Observer Meeting

[Ward Odenwald]

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

And, the EVEN BIGGER PICTURE? We’re ignoring the existing USHPA pilot Mentoring Program to install an untested method that removes the existing requirement for an experienced pilot’s presence when an inexperienced pilot launches! Many, or all, experienced Mtn pilots have witnessed rapidly changing, subtle conditions at our mountain launch sites that would otherwise be overlooked or ignored by an inexperienced pilot. Can’t see how removing experience from a slot launch makes any sense.

Why was this new system put in place when a tested/accepted Mentor program already exists? Cause, two of the newly appointed “sponsors” are not worthy of being Observers (according to recent USHPA directives) and, as such, it’s unlikely that an impartial USHPA Examiner would consider them worthy of becoming Mentors.

An accurate assessment of the abilities, experience and community responsibilities of a candidate Mentor can only be achieved by an impartial Examiner. An “in house” club BOD appointment lacks objectivity.

I have to ask - was what happened last night really an effort to improve the safety of our new pilots or just a “slap in the USHPA face” for pulling observer ratings?

Wish I was there but would have spread more than just my thoughts, including the flu.

Ward

[dbodner]

The impression I had is that USHPA wants us to sever the link between them and any decision to allow any particular flight. Since observers are officially appointed by USHPA, a legal nexus is created to sue USHPA if a flight "under an observer" goes bad. I don't know how official this guidance is. I also don't know how official the death of the mentor program is, though I've heard rumors. If this is correct, then creating Sponsors--answerable to the club and not USHPA--is something that needed to happen.

[Ward Odenwald]

a legal nexus is created to sue USHPA

My read of the USHPA webpages doesn't reveal any legal flinching. When it comes to pilot safety, they're part of us and not focused other petty issues.

Ward

[RichH]

This was purely an effort to circumnavigate the existing USHGPA observer/mentor program because two of the pilots would not be approved under the exisiting examiner approval process. This shows again CHGPA's inability to make prudent decisions when it comes to yours and my safety and the safety of our flying sites..

[Danny Brotto]

I attended this discussion amongst mixed PG & HG Observers which started at 7:30 pm but had to leave by 9:00pm. (Thanks Mathew and Karen for opening up your house for the group!) I’ll recount some salient points discussed during my time at the meeting.

It was stated that the USHGPA won’t allow additional PG Observers to be appointed in the area saying 5 is enough. Also that USHGPA guidance was that using Observers specifically to “sponsor” H2/H3 is outside the scope of an Observer’s responsibilities. There was no discussion about quantity or ability to appoint additional HG Observers.

There was discussion that the USHGPA Mentor program might be a suitable alternative to what has historically worked in this area for a long time. Question that the Mentor program was more of a 1:1 relationship between newer or visiting pilot and an assigned Mentor. We looked up the program definition and it was determined that the 1:1 reference was only one aspect of a broader program. The broader program included the essence of what the group was trying to achieve which included providing site specific expertise (Site Steward), helping newer pilots transition to mountain flying, etc.

There was discussion that Observers and Mentors are Examiner appointments and some felt that it would be beneficial to have a more club-centric and controlled pool of volunteers to serve in the “sponsorship” roles. We discussed calling out in the site guide wording to include “sponsor” but not create a new category. So there would not be “Sponsor” (specifically no capital “S”) but rather “sponsors” which would include Observers, Mentors, and additional people agreed to by respective BOD’s.

It was acknowledged that Daniels and Woodstock were under the joint oversight of the CHGPA and the CVHGA and that they would be contacted about this proposal.

Similarly it was determined that The Pulpit, High Rock, Fisher Road, and Bills were under the joint oversight of the CHGPA and the MHGA (by virtue of co-ownership and/or insurance responsibilities.) The MHGA BOD would be contacted about this proposal.

There was discussion about Edith’s Gap being a site primarily under CHGPA stewardship. Further discussion that it should be rated P2 w/ sponsor or H3 with RLF/TUR.
There was no discussion about which new members would be brought into the umbrella of non-Observer/non-Mentor sponsor. It was discussed that non-Observer/non-Mentor volunteers would possess similar qualities as outlined as qualifying characteristics of Observer/Mentor.

My impression is that this proposal was to be floated to the respective local BOD’s (CVHGA, CHGPA, and MHGPA) for consensus and perhaps some “tweaking”.

