Observer Meeting

[Matthew]

We discussed having an Observer meeting at my house on Friday, April 11th at 7:30pm. Not sure if it is still on. I need a head count. The MHGA guys are getting paranoid that we have some nefarious plan to change the site ratings. So please let me know if you are able to attend.

Also, please plan to present at least one nefarious plan. Anyone who shows up with a shaved head and a hairless cat gets extra points!

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

No nefarious suspicions, we just want to be included in discussions that affect our flying sites. As stated earlier, a meeting date after the 12th would be best for all.

Ward

[mingram]

I'm fine with delaying it. Matthew would you propose an alternate date?

[pvanoevelen]

If it can be held before April 23rd that would be great (and not on April 16 either please ).

I do not think that the site ratings in itself will be subject to too much change only the addition of "plus observer" needs rewording. That said it is good to review and assess the various sites as things have changed (e.g. Fisher Rd)

Not sure who is keeping track but for those who like to attend let the both Matthews know (correct me if I am wrong!)

Cheers Peter

[silverwings]

I plan on attending once the date and location is decided.

[Matthew]

How about Monday April 21-- 7:30pm-- my house???


Matthew

[Danny Brotto]

The USHGPA has am official Mentor Program established. http://www.ushpa.aero/faq_mentors.asp

I still think we should leave site ratings as they are, with Observer, but perhaps the Mentor category might be a good compromise? Then again, if some one qualifies as a Mentor and wants to be one, why not just make him/her an Observer (too)? Examiners appoint Mentors and Observers so it would be a similar vetting process; up to the regional Examiners (likely influenced by the local clubs.)

Deviation from an established structure potentially incurs risk and frankly I don't see any real upside other than getting an individual or two that are currently on the sidelines back into the sponsorship mix?

Danny Brotto

[mingram]

USHPA says we have enough observers and is not allowing our Region 9 examiner to appoint more of them even though we have well qualified candidates like Jim McClave and Krista who are willing and could act as site guides for new or visiting pilots. Their reasoning is that observers are meant for assigning ratings. We're using observers incorrectly. What we need is a list of qualified site guides. If we don't want to change our site ratings we could simply change the language to say P2 w/ designated site guide and have the same level of safety/responsibility.

[pvanoevelen]

MOnday April 21 works for me!

Cheers Peter

[mingram]

Me too

[Matthew]

OK.

I'll email all of the local HG Observers with the date.

Matt, will you email the rest of the PG Observers?

Thanks,

Matthew

[mingram]

Yup

[Danny Brotto]

Hi Matt,

I whole heartedly agree with the USHGPA that we have not been using the Observer system for what it was intended; to observe and evaluate pilot proficiency with the intention of issuing advancing ratings. I first said this same thing on the forum in a thread in 2005. The thinking was, back then, that the Observer-as-Sponsor system was the best we had and it seemed to work. With a moratorium on Observer appointments, I can see that perhaps we do need something in addition. (This Observer moratorium is disconcerting as I am in the process of reestablishing my Observer appointment. I'll explore this a little further.)

I still think we should stay within the auspices of some established and applicable system. I think the Mentor program meets this and could satisfy what we are trying to accomplish to help bring along H2's and provide site guides.

Today there are no PG Mentors in Region 9. There are a number of HG Mentors but they are not in the club's effective geographical range (Other than JR.)

Perhaps Observers could review this Mentor System if they are not already familiar with it prior to this Observer meeting and we could begin to gauge it’s applicability?

http://www.ushpa.aero/info_mentors.asp

Danny Brotto

[mingram]

Thanks Danny. It looks like the mentor program would help close the gap for new pilots. I'm willing to become a mentor and will reach out to others for formal nomination.

[silverwings]

I will be there. Are we going to order some pizza or should we bring stuff?

[Matthew]

Sure, I can get a few pizzas delivered.

My address is:

6506 Westmoreland Ave.
Takoma Park, MD 20192

Matthew

[Dan T]

The mentor program never got much traction within the various chapters of the USHPA and it carries some baggage, including but not limited to the requirement that he or she be appointed by an examiner. I think the use of a locally defined term such as "site advisor" might suit our purpose better.

