Home
Hawks! I posted the following in response to Aaron Swepston (Tontar)at the CBCC list.
On 1/8/2019 1:33 PM, Tontar tontar@comcast.net [CBCC] wrote:(in part)
>
> I have a few questions because I am torn on the issue. People that I know personally and respect seem to be falling on either side of this proposal, some for, some against.
Aaron writes:
"Most of us want our sports to be sustainable, to continue into generations well after we are long gone".
This cuts to the core of the damage USHPA has inflicted upon itself by the requirement to maintain membership within 3 years or forever lose ALL your pilot ratings.
Every hang glider pilot needs to know that, now, thanks to Joe Faust (USHGA founder #5 and Olympic Gold Medalist), our pilot proficiency ratings have been permanently archived (for free) at:
http://www.ushgrs.org/.
Check it out!
The removal of this self serving USHPA rule is long overdue. I think that having not done so years ago has actually hurt the club's sustainability, essentially telling long term members that they have to pay a private corporation for legacy recognition of their skills, after they quit flying or pass on. I call that disrespect.
The current proposal to reduce the size of the board is a simple desperate power grab in the guise of "diversity" (for heaven's sake)! More board members = more opinions = more brain power = better representation. I agree that old school hotel ballroom board meetings are just not in the realm of good budgeting when things get financially thin!
USHPA insistence that State Outdoor Recreation Act laws do not give adequate protection to land owners and agencies is inaccurate, and a very thin veil for the establishment of the nonviable RRG scheme currently extant. Lloyds of London ain't coming back folks. The USHGA's foundation is that airspace is protected by FAR part 103, our self regulation is respected by the FAA. Every state has outdoor recreation statutes that are pertinent to hundreds of sporting activities. Nothing in hang gliding is inherently different (in terms of liability) from these activities, except possibly FAA recognition of our successful self regulation.
Ed Levin Park, Dockweiler (Los Angeles) and the State of Utah have recently agreed that requiring membership in USHPA is unnecessary for safely protecting them from liability (including the "cost of defense" argument being blathered about by "three initials").
As a member for 42 years, I have seen hang glider pilot membership is now only 1/4 of the present USHPA roster of approximately 8,000 members. I believe that there are factors besides USHPA bumbling that have gone into the shrinking number of hang glider pilots in the US, I won't address those just now.
Consider this; in the Phoenix 6, Cirrus 5, and Comet days (late 70's and early 80's), gliders were less capable, less safe, owners still had liability concerns, yet USHGA had 10,000+ hang glider pilot members and a top drawer insurance carrier.
My opinion is that USHPA is mostly a paragliding club, and, just as paragliders have inferior structural integrity to hang gliders, USHPA will be more likely to fold in these increasingly turbulent legal and financial currents.
Site stewards and negotiators would be well advised to prepare to negotiate for the future, using the presently viable legal tools I have mentioned. I've done it, it can work.
Dave Schy Hang 4 Pilot
Bow, WA
