[JoeF]

Consider questioning "ratings" as a paradigm for "self regulation" of recreational hang gliding (RHG).
"Ratings" world has its pros and cons. This topic is not about the pros and cons of "ratings" realm.
One may certainly get into that pro-and-con-of-ratings question; but please do that in topics dedicated to such.

Instead, this topic is an invitation to explore alternative paradigms to fulfill "self regulation" for recreational hang gliding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

Also, one need not face whether or not established rating systems are fine, good, broken, hurtful, etc. or not. Such
questioning may be done, yet this topic thread is suggested not to be the appropriate place for such questioning.
We may proceed in the new present topic without using answers to those other questions. And this topic is not designed
for "improving" some extant "rating" system. And not a place to explore the value of some extant rating system.

Here: Fly into potential paradigms
for self regulation that do not use the extant rating system.

Is there a value to this topic? Is this topic just a ship rocker? Just a game? Just antidisestablishmentarianistically
attacking some extant system? Etc. Those also are separate questions that could be addressed in dedicated topics.
Here though is a place to put up on the table alternative ways of self regulating recreational hang gliding in the USA.

Then, what have we on topic?
====================================================================================================

[JoeF]

Nine viewers, so far.
=================================== So, a nudge:
The 1000 Acts Paradigm
National HG org has members with a page of 1000 acts with checkboxes. The pilot returns occasionally to check a box on some act in that list; or unchecks the box when the pilot judges that she or he does not come up to a threshold on the act that she or he once met. The pilot stays active checking and unchecking the act boxes. Anyone in the world may view a pilot's set of checked boxes and unchecked boxes. If an act is checked and another pilot wants to discuss the matter with the subject pilot, then they may carry out private emails or phone calls or visits to mull over something about the act in focus. We grow together as a community of pilots that perform acts. Many niche hang gliding activities could have sectors of acts. One pilot might be checking the boxes for acts in micro hang gliding robustly; another pilot might be checking acts in the section dedicated to a particular named site: Actions related to site: ______________________. Another: acts related to XC. A section for action related to gear care, wing care, weather awareness, launching acts, landing acts.
========================================================

[JoeF]

Twenty-three views, so far. Proposed alternative paradigms are invited to be placed up for consideration. See intro post for this topic.
======================

History Paradigm
HGP John or Sally Doe has a history folder of pages linked from US Hawks HGA.
Any member in good standing of the US Hawks may post notes and observations about subject HGP
while following guidelines about posting (say, no personal attacks, no exposure of private matters unapproved by subject HGP, ???)
Posts are sent via online form to subject HGP and to a US Hawks volunteer moderator; when both the subject HGP and moderator agree that a post can go into the history pages about the subject HGP, then the matter gets posted by the observer. The wiki grows to hold comments from the community of members.

Members who have observed subject HGP may form a post for the member's history page. The subject member may post his or her hang gliding related actions.
=======================

[Bob Kuczewski]

The focus on "ratings" is problematic for the same reason that it's useful. That reason is that it boils down the entire multidimensional history and skill set of a pilot into a single number containing less than 3 bits of information.

If someone is responsible for allowing or disallowing someone else to launch or land on a given parcel of property, that first someone wants an easy way to say "yes" or "no". They don't want to have to read the full history and commentary on each pilot to decide if they have the skills to fly safely on that day in those conditions.

In a perfect world people would have complete and perfect knowledge and make decisions based on all of the information available. Sadly, most people won't put that kind of effort into it, and that's why we have what we have.

Having said all of that, the solution space certainly isn't closed and technology is growing every day. Maybe someone will come up with a "safe for me to fly" app that digests all of a pilot's previous flights and experiences and knowledge and combines them with the current wind conditions, forecasts, and other pilots (crowding) to produce an individual "safe to fly" report for that instant in time. I have a friend who says that "anything is possible with code that hasn't been written yet."  

[JoeF]

Thanks, BobK.
I will try to get from you post what may be on the present topic. The present topic is "instead of "ratings" ....; and thus not ratings. But topic: "what for self regulating RHG".
I hope that another topic will study the pros and cons and workings of ratings systems. Here, it is hoped: Put on the table alternative paradigms. And I think you included in your post an alternative paradigm. I will try to say it back; and then I will comment.

