PPG in USHGA

[mcelrah]

I guess I have low standards. Not offended in the least to have "Fan
Man" PPGs in our organization. Met a bunch of these guys at one of
Betty Pfeiffer's reserve parachute clinics/repacks. Yeah they're a
bunch of motorheads, different demographic, but they do have to
inflate their gliders for launch and flare to land and use reserve
'chutes and share some of our sites, so what's the big deal? Someone
has to articulate what damage it does to strictly unpowered pilots to
include them before I will get excited enough to reject them.
Aerotow tugs pollute and make noise - and so do the vehicles we drive
to the mountain launches.

Hugh McElrath, USHGA 76062 (H3 AT FL etc.), private pilot for 27
years, fly a 3-axis control ultralite airplane too, working on P2,
considering buying a trike
"if it flies, it's good"

[theflyingdude]

When Fan Man costs you a site or two due to their low-level antics and/or the noise they create, you might think differently or maybe not since you can always go play with one of your other flying toys that doesn't require a specific site or the kindness and generosity of a landowner.

I'm not completely prejudiced against powered flight. I just don't think there's anyplace for it in an organization that was created and exists to promote non-powered soaring flight.

I paddle whitewater kayaks and there's nothing quite like the experience of floating down the river, running the rapids, and communing with nature until the knuckeheads show up with their noisy, polluting jet skis and then the experience isn't quite as pristine.

JR

[jimrooney]

Oh boy, here we go again.

[mcelrah]

Lessee: if we don't let 'em in the club, that means they won't buzz
our sites? Huh? Please clarify. - Hugh

On 24 Sep 2005, at 19:12, theflyingdude wrote:

>
> When Fan Man costs you a site or two due to their low-level antics
> and/or the noise they create, you might think differently or maybe
> not since you can always go play with one of your other flying toys
> that doesn't require a specific site or the kindness and generosity
> of a landowner.
>
> I'm not completely prejudiced against powered flight. I just don't
> think there's anyplace for it in an organization that was created
> and exists to promote non-powered soaring flight.
>
> I paddle whitewater kayaks and there's nothing quite like the
> experience of floating down the river, running the rapids, and
> communing with nature until the knuckeheads show up with their
> noisy, polluting jet skis and then the experience isn't quite as
> pristine.
>
> JR
>

[Scott]

Okay...this is nothing but rumor and innuendo...but I've heard some crazy things about the "Dukes of Windsoar" (or whatever they're called) near Frederick...things that just sounded deranged...like guys strafing roads and literally kicking the roofs of passing cars, flying right after downing a six-pack, etc.

Again...this is just rumor...but even the existence of such rumors makes me wonder...

If said rumors (which came from a PG pilot several of us spoke with at Manquin one day---whose name I forget---who had spent a day with the Dukes) are just malicious and blatantly untrue, then can someone set the record straight?

If said rumors are true...then this certainly doesn't speak well for the powered PG community...

Scott

[mcelrah]

Don't know about the rumors, but I did see the Dukes' instructor do
some amazing stuff at their airfield (as I have seen the Ridgely boys
do with their tug). These are professionals; do not try this at
home. The impression I got of PPG flyers at the parachute repack a
couple of years ago is that they are a lot more like old-school
Harley riders ("reserve parachute?! but I already got a
paraglider!"), but I suspect they are being edumacated about safety
through the club and being part of the national organization could
also foster that. Hang glider pilots used to be a lot more wild and
crazy than they are now, too... - Hugh

On 25 Sep 2005, at 11:49, Scott wrote:

>
> Okay...this is nothing but rumor and innuendo...but I've heard some
> crazy things about the "Dukes of Windsoar" (or whatever they're
> called) near Frederick...things that just sounded deranged...like
> guys strafing roads and literally kicking the roofs of passing
> cars, flying right after downing a six-pack, etc.
>
> Again...this is just rumor...but even the existence of such rumors
> makes me wonder...
>
> If said rumors (which came from a PG pilot several of us spoke with
> at Manquin one day---whose name I forget---who had spent a day with
> the Dukes) are just malicious and blatantly untrue, then can
> someone set the record straight?
>
> If said rumors are true...then this certainly doesn't speak well
> for the powered PG community...
>
> Scott
>

[Spark]

This is a small world we live in. I hope you realize that you might as well be speaking directly to the Dukes when you post here.

