[JoeF]

For the record, at 2:21 pm PST to NPS

Joe Faust
2:21 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Charles, ljr1, Bob, Richard, Scott, Frank

Mr. Charles Strickfaden,

Category of Individual visitor at Fort Funston:
== US citizen, age 18 or more
== poor or rich
== respectful of plants, animals, people, park management general guides
== chooses not to be coerced to join a private corporation to recreate at Fort Funston bluffs
== has proficiency to step off bluff and fly his/her hang glider wing safely
== as visitors of 100s of activities he or she takes 100% responsibility for his or her actions and the effects of such actions and holds all other entities non-liable for same (we understand this to be the default understanding of visitors to the People's lands of NPS) Though, in redundancy of the default, the visitor would sign a Waiver waive all actions against all named entities)
== and as for 100s of other activities in NPS land the poor/rich, the visitor is not burdened to carry third-party liability insurance specific for each activity (such would crush visitation)
== and follows traffic, launching, and landing rules respectfully
== has a clean record of safety
== and works cooperatively with all other visitors present at the park at the time of activity to best face the real immediate conditions of the scene
== arranges no group events for his/her hang gliding activity
== probably leaves the park cleaner than he/she finds it

A visitor of such description should not be rebuffed by a private corporation from individually recreating at Fort Funston and equitably with members of the private corporation that in parallel recreates at the same bluffs, taking turns in the American spirit and way.

Would you not agree? If so, please have such directive from NPS / GGNRA in the coming potential renewal of the FFFF SUP.
Thank you for protecting the individual visitor to the Peoples' lands managed by NPS; your service is noble and appreciated.

Best,

Joe Faust
teaming for USHGRS.org
Olympian, represented the United States of America in the Rome Olympics, 1960, in the high jump (stepping into the airspace and landing)
Retired mathematics teacher
Recreational hang glider pilot
CC: to a few of a growing number of visitors who fit the above-described category of individual visitor (not event, not SUP group, but just one-by-one visitor)

And a few moments later, just to Charles:

A core conversation among FFF and others re FF hang gliding Here
My letter emailed to you is now part of the linked conversation.

I did not receive any acknowledgement yet from an online NPS form to Customer Relations.

I suspect from Logan J. Remillard that you are a key contact for our quest.
Wishing you and yours the best,
Joe Faust

About ten minutes or so, a polite reply acknowledged his receiving of the main email:

Thank you Joe, Logan, etc.. duly noted. Appreciate the note.

Some growing numbers of HG Pilots hope that the concepts are thoroughly vetted concluding in equitable changes in the FF scene.





-

[srskypuppy]

The date of 1972 "chapter" status is questioned; Steve, do you want to clarify the matter? USHGA (Hang Glider) did not have FFFF as a chapter then. USHGA (Hang Gliding) did not have FFFF as a "chapter" then. So, I am seeking the fact of start of chaptership-USHPA for FFFF. What is the fact on that? Anyone knows?

(2008) $250.00 USHPA. Chapter renewal/

The Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston Hang Gliding Club enjoys numerous benefits from being a Chapter of the USHPA, which has allowed us to keep Fort Funston open to hang gliding since the creation of the GGNRA in 1972.

FF hang gliding was occurring when FFFF was not a USHPA chapter. There was no USHPA in 1972. There was a second USHGA (Hang Gliding); FFFF was not a chapter of USHPA then.
==========================================================

There are points toward this discussion that are in HERE..






v

Hi Joe,
The FF did not form until 1973 so obviously, the club couldn't have been a chapter in 1972! To clarify; the founding members of the FF worked with GGNRA since its inception in 72', USHPA Chapter status has helped us ever since the club became a chapter.
Steve

[srskypuppy]

September 12, 1974

Following police complaints that hang gliders were presenting a traffic and enforcement problem along the Great Highway at the city's coastline, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission voted to ban the sport at all locations except Fort Funston.
-- "Controls set on hang gliding," Daily Independent Journal (CA), 13 Sep 1974, 4.

Hi Rick,
Interesting to know how the City of SF might have worked with the GGNRA at that time. Where can I find the original article/s that you quote from?
Thanks!
Steve

[JoeF]

In FFFF SUP from GGNRA:

NPSfinalauthorityflying.JPG (18.48 KiB) Viewed 6888 times

Code: Select all

[vote]So, perhaps NPS could simply give a MOU which I sample as a potential draft here in my words:   
"Take turns launching with individual visitor hang glider pilots who are not members and do not join a third party corporation. Those visitors need only show evidence of pilot proficiency from one of several hang glider rating entities and assent that they have understood the local site flight and landing particulars. We apply the default understanding that individual non SUP visitors have tacitly already waived rights to sue all government state, city, county entities for their recreational activities. We do not burden our visitor individuals with their having to have recreational insurance."[/vote]

That would do it for the next possible SUP also.

Rationale for the NPS to give such a MOU:
1. The US Department of Interior does not required individual visitors to recreational diverse-use areas to join repugnant third-party private corporations or non-repugnant corporations; the NPS is under the US Department of Interior. For example, NPS does not say such as this when they are fulfilling their mandates: "To walk your dog in the dog area you must become a member of the Dog Breeders Association."
2. The FAA does not require certificates of airmanship for hang glider pilots.
3.. NPS and GGNRA should not play favorites in the matter of ratings; their is competition for rating statements. At least four entities rate HG pilots. NPS is not to disregard competitors in favor of just one, especially when FAA requires no ratings for pilots of hang gliders.
4. NPS does not burden individual visitors, but does burden groups that situate and have special use of buildings and containers and other changes; individuals apart from those SUP entities are the majority interest of the NPS .... the individual US citizens.
5. The asset of the wind should not be sold out 100% to a private club; no, some of the asset should be left for the non-club visitor who is not to be overly burdened with forced crushing insurance and forced crushing insistent to join as member to any private corporation.

=================================================
Look into all that this paragraph intends and find matters that may show some of the flaws in the main body of the FFFF SUP; the findings that override those flaws are to guide:

LOOKINTOALL.JPG (28.93 KiB) Viewed 6887 times

Those "other statutes" are probably going to show the flaws in the current SUP. Or other guidelines that are meta rules. Lower actions like an SUP must fulfill meta guides and statutes. NPS has mandates that are not to burden the people who own the lands managed by the Department of the Interior. An individual visitor to the lands is not to be rebuffef or overburdened. However, if a group of people want to carve out some special hold of some of the Peoples assets, then that new entity: private-interest club is not a citizen but an entity doing its special thing. That specialized thing of FFFF married to another private entity is not to lower the default integrity of the individual citizen visitor who recreates with the wind asset at Fort Funston. Find the flaws in the subject SUP and apply meta guides that come from Congress and the US Department of the Interior and its NPS and its GGNRA; apply all the meta mater and root out the flaws of the the SUP. And do not renew a flawed SUP. This will take work by skilled workers, but it is worth it. Find flaws so all may Fly: FFF.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Steve Rodrigues,

Can you address this topic's title: "Censorship at Funston"? Specifically:

      Did you ban Joe Faust from the Fellow Feathers Forum? Why?

      Did you ban me from the Fellow Feathers Forum? Why?

      Who else is currently banned from the Fellow Feathers Forum?

Other discussions are certainly welcome (and encouraged) in this topic, but since you're the moderator of the Fellow Feathers Forum, and since you happen to be here posting in a topic titled "Censorship at Funston" (which was started based on your own actions), could you address those questions? Feel free to review this entire topic to refresh your memory. In addition to helping address the censorship issue, you may find an important post by Scott (wingspan33) where he quotes Mike Jefferson's Ed Levin use permit (see
post on page 2).

Thanks.

[JoeF]

Insider bias? How might FFF SUP flaws come into existence? Lack of opposing interests could let flaws be placed; if there are no heard objections then things may get in place quietly and seem to stick while feeding habituation. Such processes do not make what is in place right, fair, just, legal, or invulnerable to over-riding. A potential source of flaws may come from insider bias; there may be workers in the government who carry a bias that works its way into formation of SUP flaws. Be watchful for "point persons" or the "go-to guy for hang gliding" etc. If the go-to guy is biased and not letting meta statutes lead, then a bias could quietly work its way into letting final SUPs be flawed.

