The variations in the sign offs is new to me, so we’re working with the local instructors to figure out what the best approach is in regards to how P2s are evaluated as good-to-go unsupervised (i.e., if there is a flight # requirement, how many if there is, etc).

Really though, the important part of all of this is that the local instructors are the best people to be making those determinations, as they are intimately familiar with the site and make their living by teaching and evaluating new pilots. We will work to get the “letter of the law” ironed out with them so that there is no ambiguity on those requirements.

Regardless of everyone’s opinions on USHPA requirements for P2s, certifications, our site ratings, or instructional protocols, I have to ask here that everyone respect the rules that are in place right now. Going rogue and choosing to put beginner pilots in the air, especially if you have no instructor rating, PASA certification, or insurance, puts pilots’ lives at risk, and jeopardizes our site, regardless if you tell them to land outside of AJX. It’s also incredibly disrespectful to the other local instructors that have jumped through all of the appropriate hoops (and I hear there are a LOT) and taken the time to follow procedure and do things properly.

If the gang here thinks there’s value in getting USHPA to re-rate some of our launches – have the discussion and try your luck (I think it’s a waste of time, but I won’t stand in anyone’s way), but please DO NOT go breaking the rules in the meantime.

I’m all for mentoring, but mentoring should be to help pilots that can already fly here on their own to improve their skills, not as a loophole to get around seeking proper instruction and USHPA ratings.

I object – Jana, Stan, and I were in the air before those pics. :)

The earlier birds!

Thanks for your efforts, Jeremy! The launch always looks super nice – I know it doesn’t keep itself like that.  🤘

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.