It seems that you put on the table:
One has an app that takes input on a site, the site's condition at the moment, and one's log of actions related to hang gliding. Press button: "Give me a yes or no about flying right now at this site at this time." The pilot presses the button and the appl looks at the weather, the recorded site parameters, the air traffic, the rates of change of weather and traffic, one's past flights at other sites, special notes by others that have used the site, etc. The app displays: "John Doe, pilot, you may now fly this site at this time; you are cleared to go for the next 30 minutes, after which, ask Me App again."

My comments:
1. Cool.
2. I have one of those apps; it is my brain. I feed it data and decide. I won't trust some site gatekeeper for a Yes; gatekeeper might have a legal power to say, "No! Don't launch here and now." Any gatekeeper saying, "You are cleared to fly here and now" becomes a data point that I put into my brain app. I think it was Frank Colver that brought up river rafting; if I recall correctly, a rapids might be rated, but John Doe may arrive and must decide with his brain app whether or not to go in the water there or not. The paradigm for this topic thread might be: Have no site gatekeepers; let pilots self regulate. Another topic might discuss ratings and controlled sites with pros and cons on such. Paradigm>? Self-regulation by use of the self app that takes in data from many sources to inform one's decision to launch or not.
This can even apply at controlled site: One takes in the data point: Gatekeeper is wanting a "rating" report as part of a preamble to permitting a pilot to launch. That is a data point. Launcher may use that data point in his or her brain app according to one's program. Say, Gatekeeper says, "No, you do not have H3; you may not launch here." Pilot without H3 in paradigm takes in that data point and decides whether to launch or not. Gatekeeper's data was calculated. Pilot decides, say, OK, no launch. Or Pilot decides, say, I have that Gatekeeper data point; I will launch anyway. But under the paradigm of this post: Pilot took full responsibility for the launch decision. Consequences? Depends. Use of the launch land when told "No" might trigger legal or peer actions that could cost launching pilot in various ways. Peer cost? Perhaps expulsion from local club. Or club fine or suspension of site-use permissions, etc. Trespassing? See Rick's notes about seeking sites that have not gatekeepers.

Discussion of rating systems hopefully will occur in other topics.

This topic invites putting up on the view alternative paradigms of self regulation that are not rating systems. BobK seemingly put up for view the concept of a master app that a pilot would use.

What else?

[Rick Masters]

After many years of holding a H4 rating and thousands and thousands and thousands of straightline XC distance flying, I decided it no longer made any kind of sense to renew my USHGA rating. For where I flew, the USHGA provided a very expensive magazine and little else, so I ditched it. When it expired, I was no longer rated. I thought it was unfair that I would lose my skills rating. But it didn't matter. No one had ever asked to see my card.



The FAA expects the national association or any other associations to take care of protocols involving training, ratings, etc. I think this is important. But once you earn that rating, I feel being forced to make annual payments to keep it is a kind of "squeeze." So screw that.

[Bob Kuczewski]

The FAA expects the national association or any other associations to take care of protocols involving training, ratings, etc. I think this is important. But once you earn that rating, I feel being forced to make annual payments to keep it is a kind of "squeeze." So screw that.

I hold SCUBA diving ratings from both NAUI (National Association of Underwater Instructors) and PADI (Professional Association of Dive Instructors). Those ratings were from the late 70's and early 80's. They are good to this day, and I haven't had to pay a penny to renew them.

I hold a private pilot's license from the FAA. It was also issued in the late 70's. It's also good to this day, and I haven't had to pay a penny to renew it either. I do have to get a medical exam and show flight currency to actually fly, but neither of those put a dime in the FAA's pockets. And the FAA would not revoke my pilot's license for testifying lawfully in any incident where they (or one of their buddies) was being sued.

U$HPA has no medical requirements for safety, and U$HPA has no flight currency requirements for safety. The only thing U$HPA demands to "let" us fly is money ... and silence. U$HPA's motto is basically: "Shut up and fly. Speak up and die."

Needless to say, US Hawks ratings follow the precedent set by NAUI, PADI, and most importantly, the FAA.