I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it needs to have tandem instructional added after one person(not that this effects me) I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or paraglider at the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the beach probably will help is keep the right to fly and land at the beach. I am sorry but many do not want to hear this noise at the beach. ATV's and motorcycles are not allowed at the beach, only street licensed vehicles and with the population growth and increased use of the beach I would assume that driving on the beach will not be around that much longer but maybe not Oregon is a weird state.
The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
836.005¹
Definitions
(2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation of or flight in the air, but does not mean a one-person motorless glider that is launched from the earth's surface solely by the operator's power.
The ODA also specifically bans the landing of any aircraft on Oregon's beaches except in the case of an emergency. This is the rule that the Oregon State Parks, (and now the Ocean Shores Commission) was forced to use to stop PPG activities on the beach. (Does anyone else see the glaring problem with the above definition and how it affects many of us?)
I have managed to the the rules changed with the state parks sufficiently to allow PPG's to fly on the beach, but they have expressed that they are reluctant to make a decision counter to the ODA and allow us to fly (land) PPG's on the Ocean Shore area until the two agencies rules and definitions are more in line.
I am currently preparing to go to a meeting of the ODA on July 19th and make a presentation on how the above definition, (and prohibition of landing), affects us, and why it should be changed to be more in line with the FAA's definitions under Part 103.
Does anyone have any contrary opinions to my moving forward on this? Does anyone have any advice for how to proceed? I have quite a few ideas, but between this, working on Oceanside, and trying to be out teaching every day, I am getting a bit frazzled and could seriously use any help I can get! (On this, Oceanside, or even the PG biz! :-). )
PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon coast. Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a PPG would miss scenes like this one:
Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of July weekend 2010.)
For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the Oregon coast. It's just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative ways to get out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've already found a few spots for access.) Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG flight can. But I really believe it can fit in, and even become an asset to the Oregon Coast scene. We are working hard towards having a responsible flying program for PPG pilots on the coast. Site guides, flight restrictions, recommended clearances, etc.
The scene we had out here last summer will not be tolerated again. A bit of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I hope! :-)
Brad
PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift that is comparable to a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out thermalling it pretty successfully. A world away from your daddy's PPG machine! :-) Don't miss her pic in the latest Paramotor mag... :-)
> I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it needs > to have tandem instructional added after one person(not that this > effects me)
> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or paraglider > at the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the > beach probably will help is keep the right to fly and land at the > beach. I am sorry but many do not want to hear this noise at the > beach. ATV's and motorcycles are not allowed at the beach, only street > licensed vehicles and with the population growth and increased use of > the beach I would assume that driving on the beach will not be around > that much longer but maybe not Oregon is a weird state.
> Steve Forslund
> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
> The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
> 836.005¹
> Definitions
> (2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation > of or flight in the air, but does not mean a one-person motorless > glider that is launched from the earth's surface solely by the > operator's power.
> The ODA also specifically bans the landing of any aircraft on Oregon's > beaches except in the case of an emergency. This is the rule that the > Oregon State Parks, (and now the Ocean Shores Commission) was forced > to use to stop PPG activities on the beach. (Does anyone else see the > glaring problem with the above definition and how it affects many of us?)
> I have managed to the the rules changed with the state parks > sufficiently to allow PPG's to fly on the beach, but they have > expressed that they are reluctant to make a decision counter to the > ODA and allow us to fly (land) PPG's on the Ocean Shore area until the > two agencies rules and definitions are more in line.
> I am currently preparing to go to a meeting of the ODA on July 19th > and make a presentation on how the above definition, (and prohibition > of landing), affects us, and why it should be changed to be more in > line with the FAA's definitions under Part 103.
> Does anyone have any contrary opinions to my moving forward on this? > Does anyone have any advice for how to proceed? I have quite a few > ideas, but between this, working on Oceanside, and trying to be out > teaching every day, I am getting a bit frazzled and could seriously > use any help I can get! (On this, Oceanside, or even the PG biz! :-). )
"Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of July weekend 2010.)"
So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
"Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG flight can."
But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact the serenity of the beach. You ever been cross country skiing in some quiet beautiful place and encountered snowmobiles?
Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for launching and landing(sure flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want to risk losing the sites by challenging the parks on motors, it puts them at odds with other groups with motors that would love access. Look how our options for launching and landing have shrunk at Ecola for no particular reason.
Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious what type of clearances you are talking about?
> PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon coast. > Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a PPG would miss > scenes like this one:
> Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth > of July weekend 2010.)
> For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the Oregon coast. It's > just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative ways to > get out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've already found a > few spots for access.) Can it be a hazard to future flying on the > beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG flight can. But I really > believe it can fit in, and even become an asset to the Oregon Coast > scene. We are working hard towards having a responsible flying program > for PPG pilots on the coast. Site guides, flight restrictions, > recommended clearances, etc.