If I were on the receiving end of these 'Third hand insults', I'd be pretty pissed off.

'Spark

Okay...this is nothing but rumor and innuendo...but I've heard some crazy things about the "Dukes of Windsoar" (or whatever they're called) near Frederick...things that just sounded deranged...like guys strafing roads and literally kicking the roofs of passing cars, flying right after downing a six-pack, etc. ...

[theflyingdude]

Lessee: if we don't let 'em in the club, that means they won't buzz
our sites? Huh? Please clarify.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have nothing against PPG's or any other form of motorized non-soaring aircraft, although I would prefer they don't fly around HG/PG flying sites given the sensitive nature of some of those sites and their lack of need to be there in the first place. Hang gliders and paragliders only have a limited number of mountain sites and even fewer tow parks. Their needs are quite specific - a clear place to launch and a LZ within gliding distance of said launch. PPG's, like your ultralight and whatever GA aircraft you choose to fly don't have the same limitations. Their flight envelope puts them beyond the scope and control of the USHGA. You said, "If it flies, it's good". Does that mean you also think the USHGA should be the group representing those other types of aircraft, as well?

PPG's already have their own organization (USPPA) modeled after the USHGA. They're interested in becoming part of the USHGA to obtain access to our insurance coverage. That's a separate issue, but one not without its own risks to those of us that rely on insurance to keep our sites open.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in the late 70's this battle was fought. It was decided then that ultralights should not be part of the USHGA because they weren't soaring aircraft nor were they flown or marketed as such. They started their own organization (USUA) and survived quite well without us. Fan Man will fly where he chooses regardless of his affiliation, so there's little to be gained by letting him/her join the USHGA and possibly much to lose.

I like flying in airplanes. I might even like flying PPG's, I just don't think they fall under the auspices of the USHGA. While I'm primarily a mountain pilot, I have and do tow behind tugs. I also have to drive to whatever mountain sites I choose to fly, but once I actually release from the tug or launch off the mountain, then it's just the power of the sun and/or wind that keeps me aloft (or not). The regulation and promotion of foot-launched soaring flight is the reason we have a USHGA.

JR

[Matthew]

I don't have a problem with PPGs flying at some of our sites. I've flown with them at the Pulpit and never noticed the noise. But I think they should remain a separate club because they are powered aircraft. Sure, a lot of PPG pilots are also PG pilots. They have separate gear for flying the PPG. So the only inconvenience to PPG/PG pilots is that they have to belong to two separate organizations for the two types of flying. But if you fly ultralights and hang gliders you have to belong to two separate organizations.

Matthew

[Scott]

'Spark said...

This is a small world we live in. I hope you realize that you might as well be speaking directly to the Dukes when you post here. If I were on the receiving end of these 'Third hand insults', I'd be pretty pissed off.

Point well-taken Sparky. To any Dukes or other powered PG pilots reading this: I personally have nothing against powered PGs, and actually think they look like fun! There's a guy who flies one (very safely, I might add) across the countryside near Shepherdstown on clear, calm evenings. Every time I see him, I think "That looks great---wish I had one of those!"

As for the rumors I echoed above...they did not originate with me. If I were a Duke, I'd certainly want to know a) that such rumors were out there, and b) the source of the rumors. I'd want to know this so I could either kick the a** of the liar that said it in the first place...or kick the a** of the pilot that actually pulled such crazy stunts (if they happened) so he could be banned from the club!

Again---for the record---I have nothing against powered PGs or the Dukes of Windsoar. I'm sure they are excellent, sensible pilots, who---like us---occasionally suffer less-than-great-PR from the acts of a single individual.

Scott

[theflyingdude]

Don't worry, Scott. I doubt the the "Dukes" fall into the same category as the Hell's Angels, Outlaws, Bandidos, Crips, Bloods, or M-13. I also don't know if the antics you mentioned hearing about second-hand from a PG pilot at Manguin actually happened with the Dukes, but it would fit the M.O. of some of the things I've heard (second-hand) about many of the PPG pilots, in general. Hence, one of my concerns about including them in our organization and allowing them access to our insurance coverage - a greater liability exposure is likely to exist.

Having said that, most of my reluctance is based upon the difference in our overall philosphy/method of staying aloft.

