the inner details of my business? How mu c h do I pay in rent? Do I allow novice
paragliders to train under instructor supervision? Did I attempt to charge Dave B.
$100? Would you also like to know my PIN code, or perhaps some intimate family
details as well?
I know, I know -- I operate a business that's located on leased public park land,
so somehow you imagine that gives you the "right" to know every detail of my
business (not correct). You also seem to imagine (again, incorrectly) that it's
somehow right for you to conduct a campaign of false and defamatory attacks in
public forums against a business that you dislike -- namely mine. But I'm pretty
much finished with humoring your crazed obsession in this matter, and don't
anticipate making more posts after this one in response to your blather.
I will take this one shot, however, at offering up a fairly complete set of facts
and analysis here. Its not really for Bob. I don't much care what he says or
thinks -- Bob, you've driven any such concern from me with your constant barrage.
This is more for the bystanders to this soap opera, and truth be told, is also some
for my own enjoyment.
Do you know the old saying: "When you wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty, but
the pig has fun!" Bob, I only hope that all the pilots who love to fly at the
gliderport that you have misguided, maligned and aggravated have at least given you
some fun. I'd hate to think the distress that you've gone out of your way to
inflict on others was a total waste -- at least someone should have enjoyed it.
Meanwhile, you're still welcome to come out and fly at the gliderport anytime, Bob,
since at least that way, we can both be having fun by flying!
2. USHPA Regional Director Job Description: "Defame and Harass Local Flying Sites"
Strictly as a rhetorical question for the benefit of others who may be reading, how
does constant harassment and defamation of my business at the gliderport in public
forums jibe with your role as regional director? Please, don't both with the
rationalizations about how you must crusade against evil -- we've all heard your
self-delusion. What I'd like to say is that I am very open to suggestions to
improve things -- I welcome such suggestions. Criticism, even? Sure, when I'm in a
good mood
Suggestions that the business model is flawed at the gliderport,and should be completely changed doing away with my business in the process? Well,
I'm less enthusiastic about that . But even then, I welcome rational discussion,
despite my disagreement .
Bob, I would have (and at times actually did ) support some of your positions -- or
at least, found myself on the same side of an issue as you, anyway (you haven't
really accomplished anything for the benefit of all pilots at the gliderport,
instead, you've only tried to claim credit for the tireless work of others that you
actually obstructed -- but that's another topic). I only wish I could have been in
agreement with you more often. But your destructive approach, no matter how much
you justify it in your mind as necessary to stop whatever evils you see at the
gliderport (or in USHPA, or whatever is your target de jure), you just operate on
too much of a constant attack-mode for me to go along.
You r actions have put at risk one of the world's truly great flying sites, the TP
gliderport, no matter how much you delude yourself into thinking your actions will
improve the place. In the considered judgment of many people whose opinion I value,
your have, done considerably more harm than good overall to the site and to the
local enjoyment of the sport. Though I will give you this -- you've certainly
livened up a lot of blogs and forums.
I can almost hear you typing a reply to this point already -- you've been nothing if
not consistent in dismissing and discounting anyone who disagrees with you as being
a "David Jebb loyalist," whatever the hell that means. So let me anticipate this
point for you. Some of the people who I refer to above (i.e., those with sound
judgment, not you) have told me they disliked David J., and at least one that I know
of even refused to fly at the gliderport while David J. was running the place. Yet
they still believe that your relentless agitation and attack is a "net negative" for
the sport.
Ironically, I've noticed that your all-to-frequent attempts to discredit dissenting
opinions by accusing people of undying love of the former concessionaire, often
appear in the same posts where you protest that "its not personal" and "It doesn't
matter who runs the place, the model is just wrong" (I'm paraphrasing, here). This
seems rather self-contradictory to me: when it's your arguments, they're "not
personal," but arguments in disagreement with you must of course be "personal" and
based on misplaced personal loyalty, and therefore are invalid. Self-deception
here, if not outright dishonesty in your tactics.