> The scene we had out here last summer will not be tolerated again. A > bit of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I hope! :-)
> Brad
> PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift that is > comparable to a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out > thermalling it pretty successfully. A world away from your daddy's PPG > machine! :-) Don't miss her pic in the latest Paramotor mag... :-)
> On 7/7/2012 8:12 PM, skf...@effectnet.com wrote:
>> I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it >> needs to have tandem instructional added after one person(not that >> this effects me)
>> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or paraglider >> at the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the >> beach probably will help is keep the right to fly and land at the >> beach. I am sorry but many do not want to hear this noise at the >> beach. ATV's and motorcycles are not allowed at the beach, only >> street licensed vehicles and with the population growth and increased >> use of the beach I would assume that driving on the beach will not be >> around that much longer but maybe not Oregon is a weird state.
>> Steve Forslund
>> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
>> The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
>> 836.005�
>> Definitions
>> (2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation >> of or flight in the air, but does not mean a one-person motorless >> glider that is launched from the earth's surface solely by the >> operator's power.
>> The ODA also specifically bans the landing of any aircraft on >> Oregon's beaches except in the case of an emergency. This is the rule >> that the Oregon State Parks, (and now the Ocean Shores Commission) >> was forced to use to stop PPG activities on the beach. (Does anyone >> else see the glaring problem with the above definition and how it >> affects many of us?)
>> I have managed to the the rules changed with the state parks >> sufficiently to allow PPG's to fly on the beach, but they have >> expressed that they are reluctant to make a decision counter to the >> ODA and allow us to fly (land) PPG's on the Ocean Shore area until >> the two agencies rules and definitions are more in line.
>> I am currently preparing to go to a meeting of the ODA on July 19th >> and make a presentation on how the above definition, (and prohibition >> of landing), affects us, and why it should be changed to be more in >> line with the FAA's definitions under Part 103.
>> Does anyone have any contrary opinions to my moving forward on this? >> Does anyone have any advice for how to proceed? I have quite a few >> ideas, but between this, working on Oceanside, and trying to be out >> teaching every day, I am getting a bit frazzled and could seriously >> use any help I can get! (On this, Oceanside, or even the PG biz! :-). )
Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our beaches beautiful.
I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how most airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in making sure the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb precious wildlife, who must take precedent.
The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a nearby field and then head over to the beach. Others, including me will do this more and more and the problem won't be addressed.
Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as a free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms of flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land, wildlife and people who use it.
I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am biased because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast but banning taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything.
Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go around? Then there we are flying around as you struggle to figure out a way to allow your flying, that you know is safe, to be allowed. Not the best example but you get my point.
Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:29:24 PM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
> "Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of > July weekend 2010.)"
> So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
> "Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any > badly done PG flight can."
> But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact the serenity of the > beach. You ever been cross country skiing in some quiet beautiful place and > encountered snowmobiles?
> Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for launching and landing(sure > flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want to risk losing the sites by > challenging the parks on motors, it puts them at odds with other groups > with motors that would love access. Look how our options for launching and > landing have shrunk at Ecola for no particular reason.
> Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious what type of > clearances you are talking about?
> SF
> On 7/7/2012 9:58 PM, Discover Paragliding! wrote:
> PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon coast. > Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a PPG would miss > scenes like this one:
> Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of > July weekend 2010.)
> For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the Oregon coast. It's > just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative ways to get > out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've already found a few spots > for access.) Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just > like any badly done PG flight can. But I really believe it can fit in, and > even become an asset to the Oregon Coast scene. We are working hard towards > having a responsible flying program for PPG pilots on the coast. Site > guides, flight restrictions, recommended clearances, etc.
> The scene we had out here last summer will not be tolerated again. A bit > of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I hope! :-)
> Brad
> PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift that is comparable to > a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out thermalling it pretty > successfully. A world away from your daddy's PPG machine! :-) Don't miss > her pic in the latest Paramotor mag... :-)
> See you up there,
> Brad and Maren
> Your 'Couple' of Instructors
> www.DiscoverParagliding.com > 503-861-2772 (W) 503-440-0733 (c)
> On 7/7/2012 8:12 PM, skf...@effectnet.com wrote:
> I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it needs to > have tandem instructional added after one person(not that this effects me)
> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or paraglider at > the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the beach > probably will help is keep the right to fly and land at the beach. I am > sorry but many do not want to hear this noise at the beach. ATV's and > motorcycles are not allowed at the beach, only street licensed vehicles and > with the population growth and increased use of the beach I would assume > that driving on the beach will not be around that much longer but maybe not > Oregon is a weird state.
