theflyingdude’s Rejection Letter!

[Ward Odenwald]

JR, I’m glad you shared your PG-forum rejection letter with us and in doing so, alerting the rest of the flying community that it is most likely missing flying site and safety information that would benefit all that fly from our sites (see JR’s post on the “Flying on Friday 10/18” thread). This closed forum, that excludes nearly half of the pilots that fly in region 9, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by any organization that promotes/represents both forms of weight-shift controlled flight. One of the primary/principle functions of any flying forum is to disseminate information that enhances the safety and enjoyment of our sport and to learn that half of the community excludes the other half from this information (no matter how insignificant some of it my appear to be) is not right, to say the least. For example, the information gleaned from pilots discussing flying and LZ conditions on a day when many of us could not fly helps all of us make decisions about future flying. When my cameras capture images that highlight the conditions of our LZs - I post them for all to see and don’t exclude half of the flying community from seeing the crop status or other information within the photos or any other information that I discuss in the post! As a CHGPA member, I want to know who of our elected officials participate in this closed forum and how frequently they use it to discuss CHGPA business or any other flying information that would benefit all of its members! Ward

[stevek]

You make good points but you also have to understand why the PG list was created.

[Dan T]

The flaming incidents that resulted in the creation of the offline PG forum happened relatively long ago. I would hope that we could put this all behind us and reintegrate the two elements of our sport. I have even suggested to the person who built the site that it might be time to shut it down thus encouraging us to merge. I think it should be easy enough to have an all-can-read-some-can-write PG room similar to the old FIFI's room here on the CHGPA site. That would enable the HG pilots go know where the other pilots are going to be while hopefully avoiding some of the divisiveness that has occurred in the past.

Having said that, the decision on what to do with the privately created PG site belongs to the person who created and maintains it. In my opinion we should respect that.

Dan T

[Ward Odenwald]

Dan, I agree with your suggested all-can-read-some-can-write format but safety concerns trump one individual’s intent regardless of who created the site or maintains it. No respect at this end until the forum is open for all to read. Ward

[pink_albatross]

The management of the "pg yahoo group" encourages every member to participate on the chgpa forum.

Membership is restricted to pilots with a minimum of a p2 rating and who regularly fly our sites. I.e. No beginners, no guests, no fly once and never show up agains.

The reason was primarily for safety reasons. We can only learn from mistakes made by others if others share their experiences. Humans are more likely to share potentially embarrassing details with people they know and if these people can be assumed to be sympathetic (I.e. No flame wars). I doubt that the pg safety concerns are relevant to hg pilots.

The chgpa forum is open in perpetuity (pg list Server might even get purged every so often. No archiving). Non contributing members may even get dropped without warning.

[Danny Brotto]

"I doubt that the pg safety concerns are relevant to hg pilots."

With considerable and sincere due respect Ellis, I disagree with this statement.

From my experience when I perused sailplane flying, my hang gliding safety awareness (and performance/competency) was positively affected.

When I pursued my power ticket, my sailplane (and HG) safety awareness (and performance/competency) was likewise positively affected.

Cross functional leanings do translate.

Danny Brotto