Hi Dave,
You may be right, but I'll answer your questions ... since you asked.
DaveSchy wrote:
It's an interesting theory, but
Why would the military choose to train valuable assets on inferior aircraft when cost is not an issue?
The easy answer is the popularity of paragliding tourism. I speculate that they are training agents to pose as paragliding tourists in other countries for things like anti-terrorism and anti-drug-smuggling efforts. Of course they could also send people as "birdwatching tourists" or "surfing tourists" or any other kind of tourists. But those supposed "tourists" wouldn't come with their own flight and surveillance equipment.
DaveSchy wrote:
Why train in a high profile area like Torrey when Pt Sal is adjacent to Vandenberg and easily isolated ?
See above. They would want to be part of a "paragliding community" to participate in foreign travel without suspicion.
DaveSchy wrote:
Why train inferior paragliding when parachute training is safer, more precise, and has a long history of success?
See above. Paragliding "tourism" would give them freedom and mobility not available by parachute. Also, the ability to actually fly (rather than just fall) would give them much greater capability - especially with powered paragliding. Also satellite images can now do the work that was once required by fly-overs. So they don't need someone taking high-altitude snap shots. They need boots on the ground with the ability to get around and ask questions.
DaveSchy wrote:
I think that the city is corrupted beyond accountability and feels invincible
I believe that may also be true, but I've seen the City react (and even over-react) many times on many issues. There has been more than enough pressure applied to get some action from the City under normal circumstances. Something else is going on.
In almost all of my initial contacts with the City Council, there has been an initial interest in helping. But later (often after they get into office), they clam up and won't communicate at all on the topic. If that happened with just one Councilmember, I could understand it. But it happens again and again across the spectrum of political leanings. The only exception was Bob Filner.
Bob Filner had become Mayor of San Diego after a very long run (1993 to 2012) as a Congressman in Washington DC. I believe he had enough security clearances to see through whatever smoke screen was being used to muzzle the other local Councilmembers (and Mayors).
We had several meetings with Mayor Filner - including a relatively large meeting where he told us that he would fix the problem. Shortly after that meeting, a number of allegations of "misconduct" were made, and Filner was quickly driven out of office. I don't think his interest in reforming the Gliderport was the only issue behind his ousting. I think Filner saw a lot of broken things in San Diego that he planned to fix. For example, he reversed the traffic light camera scam that was making lots of money for a private company that was getting a cut of every ticket.
While I'm not a proponent of all of Filner's policies, I believe he was a reformer, and he stepped on enough toes to have him ousted. Too many politicians follow the "go along to get along" model to muddle their way through office. But Filner had already played in the "Big Leagues" of Washington politics for nearly 20 years. I believe he was prepared to clean house in San Diego.
