Observer Meeting

[Matthew]

We're straying a bit off topic. I think the next procedural action is for there to be a joint CHGPA/MHGA BOD meeting to discuss the proposed Sponsor rating plan and take a vote. Might be good for the BODs to invite the Observers for their input regarding this issue.

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

FYI Peter, According to the “King’s English” -> to Instruct: to inform (someone) of a fact or situation.

If “we are not instructing them!” - then why bother?

We mentor/bother because they’re us! Sharing knowledge (aka instructing) while ensuring that H2/P2s (regardless of their past experience) avoid our past mistakes is everything to most, or all, of us that take on the responsibility!

Ward

[sailin]

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!

I've already commented on this at length in a previous thread so I will try to keep it short here. Lets not forget that the P2 is often ill equipped to make informed decisions about when and when not to fly....and what cautions and dangers might lurk about. That learning process should be a safe one...not a trial and error that risks bodily injury, equipment injury or site status. You can say that we are not instructing them, and I will avoid a semantic debate, but TEACHING them, from all of our own collective experiences and education, is exactly what we should be doing each and every time we fly with new pilots....and old as well.......certainly when we are observing them or sponsoring them.

Jon

[Danny Brotto]

At the "Observer Meeting" on Monday, the Rocky Mountain Hang and Paragliding Association was brought up as a club that successfully uses "sponsors". RMHPGA uses sponsors at Lookout Mountain. From the online site guide, their other sites are simply rated w/o a sponsor requirement. If your peruse the sponsor requirements for flying "Lookout" you'll see that the sponsors are required to be present the at the site entire flight of the H2/P2. That wording is here:

"Local Hang 2's who would like to fly at Lookout need to contact one of these sponsors to arrange sponsorship before showing up at Lookout to fly. The sponsors are volunteering their time to help less-experienced pilots. Acting as a sponsor requires them to be present for the entire sponsored flight, which can prevent them from flying cross-country or just taking a quick flight and then leaving."

The full requirements for Lookout are here:
http://www.rmhpa.org/site_guide/lookout ... ookout.php

Danny Brotto

[pvanoevelen]

First off picking one sentence out of context does lead to wrong conclusions.

Secondly: Semantics do matter.
In particular when it comes to liability. I would not be so picky with words if I was in Europe but in the US unfortunately one has to be.
If you have someone under instruction you better make sure you have proper waivers and insurance (and that from someone who is a rogallo member).
Again I certainly agree we share experiences and opinions, give guidance and that others can learn from those (the whole purpose of our site sponsors and formerly observers). That is why I am stressing the pilot in command so much. Leave the responsibility where it should be. And do not take that sentence out of context as it does not mean that when I am with new inexperienced P2s on launch I let them fly without input and no observation. It does mean that when I deem circumstances not good for them I tell them not to launch. At that point I can launch and fly. What to do if those P2s do decide to fly and it all went well because conditions mellowed? Or the opposite and something does go wrong? Do we penalize? ...do we want to open that can of worms?

And as I and many others have said before the current proposal is very much a continuation of current practice.
I second Matt's suggestion that if certain names are the big deal (as much as I disagree with that... those of you who never have crossed a line when flying cast the first stone!) we can discuss that separately.
We had an observers meeting and I think we very much were all agreeing upon the same practice.

And I second Matthew's point that getting to know Tom and Laszlo better before "crucifying" them would be in order. These people are my friends, I have been flying with them for years and I resent the disavowing of their expertise, their mentoring roles and their judgement.

I am not known for being sentimental nonetheless two more things I like to add:
Stones and sticks are not working here.... Carrots are.
Forgiveness is the first step in healing. I feel some healing is In order here.

This has been a lot of rehashing... I am done with this discussion.

I will spent my time and energy in CHGPA on flying, the site guide, flying tandem with those who are not familiar with our sport, observing the skill sets of newer pilots and sponsoring P2's and visiting pilots.

Thanks for reading.

[RichH]

As we continue this process its becoming abundantly clear to me that a sponsor program would not be in the best interest of our clubs or our sites. If we need more people out in the field helping new pilots I feel the Observer/Mentor program is the best answer. The argument that USHGPA will not issue us further Observers seems to have been shot down by a comment mentioned earlier in this thread that USHGPA has already opened the door for further appointments. We have the examiner process in place for a reason and I feel our examiners have done an exceptional job under some trying circumstances recently. I see no reason to recreate the wheel..

[mingram]

Thanks for everyone's input. This topic will be discussed further by chapter BODs and will be taken offline.