> Steve Forslund
> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
> The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
> 836.005¹
> Definitions
> (2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation of or > flight in the air, but does not mean a one-person motorless glider that is > launched from the earth’s surface solely by the operator’s power.
> The ODA also specifically bans the landing of any aircraft on Oregon's > beaches except in the case of an emergency. This is the rule that the > Oregon State Parks, (and now the Ocean Shores Commission) was forced to use > to stop PPG activities on the beach. (Does anyone else see the glaring > problem with the above definition and how it affects many of us?)
> I have managed to the the rules changed with the state parks sufficiently > to allow PPG's to fly on the beach, but they have expressed that they are > reluctant to make a decision counter to the ODA and allow us to fly (land) > PPG's on the Ocean Shore area until the two agencies rules and definitions > are more in line.
> I am currently preparing to go to a meeting of the ODA on July 19th and > make a presentation on how the above definition, (and prohibition of > landing), affects us, and why it should be changed to be more in line with > the FAA's definitions under Part 103.
> Does anyone have any contrary opinions to my moving forward on this? Does > anyone have any advice for how to proceed? I have quite a few ideas, but > between this, working on Oceanside, and trying to be out teaching every > day, I am getting a bit frazzled and could seriously use any help I can > get! (On this, Oceanside, or even the PG biz! :-). )
> Please let me know your thoughts,
> Brad
> --
> See you up there,
> Brad and Maren
> Your 'Couple' of Instructors
> www.DiscoverParagliding.com > 503-861-2772 (W) 503-440-0733 (c)
I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to implement rules to address this that can effectively be enforced. The launching and landing is straight forward and stops much of the noise
but you are right low and slow is the charm of ppg so pilots will want to fly that way.
Hell some California parks are taking charge of airspace and not allowing flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace rulings) above the parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be able to fly North but paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking and kiting/ launching in forbidden area so the park solution was to totally eliminate the possibility of breaking the rules by keeping us out.
Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park needs to address this in their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific about motors. So you come up with some general guidelines about staying away from public and wildlife( for a while it looked like flying, walking a dog or even going to the beach was over due to the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme measures) not a lot different from ATV saying they will stay out of the dunes(yes a lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
And what if they say no flying over the parks below 1,000' AGL that would stop all free flight and make powered flight less enjoyable. If noise is truly the problem is low and slow an option? What is the solution, minimum heights for operation other then launching and landing. Would this allow keeping launch and landing allowed everywhere provided following common sense guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc.. Designated areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to only designated areas for launching and landing?
PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high impact activity depending on how and where it is done. That is one of the things that will make it so hard to write guidelines and manage. While there is no requirement to join USHPA our efforts at self regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the FAA allowing and encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really need to present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more pilots then I am aware of in the region but I get the impression it be a very individual activity.
> Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes > DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our > beaches beautiful.
> I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who > don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
> I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can > designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how most > airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in making sure > the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb precious > wildlife, who must take precedent.
> The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address > noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a > nearby field and then head over to the beach. Others, including me > will do this more and more and the problem won't be addressed.
> Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as a > free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
> Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms of > flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land, wildlife and > people who use it.
> I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am biased > because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast but banning > taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything.
> Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the > beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go > around? Then there we are flying around as you struggle to figure out > a way to allow your flying, that you know is safe, to be allowed. Not > the best example but you get my point.
> Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:29:24 PM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
> "Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on
> Fourth of July weekend 2010.)"
> So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
> "Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like
> any badly done PG flight can."
> But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact the
> serenity of the beach. You ever been cross country skiing in some
> quiet beautiful place and encountered snowmobiles?
> Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for launching and
> landing(sure flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want to
> risk losing the sites by challenging the parks on motors, it puts
> them at odds with other groups with motors that would love access.
> Look how our options for launching and landing have shrunk at
> Ecola for no particular reason.
> Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious what type
> of clearances you are talking about?
> SF
> On 7/7/2012 9:58 PM, Discover Paragliding! wrote:
>> PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon
>> coast. Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a
>> PPG would miss scenes like this one:
>> Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on
>> Fourth of July weekend 2010.)
>> For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the Oregon coast.
>> It's just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative
>> ways to get out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've
>> already found a few spots for access.) Can it be a hazard to
>> future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG
>> flight can. But I really believe it can fit in, and even become
>> an asset to the Oregon Coast scene. We are working hard towards
>> having a responsible flying program for PPG pilots on the coast.
>> Site guides, flight restrictions, recommended clearances, etc.
