[SamKellner]

Can you believe it. Somebody please paste that over here .

Talk of transparency and communications. I'm optimistic.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Was this the post you meant?

Request for Proposals for Solo-Only Aerotow Hang Gliding Ins Mon, Feb 21 2011, 2:55:43 pm
Reverse the recent USHPA rule requiring two tandem hang gliding aerotow flights before going solo in your hang glider on tow? Cloud 9, Iosco, MI, USA)

Tracy Tillman <<Cloud9SA>> writes:

I have asked that the issue of solo-only hang gliding aerotow instruction be placed on the Towing Committee agenda at the upcoming USHPA Board of Directors meeting, being held on March 4-5. To help the committee and board have a better understanding of the issue, I am asking for practical and logical feedback from the towing community that I can present at the meeting. Ideally, it would be better for anyone with expertise regarding this issue to attend the meeting in person--otherwise, I will try to collect and present this information to the Towing Committee for you.

I am asking qualified individuals who teach hang gliding aerotowing skills by solo-only hang glider flights to contact me and give me some specific information that the committee can use to make a logical decision and proposal to the board regarding solo-only aerotow hang gliding instruction. The committee needs to look at curriculum, teaching techniques, and skills taught by solo-only aerotow hang gliding instruction as well as the minimum rating and experience that an aerotow student must/should have before beginning instructional solo-only aerotow hang gliding flight, such as whether the student already has a surface tow rating. I have already received a proposal from an instructor who requires a Surface Tow rating and significant experience before beginning solo aerotow hang gliding instruction. I hope to get more information and proposals from other solo-only aerotow instructors before our upcoming meeting. To help make the information that I am collecting more organized and effective, and more understandable by the Towing Committee and the Board, I have developed a simple Solo-Only Aerotow Hang Gliding Instruction proposal form that you can fill out and send back to me. Alternatively, you are most welcome to send it to someone else who will be attending the Towing Committee meeting.

To review, the SOP's were changed last year to require two tandem hang gliding flights as part of the AT special skill sign-off, followed by three solo hang gliding flights. The old regs just required five solo fights. The fundamental reason for this change is because we now tow hang gliders under FAA Part 91 towing regs, which require FAA registered tugs with FAA airworthiness certificates flown by FAA licensed pilots who must have FAA tow pilot endorsements. Aerotowing of hang gliders and sailplanes are both governed by these regs, and the instructional approaches used for teaching aerotowing of sailplanes and hang gliders are very similar. The committee simply proposed a change last year that would more align the aerotowing elements required for demonstration of proficiency for getting the AT-rating to that of getting a sailplane (glider) license, as a way to protect aerotowing operators, aerotow students, and our ability to aerotow hang gliders, in general. There is now much more likelihood that an aerotow hang gliding accident will be investigated by the FAA and NTSB, and more likelihood that those governmental agencies--as well as prosecutors of a lawsuit--may now press for evidence of a similar quality of aerotow-skills instruction between that of sailplanes and hang gliders.

The Towing Committee was of the opinion that virtually all aerotowing instruction in the US was done via tandem hang gliding flights, and was not well-aware of solo-only aerotow operations who would be adversely affected by this change. One fault in the organizational structure and decision-making process of USHPA is that there is and has not been a formal means of feedback before changes to USHPA regs are enacted. The mechanism has been such that committees discuss issues, make proposals to the board, and the board approves, changes, or denies those proposed changes. There has not been a mechanism for presentation of proposed changes to the membership before enactment of those changes. Thus, when the changes to the towing regs were made last year, the Towing Committee had to rely on the expertise and knowledge of the Regional Directors on the Board to provide feedback and let the Towing Committee and Board know if there were problems with the change or if anyone in there Region would be negatively affected. That is the basic process on how all changes have been made in the past by the USHPA Board, through representation of specialties on committees followed by representation of regional membership by Directors. That is why it is important for both committee members and Directors to be knowledgeable and caring. I believe that Rich Hass (our new Fearless Leader) is working on creating a mechanism for members to provide feedback before proposed changes to regs become effective.