So all of this is (was) a proposal to be further discussed with the respective BOD including the CHGPA BOD, at least that was my sense of things when I departed at 9:00 pm. (I had a prior appointment for a business conference call (at 10PM.)

Danny Brotto

[mingram]

I really don't think this was, "purely an effort to circumnavigate the existing USHGPA observer/mentor program because two of the pilots would not be approved under the exisiting examiner approval process."

If you'd like why don't we consider removing Tom and Laszlo from the list for now and just debate the ability for our clubs to control who can and can't fly at our sites without USHPA guidance which is what we were specifically told from our Regional Director. I'd venture to guess that most sites around the country don't require observers or mentors for novice pilots, but they do require sponsorship by qualifies pilots. I think we're bringing our policy more in line with USHPA's wishes.

I don't think this discussion is really about safety. We have and continue to hold ourselves responsible for who can fly and when. We're just opening it up to people who we agree are already qualified because USHPA doesn't want us using observers for that purpose for whatever reason.

[hang_pilot]

Here’s my reaction to this change:

It is certainly within the purview of local clubs to regulate local flying sites. Some club-sites require official USHPA observers -- this is the model CHGPA/MHGA have previously utilized for the sites they regulate -- while others require club-designated “sponsors” or “guides” who may or may not have observer appointments.

I’m fine with the change from the observer system to the sponsor system for CHGPA/MHGA. I see the move as a safety-improvement giving the clubs more control over the sites we regulate: e.g., currently a visiting observer who has never flown our local sites can sponsor an H2 who is traveling with him/her. I’ve seen that not go so well. And of course novice pilots will still need to work with official observers to earn an intermediate rating, so this won't constitute that major of change in practice.

I do think it would be a good idea to get into the bylaws some guidelines for putting names on the sponsor list.

I would start by saying all current CHGPA/MHGA members with observer appointments are automatically sponsors. For new observer members and those experienced pilots who lack observer appointments, I would require the approval of three existing sponsors to add their new names to the list. I see no problem with a group of our current observers using their judgment to say an experienced pilot is capable of sponsoring novice pilots at our local sites.

It would also be a good idea to describe the process for removing sponsor's from the list and would suggest setting a higher bar for that.

Something like this may have transpired at the observer meeting, but it wasn’t clear to me from Matt's post.

[RichH]

Matt, I think we need to get together and hash this out between the two clubs that oversee our sites. Chgpa and Mhga.. I think we both understand the need for a observer/mentor process that gives new pilots the input and feedback they deserve. I think we (MHGA) would like input into that process by a joint sponsor/mentor appointment process. As Danny Brotto mentioned this was to be a proposal that was to be floated to the respective BOD's and not a CHGPA decision alone.. if that is still the case ..why dont we simply wait on the decision of who the specific mentors are..until all BOD's who are involved in this process get a chance to discuss...Rich Hiegel

[mingram]

CHGPA BOD meeting is tomorrow (Wednesday). We will discuss it and see if we can put more rigor around sponsor approvals/revocation. I like Daniel's suggestions. The names I indicated were agreed upon by the observers who attended the meeting. We did discuss the need for sponsors to have experience at the particular site they were giving guidance for.

The MHGA BOD should independently discuss and revise the current proposal if needed. If we need to make changes we can have yet another meeting between CHGPA and MHGA BODs.

[theflyingdude]

I would question the wisdom of this aspect of the proposal:

"A Sponsor gives a P2/H2 pilot guidance for the day of flight.
Not specifically required to witness launches when conditions are deemed suitable."

This seems to suggest that a "Sponsor" can choose to fly while leaving the P2/H2 pilot at launch to fend for themselves. That's very convenient for the "Sponsor" who doesn't want to be present or doesn't want to give up any of their own airtime while waiting for the newbie to fly, but we all know conditions can change for better or worse over the course of the day and conditions that are "deemed suitable" earlier can become strong and gusty as the day heats up.

I would suggest that anyone agreeing to be a "Sponsor" has to be willing to sacrifice some of their own airtime in the interest and safety of the pilot/s they're choosing to mentor and help them get airborne before being relieved of said responsibility.

JR

[mingram]

We discussed this. As observers we don't witness every launch as long as conditions for the day are suitable and for the pilot and the pilot has demonstrated experience and competence launching at that site . So we aren't changing the existing practice. We're trying to formalize existing practice.

