[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By Paul H - Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:31 pm #404700

You USHPA fluffers and shills are fighting a loosing battle. While you may be BMOF (Big Men On Forums), the names on the ushgrs.org includes some of the greatest and most venerable names in hang gliding. I know this upsets your well-established web hierarchy, but the USHPA has proven that is doesn't have the best interests of hang gliding at heart and its time is rapidly coming to an end - as is yours.

That's a very mature response, resort to name calling. A couple of those names may have been something back in the day, but they seem to have forgotten that it's no longer 1975 and the world has changed and moved on. The liability concerns, both real and perceived, that society has forced on hang gliding have changed the sport and wishing otherwise won't change that.

Continuously attacking the USHPA and its members is not going to help anyone. You have already made your anti-USHPA bias well know and that makes it difficult to take you very seriously, especially when you post comments like these.

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By joefaust - Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:34 pm #404701

Joe,
How do you believe any property owning / managing entity will take your organization seriously when:
...
3) The org believes that video of flights are good enough for proof of skill for a rating level. Any gov't agency will balk at that because they have their own rating systems in place for their own people, and those don't have the risk associated with their positions that HG does, and they certainly don't approve position increments on video, so how would any owner/manager entity believe that they can trust your rating system?
...

DMarley,

I face your "3)" question now.

There is no evidence in my present view for the statement about "video of flights are good enough." ushgrs.org does not have the belief that you stated for it. Please quote the source; perhaps we would need to face a quote differently; thank you for any effort you make to find a quote that moved you to declare what you did about the belief. The ushgrs.org indeed easily can get some matter in the process from some videos; but the certification process rarely would consist of just videos. In very rare cases very well planned video sets could reveal much more than casual single video. A wide variety of data types go into some rating cases: observer reports, pilot text, instructor conclusions, mentor comments, video, flight records, interviews, written and oral test responses, etc. People arrive to hang gliding with unequal backgrounds and talents; learning occurs differently among those advancing in hang gliding skills and related knowledge. A wide realm of types of HG participation is available.

DMarley, it is unclear to me what you are remarking in the remainder of the above paragraph in your quoted text. In any case, the sentence has "will balk at that" has us for the moment with the meaning of "that" which was just discussed in my answering above. Since it is is not true what you claimed, then the "that" need not be faced further, unless you see something in your lines that does not depend on the removed first leading sentence's claim. I'd welcome any unpacking you think would be helpful. I'm moved to suggest that the model of ushgrs.org full process could be useful in other settings, not all settings. Note though, that some industries do have video input for core decison-making; auditions for acting, singing, dancing, filmmaking come to mine. "Samples of your work, please."

In any case, ushgrs.org, has no policy of across-the-board depending just on video input for the certification process. Live witnessed actions for skill sets is a core means of data input for most rating cases.

I will face the other final parts of your post in coming posts. Thanks again, Doug, for sharpening your pencil on the topic.

Lift,
Joe

deflexor.JPG (8.1 KiB) Viewed 2820 times

deflexor.png

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By DMarley - Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:38 pm #404702

So, as a self certifying community, what better way to document a pilot’s skills and abilities than to have an on-line "Pilot My Space" with personal affidavits, third party affidavits, log book entries, videos, and knowledge based tests? This can be stored on-line, in your phone, computer, or in the cloud.

. . . .

I forgot to add the digital use of "tracklogs" as a method of validating a pilots experience.

Tracklog

So all this sounds totally awesome.... where do I sign up? .... except who is going to review all these pilots that want to join your club, along with all their vids, all their tracklogs, etc? I still don't know how an ownership (who likely has no idea about flying HG) will have the time or the fortitude to go reviewing all the pilots that want to fly his/her site? Does that make any sense to you? Just asking.

You USHPA fluffers and shills are fighting a loosing battle. While you may be BMOF (Big Men On Forums), the names on the ushgrs.org includes some of the greatest and most venerable names in hang gliding. I know this upsets your well-established web hierarchy, but the USHPA has proven that is doesn't have the best interests of hang gliding at heart and its time is rapidly coming to an end - as is yours.

