Hello,
I'm very new to the club, and to the sport of hang gliding (Still a fresh H2). I live and work in Pasadena, and I heard about a law we have against hang gliders. It is preventing all but H-4s from launching from Mt. Wilson. Historically, Victory Park was used as a landing site, but because of Pasadena's ban, there are no places for hang gliders to land within an easy glide from launch.
I have been researching this just a bit and I have some comments and questions.
First here is the actual municipal code:
3.24.115 Manned flight not regulated by federal law on or over city property--Possession of contrivance.
No person shall individually or in association with another person possess or fly a contrivance used or designed for manned flight, and for which pilot certification is not required by federal law, in or above a city park or other city-owned property.
(Ord. 5591 § 1, 1982)
Now what about Eaton Canyon Reservoir? From Google Maps it looks like a large space. Would it be a desirable landing zone? According to the reliable source of wikipedia, the reservoir is controlled by the LA County Dept. of Public Works. Landing at the Eaton Canyon Reservoir MAY not violate Pasadena's municipal code, since it must be a city-owned property, and it's not clear that ECR is actually owned by Pasadena. If the landing zone is desirable, it may be worth looking into. If not, then it's not worth the time.
So my question to the forum is this: Is Eaton Canyon Reservoir a desirable landing zone? If not, are there other locations in Pasadena that might be decent landing zones if only the ban were lifted?
During the past election, my council representative and I discussed this ban on hang gliders in Pasadena. He seems very favorable to the sport in general. He used to bring his kids up to Mt. Wilson to watch the gliders launch, and he bought his daughter hang gliding lessons at Torrey Pines for her 18th birthday. It would take some pushing to get him to want to change the code, but we would need to provide him with an actual reason to do so. If the ban were lifted what LZs would that open up for us?
If you can't tell, I'm mostly just procrastinating at work on a Friday, while I daydream of flying tomorrow. If you think this is just baloney, I apologize.
Pasadena's Law Against Hang Gliders
Moderator: Chip
Well, a while back, Larry Chamblee was talking to the then-Mayor of Pasadena who also seemed (at least at first blush) favorably disposed towards us. Larry was going to talk to him again. Don't know what came of that.
Regardless of Eaton Canyon reservoir, we should look at repealing the law. Actually, I doubt we could do that. But we might be able to get them to modify it so that it says something like "... unless allowed by the City in document xyz." We supply document XYZ, giving them a list of everywhere we think we want to land, and under what conditions. Then we negotiate.
Or maybe there is a better way. Bit if your councilmember is on our side, it seems that now might be the time....
BTW, the reason for the law is that many years ago, two years in a row, a HG pilot landed at the Rose Bowl, while it was loaded with people. He did it deliberately. They were not amused. (There are more details, but I'll keep it short.)
Also, I THINK Eaton Canyon Reservoir is fine to land in (physically, I mean.) But I could be misremembering which reservoir is which. There are several in that area. If it is the largest one, right near Victory Park, then I've landed in it (years ago.) When I looked at it last year, it was much nicer than I remembered. I don't see any issue other than you'd better be darned sure to look at it before you go, since it occasionally has water in it.
The name is a giveaway. 
Regardless of Eaton Canyon reservoir, we should look at repealing the law. Actually, I doubt we could do that. But we might be able to get them to modify it so that it says something like "... unless allowed by the City in document xyz." We supply document XYZ, giving them a list of everywhere we think we want to land, and under what conditions. Then we negotiate.
Or maybe there is a better way. Bit if your councilmember is on our side, it seems that now might be the time....
BTW, the reason for the law is that many years ago, two years in a row, a HG pilot landed at the Rose Bowl, while it was loaded with people. He did it deliberately. They were not amused. (There are more details, but I'll keep it short.)
Also, I THINK Eaton Canyon Reservoir is fine to land in (physically, I mean.) But I could be misremembering which reservoir is which. There are several in that area. If it is the largest one, right near Victory Park, then I've landed in it (years ago.) When I looked at it last year, it was much nicer than I remembered. I don't see any issue other than you'd better be darned sure to look at it before you go, since it occasionally has water in it.
The name is a giveaway. Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Dan;
Lots to consider here and I'll be glad to help you understand the background as I think Larry Chamblee will as well. As USHGA Regional Director for 10 years, I played a relatively large role in the preservation of Mt. Wilson as a flying site. There were and still are many obstacles to overcome, the least of all is the Pasadena city ordinance, which is relatively un-enforced anyway.
Mt. Wilson was, and is, designated as a Hang 4 site because of it's many complexities and dangers, not because of any legislative or government requirements. If it ever becomes a popular flying site again, it will likely remain a hang 4 flying site as the previous dangers remain, and fewer landing options exist today than in previous years.
The loss of the Victory Park landing site was destined to happen as the landing zone was too small and unsafe for the hang 4 gliders of that era, let alone the one's that H-4's are flying today. Also, there were too many more important users of the park that were competing for the ball fields that we were requesting to land on. There were several crashes, out landings, and scary incidents, that seemed to be escalating as time went on.
The history of the Pasadena Hang Gliding Club and our attempts to gain legal access to Eaton Cyn. Debris Basin may interest you. I worked closely with County Supervisor Mike Antonovich's staff in these efforts.
I believe that there is a possibility of gaining access to a landing area in the County Flood control area in the Eaton Debris Basin, but we failed in our previous attempts, so it will not be a short process, and the odds are probably not in our favor.
Feel free to bring a note pad with you and set a date to meet with me and take notes.
Cheers;
joe
Lots to consider here and I'll be glad to help you understand the background as I think Larry Chamblee will as well. As USHGA Regional Director for 10 years, I played a relatively large role in the preservation of Mt. Wilson as a flying site. There were and still are many obstacles to overcome, the least of all is the Pasadena city ordinance, which is relatively un-enforced anyway.
Mt. Wilson was, and is, designated as a Hang 4 site because of it's many complexities and dangers, not because of any legislative or government requirements. If it ever becomes a popular flying site again, it will likely remain a hang 4 flying site as the previous dangers remain, and fewer landing options exist today than in previous years.
The loss of the Victory Park landing site was destined to happen as the landing zone was too small and unsafe for the hang 4 gliders of that era, let alone the one's that H-4's are flying today. Also, there were too many more important users of the park that were competing for the ball fields that we were requesting to land on. There were several crashes, out landings, and scary incidents, that seemed to be escalating as time went on.
The history of the Pasadena Hang Gliding Club and our attempts to gain legal access to Eaton Cyn. Debris Basin may interest you. I worked closely with County Supervisor Mike Antonovich's staff in these efforts.
I believe that there is a possibility of gaining access to a landing area in the County Flood control area in the Eaton Debris Basin, but we failed in our previous attempts, so it will not be a short process, and the odds are probably not in our favor.
Feel free to bring a note pad with you and set a date to meet with me and take notes.
Cheers;
joe
I was thinking only about the LZ. I completely vegged the whole H4 issue. Sorry.
Joe is right. While it is a fun place to fly, it isn't a beginner site. There are a whole host of issues. On the other hand, it sure would be nice to get it open again.
In theory, a launch could be opened quite easily. The USFS controls the launch(es) and doesn't object to us reopening one of them. At least that is my recollection from the last time I was at a Forest Service Committee meeting and talked to the USFS. But, since there is no where to land....
It seems to me that it would be easier to get the County (if that's who controls the catch basin) to allow us in if it wasn't against the law to land in the City Parks. Even if there wasn't any place to actually land, getting the law changed couldn't hurt. Or maybe the County and the City don't care about each other. I don't know.
Anyway, Joe is right. There is a very long and complicated history at this site. And we (the HG community) didn't handle it well. We've been much better for quite a while, so maybe now is the time.
Joe is right. While it is a fun place to fly, it isn't a beginner site. There are a whole host of issues. On the other hand, it sure would be nice to get it open again.
In theory, a launch could be opened quite easily. The USFS controls the launch(es) and doesn't object to us reopening one of them. At least that is my recollection from the last time I was at a Forest Service Committee meeting and talked to the USFS. But, since there is no where to land....
It seems to me that it would be easier to get the County (if that's who controls the catch basin) to allow us in if it wasn't against the law to land in the City Parks. Even if there wasn't any place to actually land, getting the law changed couldn't hurt. Or maybe the County and the City don't care about each other. I don't know.
