CSS Rumors & Board Meetings

[Jana Pivkova]

Yes. We’re trying to add to the bylaws of the club to accept other forms of rating system such as USHPA, IPPI, FAI and AUA.

It seems to me that it is a big conflict of interest to serve on the CSS board, change our By Laws AND to be pushing for a new ratings system to be accepted by the club, all by the same people who are making plans to run the AUA in the near, or foreseeable future. You didn’t want a USHPA rep on the Board, because you felt it was a conflict of interest. This, in my opinion, is also a very big conflict of interest, and maybe more so.

I hope I answered your questions and concerns and I’m glad that you are helping other members understand what the board of CSS is working for.

I don’t feel that my question above has been addressed. I’m asking what happens if (for example) a pilot, or an instructor loses his/her USHPA ratings due to one reason or another, such as having numerous complaints against them. Does that instructor retain their AUA instructor ratings? Do they get to continue to teach and issue AUA ratings even though they’ve lost their USHPA instructor ratings? If they’re not already an AUA member, will they be able to join and continue to wreak havoc on our site (assuming that’s what they’ve lost their ratings for)? My question includes tandem instructors. How does it protect our club from instructors and pilots who have been deemed unfit by USHPA to continue to teach and/or fly? Hypothetically if I get kicked out of one organization, do I just get my ratings with the other guys and I can continue on my path of destruction at AJX?

AND THE NEXT MEETING IS NOW OFFICIAL FOR SATURDAY THE 16th  11:00 AM AT THE LANDING ZONE.

I’m glad that a “General” Member meeting has been scheduled, but the Board members still need to have a “Board” meeting among yourselves every other month, for which then the minutes need to be posted for all to see. That meeting is overdue.

I realize that Slack has allowed the CSS Board members to communicate about issues on a daily basis, but these chats are not available to us regular members! This is why you guys need to discuss a list of issues semi-publicly every other month.

It used to be that anyone could attend and listen in on the Board meetings at the LZ. That changed when Covid hit and we were forced to have them on Zoom. Please follow the By Laws. Stan knows the procedure. He’s had to attend those meetings for two years now.

 

[Jerome Daoust]

Thanks Marcello for some clarifications, at the same time Jana brings good questions. Good dialogue to see posted here.

Hopefully, club bylaws can only be changed after a membership vote, not just board members. True?

AUA… Is this their website? American Ultralight Association Inc. Maybe there is a lot of good people and hard work behind it, but their website does not convey a sense of this.

AUA… Do they have a detailed paragliding and hang gliding rating and training program, for solo  and tandem? Does USHPA recognize AUA rating levels and offer an equivalency as it does for IPPI rating (equivalency table)?

AUA… We get many visitor from other countries, and we would not expect them to get re-certified with an USHPA rating just for a short visit here when out of their country, so accepting IPPI equivalencies makes sense for foreigners. But is there a similar number (compared to foreigners) of pilots with only an AUA rating that want to use our site? For AUA members who chose to avoid USHPA (for whatever reason), they could find a way to get an IPPI rating and the club can then rely on that.

[Linda Salamone]

Great discussion! Will there be a link for members unable to attend in person and only through Zoom or Microsoft ?

[Marcello DeBarros]

No o line meeting. The meeting will be at the Landing zone like it was posted previously. But anyone is welcome to bring a camera and stream live from the LZ.

[Marcello DeBarros]

Sorry to not fully explain that. But if someone loses the ability to use our club as a teaching facility regardless of  the credentials they have, it will be up to the club to take initiative to keep that instructor or pilot from using our landing site. We can’t stop anyone to access the national forest to launch or teach paragliding or hangliding if they don’t have credentials, like I mentioned earlier it’s not against the law to teach paragliding or hangliding without credentials. Since we want to protect our Landing Zone we should require credentials so we can save our LZ from accidents, but we don’t have the power to stop anyone from driving up to a national forest site and tell them NO FLYING FOR YOU!  So your father was kicked out of USHPA for life and if one day we started to accept other rating systems like I mentioned before, he could maybe be re evaluated and be back flying at our flying site if the club and members accept him back under a different rating system. Wouldn’t that be  very democratic if we all got together and brought Peter back and give him a second chance to relearn safety and keep our site accident free?

And to answer you about conflict of interest between the CSS and AUA. I guarantee you that will be no one from the board running AUA. When the time is right  all of the club members will be notified as soon as we present the plans to the CSS board of directors. Calm down and relax we are working to make our club a great place for all of us and again and for the last time we’re NOT getting a new or replacing USHPA rating system we’re just want to be able to accept other rating systems so you can choose what tandem exemption you want to have. NOW THAT IS AN FAA RULE YOU MUST ABIDE. You must have an exemption from the FAA if you plan to take someone on a tandem ride. 😜

[Marcello DeBarros]

AUA is owned and administered by Ed Pittman and yes I’ve been a member of it for 2 years now and if the club decides to accept this new rating system it will be a decision made by all members of the club.

