“Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

Mark Twain

I get it that for safety reasons the USFS has closed the forest and access to all remote areas so the 750 and Marshal are obviously closed, but the Crestline launch has a public road to it and is surrounded by private houses whose residents are obviously exempt from any travel restriction, nor is there is any other restriction of public travel on the road to launch. AJX is not on Forrest Service property and therefore not affected. The restricted activities on the USFS website says nothing about HG or PG activity (see: https://www.fs.usda.gov/sbnf).

I don’t want to be a radical about this, but thinking rationally, why can’t we fly from Crestline? We don’t use sources of ignition (certain exceptions in the LZ), carry no flammable fuels and pose no risk of creating a fire. As to causing stress on emergency services, I suppose this is a valid consideration, but many of the services required in the remote chance a rescue is needed are not the same services fighting forest fires. In addition, the fire fighting TFR is well to the east of most of our flying activities and can be easily avoided.

We’ve had so many restrictions placed upon us this year I’m getting weary of the blanket remedies. I’m not going to be a radical about this, but come on. This is just getting ridiculous.

I’m not an attorney or particularly knowledgeable about insurance, but wonder if liability for anyone guilty of the four exceptions listed above is in fact limited to the individual. It seems attorneys always go after the deep pockets and the collective pocket of CSS is probably bigger than any of it’s members.

If it’s true we’re not liable for the actions of individuals who are not in compliance with our insurance policy, then there’s nothing to worry about, BUT, if we do have culpability, then certain actions should be taken.

Some of these might be:

1. CSS rules clearly presented at the LZ.

2. All pilots sign a document stating they have read and understand the rules governing flights at AJX. This is perhaps an annual requirement for members and a daily one for visitors.

3. All shuttles check that riders are current USHPA and CSS rated members.

4. Anyone seen violating any of the club rules should have a mandatory review of their documents (ie: current memberships and ratings) and counseling for corrective action.

5. A daily sign in sheet to provide a record of pilot and site activity.

There are other issues of concern, but I fear too long a post will distract from the above discussion. I’m a relative newby to the sport, but not new to aviation. The free flight community prides itself on self regulation with a minimum of government oversight. In my experience as a professional pilot, I found it ironic that insurance companies were actually far more strict in their governance than was the FAA. Insurance companies are the true regulators of  aviation. A simple fact we must face.

There are exceptions to the face mask rule. This is one of eight exceptions:

Persons who are engaged in outdoor work or recreation such as swimming, walking, hiking, bicycling, or running, when alone or with household members,  and when they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet from others.

Clearly the distance rule cannot be maintained in a shuttle, etc, but easily done at both of our launch sites, and in the LZ (outside the shelter areas) so wearing masks is a personal choice and not a mandate. Studies on the spread of the virus have shown outdoor transmission is rare and low risk.

A thorough explanation of Sacramento’s face mask rules can be found with the below link:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf