US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

Are there PUBLIC funds footing LZ at Andy Jackson Airpark?
If so, would it matter ?
Step one: Find out the exact legal status of the LZ and if the LZ has public funds involved.
I do not have the answer.
Why I care: The CSS as a non-profit corporation seems like it is acting as though it has absolute private ownership of the LZ.
If it does have private property rights, then some matters would be closed.
However, if CSS does not have ownership of the LZ, and PUBLIC funds are involved or public ownership is involved,
then maybe CSS cannot require joining a third party repugnant corporation for landing on the LZ.

If CSS has absolute private property rights, then they could insist without defense that all HGs landing must join a repugnant corporation. If such is the case then I must forget thinking about joining CSS for recreational hang gliding. But because I'd like otherwise to join CSS, I seek facts about the land deal. Is there any window of opportunity to land at the LZ without being a member of the third party repugnant corporation USHPA> Maybe yes, maybe no. I do not know.

What are the exact property lines?
Is the training slope on the said property or not?

CSS members land out on other people's property at times. Fold up and then leave.

CSS offers foreign pilots a funny welcome: MUST JOIN the third-party repugnant corporation. If the foreign pilot refuses to become a member of the third-party repugnant corporation: Do not land on the LZ.

Consider Becoming a 501(c)(3)
One of the other key initiatives we undertook was to become recognized
as a tax-exempt charity under section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. This
exercise started with several strikes against it and required almost two years
of effort, and the support of every club member. Much of the task involved
correcting or completing well-intentioned efforts from the past, and a new
organization starting from scratch would find the process much simpler.
Having persevered, the CSS has proper standing at both the state and federall evels.
Our club does not pay taxes to either government, and best of all,
it can accept donations and provide charitable donation receipts for goods,
services and cash received to further our mission.
-- August 2007: Hang Gliding & Paragliding, p. 19
http://www.ushgf.org/assets-articles/2007%20Aug%20-%20Andy%20Jackson%20Airpark%20CA.pdf

No, Joe, they can't legally prohibit anyone from landing there or require or any kind of rating or membership under FAR 103.
It goes deeper than that. Any federally-recognized "airport" receiving federal funding cannot be discriminatory under FAR 103.

Rick Masters,

"Any federally-recognized "airport" receiving federal funding cannot be discriminatory under FAR 103."

Just to agree and clarify.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(e)No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.—A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

Unfortunately I've not been able to get anyone at Ft Funston, GGNRA, National Park Service, or the Department of the Interior to care. It is "obvious" to them that they need someone to control the facility and that somehow supersedes the law. I've sent a complaint to the FAA, do you have any better suggestions?

Logan

Now Where have I heard this before
Torrey Pines Gliderport political tyranny
Public Extortion by City Contract ~ A National Insurance racketeering operation
* Original posted May 24th 2017 Previewed 2252 times ~ Updated today


Established as a free to fly public park ~ I believe by the (NOW STOLEN) VOLUNTARY Club donation fund
~ Not by the Now Mandatory Gliderport Site fee,... held into private corrupted funds ~

OUR PARKS ARE RUN BY WHO'S REQUIREMENTS


Public Park & Gliderport

“No San Diego resident or guest , should ever be forced to Join or be part of a Club or association or pay site dues or fees just to use a free public park to recreate.”

Likewise, in Addition:
"No resident or guest, should be MONITORED, forced to sign waivers, and buy insurance from any said private organisation or club."

Furthermore:
"Recreational Hang Gliding is already included and coverd under basic California recreational Laws."
"There is no reason the public should be Paying Private fund or private party liabilities, instruction and schools."

Statement:
" My American Rights are not negotiable, My freedom is not for sale or lease. I am Not to be exploited.

LEGAL Fact:
The City and or the Private Parties becomes Liable upon collection of moneys

NEW LAWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW LAWs should be written protecting the public's interest and rights
Preventing private business enterprise from taking over & charging us to use our Public Park's
Any money's collected by the city needs to go to public ballot if approved be monitored for use and corruption

A) Nobody or group in City Office should have the power to charge the public for what is Freely Ours in the 1st place

B) These Decisions need to be brought forth to the public ballet ,...