>> The scene we had out here last summer will not be tolerated
>> again. A bit of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I
>> hope! :-)
>> Brad
>> PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift that is
>> comparable to a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out
>> thermalling it pretty successfully. A world away from your
>> daddy's PPG machine! :-) Don't miss her pic in the latest
>> Paramotor mag... :-)
>> On 7/7/2012 8:12 PM, skf...@effectnet.com
>> <mailto:skf...@effectnet.com> wrote:
>>> I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it
>>> needs to have tandem instructional added after one person(not
>>> that this effects me)
>>> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or
>>> paraglider at the beach to think that keeping motorized flight
>>> away from the beach probably will help is keep the right to fly
>>> and land at the beach. I am sorry but many do not want to hear
>>> this noise at the beach. ATV's and motorcycles are not allowed
>>> at the beach, only street licensed vehicles and with the
>>> population growth and increased use of the beach I would assume
>>> that driving on the beach will not be around that much longer
>>> but maybe not Oregon is a weird state.
>>> Steve Forslund
>>> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
>>> The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
>>> 836.005¹
>>> Definitions
>>> (2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for
>>> navigation of or flight in the air, but does not mean a
>>> one-person motorless glider that is launched from the earth’s
>>> surface solely by the operator’s power.
>>> The ODA also specifically bans the landing of any aircraft on
>>> Oregon's beaches except in the case of an emergency. This is the
>>> rule that the Oregon State Parks, (and now the Ocean Shores
>>> Commission) was forced to use to stop PPG activities on the
>>> beach. (Does anyone else see the glaring problem with the above
>>> definition and how it affects many of us?)
>>> I have managed to the the rules changed with the state parks
>>> sufficiently to allow PPG's to fly on the beach, but they have
>>> expressed that they are
Nick I see where your going but you don't have all the facts. I grew up riding the dunes, in the 80's and 90's they always told us the were limiting and closing dune access to motorcycles because of the grass; then in the last 10 years the government is now out there with bulldozers plowing the grass. Why? because they planted it to* "*stabilize the dunes*" * in the 50's and they screwed up. The grass wasn't natural to the environment, it was imported from England and planted. Now they realize that it is killing the dunes so they have to continually try to keep it from impacting the dunes the way it was originally intended. Just an FYI.
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:34:27 AM UTC-7, Nick Blizzard wrote:
> Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes DESTROY > the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our beaches > beautiful. > I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who don't > appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
Can't really dissagree with anything you're saying. It is a tough issue and it can effect all of us. The ppg community is actually quite divided at times as some see part 103 as rules that can be bent while others view them as rules that shouldn't be pushed.
I think the simple answer is to have a map that clearly defines no fly zones and have it accessible through the parks service website. We could even create it and have the parks service sign off on it. Enforcement would be handled the same way the parks handle any illegal activity and the flying community would be needed to educate those that aren't familiar.
Or I don't know, maybe it is a good rule. Keeps the beaches less populated with motorized activity and yet still allows some individuals, who know where to launch and land from, to fly the coast.
Seems like we're then just the one's who push the rules rather the ones who try and solve the problem though....
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
> I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to implement > rules to address this that can effectively be enforced. The launching and > landing is straight forward and stops much of the noise but you are right > low and slow is the charm of ppg so pilots will want to fly that way.
> Hell some California parks are taking charge of airspace and not allowing > flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace rulings) above the > parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be able to fly North but > paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking and kiting/ launching in > forbidden area so the park solution was to totally eliminate the > possibility of breaking the rules by keeping us out.
> Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park needs to address this in > their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific about motors. So > you come up with some general guidelines about staying away from public and > wildlife( for a while it looked like flying, walking a dog or even going to > the beach was over due to the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme > measures) not a lot different from ATV saying they will stay out of the > dunes(yes a lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
> And what if they say no flying over the parks below 1,000' AGL that would > stop all free flight and make powered flight less enjoyable. If noise is > truly the problem is low and slow an option? What is the solution, minimum > heights for operation other then launching and landing. Would this allow > keeping launch and landing allowed everywhere provided following common > sense guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc.. Designated > areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to only designated areas > for launching and landing?
> PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high impact activity depending on > how and where it is done. That is one of the things that will make it so > hard to write guidelines and manage. While there is no requirement to join > USHPA our efforts at self regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the > FAA allowing and encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really > need to present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is > there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more pilots then I > am aware of in the region but I get the impression it be a very individual > activity.
> Steve
> .On 7/8/2012 8:34 AM, Nick Blizzard wrote:
> Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes DESTROY > the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our beaches > beautiful. > I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who don't > appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
> I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can > designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how most > airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in making sure the ppg > community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb precious wildlife, who must > take precedent.
> The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address noise > at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a nearby field > and then head over to the beach. Others, including me will do this more > and more and the problem won't be addressed.
> Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as a free > flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
> Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms of > flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land, wildlife and people > who use it.
> I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am biased > because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast but banning taking > off and landing, doesn't fix anything.
> Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the beach > because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go around? Then > there we are flying around as you struggle to figure out a way to allow > your flying, that you know is safe, to be allowed. Not the best example > but you get my point.
> Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:29:24 PM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
>> "Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth >> of July weekend 2010.)"
>> So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
>> "Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any >> badly done PG flight can."
>> But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact the serenity of >> the beach. You ever been cross country skiing in some quiet beautiful place >> and encountered snowmobiles?
>> Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for launching and >> landing(sure flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want to risk losing >> the sites by challenging the parks on motors, it puts them at odds with >> other groups with motors that would love access. Look how our options for >> launching and landing have shrunk at Ecola for no particular reason.
>> Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious what type of >> clearances you are talking about?
>> SF
>> On 7/7/2012 9:58 PM, Discover Paragliding! wrote:
>> PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon coast. >> Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a PPG would miss >> scenes like this one:
>> Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of >> July weekend 2010.)
>> For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the Oregon coast. It's >> just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative ways to get >> out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've already found a few spots >> for access.) Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just >> like any badly done PG flight can. But I really believe it can fit in, and >> even become an asset to the Oregon Coast scene. We are working hard towards >> having a responsible flying program for PPG pilots on the coast. Site >> guides, flight restrictions, recommended clearances, etc.
>> The scene we had out here last summer will not be tolerated again. A bit >> of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I hope! :-)
>> Brad
>> PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift that is comparable >> to a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out thermalling it pretty >> successfully. A world away from your daddy's PPG machine! :-) Don't miss >> her pic in the latest Paramotor mag... :-)
>> See you up there,
>> Brad and Maren
>> Your 'Couple' of Instructors
>> www.DiscoverParagliding.com >> 503-861-2772 (W) 503-440-0733 (c)
>> On 7/7/2012 8:12 PM, skf...@effectnet.com wrote:
>> I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it needs to >> have tandem instructional added after one person(not that this effects me)
>> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang or paraglider at >> the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the beach >> probably will help is keep the right to fly and land at the beach. I am >> sorry but many do not want to hear this noise at the beach. ATV's and >> motorcycles are not allowed at the beach, only street licensed vehicles and >> with the population growth and increased use of the beach I would assume >> that driving on the beach will not be around that much longer but maybe not >> Oregon is a weird state.
>> Steve Forslund
>> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
>> The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) defines aircraft as this:
>> 836.005¹
>> Definitions
>> (2) "Aircraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation of >> or flight in the air, but does not mean a one-person motorless glider that >> is launched from the earth’s surface solely by the operator’s power.
The person that thinks this ruling or issue does not affect them because they do not PPG, I think is mistaken. I think the flying community is in jeaporday unless we coalesce our efforts to protect and promote flying that relates to FAR 103. Otherwise the powers at be (who have no enterest or knowledge) gain power to rule over those that are divided.
Personally, I have no interest in Hangliding, Powered Parchuting, or PPG ( unless it becomes cheaper, lighter and electric) but, I do support the flying communities ability to monitor and police our own. We need to come together in order to servive. Otherwise the sport will be divided and conguered very fast.
I suggest we support Discover Paraglidings efforts and Nicks combined efforts to preserve the PPG along our Oregon beaches. Otherwise, the rest of us will be next, one by one.
My 2cents worth
Dave
________________________________ From: Nick Blizzard <nickblizz...@comcast.net> To: cpcl@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:53 PM Subject: Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
Can't really dissagree with anything you're saying. It is a tough issue and it can effect all of us. The ppg community is actually quite divided at times as some see part 103 as rules that can be bent while others view them as rules that shouldn't be pushed. I think the simple answer is to have a map that clearly defines no fly zones and have it accessible through the parks service website. We could even create it and have the parks service sign off on it. Enforcement would be handled the same way the parks handle any illegal activity and the flying community would be needed to educate those that aren't familiar.
Or I don't know, maybe it is a good rule. Keeps the beaches less populated with motorized activity and yet still allows some individuals, who know where to launch and land from, to fly the coast. Seems like we're then just the one's who push the rules rather the ones who try and solve the problem though....
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to implement rules to address this that can effectively be enforced. The launching and landing is straight forward and stops much of the noise but you are right low and slow is the charm of ppg so pilots will want to fly that way.
> >Hell some California parks are taking charge of airspace and not
allowing flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace rulings) above the parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be able to fly North but paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking and kiting/ launching in forbidden area so the park solution was to totally eliminate the possibility of breaking the rules by keeping us out.
