Change font size
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:49 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 5   [ 48 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:00 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am
Posts: 122
Summer's over, the San Diego City Council is back in session...and Bob is back at it.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:31 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am
Posts: 122
The Torrey Pines Gliderport RFP lease is RIGGED! :shock: :shock: ... no wait, we're not really shocked...it's the way the city of San Diego has been dealing with this all along...:roll: :( :x





Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:17 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am
Posts: 122
THE A-B-Cs of CORRUPTION

In this week's City Council meetings, Bob covers, very clearly, the corruption in the writing of the latest Torrey Pines Gliderport RFP.





Here he's explaining to the city council that there are other sites in California, like Fort Funston, that operate just fine without the need of a setup like Air California Adventure.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:01 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am
Posts: 122
All over the country, there are dozens of states that have hang gliding and paragliding sites that are run by clubs - except the Torrey Pines Gliderport - it's run by thugs.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:37 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am
Posts: 122
And the battle continues for common sense in the City of San Diego City Council. Bob learned - dare I say - USPHA :o - yes, USPHA is starting to show arguments against - :shock: yes, against - California Air Adventure, Inc. Check out the video and see what Bob discovered.





Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:34 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm
Posts: 2492
Location: Las Cruces NM 88005 (Region 4)
Thank you majiemae,
You know-- I'd bet Sherri sat down with Robin M. and the city attorney to hammer out deal to accept a bond to cover a break of traditional insurance for ACA -------(mid stream).
If this did happen did it happen in violation of the BROWN ACT? Or was it done in open council session?
Was there an unbroken transition from insurance to bonding?
Did this bonding cause a break in the carry over or hold over lease?
Was the bonding worded in the new lease contract?
Was it done up properly without a RFP?
Was ACA able to read the minds of the city as to what would be acceptable without a meeting?

How about a smiley face that has a clothes pin on it's nose?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:19 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:26 pm
Posts: 85
I don’t know why Bob wastes his time making presentations to the San Diego City Council. He could put a stop to this by making an appointment to give a presentation at 8525 Gibbs Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92123. If he would present the whole sorted story along with the videos, it would put this to bed-finished-done. Make sure you bring the videos.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:18 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:11 am
Posts: 2496
There you have it.
The nuclear option.     :o

Image
                                    Joyride this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:20 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:11 am
Posts: 2496
It was critically important for our sport of hang gliding to police itself and be responsible for our own actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 RFP for Torrey Pines Gliderport
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:43 pm 
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:26 pm
Posts: 85
Part 103 and Tandem

I have looked far and wide for any documents from the FAA authorizing training flights for hire or Part 103 commercial operations. I have not found any document remotely suggesting that those activities are legal and on the contrary, the more I find on the subject, the more I believe for hire operations under Part 103 are illegal. I wish I could tell you what you want hear, but I can’t.

First there is the premise for an activity to be illegal there must be a statute stating the action is prohibited. In other words if there is no law stating you can’t charge for tandem hang gliding/paragliding training, then it would be legal to charge for tandem flight instruction. So where does it state a person cannot charge for giving tandem hang gliding/paragliding flight instruction?

Starting with the defined applicability of Part 103, it is to be a manned operation in the air by a single occupant and is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only. So what does the FAA actually mean by the terms “recreation or sport”? Looking at the “Preamble” to Part 103, the FAA tells us what their intent is in enacting this regulation (Part 103).

Preamble to Part 103

Please read the sections “Single Occupant” and “Recreation or Sport Purposes Only”.

The intent of the FAA is the operations under Part103 are to be a single occupant who knows and accepts the risks in hang gliding/paragliding and they clearly point out that this “assumption does not hold true of a passenger selected randomly from the general public”. This is a key point. Furthermore the FAA clearly states that commercial operations with an uncertificated pilot and uncertificated aircraft are not allowed under the rule. Which rule? Part 103. Let me repeat what the FAA said, “Those types of operations are not allowed under the rule.” What operations are not legal under Part 103? Commercial operations.

It should also be pointed out there are no certification requirements for the aircraft or certification, training, aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements for the operators of Part 103 operations. Therefore there are no requirements or certification for Instructors under Part 103. Training is not required. Instructors are not required.

The FAA states in the Preamble to Part 103, “Persons wishing to operate two place vehicles have the availability of existing provisions of the FAR's for conducting such operations.” In other words fly under other “Parts” of the Regulations that apply.