3. For The Record...
Notwithstanding the above points (i.e., that its none of your damn business, and
that your approach to the gliderport has been wrongful and seriously put at risk a
great flying site) -- I will take one more stab at some actual facts, at least for
the benefit of others who may be following this reality-show.
1) Yes, the charge is $35 for a non-instructional tandems. No, the lease does not
specify $25, you're simply wrong about that, Bob . Do you know why you're wrong?
The lease was amended by a letter from the City to increase all the allowed fees
(including tandem fee to $35), many years ago.
You present yourself on these local forums as such a damn expert on my lease, but
you don't seem to have a clue that a lease written more than 11 years ago could have
been amended or supplemented in the intervening years. You spout lies and falsehood
like you are certain of the facts -- when you are certainly wrong.
I thought that your last foot-in-mouth nonsense about how I "must be violating the
lease" by operating a paragliding school, would have taught you more caution -- but
apparently its not your style to learn from experience. Even though I feel no
responsibility to answer to your constant attacks (if for no other reason than it
would take so much time, I'd never be able to fly), I eventually posted a few days
ago the fact the City declared in writing, to the Soaring Council, that a
paragliding school is within the scope of the lease at the gliderport, and further
explicitly giving permission for Air California Adventure staff (ONLY) to conduct
paragliding and hang gliding instructional flights at the gliderport, as a way to
manage and control risk and liability for the City.
But what is your response to having your lie about the paragliding school exposed?
You've decided to make up a new one -- you now insist that the rates I charge are a
lease violation. Either you're lying again, or just incapable of learning from you
mistakes. I don't know which, and don't much care anymore.
2) The $35 tandem fee does not apply to commercial instructional tandems. Perhaps
you didn't read my last post -- but there is a BIG difference when T-3s operate
commercial tandems (i.e., fly non-USHPA carded passengers). It is NOT the same as a
T-1/2/3 flying a USHPA carded passenger -- its apples and oranges. Its illegal at
the gliderport to operate a commercial tandem without: a) City permission; b) a huge
insurance policy that names the City as an insured; and c) a change to City
lease/policy . Without changing the law and City policy/contracts (that is
certainly outside my control), the effect is that anyone who wants to fly tandems
for non-USHPA carded or rated passengers at the gliderport must work for me (for
example, as an independent contractor ), or they will be breaking the law and
putting the site in jeopardy. I explained all this to you, and your friend David B,
repeatedly and in writing. Do you just not want to hear it, or are you incapable of
understanding it?
As I said in my last post, that you chose to ignore, I offered David B. the same
terms as my other employees/ contractors when he came to the gliderport unannounced
and wanted to fly six commercial tandems. How much more "fair" can I be? I was
well within my rights to refuse him entirely. I don't have to take him on as an
independent contractor just because he wants to be hired. For the same reason, the
$35 tandem day-use fee doesn't apply -- he was seeking to operate a commercial
business, which he can only (by law) do if I were to take him on as an independent
contractor, and so the terms that apply my business terms. If I choose to, I can
keep $100 and allow him to keep $75 from a commercial hang gliding tandem -- that's
my business decision. He can refuse or accept as he wishes, but regardless its none
of your business. What I did do, was to offer him the same deal as all my
independent contractors, and even invited him to discuss with me a more regular
working arrangement at the gliderport.
Not only did he refuse, but he was nasty and belligerent about it. And then said
he'd fly anyway, and insisted he had a "right" to essentially free-ride on my
business (and incidentally, break the law, which I explained to him, and possibly
close the site down permanently if caught, and jeopardize my lease if I allowed him
to do so). Somehow, as regional director, you seem to think that's a good thing for
the sport to risk all that? Even if I didn't have a business at stake, speaking as
a pilot I just cannot agree with you. And given David B's attitude and approach,
I'm not much interested in having him "work" for me, even as an informal independent
contractor anymore. With your help and encouragement, he's managed to burn that
bridge with me.