> >Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park needs to address
this in their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific about motors. So you come up with some general guidelines about staying away from public and wildlife( for a while it looked like flying, walking a dog or even going to the beach was over due to the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme measures) not a lot different from ATV saying they will stay out of the dunes(yes a lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
>And what if they say no flying over the parks below 1,000' AGL
that would stop all free flight and make powered flight less enjoyable. If noise is truly the problem is low and slow an option? What is the solution, minimum heights for operation other then launching and landing. Would this allow keeping launch and landing allowed everywhere provided following common sense guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc.. Designated areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to only designated areas for launching and landing?
> PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high impact activity
depending on how and where it is done. That is one of the things that will make it so hard to write guidelines and manage. While there is no requirement to join USHPA our efforts at self regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the FAA allowing and encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really need to present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more pilots then I am aware of in the region but I get the impression it be a very individual activity.
>Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our beaches beautiful. >>I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
>>I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how most airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in making sure the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb precious wildlife, who must take precedent.
>>The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a nearby field and then head over to the beach. Others, including me will do this more and more and the problem won't be addressed. >>Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as a free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
>>Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms of flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land, wildlife and people who use it. >>I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am biased because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast but banning taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything. >>Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go around? Then there we are flying around as you struggle to figure out a way to allow your flying, that you know is safe, to be allowed. Not the best example but you get my point.
>>Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
>>
>>On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:29:24 PM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote: >>"Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was on Fourth of July weekend 2010.)" >>> So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
>>>"Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG flight can."
>>>But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact
the serenity of the beach. You ever been cross country skiing in some quiet beautiful place and encountered snowmobiles?
>>>Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for
launching and landing(sure flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want to risk losing the sites by challenging the parks on motors, it puts them at odds with other groups with motors that would love access. Look how our options for launching and landing have shrunk at Ecola for no particular reason.
>>>Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious
>>>PG pilots use only a tiny fraction of the 368 mile long Oregon coast. Those that would scoff at the noise and fuel smell of a PPG would miss scenes like this one:
>>>>Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This
was on Fourth of July weekend 2010.)
>>>>For better or worse, PPG has been discovered on the
Oregon coast. It's just a matter of time before folks start finding alternative ways to get out to the coast and fly. Myself included. We've already found a few spots for access.) Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just like any badly done PG flight can. But I really believe it can fit in, and even become an asset to the Oregon Coast scene. We are working hard towards having a responsible flying program for PPG pilots on the coast. Site guides, flight restrictions, recommended clearances, etc.
>>>>The scene we had out here last summer will not be
tolerated again. A bit of a pain, but a good thing in the end. At least I hope! :-)
>>>>Brad
>>>>PS - Maren's says her new PJ Zenith has weight shift
that is comparable to a nice beginner PG harness. She's already been out thermalling it pretty successfully. A world away from your daddy's PPG machine! :-) Don't miss her pic in the latest Paramotor mag... :-)
>>>>I am not happy with the way this impacts towing and of course it needs to have tandem instructional added after one person(not that this effects me) >>>>> I am selfish enough and value the right to fly my hang
or paraglider at the beach to think that keeping motorized flight away from the beach probably will help
...
Perhaps a little bit chicken little? How many years have we been flying the coast with unpowered foot launched aircraft without trouble?
How many years were ppg able to use the beach (at odds with motorized rules of the park) before what's his name got it shut down?
Linking motors not being allowed with foot launched flying being stopped is quite a bit of a jump and I don't think the sky is falling yet.
103 does not dictate how States manage their parks. Just because we both fly under 103 does not mean that both need to be allowed and linked. Few flying sites allow ultra lights and one of the reason is bigger impact due to noise. It would be one thing to have a flight park in your neighborhood and another to have ultra lights. Private airstrips are closing all over the country due pressure from urban growth.
Divided? I believe it already is and ppg is represented by it's own associations not the USHPA. We are going to be conquered by who? While it is always a fight to keep and open sites I don't believe we are under attack and at a point where we need to start aligning ourselves with other organizations in order to keep sites for flying. We could bring in general aviation and fight for their rights for landing and launching on the beach?
While I would prefer that 103 compliant ultra lights could land and launch at the beach much as they have for years without issue I understand the dilemma this puts the Park management in regarding existing rules with aviation and the use of motors(only licensed street vehicles)at the beach. How many States, communities or parks allow ultra lights at public beaches?
So once again convince me. I am waiting to see proposed guidelines, clearances etc.. and it would be nice if a national org. was on-board with this. I know Brad is plenty busy and understand this is important to him. Remember he posted for input and contrary points of view before moving forward.
