CHGPA Board meeting agenda request

[mingram]

Good idea. I'm game to do it before the Spring meeting like next week or the week after perhaps on a Wednesday or Thursday evening. I see this as more of a PG focused meeting but we could try to combine with HG if you want. Any suggestions on time, place, agenda?

[sailin]

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.

My operating procedure is to let P2s who I know are familiar with a site fly it without direct supervision by an observer. That goes against the strict interpretation of the site rules, but it works. If people are ok with my interpretation of the rules, then I agree there's no problem.

This is very discouraging to say the least. Seems kind of silly to be discussing what the site protocols could be or should be, when the mindset appears to be that they won't be followed anyway.

Jon

[mingram]

I'm making my views public for discussion. I'm willing to follow the rules in the future but would like to have the debate.

[pvanoevelen]

I think I got misread here completely.
There is a big difference between site ratings and flyable days (or times).
On strong gusty days even kiting on a beach can be very dangerous.
So we need to seperate the discussion between: 1) is a site flyable by a P2 and 2) are the conditions (weather in particular) suitable to fly for that P2.
The latter in my view is not related to site rating.
I certainly agree that the sites can and probably should have different ratings when it comes to PG vs HG. I can see that there are completely different aspect to consider (and the ability to abort a launch I agree is a big one).

I am also not denying that launch site characteristics should not be considered. But the first thing is, can one land safely (within glide and visible) and is it suitable for a P2. Secondly is the launch such that allows for abortion and is there some room for error. The less room for error the higher the site rating.
Site "ratings" (as I said before even kiting on a wide beach in the wrong circumstances can be disastrous) should not be linked to weather at all. Site introductions should indeed go over the local weather effects, Venturi, rotor in certain wind directions etc.
As is already pointed out we have been using the observer system incorrectly. An observer is not a safety precaution and hence Matt's statement basically seconds Dan suggestion to change the rule to current practice and let the observer statues be what it should be according to USHPA!
If we want newer pilots to be mentored for a number of flights per site and then 'signed off" to fly without supervision that could be an observers role but we have not really implemented that way.

I like the suggestion of Matthew, I do think we need more face to face discussions to go over these things.

Once every so many years it is good to question current practice and have a honest discussion about these matters. I have read a lot of interesting and profound arguments as well as interpretations that I personally see differently. Ultimately it is for us as a flying community to come to a consensus with which we all can live and that is within the USHPA guidelines (SOPs etc) as well as legally (think FAA but also liability) sound.

Thanks guys, I think one thing we clearly all agree on is that we want our new p2 to fly as much as we can and as safe as possible.

Cheers Peter

[pvanoevelen]

Regarding meeting I am all for it and the We or Th before the Spring meeting sounds good to me. I would like to have both HG and PG there as there are some significant differences and that is not entirely reflected in the old site guide and certainly not in the new one under development.

I am still in Europe and back mid this week.

Cheers Peter

[eggzkitz]

I heartily agree with Dan and Peter:

Again (I'm already on record with this), I don't believe that the observer system can or should be utilized to adjust site ratings.

Nowhere in SOP 12-05.04 is this practice mentioned. Observers are meant to function in the achieving and establishment of ratings, period.

The "P2 with observer" system confuses and conflates two distinct aspects of flying: judgement and skill. The p-rating speaks to the pilot skill required to fly the site. The observer speaks ostensibly to an evaluation of conditions. Those are different things.

The observer can only realistically advise a less experienced pilot before launch and on whether to launch. This generally has little to do with the site rating, which is (generally) driven by the skills deemed necessary to fly that site, not the judgment of whether to launch the site. Having an observer present on launch does NOTHING to imbue the less experienced pilot with greater skill. Once they launch, they're still a P2 pilot, and if the site demands P3 skills, having an observer on launch does nothing to change that dynamic.

Site ratings should be determined by characteristics intrinsic to the site (objective risk), and not the possibility of adverse conditions (subjective risk). The possibility for wind to ramp up shouldn't result in a higher rating. By that logic, the Monterey sand dunes would be P3. Events (comps) can warrant a higher site/event rating due to the temporary additional subjective risk introduced by many pilots in the same airspace. Torrey is like this, but all the time. If it wasn't so crowded, it would be a P2 site.