And Miracle, why are you threatening 'my end?' Are you feeling threatened somehow? You must be really steaming to say such a ridiculous statement.

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By magentabluesky - Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:15 pm#404703

.... except who is going to review all these pilots that want to join your
club, . . . .

The only club, organization I belong to is the USHPA, and I welcome you and everybody else as a member.

I don't tell people how to manage their property. That is up to them.

mbs

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By magentabluesky - Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:43 pm #404704

P.S. I do belong to the Soaring Society of America, too.

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By joefaust - Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:51 pm #404705

Joe,
...
If I were developing my property for HG flight, there would be little chance of me allowing anyone rated under your system to fly on my property. You provide no assurances that any pilot under your rating system
a) is trustworthy (no mechanism for skill or behavioral correction)
b) can control himself (no training mechanisms in place)
c) possesses the appropriate skills (no training mechanisms in place, nor rating definitions)
d) is himself/herself financially responsible and is backed by a large organization of responsible pilots.
--.

DMarley,

I'll herein address your closing text of the post I have been facing.

Thanks again for this process of clarifying things. "system" Since it has become evident that your conclusion were based on untenables, then we await your new appraisal as to whether or not you would have respect for the ratings stated at ushgrs.org for the pilots. Indeed, since the ratings stated represent the equivalent or better for recreational hang gliding purposes that might be declared by special-interest corporations, then if in your personal planning for a private HG site you might respect a declaration from the special-interest entities, then you might reasonably consider the ratings declared for pilot from an independent certifying agent (ushgrs.org) that need not play for pay or play for "ours" (some subtotal faction of the whole of our community). The core interest in the mission of ushgrs.org is the safety and joy for the full spectrum optionally available to those who wish to recreationally hang glide within a broad spectrum of hang gliding activity; there is no pay or tertiary concern; one focus. The workers of the process at ushgrs.org have a profound drive that recreational hang gliding is well served; ushgrs.org is just one corner of the grand spectacular activity of recreational hang gliding.

As to the "a)" , I answer: Already I faced the matter of your comment. That is, indeed , there are mechanisms for skill and behavioral correct. So, again your reappraisal is invited. However, note that any trusted pilot could turn on a dime and become untrustworthy. If such poor turning occurs, then ushgrs.org has the stated methods to signal the hang gliding community and interested managers. There are no guarantees that a pilot won't change directions. Let's all work together to make a great recreational hang gliding community. ushgrs.org is not responsible for the actions of rated pilots. We do what we can to get some assurance, but no guarantee.

As to the "b)", I answer: Your note might be interpreted a couple of ways. If you meant by "can control himself"matters of interaction with other people during frustrations, then the ratings from ushgrs.org include getting evidence toward good social decorum during frustrations or wants. You mention training toward such behavior. The training consists of observation and knowledge review on such matter. If you were meaning "control" for flying actions, then indeed ratings stated involve witnessed controlling skills. Maybe you had something else in mind; if so, thanks for any further effort to clarify this section of your remarks.

As to the "c)":: "c) possesses the appropriate skills (no training mechanisms in place, nor rating definitions) ". The rating speaks towards possessing appropriate skills, knowledge, social conduct habits, attitudes, situational awareness, ownership of effects of actions, practice habits, gear caring, and risk managing , and more. Training is multifaceted; most pilots get bulk of their training from a combination of professional instruction, listening to mentors, responding to observer remarks, planning actions following planning informed by studies (directed and undirected), and studies on and off the flying field. A reviewer of an ushgrs.org rating may be assured that the pilot at one time cleared a certifying process for skills and knowledge equivalent or better than any presently known widely-applied rating system, not necessarily better than graduates from the very best instructing pilots of our community; that is there are some instructors that are profoundly of top quality in their relations with their learning pilots; a rating from ushgrs.org statements does assures of a robust process effected for a pilot. The world is not perfect and no system of rating can guarantee any certain specific result. It is the pilot's responsibility to so act that no injury occurs to people or things by recreational hang gliding actions.