If you are concerned about this issue, have expertise, and want to provide usable information to the Towing Committee on this issue, please call me at 248.921.0092 for further information about how to submit a proposal for solo-only aerotow instruction.

If so, it is a step in the right direction. However, I have to disagree with Tracy somewhat on this point:

One fault in the organizational structure and decision-making process of USHPA is that there is and has not been a formal means of feedback before changes to USHPA regs are enacted. The mechanism has been such that committees discuss issues, make proposals to the board, and the board approves, changes, or denies those proposed changes.

I attended the official USHPA Board Meeting in the fall of 2007 when they passed a change making it easier to suspend a pilot's rating with little to no due process in "emergency" situations. I spoke up and said that I wasn't sure whether this was good or not, but that I felt the change should be delayed until the matter had been aired through the magazine so our members (pilots) would at least be able to offer their opinions to their Directors. My suggestion was ignored, and USHPA (all the Directors) passed it anyway.

My point here is that even when there are "formal means of feedback before changes to USHPA regs are enacted" they do no good if the Board members aren't going to listen and consider that feedback. That's the real problem. Heck, if USHPA wanted feedback, they know how to find hanggliding.org, the Oz Forum, and US Hawks. The fact is that the Board does what THEY want, and the biggest evidence of that is their repeated unwillingness to even tell us how they're voting on this stuff. For the record, Tracy was unwilling to second my proposed Accountability Amendment which would have put the Director's votes on record on any matter if requested by any Director.

[SamKellner]

It is a couple of messages down from that.

Anyway, things you were advocating a year or more ago. Now someone different is saying the same and it's fine

[Bob Kuczewski]

Maybe this?

Increasingly, I'm beginning to feel that USHPA's decision are perhaps overly influenced by commercial interests (hang gliding/para businesses). While they often represent the best source of information based on their experience--I feel it may be time to look at the issue of impartiality and transparency for things like changes in SOPs.

marc

Increasingly, I'm beginning to feel that USHPA's decision are perhaps overly influenced by commercial interests (hang gliding/para businesses).

Please give an example or two.

What does overly mean?

Is there anything wrong with this if it is true?

If I weren't banned from the Oz Report, here's what I would have posted to Davis:

Example 1: How about the decision NOT to support the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club after Paul Montville had a visit to the Torrey Pines concession?

Example 2: How about the decision to NOT provide open voting by the Board so the members could see how the Board (many with conflicts of interest) are voting?

There's an example or two Davis. Marc's biggest point is that "it may be time to look at the issue of impartiality and transparency for things like changes in SOPs." Marc is absolutely right. Do you disagree Davis? Or is everything just fine in "USHPA land" now that you've been invited to the party?

Ooops ... I can see why Davis banned me from his forum. These are questions he doesn't want to answer ... or even be asked.

Anyone who wants to post my response to the Oz Report is more than welcome to do so. Please also mention that Davis is welcome to join this discussion here on the US Hawks forum (ushawks.org) since I'm not allowed to join him there. It'll be interesting to see how that challenge is met ... or dodged.

[Bob Kuczewski]

For the record, I sent the following email message to Tracy a few minutes ago:

Hello Tracy,

One of the members of our forum mentioned your letter which was posted on the Oz Report Forum at:

     http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22956

I just wanted to let you know that it was reposted on the US Hawks forum (ushawks.org) with additional responses:

     http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=612

In particular, I feel it's silly for anyone to say that USHPA wants feedback when there's been plenty of feedback over the years that USHPA has completely ignored. I gave one example from my first USHPA meeting over a year before I became a Director. As a member I simply requested that the "emergency revocation" SOP change be delayed until the spring 2008 Board meeting so members could have a chance to voice their opinions before it went into force (exactly the problem that you mentioned). My suggestion was ignored by the entire Board and not one Director would even discuss it. It was passed without opposition.

You're welcome to respond on the US Hawks forum any time.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski