[magentabluesky]

Liberating Public Land

I thought I would post the thread from DotOrg that Jack locked out: Liberating Public Land

Thread was just getting interesting with Joe Faust’s posts when Jack locked it. The thread was started by LoganR.

Link Liberating Public Land By LoganR - Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:14 pm #404589

Link Liberating Public Land By Joe Faust Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:47 pm #404634 (fourth from last post)

Notice that a single citizen may approach or NOT approach a public-land manager and offer a deep waiver upon asking for a SUP. Not for an event, not for a collection of people for a meeting, not for a club, but for an individual presence to jump, to hike, to run, to run with a towel, to wing run, to skip, to enter Federal airspace as a hopper, etc. They may say: "We do not process SUP for simple individual visitors who are not specially impacting the park or land." But SUP may not be needed to act. Many land managers of public land have notices of SUP for a threshold count of grouped people. E.g. "over five" "50 or more" etc. The individual actor who is not deliberately gathering a meeting or meet or event or large reunion or party has often direct default permission to recreate on certain lands, to fly kites, to sit and watch birds, to skip and dance; type of land and the active mandates for such land vary. A single person not setting up any changes in the land, not asking for grooming, not asking for roadways to be built, not attracting a gathering, not leaving any mess, not constructing any structures, not asking for rangers to do anything special, etc. might just be able to hike in and then dance to the Federal airspace. Avoid having impact on other visitors or wildlife; just be a single person with buddy to appreciate the land and sky. Follow FARs. A single person may not be "special" and that single person's hike or jump into the air may not be special; if little or no impact from an individual occurs, then special use permit may not be needed. If individuals may hike and bike and kite without special use permits, then a wing-packing individual who does not ask for special land changes and does not make any such changes might just hike and jump and dance into Federal airspace and perhaps land outside of some subject land. Clubs asking for special impact-making may well be a different matter!
Here are the US National Parks: HERE

Besides "parks" the NPS manages about 60 "protected areas".
Four days in 2018: free no-entrance-fee days for all public. Else, a visitor to a park may have to pay an entrance fee, no matter the activity: walking or more. Fees often stay for the good of that park which collects the fee, else to NPS.

Consider NPS news free: https://www.nationalparks.org/connect#subm

The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass Series

Senior 62 or more: HEREpass

Notice that the future of recreational hang gliding may be offering a non-ostentatious hiking arrangement; hike up; fly out of the park to a distant landing spot. Less impact than a walker who stays making social trails!

[magentabluesky]

Liberating Public Land

By magentabluesky Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:31 am #404635

The Oxx Brothers and friends decided to be hoppers. So they hiked, ran, skipped, and then jumped in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area without a permit. The NPS was not happy with their use of the airspace.

United States v. Oxx, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Utah 1999)

Liberating Public Land

By magentabluesky Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:38 am #404636

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

REVERSED.

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge

[magentabluesky]

Liberating Public Land

By Joe Faust Thu Aug 24, 2018 1:16 pm #404637

1. It might become easy for one single person to ask for permit to deliver himself or herself onto NPS lands via controlled unpowered wing. Not special, just plain vanilla permit for a specified time window and place for no particular costful impact on the land.

2. Consider NOT delivering oneself to NPS land, but be sure simply to deliver oneself to some point not on NPS land. No permit needed as one would not be delivering anything to the NPS land. Runners leave the ground and enter Federal airspace; they deliver themselves by clothing-chute back to the NPS land; does that go against 36 C.F.R. § 2.17(a) (3) )? Seems like a "permit" process could be low cost and easy: file a plan, get the permit, execute the plan; not special, just a "permit" .... vanilla sort, just so everyone knows. Maybe by email clicks with NPS? Runners who go airborne with clothes do not have to file a permit to deliver themselves into NPS lands; such airborne rig is accepted as non-special and not needing a permit even though the sink rate is substantial for the runner.
=======================
36 CFR 2.17 - Aircraft and air delivery.
eCFR
Authorities (U.S. Code)
What Cites Me
prev | next
§ 2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.

(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

(c)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.

(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.

(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.

(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.

(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.

(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.

[magentabluesky]

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

This has to be the worst application of a regulation I have come across in my life time.

Someone Hang Gliding or Base Jumping within the NPS Recreational Area is going to deliver and retrieve themselves by driving their car/truck into the Recreational Area, set up, launch, fly, and land within the Recreational Area. There was no delivery or retrieval by airborne means into the Recreational Area. The delivery or retrieval was by car or truck into the Recreational Area.

Second the Glen Canyon Recreational Area has two authorized FAA airports within the Glen Canyon Recreational Area, so you could legally deliver yourself into the Glen Canyon Recreational Area without a permit if you landed at the authorized FAA airports.

The District Court Ruled, “The court also concluded that the regulation, as applied to the purported conduct of the defendants, suffered from an incurable ambiguity.”

The element of the regulation denotes an intention of delivering or retrieving. If the person is already in the Recreational Area, they have already been delivered by other means than airborne. Likewise if they leave by car or truck there is no airborne retrieval.

The lawyers were trying to make a case on the ambiguously of the parachute as an airborne means which was a weak argument.

I have to agree with the District Court Judge and disagree with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appellate Judge was just siding with the NPS authorities.

Finally, it was a shame they did not claim the Eighty Fifth Congress’ declaration that using the public domain airspace was their “God Given” “Natural” right and their launch was from public domain land.

[Rick Masters]

Mike, fantastic idea to bring banned threads over to the U.S. Hawks!
It destroys the overlord.
Now hang glider pilots can complete their thoughts and conversations here instead of having their brains stomped by the thought police on their insipid, self-defeating nanny threads.

[magentabluesky]

Rick,

I know. We have to worry about that Krazy Bob Kuczewski going off the deep end in a tirade locking the thread and banning us over here. You know I am joking Bob. I’m smiling, laughing. That is what others would like you to believe.

When the “Liberating Public Land” thread got locked, I was appreciating Joe’s thought streams on “jumping rope” as an aerial activity. Do you need permit to jump rope in the Recreational Area? You are airborne with a device. No permit required if you jump rope in place? But if you move to another area, are you now delivering yourself? Granted skipping rope, you are only airborne for a split second, but the same can said for base jumping. How long is a base jump 10 seconds?

How about kite flying? Can I fly my kite without a permit? What if I jump up in the air while flying my kite? Was that a violation?

What if I Hang Glide and land back at my takeoff point? I did not deliver myself to another area. But if I fly and land at another area, I have delivered myself and am in violation.

Court of Appeals Defendants assert that the word “delivering,” in the phrase “delivering a person by parachute,” is too ambiguous to cover BASE jumping. 36  C.F.R. § ․ 2.17(a)(3) (1996). “Delivering” is not defined in the regulations, but we believe it is apparent that moving oneself from one area to another, as defendants did, constitutes delivery. As applied to their conduct, then, “delivering” is unambiguous.

To deliver and retrieve imply an intention on the part of the person in the act, when the intention may only be to recreate in the Recreation Area.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I thought I would post the thread from DotOrg that Jack locked out: Liberating Public Land

Thread was just getting interesting with Joe Faust’s posts when Jack locked it. The thread was started by LoganR.

Here's how Jack Axaopoulos ("sg") justified locking that very important topic:

More Bobk/US-Hawks crap leaking in. Its not permitted on this site. They have their entire own site. Go there.

Going to start handing out bans if people cant follow simple rules. The members here are complaining about the shilling and BobK proxies. End it now.

THREAD CLOSED.

You'll notice that he told everyone wanting to continue the discussion to "Go There" (presumably to ushawks.org), but he didn't even post a link. In fact he won't allow anyone to post a link to ushawks.org anywhere on hanggliding.org. So while Jack Axaopoulos might say one thing ... his actions betray his intentions.