Anyway, Joe is right. There is a very long and complicated history at this site. And we (the HG community) didn't handle it well. We've been much better for quite a while, so maybe now is the time.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Re: Pasadena's Law Against Hang Gliders
Note that if you read that strictly, it is against the law to drive your car through the City of Pasadena with your glider on the roof. (Assuming that you are on a city owned street.) Also, it makes it against the law to fly over city property, no matter the altitude. I'm sure that the FAA would have something to say about that, since they have juristiction over the airspace, not the city!Busby wrote:....
3.24.115 Manned flight not regulated by federal law on or over city property--Possession of contrivance.
No person shall individually or in association with another person possess or fly a contrivance used or designed for manned flight, and for which pilot certification is not required by federal law, in or above a city park or other city-owned property.
(Ord. 5591 § 1, 1982)....
Heck, it makes it against the law to have your glider with you on city property, even in the bag!Of course, testing that is exactly the wrong approach to take!
My recollection (and it is very vague) is that they superceded this law with one that made it against the law to land on city property. But I'd not bet even 10 cents that I remember correctly (or that I was told correctly at the time!)
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Ah, I see. I thought the lack of a nearby LZ was the reason for the H4 rating. But, that doesn't matter in the long run (I plan on being an H4 one day!). It's always better to have more available LZs, and getting the law repealed would definitely help that.
My councilman would like a tangible reason for him to repeal the law. He doesn't want to waste his time and political capital fighting to get a law stricken from the books if there's no gain for anybody. And immediate gain is the best gain. So if we could tell him which LZ would be opened up once the law is repealed, he might fight a bit harder for it. It will also be pertinent to estimate how many hang gliders will use the launch and LZ, and so forth. As he might be able to use those numbers in trying to convince the other members of the city council.
There is definitely a lot of work to do to get the law repealed, but I think now is the time.
I know there are a few pilots that call Pasadena home. I hope that we'll be able to rely on them to call/email their council reps when the time comes.
My councilman would like a tangible reason for him to repeal the law. He doesn't want to waste his time and political capital fighting to get a law stricken from the books if there's no gain for anybody. And immediate gain is the best gain. So if we could tell him which LZ would be opened up once the law is repealed, he might fight a bit harder for it. It will also be pertinent to estimate how many hang gliders will use the launch and LZ, and so forth. As he might be able to use those numbers in trying to convince the other members of the city council.
There is definitely a lot of work to do to get the law repealed, but I think now is the time.
I know there are a few pilots that call Pasadena home. I hope that we'll be able to rely on them to call/email their council reps when the time comes.
Re: Pasadena's Law Against Hang Gliders
I lifted that quote directly from the present day Pasadena Municipal Code online. It doesn't look like it's been superseded. They, of course, don't enforce the law to the letter. But it's chilling effect on our LZs is very tangible.stebbins wrote:My recollection (and it is very vague) is that they superceded this law with one that made it against the law to land on city property. But I'd not bet even 10 cents that I remember correctly (or that I was told correctly at the time!)
Interesting. As I noted, that part of my recollection of the history was pretty vague. I know several other old-time pilots who think it got changed too. All of us were H2s about the time this was happening, so maybe we got the distorted trickle down from the H4s. It must a HG urban legend. But the landings at the Rose Bowl were real. And so was the City's reaction. Oh yes, we can be our own worst enemies.
Either way, now might be the time to get it changed, if we have someone who is willing to put in the effort.
But the landings at the Rose Bowl were real. And so was the City's reaction. Oh yes, we can be our own worst enemies.Either way, now might be the time to get it changed, if we have someone who is willing to put in the effort.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
I am willing to do some calling around and legwork for this cause. But, I first need to understand the right way to go about getting the change. I don't want to run off half-cocked and ruin a potential HG-friendly window in our local politics. I'll make plans to sit down with Joe this weekend for story time. I want to understand who's involved and the proper procedure for getting this done.
Do you have any more details about the Rose Bowl landings? I told the story to my council rep, who has been in Pasadena for decades, and he thought it was just an urban legend. Are there newspaper stories or something to read about? It sounds like an interesting story.
Do you have any more details about the Rose Bowl landings? I told the story to my council rep, who has been in Pasadena for decades, and he thought it was just an urban legend. Are there newspaper stories or something to read about? It sounds like an interesting story.
This is a third had report. About ten years ago I asked Betty if it was true. She said a small part of it was true. She and another person were flying (I forget who). Her husband was driving that day. They landed south of the stadium not in it. Hardly anyone was around. They had packed up and left when a cop chased them down. Her husband arrgued with the cop and that's why he got arrested.
eat right, exercise, die anyway!
