2014 Spring Meeting (BOD ELECTIONS) Mar 28th

[markc]

Whoops, sorry, catching up on the thread.... Will post the details publicly soon....

[Dan T]

A bit over a year ago I spoke with the SNP District Ranger on a subject predating and unrelated to the Hogback issue. During the course of the conversation the Ranger informed me that he consented to including PGs at Dickeys because one of our pilots addressed his concerns regarding the safety of the activity there. He had become convinced that the activity was no less safe for PG than for HG at that site and therefore he agreed to include it in the authorized use for Dickey's.

Up to that point no such argument had been made for the other two sites and that was the reason they were excluded to PG. I learned later that his big concern was his understanding that PGs might not be able to reach LZs that were easily within the reach of of the HGs of the day. (A valid conclusion at the time.)

Since he sees a distinction between the performance characteristics of the two wings I don't think it would be wise to try to eliminate that distinction by simply redefining HG to mean both HG and PG. A better approach would be to demonstrate that the modern PG wings are easily capable of reaching the LZs we have been provided permission to use.

I think the PG pilots who were involved are already in the process of doing this. In my opinion that is the best way to proceed on this particular topic.

I hope I haven't been redundant on this post but I wanted to make sure we don't inadvertently pursue a course of action that is liable to be counterproductive. I'm still in California and won't be home in time to attend the meeting in person.

Dan T

[sailin]

The CHGPA Spring meeting is right around the corner. March 28 @ 7pm

Meeting Locations is:

The Bodner's
3208 5th St. N.
Arlington, VA 22201

Thanks to Dave and Jodie for opening their home up to the club!!!

Hope to see everybody there,

Jon

[theflyingdude]

So will there me any accommodation for those that can't attend in-person to view the proceedings on-line or to vote remotely?

JR

[Matthew]

The Thunderdome portion will be pay per view on Verizon FIOS

Matthew

[MikeB]

I can't make the meeting and won't be online during the meeting.
I'd be happy to give my vote to a proxy OR put my name on the list for a PuzzleMonkey or whatever may be setup.
As they say, it's been an interesting year.
Michael Brooks, the quiet one from WVa.

[SHORTCUT]

I'm not sure who is on the ballot for what...maybe that's listed here somewhere and I missed it.

Might not matter to me, as I will not make it to the Meeting, but it may matter to others.

Does the USHPA require a Safety Officer for your (our) Club ?
Do you have an Events Coordinator?

-Greg

[carweill]

Hi Greg,
The candidates are listed here,
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6192

But you make a good point
We have a the flight director position that is not listed. That would be the more natural one to fill the safety officer.
On every chapter renewal USHPA requires CHGPA to list a Safety Officer. This happens around January every year.

Carlos

[sailin]

I'll try to answer some questions that have come up to the best of my ability:

We have put a request out to David Churchill (he has set them up in the past on occasion) to set up some type of virtual system so individuals not able to attend in the flesh can participate in the meeting. We have not received confirmation yet that this will happen. If anyone out there has the equipment, knowledge and ability to make it happen, we are all for it. The more people participating the better.

As far as I know there is no ballot. There is a list of people who are interested in running for either election or re-election (in the thread link that Carlos posted above) but there is no ballot. All the elections I have attended for the club where there was a vote for Board of Directors, has been on site nomination and vote by individuals in the flesh. Maybe someone that has been here longer can speak to that better, or maybe that is something the new BOD can address and include in a change to the club bylaws (which would require notice of change and a vote).

Yes, the club will need a Safety Officer position filled. Currently we have a Flight Director (Bacil Dickert) and a Safety Officer (me). As Carlos mentioned, and as was discussed in a previous thread, the Safety Officer position must be filled (USHPA mandate due to Insurance issues we had a little while back) and has some specific tasks that must be updated annually. For there to be more or less positions on the Board of Directors, I believe there would have to be a Club Bylaw change which would require prior notice of change and a vote. Again, someone with more experience or knowledge of the club and its bylaws than me, please make a correction to that if need be.

Hope to see you all at the meeting,

thanks,
Jon

[davidtheamazing1]

I will bring my laptop so that we can stream the meeting.

