The other side

[Bob Kuczewski]

Oscar,
As I said earlier, I will wait to see what the actual draft version, if any, the committee presents to the board for a vote (or not). The hypothetical amendment does not, in my opinion, represent a needed change. The President has the authority to call for a secret ballot when he/she deems it necessary. I have seen it used twice out of many votes, and I think it was a proper and viable way to address the issue at hand. It is a tool.
Any RD is free to disclose how they voted and the outcome of the actual vote is published on the USHPA web site. I do not know of one member that has ever asked (1) what was voted on at the BoD meeting?, and (2)
how did my RD vote on that issue?

Brad, there's a proposed amendment on the table. Do you support it as is or not? If not, what would you change? These are not hard questions, so why are you dancing around them? We know that any RD can disclose how they vote if they want to. That's a red herring, and it's not the issue being discussed. The issue is what if they don't want to disclose how they've voted? How will their members know what they've done if they don't want to tell them? And with secret voting how would we know if a director was being honest with their disclosure anyway? With secret ballots you (Brad Hall) could vote against the Hawks (or the SHGA) and then come on this forum and say that you supported them!! There would be no way for the members to know the truth. This is a question of accountability to the people whom Directors are supposed to represent. Furthermore, the current ability of the President to arbitrarily make any given vote secret is far too much power concentrated in the hands of one person. And this is not a rare issue. Secret ballots were used twice in the last Board meeting alone!!

2. No. I will not support adding the hawks to the TPSC. The council has its own set of bylaws which does not provide for the addition of another club to the existing group. There is a rep from the SDHGPA for both HG and PG, and a rep from the USHPA for both HG and PG. The council has stated it feels the sports are well represented. That is the councils choice, and no one has the right or authority to tell them otherwise. Apart from that, the club does not, as its name implies, represent the HG pilot community at Torrey Pines, and Bob in particular does not speak for that group of pilots.

Brad, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to use the "L" word here. You are lying to say that the Torrey Pines Soaring Council does not provide for the addition of new clubs. All of the Council's bylaws have contained a provision for amending the bylaws (which would include adding new clubs). The most recent bylaws that I was given by Gary Fogel (Council Chairman) even contains a special section for adding new clubs, so you are lying right there!! Here are the sections:

Article 6, Section 1: Amendments to these Bylaws may be made at Regular or Special meetings of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council by approval of 2/3 of the voting membership; provided a notice of intention to amend the Bylaws has been sent by the Secretary to all of the voting members thirty days prior to the meeting.

Article 6, Section 2: New organizations can apply for representation on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council provided that no members of the Board of Directors or Executive Council of the applicant organization are in conflict of interest, reference Article III, Section 1. Any applicant organization must make a written request for representation. Any applicant organization must serve to fill a void not already covered by organizations currently represented on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. A 2/3 of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council is required for ratification of any new organization.

You are lying right there when you state:

"The council has its own set of bylaws which does not provide for the addition of another club to the existing group."

The Council's bylaws do provide for the addition of new clubs by either changing the bylaws or by using the application process outlined in their bylaws. You're busted right there Brad!

The Hawks applied by written request on September 12th, 2007 and yet a vote was never taken. USHPA is a voting member of the Soaring Council, and it is within USHPA's right (and I would say duty) to introduce a motion to add the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club. USHPA's motion would certainly carry some weight on the Council, and at least two other clubs have said that they would consider (or even follow) USHPA's lead on the matter. So your claims that there's nothing USHPA can do are false.

