May 15th, 2012 - Robin Marien (Torrey Pines Concession Operator) called the police to presumably have Bob Kuczewski (myself) removed from the Torrey Pines Gliderport. The police showed up, but realized there were no grounds for the call or the complaint. They did take my identification information, but they did not remove me from the Gliderport.

Here's the rest of the story ...

For several months I've been helping a friend with her paraglider kiting skills. She was a new pilot and was not getting proper attention from the gliderport staff who she had paid for her training. So a mutual friend approached me and asked if I would mind helping her with her kiting. So I did.

Initially, we kited in a neighborhood park near her home. As her skills grew, I coached her at Torrey as well. Eventually, she gained enough confidence to fly at Torrey and she has been progressing very well (see footnote below).

Today, after my own short hang gliding flight, I again began helping her with her kiting while she was waiting for an instructor to allow her to fly under radio supervision. During that kiting session, Jeremy Bishop (one of the paraglider pilots/employees who uses the title of "flight director") told me that I could not coach my friend because I was not an instructor. I replied that she wanted help with her kiting and that she had paid them (the Torrey concessionaire) for instruction, but there were no instructors available to help. So rather than have her kite alone (which she had already been approved to do), I felt it was wise to have someone with some experience (H4/P4) to help her stay safe. Jeremy said that I was not an instructor and therefore I could not help her with her kiting. So I asked if he (or another Torrey instructor) would help at that time. He declined saying that he wouldn't help her as long as I was watching. He went on to say that he felt I was teaching her "bad habits", so I asked him specifically which "bad habits" he felt I was teaching. He had no reply, but insisted that I could not help her kite. At that point, my friend was so frustrated with the conflict that she said she just wouldn't kite any longer at that time.

A little while later, Jeremy announced to some of the students that he was going to give a white board talk on traffic patterns and flying the ridge. My friend (who is already enrolled in their school) decided to watch, and I went along with her consent. The white board talk was being held out on the grass near launch where all pilots are free to walk and/or observe. So I went along to watch. I didn't say a word other than to observe, but Jeremy insisted that I could not be there. I replied that the Torrey Pines lease states very explicitly that the public shall not be excluded from any portion of the premises. He then decided that he would not hold the talk, and he went to Robin to complain. I don't know if he reported that I was "harassing" his students or not, but I ended up having a discussion with Robin about the incident, and Robin made the claim that I was harassing the students. He went on to say that if I didn't stop, that he would call the police. I replied that I would welcome him calling the police because it was time that we established the rights of pilots to be on the premises as stated in the lease. We parted at that time.

A little while later (maybe 1/2 an hour to an hour) the police did show up, and Robin spoke with them and motioned them toward me. The two police officers then approached me and asked me for my story. I asked what the complaint was, and they indicated that I was reported to be harassing the students. So I told them exactly what happened, and my friend backed me up. I stated very clearly that I did not interfere with the lessons or the students in any way and that I was just observing so that I might be able to help my friend in the future with some of the information from the lesson.

The police did ask for my information, and I gave them as limited an amount of information as they would accept (name, driver's licence, ...). I then asked if they had any problem with me observing the activities at the site as long as I was not obstructing anyone. They were very clear that there was nothing wrong with being at the park and observing any activities at the park as long as I was not obstructing the activities of the concession or anyone else.

I see this as another victory in the long battle to restore all pilot's rights to use the Torrey Pines Gliderport in a fair and responsible manner. Robin had taken the position that he could exclude pilots from observing the lessons at the park, and he even called the police to try to enforce that restriction. But the police said that they did not see any problem with someone observing as long as they were not obstructing the ongoing activities. It was clear from all of the witnesses that I had not done anything other than simply observe.

Finally, after the event had taken place, I wanted to be sure that I had properly identified the person who called the police (Robin had said he was going to do so, but I hadn't actually witnessed him making the call). So I walked into the open doorway of Robin's office and asked him directly if he had been the one who called the police. He replied that he was the one who called the police and that this was just the first step. I thanked him and left the office. I guess only time will tell what the "next steps" will be.