Jack Axaopoulos also recently made an analogy that hanggliding.org was like a coffee shop where he could kick out anyone who talks about anything he doesn't want them to talk about. But what coffee shop owner monitors every discussion and expels patrons for even mentioning the U.S. Hawks? None.

As Rick has pointed out, the sport of hang gliding is being murdered. It's being murdered by a number of players, and USHPA is just one of them. Both Jack Axaopoulos and Davis Straub have also participated in the crime by playing into USHPA's monopoly and banning people and discussions which might fix the situation.

It's one thing to ban a person, but it's quite another to ban the discussion and expression of ideas. Let history record the role that Jack Axaopoulos and Davis Straub have played in the slow death of hang gliding.

[Chris McKeon]

Northern California, Up here We have an Three Thousand foot High Mountain that is surrounded by pretty much all Flat terrain. Therefore the Mountain is the 2nd Most Panoramic Mountain on Earth. The Tile of; The most Panoramic Mountain on Earth goes to Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. I Myself remember Thermalling up above the mountain. i did not get high that Day, we seldom do at Diablo get high. But I wa uo at about 6,200 Feet. Believe it or not, ^,200 Feet MSL is fairly high for Diablo. Ok so as to stay on Subject; Before I set Up I walked around the Juniper ridge LZ. I used an straight small Diameter rod that I tend to keep in My Truck. So that I can Speer trash, thus cleaning the LZ. Well a Ranger came up to Me and said; :Thanks for Your efforts to Clean up". I replied cool, I always try to take care of this place, after all I along with many other Property owning Tax Payers, We own this Mountain. That Ranger did no verbalize His thoughts. But He did give Me a very strange look. They do not Get it. They just refuse to acknowledge the way things Truly are. Heck We own the Mountain, They work for Us. reading this Web-Site, i get the Idea that You Guys run into a Similar situation at Your Sites.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for reviving this topic Chris. This topic was started by Michael Grisham (magentabluesky) to talk about our public land. But it also turned out to be about our public speech.

Liberating Public Land

I thought I would post the thread from DotOrg that Jack locked out: Liberating Public Land

Thread was just getting interesting with Joe Faust’s posts when Jack locked it. The thread was started by LoganR.

Link Liberating Public Land By LoganR - Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:14 pm #404589

Link Liberating Public Land By Joe Faust Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:47 pm #404634 (fourth from last post)

Notice that a single citizen may approach or NOT approach a public-land manager and offer ...

As Michael mentioned, the thread "was just getting interesting" with posts by Joe Faust when Jack Axaopoulos locked it. In other words, you can't even talk about liberating flying sites from USHPA's grip on hanggliding.org.  

But it got worse. In addition to talking about liberating sites from USHPA's grip, Joe Faust began to talk about a web site (ushgrs.org) to liberate pilots from USHPA's grip as well. Joe began talking about independent and objective ratings and he invited pilots to apply for them at that site. That's when Jack banned Joe.

Sadly, only a few people objected to the mistreatment of Joe, and they all backed down when Jack threatened them. I shined a spotlight on the atrocity with several topics here on U.S. Hawks. But the more I urged people to speak up, the deeper they dug their heels in silence.

It's been 4 years now, and participation at hanggliding.org is as low as I've ever seen it. Those who didn't speak up carry a mixture of shame, guilt, and anger over the incident. The shame and guilt come from not having spoken up for a friend, and the anger is mostly directed at me for pointing it out. Many good friendships and good working relationships were destroyed or severely damaged. The sport of hang gliding took another serious hit (when it needed it the least). The only people laughing were the (mostly paragliding) insiders at USHPA and their cronies.

The banning of Joe Faust was a seismic event in hang gliding history, and we are still feeling its repercussions to this day. Sadly, the trauma of that event eclipsed other important topics (like this one), and I appreciate you bringing it back into focus four years later. Thanks.