Furthermore, your posting is somewhat misleading (or at least unclear) when you state the "There is a rep from the SDHGPA for both HG and PG, and a rep from the USHPA for both HG and PG." As you know there is only ONE representative from the SDHGPA and only ONE representative from USHPA. Furthermore, by your choice (and the choice of David Metzgar) both of those representatives were paragliding pilots for 6 months until the Torrey Hawks came along. In other words, there were NO hang glider pilots at all on the Council until AFTER the Hawks applied. That's when the SDHGPA changed their representative in an attempt to keep the Hawks off of the Council. Furthermore, you know that the RC pilots have THREE clubs representing their ONE sport, while the sports of hang gliding and paragliding have to share TWO representatives for TWO sports. In other words, our sports are outnumbered by THREE to ONE, and yet you would not support adding another USHPA Chapter to represent hang gliding on that Council?

Having said all of that, at least you did give us an answer in this case. You have stated that you will NOT support adding the Torrey Hawks to the Soaring Council. So anyone who feels that we should have a more balanced Soaring Council, and anyone who feels that we should have a separate voice for hang gliding on the Council should support Jerry Katz (who has stated that he'll support adding the Hawks).

3.Support due process? What do you mean? Change what the TPSC is and does despite the stated intention of the council to not become Bobs "court of last resort"? Try to backdoor a club onto the council through the USHPA appointment process? The site is a City Park. The management is picked by the city through a RFP process, and a legal contract exists between the two. USHPA has no say in how the site is operated and does not even insure it.

Brad, you know that for many years (long ago) the Torrey Pines Soaring Council accepted and reviewed incident reports at the Torrey Pines Gliderport. That is a role that they have historically embraced so that issues within the pilot community could stay within the pilot community. It's important to remember (for those who don't know) that the Soaring Council is just made up of member clubs. There are no governmental representatives on that Council - it's all pilots. So that Council is an ideal candidate for a "court of first appeal" (not of "last resort") so that pilots can have their issues reviewed by other pilots. This provides for a way to handle matters within the pilot community so pilots don't have to go to the City Council or the Mayor's office or the court system. This is a valuable role for the Soaring Council in solving matters within our community, and it is a role which USHPA should support but you have rejected.

Despite the picture that has been painted by a disgruntled few, the HG pilots at Torrey continue to fly and have a great time doing so. There is no conspiracy to kick out HGing. Ask the pilots that actually fly here, not the vocal few that complain about things based on web posts and never really experience the site themselves. Come on down and go flying.

You are partially right here. Since our (Torrey Hawks) efforts began over two years ago, things have gotten a lot better at Torrey Pines. The concessionaire there knows that they are being watched (like a Hawk). But even in these last few months we've had a case where the current concessionaire (Robin Marien or David Jebb?) tried to charge David Beardslee $100 to fly each of his tandem passengers at the Gliderport. This is in direct violation of the lease which clearly specifies an "outside tandem" fee of $25. Fortunately, our new USHPA appointee to the Soaring Council, Ken Baier (chosen by the Hawks to replace you Brad) spoke up about this abuse, and it appears to have been retracted in the past month or two. But without constant vigilance by the Hawks and our members, it's clear that these kinds of abuses would continue. So while you can say that things are certainly better at Torrey, you have to recognize the reason for those changes. That reason is the Torrey Hawks. If we want those changes to remain, then we need to ensure that the sport of hang gliding has its own permanent voice on the Soaring Council. Anyone who supports that goal should support Jerry Katz.

[dhmartens]

Brad wrote "If there was a will and a way for a hg training program at Torrey it would be done. It is simply not feasible. Add to that the lack of HG instructors in SD and the lack of training hills here, it is no wonder the hg population keeps shrinking. I send everyone to John Hieny and to Rob or Joe."


Meanwhile hang glider manufactures like Wills Wing and Moyes sell fewer hang gliders.


Less sales mean less innovations


Pics of Wills Wing factory
http://hang6.blogspot.com/2007/10/candy ... a-and.html

[Bob Kuczewski]

Brad wrote "If there was a will and a way for a hg training program at Torrey it would be done. It is simply not feasible. Add to that the lack of HG instructors in SD and the lack of training hills here, it is no wonder the hg population keeps shrinking. I send everyone to John Hieny and to Rob or Joe."