By the way, some people have expressed some confusion regarding Robin Marien's gender ... based on his first name (Robin). Others have said that the Jebbs have left Torrey Pines. So I'm posting a few recent pictures of Robin Marien and Gabe Jebb to clear up any confusion. These were all taken from video footage within the last week or so at the Torrey Pines Gliderport.

Here's a relatively close up shot of Robin:

Here's a shot of Robin Marien and Gabe Jebb (arm in arm) at Torrey:

And here's a shot of Gabe Jebb (left) and the "Flight Director" Jeremy Bishop (right):

This last shot was taken just recently when Gabe Jebb threatened to call the police. After his threat, I turned on my video recorder and asked him to repeat his threat, but he lied and said he didn't say anything. Jeremy was standing right there, and there was at least one other person who witnessed Gabe Jebb make that statement and then deny it ... less than two minutes later. These are not honorable people and yet they're in charge of the world famous Torrey Pines Gliderport. Shameful.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with helping someone practice a technique, but I can understand how they might be upset if it looked like instruction. For one thing, they have liability exposure for what goes on there. Although it is unlikely, if someone ends up hurt, they could get left holding the bag even though they had nothing to do with the practice.

I think calling the police was unnecessary, really they just should have made a warning and watched what was going on. They could have video recorded everything if they were all that concerned. If you think about it, they ought to purchase a wide angle camera or two and record everything that goes on so that what happens and what is reported are corroborated.

Why do they run the site so loose I wonder? It would not take much work on their part to clearly define on paper what operations are permissible and what are not. If they don't want people practicing there, except under an instructor, why don't they write that into rules and get the City to OK it? As long as the rule is enforce fairly, people might object, but the need to stir up a hornets nest with the police goes away.

I was just helping her kite. I would say things like "a little more left brake", "slow it down a little", and things like that to help her get a sense of what input was needed. If that's being banned, then we're losing the ability for one pilot to help another. Where does it end? If John says I should have flared sooner on that last landing ... is that instruction?


That's why we should have USHPA site insurance just like we do at other major sites like Crestline and Sylmar. For $250 a year, USHPA will insure a site and allow all flying-related activities to be conducted and covered - including kiting, flying, instruction, and even tandems. The insurance covers the landowner (City of San Diego in this case), and I applied for that coverage through USHPA. But for political reasons, Mark Forbes refused to grant the coverage.

But beyond that, how did we get to the point where we need insurance to use our City parks? Do surfers need insurance to teach other surfers at our beaches? Do dog owners need insurance to bring their dogs to Dog Beach? Do sailboat owners need insurance to sail a boat in Mission Bay? This notion of insuring ourselves against every bad thing that might happen is bleeding our sport (and even our country) to death.


We need to ask the question of why the City is providing a free lease to the concessionaire. If the answer is to line the concessionaire's pockets, then that's corruption. So the answer must (at least on the surface) be to serve the flying public (just as dog parks serve the dog-owning public, and soccer parks serve the soccer playing public). So does prohibiting one pilot from helping another really serve the flying public? No. It just tightens their control.

But all of the "instruction" questions are really secondary. What about just being able to stand on the field and observe? That's where they really crossed the line. They called the police saying that I was harassing their students when all I was doing was observing. Since when does watching the instruction at Torrey amount to "harassment" ... worthy of calling the police?

As I said, fortunately there were other pilots there who were willing to tell the police exactly what happened. Hopefully, this result will make Robin a little less willing to call the police (or threaten to call the police) every time he doesn't like someone.

Don't get me wrong about the police, I don't think they had a legitimate reason for that, they were just acting foolishly. But what is new about that? They don't like you, so any opportunity to cause trouble for you is one they will apparently pounce on. Jeremy can't stop you from standing anywhere you like on the park as long as you are not trying to disrupt other people or activities. They could have that instruction moved indoors and said that this is for paying students only, if they want to segregate the public from the students. Instead they decided to make a scene, which in my opinion was just foolish.



If John says you should flare harder on a landing, that is advice. If you're out doing repreated launches and landings while he is guiding you, or you were an H-1 and he is helping you practice some ground handling, then it can be construed as instruction, even if it is simply one pilot coaching another. Coaching is guiding which can be thought of as a sort of instruction.

Torrey needs to have a defined set of rules regarding what pilots can and can't do at the site and the set of rules needs to be approved by the city. Now you might not like a particular rule or three, but if the rules are enforced fairly on everyone, then incidents like this coaching thing would be prevented from erupting. As I said, I understand why they might be concerned since they are in fact paying for the liability insurance, but on the other hand they need to formalize the operating rules so that everone can see the rules and it doesn't just look like Robin or Jeremy is making s*** up as they go.

Whether we call it instruction or coaching or anything else, where does the lease (or the law) prohibit one person from "coaching" or even "instructing" another at Torrey Pines?

With regard to Robin's use of the police, that was an intimidation tactic. But it backfired because the police refused to remove me or restrict me in any way. I had called Robin's bluff and he didn't have the cards to back it.

By the way, I think many people in the pilot community are being brainwashed into thinking that only USHPA instructors can instruct hang gliding or paragliding. That's a branding issue and not an instruction issue. There's no law that says only USHPA instructors can instruct.


I agree 100% and that's what the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board should have been doing these past 3 or 4 years. Unlike the Soaring Council (which has no direct connection to the City), the TPCPAB is listed as an actual advisory board on the City's web site. It has representatives for the Mayor, the District, the Sierra Club, the SDHGPA, the Gulls, the AGCSC, and even the Torrey Hawks. They have the expertise to hammer out good rules and to see that they're enforced properly. Unfortunately, the Mayor's representative somehow became the chairwoman (Virginia "Ginny" Barnes) and she's kept that Advisory Board from doing what it should to oversee the site. So that leaves the concessionaire free to make (or fail to make) whatever rules they want. More importantly, they're the only ones who can enforce (or fail to enforce) the rules that they make. That's why some people can fly "outside tandems" there for free while Dave Beardslee gets charged $100 per passenger.


Again, I agree 100%, but who will ensure that the rules are being enforced fairly on everyone? That's why it's so important to either restart the TPCPAB or to balance the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. Either one of those actions would go a long way toward ensuring that the site is managed fairly for everyone ... and that they don't continue "making s*** up as they go".

Thanks for challenging me on this because it got me to thinking about how to make a distinction between "coaching" and "instruction". Let's see if we can come up with a difference that we agree on ...

I think the word "coaching" would apply to a situation where the person being coached is already legitimately able to perform the task on their own without any supervision. So if my friend is already able to kite at Torrey without anyone's supervision (which she was), then my assistance would fall under the term "coaching". However, she is NOT currently allowed to fly without an instructor on the radio. So if I were to attempt to have her fly under my radio supervision, then that would be "instruction".

That also fits with part the other example that you offered (where we mostly agree). If John tells me I should flare harder on landing, he's giving me advice or "coaching" because he's helping me with a task that I'm already able to perform on my own (landing a hang glider at Torrey Pines). But if he were helping someone do something that they're not already allowed to do - without an instructor - then that would be instruction.

So for the purposes of defining "instruction" (with regard to whether a person is a USHPA instructor or not), I would like to propose that "instruction" is defined by asking whether or not the person being taught is legitimately able to perform the task on their own or not. If they could perform the task legitimately by themselves, then anyone who helps would be "coaching". If they are not legitimately able to perform the task on their own, then that would require "instruction".

How does that sound for a working definition of those words?

First: Thanks for the perseverance, BobK, on these important matters.

I found this opinion stated by someone:


Towards the distinction of coaching versus mentoring versus instruction versus parallel-thought discourse and play, etc:

Say a newspaper reporter was writing an article and was watching Sally kite a large canopy kite at the public park within five miles of an airport (something that is illegal up to certain specs). That newspaper reporter might offer in conversation: "Sally, your wing kited is up in the airspace in a way that--seems to me--to be against the FAA regulations of flying a kite within five miles of the airport which airport we see right over there a couple of hundred feet away; what do you think, Sally, about my thought on the matter." The reporter is free to make the observation of the physical arrangement of things; he is free to have his opinion on what he sees; and Salley is free to hear his opinion and give her opinion on the matter. Their common human experience has potential of being instructive to both persons. Every conversation on any matter has a potential of being instructive to either or both persons. But such discourse and potential instruction is protected in USA by some strong constitutiional text. Thresholds of "instruction" relative to a concession on instruction must derive from matter that is distant from prallel play, from conversation between peers, from .... many scenarios.

