HOGBACK VIOLATIONS- DISCLOSURE

[RichH]

Well I've flown Hogback ..many times actually but not recently (don't know what that has to do with the price of tea in china but whatever) I agree though..I'm done with the apology bit! that time has come and gone..Its now time for a tougher reaction. We gave them a chance for a civil resolution but the fact their was no effort to make amends shows me they have little care for our policies. I've talked with several on the BOD and I have called and have talked to all our Regional Directors and I urge anyone who care's about our communities future to do the same. I do not care if its a PG pilot or a HG pilot if you continually show disrespect for our rules, laws and protocols you should be held accountable- period..I've been assured this is being looked into at the highest level in the USHPA..I'm comfortable with the decision they will make.. I'm hopeful the BOD will act responsible and take some steps as well..

[carweill]

I strongly dislike the direction this has taken. On my return in february I will look to transfer my duties to whoever wants to takeover.
I don't have the stomach to ask for renewals as I was planning.
I mostly agree with Dan T and Danny's comments.

Carlos

[mcelrah]

Ah, c'mon RichH - be a man and apologize! No one will think any less of you. By the way, when's the last time you flew - anywhere? That has to do with the price of tea because if you don't fly and you don't help with site maintenance and opening, then you should just sit and color. What does it mean to "endanger" a site if those who are most vociferous weren't actually flying the site anyway? (Still would like to know whether any HG pilot has flown the site RECENTLY.)

What possessed the board (I use that locution but I know that at least a couple of members disagreed with the apology demand) to think that a measure guaranteed to alienate a large - and the most active and growing - part of the membership - was a good idea - right in the middle of the winter flame-war season? They missed a golden opportunity to let well enough alone - and for that should apologize. They were going along pretty good with a disclosure about what actually happened for those who were eaten up with curiosity about the secrets of the paragliding e-mail list - but then they goobered it up with this dumb apology demand. This quaint belief in the power of confession and absolution is either Catholic or Marxist-Leninist ("self-criticism") - but it has no place in an American flying club which is neither Communist nor religious.

OK, if the board doesn't want to apologize, we'll call it square - nobody has to apologize. Let's just drop it!

But if ya wanna keep calling for punitive action against pilots who have already paid fines and lawyer fees when the site has manifestly NOT been closed, on the contrary, it has been opened to more flying - then we're going to the mattresses.

- Hugh

[RichH]

If you must know the last time i flew was last year got about 30 hours in..not as much as i would like. Have well over a thousand hours in a hg. Made plenty of flying mistakes ..learned from them..apologized when i needed to..Helped open many sites and worked on many work teams like many have..Im not alone..thats what you do when you are part of a community. The same that you and Dan and others have done..I respect that..But I dont agree with your opinions on this case. We differ on our ideas about self regulation. Sites will only stay open if we manage ourselves properly and I think we are at a critical point. As i mentioned earlier there are plenty of people looking into this..Ill respect their decisions..enough said!

[sailin]

Ah, c'mon RichH - be a man and apologize! No one will think any less of you. By the way, when's the last time you flew - anywhere? That has to do with the price of tea because if you don't fly and you don't help with site maintenance and opening, then you should just sit and color. What does it mean to "endanger" a site if those who are most vociferous weren't actually flying the site anyway? (Still would like to know whether any HG pilot has flown the site RECENTLY.)

What possessed the board (I use that locution but I know that at least a couple of members disagreed with the apology demand) to think that a measure guaranteed to alienate a large - and the most active and growing - part of the membership - was a good idea - right in the middle of the winter flame-war season? They missed a golden opportunity to let well enough alone - and for that should apologize. They were going along pretty good with a disclosure about what actually happened for those who were eaten up with curiosity about the secrets of the paragliding e-mail list - but then they goobered it up with this dumb apology demand. This quaint belief in the power of confession and absolution is either Catholic or Marxist-Leninist ("self-criticism") - but it has no place in an American flying club which is neither Communist nor religious.

OK, if the board doesn't want to apologize, we'll call it square - nobody has to apologize. Let's just drop it!