Meanwhile hang glider manufactures like Wills Wing and Moyes sell fewer hang gliders.

I believe there's a will and a way and an obstacle.

The "will" is myself, the members of the Torrey Hawks, and our local instructors who would love to be able to use the training hill just behind the Gliderport (which was constructed specifically for that purpose!!).

The "way" is having two Regional Directors, both local clubs, and all local instructors working together to make a proposal to UCSD to allow us to use that training hill for the purpose for which it was designed: training hang glider pilots. I think this could be aided by working with students at UCSD to form a UCSD hang gliding club (possibly through their engineering department). See the wiki page at http://www.hanggliding.org/wiki/Hang_Gl ... rrey_Pines for more information.

The "obstacle" is Brad Hall.

Please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer before this election is over!!!

[OSCAR]

That was very interesting Doug ,I enjoyed reading it,I always wondered how a Hang glider was built. 8)I'd also like to see Hang gliding Training At Torrey to keep the sport alive in the area, and at RE$ONABLE Rate$.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'd also like to see Hang gliding Training At Torrey to keep the sport alive in the area, and at RE$ONABLE Rate$.

I agree Oscar!!

Please check out the wiki page that I added to my previous post (http://www.hanggliding.org/wiki/Hang_Gl ... rrey_Pines). If that training hill were put into use, then it's possible that our local instructors could begin using it in conjunction with a UCSD hang gliding club. The use of that training hill combined with tandem instruction (and trips to local mountain sites) could make a big difference in the sport of hang gliding in San Diego!!

[Brad Hall]

Before this becomes another "what is wrong with Torrey" topic, here are some facts. The so called training hill was in part created without permission of the land owner, UCSD, by Bill Bennett. He illegally added it to the insurance policy provided to the Torrey Pines site by the Torrey Pines HG Assn. When the University found out, they gave him the boot. He had no permission to use the property in the first place. It is a little 30' bump that dumps into the parking lot. As a first day training hill, it sucks. The new research facility,(currently on hold) will limit sailplane operations. The University has proposed a realignment of the runway that could possibly allow sailplanes to continue using the land. There is no provision for funding the realignment. It would cut right through the "hill". At the very least, the attitude of UCSD over the past 5 years could be described as adversarial. They want to maintain the right to put more buildings on the runway. The current grading has resulted in a fence and storage buildings/equipment parking that renders the runway unusable. This is not likely to change before the spring flying season. I am convinced this is by design. The area directly in front of the "hill" is used for overflow parking from the Salk Institute. Wishing Torrey Pines was a suitable training site for HG does not make it so.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Before this becomes another "what is wrong with Torrey" topic, here are some facts. The so called training hill was in part created without permission of the land owner, UCSD, by Bill Bennett. He illegally added it to the insurance policy provided to the Torrey Pines site by the Torrey Pines HG Assn. When the University found out, they gave him the boot. He had no permission to use the property in the first place. It is a little 30' bump that dumps into the parking lot. As a first day training hill, it sucks. The new research facility,(currently on hold) will limit sailplane operations. The University has proposed a realignment of the runway that could possibly allow sailplanes to continue using the land. There is no provision for funding the realignment. It would cut right through the "hill". At the very least, the attitude of UCSD over the past 5 years could be described as adversarial. They want to maintain the right to put more buildings on the runway. The current grading has resulted in a fence and storage buildings/equipment parking that renders the runway unusable. This is not likely to change before the spring flying season. I am convinced this is by design. The area directly in front of the "hill" is used for overflow parking from the Salk Institute. Wishing Torrey Pines was a suitable training site for HG does not make it so.

Brad,

Thank you for once again demonstrating your obstructionist approach to anything that I suggest. You are right that:

"Wishing Torrey Pines was a suitable training site for HG does not make it so."

but I would counter:

"Working together to make Torrey Pines a suitable training site for HG might make it so."

Are you a "wisher" or a "worker" Brad?