Jerome. This a copy of the first paragraph of my comment and it say there “BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLUB” I know we foreigners have some problems with reeedin and riitin uords  is veri compricaid for us.

[Jerome Daoust]

Thanks for the added info. Trying to get a better picture of the AUA…

On the AUA website, all I find with respect to their definition of ratings is this 3 page SOP document, to cover rating and training for both pilots and instructors. This is superficial information, is there more elsewhere? I was expecting something more like USHPA that has 46 pages for its SOP 12-02, just to cover the pilot (not including instructor) ratings alone.

Comparing membership numbers… USHPA  has about 8000 (reference). Roughly, how many does AUA have (not found on their website)?

Aside than less expensive annual dues, and not being USHPA, what are 3 reasons to prefer AUA over USHPA? It was mentioned (here) that “The system is equivalent to USHPA with an even stronger and more complete FAA exemption “. How is it stronger and more complete?

 

[Marcello DeBarros]

These are the great questions we will be answering to all members present at the meeting, I hope you can make it and bring up these questions. See you at the meeting. Bring us some cold beverages sugar free please 😁

[Jerome Daoust]

I asked Ed at the AUA, for the membership count and I will share back here when/if I get an answer.

I would enjoy being at the upcoming meeting, but time of day is bad for me (night owl).

For members who cannot attend the upcoming meeting: Questions to be Read.

For a focused discussion: AUA ratings.

[Tim Ward]

I have a question about a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say that sometime in the future the club votes to accept AUA ratings the same way we accept USHPA ratings now. Lack of insurance (from AUA) aside, let’s say that a pilot or instructor loses his USHPA ratings for one reason or another, but he/she is still a member of the AUA. Will that pilot or instructor be allowed to continue to fly or teach at AJX? What if that pilot or instructor loses their USHPA ratings and is not an AUA member? Will they be allowed to join the AUA and continue to fly and/or instruct at AJX as before? How is that going to work?

This isn’t a board position; this is personal opinion.

I think that should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Ratings are, or should be, a convenient, compact way to transmit information about a particular pilot’s skill level.

Before hang ratings, it could be difficult to travel to other established sites, because the local pilots could be very protective (perhaps rightfully so) of their sites.  Sometimes it took a little negotiation to establish bona fides.  There were pilots around who had just bought a glider and didn’t know what they didn’t know.  Perhaps more so then than now, because I think now most pilots have had professional-level instruction of some sort.

I don’t look at ratings as an entitlement.  They’re certainly not a license.  They’re basically an instructor’s opinion of a pilot’s skill level and ability to follow rules.

If someone has all the highest ratings and signoffs and yet still demonstrates a lack of judgement that endangers other pilots, then I’d still prefer not to have to dodge them in the approach to AJX.

Conversely and contrariwise, if someone were to lose their ratings for (just imagining at random) being a thorn in the USHPA board’s side,  then, while I’d possibly agree that shows a certain lack of judgement, it’s not the kind that endangers the people they’re flying with.  If USHPA insurance isn’t a requirement to keep the site, then I’d probably share airspace without many qualms.

In my mind, those are pretty black-and-white scenarios.  Others might be considerably more gray.  There might be situations where there isn’t a really good answer, which is why keeping it on a case=by-case basis might be warranted.

[Linda Salamone]

President  Stan said,

“ The Board has not been planning or considering getting out of USHPA, changing the rating system, or obtaining another rating provider.  ”

so are we going to scrap this whole discussion and devote the meeting Saturday to all of the other topics?

[Tim Ward]

I don’t see the two things as being mutually exclusive.
The board, as a board, hasn’t been discussing it that I know of, because mostly board discussions happen at board meetings.
Individual people have had ideas and expressed them to others, but I’d define a board discussion as involving most of the board discussing what the board should do.
But while I don’t see any reason it can’t be discussed, I really don’t get all the acrimony about it.

If someone could explain that part to me, then possibly I’d be more educated on the subject.

[Peter Swanson]

The reason for USHPA has always been the liability insurance.  It gives credence to the rating system.  As poorly as it has been handled lately it still is the raisin de etre.  No reason to recognize anyone without insurance.

[Marcello DeBarros]

We as a club no longer have the USHPA insurance. You as a pilot and member of USHPA have the third party liability insurance that should cover you in the whole United States. But visiting pilots don’t have USHPA insurance so the will use the CSS insurance by becoming a member of the club and signing our waiver.  Again you don’t have to drop your USHPA membership we just want to make it simpler for the club.

[Jana Pivkova]

But visiting pilots don’t have USHPA insurance so the will use the CSS insurance by becoming a member of the club and signing our waiver.

What do you mean visiting pilots don’t have USHPA insurance? Are we now accepting non-USHPA rated pilots at our site? Are you referring to pilots from other parts of the world who have legit IPPI ratings and get the temporary insurance from USHPA when flying at our club? Please clear this up.

[Author]

Posts