But if ya wanna keep calling for punitive action against pilots who have already paid fines and lawyer fees when the site has manifestly NOT been closed, on the contrary, it has been opened to more flying - then we're going to the mattresses.

- Hugh

A couple of points of clarification and some facts.

This has nothing to do with Hang Gliders vs Paragliders. The ENTIRE Board of Directors had no intention, and still has no intention, of alienating any particular part of the membership. The Board of Directors is made up of Hang Glider Pilots AND Paraglider Pilots. All of us were, and still are, concerned with the behavior of two of our Pilots. Our Regional Directors (apparently with the exception of Dan Tomilson?), past and present (all Paraglider Pilots), and other USHPA Leadership (again Paraglider Pilots) are also concerned with these Pilots behavior. The ENTIRE Board of Directors supported the letter that was sent to the Pilots and their Attorney. The ENTIRE Board of Directors supported the apology request (not demand). If there is information to the contrary on this, it certainly wasn't made available to me and certainly not by any members of the Board of Directors. In fact, two of the involved Pilots that flew Hogback that day were very understanding of this apology request and communicated that in one case, they would do the letter and in the other case that they would like to do the letter but had legal conflict since they were not convicted in court. In both cases the ENTIRE Board of Directors were flexible to these PIlots requests and needs. These two Pilots that I refer to, took a very different stance than the two Pilots that are being followed up with for further action. Not sure where we lost Carlos, but he was okay with the Attorney letter and apology request. The ENTIRE Board of Directors (apparently with the exception of Carlos now) still believe that these Pilots should provide written and genuine communication that they will not ignore site protocols, and that IF THEY DO NOT DO THIS, then it warrants a club vote on potential CHGPA disciplinary action. We, the ENTIRE Board of Directors, are still trying to extend opportunities to these Pilots to communicate their genuine commitment to following the site protocols. There is NO Hang Glider vs. Paraglider event here.


Hugh, please feel free to call me anytime you would like to discuss these events. I am more than happy to talk with you.

thanks,
Jon

[mcelrah]

Jon,

I will call you. I thank you for your efforts as president, but it is clear that the board lost its way on this. Having embarked on this course of demanding a humiliating apology, you are not going to get a lesser "agreement to follow the rules in future" because you already queered the pitch (cricket). Then you went straight to the nuclear option of rating revocation (what about a letter of reprimand from the board?) and you have now lost control of the issue because USHPA is already on the case. And you have half or more of the most active members pissed off and your treasurer resigning in disgust. How's it working for ya so far?

I was here when Sparky negotiated the SNP permit and there was some nodding and winking about "a paraglider actually IS a hang-glider". I think the Hogback 4 were relying on the rangers' not knowing the difference.

As for deceit, there is a specific Constitutional protection against incriminating oneself. Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?" Driver: "Oh, no sir - I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast."

Let's talk about self-governance: we do that so that government stays off our back - but that does not mean we do the government's dirty work for them - they are still the enemy. The mission of CHGPA is to promote free flight (free!) in our area, with special interest in site/landowner relations and nurturing new pilots. We are NOT a law enforcement organization. The moral equilibrium of the universe will NOT be disturbed if pilots who flew where they weren't supposed to are not publicly humiliated, banned from local sites or have their ratings revoked - especially after they paid fines and had to pay an expensive lawyer and incurred the risk of deportation. Does anyone seriously imagine that either Tom or Laszlo will ever in a million years violate the SNP permit again? So what is the purpose of this "undertaking to obey protocol" other than to satisfy some emotional need for vengeance for - what? Loss of a flying site that didn't in fact occur? Rating revocation is way over the top for the magnitude of the crime.

So here are our choices: try to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube and call off the dogs at USHPA (that means the club has to advocate FOR the pilots and against the clanking machinery of USHPA now been set in motion) - or see the club split, with endless conflict.

Maybe we should have an emergency meeting about this.

