Jim,
I was referring to the fact that we have chosen to administer inconsistent USHPA rating requirements in Los Angeles, and perhaps in other locations. We seem to make it work just fine, but still it bothers me that nationally we can't agree on a rating system that can be administered exactly the same everywhere.
Hang 3 Requirments
Moderator: Chip
-
Bob Kuczewski
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:39 am
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
As another twist on this, it turns out that the USHPA P-3 rating requires 20 hours while the H-3 rating requires only 10 hours.
I learned both HG and PG at the same time, and one of my goals was to fly Torrey (H4/P3). It was obvious that I would reach the P3 before the H4 so I was focused on the 20 hour P3 requirement. Because of that, I wasn't at all surprised by Joe's 20 hour H3 requirement. In fact, I think I remember being surprised by people who told me that an H3 only required 10 hours, and I probably misquoted the 20 hour requirement to fellow hang glider students in San Diego at that time (sorry).
As far as this poll goes, I voted to keep the higher rating because I agree with all the safety and site preservation concerns listed on this topic. However, I am wondering if there's a better way to address this matter so that our ratings are more consistent and they truely describe the skills needed to fly safely at any given site.
With those thoughts in mind, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a "mountain site" endorsement or even a "threatened site" endorsement that captures the additional skills needed in those cases. We do have plenty of other special skills (Turbulence, Advanced Windy Cliff Launch, Restricted Landing Field...), so one solution might be to either require a particular combination of these (as the X-C endorsement requires) or to add special new endorsements.
As Regional Director (and a human being), I tend to like the idea of having consistent rules and regulations that are enforced fairly at all locations. I also like the motto "Say what you do and do what you say". This seems like a candidate for that. On the other hand, it looks like we have something that works with only minor confusion, so maybe it's not worth rocking the boat on it right now. If anyone would like me to bring the matter up with USHPA, I'd be happy to discuss it. That's why I'm here!!
Bob Kuczewski
I learned both HG and PG at the same time, and one of my goals was to fly Torrey (H4/P3). It was obvious that I would reach the P3 before the H4 so I was focused on the 20 hour P3 requirement. Because of that, I wasn't at all surprised by Joe's 20 hour H3 requirement. In fact, I think I remember being surprised by people who told me that an H3 only required 10 hours, and I probably misquoted the 20 hour requirement to fellow hang glider students in San Diego at that time (sorry).
As far as this poll goes, I voted to keep the higher rating because I agree with all the safety and site preservation concerns listed on this topic. However, I am wondering if there's a better way to address this matter so that our ratings are more consistent and they truely describe the skills needed to fly safely at any given site.
With those thoughts in mind, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a "mountain site" endorsement or even a "threatened site" endorsement that captures the additional skills needed in those cases. We do have plenty of other special skills (Turbulence, Advanced Windy Cliff Launch, Restricted Landing Field...), so one solution might be to either require a particular combination of these (as the X-C endorsement requires) or to add special new endorsements.
As Regional Director (and a human being), I tend to like the idea of having consistent rules and regulations that are enforced fairly at all locations. I also like the motto "Say what you do and do what you say". This seems like a candidate for that. On the other hand, it looks like we have something that works with only minor confusion, so maybe it's not worth rocking the boat on it right now. If anyone would like me to bring the matter up with USHPA, I'd be happy to discuss it. That's why I'm here!!
Bob Kuczewski