Toward your final "d) remark which was "d) is himself/herself financially responsible and is backed by a large organization of responsible pilots." ushgrs.org does not get into pilots' asset portfolios. Each rating has the pilot be reviewed for the taking 100% responsibility for any and all of his or her actions. Such would include being responsible for making good for any losses stemming from the pilot's actions in and out of hang gliding activity. Such includes review over the refraining from holding others responsible for one's action effects. The entire community of hang gliding and beyond may share in the pathos of some community member; such option is ever available to all. There are mechanisms available for all the pilots of our community to focus on healing and amendments. ushgrs.org will participate in such healing and mending by direct contributions and communications.

May your site project be a grand success, Doug,

Best,
Joe

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By hgflying - Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:34 am #404707

I have relatives with land that has a 70' grass hill that can be used for training. A few years ago, some pilots approached them and ask if they could use it for their training, so my relatives asked my opinion.

I said, yes, it's great to support pilots, ...

(1) make sure they are members of USHPA. $1M third party liability coverage - if they hit a cow, or damage fences, whatever, it’s important.
(2) make sure they are H2 or P2 rated, to make sure they have had proper instruction, because I have no desire to attempt to screen people.

This is a real case. As far as I understand so far, a ushgrs.org rating would mean nothing, and provide nothing, to a land owner. "watch my video, I'm good, my friends say so" doesn't cut it for a land owner.

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By joefaust - Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:24 am #404708

hgflying,

Rated pilots have been reviewed for consenting to be responsible for damages they create; they'd be responsible for mending the cow and mending the fence and mending their own bodies from having hit the cow and the fence. Straighaway. If word got out that the pilot did not cure the matter, then a warning signal would be placed on the pilot's rating line. Local fellow pilots may even have a culture of teaming to fix the fence and mend the cow. Bulk of recreating people do not play the insurance game. We do not know if a ushgrs.org pilot has or has not this or that insurance for things in his or her life.

Best to act to avoid hitting cows, fences, powerlines, people. Proved incidents get on the pilot's line via informational links.

Your relatives very well might like HG pilots who are up front self-responsible. Pilots that might be over-confident and risky as a result of carrying third-party insurance may well be a sort disfavored by your relatives. It might be better to allow pilots that are more conservative because of self-responsibility. Please send me in email the relative's contact data; I'll talk with them about the question; thanks.

Did you tell the relatives about how they could not be liable for the pilot's recreational injuries? Via the state's recreational-use statutes? Did you tell them the RRRG could fail at any moment? Did you tell the relatives that your suggested pilot screen could reverse at any moment for any of the involved pilots: the pilots selected could fail to pay MGForg or be expelled for any reason and the connection to whole deal could empty? Did you tell them that the supposed-covered pilot could run from the scene and the cow would be left unattended? Did you tell the relatives that an RRRG pilot may not apply for coverage benefit which might cause your relatives to press matters through the long haul with MGForg? Different would be a HG culture that practices self-responsibility, operates conservatively knowing about the self-responsibility, and teaming locally and widely to face our community's impacts on others.

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By DMarley - Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:54 am #404713

Joe,

I believe you are certainly attempting to provide a service that is needed in HG.

I apologize to you and Frank for being so gruff in my posts toward you two. I was quite turned off by the whole idea as Logan began his seemingly belligerent push to do damage to the ushpa. Not that I am a big fan-boy of the ushpa. But since it is already well established, and provides a large legal buffer for land owners / managers, the organization with all it's faults still has valuable aspects to it. It will be interesting to see what happens at the next board vote regarding the elimination of most of the regional directors. If they do implement this radical reduction, there could be many pilots and possibly clubs that will be strongly tempted to step away from the ushpa and search for better alternatives. Perhaps not. I understand that the current situation has garnered plenty of opposition from pilots regarding the non-disclosure of the voting habits of their RD's.