My opinion is that banning hang gliders in Pasadena is a violation of Federal Hate Crime Laws.
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
And I will illustrate my thinking.
First we form the PGHGA (Pasadena Gay Hang Gliding Association).
We get a few pilots and go through the storage for "colorful" gliders, launch Mt Wilson, land on Pasadena city property, resist arrest, film the incident with a new GoPro camera, post the result as a viral video on youtube, call any news stations that will cover it. Next charges are filed with the Federal Government for a highly visible, high profile case. A long legal battle would reduce the city of Pasadena's status as a Liberal, evolved, desirable place to buy realestate and base a business. Many ensuing boycotts would follow. People would compare Pasadena to backwards Hazzard County from the '79 to '85 television series with "corrupt county commissioner Boss Hogg and his inept county sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane".
Please note: I meant no insult to the state of Georgia by comparing her to Pasadena.
Many of the filming locations of the Dukes of Hazzard were in California
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjiuXv2t_w
This is all just a thought. At least it gave me a chance to make a post and mention Catherine Bach and Jessica Simpson.
Doug
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
And I will illustrate my thinking.
First we form the PGHGA (Pasadena Gay Hang Gliding Association).
We get a few pilots and go through the storage for "colorful" gliders, launch Mt Wilson, land on Pasadena city property, resist arrest, film the incident with a new GoPro camera, post the result as a viral video on youtube, call any news stations that will cover it. Next charges are filed with the Federal Government for a highly visible, high profile case. A long legal battle would reduce the city of Pasadena's status as a Liberal, evolved, desirable place to buy realestate and base a business. Many ensuing boycotts would follow. People would compare Pasadena to backwards Hazzard County from the '79 to '85 television series with "corrupt county commissioner Boss Hogg and his inept county sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane".
Please note: I meant no insult to the state of Georgia by comparing her to Pasadena.
Many of the filming locations of the Dukes of Hazzard were in California
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjiuXv2t_w
This is all just a thought. At least it gave me a chance to make a post and mention Catherine Bach and Jessica Simpson.
Doug
-
JT
That isn't what Rich (her husband) said in a written statement to the HG community. He admitted landing at the Rose Bowl. (And other stuff - He had some issues that he's since worked out.)jdevorak wrote:This is a third had report. About ten years ago I asked Betty if it was true. She said a small part of it was true. She and another person were flying (I forget who). Her husband was driving that day. They landed south of the stadium not in it. Hardly anyone was around. They had packed up and left when a cop chased them down. Her husband arrgued with the cop and that's why he got arrested.
The real issue was the second time. And if you note, my statement above said "at" the Rose Bowl, not "in" the Rose Bowl. I knew it was the parking lot. I was trying to be brief, and maybe I was too brief and should have elaborated.
Rich got annoyed at the first arrest, since they couldn't figure out what to charge him with. So he did it the next year too. That's when the law got changed. And there were lots of people in the stadium the second time. We all know that sometimes on has to land on property that one wouldn't want to land on. If the owner says to stop, then the second time you do it, you've got a problem. Once is an accident. Twice is a habit. Three times is policy.
Also, it almost doesn't matter what really happened. What matters is what the City bureaucrats think happened. If we can convince them that they won't have issues with us, then that's all that matters. Glossing over the problems of the past won't help. Neither will digging up the details to rub in their noses.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Perhaps we can begin collecting some positive comments from Sylmar locals regarding the sport. I think that could go a long way in convincing the Pasadena council that we have a positive effect on the community. I know a lot of locals come out watch and take photos. Maybe we can ask them to help us out?
The problem is the Pasadena law states:
"and for which pilot certification is not required by federal law"
and far 103 (preamble) states:
"The FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehicle certification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative for the development of these important safety programs. "
http://www.fly-ul.com/preamble.html
So if the the FAA required pilot certification the Pasadena law would be null and void?
Could far 103 be changed to read "all pilots that fly over Pasadena must be certified"?
"and for which pilot certification is not required by federal law"
and far 103 (preamble) states:
"The FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehicle certification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative for the development of these important safety programs. "
http://www.fly-ul.com/preamble.html
So if the the FAA required pilot certification the Pasadena law would be null and void?
Could far 103 be changed to read "all pilots that fly over Pasadena must be certified"?