Everyone else, please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer!!!

[Bob Kuczewski]

Brad wrote "If there was a will and a way for a hg training program at Torrey it would be done. It is simply not feasible. Add to that the lack of HG instructors in SD and the lack of training hills here, it is no wonder the hg population keeps shrinking. I send everyone to John Hieny and to Rob or Joe."

This is a typical Brad Hall response. He proclaims "It is simply not feasible" as if he's the final authority on what's feasilble at Torrey. But Brad's other posting is more revealing of him...

Brad Hall hated Bill Bennett. I don't know the history there, but you can read it in Brad's postings. So when David Jebb came along and eventually got the lease, Brad saw Jebb as his saviour. Brad has never been able to see any of the bad things that Jebb did because he could not get past his loyalty to Jebb. So when I came along to challenge Jebb's actions, Brad began attacking me like a mad bull. There is ample evidence of Brad's collusion with David Jebb including Brad's "rubber stamping" of Jebb's choice to represent USHPA on the Soaring Council. It's important for everyone to see this and realize that Brad stood by for all those years and ignored Jebb's abuses. Brad was on the "inside team" at Torrey, and he was a member of the privileged class there. That's why he looked the other way when his own friend David Beardslee was kicked out for life! Brad claims he tried to resolve the dispute, but all he did was represent Jebb's own demands in his offer to Beardslee. Ask David Beardslee if you want to know the truth.

Brad's contempt for Bill Bennett still lingers to this day, and that's why he can't even bring himself to support using that training hill (which by his own admission was constructed just for that purpose!) to train hang glider pilots in San Diego. Imagine if people could drive up to Torrey Pines and actually choose between a PG kiting lesson and an HG training hill lesson. That would be a huge boost to our sport.

Brad is right that there is some discussion about what to do with the sailplane runway, and they may end up angling it slightly. But that means this is the time to address all aspects of training at Torrey - BEFORE they start moving dirt. Right now they can train paraglider pilots from scratch at Torrey. They can also train sailplane pilots from scratch using a two-place trainer. They can even train RC pilots there using a "buddy box" system. So what's missing? A hang glider training hill!! And best of all, it's not really missing. It's sitting right out there in the open for everyone to see. It just needs to be endorsed and pitched so we can put it into use.

We could start a UCSD hang gliding club, use our local instructors, and even get USHPA site insurance (only $250/year) for that training hill. That would mean that people coming to Torrey could learn all forms of soaring aviation at that one site. The fact that Brad can't see that vision (or has it clouded by his own hatred of Bill Bennett ... and me) is further proof that we need another new Regional Director in Region 3 to finish the change that we started last year. We need a "can do" Director, not a "can't do" Director.

Please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer!!

Before this becomes another "what is wrong with Torrey" topic, here are some facts. The so called training hill was in part created without permission of the land owner, UCSD, by Bill Bennett. He illegally added it to the insurance policy provided to the Torrey Pines site by the Torrey Pines HG Assn. When the University found out, they gave him the boot. He had no permission to use the property in the first place. It is a little 30' bump that dumps into the parking lot. As a first day training hill, it sucks. The new research facility,(currently on hold) will limit sailplane operations. The University has proposed a realignment of the runway that could possibly allow sailplanes to continue using the land. There is no provision for funding the realignment. It would cut right through the "hill". At the very least, the attitude of UCSD over the past 5 years could be described as adversarial. They want to maintain the right to put more buildings on the runway. The current grading has resulted in a fence and storage buildings/equipment parking that renders the runway unusable. This is not likely to change before the spring flying season. I am convinced this is by design. The area directly in front of the "hill" is used for overflow parking from the Salk Institute. Wishing Torrey Pines was a suitable training site for HG does not make it so.