Original Tandem USHGA Exemption

The current USHPA Tandem Exemption No. 4721N is an extension of the Original Petition No. 4721 granted October 9, 1986. The current USHPA Tandem Exemption No. 4721N is based on the premise and intent of the Original Tandem Exemption Petition. The exemption requires both the Tandem Instructor and the student to possess a current pilot rating issued by the USHPA. The Original Petition states: “Further, the petitioner states a student would be someone who elects to accept the risks of the ultralight sport, rather than a passenger selected randomly form the general public.” The Original Petition also stated: “The petitioner considers the possibility of abuse of the exemption by person intent on using two-place vehicles for other than sport and recreation or training to be minimal, certainly no greater than the possibility of other regulatory violations in the absence of the exemption. The USHGA is aware that at present the FAA is concerned for compensation or hire. Denial of this exemption will not deter those who would engage in such illegal operations, nor would grant of the exemption be incentive for increased illegal activities.” The USHGA has clearly stated compensation or hire operations are illegal in their original petition to the FAA for the Tandem Training Exemption.

The FAA wrote in the Original Exemption: “When promulgating Par 103, the FAA considered the comments of those who suggested that two-occupant operation be allowed. A blanket authorization of this type of operation was considered inappropriate because there would be no safeguards for the unsuspecting public. The assumption is made that persons who fly vehicles with unknown performance and structural integrity are responsible for their own personal safety and risks that are inherent in such an operation. Such an assumption could not be made in two-occupant operations which might include the carriage of passengers who were unaware of the uncertificated nature of the operations involved.”

Under the current Tandem Exemption the FAA states: “In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.”

In summary, the Original and the Current Tandem Exemption require both occupants to be current USHPA rated pilots with the premise that they are not randomly selected from the general public who are unaware of the risks involved. Furthermore, it is clear that the USHGA/USHPA acknowledged compensation or hire operations are deemed illegal by the FAA for Part 103 operations in their petition(s) for the Tandem Exemption(s).

Advisory Circular 103-7 The Ultralight Vehicle

The FAA makes it clear in Advisory Circular 103-7 “The Ultralight Vehicle” that Part 103 operations are to be a single occupant for sport or recreational purposes only. If the pilot is advertising his/her services to perform any task using an ultralight, Part 103 does not apply. If the pilot is receiving any form of compensation for the performance of a task using an ultralight vehicle, Part 103 does not apply. If the flight undertaken accomplishes some task, then Part 103 does not apply. In this usage “any” is defined as all, inclusive, or every describing task defined as a piece of work to be done or undertaken. Any task or some task would be inclusive of training.

The Advisory Circular specifically lists prohibited tasks and specifically lists examples of situations involving money or some other form of compensation allowable under the recreation and sport limitation. Neither the prohibited list nor the examples of allowable compensation references training under Part 103.

The Advisory Circular does address the USHGA exemption “to authorize use of two-place ultralights under Part103 for limited training purposes and for certain hang glider operations”. The exemption as authorized is controlling.

Final Summation

The central core of Part 103 is the single individual is responsible for his/her safety with the knowledge of the risk involved while engaged in flying. With the solo occupant rule flying for sport and recreation, the rules and regulations can be kept at a minimum. With uncertified pilots and uncertified aircraft there is concern for the general public’s safety. Therefore Part 103 prohibits compensation, for-hire, and commercial operations along with advertising of those services to the general public.

The USHPA’s Tandem Exemption No. 4721N allows tandem operations under Part103 and also allows an additional task of training to be performed along with recreation and sport flying. This exemption applies only to members of the USHPA and is not meant for the general public’s consumption. The USHGA in the original petition for the tandem exemption acknowledges that compensation, for-hire operations are deemed illegal by the FAA. The current exemption No. 4721N is an extension of the original and states there are no changes in the basis of the petition. There is no exemption for compensation, for hire, or commercial operations in the USHPA’s Tandem Exemption No. 4721N. There is no exemption for proffering, soliciting, or advertising services under Part103 in USHPA’s Tandem Exemption No. 4721N.

With the documents available to me this is the only conclusion I see. The smoking gun is the admission by the USHPA that compensation, for hire operations are illegal.

The majority of this post are quotes from the FAA describing their intent and interpretation of Part 103. If you have additional documents from the USHPA or the FAA regarding the subject please share. You are free to petition the FAA with your own exemption request, free to operate in compliance with in other parts of the FARs, and free to request an official interpretation from the FAA’s Legal Department.

Michael Grisham


Attachments:
DSC00900.JPG
DSC00900.JPG [ 63.39 KiB | Viewed 1408 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 5   [ 48 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net