Even if the "P2 with observer" system were accepted, the observer can only counsel on conditions and impact the decision to launch. Requirements to keep the pilot in visible sight and maintain comms are unreasonable and ineffective, and sound more like "under instruction" requirements. Observing the P2 in flight as a way of determining readiness to advance to P3 makes sense. Observing the P2 as a condition for them to continue to fly the site after launch, with the idea that the observer on the ground somehow makes it safer for them to fly the site, doesn't make sense to me. Does the observer on the ground have some responsibility to tell the P2 when to turn on base early, when to apply speed bar and big ears, how to recover from collapses, and when to throw the reserve? Does the P2 have an obligation to heed their direction?

Thus my view is that a "P2 with observer" site -- in our CHGPA context -- is one that has the objective risks of a P2 site, with some subjective risks that warrant the new or visiting P2 to seek local experienced counsel to become familiar with the subjective risks. In other words, this "P2 with observer" issue might be addressed with site guides or sponsorship, which are reasonable ways to improve safety and mitigate risk for visiting or new pilots (as Matt points out is done in other P3 locations, like Lookout and Torrey). It shouldn't be the case that a P2 should still need an observer present to fly Woodstock for the 20th time. By the 20th time, they understand the peculiar local risks that Woodstock is capable of. A sponsor, mentor, or site guide system would better accommodate this.

Despite all this, I'll heed Hugh's calling out and become an observer this year, but I think we need more mentors and sponsors, not more observers.

[dbodner]

Let's muddy the waters further.

I'll leave aside the question of whether Novices (H/P2s) ought to be allowed to fly our sites unfettered. Assuming there ought to be some permission granted before a Novice flies, is the Observer the correct source of that permission? The purpose of the Observer, according to USHPA, is to determine whether the Novice has achieved the knowledge and skills required to advance to an Intermediate (H/P3). That's a weighty decision, and USHPA has determined that the person making that decision be appointed by an Examiner.

However, we have a history of using Observers for the more mundane task of regulating flying by Novices. Perhaps that's overkill, and that function could be fulfilled by others.

[theflyingdude]

As I said in a previous post, flying sites don't exist in a vacuum. To suggest a site rating is an objective measure, but the weather conditions on a given day is a subjective measure seems to be an idea divorced from reality. For all practical purposes, Woodstock on NW 5 - 10 mph day may very we'll be a H2/P2 site, but the same site on a WSW 30 - 40 mph day might be a H6/P7 day. That's an extreme example, but there are several shades of grey in between. Pilots with enough knowledge and experience would hopefully have the wisdom needed to make smart decisions and/or the flying skills to survive when they didn't make the right decisions. Many novice-rated pilots don't yet have the data points to make informed choices.

While Observers "official" function is to observe flying skills and completed tasks, like spot-landings, and to give the Intermediate and Advanced written tests, in actual practice we also function as Site Guidance Counslers and Mentors to the novice pilots. It's a difference without a distinction. I might also suggest that if P2/H2 pilots have dozens and dozens of mountain flights from a given site, then it's highly likely they would have the skills and needed 20 hours to qualify for an Intermediate-rating, assuming they meet the other requirements. All of us who have survived Intermediate Syndrome, know that there's nothing suddenly magical or Solomon-like about getting your H3/P3, but the presumption is that you then have enough background and experience to determine the conditions for yourself and make your own informed decision to launch.

JR

[sailin]

I don't think the statements about us "not using the observer correctly" are exactly right. As with most things there seems to be some shades of gray.

This is from the USHPA SOPs- these lists are not complete

"USHPA Basic Safety Requirements page 1 of 3"

12-01.02 Operations
A. Site Operational Rules and Standards - At flying sites where hang gliding, paragliding, and miniwing
operations are regulated under the USHPA Pilot Proficiency Program, (USHPA SOP 12-02),
pilot proficiency requirements and operating rules and procedures will be specified by the USHPA
Instructor, Observer or Examiner or other officials responsible for regulating use of the site. At
sites where the use is by agreement with a city, county, state or federal agency, certain such
rules and procedures may carry the force of law.

"Pilot Proficiency page 8 - Hang 2 section"

C. Recommended Operating Limitations for Novice Pilots
1. Should exceed these limitations only after thoroughly mastering all required tasks, and
after acquiring a full understanding of the potential problems and dangers involved in
exceeding these limitations.
2. It is highly recommended that all flights be made under the direct supervision of a
USHPA Certified Basic or Advanced Instructor or Observer.

