Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

greblo wrote:Please let me offer my views on this. Neither Robin nor David Jebb had anything to do with the city of San Diego imposing a hang 4 requirement for hang gliders at Torrey. This was done more than 35 years ago, and after many accidents and injuries.

First of all, I think the H4 requirement would be seen as much more tolerable if Jebb (and now Robin) weren't allowing their paragliding students to make their first flights at Torrey (P0?).

greblo wrote:It may be that asking Robin to reduce this requirement would be like asking the president of the Yosemite Hang Gliding Association to reduce the rating requirement at Yosemite from a Hang 4 to a Hang 3. Even if we agreed that flying off of Glacier Point at 9 a.m. in the morning was pretty darn safe, it doesn't mean that the National Park Service is going to agree and relax their long held rules and regulations.

Again, what about the P0 students? It makes me wonder if flying P0 students was ever actually approved by the City in the first place?

greblo wrote:Flying sites on significant public lands, that have many different groups competing for use rights, are often constrained with regulations that may seem overly restrictive.

Did I mention P0's flying at Torrey?

greblo wrote:Torrey is a very complex flying site, given the relatively narrow lift band, the incredible volume of air traffic, the park operator's flight management responsibilities, the different types of flight vehicles, the variety of winds and how they affect affect launching, flying, andd top landing approach safety, spectator safety, the liability held by the city, the cost of the commercial liability insurance policy that the concessionaire must pay for (well in excess of $10,000. per year), and the relationship between accidents and insurance premiums.

How many of these problems arise from the PG training program at Torrey? Volume of traffic? Insurance? Accidents? Now I'm not against PG training at Torrey (even P0's), but H2's at Sylmar are taught to respect their privilege of flying at an H3 site. Where's that respect at Torrey? David Jebb almost kicked me out in 2005 because I was flying a hang glider on the North Face where he wanted to send his students. I was flying with the students, but Jebb complained that I was "waking the s---" out of them. Fortunately, I had an instructor/friend there who verified that I had done nothing wrong.

greblo wrote:It's real easy to wish it were a Hang 3 site, but truthfully, the challenges and obstacles that would need to be overcome to allow hang 3's to safely fly there, are quite significant. Allowing Hang 3's to fly there without adequately addressing all of these challenges would be one of the quickest ways to permanently lose this valuable flying site.

H3's do fly there already ... if they pay the "instruction" fee. So it's not about safety. It's about money. I guess it's OK to risk the site if there's a few bucks in it for the concession?

greblo wrote:So instead of naive and emotional demands to make Torrey a hang 3 site, how about a discussion on these obstacles and how they might be overcome. And, instead of making the concessionaire the enemy, how about thanking him for investing thousands of dollars of his time and money to keep this flying site open and accessible.

Joe, since they've made it a P0 site, they can surely make it an H3 site with appropriate sign-offs. I personally think the site would be better managed by a club (or a club of clubs). Then we could get USHPA site insurance for $250 per year. The only reason their insurance is so expensive is that they're running a commercial operation - and not taking advantage of USHPA site insurance. Furthermore, they've got a no-cost lease, and I'm sure they're making plenty of money. Jebb and Robin seem to fight awfully hard for the right to barely get by. If they just wanted to preserve the site, they might be willing to consider other options. They haven't been.

Just a quick question for Bob ,as I fill out this ballot form, a simple yes or no will do. I have been told that you are responsible for the water for the grass to be cut off, is this true or just a wild story to make you look bad.

Hey Bob,

I still dont find P0's as much a problem flying at Torrey since they can land amungst a crowd of people with less risk of hurting anyone. An HG requires much more real estate to set down and on final and if someone were hit it would be bad for everyone; both PG and HG. Now in regards to the H3's being allowed with some instruction I can only see that as a good thing. Seems like based on what Joe has said about why it is an H4 site that even H3 is not allowed and the concessionaire is accepting more risk in allowing it. I can only see the added instruction as a good thing. It will allow an H3 to fly there with instruction on the etticate of flying in such a congested site. Also the instructor will be able to see if the person has the ability to do so and have a familiarity with his skills. I have only flown R/C at torrey and it was a long time ago, but I do remember how congested it was for everyone flying and any rules imposed that ensure that the site can remain open should be followed. It is better to do whatever possible to prevent accidents and bad press then it is to try and justify that the site is still safe for the public at the beach once one has happened.

Bob I feel for you in your quest to make some changes and I understand you have had some tough roads in doing so, but based on what I have read it seems your methods are quite harsh when you hit roadblocks and in doing so you are being alienated and anything you suggest is met with opposition. I know much of your actions were in the good interest of HG but I fear that the alienation will continue. Even if you followed the rules and backed down those that you are working with will still oppose you for your actions of the past. Sort of a blacklist I guess. Perhaps just having someone new will take that stigma away and they can possibly do a lot of what you wanted to achieve for the sad reason of it not being you asking... That kind of sucks, but thats how politics works sometime..

