruct" and "instruction" do not appear in Part 103. We've gotten used to the instructional waiver because that's what USHPA has had, but others are not precluded by Part 103.