[mcelrah]

And the damage to non-powered pilots from letting PPG in USHGA will
be? - Hugh

On 25 Sep 2005, at 13:14, theflyingdude wrote:

>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> Lessee: if we don't let 'em in the club, that means they won't buzz
> our sites? Huh? Please clarify.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> No, I'm not saying that at all. I have nothing against PPG's or
> any other form of motorized non-soaring aircraft, although I would
> prefer they don't fly around HG/PG flying sites given the sensitive
> nature of some of those sites and their lack of need to be there in
> the first place. Hang gliders and paragliders only have a limited
> number of mountain sites and even fewer tow parks. Their needs are
> quite specific - a clear place to launch and a LZ within gliding
> distance of said launch. PPG's, like your ultralight and whatever
> GA aircraft you choose to fly don't have the same limitations.
> Their flight envelope puts them beyond the scope and control of the
> USHGA. You said, "If it flies, it's good". Does that mean you
> also think the USHGA should be the group representing those other
> types of aircraft, as well?
>
> PPG's already have their own organization (USPPA) modeled after the
> USHGA. They're interested in becoming part of the USHGA to obtain
> access to our insurance coverage. That's a separate issue, but one
> not without its own risks to those of us that rely on insurance to
> keep our sites open.
>
> Basically, what I'm saying is that in the late 70's this battle was
> fought. It was decided then that ultralights should not be part of
> the USHGA because they weren't soaring aircraft nor were they flown
> or marketed as such. They started their own organization (USUA)
> and survived quite well without us. Fan Man will fly where he
> chooses regardless of his affiliation, so there's little to be
> gained by letting him/her join the USHGA and possibly much to lose.
>
> I like flying in airplanes. I might even like flying PPG's, I just
> don't think they fall under the auspices of the USHGA. While I'm
> primarily a mountain pilot, I have and do tow behind tugs. I also
> have to drive to whatever mountain sites I choose to fly, but once
> I actually release from the tug or launch off the mountain, then
> it's just the power of the sun and/or wind that keeps me aloft (or
> not). The regulation and promotion of foot-launched soaring
> flight is the reason we have a USHGA.
>
> JR
>

[theflyingdude]

And the damage to non-powered pilots from letting PPG in USHGA will
be? - Hugh

You mean other than the potential for losing insurance coverage or paying substantially higher rates, possibe increased FAA regulation, or the loss of flying sites?

They don't soar Hugh. Why would we want to include them in an organization whose purpose is to promote soaring flight? What do the non-power pilots who started and maintain the USHGA have to gain from the inclusion of PPG's?

Maybe you should ask the same question and consider why we don't include ultralights and airplanes in the USHGA, as well.

JR

[mcelrah]

Don't try to set up a strawman of including ultralites and airplanes
- that's not on the table. I gather that your premise is that PPGs
are more dangerous (dangerously operated by poorly trained hot-dogs?
not disputing it, just framing the issue), so we risk losing
insurance or higher rates or more regulation because of that
increased liability. Don't see how losing sites plays in, as you
said they don't use our sites, and whether they're in or out doesn't
effect whether they could use or bandit our sites.

And they don't soar. Why? Too heavy? Too lazy? Do they emphasize
stable designs over high-lift designs because they have power?
Anybody got an authoritative answer on this? Does this mean the
powered HGs don't really soar either and it was all a ruse to get the
camel's nose under the tent flap? These are not rhetorical questions
- I seek enlightenment. Someone told me that tandem PGs have less of
a performance penalty than tandem HGs - hence the couple that went
150 miles across the Canadian Rockies written up in the USHGA mag.
Do PGs scale up better than HGs?

I suppose the board's motive for wanting to include PPGs is to
increase the membership and revenue base. Maybe PPGers will see the
light and ditch their powerpacks...

JR, please know that I am not deliberately tweaking you as in another
political thread on the "off topic" forum. Clearly you have a strong
opinion which I respect and I want to understand it. I too despise
jetskis and snowmobiles. - Hugh

On 25 Sep 2005, at 21:32, theflyingdude wrote:

>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> And the damage to non-powered pilots from letting PPG in USHGA will
> be? - Hugh
> (end of quote)
>
>
> You mean other than the potential for losing insurance coverage or
> paying substantially higher rates, possibe increased FAA
> regulation, or the loss of flying sites?
>
> They don't soar Hugh. Why would we want to include them in an
> organization whose purpose is to promote soaring flight? What do
> the non-power pilots who started and maintain the USHGA have to
> gain from the inclusion of PPG's?
>
> Maybe you should ask the same question and consider why we don't
> include ultralights and airplanes in the USHGA, as well.
>
> JR
>

[mcelrah]

Don't try to set up a strawman of including ultralites and airplanes
- that's not on the table. I gather that your premise is that PPGs
are more dangerous (dangerously operated by poorly trained hot-dogs?
not disputing it, just framing the issue), so we risk losing
insurance or higher rates or more regulation because of that
increased liability. Don't see how losing sites plays in, as you
said they don't use our sites, and whether they're in or out doesn't
effect whether they could use or bandit our sites.

