[flakey]

No more training at Torrey. H4-P4 only please.

[sghawk96]

How about H3/P3? Torrey would be a great site for HG pilots to rack up some air time on their way to H4.

I actually dont have a problem with teaching at torrey as long as its open to all wings. Maybe tandem instruction only?

Along with some rules that state a maximum of X instructors or students in the air at any time to keep traffic lower.

The ability to do instructional HG tandems at torrey would open a whole new world of HG instruction in the san diego area. It could have a huge impact on the sport in SD. A boost we really need.

[wild_high_mark]

[bobk]

I agree with SGHawk96.

H3/P3 with possibly some kind of site check-out by any USHPA instructor.

I also agree that training should be allowed just as it is in other sites like Kagel and Crestline. Training helps grow our sports, but the associated profit motive should not be allowed to restrict pilots who have earned the ratings to fly those sites on their own.

SGHawk96 is also right on target about hang gliding tandems being a way to revive hang gliding in the San Diego area. The lease does specify that "outside tandems" are allowed with a $35 fee. But this has not been honored in many many cases.

[wild_high_mark]

[bobk]

Hi Mark,

I think your heart is in the right place, and I hope you won't take this the wrong way...

When we opened this site, I sent a message to all of the club members. I'll post it here:

[bobk]

OK, I've read Mark's message, I've issued my warning, and I've had my dinner. Now I'll address his comments directly...

First of all, we can't treat this like war because it's not really war. We don't want to end up with a "scorched earth" Gliderport.

On the other hand, I do believe that the concessionaire believes this is war, and I believe they have used some very unfair tactics against myself and the Hawks in general.

So what can we do?

I believe that we always take the high moral ground. I believe that we state what we want, and it has to be something that is fair and what we really want. It might be fair to have just H4's and P4's flying. But is that what we really want? No. I think we can recognize that it's good for our sports to allow H3's and P3's to fly at the site. I think it's also good for us to allow limited training at the site, and to allow tandems at the site. But these have to be done fairly as they are at other sites like Kagel and Crestline. Both of those sites allow training, but both of those sites keep training in the proper perspective. It is a privilege to fly as a student at those sites. I was a student at both places, and I knew that I should value that privilege and not interfere with more advanced pilots because of my own limitations. Because of that, there are very few conflicts between training and flying at those sites. The problem at Torrey isn't that they allow training, it is that training has been allowed to dominate that site. That's a big part of the problem.

If (and this is a big "if") the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board can be formed in time to affect the lease, then we have a great chance to lay out our plan for how that site should be managed for its intended purpose - the enjoyment of everyone who loves the unpowered flight sports (hang gliding, paragliding, RCs and sailplanes). That's our goal, and that's what we should focus on.

We shouldn't have to "brand" anything as "equality" because what we really want is equality. We don't want anyone to "starve". We want everyone to prosper but fairly. Torrey Pines is a great treasure for us pilots, but it is also a great treasure for many of the flight businesses in our area. We want those businesses to benefit from this treasure, but we want them to benefit fairly.

The problem with the current situation is that it is unfair. It is unfair to individual pilots who get kicked out without any due process. It is unfair to individual clubs who have been kicked out (or singled out) without any recourse. And it is unfair to entire flight sports that have been discriminated against in many ways - especially in recruiting new members at that world-famous site.

So our goal should be to figure out how to make it fair. We should start with some way to run a Gliderport that isn't centered around one single concessionaire. We can use the example of our public beaches. The City does lease certain locations for a surf school, for example. But the City doesn't turn the entire beach over to that school and require everyone to pay that one concessionaire to use the beach. This is the kind of model and example that we can use to demonstrate how we would like to see this flight park structured in the future. That's the kind of example that our club needs to bring to the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board.

Who agrees? Who disagrees? Who has moved on to see the videos?

[wild_high_mark]

Yea, thanks Bob.

You can tell them I'm Mark Webber and I'm not a member.
That's part of MY plan.