"Pilot Proficiency page 27 - Para 2 section"

C. Recommended Operating Limitations for Novice Paragliding Pilots
1. Should exceed these limitations only after thoroughly mastering all required tasks, and
after acquiring a full understanding of the potential problems and dangers involved in
exceeding these limitations.
2. Maximum base wind of 12 MPH
3. Maximum peak gusts to 15 MPH
4. Maximum gust rate of 5 MPH in 5 seconds.
5. Should not fly in thermal lift where peak climb rates exceed 200 fpm.
6. If foot launching, should launch only on slopes steeper than 4:1, where the wind is within
25º of being straight up the slope.


As you can see, and very interestingly, it includes the language about an observer in the H2 section but NOT the P2 section. Is this intentional or an editing error. Is it supposed to be included in the P2 section or removed from the H2 section? I haven't a clue.

Another interesting thing that comes to mind is the discussion about weather or 'site conditions' not having an impact of the site rating. The USHPA operating guidelines spend quite a bit of ink talking about conditions. If the climb rates exceeds 200fpm or the base wind is over 12mph then it is no longer P2 conditions and only P3 or greater can fly that site. In the morning or evening on the same day, a P2 could fly that site. Seems kind of like splitting hairs to say that weather and conditions don't affect a site rating versus making a site not flyable by a certain rating at that time. Can, and more importantly do, H2/P2 have the knowledge and experience to figure out when the day is building into something that will be too much for them or when the day is mellowing into something that will be much better. As an observer that is one of the things that I focus on with someone I am observing. It has been my experience from my own early days, and also with the pilots that I have observed, that this evaluation of the day is far from being available in their tool box.

Either way, I think it is obvious for all of us that have flown for a little bit, that an H2/P2 that comes fresh out of school (or even ones that have been stagnant in that rating for a long period of time) show up to the mountain with much more eagerness to fly, then knowledge or experience of how to do so safely. And who can blame them? Aviation is unforgiving and it is "our" job to look out for our "newer" (and in some cases older) brothers and sisters until they can become safe independent pilots themselves. That doesn't happen overnight or after one flight. Who is "our" ?? Well I guess that is up for debate, but I don't think it is realistic or prudent to hand someone a H2/P2 card and then cut them loose to fend for themselves on all but the simplest, most benign of sites and conditions. I also don't believe a one time site intro and sign off is sufficient to keep these pilots safe and progressing in a "set them up for success" kind of way. The allure of soaring and and being up there with everyone else has lead most of us astray at one time or another, and no one is more susceptible to that that the H2/P2. In a lot of cases, they don't know what they don't know. In the end, it is about keeping the pilots safe and as an extension of that, the sites protected as well. Am I stuck to the idea of an observer being the only one that can function in this role? No. But I do think it needs to be someone that has signed up or been recruited and been accepted into this function. It is an important one with a very realistic need. I am not for delaying or road blocking people flying. But in our time of "I want it and I want it now" and with the inherent lack of knowledge/experience, there must be some measure or system in place to ensure that the balance gets moved in the favor of pilot safety and site preservation.

I think there is much room in our USHPA instructional programs to help fill the gap as well...but that is more than I have time to type about right now

This is a great discussion. As long as we keep the safety of the pilots in the fore-front, then I think we can hardly go wrong.

thanks,
Jon

[theflyingdude]

Someone mentioned Lookout Mountain near Denver, Colorado as a site where the club has instituted a program utilizing "sponsors" to provide site guidance for the local H2/P2's and for visiting pilots. Note that they still require the presence of an Instructor or Observer for local H2/P2's for the first flight and Sponsors for a minimum of 10 flights. They also don't permit visiting H2/P2 pilots to fly at all. Here's a link to their webpage that lists the requirements and contains two very good video presentations for low-time pilots and pilots new to the site.

http://rmhpa.org/site_guide/lookout/

JR

[mingram]

Lookout is the model I'd like to align with. I have a contact there and will reach out for feedback to see how it works in practice.

[dbodner]

Lookout is the model I'd like to align with. I have a contact there and will reach out for feedback to see how it works in practice.

Allen Sparks is listed as one of the Sponsors. He's biwingual, and he's certainly very familiar with our sites. I would think his recommendation should carry a lot of weight.

[Dan T]

This continues to be an excellent discussion and Jon's recent post makes a compelling case arguing that our existing are not only prudent but are also consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the USHPA SOPs. For myself, I've reached the conclusion that the safety of our Novice pilots trumps the procedural legitimacy of the point that "with observer" should not be a condition of a site rating. We've been very successful at protecting our Novice pilots from harming themselves over the years with this system. In spite of my earlier position I think we should leave the current practice in place.