- Hugh

[dbodner]

I don't know all of the facts, but I know enough to that this has been a complicated situation involving conflicting needs and desires. I doubt there was ever an obvious and exclusively right answer for the BOD in recent weeks or in the near future. Reasonable people can--and have--come to different conclusions. But, please realize that the messy world we live in dictates that just because you're right doesn't mean the other guy is wrong. Or that your right answer is the only right answer.

Regardless of whether you think the BOD is on the wrong path, this should not be an apocalyptic issue. Two people are being affected here, not an entire class of pilots. An anti-PG or anti-HG rule might be reasonable cause to leave the club. This isn't that. Splitting the club is a nuclear option that will have more negative consequences than anything the two pilots or several BOD members have done. So let's please not escalate this more than it deserves.

[mcelrah]

Thank you , Dave. Yes, we seriously need to de-escalate. I am not threatening to split the club; rather I am reporting that a number of pilots are considering leaving the club over this. If only because of the HG-only designation of the site, this has become an HG vs PG issue. Wrongfully referring the two leading pilots of the PG community for rating revocation - a punishment out of all proportion to the crime - is an egregious provocation to the PG community (what did the board think was going to happen?!). We can have the emergency meeting at my house (no broken furniture please - and don't anyone tell Matthew - or me! - to shut up!). - Hugh

[sailin]

Jon,

I will call you. I thank you for your efforts as president, but it is clear that the board lost its way on this. Having embarked on this course of demanding a humiliating apology, you are not going to get a lesser "agreement to follow the rules in future" because you already queered the pitch (cricket). Then you went straight to the nuclear option of rating revocation (what about a letter of reprimand from the board?) and you have now lost control of the issue because USHPA is already on the case. And you have half or more of the most active members pissed off and your treasurer resigning in disgust. How's it working for ya so far?

I was here when Sparky negotiated the SNP permit and there was some nodding and winking about "a paraglider actually IS a hang-glider". I think the Hogback 4 were relying on the rangers' not knowing the difference.

As for deceit, there is a specific Constitutional protection against incriminating oneself. Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?" Driver: "Oh, no sir - I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast."

Let's talk about self-governance: we do that so that government stays off our back - but that does not mean we do the government's dirty work for them - they are still the enemy. The mission of CHGPA is to promote free flight (free!) in our area, with special interest in site/landowner relations and nurturing new pilots. We are NOT a law enforcement organization. The moral equilibrium of the universe will NOT be disturbed if pilots who flew where they weren't supposed to are not publicly humiliated, banned from local sites or have their ratings revoked - especially after they paid fines and had to pay an expensive lawyer and incurred the risk of deportation. Does anyone seriously imagine that either Tom or Laszlo will ever in a million years violate the SNP permit again? So what is the purpose of this "undertaking to obey protocol" other than to satisfy some emotional need for vengeance for - what? Loss of a flying site that didn't in fact occur? Rating revocation is way over the top for the magnitude of the crime.

So here are our choices: try to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube and call off the dogs at USHPA (that means the club has to advocate FOR the pilots and against the clanking machinery of USHPA now been set in motion) - or see the club split, with endless conflict.

Maybe we should have an emergency meeting about this.

- Hugh

A couple more points of clarification and some more facts.



From Hugh-“Then you went straight to the nuclear option of rating revocation (what about a letter of reprimand from the board?) and you have now lost control of the issue because USHPA is already on the case.”

The BOD contacted USHPA as soon as we were notified about this Hogback Incident in August to look for guidance on how to proceed. USHPA (our Regional Director to be more specific) contacted me in November and asked for an update on the situation and informed me that the “USHPA Main Office” was watching this situation and would like updates. I provided him an update. I was asked by USHPA to provide another update at the conclusion of the court case to which I did.
After the two Pilots decided they would not agree to our request for written apologies (we reached out again after the January 1st deadline with the same result), I again updated USHPA and asked for their guidance and insight on how to proceed. To this date (and I offer no guarantees for the future) I, nor anyone else on the CHGPA BOD, have asked for any specific rating and/or appointment revocations ……just for guidance and insight. USHPA was “already on the case” from the get go. Surely you cannot expect that 4 pilots receiving misdameanor citations for a Special Use Permit violation in a National Park would not be on USHPAs radar and have them concerned???