I also see from your last post that you are outraged, OUTRAGED, by the fact there's
a financial barrier to anyone who wants to flying a commercial tandem business at
the gliderport in competition with my business. Especially one that can be applied
so "arbitrarily" by such a dirty small-business owner! As I've explained to you
many times, but you just don't seem to get, its not a financial barrier, its the
LAW. I cannot arbitrarily change the law, the lease, and City policy to make you
feel better Bob, no matter how much you sulk and whine (careful, you're starting to
turn blue, holding your breath like that). As the law and City rules stand now, if
someone wants to run a commercial business at the Gliderport, it must be as part of
my business.
The net result of all this is you are basically asserting that I should not be able
to choose who gets to work for me, and instead should be forced to accept as a
independent contractor or employee every potential tandem instructor who shows up
and demands to run a business at the site. That's just bullshit. Last I heard, we
still live in a capitalist country, and I cannot be forced to hire someone just
because someone (you) think its fair . Nor can you dictate what amount I keep from
any goods or services that are sold by my business , and how much my workers keep
(i.e., how much my commercial tandem pilots keep of each flight/sale, and how much
is paid to the business to cover overhead and expenses).
3) By the way, in case it has escaped your notice, David Jebb and his entire family
sold their interest in the gliderport business to me in 2008, and he no longer works
at the gliderport. Neither he, nor anyone in his family, has any ongoing interest
in the business as owner, officer, director, or even regular employee. His son,
Gabe, is an USHPA Tandem Administrator and Instructor for paragliding, and in that
capacity has taught some clinics in cooperation with me from time to time since I
took over the business. And David even came out to fly once or twice (oh no, the
boogeyman!). But they have no interest in the business. You have been at the
gliderport at least an order of magnitude (that's 10x, by the way) more often than
all the Jebbs combined in the past year, and should have noticed that. What else do
you need to satisfy your strange obsession, Bob?
4. The Faux Issue Of The Day Is...?
Lets cut through the B.S, and games -- what's the real issue with the gliderport? I
see some consistent themes that have arise in your diatribes, but many of them just
don't ring true upon closer examination:
a) David Jebb is Really Scary. David Jebb was a bad person, acted unfairly, and
hurt you and your friend David B. Boo Hoo.
OK, I got that one. My understanding is that both sides were at least partly in the
wrong on those old issues. But its water over the dam, so lets move on, shall we?
b) TPGP is Mean To Hang Gliders. Or, at least biased against hang glider pilots,
right? Wrong!
The facts just don't support this -- because its not true. Hang gliders are always
welcome. I even host annual hang glider races. Hangs are charged the same, and
treated the same, as paras. You've been at the gliderport with hang glider events
with your own private club on many occasions, and while there have been times when I
really wasn't personally all that happy to see you, you're still welcome. Its
ironic, when I think about bias, several sites in California come to mind that
ban/actively discourage paragliders, not hang gliders. As regional director, I'm
surprised that you're not discussing those sites, given your vocal commitment to
fairness for all.
But alas, its true that the gliderport is discriminatory in one regard: rated P-3
and P-4 pilots can fly at the site, but only rated H-4s can fly... oops except
that's not true, either. Sorry to burst your bubble.
For some time, we have allowed high-time H-3s who take a lesson and get a local
skills sign-off with Steve S. (our fantastic hang instructor extraordinaire) to fly
at the gliderport -- either with an H-3 plus the sign-off, or by taking a few more
lessons as needed to get an H-4 sign off. Yes, it sucks that H-3s have to prove
themselves (and pay a more expensive lesson fee to do so, unlike P-3s). Sorry,
that's the way it is -- if this is the most unfair thing in your life, you're damned
lucky.