Perhaps the ushgrs.org will wake up the (remaining?) board members to be less opaque and more transparent in their voting, but if they do vote to drastically reduce the seat count, I can't imagine many, if any, improvements in transparency.

But anyway....

I have relatives with land that has a 70' grass hill that can be used for training. A few years ago, some pilots approached them and ask if they could use it for their training, so my relatives asked my opinion.

I said, yes, it's great to support pilots, ...

(1) make sure they are members of USHPA. $1M third party liability coverage - if they hit a cow, or damage fences, whatever, it’s important.
(2) make sure they are H2 or P2 rated, to make sure they have had proper instruction, because I have no desire to attempt to screen people.

This is a real case. As far as I understand so far, a ushgrs.org rating would mean nothing, and provide nothing, to a land owner. "watch my video, I'm good, my friends say so" doesn't cut it for a land owner.

This has been one of my main points. Land owners and managers, if not HG pilots themselves, don't go out of their way to invite pilots to fly on their lands. It's the other way around. "Can I please fly on your lands?" Perhaps west of the dry line, properties don't require much maintenance due to sparse vegetation and little rainfall. However, east of said line, vegetation growth can be a real hindrance to launching and landing sites, and must be cleared, maintained, etc. Because of more rainfall, soil erosion occurs at a higher rate, and if there are no public roads leading directly to the launch, then access trails must be made and maintained against the erosive forces of nature and use. Either the land owner(s) of the site or clubs must maintain these lands.

Maintenance requires dollars, continuously. No state law that supposedly protects land owners against guests are going to protect them against pilots who have to pay something to cover the development and maintenance costs. And that is where the ushpa is such a valuable asset to pilots in that they provide a real legal and financial buffer. Otherwise, few sites would remain open. Not only those points, but the land owner/manager does not have to police the pilots using the land. No need for the owners to consume time and resources to check on pilots' flight skills and status. Because the ushpa is well known in the flying community, is nation-wide, and has established protocols and ratings, legal backing, insurance, etc., land owners/managers will more likely feel that pilots of the ushpa will be far less risky than allowing someone who has little to none of this backing.

As a land (farm) owner myself, I would have doubts about a pilot keeping his personal flying insurance up to date, and I would then need to add more liability insurance per added pilot for my property to protect myself from someone bringing suit against me and my properties. If said pilot was part of a large body of pilots that had proven insurance backing from reputable carriers and legal backing, I would feel much more comfortable allowing this pilot to fly on my properties, and my outlay for liability insurance would be minimal, if at all. Which pilot would I rather fly my properties?

Not so much for the public park services that has the backing of the federal gov't, but private land owners (including state parks services) with flying sites are paying property taxes, operate on the thinnest of margins, if not at hefty losses. To burden them with the task of ensuring adequate individual pilot skills and the pilot's personal insurance is up to date in order to protect their own assets against possible damages seems to me to be too heavy a burden (not to mention the added property liability insurance costs.). Especially if and when the site becomes more popular. Why would a land owner submit to this extra workload and risk for absolutely zero or negative gain?

However, just as I believe we need representatives in the ushpa who vow to well-represent the local pilots and their local flying environs and methods, so your organization will likely meet a need for pilots where you fly.

Even though I am not fully sold on your organization's ethos, thank you for providing an alternative. Not only may it provide a need for other pilots, It may also be just the impetus that the ushpa needs to become more like something that will appeal to more pilots.

Thanks Joe and Frank.
-doug

[Quote]

RE: USHGRS.ORG
By joefaust - Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:34 am #404714

Thank you, Doug.

Inviting to one's land is a whole different matter from mere permitting. If I invite you to my property, then I am taking on a whole new set of liabilities.

The asking to land on a property and being given an "OK" is way different than a land manager saying: Here at my place: I invite you to come and dance.

ushgrs.org does neither asking nor inviting nor accepting invitations about land. ushgrs.org certifies and states ratings for pilot proficiency for recreational pilots. And maintains some guardianship over the meaning of the ratings as time unfolds (communications, warnings, cautions, incidents related to a rated pilot, ... )

Best,
Joe