From Hugh-“Let's talk about self-governance: we do that so that government stays off our back - but that does not mean we do the government's dirty work for them - they are still the enemy.”

USHPA is not the enemy????? They have vested much into securing and protecting our flying sites and community.

From Hugh-“I was here when Sparky negotiated the SNP permit and there was some nodding and winking about "a paraglider actually IS a hang-glider". I think the Hogback 4 were relying on the rangers' not knowing the difference.”

Please see the below email thread from 2008 that CLEARLY defines Hogback as NOT a PG site. When you are done reading the below email thread, please log onto the club forum and look at the thread titled “Site Regs” from BOTH July 12, 2008 AND September 22, 2008. They both clearly state that Hogback is NOT a PG site. Here is an excerpt from the post for those that can’t find the threads:

“There is no permission AT ALL to fly paragliders at Hogback.

Failure to comply with site regs may cause forfeiture of flying privileges at the site, fines and/or confiscation of equipment.”

When you are done reading the email thread from 2008, the forum posts from July 12, 2008 and Sept 22, 2008, then please check out the Shenandoah National Park Special Use Permit that specifically excludes Paragliding at Hogback and Millers Head. This is the same paperwork that EVERY pilot receiving a Shenandoah National Park Special Use Permit has to sign and fill out EVERY year prior to being permitted to flying in the Park. Then, when you are done reading the email thread from 2008, the forum posts from July 12, 2008 and September 22, 2008, and done checking out the actual Shenandoah Special Use Permit Application, then please refer to our CHGPA “Mid Atlantic Site Guide for Hang Gliding and Paragliding”. This was the September 2009 version (updated 11/18/2008).This is also our current version of the site guide. Turn to the page on Hogback and read the site protocols. Here is what it says about paragliding at Hogback.

“Paragliders: Per Special Use Permit application, this site is NOT APPROVED for paragliding.”


Below is the 2008 email thread talking about NO PG flying from Hogback from the individual that updated the Special Use Permit to include Paragliding at Dickey’s but still EXCLUDING Paragliding at Hogback and Millers Head.

******

Thanks Sparky. This is good lore to know.
Warm regards!
Charlie


From: Allen Sparks [mailto:allensparks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:25 AM
To: 'Matthew Graham'; 'CHGPA BOD Plus'; 'Pink Albatross'; Givans Family
Cc: 'Broxterman.Daniel'
Subject: RE: [CHGPA BOD-Plus] Skyline Drive Sites

Hogback is not supposed to be a PG site. Neither is Millerhead. That decision was based on discussions with Dixon, and the criterion that there must be an approved LZ within 4:1 of the launch.

--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Givans Family <cgivans@cox.net> wrote:

From: Givans Family <cgivans@cox.net>
Subject: RE: [CHGPA BOD-Plus] Skyline Drive Sites
To: "'Matthew Graham'" <adventuretales@hotmail.com>, "'CHGPA BOD Plus'" <bodplus@chgpa.org>, "'Pink Albatross'" <pink.albatross@gmail.com>
Cc: allensparks@yahoo.com, "'Broxterman.Daniel'" <daniel.broxterman@suntrust.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 9:46 PM