And further, its been explained by others repeatedly (on this and other forums), the
reason for the advanced hang rating requirement at the site is not something that
the concessionaire asked for, or even has discretion to change -- it was asserted by
the City long ago, and the City (and insurance company, frankly) are the only ones
who can decide to change it -- there's no "bias" by the concessionaire at the root
of this.
By the way, its a bigger question (that I won't explore in detail now) whether
low-time H-3s would be a good idea at the site at all -- I can see pros and cons,
but think on balance the safety risks with a crowded beach below, and so many types
of fliers above (and lets face it, a very sensitive and risk-averse City owner of
the site) likely outweigh the benefits. Although as a pilot and a businessman I
tend to think more the merrier! I'm open to reason on the point (though as I said,
its not up to me, and would require City action to change), if only I had a Regional
Director who acted reasonably towards me.
c) I'm Going To Hold My Breath Until You Agree To Open A Beginner HG School, or At
Least Close The PG School. I'm not even sure what this line of "reasoning" is
supposed to prove. That there shouldn't be a paragliding school? That there should
be a hang gliding school? That if there is a paragliding school, then it must be
safe for low-time H-3s to fly unsupervised? All of these are false equivalencies,
and just plain foolish.
It is irrelevant to the H-3 vs H-4 level of the site that the City agreed to allow a
paragliding school, but not a hang gliding school (note: student pilots less than
P-3 always fly under radio contact and visual supervision of an instructor at the
gliderport at all times, by the way). As a business, I must admit there's more in
it for me to teach paragliding, given the greater numbers involved (for reasons we
can celebrate or lament, but it is a fact). And do any established SoCal hang
instructors really want more competition? But that doesn't mean that there is any
hostility or bias toward the teaching of hang gliding, I'm just not at all sure the
gliderport would be a good place to teach novice hang glider pilots.
The real reason why it makes sense to have a paragliding school and not a hang
school for beginners at the gliderport -- is that beginners have a bigger chance to
end up on the beach (this isn't a gentle training slope -- remember? Its a 350'
sheer cliff). It would deny reality to say otherwise. Let me ask you, honestly,
if you were enjoying yourself on the beach (I won't ask how -- after all, it is
Blacks Beach we're talking about), and could choose between being accidentally
struck by a student with a 30 pound mass of nylon fabric moving at 15 mph, or a 70
pound mass of aluminum tubes moving at 30 mph, which would you choose? I know, we'd
all choose neither, and of course we have trained all student pilots so well that
that this never happens! But lets face reality -- it is a risk. I can guarantee
that the City is well aware of this fact, as is any insurance carrier.
5. The Real Issue, But False Options
Bob, once all the mistakes, lies, and hyperbole are stripped away from your constant
rants and campaigns, my understanding of your position boils down to this:
You feel you and some of your friends have been treated unfairly, and think that
your personal experiences show there is a general problem with the gliderport
(though there's no evidence of this -- NONE -- except for your provocation), and
more specifically you seem to want:
1. any properly certified instructor should be able to fly commercial tandems at
the gliderport at will;
2. any properly certified instructor shouldn't have to pay anything more than a
nominal fee to the concessionaire, and especially not if that the fee is not fixed
and guaranteed to be the same for all tandem instructors who show up;
3. and that its unfair that the concessionaire is also the flight director with the
power to revoke flight privileges.
Maybe I misunderstood, but that's what I hear, when I strip away the noise. Even if
these were conceded to be potential problems for the sake of argument (and
superficially, at least, they seem to be worth exploring), what are the proposed
solution options?
I've seen you propose, or at least imply, several possible solutions via your
various posts over the past years. Admittedly, I'm reading between the lines here,
to try and reach some reasonable inferences -- I'm not quoting you exactly. I can
only say that these options are what you've succeeded in communicating to me,
whether you meant to or not. I'm sure you'll inform the world if I misunderstood
your meaning, and correct things (or at least twist my words to be an attack on me,
you have a real talent for that).
Option 1: Nobody gets a sole concession, or if there must be only one concession,
anybody else should be able to also set up a competing tandem business at the
gliderport, at will.