[theflyingdude]

We discussed this. As observers we don't witness every launch as long as conditions for the day are suitable and for the pilot and the pilot has demonstrated experience and competence launching at that site . So we aren't changing the existing practice. We're trying to formalize existing practice.

Au contrair, mon ami, I can't speak to what your practice may be, but if I'm observing/mentoring/sponsoring a new pilot or H2 at one of the Mountaineer sites, I do not fly until I get them off the hill safely or determine the conditions are not suitable for their skill level. I always presumed that was the way everyone mentored new pilots, but apparently that is not the case.

JR

[mingram]

It has been my practice to help P2s launch until I have personally witnessed that the P2 has the skills and judgement to launch unassisted if conditions permit safe flight.

[Dan T]

There are lots of good points being made here. I thought it might be helpful to revisit the issue we are trying to address.

Like many clubs, we've historically used our Observers to assist our novice pilots in assessing conditions at all but one (Bill's Hill) of our commonly flown novice rated sites. The USHPA has informed us that it considers this function to be an inappropriate use of observers. It has declared that the sole function of the Observers is to observe pilots skills progression and provide ratings promotions once earned.

After discussing the merits of simply retaining our existing practices the consensus of the attendees was that we should seek out an alternative to employing official sanctioned USHPA observers to assist novice pilots in assessing site conditions. Once we reached agreement on this point the debate continued on whether or not to utilize the USHPA's Mentor appointment process to fill the void created by discontinuing the practice of using Observers for this function.

Argume nts in favor keyed off on the fact that the Mentor program is (or was) officially recognized by the USHPA and seemed to be suited to this application. One attendee suggested that recognition by the USHPA might provide some liability benefit in the event of an incident. Since we didn't know if there was any merit to this point we didn't pursue it further.

Arguments opposed cited the fact that the Mentor program has never gained any traction with the other chapters of the USHPA, that entry into the Mentor program requires appointment by the Examiners under the control of the USHPA BoD and Executives, and that numerous other Chapters successfully use locally chosen site sponsors rather than Mentors to fill this role.

Dan T

[RichH]

Well I think we need to review this process again.. Its obvious its raised concerns on several levels. I believe most of us want a program in place that will help up and coming pilots. The question comes in some of the details as well as the application. I find it interesting Dan that you realize two of the pilots would not pass the examiner process due to recent citations they received in violating National Park HG/PG policies. Yet their names are on the list of acceptable sponsors?? With that being said if we could come up with a few minor changes in the sponsor program and a partnership approach in the selection of sponsors I believe this could be a good program..I suggest a more comprehensive selection process with representatives from the clubs that oversee the sites in question...

[Matthew]

First off-- nothing has been changed yet. The new sponsorship program needs to be decided upon by the CHGPA BOD and the respective BODs for MHGA and CVHGA for jointly maintained sites.

Second-- USHPA has said NO to any new PG Observers. However, the five we have is not enough. The "Sponsor" option lets us take control of that problem.

Third-- Many other clubs use "Sponsors" as site monitors and not Observers.

Fourth- only Observers will be allowed to witness tasks and sign off on ratings as has always been done.

And as to Lazlo and Tom, it's time to move on. Before you continue to pass judgement on them, maybe you should come out to a flying site and get to know them.

Matthew

[RichH]

Matthew To place individuals on a list that have been cited for violations and it appears that they can not be renewed as observers for said violations are in my mind totally unacceptable as sponsors . Im sure Im not alone in that judgement. As far as the other concerns I think a program can be hammered out between the two clubs.

[Matthew]

Well, maybe you should volunteer to be a club official.... or try to have an open mind and meet and talk to the pilots that you have so easily dismissed as being unsuitable as sponsors.

Matthew

[davidtheamazing1]

I am personally a big fan of "our" use of the observer system. I had some great flights as a H2, I learned the importance of hang waiting, and what goes into the decision to pack it back up.

The point raised that USHPA would want to distance themselves from legal liability seems silly, given that they will always be party for issuing all the pilot ratings and site insurance.

While I am disturbed by USHPA's decision not to encourage more PG observers, I am wondering what we have done to push-back against their decision? I think it would be easy to defend our current system by looking at the great safety record for Region 9. We have a large number of USHPA members in our two clubs, and if the two clubs endorsed a person to be our regional director they would surely win the Region 9 seat. One thing that I noticed about the USHPA board is that they are heavy with industry-types and as a result they pay little attention to club operation issues unless we are active.