It would be nice to have a little more clarification on all three of the National Park sites, especially with regard to the LZs, to keep us and the club in good spirits with the Rangers.
For Dickey's I've been told that the primary LZ described in the Site Guide is no longer the primary - another one down the road is. I tried to rendezvous with folks at the LZ once and we never met up because of this uncertainty. I caught up with folks at launch, and my error was pointed out to me.
For Hogback, I flew with a gaggle of PG'ers one day, and we all landed in the agreed upon spot, pointed out to me at launch. However, when we landed, someone driving by stopped and pointed out that the land owner did not want us landing on his property (and that the owner is a lawyer -- perhaps that's the problem). Our Site Guide says about the LZ - "Ask someone who knows." So I've asked, and have been told that we really don't have an approved LZ for Hogback. But folks are still flying there. Interestingly, I noticed that my 2006 permit listed Hogback as one of our sites, but my 2007 permit left it off, and then it returned again on my 2008 permit.
Miller's Head is crossed off on my Site Guide map, but the description is still there. The Site Guide description says that a map to the LZs comes with our permit, but all I got map wise is a relief map of the site with no specific directions. Can PGs fly there? Is it worth it to try?
My general observation since I joined the sport and our club three years ago is that there appears to be a difference in attitude relative to the rules between HGs and PGs. The PGs seem to be more relaxed about stuff. I suspect it's the same attitude that the HGs had years ago before they got burned a few times (and got older and wiser). I'm generally a "follow the rules" kind of guy -- but I often have trouble discerning exactly what the rules are -- a lot of it appears to be up to interpretation. So do you take an extremely conservative stand, and not fly, or take a very liberal stand, and fly where you want. I know the answer is somewhere in the middle, but the crowd I usually fly with (the PGs) are the "liberal rule" folks, so I can end up breaking rules when I've been led to believe that what I'm doing is OK (such as the Hogback example above).

Charlie




Below is a screen shot of the Shenandoah National Park Special Use Permit for Hang Gliding and Paragliding. You can also find the original here: http://chgpa.org/Waivers/snp.permit.doc

[img][/Users/jonithanbrantley/Desktop/NPS Special Use Permit Application.png/img]





Hugh,

If there are, as you say, “half or more of the most active members pissed off” and considering leaving the club , then please help me at least get them the facts. I would hate to see anyone split from or leave this group, we are already a small enough community as it is. BUT if they do decide to leave, then please at least help me make sure they have the FACTS so they can make informed decisions.

In addition to that, if anybody in this club is upset and pissed off, and thinking about leaving or splitting off, then please call me and talk with me. I would be happy to talk with you and answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Thanks,
Jon

[mcelrah]

Jon,

You are doing a great (and thankless) job! Yes, I already read the material you sent and I am a SNP permit holder so I know that Hogback is clearly indicated as PG-only. I don't excuse the actions of the Hogback 4, but on the scale from jaywalking to murder this is more like driving in an HOV lane. They got caught, paid the price and it needs to end. I will go back and review my recent remarks and apologize in detail where I have unduly criticized the board, but I want to get this on the forum quick: Matthew has given me to understand that the board was wrong-footed when the quid-pro-quo of apology for letter to the judge - fell apart. So the board thought they had a deal and then was surprised. It's not important anymore who is at fault (surely the 4); we need to forget about all that and go in full damage control mode. A manifestly unjust rating revocation of the two leading PG pilots in this club would be an unrecoverable disaster, destroying unity in the club forever. Although I already made my case to Luis Amunategui, I will reiterate it to him, to Martin Palmaz and to Larry Dennis. I am just a pilot member and have no special status other than knowing some of the USHPA people. Others should make their views known to the Regional Directors and to USHPA HQ - we need to make them wish they never heard of Hogback. I think we need to come up with a club document that all can support - telling USHPA what we recommend. I understand the concern about losing sites - which did not happen, thankfully (yes, it could have been worse) - but now we stand to lose our club and community.

- Hugh

[sailin]

This will be the final update on the Hogback situation.


On January 16th, 2014, your Board of Directors (with the exception of Carlos and Bacil) had a conference call with each other. We decided collectively, to extend another opportunity and request to Tom and Laszlo. We all endorsed a plan to call them and explain that if they did not want to write an apology letter to the CHGPA Membership and Region 9 free flight community, then we would accept that, but we would request of them to write a pledge stating that they would follow site protocols in the future. We also collectively agreed that if these pilots would not do this, that we would follow up with a recommendation to the CHGPA membership to take disciplinary action against these pilots at the club level. Our collective recommendation to the CHGPA membership was going to be to suspend Tom and Laszlo from CHGPA membership for a period of time no shorter than 6 months and no longer than 12 months. They would be allowed to re-apply for CHGPA membership without prejudice at the conclusion of their suspension. Pursuant to our bylaws this would ONLY BE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CHGPA MEMBERSHIP, and for it to be put into effect, the CHGPA membership present at an announced meeting, would have to agree to the recommendation with a favorable majority (two-thirds) vote.
On January 18, 2014, a member of the Board of Directors personally contacted both Tom and Laszlo. We extended an offer to remove the BOD request for an apology letter, and in its place offer a request for them to please construct a pledge stating that they would follow site protocols in the future. Tom and Laszlo both immediately refused again.