C) If money is to be collected, Money needs to be delegated for the Public's interest,... not Private Pocket

D) Leaseholder should be held accountable for funds collected and to be monitored for corruption, with permanent oversight

E) Pilot site fee's belong to the Pilots , we need a voice as to where the money is spent and how OUR PARK IS RUN

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD VOTE ~
~ Pay to Use our parks, not a chance ~
Where are the City Representative's that actually represent the public, Not corrupted private enterprise

~ We need new Laws, We need a Change ~
For the shame & disgrace of Our City Representatives & the Leaders our of sport
And for what has happened to our our sport of Free flight ~

Yours Truly the Eagle

...do you have any better suggestions?

Well, sure.
Before this culminates in a citizen asking an FAA official to accompany him to a site supported by some federal monies, where the refusal of being allowed to fly will be officially witnessed, the managers of these sites should put out the word that anyone wishing to fly under state recreational liability law be allowed to do so by all club members.
That way, nothing bad, from a federal perspective, will result.
We do not want that to happen. I repeat:

WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN!        

These "rogue" pilots can also be asked to sign a waiver to protect the local club and landowner - but that's not really necessary.
They're already protected.
Responsibility lies solely on the individual pilot.
Oversight is a fine idea, but don't get carried away.
Hang gliding is a dangerous sport.
Under recreational sports liability law, every pilot is responsible for his own actions. No one else is.
In the event of an accident, it can always be demonstrated that a non-member refused the club's oversight.
The club is therefore not responsible. Or liable.
In fact, because fedral law requires a club on state or federal land to allow any citizen to fly, the club cannot be held responsibe for the actions of non-members.
It is therefore ludicrous to prohibit them.
Clubs have to let go of the "Nanny-HG" thing for outsiders.

I am not angry with the local clubs.
(I loved my first club, the San Luis Obispo Soaring Association, and I later built the Cross Country Pilots Association - with over 400 members.)
There are a lot of good people in our nation's clubs.
I would encourage visiting non-member pilots to contribute to or join these clubs and recognize their importance.
I would even accept the banning of pilots for flying dangerously.
(This could be interpreted as a responsible peer action under FAR 103, particularly with video evidence).
However, all citizens are allowed to fly hang gliders from state and federal land where flying is permitted.
Ratings by your peers are only advisory (notwithstanding, a good idea!). But they are not requirements under federal law.
The clubs have to accept this. It's not a big deal. The alternative is folly.
Yes, in some places, illegal monopoly operatives can bully their way for a while longer.
The biggest bully of them all is the USHPA when it unfairly and illegally demands that all pilots fly with USHPA 3PL insurance.
If non-members are allowed to fly under recreational liability law, USHPA threatens to attack the clubs by invalidating them.
What??

-- I mean - really - this is what the elitists pay for? And they call it "free flight?"         

Those of us pursuing freedom from the USHPA need to have sympathy for the clubs during this inevitable and ongoing transition.
They are caught in the middle. Some members are curious about options. Some are opposed. All are concerned about the future.
In reality, USHPA 3PL insurance is optional. You don't have to obtain it. You don't have to pay for it.
In many instances, it appears to be nothing but a scam.
But then, where do you go?
The truth is, you don't need to go anywhere. You're already there. You're recreational hang glider pilots.
Under FAR 103, you've got it made. Things are better now than ever.
Aside from commercial operations, site insurance has been superceded by state recreational liability law which automatically protects the landholder.
Things are changing. This is an earthquake.
Yes, USHPA has been working for decades to convince landowners that their 3PL insurance is needed.
But it's not true.
In fact, in a lot of cases where USHPA was sued, if they had used recreational liability law instead, nothing would have happened.
There is no giant pot of money to attract lawsuits under recreational liability law.
Recreational hang gliding activity does not require any type of insurance under law.
USHPA 3PL insurance is, for the most part, a made-up standard.
It was useful first in contests, where it was required, then in commercial enterprises, where it was also required, but then it was seized as a universal method for creating a USHPA monopoly.
That was before the widespread state recreational laws were created.
Clubs should embrace recreational sports liability law and use it as the primary tool in procuring flying sites.
Fighting the federal rights of hang glider pilots to preserve their status quo is a certain path to disaster.
I appeal to all to recognize the hierarchy of citizens rights over special interests - which is what this boils down to - and accommodate all citizens who demand access to the sky.