And they don't soar. Why? Too heavy? Too lazy? Do they emphasize
stable designs over high-lift designs because they have power?
Anybody got an authoritative answer on this? Does this mean the
powered HGs don't really soar either and it was all a ruse to get the
camel's nose under the tent flap? These are not rhetorical questions
- I seek enlightenment. Someone told me that tandem PGs have less of
a performance penalty than tandem HGs - hence the couple that went
150 miles across the Canadian Rockies written up in the USHGA mag.
Do PGs scale up better than HGs?

I suppose the board's motive for wanting to include PPGs is to
increase the membership and revenue base. Maybe PPGers will see the
light and ditch their powerpacks...

JR, please know that I am not deliberately tweaking you as in another
political thread on the "off topic" forum. Clearly you have a strong
opinion which I respect and I want to understand it. I too despise
jetskis and snowmobiles. - Hugh

On 25 Sep 2005, at 21:32, theflyingdude wrote:

>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> And the damage to non-powered pilots from letting PPG in USHGA will
> be? - Hugh
> (end of quote)
>
>
> You mean other than the potential for losing insurance coverage or
> paying substantially higher rates, possibe increased FAA
> regulation, or the loss of flying sites?
>
> They don't soar Hugh. Why would we want to include them in an
> organization whose purpose is to promote soaring flight? What do
> the non-power pilots who started and maintain the USHGA have to
> gain from the inclusion of PPG's?
>
> Maybe you should ask the same question and consider why we don't
> include ultralights and airplanes in the USHGA, as well.
>
> JR
>

[Scott]

Here's a recap of a few posts from the Sonoma Wings forum on this issue...

Ernie Camacho said...

Bart mentions HG powerharnesses. He's refering to the fact that, by name, the Mosquito harness and the Doodlebug harness are accepted launch devices to get a hang glider up to soaring altitude, because they are not typically used full-time. PPGs, though, are typically run under power full-time, so are considered to be a different device.
This discussion relates to the USHGA Articles of Incorporation - the definition of the organization, which states that our Primary purpose is foot-launched, unpowered aircraft. Other related purposes are secondary and can only take up ten percent of USHGA's time and resources. The argument here is whether PPG are Primary, Secondary, or not included at all.

Bart Doets in Holland said...

Not willing to stir up the old havoc... just trying to see the logic.

Thanks Jim, having all the battle noise on the USHGA list and an occasional report here would be perfect as far as I'm concerned...

There's something funny about how the PGmotors sneak into the org. Personally, I think a HG powerharness is a good thing; a HG pilot who wants motorized flight will go get a light trike, but HG powerharnesses will mostly be used by those who want to replace a mountain or a towline; they are basically after soaring flight.

PG motorharnesses are different. I have not yet heard of thermal flying with a PG motorharness... I dunno, I don't think they are too heavy or to draggy when switched off (the drag compared to all those lines can't be a big extra percentage) but for some reason the PG motorharness appeals to a very different sort of flying then a HG motorharness. So far, I can sympathize with the anti-fanman movement.

But, after having (some) HG motorharnesses allowed in, and after having PG come in, seems to me there is no logical way to say no to PG motorharnesses.

It's not really my problem, (here in Holland either way of motorized flight would categorize under powered ultralight flying anyway - and normally only be allowed from an airfield!) but I'd like to see the logic of the anti-fanman movement - and having to subscribe to the USHGA list would be a bit out of my way...

Peter Birren said...

Very briefly:

In the USA there exists both USHGA (hang GLIDING) and USPPA (POWERED parachutes/paragliders)... two distinct organizations. Which do you think is most appropriate for PPG's? Wouldn't it be redundant for USHGA to spend time, money and resources to develop programs for PPG when there's a separate org doing the same thing?

