HOGBACK VIOLATIONS- DISCLOSURE

[sailin]

I appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding during this event. It was the intent of your Board of Directors, from day 1, to provide full disclosure to you once the legal proceedings ceased.

This was a frustrating and challenging incident to navigate through. Complete details of the event were not available to us until very late into the incident. The fact that it was an on-going legal case with pretty serious consequences added significantly to the challenges. The sensitivity and bureaucratic nature of the site made communication with the “landowner” extremely complex. The structure of our public internet forum made communication with the general membership less than ideal. All the pilots in attendance at the scheduled CHGPA Fall meeting on September, 13 2013, were made aware of the Hogback Incident and all the details I had available to me at the time. During this incident, BOD members contacted both USHPA and the National Park Service, and were informed by both, that nothing could be done while this case was still in legal proceedings. In November, our Region 9 Director Felipe Amunategui, contacted me, and he was subsequently forwarded all the information we had available at the time.

Here are the facts, the best that I know them.

Sometime in early August 2013, four Paraglider Pilots were given misdemeanor citations by National Park Service Rangers after they were found to be attempting to fly (one pilot), and having flown (three pilots), the Hogback Launch site in Shenandoah National Park. Our Special Use Permit, which gives us the privilege to fly in the Park , specifically only allows hang gliding from both Hogback and Millers Head. Dickeys is the only bi-wingal permitted site.

One of the PG Pilots was attempting to launch Hogback and had a “blown” launch. This blown launch did not result in Pilot or spectator injury and did not result in property damage. There was no negative interaction with National Park Service Rangers or anybody during this particular event. Before this blown launch, the other three PG Pilots had already launched Hogback and were in the air. After two of the other PG Pilots had launched Hogback, flown, landed, and were re-entering the Park, they were stopped by a National Park Service Ranger. When asked by the Ranger, if they were the Pilots that had flown from Hogback, one of the PG Pilots responded by asking the Ranger how he knew they had launched from Hogback, since they could of launched from Woodstock instead. The Ranger did not like the deceitfulness, and informed the PG Pilot that there could be serious consequence if he didn’t tell the truth. The PG Pilot then told the truth. The PG Pilots were told that there would be an investigation, and their information was collected by the Ranger. The PG Pilots then received the misdemeanor citations in the mail. They had their initial court date set for sometime in October, which then got moved to November, which then got moved to December 12. In late November, I and another BOD Member, spoke on the phone with one of the PG Pilots involved. The PG Pilots and their lawyer were requesting that the CHGPA BOD construct a letter to the prosecuting US Assistant District Attorney to explain why Hogback had been left off the 2006 Special Use Permit modification that had added Paragliding to Dickeys (because of the relative poor performance of PG wings at the time versus the relatively longish glide needed to get out into the valley on a non-soarable day) and how today’s modern PG wings did not suffer the same limitations. They also wanted us to mention that launching from Hogback was not significantly more challenging than launching from Dickeys. The BOD agreed to construct this letter, BUT only if it included a humble, apologetic tone, that accepted responsibility for the violation of the Special Use Permit and condemned the deceitfulness of the one PG Pilots interaction with the Ranger. The letter was written and forwarded to the PG Pilots and their lawyer to review (before it was sent to the prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney). The PG Pilots and their lawyer felt the letter would do more harm than good and asked us not to send it on to the prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney . We complied and did not send it. The PG Pilots legal proceedings and court case concluded on December 12th with three of the four PG Pilots (one of the pilots was not convicted) receiving simple tickets/fines (not misdemeanors) for their violation of the Special Use Permit. According to the PG Pilots (I believe they got this information from their lawyer as they were not present at the hearing) there were no hard feelings between the Park Service and the offending PG Pilots. One of the PG Pilots involved and one BOD member are currently attempting to engage the National Park Service in a discussion to modify the Special Use Permit to include both Paragliding and Hang Gliding at all three launch sites within the Shenandoah National Park.