USHPA folks, remember, we hang glider pilots - both USHPA and non-USHPA - have very special privileges.
We can fly our hang gliders to 18,000 feet.
The Sport Aviation people cannot.
Don't make a stink.
Don't ban pilots for political reasons.
Don't create insurance monopolies.
Don't enforce laws that don't exist.
Do this, and you place our sport at risk.
Oh, you already did?
KNOCK IT OFF!

Logan points to
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
which in part:

(e) No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.—A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended.

Has government money been spent on the Andy Jackson Airpark (same question for Fort Funston)? Facts are sought. I did invite the CSS president today Friday to join this conversation since they have banned Big Bird, Joe Faust, and BobK and maybe others from discussion in their forum. Banning seems to be the tool of choice possible to keep an unfair and unneeded grab. Give president Dan some time to join the discussion; maybe he will give answer about whether any government money was spent forming that mound of dirt; who paid for that dirt moving?

The Rio Grande Soaring Association (RGSA) is a 501c7 non profit not a 501c3.

Joe,

I've done about 1 1/2 hours of research, repeatedly hitting a brick wall. But I finally found information on the owner of the parcel known as Any Jackson Flight Park. As you will see via the attached screen capture the owner is the State of California. If you go to the Parcel Finder web site then find AJ Flight Park you can left click on the parcel and get the pop up frame the same as the image below. At the bottom of that frame you can click on 3 optional links. The "Assesor Page Map" leads you to this - < http://www.sbcounty.gov/parcelmaps/026503.pdf >

It appears that CSS has no ownership of the property. And since California apparently to owns it, and they absolutely receive federal funds for various projects, then I would think that no pilot can be legally banned from landing there or even otherwise entering or standing on the property.

The link to the above map image is here - < http://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/we ... 792588d57a > for anyone interested. It's a bit confusing since "Parcel Finder" isn't in the web address of the image I posted.

Many of us owe you a party, Scott! I bet you polished some search tools in that 90 minutes. On my part:
==================================================================================
I am still hoping CSS president Dan DeWeese (directly invited) will join this discussion.
He probably could give exact documents that involve the earth moving that took place,
exact documents of agreements made with owners, what agent did the earth moving, compacting, and grading.
He could comment on your finding.

Checking for fact has not been done by me over the following Jack'sSpace wiki concerning the Andy Jackson Airpark:

NOT FACT CHECKED wiki at Jack's Place wrote:The Andy Jackson Air Park was born of the dream of a man and raised to maturity through the vigilance of his wife and the dedication of Crestline Soaring Society members. Today, the Andy Jackson Air Park stands as a world class hang gliding and paragliding site with unsurpassed weather for foot launched flight.

History

Andy Jackson was a San Bernardino pilot who bought land at the foot of the San Bernardino National Forest to use as a landing zone. Sadly, Andy died in 1985, succumbing to cancer. His wife, Juanita, kept the dream alive and the Crestline Soaring Society have overcome many challenges to Andy's dream. The site is often referred to as "Crestline," which is the upper launch site, or "Marshall," the next launch down.

In the late 80s and early 90s, the California Department of Water Resources took the original landing zone land for an aqueduct project, but the club successfully cleared this hurdle. They negotiated with the state and now lease a well engineered LZ on Calif. DWR land. Not only did the club get rights to land, but the DWR graded an ideal LZ for the club with their large earth moving equipment.