This option will simply not work. The City has, and will, insist on a single point
of contact to be liable at the gliderport, and pay for all the required permits,
maintenance, support, etc. That's just a fact.
And even if by some crazy chance the City were to allow anyone who wants (with
insurance no doubt) to set up a business at will, quite frankly the concession will
be broke inside a few months (or will be making too little money, so that its not
worth the effort anymore, and so quit), leaving the City with nobody to hold
accountable -- and that will absolutely close the site to all flying.
So scratch that plan, unless your obsession has driven you to prefer to have the
gliderport closed, Bob, rather than to allow someone else to continue to run it (I
hope that's not your position, but I fear it quite possibly is).
By the way, such a plan is actually the unfairness -- not the fact that your friend
can't free-ride on another's business. Here's what I mean by that: you had
advocated this option in various guises in the past by falsely arguing the
concessionaire got a sweetheart deal with the City (sometimes you even falsely
implied or stated it was corrupt), because the lease calls for no monthly rent. You
implied this was exploiting and/or blocking anyone else who wanted to operate a
business at the gliderport in order to maximize its own profit, especially since it
has no costs and so could easily handle any competition if it wasn't so greedy
(sorry, paraphrasing again here). Your premise was simply wrong, on multiple
grounds.
The lease actually obligates the concessionaire to pay quite a bit -- just a few
examples are property tax on improvements, insurance, toilets, maintenance,
full-time staff, and even rent for some uses on the property (though not presently
for general flight park operations, its true). In fact, in recent years, over
$150,000 in City-required permits and environmental study costs alone have been
incurred and paid by the concessionaire. Would you like to reimburse me for that
money, please? If not, then bugger off. Bob, the fact you read a copy of an
11-year old document does NOT mean you have all the facts -- stop spreading lies
about my business.
Also, while there might be a WalMart and CostCo in the same town competing with each
other, that's not the same at all as the WalMart opening a store in the CostCo
parking lot (especially if CostCo is the only one who has to pay all the costs to
permit, clean, insure and maintain the grounds -- meaning WalMart is free-riding).
That's just crazy stupid talk. Where's the "fairness" in that bullshit?
Option 2: You and/or your friends take over, and be the new sole
concessionaire/flight director.
You've certainly put a great deal of energy into defaming my business -- you've even
posted to the local newspaper and addressed the City Counsel about how badly my
business is run. I suppose that's your way to try and destroy someone else's
business, so you can move in -- its not very ethical, and is one that puts the site
at risk of closing by having the City decide its not worth the constant
noise/hassle. Nor is it something I appreciate in my USHPA "regional director."
Wouldn't it be more honest to simply put in the winning bid in the next competitive
RFP the City holds to choose a new concessionaire/lessee (expected in the next year
or two), and compete for the business with integrity, rather than constantly
bad-mouthing the current business? I guess you don't operate that way.
Regardless, if you do pursue this option, then all your blathering about how unfair
it is to have only one concessionaire at the gliderport would certainly be exposed
for the hypocrisy that it is, since you'd become the new exclusive operator
yourself. So either you're an unethical hypocrite, or this option should be
off-the-table.
Option 3: You and/or your friends take over some group or committee, that in-turn
can become a controlling oversight body, to dictate whatever terms you like onto the
Concessionaire/Flight Director (the indirect control model).
I know that you've also been heavily engaged in this process for some time -- no
need to belabor your efforts here, many of us are constantly reminded of them. To
many in the local flying community , your energy and obsessive focus in this regard
are as notorious as they are obnoxious and disruptive. But this is a fools errand.
To begin with, it seems highly unlikely that an organization controlled by an
obsessed fool would render more "fair" and "less arbitrary" decisions.