Longtime pilots Matthew, JR, and others have accurately noted that our existing system has served our Novice pilots well for nearly 30s years. Their advice to refrain from the temptation to develop a solution to a problem that doesn't exist is well stated. There appears to be nothing in the SOPs that preclude observers from performing this function or site rating officials, (an observer duty), from attaching additional requirements to a site depending on conditions. I suggest that we ask the executives at the USHPA to specifically state the reasons why we cannot rate a site as H2/P2 with observer. If it is a violation of an SOP they should be able to cite the specific SOP in question. The fact that it isn't specifically permitted doesn't mean it's prohibited.

Once we achieve a way ahead on this particular issue we can address the topic of do we have enough observers to perform both the explicit pilot ratings progression functions described in the SOPs and the additional duty we have employed for nearly 30 years. That is a topic of a separate discussion.

Dan T

[Danny Brotto]

Dan
I suspect that the “Mentor” program didn’t get much traction as it was never really pushed or advertised by the national organization. I didn’t even know it existed until I started poking around the USHGPA web site for alternatives to this so called “H2/P2 w/ Observer” quandary.

The task of “Site Advisor”, or at least what I think you mean by this term, falls within the mission of the Mentor. From the USHGPA site:
“The USHPA Mentor program supports advancing pilots by pairing them with more experienced pilots who can introduce them to the local flying community, introduce them to new sites, help them evaluate weather and other local conditions, develop flight plans and help them have safe and successful flights.”
also
“The Mentor program helps advancing pilots progress their flying and decision making skills while introducing them to new sites.”

I don’t see any issue with an Examiner appointing the Mentor. While an Examiner appoints the Mentor, the recommendation comes from the chapter/club. Again from the USHGPA web site:
“USHPA chapters are encouraged to nominate pilots as Mentors to support their local flying community and help pair Mentors with advancing pilots.”

If we were to come up with some alternative, new category of service, who would manage and maintain it? Who would come up with the qualifications? Who would appoint these individuals? Sounds like a rabbit hole to me.

I agree with your second paragraph. If it is deemed that there is a dearth of Observers to sponsor H2/P2’s and the USHGPA won’t allow more Region 9 Observers (to circumvent our convoluted way of applying them) then the Mentor program is a suitable solution. We only have one “local” Region 9 Mentor, Jim Rowan, so it should not be an issue getting more people set up. In fact, to meet the USHPGA SOP, then perhaps all Observers who expect to sponsor advancing pilots should become Mentors too.

Danny Brotto

[Matthew]

Hi All,

So far I have the attendance as--

Me,
Peter van Oevelen,
John Middleton,
John Dullahan,
Ellis,
Hugh,
Matt Ingram.

Anyone else??? Please let me know.

Thanks,

Matthew

[CraginS]

I'll be there.

[mingram]

Dan T is also coming. Ward can't come because he's sick and doesn't want to get us sick (thanks Ward!).

[sailin]

Wish I could, but I am at work for 24 hours......someone please take good notes.

Thanks,
Jon

[mingram]

Attendees: Matthew, Hugh, Dan, John D, John M, Cragin, Peter O, Danny, and Matt I.

The big picture change is that we're exchanging the word Observer with Sponsor.

Sponsors are Observers, Mentors, or P3/H3 pilots specifically designated by the club BODs that own the site.
A Sponsor very closely matches USHPA definition of a Mentor, except that the club BOD that owns the site has the power to appoint them.

A Sponsor gives a P2/H2 pilot guidance for the day of flight.
Not specifically required to witness launches when conditions are deemed suitable.
Sponsors will be listed in the new site guide, but won't be site specific because they're deemed to be competent enough to recuse themselves if they don't have experience at a particular site.

We added the following pilots as Sponsors:
Jim
Tom
Laszlo
Krista
Jeff
- if other qualified pilots wish to become Sponsors, please email me and we'll discuss at the next BOD meeting

Site ratings:
For all sites unless otherwise noted: H2/P2 w/ Sponsor required
Visiting pilots require Sponsor for first flight

Edith's Gap - P2 w/ sponsor or H3 with RLF/TUR

Daniels - P2/H2 w/ Sponsor w/ 10 flights at the site
(Kept language consistent with current site rating)

Bills - P2 with Sponsor or H2
(Bills can sometimes be a reach for low performance PGs, but is not an issue for HG)

Fisher road - P3/H3 with XC only
(since no legal LZ is within sight/glide)

[RichH]

Question Matthew? what was the appointment process?? what examiner was involved? or was this a vote of the BOD?

[Danny Brotto]

Must have been lots of additional discussion after I left.

Danny Brotto