As much as it sucks maybe moving from devoted advocate of HG back to enthusiast would be best..

Best regards,

Marc

Bill Hall wrote:Just a quick question for Bob ,as I fill out this ballot form, a simple yes or no will do. I have been told that you are responsible for the water for the grass to be cut off, is this true or just a wild story to make you look bad.

Hi Bill. I had nothing to do with the water for the grass being cut off. Period. I've been accused of that many times beginning in the spring of 2007. I had nothing to do with it. Even to this day, I have no idea who was behind that. I have tried to contact the the "Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network" (CLEAN) and their lawyer (Marcia Hanscom), and they have not returned my calls. This kind of slander against me is exactly why our justice system requires accusers to stand behind their accusations. You'll find that no one is willing to stand publicly behind this accusation because it's not true. This kind of "back door" smear campaign is consistent with the people behind this recall election. I don't think Bill Helliwell has been a part of that smear campaign, but he has allowed himself to be used by them.

addicted2climbing wrote:Hey Bob,

I still dont find P0's as much a problem flying at Torrey since they can land amungst a crowd of people with less risk of hurting anyone. An HG requires much more real estate to set down and on final and if someone were hit it would be bad for everyone; both PG and HG.

There is some truth to this, but I have recommended special use landing zones on the beach (for both HG and PG) just as they have special areas reserved for surfing and SCUBA diving. Collision of swimmers with either surf boards or SCUBA tanks could be dangerous so those activities are generally segregated at La Jolla Shores beach (adjacent to the Beach under Torrey).

addicted2climbing wrote:Now in regards to the H3's being allowed with some instruction I can only see that as a good thing. Seems like based on what Joe has said about why it is an H4 site that even H3 is not allowed and the concessionaire is accepting more risk in allowing it. I can only see the added instruction as a good thing. It will allow an H3 to fly there with instruction on the etticate of flying in such a congested site. Also the instructor will be able to see if the person has the ability to do so and have a familiarity with his skills.

I appreciate what you're saying, but we have a rating system with special skills to address this issue. Any pilot with those skills should be able to fly at any site requiring those skills. Regarding the concessionaire's risk, this is a problem because it's balanced against the concessionaire's reward. Having P0 students make their first flights at Torrey is very risky, but it's done because it makes lots of money. Having H3's flying at Torrey is less risky, but it's not done because it doesn't make much money. This is a problem!!! The absolute control of the site by a concessionaire has caused this problem, and I've been working to change this by providing some form of community oversight at Torrey through the Soaring Council. Imagine what Sylmar would be like if it were run by a business instead of a club. Slowly, they would migrate from what's in the best interests of the pilots to the best interests of their pockets. I don't think Joe Greblo would do that because I have confidence in his integrity. But imagine if David Jebb got the "concession" at Sylmar. Please think about Torrey from that perspective, and you'll see it in a different light.

addicted2climbing wrote:I have only flown R/C at torrey and it was a long time ago, but I do remember how congested it was for everyone flying and any rules imposed that ensure that the site can remain open should be followed. It is better to do whatever possible to prevent accidents and bad press then it is to try and justify that the site is still safe for the public at the beach once one has happened.

In April of 2007 I flew HG, PG, RC, and sailplane all in the same day at Torrey (see John Heiney's article in August 2007 HG&PG magazine). I understand the issue of congestion among differing aircraft, and the biggest problem that I've seen comes from low-time PG students who haven't mastered their own skills and their own judgment of other aircraft types (like hang gliders). I would much rather be flying around with a bunch of H3 pilots in tight quarters than with a bunch of low time PG pilots who might be making their first flights!!

addicted2climbing wrote:Bob I feel for you in your quest to make some changes and I understand you have had some tough roads in doing so, but based on what I have read it seems your methods are quite harsh when you hit roadblocks and in doing so you are being alienated and anything you suggest is met with opposition.

It's been a long tough road, but I'm finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. At this past Board meeting I finally gained support from the majority of the Board to add another USHPA Chapter to the Soaring Council. Those of you who've followed this from the beginning know that's been one of my long term goals, and finally USHPA has supported it. But that goal was only won by one single vote. Would Bill Helliwell have voted to add another chapter? So far he's refused to answer. But that's not the point here. The point is that I did start behind the 8-ball, and Brad Hall slung a lot of garbage in my way (including the infamous EC letter). But I've stood by my principles, and now the Board is finally seeing through the smoke screen. I believe this past board meeting was a turning point, and I ask for the opportunity to finish what I started. I was on the "two year plan" not the "one year plan" and I ask to be judged by my results in the fall at the end of my term.

addicted2climbing wrote:I know much of your actions were in the good interest of HG but I fear that the alienation will continue. Even if you followed the rules and backed down those that you are working with will still oppose you for your actions of the past. Sort of a blacklist I guess.