Also, in USHGA's Articles of Incorporation, the org is established to focus
(paraphrased) "exclusively for fuel-less and foot-launchable aircraft." Does the fanman fit that image?

Scott

[theflyingdude]

Don't try to set up a strawman of including ultralites and airplanes
- that's not on the table. I gather that your premise is that PPGs
are more dangerous (dangerously operated by poorly trained hot-dogs?
not disputing it, just framing the issue), so we risk losing
insurance or higher rates or more regulation because of that
increased liability. Don't see how losing sites plays in, as you
said they don't use our sites, and whether they're in or out doesn't
effect whether they could use or bandit our sites.

And they don't soar. Why? Too heavy? Too lazy? Do they emphasize
stable designs over high-lift designs because they have power?
Anybody got an authoritative answer on this? Does this mean the
powered HGs don't really soar either and it was all a ruse to get the
camel's nose under the tent flap? These are not rhetorical questions
- I seek enlightenment. Someone told me that tandem PGs have less of
a performance penalty than tandem HGs - hence the couple that went
150 miles across the Canadian Rockies written up in the USHGA mag.
Do PGs scale up better than HGs?

I suppose the board's motive for wanting to include PPGs is to
increase the membership and revenue base. Maybe PPGers will see the
light and ditch their powerpacks...

JR, please know that I am not deliberately tweaking you as in another
political thread on the "off topic" forum. Clearly you have a strong
opinion which I respect and I want to understand it. I too despise
jetskis and snowmobiles. - Hugh

My final post here on this topic; however, I would still encourage anyone with an opinion on the subject to contact Felipe or Randy (our Regional Directors) prior to the October board meeting and express your views. I previously posted their contact info and it's also available on the USHGA website (USHGA.org).

First, there's nothing "strawman" about the comparison of ultralights, airplanes, and PPG's. They are all used to fly from point "A" to point "B" under power and, as a consequence, do not fit into an organization whose primary purpose is the regulation and promotion of soaring flight. Why they don't soar seems irrelevant to the discussion (at least as far as I'm concerned). The answers to your questions about why I think they are, or could be, more dangerous are, "yes, all of the above" and since several flying sites are open only because of the availability of liability insurance, my point about the potential loss of flying sites would appear to be a valid concern, as well.

Powered HG harnesses (about which I have mixed feelings and little knowledge) on the other hand, are apparently designed and used to get the pilot aloft for a shot at a soaring flight and are not used to simply motor around the sky. (BTW, the tandem HG distance record is 220 miles and was set my Tomas Suchanek and Corrina Swiegershausen in Australia back in 1994. The tandem PG record is 180 miles set in Brazil in 2003).

You'd have to ask the board about their motives, but I suspect your guesses come close to hitting the mark, especially the ones involving increased revenues and membership.

This is about as much "enlightenment" as I have to offer. If you're really interested in getting more information or delving deeper into the subject, I'd suggest subscribing to the Yahoo USHGA website (it's free) where this topic has been the focus of much debate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USHGAGROUP/

JR

[Paul Tjaden]

In a message dated 9/25/2005 11:22:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mcelrah@verizon.net writes:

And they don't soar.? Why?? Too heavy?? Too lazy?? Do they emphasize?
stable designs over high-lift designs because they have power???
Anybody got an authoritative answer on this?

We met a great guy in The Dominican Republic who was a PG'er. He used his wing to soar the mountains and coastal hills and then put on his "fan" to fly at the beach. Didn't seem to mix the two. Met another couple of guys at the Wright Brothers Centennial who were PPG'ers from SW Virginia. They loved there flying machines but seemed to have no desire to soar. As I recall, they liked flying in the smooth early or late day air and said thermic air made them uncmfortable.
?
Paul

[rs54263]

>> But, after having (some) HG motorharnesses allowed in

How are HG motorharnesses included in USHGA? Is there a
training/rating program for these? Is there a signoff for these?
(There ARE specific ratings and signoffs for FL HG, FL PG, AT HG...)

There are some HG pilots with motorharnesses, but they aren't they
USHGA-rated as normal HG pilots? (sans motor?)

Otherwise we could claim that helicopters and cessnas are part of
USHGA, because some USHGA pilots fly those aircraft.

~Ralph

[drice21037]

I think the 'inclusion in the USHGA' is more specifically 'inclusion in the
USHGA insurance'. Somewhere in the fine print of the insurance documents a few
specific brands of powered HG harnesses are included.