> The person that thinks this ruling or issue does not affect them > because they do not PPG, I think is mistaken. I think the flying > community is in jeaporday unless we coalesce our efforts to protect > and promote flying that relates to FAR 103. Otherwise the powers at > be (who have no enterest or knowledge) gain power to rule over those > that are divided.
> Personally, I have no interest in Hangliding, Powered Parchuting, or > PPG ( unless it becomes cheaper, lighter and electric) but, I do > support the flying communities ability to monitor and police our own.
> We need to come together in order to servive. Otherwise the sport will > be divided and conguered very fast.
> I suggest we support Discover Paraglidings efforts and Nicks combined > efforts to preserve the PPG along our Oregon beaches. Otherwise, the > rest of us will be next, one by one.
> My 2cents worth
> Dave
> *From:* Nick Blizzard <nickblizz...@comcast.net>
> *To:* cpcl@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
> Can't really dissagree with anything you're saying. It is a tough > issue and it can effect all of us. The ppg community is actually > quite divided at times as some see part 103 as rules that can be bent > while others view them as rules that shouldn't be pushed.
> I think the simple answer is to have a map that clearly defines no fly > zones and have it accessible through the parks service website. We > could even create it and have the parks service sign off on it. > Enforcement would be handled the same way the parks handle any > illegal activity and the flying community would be needed to educate > those that aren't familiar.
> Or I don't know, maybe it is a good rule. Keeps the beaches less > populated with motorized activity and yet still allows some > individuals, who know where to launch and land from, to fly the coast.
> Seems like we're then just the one's who push the rules rather the > ones who try and solve the problem though....
> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
> I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to
> implement rules to address this that can effectively be enforced.
> The launching and landing is straight forward and stops much of
> the noise but you are right low and slow is the charm of ppg so
> pilots will want to fly that way.
> Hell some California parks are taking charge of airspace and not
> allowing flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace
> rulings) above the parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be
> able to fly North but paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking
> and kiting/ launching in forbidden area so the park solution was
> to totally eliminate the possibility of breaking the rules by
> keeping us out.
> Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park needs to address
> this in their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific
> about motors. So you come up with some general guidelines about
> staying away from public and wildlife( for a while it looked like
> flying, walking a dog or even going to the beach was over due to
> the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme measures) not a lot
> different from ATV saying they will stay out of the dunes(yes a
> lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
> And what if they say no flying over the parks below 1,000' AGL
> that would stop all free flight and make powered flight less
> enjoyable. If noise is truly the problem is low and slow an
> option? What is the solution, minimum heights for operation other
> then launching and landing. Would this allow keeping launch and
> landing allowed everywhere provided following common sense
> guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc.. > Designated areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to
> only designated areas for launching and landing?
> PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high impact activity
> depending on how and where it is done. That is one of the things
> that will make it so hard to write guidelines and manage. While
> there is no requirement to join USHPA our efforts at self
> regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the FAA allowing and
> encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really need to
> present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is
> there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more
> pilots then I am aware of in the region but I get the impression
> it be a very individual activity.
> Steve
> .On 7/8/2012 8:34 AM, Nick Blizzard wrote:
>> Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes
>> DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make
>> our beaches beautiful.
>> I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those
>> who don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
>> I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can
>> designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how
>> most airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in
>> making sure the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb
>> precious wildlife, who must take precedent.
>> The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address
>> noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a
>> nearby field and then head over to the beach. Others, including
>> me will do this more and more and the problem won't be addressed.
>> Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as
>> a free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
>> Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms
>> of flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land,
>> wildlife and people who use it.
>> I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am
>> biased because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast
>> but banning taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything.
>> Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the
>> beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go
>> around? Then there we are flying around as you struggle to
>> figure out a way to allow your flying, that you know is safe, to
>> be allowed. Not the best example but you get my point.
>> Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
>> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:29:24 PM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
>> "Just look at all those folks we are bothering!!! (This was
>> on Fourth of July weekend 2010.)"
>> So if no one is on the beach it is ok to ride dirt bikes?
>> "Can it be a hazard to future flying on the beach. Sure. Just
>> like any badly done PG flight can."
>> But it does not have to be badly done flight to impact the
>> serenity of the beach. You ever been cross country skiing in
>> some quiet beautiful place and encountered snowmobiles?
>> Sorry I just don't see the beach as a place for launching and
>> landing(sure flying is fine) as I am selfish and don't want
>> to risk losing the sites by challenging the parks on motors,
>> it puts them at odds with other groups with motors that would
>> love access. Look how our options for launching and landing
>> have shrunk at Ecola for no particular reason.
>> Convince me, let's see these guidelines I'd be curious what
>> type of
Your response is an admirable oposition. I am optomistic that your response will only strenthen us if your pessimisim can be answered.