Again, I think the results of this recent Board meeting show that I've broken through the blacklist. I didn't win every vote, but I did win a few and many of the others were close (many were so close that they justified a roll call vote!!). To have so many directors joining me tells me that they're beginning to see through all the garbage that was laid in my path. Please let me finish my term to build on that. This is not the time to cut and run!!

addicted2climbing wrote:Perhaps just having someone new will take that stigma away and they can possibly do a lot of what you wanted to achieve for the sad reason of it not being you asking... That kind of sucks, but thats how politics works sometime..

If that "someone new" backed the principles that got me elected and could accomplish them more effectively, then I'd have resigned to give them the reigns. But Bill has not stood for the principles of openness and he has not stood up for pilots being pushed around at Torrey. Bill was on the San Diego club's Board when these things were happening, and he did nothing. He let Jebb get away with whatever he wanted and I cannot support that. I've lived through this mess up close, and I know who's stood up for fairness and who hasn't. Bill may seem like a nice guy, but when things get tough, you need leaders willing to step up and take the heat. That's what I've done, and I ask for the chance to see this through until the end of the year. You can vote me out in the fall if you're not happy with my results.

Finally, the people who've opposed me want to put a stigma on my head for being the "first director to be recalled". If nothing else, I don't deserve that stigma. I tackled a difficult problem at Torrey that Bill Helliwell had allowed to continue. It was going to be a mess no matter how "diplomatically" it was approached. Right out of the gate I was accused of reporting the watering - even though it was completely false. Of course that's going to turn people against me. But if you let them win with those kinds of smear tactics, then you'll be rewarding that kind of behavior. Don't reward them for that. Don't reward them for wasting our money on this recall. If you do, then I guarantee there will be more recalls in the future.

OK, thanks for making that clear Bob. I wanted to hear your side of the story, instead of wondering why you would do something that really hurts Torry Pines.

Bill Hall wrote:OK, thanks for making that clear Bob. I wanted to hear your side of the story ...

It's my pleasure Bill. I wish more people would just come out and ask whatever's on their mind. Seek and you will find.

" Don't reward them for wasting our money on this recall. If you do, then I guarantee there will be more recalls in the future."
Bob, I am concerned with the last line of your post, it sounds like a thinly veiled threat to all those that would dare to vote for your recall. I could write it off as simply an observation, if you did not "guarantee" there would be more recalls, this would seem myopic and self-serving and not in the best interest of free-flight.

It sounded to me like a prediction, not a threat. As in "If you drive that motorcycle into that brick wall at 120 mph, I can guarantee you will get hurt." Or "If you repeatedly reward your kids for bad behaviour, the'll learn that bad behaviour works."

But that's just my reading of it. I make no guarantee about what was actually meant.

Bill Hall wrote:" Don't reward them for wasting our money on this recall. If you do, then I guarantee there will be more recalls in the future."
Bob, I am concerned with the last line of your post, it sounds like a thinly veiled threat to all those that would dare to vote for your recall. I could write it off as simply an observation, if you did not "guarantee" there would be more recalls, this would seem myopic and self-serving and not in the best interest of free-flight.

I think George is right that it's not a "threat", but more an observation of what will likely follow. Please understand that we do have two sides and two views. Right now both sides have their own representation in Brad Hall and myself. If the recall wins, then one side will hold all the marbles. That's how it was before I was elected, and that's why I ran for office - in response to that lack of representation. If I am recalled, then those same forces will be in place, and I will likely work to again restore the balance. That's not a threat as much as it is a clarification of the laws of nature.

stebbins wrote:It sounded to me like a prediction, not a threat. As in "If you drive that motorcycle into that brick wall at 120 mph, I can guarantee you will get hurt." Or "If you repeatedly reward your kids for bad behaviour, the'll learn that bad behaviour works."

But that's just my reading of it. I make no guarantee about what was actually meant.

George, I think you're spot on here. I like your analogies.

I also want to comment that I didn't start a recall against either David Jebb or Brad Hall. Instead I used the normal process of regular elections. But if one side is going to "pull a knife" by using the recall process, then that opens the door for the other side to do the same. I find it interesting that so many sat quietly while this recall process was started against me, but they're all up in arms that I would consider using that same tool against the other side. Fair is fair, and it's not right for them to throw the first punch and then cry when they get hit back. I haven't heard Brad Hall arguing for people to vote against this recall. That's on him.

Finally, my goal is fairness. As long as both sides have fair representation, then that's good by me. Let's vote to keep it that way!