I have asked all the PG Pilots involved in the Special Use Permit violation to either individually, or collectively write an apology letter to the CHGPA Membership and Region 9 Pilots, apologizing for their selfish (and in one of the PG Pilots case, deceitful) actions that could have potentially jeopardized a flying site and given the community of free flight pilots a bad reputation. I have requested that the letters be written and forwarded to me by January 1, 2014. I informed the PG Pilots that I will post their letters on the “Members Only Section” of the CHGPA Forum. It is my hope that these letters will serve as the foundation to repair the bad feelings amongst many of our Region 9 Pilots, that were angered and frustrated by these PG Pilots actions that day in Shenandoah National Park. I also hope their apology letter(s) will serve as a future deterrent to other pilots that might consider making bad decisions that would put flying sites and free flight reputation at jeopardy. Finally, I hope their letter will remind us all, that we are charged with the important responsibility of self regulation, and that if we don’t self regulate then we stand to lose everything, and have no one to blame but ourselves.

Jon

[Danny Brotto]

Jon, thanks for the write-up. Also thanks to the CHGPA BOD for your careful handling of the situation.

Regarding the actions of the “deceitful pilot” ...

"When asked by the Ranger, if they were the Pilots that had flown from Hogback, one of the PG Pilots responded by asking the Ranger how he knew they had launched from Hogback, since they could of launched from Woodstock instead."

... as this reads, there was knowledge on at least the part of the “deceitful pilot” that PG from Hogback was not allowed per the permit. If this is true, then his/her violation was not such an innocent mistake.

Good follow-up to reevaluate the permit and propose to include PG from the other sites. Probably good idea to include in the rewrite a clearer wording for cliff launch sign off and a potential inclusion of a RLF sign off. Also in my read of the permit, it is a little confusing what constitutes proof of LZ owner approval.

Danny Brotto

[sailin]

Update on this event.

It is now January 9th, 2014 and I have not received any letters from any of the pilots involved in the Hogback Incident.

Of the 4 pilots involved, here is how they have responded:

1 pilot, that was not convicted in court, had asked to be excused from writing the letter do the potential legal ramifications since he wasn't convicted. We understood his situation and are no longer asking him to construct this apology letter.

1 pilot, after he was reached out to by the BOD after the requested January 1, 2014 deadline, has said he would only write a hard copy apology letter to the BOD, if it was agreed that it would not be posted online. Although disappointed, The BOD will honor his request and are still awaiting the hard copy of this letter.

1 pilot, named Laszlo Lovei , refuses to write the apology letter requested from the CHGPA BOD. He does not believe he owes anybody an apology. His information, including specific conduct during and after this incident is being forwarded to the USHPA Main Office so there is official record of it. The CHGPA BOD is also looking into the possibility of disciplinary action against this pilot.

1 pilot, named Tom Ceunen , refuses to write the apology letter requested from the CHGPA BOD. His information, including specific conduct during and after this incident is being forwarded to the USHPA Main Office so there is official record of it. THe CHGPA BOD is also looking into the possibility of disciplinary action against this pilot.

thanks,
Jon

[RichH]

Jon thank you for your continued efforts in this regard. I know this has not been an easy task at all but I think the steps you are taking are prudent ones. I'm hoping that the BOD will take quick action towards the individuals who refuse to apologize for their participation in the events at Hogback Mtn.

[Ward Odenwald]

My 2 cents:

Lack of respect for National Park flying site rules = Strike One

Deceitful comments to a United States Park Ranger = Strike Two

NO RESPECT FOR CHGPA LEADERSHIP = Strike Three

They’re OUT of our organization and OUT of our flying sites!

It’s all about respecting decades of hard work by many that developed and currently maintain our community AND its flying sites. Ward

[Dan T]

This is not productive.

May I remind the advocates of this inquisition that with the exception of the Pulpit none of the sites are "our" flying sites. They are either on public property, in which case we have no control whatsoever over who flies there, or they are on some other landowners property. Most land owners would have no idea what the issue is and probably would not want to hear us suggesting certain of our brethren from their property.

