CHGPA/USHPA meeting Thursday June 12th

[mingram]

The CHGPA is meeting with USHPA next week.

Agenda:

-Flying Site Preservation
-US Forest Service Interactions
-National Park Service Interactions
-Hogback Incident
-Observer, Monitor, Mentor, Guides
-Federal Rules on Drones
-Other Business

Participants:

Richard Hass, President USHPA
Martin Palmaz, Executive Director USHPA
Patrick Terry, President CHGPA
Matt Ingram, VP CHGPA
Hugh McElrath, Representing CHGPA

If you have any topics you'd like raised or feedback that could aid our discussion please email me or Patrick.

[theflyingdude]

So how did the meeting go, what was discussed, any news, etc???

JR

[RichH]

Ive noticed that there has been no reponse to JRs request.It would be interesting to hear a report on the points discussed..

[PTerry]

Hello -- Sorry about the delay about reporting back to Membership on the CHGPA / USHPA Meeting. Lots going on as a result of the meeting...

We are trying to get all our ducks in a row on the action items as a result of the Shenandoah National Park Service meeting from the day before the USHPA meeting. We have some immediate action items for USHPA as well. So I'm trying to stay focus on the most important ToDo Items.

USHPA Meeting Briefing:

Matt Ingram, Hugh McElrath, and Myself met with USHPA President Rich Haas and Executive Director Martin Palmaz for 90 minutes on June 12, 2014 at the Reagan National Airport FAA Facility.

Agenda Summary:
1-Flying Site Preservation
2-US Forest Service Interactions
3-National Park Service Interactions
4-Hogback Incidence & Disciplinary Action
5-Observers, Mentors, Site Guides SOPs
6-Need for Area Instructors
7-Federal Rules on Drones
8-Site Risk Mitigation Program
9-USHPA Magazine publications

- Overall, we had a very productive dialog and exchange with Rich and Martin. In a very matter of fact way we discussed each agenda item outlined above.
- Everyone contributed to the open discussion and I think every point of view and opinion was heard and respected.
- We debated some issues and I think came to some sound conclusions and next steps.
- We shared with USHPA the recent positive progress we had made with the Shenandoah National Park officials the day before.
- We came up with an agreed upon plan on how to proceed with regard to the Hogback Incident.
- We discussed how CHGPA would like to proceed with using both Observers and Site Guides.
- We offered assistance with the "Drone Issue" and USHPA would like us to appoint a Chapter Representative to the USHPA Drone Working Committee.
- USHPA would like to see CHGPA move forward on the New Site Guide and Risk Mitigation Program.
- USHPA would like to publish article(s) in their journal on our USFS collaborations on Edith's Gap and Woodstock.
- USHPA would like to publish an article on the Shenandoah National Park collaboration once it is completed.
- USHPA committed to some Action Items: internal dialog with their office staff and Regional Directors regarding site preservation, Hogback, drones, and other assistance they can provide CHGPA.
- We committed to some Action Items: A letter of explanation regarding the Hogback Incident to the Regional Directors, a timely update on site preservation activities, a risk mitigation program for our sites, identify a "Drone Issue" workgroup member, a Chapter SOP on Observers and Site Guides, and to submit articles for the USHPA Magazine.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.

Reported by,

Patrick F Terry
President - CHGPA
202-309-5362

[theflyingdude]

Thanks for the 411, Patrick.

I'd heard a rumor that there was supposed to be some discussion regarding potential rating revocations for the "Hogback Two" and that the USHPA had initiated proceedings to reduce both pilots to P2's as a consequence of the Hogback incident. I believe there may have also been some discussion of those actions on the PG Forum, but nothing that seems to have found its way over to this message board. The USHPA website shows both pilots ratings as "N/A" as of this morning, so apparently there was some action taken by the USHPA at some point? That's something that is fairly unprecedented in the annals of our national organization and suggests they must have had some serious concerns about the incident and its potential ramifications on flying sites in other federally-controlled jurisdictions.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the apparent lack of transparency is a little disappointing given the nature of this event, IMO.

JR

[brianvh]

Given the huge flare-up caused by earlier transparency it's understandable that the current board would seek a quieter resolution to this ongoing issue. As Dan T. dryly put it: "this is not productive." You rarely hear a blow by blow account from international summit negotiations, for good reason.