More to the point, the only organization that can dictate substantive business terms
to a private business at the gliderport is the City, and then only by virtue of
mutually agreed contract terms in the lease (or by general laws/regulations, of
course). The Soaring Council or other organization could advise the City, but
ultimately its just advice to local government that itself can only negotiate terms
with the lessee. I suppose if the City felt pressured enough, they could insist on
such onerous business terms that the concessionaire is driven out of business -- but
there we are again, Bob -- drive out a business, and thus make it more likely the
site is shut down for all flying. It really starts to look like "if I can't be in
charge, nobody should be able to fly" is your real objective, Bob!
But what about indirect control over non-business decisions? Perhaps, you and your
pals can take over some organization like the Soaring Council, or bully and threaten
some other organization like the Park Advisory Board to take on such an overreach of
their City charter -- and then at least try to exert veto power over decisions of
the concessionaire acting as Flight Director on such issues a revocation of flight
privileges. That certainly seems consistent with your complaints over the past
year, such as demanding an appeal body and a veto power over flight revocation
decisions.
Bob, I actually do sympathize with you on this point. David Jebb was mean to you
(even if you did provoke it, and even deserve it). And superficially at least, it
does seem like there is an arbitrary power held by the Flight Director, without
sufficient due process to appeal or overturn such decisions. But your arguments are
flawed:
1. There is really no due process concern, since a revocation of flight privileges
at the gliderport does not deprive a pilot of flying in any way at any other site
-- even other local sites. Also, if the City feels the Flight Director has abused
his power by consistently revoking flight privileges without good cause, it could
initiate proceedings and ultimately even find the Flight Director/Concessionaire
in breach of the lease. So this seems to be mostly just your sour grapes, and not
really a problem in practice.
2. No organization has the authority under its charter (that I'm aware of, anyway)
to dictate to the Flight Director and reverse his decisions on revocation of
flight privileges. At best, the Soaring Council (or other potential body) can act
as a place to air complaints and even recommend solutions (which I actually think
is a good idea, and I would be happy as concessionaire to listen to
recommendations at such a forum, and have it be a place for pilots to state their
concerns about having flight privileges revoked) -- but not veto or power to
dictate a decision.
3. The current structure of the gliderport operation does not allow for any other
body to veto/override Flight Director decisions. City ordinance states that an
Airport Director has the authority to restrict flight operations for good cause,
and the lease specifically states that the Concessionaire is the Flight Director
at the gliderport. But more practically, the concessionaire must insure and also
indemnify the City from any liability. So if the concessionaire, acting as Flight
Director, cannot revoke flight privileges for someone deemed unsafe, then it would
find itself in the position of having to pay to insure, and be held potentially
liable for, a person's negligent conduct with no way to control that risk. The
Flight Director/concessionaire could not control its own risk, but would still be
stuck paying if the shit hit the fan. Thus, the entire system of insurance and
indemnification breaks down, the concessionaire will be forced to refuse to accept
liability, and -- you guessed, the park would be closed to all flying.
The End (is near).
I've typed waaaay more than most people want to read/need to know. Bottom line, if
the City wants to budget and pay for its own independent Flight Director, and also
pay for its own insurance, and accept its own liability, and pay for all its own
permitting, etc. -- then the Concessionaire (I, or whomever follows me) can afford
to be just one more business among many, competing with all tandem instructors (and
other businesses) at the gliderport, and accepting the decisions of an independent
Flight Director or the Soaring Council or whomever ultimately controls flight
operations. No problem. If that's your ultimate objective -- then have at it. Of
course, the City budget being so strong, that's likely to happen any day now, right?
No? It seem the only realistic and practical way to accomplish your plan, Bob, is
for you to give the City a millions of dollars to make all that happen. Put up, or
shut up, Bob.
Those who can, fly. Those who can't, blog about flying! Here's hoping the Spring
winds let us all spend more time flying, and less time at a computer!
Robin
(and I don't mean in Bob).You Boys get along now ,....Go fly. Except you Barton you goin to da Beach.ta see Greg.He can help you with those landing issues 
,....Really. 
H5 