For those of you who don't already know, our USHPA President, Rich Haas, has weighed in on the matter. He has instructed our PG examiner not to accept the request for a clearly qualified observer applicant until after the USHPA has had an opportunity to address the topic of "with observer" at the upcoming USHPA Board of Director's meeting. Mr. Hass has declared that he believes that using "with observer" to qualify a site rating is an inappropriate use of observers. He sites essentially the same reasons as the ones I did in my initial perspective on the matter. While I can see the merits to this perspective I do not see how it justifies his action to single out this individual. The observer applicant had nothing to do with site ratings debate.

Dan

[pvanoevelen]

I still am with Matt/Jeff that I like our current practice improved. We do not need official USHPA observers as mentors/sponsors. Using observer for that tasks works but not strictly according USHPA regulations. Somewhere we need to align the -official- protocols with our current practice. It might be a matter of semantics but that got us into trouble previously as well.

The decision not to grant a qualified individual as an observer is curious to say the least but lets see what comes out of the USHPA board meeting.

[eggzkitz]

To suggest a site rating is an objective measure, but the weather conditions on a given day is a subjective measure seems to be an idea divorced from reality. For all practical purposes, Woodstock on NW 5 - 10 mph day may very we'll be a H2/P2 site, but the same site on a WSW 30 - 40 mph day might be a H6/P7 day. That's an extreme example, but there are several shades of grey in between. Pilots with enough knowledge and experience would hopefully have the wisdom needed to make smart decisions and/or the flying skills to survive when they didn't make the right decisions. Many novice-rated pilots don't yet have the data points to make informed choices.

I agree that non-physical conditions typical to a site should factor into the rating, and they often do. But I would include those "average characteristics" in features intrinsic to the site. I don't think it helps the understanding of a site rating to suggest that any given site could be H2/P2 with light winds and H6/P7 with gale force winds. We don't adjust site ratings by the time of day, hour, or season. They are meant to capture representative conditions, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding. Lightning and thunderstorms can occur at the "easiest" of our sites, and we don't then suggest those sites should be H5/P5.

Moreover, if the potential for changing site conditions were the driving factor of this policy, the site rating shouldn't matter at all because anything is always possible, thus ANY novice would ALWAYS require an observer coaching them whenever and wherever they fly. But if that were the case/theory, the P2/H2 would cease to be a novice rating, as they would effectively still be under competent supervision at all times. P3/H3 would be the new P2/H2. But this is not the system. A novice pilot is meant to be rated as competent to fly in certain PLACES utilizing their own skill and judgment. The fact that they might face outlying conditions in the places they are rated to fly is somehow already factored into their novice rating, which includes recognition and evaluation of such adverse circumstances.

The point remains -- if a site is P3/H3, it is ostensibly because that site has characteristics (whether physical attributes or typical atmospheric conditions) that generally demand P3/H3 skills. If a P2/H2 can safely fly there in the presence of an observer, who supplants their judgment with his/her own but does nothing to enhance the pilot's skills, it raises the question of whether that site might be more appropriated rated as P2/H2. None of that changes whether site briefings, sponsorship, mentorship, or whatever you want to call it is a good, smart thing to help novice pilots. But the "P2 with observer" system puts that burden on the observer, when it should belong with the pilot.

Much of the debate on this focuses around local conditions... but observer "ratings" are not site specific. What if I were the P3 observer for a P2 at a site where I had little actual experience?

Moreover, observers are formally accredited, which seems to convey too much formality for what is really meant to be an informal mentoring of novice pilots. For instance, what is the culpability of the observer of a novice that crashes?

Finally, this system only addresses novice pilots, and doesn't relate well to visiting pilots, who are arguably even more susceptible to many of the subjective risks (ramping up winds) that have been put forth here in defense of the status quo.

All of this is again to say that I think the concept is right, but the specific policy of implementation could be improved.

[silverwings]

I can understand why USHPA is requesting a hold appointing new observers and will start a discussion about observer's roles at the upcoming board meeting. In our region observers both hg & pg have been doing an additional function of assisting h2/p2 pilots in a mentoring/guidance capability at our sites. I think this mentoring/guidance is very valuable but if a h2/p2 pilot were to get seriously hurt or die while being mentored/guided by an observer, the observer and USHPA (by allowing this additional functionality) could be sued. A big difference between instructors and observers are that instructors must complete successfully an instructor certification process and pay a substantially larger yearly membership fee (Rogallo Member) which includes additional instructor insurance. These additional requirements for instructors might provide a level of protection to USHPA if sued in connection with someone being injured or killed under the instruction/guidance by an instructor. It will be interesting to find out what happens at the USHPA spring meeting regarding observers.