Not a bad idea. I'd coordinate w/ Joe because we don't want folks bugging the neighbors. One recommendation per household, yes?Busby wrote:Perhaps we can begin collecting some positive comments from Sylmar locals regarding the sport. I think that could go a long way in convincing the Pasadena council that we have a positive effect on the community. I know a lot of locals come out watch and take photos. Maybe we can ask them to help us out?
Maybe we should give them three options:
1) A pre-written one they can sign
2) A "template" they can use to write their own letter
3) A blank piece of paper
On second thought, scratch number 3. They can use 2 the same way as three, and we've put "good ideas" into their heads.
Maybe even just number 1. I'm not sure. I'm sort of thinking out loud (on CRT?)
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
I did some research on Pasadena and their efforts to restrict airspace.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/04/local/me-52879
..City officials, state lawmakers and Pasadena's congressman are lobbying the FAA to severely restrict planes above major Rose Bowl events such as the Woman's World Cup Final, which could draw a capacity crowd of 94,000 Saturday.
.. After seeing the Rose Bowl from a helicopter, Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale) wants the FAA to ensure that all planes, except police and media, be above 2,500 feet if they are within 1.5 miles of the Rose Bowl whenever 40,000 people are expected.
He says the temporary flight restrictions are needed about eight times a year, when crowds are so big and parking lots so full that there are no safe places for planes to land in an emergency.
Pranks at the Rose Bowl.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoax ... Bowl_Hoax/
Pasadena is constantly trying to defend the Rose Bowl from college pranks like the giant "we suck" sign.
All in all I think they are just trying to defend the 2 big crown jewels being the Rose Bowl and Tournament of Roses parade. Yet it seems strange to me they are the home of JPL/Nasa which invented the Hang Glider, yet they are illegal to posses. Maybe relocating JPL to Long Beach would be a better, more aviation friendly city as a location. Look at the efforts they took to maintain the Spruce Goose.
It seems that law is out dated and has been superseded by FAA tfr's etc and should be rescinded.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/04/local/me-52879
..City officials, state lawmakers and Pasadena's congressman are lobbying the FAA to severely restrict planes above major Rose Bowl events such as the Woman's World Cup Final, which could draw a capacity crowd of 94,000 Saturday.
.. After seeing the Rose Bowl from a helicopter, Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale) wants the FAA to ensure that all planes, except police and media, be above 2,500 feet if they are within 1.5 miles of the Rose Bowl whenever 40,000 people are expected.
He says the temporary flight restrictions are needed about eight times a year, when crowds are so big and parking lots so full that there are no safe places for planes to land in an emergency.
Pranks at the Rose Bowl.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoax ... Bowl_Hoax/
Pasadena is constantly trying to defend the Rose Bowl from college pranks like the giant "we suck" sign.
All in all I think they are just trying to defend the 2 big crown jewels being the Rose Bowl and Tournament of Roses parade. Yet it seems strange to me they are the home of JPL/Nasa which invented the Hang Glider, yet they are illegal to posses. Maybe relocating JPL to Long Beach would be a better, more aviation friendly city as a location. Look at the efforts they took to maintain the Spruce Goose.
It seems that law is out dated and has been superseded by FAA tfr's etc and should be rescinded.
I read it was maintained in flight ready condition from 1947 until 1980 in a climate controlled hanger by Howard Hughes for 1 million dollars a year. I presume that was Long Beach. The California Aero Club acquired the plane as it was to be pieced out to museums and then built a new hanger in Long Beach and kept there 1980 to 1988 When Disney bought the land and evicted the plane due to it loosing money. It was shipped to the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon by barge.abinder wrote:Hmmmmmm...........dhmartens wrote:Look at the efforts they took to maintain the Spruce Goose.
The 'Spruce Goose' hasn't been in Long Beach for about the past 16 years.
Long beach also had land available at its giant C-17 and Boeing 717 factory near Douglas park. It seemed to me JPL should be in a city of "aviation". Would Anheiser Busch build a brewery in a "dry" county? Would it be in Van Nuys if alcohol sales were illegal there?
Lastly and more pertinently:
Here is a zoning map of the city of Pasadena( not Long Beach). It looks like north of Woodbury is outside of the city limits and thus legal to land at.
But check for yourself first.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/planning/d ... -07-04.pdf
Last edited by dhmartens on Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