I remember reading this numerous times on the Yahoo HG list but I'm afraid to
search the archives for 'Powered Harness' because of all the *&%^$&* that I'll
get back.

Dave

Quoting "Ralph Sickinger (R2)" <r2@sickinger.net>:

>
> >> But, after having (some) HG motorharnesses allowed in
>
> How are HG motorharnesses included in USHGA? Is there a
> training/rating program for these? Is there a signoff for these?
> (There ARE specific ratings and signoffs for FL HG, FL PG, AT HG...)
>
> There are some HG pilots with motorharnesses, but they aren't they
> USHGA-rated as normal HG pilots? (sans motor?)
>
> Otherwise we could claim that helicopters and cessnas are part of
> USHGA, because some USHGA pilots fly those aircraft.
>
> ~Ralph
>
>
>
>
>

[mcelrah]

I guess the point of asking "why don't they soar?" is to know whether
it's that they just aren't technically suited for it or that they
don't because it's not in their "culture". One is (maybe) an
inherent difference from powered HG harnesses, the other could change
with education... - Hugh

On 26 Sep 2005, at 08:26, theflyingdude wrote:

>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> Don't try to set up a strawman of including ultralites and airplanes
> - that's not on the table. I gather that your premise is that PPGs
> are more dangerous (dangerously operated by poorly trained hot-dogs?
> not disputing it, just framing the issue), so we risk losing
> insurance or higher rates or more regulation because of that
> increased liability. Don't see how losing sites plays in, as you
> said they don't use our sites, and whether they're in or out doesn't
> effect whether they could use or bandit our sites.
>
> And they don't soar. Why? Too heavy? Too lazy? Do they emphasize
> stable designs over high-lift designs because they have power?
> Anybody got an authoritative answer on this? Does this mean the
> powered HGs don't really soar either and it was all a ruse to get the
> camel's nose under the tent flap? These are not rhetorical questions
> - I seek enlightenment. Someone told me that tandem PGs have less of
> a performance penalty than tandem HGs - hence the couple that went
> 150 miles across the Canadian Rockies written up in the USHGA mag.
> Do PGs scale up better than HGs?
>
> I suppose the board's motive for wanting to include PPGs is to
> increase the membership and revenue base. Maybe PPGers will see the
> light and ditch their powerpacks...
>
> JR, please know that I am not deliberately tweaking you as in another
> political thread on the "off topic" forum. Clearly you have a strong
> opinion which I respect and I want to understand it. I too despise
> jetskis and snowmobiles. - Hugh
> (end of quote)
>
>
> My final post here on this topic; however, I would still encourage
> anyone with an opinion on the subject to contact Felipe or Randy
> (our Regional Directors) prior to the October board meeting and
> express your views. I previously posted their contact info and
> it's also available on the USHGA website (USHGA.org).
>
> First, there's nothing "strawman" about the comparison of
> ultralights, airplanes, and PPG's. They are all used to fly from
> point "A" to point "B" under power and, as a consequence, do not
> fit into an organization whose primary purpose is the regulation
> and promotion of soaring flight. Why they don't soar seems
> irrelevant to the discussion (at least as far as I'm concerned).
> The answers to your questions about why I think they are, or could
> be, more dangerous are, "yes, all of the above" and since several
> flying sites are open only because of the availability of liability
> insurance, my point about the potential loss of flying sites would
> appear to be a valid concern, as well.
>
> Powered HG harnesses (about which I have mixed feelings and little
> knowledge) on the other hand, are apparently designed and used to
> get the pilot aloft for a shot at a soaring flight and are not used
> to simply motor around the sky. (BTW, the tandem HG distance
> record is 220 miles and was set my Tomas Suchanek and Corrina
> Swiegershausen in Australia back in 1994. The tandem PG record is
> 180 miles set in Brazil in 2003).
>
> You'd have to ask the board about their motives, but I suspect your
> guesses come close to hitting the mark, especially the ones
> involving increased revenues and membership.
>
> This is about as much "enlightenment" as I have to offer. If
> you're really interested in getting more information or delving
> deeper into the subject, I'd suggest subscribing to the Yahoo USHGA
> website (it's free) where this topic has been the focus of much
> debate.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USHGAGROUP/
>
> JR
>

[rancerupp]

http://www.deboomgaard.be/Russen.wmv