Is there an agreement of a course of instruction for a skill beyond what the skill already passed by a person? Is there exchange of goods or favors for teaching something new? Is there an earning of a rating underway between the two amateur co-players with one of them with rating authority over the other?

Observng, stating an opinion, describing, giving reasons for one's thoughts ..etc. can occur outside professional teacher-student contracts where goods or favors are part of a course contract. May the public converse at the TPGP or not?

Is judging under office of authority over a rating good being forwarded?
Business of instruction: "You pass or do not pass; therefore I move you to a rating good or not while you give me funds or favor."
Parallel common play that cannot help but have potential of learnings: "You and I are playing together; you watch me and I watch you; we exchange comments about what we see each other doing; you will see your profesional instructor later; we are just doing practice... our homework at the park; we each are ever students even if I have 50 years of being a hang glider student; I collect no funds or material goods or promised favors for participating in our doing our homework together; I am not your professional instructor from whom you will be getting judgement and rating under a course you have paid for; but clearly we have mutual gains during our doing our homework in parallel and in conversation over what we see each other doing."

[[ Some passing rough thoughts that are flashing in front of me: Is it time for hang gliders to use ambient wind, anchor offshore, kite to altitude, glide downwind to meet Torrey's orographic lift, soar about, and land out to a club raft at sea? Forget the TPGP grass-controlled concession. Boycott the concession. Set up a RickM information booth just outside the logs. Give free kiting instruction outside the logs. Give free ground school outside the logs. Where does the concession land begin and end? Work on advanced airframed hang gliders until pack/unpack efficiency and ease wins, until easy of pack and carry wins. Have truncated concession: two operations and split the days; alternate Saturday and Sunday; airframed days; non-airframed days. Post at the edge of the log line the photographs of each person that has died in gliding-canopy-kite wings since 2002 January ... over 900 persons (incomplete): http://www.cometclones.com
Ban unairframed-canopy-convoluted-parachutes from using the concessioned land spot. World ParaGliding Association bans use of unairframed-canopy-convoluted gliding parachutes at Torrey Pines Gliderport. Give a directory of airframe-focused hang glider instructors and sites to all visitors to the area.]]

Humans rarely lose large amounts of their freedom all at once. That creates too much of an uproar.

Instead, our freedoms are slowly nibbled away until what we end up with doesn't resemble what we started with.

I can't imagine that the early pioneers of this sport would have tolerated a situation where one pilot couldn't help another pilot with a skill that the second pilot was already "allowed" to perform. This was nothing more than harassment, and they wouldn't have had any problem with anyone else doing exactly what I was doing. They're clearly targeting me because I'm working to restore pilot's rights to use that city park without being bullied. If we lose sight of that, then they've won.

Could a different vision of a flight park be accomplished at Torrey, a national treasure? One where there is not even one concessionaire on the property? One where free-flight is served without the bias of a particular kind of seller of goods? One where pilots come in are grades from newbie public citizen piloting his or her dreams to masters? One where ratings of one particular private corporation do not control the free recreational flying? One where pilots share freely safety-critical information and practice? One where commercial interests are played off site? One where pilot meetings occur each day to share safety and schedule information; where collaboration is paramount?
The current situation is seemingly money-based where the public's interests for recreational personal free-flight is overly controlled.
Maybe not renew the concession. Maybe users of the day simply give a small park fee to the City/County/State (sorry, I am not up on who owns the cliffs). Forget USHPA ratings for the park, as they are super abused by the present concessionaire, it seems. Aim for the integrity of users to cooperate and accumulate safety information for the day. Volunteerism each day to clean, water, groom, sign, help. Post on a bulletin board maps and directories for where people may get information, ground school, first experiences. Post clearly safety information and accidents and fatalities; keep renewing the posts on the park's bulletin board.

It is not just pilots' rights that are being channeled to profit, but pre-pilots' rights (citizens interested in the activity) also.