[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way, here's a photo of the Torrey Pines Gliderport that I took last year when flying along the coast:



Here's a rough diagram of the Gliderport, Sailplane runway, and Training hill:



Finally, here's a picture of the training hill itself (with one of the new buildings sticking up far behind it):



As you can see from these photos there's a HUGE landing area out in front of the training hill, and (at least on these two days) there were NO cars parked anywhere in the way. Now it is true that sometimes cars do park in the landing area of that hill, but with an area this big we could either work out an alternate parking area or simply not use it on those busy days when the lot is full to capacity (like during the annual golf tournament).

My point here is that Brad Hall does not want to work with me (his fellow Director) to solve problems, and instead he just wants to shoot down any idea that I suggest. He's done the same thing with the beach landing issue where he took part in negotiating a deal that allows the concessionaire to land their first flight paragliding students on the beach but prohibits advanced hang gliding pilots from landing anywhere on that same beach.

With so many of our sites being threatened we need Directors who will look for ways to expand our flying opportunities rather than look for excuses to limit them.

Please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer!!

[OSCAR]

If all else Fails ,Any Chance of just moving the hill onto the glider port property .then there would be more parking room .and the ground would be flat and ready for future improvments?

[Bob Kuczewski]

If all else Fails, Any Chance of just moving the hill onto the glider port property. then there would be more parking room and the ground would be flat and ready for future improvments?

The Gliderport property itself is fairly small and I don't think it would fit (although it could go over toward the north face). But as long as they are going to preserve the sailplane runway (which seems to be the case), then there should be ample room in that entire area where that pile of dirt could "live". As long as it faces toward a portion of the sailplane runway (which was paved, but is now essentially dirt), then it could be used as a training hill whenever the sailplanes are not flying. That gives us most of the year to use it.

If the sailplane runway were angled to be slightly northwest to southeast, then the training hill could be moved to the northeast side of that runway so that the entire sailplane runway would be a landing area in the typical west wind conditions.

The point is that there are lots of things that we could do here, but Brad doesn't want to see them. Even worse, when someone like you or I bring up new ideas, Brad just shoots them down rather than exploring them. If you want that for another two years, then vote for Brad. But if you want a "can do" attitude rather than a "can't do" attitude, please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer!

[Don]

I'm not trying to fan the flames here - I'm somewhat sorry that I made my original post (not completely but somewhat) - BUT, while having a training hill at Torrey might not ever happen, having an attitude that it CAN'T happen is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Joe Greblo had that attitude Dockweiler would still be a fantasy, the SHGA water bill would still be prohibitive, and the SHGA wouldn't have access to Kagel, Tower's, Lukens, etc.

I've already submitted by ballot so any comments by Bob or Brad aren't going to change my vote.

Hopefully, the exchange between these two individuals has at least opened the eyes of the Pilot Community to some of the issues and positions of the candidates. Knowledge is always good.

[Brad Hall]

Bob, get over yourself. Everything is not always about you. The property in question belongs to UCSD. It is not part of the City Park property. It is not part of Torrey Pines Flight Park. It is the boundary line between the two. The good people at UCSD are the ones that decide how they use their property. The city and anyone else have no voice. I was part of the group that got Torrey designated an Historical Landmark, and had years of negotiations with UCSD to include the sailplane runway. They flat out refused because, as they stated then and now, they want to be able to develop the property how they see fit. This has absolutely nothing to do with who the RD is. When someone makes a proposal and they are not aware of the facts that may affect the outcome, being informed is not an attack.
The chance of moving a hill onto city property is 0. The entire park is under Coastal Commission control. They will not allow any grading of any type period.
The runway has not been paved since WW2.
The alignment direction is up to UCSD. They do not have to do it, and can at any time just say no and shut down all flight opps forever.
The photos do not tell the tale. The building going in is at the end of the runway, not the high rise across the street in the photo. On any summer weekend the parking lot is full of cars, including the area west of the "hill". On every weekday there is a guard that directs Salk Inst. cars to park in this area. A year is a long time and many physical changes have taken place since the photos were shot.
Finally, if anyone wants to start a HG club at UCSD, more power to you. If you want to approach the university with a proposal to teach off that little bump in the parking lot, what is stopping you? I watched it tried and was not impressed. I know the people that attempted to teach there and they were not impressed. No wind means a small chance of your feet actually leaving the ground. 10 mph is too much for new students. The ground is as hard as concrete and no one can get into a harness. Other than that, its perfect. Go for it.