Grooming insider bias? A liaison for FFFF that grooms government insiders toward realms that do not fulfill meta government statutes, laws, decisions, etc. may result in flawed SUPs remaining and habituating minds. Without active opposition to flaws and without active promotion of faithful fulfillment of meta statutes, etc, then flawed SUPs simply keep going and going and going. Paraphrasing: "Who cares? We have done this for years, don't rock the boat. We have it all. Don't mess with us. You don't have a chance. We have overcome crazies before and will do it again!" What may be crazy is complacence in the face of flaw that robs individual recreation visitors from the openness that is mandated by meta guides. Upturning stuck-in-place flawed SUPs takes energy, study, communication, perseverance; will the hang glider community muster the energy to remove the flaws in SUPs issued by the government agencies? Will we change to advance a better future for hang gliding recreation?

Will the hang gliding community tolerate blocking, censorship, back turning, holding on to flawed SUPs, banning to squash communication, etc ? Will our flights inspire us to take the high road in communications? Or will corners of us become cliques guarding flawed grabs?

[Logan]

Steve Rodrigues aka srskypuppy

To start off, I would like to say that I do genuinely appreciate that you are willing to join a conversation regarding the problems within USHPA. Not many members are willing to do so (or tolerate such a conversation. See "Censorship")

I will even go so far as to agree with you that USHPA has done some good things for the sport in providing a consolidated voice for many pilots. Unfortunately, many of those voices are being actively silenced (See again "Censorship")

The blow-back USHPA is facing isn't about the cost of services, it is the expectation of compliance. As a student at USHPA sites I genuinely started feeling like a hostage, just keep paying money until I could eventually get a sign off to use my public land. I got tired of paying instructors to fly my wing and tell me that they aren't here to answer questions. It was easier to have the regulations at the Point of the Mountain changed than it was to get a USHPA sign off.

I have purchased my own insurance, and I am in the process of getting an FAA glider rating so that I can make the same changes at Funston for the exact same reason. I find the idea that any private organization should have a monopoly on the use of public lands to be repugnant, especially one that works so against the members that it claims to serve.

You are right in that following USHPA guidelines is the easiest way to gain access to certain sites. There are a growing number of pilots that aren't willing to sacrifice their self-respect in order to do so.

I have repeatedly asked USHPA leadership how we can work together, as have a number of people on this forum. USHPA leadership has always claimed authority with an argument that resembles "Follow us or you are trying to destroy FAR 103", this tells me that USHPA leadership has never *READ* FAR 103.... so I have created a forum in an attempt to correct that. http://forum.the103.club/ (Soon to be http://the103.club/). I genuinely have no problem with a publicly funded air facility having proficiency standards, I do absolutely have a problem with a publicly funded air facility being given to a single private organization.

If you are willing to work with others to promote FLIGHT, there are a number of people here eager to work with you. We want FAR 103 to be used to promote free flight and the enjoyment of the sport, not a private monopoly on our public lands and guaranteed freedoms.

Logan

[Free]

USHPA leadership has always claimed authority with an argument that resembles "Follow us or you are trying to destroy FAR 103", this tells me that USHPA leadership has never *READ* FAR 103....

They might have read FAR 103 but the history of USHPA is that they certainly didn't understand it.
FAA's Sue Gardner, was given an tandem hang glider ride behind a big fat illegal tow plane at Quest in Florida and U$hPa wrote it up in a big article in the magazine! No one understood FAR 103 at U$hPa at that time and if Quest knew they didn't let on that they understood.
They were getting away with the fake tandem waiver so far, why change anything?

Jim Gaar, subsequently went to the FAA in Wichita KS. and made a fool of himself in trying to disprove what I told him about FAR 103. Even after drawing him a picture he didn't get it and sought to prove me wrong. He went to the FAA to speak for U$hPa and he single-handedly got all U$hPa flight parks shut down for doing so.

[JoeF]

Character and limitations of NPS SUPs? Already stated: NPS keeps a meta authority over SUPs it extends. NPS may step in for many reasons at any time to change, control, modify matters to protect the interests of the public over special interests. The FFFF has a special private interest that differs from the public interest at large. If a special interest bothers the public interest, then NPS may act or may not act in corrective ways.