What this initiative is accomplishing is once again fragmenting our sport into two different camps. The likely end result will be an exodus of several members from the CHGPA. Is this what we want?

Let it go.

Dan Tomlinson

[Dan T]

The individuals who engaged in the transgression showed up in court and paid their fines or whatever. That has satisfied the NPS, it should be enough to satisfy us.

Dan

[RichH]

First off, the Capital Club and the Maryland club are co-owners of the Pulpit (at least the last time I checked) and as private landowners we have every right to restrict access. 2nd, Flying any of the public lands which includes all Forest Service and National Park lands requires a HG or a PG rating . Having your rating suspended or revoked would exclude you from flying any of these sites. Dan I may have agreed with you that these pilots paid their dues if the 2 pilots in question had followed the recommendations made by the BOD.. but they did not...Instead they thumbed their nose at the CHGPA BOD.

[Dan T]

This is going to be my last post on this subject.

Let me set a couple things straight. As a recent Director of Region 9 of the USHPA I can assure you that the USHPA is not going to take an action to ban the pilots from the Association for this minor transgression. The USHPA recently debated and consulted with each other for well over a year before they finally agreed to kick out a member whose actions were virtually felonies by comparison. Therefore the pilots are not going to be precluded from Federal or State owned sites, including Woodstock, Ediths Gap, Dickey's Ridge in the NationalPark, and Bill's Hill. Neither are they likely to prevented from flying Daniel's mountain for it is privately owned by a land owner who will have no patience for our infighting. The only site the CHGPA can prevent them from flying is the Pulpit and that would probably require the consent of the MHGA which would hopefully have sense enough not to provide it.

This attack on these pilots strikes me as being more closely related to a medieval inquisition than it does to achieving anything of lasting value. The net result is a likely exodus from the CHGPA by nearly half of its members. If it continues I am likely to be among the first out the door.

Dan Tomlinson
CHGPA member since circa 1996
Former Director USHPA Region 9

[RichH]

First off with all due respect Dan, we have multiple pilots who felt it was ok to launch from a site in a National Park where they had no permission and or prior approval (Also, I have it on good authority that this was not the first time that several of them flew from this site). If convicted that would have been a Federal offense not a "minor transgression". I'd also like to know where they landed since most of the close in fields are marked no trespassing. However, we also have the fact that several of these pilots then tried to deceive the authorities. Your claim that those of us that have communicated our concerns liken a "medevil inquisition" but you show little or no willingness to place blame on the couple of pilots that has shown little or no remorse for the risk and embarrassment they have placed on our flying community at large. Instead of condemning their actions you come on this forum and direct your indignation at the pilots who have voiced their concerns. Your attempts to place blame on those voices instead of the ones who deserves it shows little or no understanding of the issues at large. Rich Hiegel

[pink_albatross]

I do not feel that the Hogback guys owe us any apology.
They have squared it with the National Park service (at great personal expense), they served their penance, their actions have not resulted in any harm to our flying community. (Credit should also be given to the Park service for recognizing and treating them as individuals and not representatives of the community at large.)

On the contrary, I feel quite grateful to them for opening a conversation with the SNP about the extension of flying privileges at all SNP sites to the rest of the flying community (PG pilots). There is good reason to hope that this conversation will result in more of us being able to legally fly all of the SNP sites.

Therefore I believe that there is more reason to issue these pilots a commendation than to request an apology from them.

-- ellis

[theflyingdude]

Pirating a regulated flying site, getting caught, lying to the ranger about it, and then getting busted and ending up in court is certainly one way to open a conversation, but one would think there would have been a more conventional way that would likely have a more productive outcome. Apparently, the self-regulation idea isn't working very well when a portion of the flying community chooses to make this an "us vs. them" or "HG vs. PG" issue. It basically comes down to individual behavior and whether the flying community should have a reasonable expectation that everyone follows the established protocols. I'm loyal to my friends and don't give a hoot what type of wing they fly, but when they're wrong, I won't blindly defend them or suggest they should receive a commendation for their inappropriate behavior, regardless of the outcome (unless they pay me very well ).