Viewers will be able to connect here starting at around 7:00:
https://new.livestream.com/accounts/313 ... ts/2874069

It's still free but new is that viewers need to create an account just to watch the video feed.

Feel free to join us at 7 for a few minutes of chatting. I'm not sure what time the business meeting will convene, usually it is close to 7:30 or 8.

[Dan T]

There were several significant topics on the agenda. Could someone who attended please post the results for the rest of us.

Thanks,
Dan

[mingram]

The meeting was all goodness. I took notes. The BOD is editing them and will post them in the member's section soon.

At a high level we elected a new board and voted to allocate funds for Edith's Gap launch erosion control. We also got a sense of people's willingness to pay for a new website and got more information on the Woodstock project.

We discussed site ratings/observer system and approved a meeting for Friday 4/11 at Matthew Graham’s house to decide how sites are rated. Attendees will be limited to current observers.

We haven't set dates for the next meeting or for Daniels and Bills Hill work parties yet, but I'm free any weekend in April/May.

[mcelrah]

John Hopkinson pointed out that the SOP sez "observers and examiners determine rating requirements for sites" (or words to that effect). If so, do we want to invite Ben Herrick and Richard Hayes (I'm assuming Tom McGowan is invited as a current observer)? Not sure Ben or Richard would make the longish drive, but it would be a gesture to invite them… Also, if he's in town, I for one would value Laszlo's opinion about rating requirements for sites - he initiated the site rating for Edith's Gap, for example. If we don't want him at the meeting, could we at least get his input in detail off-line? - Hugh

[JohnE]

USHPA SOP 12-01.02 Operations, Section A, outlines the procedures for dealing with this and is posted below :

“Site Operational Rules and Standards - At flying sites where hang gliding, paragliding, and mini- wing 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.”


That is where I got the idea that Observers should be rating sites. We don’t have lots of Examiners or Instructors around here, to my knowledge. I don’t count club officers as ‘officials’ and take officials to mean folks like park rangers, forestry services, mayors, park authorities and so on (especially given the sentence that follows). I reckon there could be other interpretations.
I know we are trying to bring our use of Observers into compliance with USHPA, so I thought it might be useful to recall their role in setting operating rules and procedures. It seems to me operating rules and procedures are exactly what site requirements are. Of coourse, I recognize landowners of launches and LZs, as well as club members, officers and expereinced pilots all have important inputs into decisions regarding rating and should be considered by those folks listed in the SOP, above. However, I think it important to be clear on where the ultimate responsibility for the site ratings rests. If we are to be a consitutent blody of USGPA and therefore try to follow the SOPs, we should be mindful of this one.

That’s where the idea came from.
John Hopkinson

[Ward Odenwald]

Matt – Given that any proposed changes to local flying site regulations affect all who fly from them (including non-capital members), I request that the upcoming April 11 observer meeting be postponed until after MHGA has held their scheduled meeting on April 12th. When observers for both clubs understand the interests of their members, the chances for improvements to how neophyte pilots safely transition to mountain flying is enhanced. Rescheduling the observer meeting for the week of 14 through 18 will help make it possible for MHGA observers and Richard Hayes (one of our region 9 examiners) attend.

Ward

[Danny Brotto]

I spoke with Richard yesterday about the proposed meeting on the 11th. He won't be able to attend due to attention needed to prep for the MHGA meeting on the 12th. Since Richard is an Examiner, it' would probably be a good idea for him to be in attendance.

I think Ward has a rationale request.

BTW, can someone please post which sites will be up for discussion?

Danny Brotto

[mingram]

I think we're really discussing how we use the "with Observer" rating as a whole since we're using the term incorrectly according to USHPA. If there's no interest in changing HG ratings then we can leave them as is and just focus on PG. Do we have interest in changing HG ratings for sites? If not then it doesn't make sense to wait for HG observers/examiners.

Matthew Graham is the following week an option? Pick a date.

[mingram]

Meeting minutes have been posted to the member's only area.

http://chgpa.org/Members/CHGPA.Gen_Meet ... .0328.docx