A later challenge came at the beginning of the millennium, as development and rising land costs again raised concerns about the future of flight at Andy Jackson. Two pilots, Len Szafaryn and Owen Morse, purchased a house and 18 acres of land on the upslope of the LZ to ensure that it would stay in friendly hands. Land next to the LZ is still subject to development, but club president Rob McKenzie reached a tentative agreement with the developer to place the developer's mandated "Open Space" under the LZ's current hang glider approach.

Site Geography

Above the Andy Jackson Flight Park (1700' MSL) lie 4 launches, two commonly used. Crestline, at 5200', enjoys high altitude and (generally) stronger winds than the others, but does not lie within line of sight (LOS) of the Landing Zone. The Marshall launch, at 3800', is more commonly used, due to its direct LOS to the LZ and friendlier conditions for paragliders. Other launches include "Regionals," at 3100', difficult to access, and "The 750'," so named for its altitude above launch. The 750 is used primarily by paragliders who hike to it. Regionals and the 750 are sometimes used by Wills Wing test pilots when they test fly their production gliders.

The landing zone has two training hills. The 85' training hill, above the LZ, was recently reopened, thanks to the purchase of the house above the LZ and the club's acquisition of a tractor (with the assistance of the Foundation for Hang Gliding & Paragliding). A 25' training hill, off the end of the LZ, also serves as the overshoot field for the LZ.

The Andy Jackson Flight Park enjoys roughly 300 days a year of flyable weathe.

ASSUMING the wiki holds some fact [All such would finally need firm fact checking.] Then needed for unfolding: What agent actually owns the land? Just what is involved in the "get rights to land," What rights? And how are those rights to be interpreted relative to FAR 103 landing pilots who choose not to join some private corporation ? Did the owner give rights for a club corporation to exclude non-members from landing and recreating? If exclusive rights were given, then are those rights sound; that is, would they stand challenge by correct interpretation of all applicable laws?
Rick Masters seems to suggest, as I read him, that it would be best for CSS to have no prejudice against users of LZ who are non-USHPA members, to tell USHPA that the apparent dictum to pull RRRG out if CSS let non-USHPA use the LZ, the deep details of which I cannot write; maybe someone else knows the fine details of the bully tactic on site RRRG coverage over mixed use (HGofRRRG, HGofNotRRRG). But the front of CSS: Never, never, never: cannot land here unless you are USHPARRRG person, if I read correctly, but standing to be corrected.

Why not two clubs at the subject air facility? One club: non-USHPA RHGs, and one club under the thumb of USHPA for PGsAndMaybeSomeHGs. The two clubs could join hands to maintain the grass and other similar matters. The two clubs could picnic together. They could cooperate. I am betting that the State did not intend to be party to a process that distorts citizen recreation by a kind of coercion to join a repugnant private corporation. I am betting with my time and energy; I am betting with my studies; I am betting with the time and work as done by Scott and others on this matter. I am betting that a good solution may be formed that lets CSS continue to be a club using the LZ while also letting independent non-USHPA HGP land on the LZ graded by the people's government.

I am betting Andy Jackson did not envision exclusionary practices for his dream about hang gliding; he is not here directly to speak up for himself, but maybe someone can find his expressions when he was with us. And the purchase of upslope property is interesting; I hope that PUBLIC LZ property is not being used just to bring benefit to the upslope property venture while stomping on the People's rights for the People's LZ. Surely it would sweet for the upslope property to benefit for various investment in their property and the LZ, but it would be shame if there is operating an unfair excluding of RHP who choose not to join third-party corporations.

Code: Select all

Parcel: 0265031240000

RANCHO MUSCUPIABE PTNS SEC 5 AND 8 TP 1N R 4W UNSURVEYED COM AT STA NO 27 OF SD RANCHO TH S 89 DEG 25 MIN 56 SECONDS E 843.44 FT TH S 00 DEG 15 MIN 16 SECONDS E 740.00 FT TH N 89 DEG 25 MIN 56 SECONDS W 843.44 FT TH N 00 DEG 15 MIN 16 SECONDS W 740.00 FT TO POB