To change our site ratings would involve not just the site guide, but also our insurance, risk management plans, waivers, and the contracts we have with entities such as the Buchanan State Forest.

If we have explored all avenues to ensure that qualified pilots become observers and still decide that a change is needed, I like the idea of adopting the USHPA mentorship program. Perhaps we need to help them fix it so that it works for the purpose it was intended for? To ensure local control moving forward, we could specify that new pilots must have CHGPA/MHGA authorized mentors/observers/instructors.

Additional work for CHGPA, CVHGA, and MHGA boards would be a last choice rather than a preferred choice... who want to maintain a separate qualification system for our sponsors and develop another set of multi-club SOPs for the next decade or so?

Just my 2¢, I have no problem with the skill of the excellent pilots who were ticketed by the NPS, nor would I question their safety or knowledge of the site/conditions. I think that we should work to open the site up to PG. However, If I were asked to vote on observer/sponsorship appointments for the censured pilots I would be against it for the next few years. I think it is especially important for new folks to be educated by pilots who know the rules and follow them (while working to improve the rules)

[RichH]

Excellent comments Dave...I have to agree with many of your points..I just dont like removing the examiner from the process. Over the years a seperate decision maker removed from club associations has served us well. I dont like the thought of writing them out of the process..

[RichH]

Matthew I am a MHGA BOD member currently and Im a pass CHGA BOD member ..As far as the pilots in question are concerned they were deemed unacceptable by the USHGPA if their observerships were not renewed. Cant see reinventing a current process just because you are not happy with that decision. The continued efforts in that regard do not help us move foward.

[Matthew]

OK. To be clear. We have two issues here.

1. Change w/Observer to w/Sponsor

and if 1 is adopted--

2. Appointment of Sponsors

As to the first point, I was originally against this idea-- why fix something that seems to be working fine? Well, it isn't working fine.

A. We don't have enough PG Observers and USHPA won't let our Examiners appoint any new ones.

B. Observers are performing the duty of being site monitors, which is outside the purview of the Observer program.

C. There is nothing that says that an Observer must be from our region or be familiar with our sites. Right now the w/Observer requirement in the site guide allows any old Observer from anywhere in the country to throw H2s and P2s off our sites, even if they have no familiarity with the site. This could endanger our sites. Using the w/Sponsor requirement, as is done elsewhere in the country, puts the control of the sites directly in the hands of our local clubs. This is the argument that swayed me.

So, even if you have misgivings about particular pilots as being sponsors, remember that this is not an all or nothing deal. The selection and approval of Sponsors is a separate issue if the clubs decide to adopt the w/Sponsor requirement.

Matthew

[RichH]

Matthew we will be happy to setup a time to hash this out..Id prefer to have several of our BODs present..Ward..Tim..Rich Hays or myself..

[davidtheamazing1]

I just got off the phone with Martin Palmaraz (USHPA Executive Director) who reiterated that USHPA's position is that all qualified pilots who would like to be observers are encouraged to request appointments. Also he stated that USHPA would like to help our club meet the needs we have, and that there is no mandate from USHPA that we have "too many" observers. That being said he believes it is up to the discretion of our examiner to determine an applicant is qualified and who isn't.

But regarding the larger issue of our procedures over the last two decades, his take is that we are not using the observer system as it was intended and would like us to change our procedures to take our Observers out of the role they are currently have, mentoring new P2s and supervising (nearly) all flights of P2/H2. He suggested that the mentorship program is there, should we decide to use it, but that other clubs have created their own rosters.

[pvanoevelen]

We have requested observers and that was denied.
I think the current proposal is a continuation of our actual system and makes sure we have enough experienced and capable fellow pilots available to help our new pilots fly safely.
Regarding some previous made comments:
New P2s, yes those you do observe and witness their launches and flights but if I have seen a P2 take off several times at different sites under different conditions I have no problem to let them make their own decisions if I deem them capable. Sure we inform about site specific issues and conditions of the day but assessing it from the ground is no guarantee for a correct assessment for the in flight conditions.
Same goes for visiting pilots.
Let's not forget that a p2 is ultimately the pilot in command that needs to learn to make informed decisions when and when not to fly. We are not instructing them!