- require some degree of management control from the NPS (in order to protect park resources and the public interest

Well, some of the public has an interest in individual use of the park at FF which is somewhat aside of the package of special interest of a private club; distinguishing the difference between the package of special interest of a private local club and the narrower interest of public individual non-club park visitors may be important to get robustly on the table. For instance there are styles of hang gliding recreation; the NPS should not be in the game of governing the styles of hang gliding recreation. The FFFF special package of interest play to certain styles of hang gliding activity, but not all styles of hang gliding activity; they can do that as a special-interest non-public entity. From studying SUP, almost always plain public individuals do not apply for SUPs to be recreating in 1000s of individual activities on public lands, even though each person is "special" in the sense of unique. SUP process has fees, paperwork, negotiations, etc. and are tools when someone or some group is aiming to operate on public lands in special ways. Individual visitors are still the high service target of the NPS. Walk wing and step into FAA airspace like the birds of public lands and airspace: not special, but individual. Different is the formation of a club, taking over NPS building, placing wing storage unit, modifying the land in the park, having meetings of many people in the park, etc.: that is an instance of special use of public lands; that is very different from a visitor who arrives with a carriable umbrella who steps into the air and then lands and leave, just like birds, horse riders, dog walkers, runners, dancers, hikers, mountaineers, rock climbers, bicycle riders, kayak riders, jump ropers, high jumpers, etc.... 1000s of individual recreation actions.
Special interest are to play in harmony with the public interest; it is easy for FFFF to be corrected to a parallel universe of equitable sharing of the special asset of FF. Will FFFF work for that easy solution or aim to hold intransigent and try to keep a flawed SUP in coming potential renewal? FFFF, go for the high road of parallel cooperation with the public set of hang glider pilots that do not share all parts of your special package.

[JoeF]

FFFF forum erases topics and posts when a challenge arrives about GGNRA SUPs. FFFF thus has a kind of false informing going; GGNRA might look to that forum for clues to how FFFF is managing the SUP and hang gliding at FF Well, if the forum erases core discussions on matters about the management of hang gliding at FF, then is not that kind of a giving of false information to the GGNRA? The SUP requires that FFFF give no false information. Though the false information may be just aside of the SUP application process, there might be some keen wondering by the GGNRA should they realize how FFFF deletes appropriate discussions by interested and participating pilots and public visitors. If I were GGNRA, I'd be concerned about the censoring of pilot-input discussion posts. At any time GGNRA may cancel the SUP. Annual renewal is coming up for the SUP. But note: the SUP may be modified or even fully stopped by the GGNRA at any time for the giving of false information to the GGNRA.

Just imagine just what FFFF has blocked, banned, erased, hidden, changed, etc. Can FFFF forum or even its required meeting minutes now be trusted to show true information? GGNRA SUP requires that minutes be posted monthly. But if information cannot be trusted, then what good is that requirement?

How might FFFF regain trust that it is giving true information to GGNRA? It may be a difficult path. Ideas?
Anyone? Starter: Replace posts deleted that were about hang gliding matters. And remove bans of hang gliding community posters. Establish a policy of open vetting of banning effort. Keep a record of bans and text deletions and make such information available to the GGNRA and to the public through FOIA type query. What else? Trust is hard to rebuild. Tell GGNRA that are more than three rating systems over HG pilots, not just one; and tell GGNRA that the FAA does not require any rating of pilots or any license or any certificate. Tell the GGNRA that FFFF could parallel recreate with independent recreating HG Pilots who arrive occasionally to recreate and who may reject as repugnant the concept of Congress forcing a citizen to join any particular private corporation to recreate on the Peoples' land, more especially a private corporation that does actions repugnant to Congress and the Department of Justice. Ask GGNRA to insert a change via MOU that allows independent non-joining-corporation citizen visiting HG Pilots to take turns at launch to federal airspace. Easy. Then trust might begin to return. What else? Living in peace with such more open and fair recreating. The FFFF would keep its club and the wider hang gliding community would well interface with that club's members at a People's hang gliding site. The People through Congress through GGNRA would keep not overburdening individual park visitors inclusive of individual HG Pilots. What else?

People Congress U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service National Recreation Areas GGNRA Visitors and SUPs FFFF People