YEA, i know they are watching.
That's part of MY plan.

I didn't get to this point in my life to suddenly become politically correct.
That's part of MY p[lan.

Here in Lakeview, you can see them comming a mile away. They get here on weekdays and drive clean cars.
That's part of MY plan.

But you folks in the big city need to watch your backs.

I'll make you a deal Bob. If I get three messages with the word "Elephant" in it (public or private post) from anybody (not just you), I'll refrain from posting anythig for a week.

Then you have a "sort of loose" cannon ( I can always go somewhere else and spout my insanity).

[flakey]

Torrey is like Yosemite. People come from all over the world for just one flight to say they did it. It's just too fragile to mess with. H4-P4 only please It's like teaching surfing at the North Shore of Oahu. It's just not the best place. I know you guys want to grow the sport. Go do a static display at an airshow, you'll get far better results.

[flakey]

Hey Mark, Hb is a big city. But my car is always dirty. I just can't seem to keep it clean. You'll see it for your self soon enough.

[sghawk96]

[Dennis D]

[bobk]

Hmmm....

It looks like some folks think we should lower the ratings (H3/P3) and others think we should raise them (H4/P4), but it looks like we all agree on one thing ... the ratings should be fair to both sports.

I think an H3 rating with a Windy Cliff Launch signoff should be sufficient.

I thoroughly agree with SG about opening the site up to tandem instruction for any properly rated USHPA instructors. Dave Beardslee is a great tandem pilot and he's had some mixed results there. The lease quotes an "outside tandem fee" of $25, so Dave brought about 6 people there for tandem flights earlier this year (2009). Robin Marien (current operator) tried to charge him $100 for EACH FLIGHT!!! I was at home at the time, and Dave Beardslee called me to tell me about it, so I called Robin myself. That's exactly what he told me $100 for EACH FLIGHT!!! Dave couldn't afford to do that, so all those people went away without a flight ... and with a poor view of our sport.

Fortunately, our NEW USHPA representative to the Soaring Council (Ken Baier, nominated by the Hawks to replace Brad Hall) has been bringing this up at the Soaring Council meetings, and Robin has relented. But this is the kind of thing that the Hawks have been working to fix. Thanks to all our 200 members!!

[Windlord]

"$100 for each flight" Is that the same for PG tandems?
I have to agree with Mark and "flakey". H4/P4 and no training allowed, should put a dent in their can.
If you want training, take it inland or down in Baja.

I just remember the way it once was and it doesn't look too pretty the way it is.

[Greg Launt]

I, personally, do NOT support the H4/P4 proposition.

I DO support H3/P2 rating with Specific site endorsement and the following Special Skills: Foot Launch (FL);Windy Cliff launch (WCL); Assisted WCL; 360° Turns; Ridge Soaring (RS).

And maybe even a few other required skills or knowledge including: a demonstration specific site knowledge and rules for both
flight and ground operation; Ridge Soaring Rules and technique; top landing experience (maybe just a couple of tandems);
demonstrate knowledge of top landing technique and hazard avoidance; And limitations on the conditions upon which the H3/P2 can
operate...say 20MPH Sustained wind (and /or 10 mph gust differential), no more than 20° cross.

So maybe not for a newly minted H3, but rather for an experienced H3 in pursuit of greater experience and under the supervision
of an instructor until the requirements have been met.

I believe that all of these things are consistent with the existing USHPA pilot program...with only a few extra hoops to jump though.


I think that ALL qualified Instructors and Pilots should be allowed access to do this at Torrey Pines....
and be encouraged to do so. It's imperative that we support an environment that promotes further education and safety.


The current Site Administration and Flight Directorship responsibilities and duties should be relieved from any particular concessionaire.
Site fees and membership fees should go directly toward site administration and flight director support.
A clear avenue for conflict resolution and privilege review should be specified.

I would whole-heartedly support a concessionaire that follows these same rules, shows respect for the other instructors/pilots,
charges reasonable rates, and does not deceive or endanger the public.