On January 19th, 2014, I was informed by one of the members of the Board of Directors that they no longer wanted to pursue a recommendation to the CHGPA membership for consideration of disciplinary action against these pilots. With the change of heart of one BOD member several days earlier, and now this BOD member having a change of heart, there was now, no real consensus among the BOD to make a recommendation to the CHGPA membership to consider disciplinary action against these Pilots.

This failure to reach a consensus concludes any further CHGPA Board of Directors (current BOD) sponsored recommendation to the CHGPA membership for disciplinary action against Tom and Laszlo relating to the Hogback Incident. On behalf of your Board of Directors, I would like to offer our sincerest apology for not being able to reach a consensus on how best to proceed.

For those of you unfamiliar, or only partially familiar,………or even those of you who are completely familiar, with the ACTUAL events of this situation, I encourage you to read and re-read through ALL of the posts in this thread. Try to remove from your mind the types wings we fly and the specific people involved. Instead, focus on what you believe to be the priorities and responsibilities of our Club and our community, and how we can ensure that we are always trying to put our best foot forward. Through out this event, I have been honest and transparent with you. I have tried to provide you with all the facts, in a timely manner, so you can make informed decisions of your own and informed opinions of your own. Please allow the events of these past months and the discussions that have ensued, to recommit us as a community to value our sites like the true treasures they are.

Thanks,
Jon

[mingram]

The board was trying to keep pilots accountable for their actions. I supported a consensus to do that because I believed it would make us a stronger club. This was a nuanced situation that can be seen from different angles (in my opinion) and I think I got off track along the way, but I still believe in the idea of accountability. Jon is a stand up guy trying to spread that idea and he has my support. I thank him for his efforts. He's been completely truthful and supportive throughout this entire process. The BOD did not ask USHPA for rating revocations nor did they ask USHPA to suspend membership of these pilots. We kept USHPA informed of the situation and tried to handle the matter ourselves.

It is important that we're all aware of site protocols and landowner's needs to prevent issues from recurring. One incident in particular I'm reminded of involved a parking incident at Daniels last year and went unreported and recurred a few month later by a visiting pilot who didn't know the protocol. We need pilots to self-report incidents when they happen. There is also a need for up-to-date information in our site guide. Bill's Hill now requires us to notify rangers before we go. Perhaps a more fluid, living document would help us add information about new landowners and add new protocols as they develop.

I'm disappointed with the way this situation turned out, but I really feel like we have been making progress at communicating better recently and that I've grown from the experience. I ask that we all continue to work hard to try to understand each others viewpoints.

[mcelrah]

Jon and Matt (and the rest of the board): thank you for your efforts in general and on this issue. You may not feel like it right now, but CHGPA is actually in better shape than, for instance, when I was president. I don't see much value in forced apologies or promises to "be good" - nor do I think there is much likelihood that Tom or Laszlo will color outside the lines again. (I hate to bring it up, but there were two other offenders that day - where's the justice in not demanding statements from them as well - which I do NOT recommend!) A vocal minority complained to USHPA first and has been tieing us in knots. (I would propose a letter of censure against *them*, but my larger case is for us to avoid killing ourselves over symbols.). As you may know, Dan T. Has written to USHPA asking them to halt any action against these pilots and I have echoed it. I think CHGPA needs to go on record in support also. May we convene a meeting soon to hash this out? - Hugh

[mingram]

The other two pilots involved agreed to cooperate with the BOD's requests (whether right or wrong). Tom and Laszlo had the ability to help resolve this disagreement within the CHGPA weeks ago, but refused. I believe these two pilots have their heart in the right place in the conversations I've had with them personally. Maybe the BOD didn't clearly explain the reasoning behind our actions and perhaps we had a communication breakdown that escalated the matter, but it's largely out of the BOD's hands. Regional and Executive Directors at USHPA saw these pilots actions as flippant and decided to take their own action. Individuals will have to make their voices heard to USHPA directors.

