I’m a green P3, and not an expert on USHPA regs or how they rate sites, but I’ll take a stab at this. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable will jump in here.

Marshall and Crestline are both, by definition, P3 launches, since you can’t see the LZ, so it seems like any attempt to classify those for unrestricted P2 use would be out.

Seems like one could make an argument for the 750 (to remove the sign off requirement, it seems like it would have to be re-rated as a P2 launch). However, the scenario I’m thinking of would be a visiting P2 showing up, seeing that the 750 is a P2 launch (so they might assume that the launch, approach, and LZ are simple and good for beginners), and launching at noon to get some flights in. We all know that the entire area around the 750, the approach, and the LZ are pretty thermic midday, but the visiting pilot probably wouldn’t. We’re already seeing that visitors are just showing up and flying without reading the site briefings or asking for a site intro from the locals. Maybe the only thing that they know about the site before they fly is what it’s rated.

The site sign-off issue, I know, is a hot topic at the moment (between instructors, students, and even USHPA/RRG), but to me, I think it’s a great way for pilots who have been learning and flying at our site for some time to be able to get more flights and experience under their belts. I think more advanced pilots or instructors would have more to say about how they feel about P2s having free run of a launch and the LZ.

As for the standing issue of pilots violating the CSS rules – just about every case I’ve seen so far have been pilots that know the rules (and knowingly break them) going up to Crestline and launching. As said before, Crestline is, by definition, a P3 launch. They could have very easily chosen Marshall or the 750 to get more flights in (as some of the violators already had a site sign off) but they chose not to. Clear that in these cases, giving them more options wouldn’t have made any difference.

Just my 2 cents.

Our New England club dealt with the challenge of building P2 experience at our P3 and P4 sites by using site-specific mentors in addition to local instructors. The mentors could only supervise 1 or 2 pilots (depending on the site). This made a positive impact on the ability for newer pilots to get airtime and useful knowledge about sites, as well as reducing some of the accidents/incidents. Not a perfect system, but a good one.

Streamers are an idea, but to be honest, I’ve seen P3 pilots crash into each other and they wouldn’t have had streamers. It’s a good idea to stay away from other pilots at all times, no matter what their ratings are. I just assume none of the pilots see me, and I fly away from people. You want my thermal that bad? Take it, it’s not worth fighting over.

The only people I will fly closer to are those that I agreed to fly with that day. We both know each other, we know we’ll get a little closer, but even then I’ll steer away if they get too close for comfort.

Reading some of the comments here, suggests that some are not aware of the available P2 signoff: CSS Paraglider Novice Sign Off. It covers things like time of day to fly, and use of a streamer. This process allows a local instructor to issue the signoff, after which the P2 pilot can fly unsupervised from Marshall or the 750, ahead of the general P3 requirement. The P2 pilot may have learned at the site from the start, or learned elsewhere and then work with a local instructor to achieve it: Like a “site tune up”.

For the “P2 from elsewhere” pilot, yes he will cough up a bit of money, for learning what is special about this flying site and adjust his skills to match. Our thermal flying site’s challenge isn’t really about our nice launches or LZ, but more about choosing the right conditions to fly, and being able to predict the air you are about to launch into, before you leave the ground. Our local instructors are best suited to establish the knowledge and skill gap to cover on a case-by-case basis. If our P2 guy has awesome launching and landing skills (as most proclaim), then the adjustment and corresponding fee charged by the instructor will be minimal. If more improvement is needed, the P2 pilot will learn what is needed and compensate accordingly for the time and effort of instruction. This system is a good compromise to insure that those who fly our site have the basic tools to do so, to minimize the risk  to themselves and the site. Experience has shown that some of the worst damage done to a flying site, is by visitors who then leave their mess behind.

Beyond the signoff, there is much more to be learned, and at that point the P2+signoff pilot should seek a mentor or trusted friend to keep enjoy flying the site and continue improving his skills. For best results, treat your mentor well.

“Instead, if I bring a pilot out there they have to find and pay an instructor multiple hundreds of dollars to observe their flying skills that they have already proven to the instructor who gave them their P2.”

These are just my personal opinions (and maybe I’m wrong), but we have to try to protect our site from unnecessary accidents, and one way to do that is to have our professional local pilot instructors assess a new pilot’s skills. This is not the easiest site to fly and is rated a P3 site for good reason.

Most people are not aware of this, but some instructors elsewhere sign people off with a P2 before those pilots are ready for it, or they sign them off after a bunch of simple training hill flights, or they come from a site that doesn’t have the kind of topography and punchy desert thermals that we have here at AJX. I’ve seen a bunch of visiting P2’s come through over the few years that I’ve been coming to SB, that could barely kite & barely launch themselves off the hill, and the last thing we need is for them to come to our site and get wrecked. After witnessing their kiting and launching skills, many of them could use more training, but they’ve got their P2’s from elsewhere and think they’re set.

I understand the hardship of additional cost of a new site sign-off after having spent thousands of dollars on lessons and gear somewhere else, but their lives and our site are worth the cost. Local instructors need to be paid for their time (they have their own insurance costs to cover), and our site needs to be protected from inexperienced, potentially dangerous pilots. We can’t have them show up and fly without them at least getting a thorough briefing from a highly experienced local pilot first.

Yes, this mentor program sounds interesting, but how do we vet the mentors? Can just any instructor or let’s say P3/P4 pilot come to our site and mentor their students/friends there? I’m sorry to say it, but there are some bad instructors and bad P3/P4 pilots with bad habits out there. At least we know that our local instructors have years of experience flying our site, they have insurance coverage, and they have something to lose if our site gets shut down due to too many accidents. As good as they are at their jobs and as hard as they try to keep their students safe, incidents still happen, so what chance does a freshly minted P2 from a less thermic, less mountainous, less populated site have to stay safe?

Long story short, I wouldn’t want the site rating to change. This place can get crazy no matter what time of year it is. Our local instructors know what skills it takes to fly here, and seeing as their careers depend on it, they can be trusted more than someone who has nothing to lose, to assess these skills properly.