[theflyingdude]

I can understand why USHPA is requesting a hold appointing new observers and will start a discussion about observer's roles at the upcoming board meeting. In our region observers both hg & pg have been doing an additional function of assisting h2/p2 pilots in a mentoring/guidance capability at our sites. I think this mentoring/guidance is very valuable but if a h2/p2 pilot were to get seriously hurt or die while being mentored/guided by an observer, the observer and USHPA (by allowing this additional functionality) could be sued. A big difference between instructors and observers are that instructors must complete successfully an instructor certification process and pay a substantially larger yearly membership fee (Rogallo Member) which includes additional instructor insurance. These additional requirements for instructors might provide a level of protection to USHPA if sued in connection with someone being injured or killed under the instruction/guidance by an instructor. It will be interesting to find out what happens at the USHPA spring meeting regarding observers.

You might be right, John, but again, I would argue it's a distinction without a difference. The USHPA created a specific Mentor appointment a few years ago to fill that role (I'm also a "Mentor"). What would be the legal difference if someone is injured under the guidance of a Mentor vs. the guidance of an Observer? Further, every Novice-rated pilot that's a member of the USHPA has signed a waiver that was drafted by the USHPA attorney that presumably prevents pilots from suing for property damage, bodily injury, or death related to their flying activities. If there have been lawsuits along these lines, I've never heard about them.

If the USHPA changes this policy, I predict many, if not most, H2 with Observer sites will become H3/P3 sites and that will further erode the local pilot population as there will be no easy way to transition from the training hill to the mountain sites, especially if the few H2/P2- approved mountain sites are closed due to an increase in the number of accidents by inexperienced pilots flying without supervision.

JR

[SHORTCUT]

That Lookout Mtn Colorado program looks excellent. Some things that I did not see defined is what an "advanced Hang 2" is. They do define what an advanced P2 is. Interesting that only Local Novices can fly there.....not visiting Novice pilots. Visiting pilots must be H3/P3 (Intermediate)

This is the link for Crestline/Marshall (CSS) site protocol:

http://www.crestlinesoaring.org/siteProtocols

within that link are links to the "Novice Sign-off details"

Great discussion here! any more examples? (Apologies for the Paracentric information)
How about the some of most regulated ones I've found: Some crazy stuff!..Like you get a ticket if you witness but do not report a violation. How about if any mud sticks to the bottom of your shoe..and you drive on the road..you get a ticket. Regulations on the Hang Glider Rack specifications for your vehicle.

Mt Tam, San Francisco:
http://www.flyzephyr.com/tam.htm

Hat Creek:
http://www.paragliding-lessons.com/hat- ... ragliding/

Mission Peak:
http://www.wingsofrogallo.org/sites/mission/index.html

-Greg
Staunton

[SHORTCUT]

Well..I think I got a little carried away there.
Sorry Dan ! I think I'm stinkin' up your thread.

If we drop "with observer" from "H2/P2 with observer"...we will have just H2/P2. I don't think we want that.
Some have suggested we insert some other term, Like: Sponsor, or Site Guide. This is starting to sound better to me.

In some other thread, (May have been Matt Ingram), I remember that the Observer had very little information on the visiting Novice, and had concerns.
I like the Checklist that the Lookout/Colorado guys have. 1.)would help the Observer/Mentor/Site Guide/Guru....and...2.)the Novice would be motivated to check off all those boxes!

I'm still of the opinion that it's an Instructor that should be checking off boxes with the H2:
This is a rather in depth reference to what the H2s are being taught (by an instructor) in Southern California. I think the Hang2/Mountain Level information starts on Page 16.

http://windsports.com/pdf/WSTrainingManual.pdf

Fore some perspective this is the H3 Checklist that the same School Uses. You'll see an area at the bottom for Oservers' entries.

So now for some things we really do not want?:
No Helmet Stickers please. although kinda cool...its requires constant administration.
Lets not be coerced into to ratting each other out to the Ranger.

We just need to be clear, and try to narrow the gray areas...It will help avoid arguments.

-Greg
annoying you from Staunton

[SHORTCUT]

That H3 Checklist I spoke of:
http://windsports.com/pdf/H3checklist.pdf