[OSCAR]

Well said Don and so true. Here's one of my favorite Quotes.

If you think your beaten,you are.If you think you dare not ,you don't.If you like to win but think you can't,It's almost certain that you won't.Life's battles don't always go to the stronger woman or man ,but sooner or later ,those who win Are those who think they CAN.


Unknown

[dhmartens]

Brad wrote:
"The good people at UCSD are the ones that decide how they use their property. The city and anyone else have no voice."

I know better than to believe that. I think they need a permit.

Divide and conquer:
I just wonder why all this animosity exists between hang gliders and paragliders. Maybe we should do away with the designation. We just fight among ourselves while those who wish to conquer get their way. Cortez divided the Aztecs, and the Native Americans used horses and guns to fight among themselves before they realized it was too late.

Maybe we should call them UFW's Ultralight Footlaunched Wings and let the glide ratio and flight characteristics be the determining factors. USHPA could only rate instructors that can teach both disciplines.

I would also recognize getting a paraglider landing zone on the beach was a major accomplishment.

Doug

[Brad Hall]

Doug,
Yes they need a permit. I was talking about using the property for a runway or a facility. By the way, they do their own environmental impact report and approval of it, have their own building inspectors, engineers and more. They are like a fiefdom and do not have to follow many of the rules and regulations that apply to the rest of society. Add to that many of the same people that have some say are alumni, and you can see how frustrating it is to try to negotiate with them. They are like Lilly Tomlin's old line of "we are the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to."

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, get over yourself. Everything is not always about you.

Brad, your animosity is showing again. I don't think any of my comments were "about Bob".

The property in question belongs to UCSD. It is not part of the City Park property. It is not part of Torrey Pines Flight Park. It is the boundary line between the two. The good people at UCSD are the ones that decide how they use their property. The city and anyone else have no voice.

They currently allow sailplane operations on that land. Sailplane operations are a big deal. They require closing off a very large section of the land from other uses (like parking). They involve closing down the access road to the North Parking lot for every launch and landing (maybe you forgot that I had volunteered as a gate guard for their 2007 operations - so I know what I'm talking about). Using the training hill is a much less demanding use of that land. It only takes up a small fraction of the land used by the sailplanes and it doesn't require any road closures. Furthermore, the sailplane folks (and the entire Soaring Council) should support this since it establishes another aviation use for the land that's already being used by the sailplanes. And if UCSD can get something (like a hang gliding club or even a low-cost aeronautical engineering use) then it becomes a win win win situation.

I was part of the group that got Torrey designated an Historical Landmark, and had years of negotiations with UCSD to include the sailplane runway. They flat out refused because, as they stated then and now, they want to be able to develop the property how they see fit.

This is one of the biggest problems that I have with you as a future Director Brad. Just because something hasn't been done in the past, doesn't mean that it can't be done in the future. Others on this forum have been smart enough to recognize that flaw in your logic, so you can't blame that on me.

This has absolutely nothing to do with who the RD is. When someone makes a proposal and they are not aware of the facts that may affect the outcome, being informed is not an attack.

I'm sorry Brad, but this has everything to do with being a Regional Director. It has to do with having an open mind and being willing to explore new possibilities rather than being crippled by past limitations and failures.

The chance of moving a hill onto city property is 0. The entire park is under Coastal Commission control. They will not allow any grading of any type period.

Brad, if they can build a whole new building on that land, then they can surely move a pile of dirt from one location to another. It may take a little bit of planning and approval, but since they're considering changing the runway angle, then they may have to move that pile of dirt anyway. They might as well move it somewhere that will be useful.