I have flown Hogback as well because I thought at the time that it was permissible. I admit that mistake and don't plan to repeat it and intend to ensure other pilots don't make the same mistakes. We've historically had a less than 100% compliance following Special Use Permit rules at Dickey's as well and I will do my best to make sure that doesn't continue. I support opening up Dickey's to P2 with the proper skills signoffs because I feel experienced P2s have the necessary skills to fly that site under the supervision of observers. It would help prevent P2s from wanting to risk violating special use permits. But absent a consensus to change that rule I will help enforce the current rules.

[theflyingdude]

The CHGPA BOD's intended actions and expectations were both just and reasonable. There was nothing nuanced about the situation. The pilots in question chose the disregard the site protocols set up with the NPS for Hogback (and not for the first time). They got caught and then one them lied to the park ranger when asked whether they had flown the site. They were subsequently arrested and went court where three of the four pilots were apparently adjudged as being guilty and paid a fine. Two of the four pilots responded to the BOD's request for some type of acknowledgement that what they did was wrong. That was the end of it for them, but Tom and Lazslo who are probably the parties most responsible for this whole mess, refused to apologize or even sign a pledge saying they wouldn't do it again. This was never about HG vs. PG. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition, Dan Tomlinson! And when I read Hugh's reference to the "dogs of the USHPA" or "we have to make them (the USHPA) regret they ever heard of Hogback" I thank my lucky stars that Larry Dennis is our new Regional Director. In his vitriol, Hugh seems to forget WE are the USHPA!! And BTW, for those that don't know, Lazslo is also apparently banned from flying Eagle Rock, the site administered by Larry Dennis, a paraglider pilot, so he's apparently an equal opportunity-offender.

I have a lot of sympathy for Jon Brantley who tried to do the right thing in the midst of a lot of controversy. He and the rest of the BOD tried to reach an accommodation to resolve this situation and gave Tom and Lazslo multiple opportunities to do the right thing. They declined and apparently some members of the BOD had second thoughts or succumbed to the pressure of a vocal minority (or didn't want to jeopardize their relationship with the offending pilots). This lack of resolve has done some harm, but I am more than a little surprised that many of the members of the club (both HG and PG) have remained largely silent on this thread, regardless of what their viewpoints might have been. I have it on pretty good authority that some in PG community agreed with BOD's actions, but were reluctant to go public for fear of recrimination. The biggest losers here are accountability and self-regulation. Free-flight doesn't mean anything goes and you can do whatever you want, but that's apparently the message that's being sent. I hope freedom doesn't end up meaning we have nothing left to lose (with all apologies to Kris Kristofferson).

I do agree with Hugh on one point, "Others should make their views known to the Regional Directors and to USHPA HQ" as they won't be constrained by local politics or rants of impending doom.

JR

[deveil]

All of that… and they're still willing to serve again for another year. Talk about stand-up guys.

[RichH]

I couldn't have said it better Jim..I've stayed off the forum because I didn't want to make this a two person debate issue..This is about protecting the sites that many of us enjoy..I do not for one minute enjoy any of this ..but feel its our responsibility to act in a lawful manner and its all of our responsibility to participate in self regulation. Jon has gone way out of his way to try his best to direct our flying community in the right direction. I have nothing but high praise and admiration for him but its unfortunate that other BOD members lacked the same fortitude. This is not about who can rant the longest or throw unfounded accusations.. Its about taking our place as a lawful members of the flying community and being respected by the directors who give us the ability to enjoy the right to fly from public lands..

[brianvh]

I admittedly have no real place here, but it occurs to me that the lesson learned is not to demand an apology (or put a request in such a way that it comes out as a demand), but to point out that the actions done have upset a lot of pilots, and it is in the offending party's best interest to post a mea culpa to smooth over future relations. This would have felt less humiliating and perhaps gotten a response.