JR

[Matthew]

Ellis,

The CHGPA BOD worked with the attorney for these pilots and offered to supply a letter of support despite the transgression by these pilots. No other club would do this-- the pilots would have been left to hang out and dry. Other clubs have had pilots ratings revoked for less serious transgressions. A letter of apology is the least that these pilots can do.

Matthew

[Matthew]

I've been corrected. The BOD contacted two pilots and offered a letter regarding the facts relating to Hogback. This letter was rejected by the attorney for these pilots.

Matthew

[sailin]

I've been corrected. The BOD contacted two pilots and offered a letter regarding the facts relating to Hogback. This letter was rejected by the attorney for these pilots.

Matthew

The above is not correct.

The BOD was contacted by one of the Pilots involved (and as a spokesman for the other Pilots involved is how it was explained to me), and requested that the CHGPA BOD construct a letter as outlined in my original post in this thread. Myself and one other BOD member, set up a conference call with two of the Pilots so we could figure out exactly what they (the Pilots and their Attorney) were requesting. Only one of the Pilots (in addition to myself and the other BOD member) was able to participate in approx. 99% of the conference call. The other Pilot, that was supposed to be a part of the call, was not able to call in until late, and then his connection with us ceased after approx. 2 minutes and there was no re-connection.
After the conference call, the requested letter was constructed, and approved by ALL CHGPA BOD members, and forwarded on to the Pilots and their Attorney for review. We felt that we met the requested goals of the Pilots and their Attorney in this letter (which was to educate the prosecutor and Park Service of the history of the Park Service launches and to make them aware that the improved glide performance of modern paragliders allowed them to utilize this launch without worry of not being able to reach a suitable landing field in non-soarable conditions. In addition, we wanted to clarify any misconceptions that the Prosecutor may have had that this particular launch was a HUGE step up in difficulty from Dickey's). Given the circumstances of the scenario (the Special Use Permit violations and the inappropriate interaction with National Park Service Rangers that followed), we (the CHGPA BOD) felt that it would not be appropriate for this letter from the CHGPA BOD to just be an informational offering, void of any apologetic and humble tone for the transgressions that had brought us there in the first place. Ultimately, after reviewing the letter, the Pilots and their Attorney asked us not to send it to the Prosecutor, to which we complied.

Thanks,
Jon

[Matthew]

Not sure why it's so hard to apologize. If you search my posts for "apologies" or "apologize", there are eight substantive times I've apologized for being a jerk on the forum... probably a lot more on the old list sever. I am quite often the dumbass when it comes to forum posts!

Still-- we all mess up-- we are human.


If you mess up, you apologize and hope that the people you have offended or wronged or hurt can forgive you. It's that simple.


Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

Thanks for the details Jon. Their disrespect for our National Parks, its Rangers and their arrogant response(s) to the BOD’s letter that was drafted to help all, including the Court, understand the significance of the events is, to say the least, unfortunate. On top of these issues, their recent snub of the BOD’s request further reinforces the sad fact that pathological egos put our community and its flying sites at risk. Without demonstrated/significant self-regulation from within our community - that risk grows and one day (maybe soon) the National Park Authorities will “wise-up”. If that happens, we and the rest of the USHPA will also feel the corrosive impact(s) triggered by the super self-importance of a few. Ward

[Danny Brotto]

An apology is an implied admission of guilt. In court if these guys pled "not guilty", I can understand why the defense attorney would not use a letter from the BOD with an apologetic tone. I'm glad that the board took the high road on this and did not cave in with a wholly supportive letter as that would not have been the proper thing to do in the big picture.

Apologies are cheep, but there may be a legal rationale to not make one in this case.

And please don't issue a commendation as Ellis has called for. That sentiment truly puzzles me and is questionable at so many levels. I have to wonder if there truly is a sentiment along those lines in the club?