The runway has not been paved since WW2. The alignment direction is up to UCSD. They do not have to do it, and can at any time just say no and shut down all flight opps forever.

Shutting down the sailplane operations would be a very unpopular decision on their part, and I think the bad press from that would be significant. But even if that's a potential threat, then that's all the more reason to band together with the sailplane folks and try to establish the broadest aviation use of the facility to help protect it. After all, the sailplanes only fly a few weeks a year and not even every year. So a vacant runway for 10 months out of the year doesn't do nearly as much to protect the aviation use of the land as having an active and vibrant training hill where news reporters and tourists alike can come to take their first hang gliding hops. Furthermore, we should work to show UCSD that having an active aviation facility can be a benefit to them. It could attract more students to their engineering programs and more students in general as another recreational activity. We (USHPA and the Soaring Council) should be working to sell UCSD on the possibilities, and not just close the door because you've had a bad experience with them in the past.

The photos do not tell the tale. The building going in is at the end of the runway, not the high rise across the street in the photo. On any summer weekend the parking lot is full of cars, including the area west of the "hill". On every weekday there is a guard that directs Salk Inst. cars to park in this area. A year is a long time and many physical changes have taken place since the photos were shot.

Good point. So what were you doing to protect that potential site in all that time? Haven't you been a Regional Director for over 2 years now? Don't you consider Torrey Pines your home site? I think you are right that a lot can change in a year, and the possibility of getting a training site there may have already slipped away under your "leadership". And now you're still throwing cold water on the idea? At least you're consistent with your similar response to the other fellow who wanted to re-open a site near Pasadena. Thanks for all the help Brad!

Finally, if anyone wants to start a HG club at UCSD, more power to you. If you want to approach the university with a proposal to teach off that little bump in the parking lot, what is stopping you?

Fortunately, nothing is stopping me (unless you've convinced the EC and the USHPA lawyer to put another "gag order" on me). I've already visited one campus location to discuss it and I was surprised by the enthusiasm of the response. Hang gliding is cool!!

I watched it tried and was not impressed. I know the people that attempted to teach there and they were not impressed. No wind means a small chance of your feet actually leaving the ground. 10 mph is too much for new students. The ground is as hard as concrete and no one can get into a harness. Other than that, its perfect. Go for it.

Do I detect a note of Sarcasm? I guess that's as good as we're going to get from you Brad. And that means we won't have two Directors working together on this project ... until Jerry Katz gets elected!!!

Please vote for Jerry Katz and Rob Sporrer in Region 3!!

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'm not trying to fan the flames here - I'm somewhat sorry that I made my original post (not completely but somewhat) - BUT, while having a training hill at Torrey might not ever happen, having an attitude that it CAN'T happen is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Joe Greblo had that attitude Dockweiler would still be a fantasy, the SHGA water bill would still be prohibitive, and the SHGA wouldn't have access to Kagel, Tower's, Lukens, etc.

I've already submitted by ballot so any comments by Bob or Brad aren't going to change my vote.

Hopefully, the exchange between these two individuals has at least opened the eyes of the Pilot Community to some of the issues and positions of the candidates. Knowledge is always good.

Great comments Don!!

And I think you should be very proud of having started these discussions. I was a USHPA member for a long time before I understood anything about how the organization operated. I couldn't have told you who my Regional Directors were or what their views were. I think a lot of pilots are in that position, and that's why our voter turnout is so poor. Without debates like these, our members don't know one name from another, and that makes it pointless to vote. Vigorous debates are more likely to stir our members into voting, and that keeps us healthy and growing.

So thanks to you Don! You did a good thing, and don't let anyone convince you differently!

[Christian]

Form onths now you two guys have been trying to sound rational while calling each other names all over the Internet. Anybody ever tell you they're bored?

[Brad Hall]

I think you just did and you are right. My apologies. Over and out.