I think the BOD did a good job, and without the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure I would have done better. Things could have gone better: I think this experience will help guide future protocols.

There definitely is a point where bans and revocations are in order. The board rightfully did not consider it in this particular incident, but if there is a repeated pattern then you gotta do what you gotta do. Mentioning "don't do this kind of thing again or we might have to do something we'll all regret" is an appropriate warning.

[brianvh]

I admittedly have no real place here, but it occurs to me that the lesson learned is not to demand an apology (or put a request in such a way that it comes out as a demand), but to point out that the actions done have upset a lot of pilots, and it is in the offending party's best interest to post a mea culpa to smooth over future relations. This would have felt less humiliating and perhaps gotten a response.

I think the BOD did a good job, and without the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure I would have done better. Things could have gone better: I think this experience will help guide future protocols. Should such a guide be written?

There definitely is a point where bans and revocations are in order. The board rightfully did not consider it in this particular incident, but if there is a repeated pattern then you gotta do what you gotta do. Mentioning "don't do this kind of thing again or we might have to do something we'll all regret" is an appropriate warning.

[RichH]

Brian.first of all I apprrciate your comments..but are you awear that both of these pilots have had prior issues? That one of the pilots in question is not even welcome at several sites in our region. At what point do you take some sort of action. As a former BOD member of chgpa myself I recognize its a tough job..I respect the time and effort they put in but they are there to help protect our sites. Not taking any action is simply caving in to peer pressure.

[brianvh]

If it's a repeated pattern (or a site is under imminent threat) then of course action must be taken. I didn't mean to imply anything else. What really seems to be the sticking point is the apology - I think there's some things to be learned about how or even if to get an apology, and again, as a former board member myself I have no illusions that I would have handled it perfectly. The BOD did a good job under trying circumstances and some of the unfortunate ramifications are things to learn from, not something to lose time getting upset about.

[mcelrah]

My understanding is that there is bad blood in the Skywalker/Eagle Rock community with a local landowner who created a site and failed to win club support for his site improvements. All the Skywalkers are banned from his site and visitors are charged $100 to fly at that site (the name of it escapes me). Anyone have any clarification on that?

@ Brian: it's not up to the CHGPA board to revoke ratings, it's USHPA that's doing it on it's own (the regional director says he has directed their observer appointments be revoked; not sure he has that authority; I have asked that question…) How punishing the P2s is germane escapes me, but that's USHPA - or at least that RD...

@JR: when I said "make them wish they had never heard of Hogback", I meant so many pilots should write in support of the Hogback 2 (down from 4 - why? the others are just as guilty) that USHPA gets tired of hearing about it. Of course Rich Heigell, JR, Ward and Jon can write in favor of rating revocation, but I don't think it's going to be very close in terms of numbers…

OK, guys, you asked for it, you got it. This is war. It's bad for the club, bad for pilots, bad for USHPA. Here we go...

- Hugh

[XCanytime]

The site is Big Walker and it's the Skywackers, not (Luke) Skywalker.

[mcelrah]

It is exhausting combating the repeated lies being posted here: Laszlo has never been to Eagle Rock - don't know why they would ban him. Nor is he unwelcome at multiple sites. Nor are he and Tom serial offenders. - Hugh

[pvanoevelen]

Quick greetings from Thailand where I am enjoying some great flying with Pete Humes. Reading the posts on this matter does sadden me but what strikes me most is that it seems that we do not have any protocols in place on how to deal with these situations. I can go into detail but I am no lawyer and have no desire to write anything provocative. Anyway it is something that should be established to deal with in future situations regarding our rules of conduct, violations etc.. I have expressed my opinions directly to the pilots involved and I certainly feel it is in anyones interest to let this rest. Pushing this further serves no purpose but to agonise parts of our community more.
I have flown many times with the pilots in question and would love to be able to continue to do so. If I do not like certain behaviour of pilots I (and many of my fellow observers and pilots) will call it out, and be nice, explanatory. I do not recall an incident where anyone did not respond in a positive way. - Peter vO