Penance perhaps is the best we can expect in this case. Apparently there was a fine paid. that's one form of penance. Another would be a pledge to refrain from knowingly break protocols in the future. That pledge can be made without admitting to guilt and is more valuable (even though it should be expected/implied) than the words of an apology.

Should the site be opened for paragliding? Probably, and I suspect with a little effort an LZ option could be had and paperwork redrafted with the Park Service to allow for it. Perhaps this effort to open the site serves to benefit the entire community could be undertaken by the folks involved in this "misunderstanding"? I think we can all agree that the effort towards that goal would be better than any apology. Now that would be worthy of a commendation!

Danny Brotto

[brianvh]

Perfectly said on all points as usual, Danny.

[Matthew]

Ward, please, I know that you can make your point without resorting to insults. We must not assume the worst of people when they err. We all err as the saying goes.

Re- apologies-- they are not legal admissions of guilt, especially when not made available to the public.

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

Matthew, you’re right, in hind sight my comments were a bit over the top. Sorry for that. I also agree with you concerning “apologies not being admissions of guilt.” It's their silence on this issue of not acknowledging the fact that they almost blew it for the community! That disregard is what triggered my assessment of their egos. Ward

[RichH]

I think we are past the apology issue it is clear that two of the pilots concerned have no intent of doing so. So what should we do? We can believe (naively so) that these pilots will follow the rules and will start acting in a responsible manner or if you think that these pilots or others will likely break protocols again then there are avenues you can take. First, make your feelings and ideas known to the CHGPA BOD known..Second, follow up with our Regional Director and let him know your thoughts that some action should be taken. I think if we do nothing we will see further issues down the road...

[mcelrah]

Did the board consider the likely result of such a demand for public apology? Seems predictable that nothing good could come of it and likely harm. Dumb idea, picking an unnecessary fight. If we continue on this path the club will split. Are you serious? Referring pilots to USHPA for failing to apologize? - Hugh

[Matthew]

Hi Hugh,

It's not a public apology. It's a members only viewable apology. Also, you were at the meeting when the apology was brought up and made no objections. No one made any objections to the requirement of an apology at the meeting. There were lots of PG pilots at the meeting. And hey wait, aren't Matt Ingram and Patrick Terry PG pilots who are on the BOD? And didn't Lazlo and Tom agree to make an apology?

Hmmm-- and when did this become a PG vs. HG issue? I don't recall anyone disparaging PG pilots. Sure, a couple of the most vocal people on the forum are HG pilots and the parties involved are PG pilots. And there are a few HG only pilots who have disagreed with the 'vocal people'. But this has nothing to do with it. It's two pilots who are creating disharmony in the club by their actions and continued actions. It's not HG vs PG. And I'd like to say both of these pilots are great guys. Still, the messed up. And I'm willing to forgive. But the first step is asking for forgiveness.

Matthew
PS I'm done with commenting on this topic.

[mcelrah]

I don't think I was present at any meeting where this was discussed.

Some members are exercised about site endangerment; this is/was a HG-only site; I would like to know which hang-glider pilots have actually flown Hogback recently. I suspect the vocal ones are not among them. (Has anybody flown there other than the Hogback 4?)

If you speed through a school zone, you get a speeding ticket and a fine (sorta like what happened to the "Hogback 4"). If you strike and kill a child, you go to jail for manslaughter. So actual consequences - as opposed to "symbolic" actions like "exceeding the terms of the permit", "exceeding the speed limit" or "apologizing" - matter. (Of what possible value is a forced apology?) The site has not been lost, it has instead been reopened - and with a path to formally designating it as a PG site. The miscreant pilots have been fined and incurred legal costs with the added worry of possible DEPORTATION if found guilty of a *crime*. There is zero chance that they will exceed the terms of the SNP permit again. Demanding an apology is piling on. The board should apologize for demanding apologies. In particular, any referral of individual pilots to USHPA for possible rating revocation should be formally withdrawn.

Hey Matthew, you can't quit - I just got here!

- Hugh