DC
________________________________ From: Steve Forslund <skf...@effectnet.com> To: cpcl@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:40 PM Subject: Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
Perhaps a little bit chicken little? How many years have we been flying the coast with unpowered foot launched aircraft without trouble?
How many years were ppg able to use the beach (at odds with motorized rules of the park) before what's his name got it shut down?
Linking motors not being allowed with foot launched flying being stopped is quite a bit of a jump and I don't think the sky is falling yet.
103 does not dictate how States manage their parks. Just because we both fly under 103 does not mean that both need to be allowed and linked. Few flying sites allow ultra lights and one of the reason is bigger impact due to noise. It would be one thing to have a flight park in your neighborhood and another to have ultra lights. Private airstrips are closing all over the country due pressure from urban growth.
Divided? I believe it already is and ppg is represented by it's own associations not the USHPA. We are going to be conquered by who? While it is always a fight to keep and open sites I don't believe we are under attack and at a point where we need to start aligning ourselves with other organizations in order to keep sites for flying. We could bring in general aviation and fight for their rights for landing and launching on the beach?
While I would prefer that 103 compliant ultra lights could land and launch at the beach much as they have for years without issue I understand the dilemma this puts the Park management in regarding existing rules with aviation and the use of motors(only licensed street vehicles)at the beach. How many States, communities or parks allow ultra lights at public beaches?
So once again convince me. I am waiting to see proposed guidelines, clearances etc.. and it would be nice if a national org. was on-board with this. I know Brad is plenty busy and understand this is important to him. Remember he posted for input and contrary points of view before moving forward.
SF
On 7/8/2012 6:58 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
The person that thinks this ruling or issue does not affect them because they do not PPG, I think is mistaken. I think the flying community is in jeaporday unless we coalesce our efforts to protect and promote flying that relates to FAR 103. Otherwise the powers at be (who have no enterest or knowledge) gain power to rule over those that are divided.
> >Personally, I have no interest in Hangliding, Powered Parchuting, or PPG ( unless it becomes cheaper, lighter and electric) but, I do support the flying communities ability to monitor and police our own. We need to come together in order to servive. Otherwise the sport will be divided and conguered very fast. > >I suggest we support Discover Paraglidings efforts and Nicks combined efforts to preserve the PPG along our Oregon beaches. Otherwise, the rest of us will be next, one by one. > >My 2cents worth > >Dave
>From: Nick Blizzard mailto:nickblizz...@comcast.net >To: cpcl@googlegroups.com >Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:53 PM >Subject: Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
>Can't really dissagree with anything you're saying. It is a tough issue and it can effect all of us. The ppg community is actually quite divided at times as some see part 103 as rules that can be bent while others view them as rules that shouldn't be pushed. >I think the simple answer is to have a map that clearly defines no fly zones and have it accessible through the parks service website. We could even create it and have the parks service sign off on it. Enforcement would be handled the same way the parks handle any illegal activity and the flying community would be needed to educate those that aren't familiar.
>Or I don't know, maybe it is a good rule. Keeps the beaches less populated with motorized activity and yet still allows some individuals, who know where to launch and land from, to fly the coast. >Seems like we're then just the one's who push the rules rather the ones who try and solve the problem though....
>On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Steve
Forslund wrote:
> I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to implement rules to address this that can effectively be enforced. The launching and landing is straight forward and stops much of the noise but you are right low and slow is the charm of ppg so pilots will want to fly that way. >> >>Hell some California parks are taking charge of
airspace and not allowing flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace rulings) above the parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be able to fly North but paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking and kiting/ launching in forbidden area so the park solution was to totally eliminate the possibility of breaking the rules by keeping us out.
>> >>Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park
needs to address this in their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific about motors. So you come up with some general guidelines about staying away from public and wildlife( for a while it looked like flying, walking a dog or even going to the beach was over due to the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme measures) not a lot different from ATV saying they will stay out of the dunes(yes a lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
>>And what if they say no flying over the parks
below 1,000' AGL that would stop all free flight and make powered flight less enjoyable. If noise is truly the problem is low and slow an option? What is the solution, minimum heights for operation other then launching and landing. Would this allow keeping launch and landing allowed everywhere provided following common sense guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc.. Designated areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to only designated areas for launching and landing?
>> PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high
impact activity depending on how and where it is done. That is one of the things that will make it so hard to write guidelines and manage. While there is no requirement to join USHPA our efforts at self regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the FAA allowing and encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really need to present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more pilots then I am aware of in the region but I get the impression it be a very individual activity.
>>Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt bikes DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects that make our beaches beautiful. >>>I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those who don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
>>>I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks can designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to how most airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in making sure the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb precious wildlife, who must take precedent.
>>>The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't address noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an airport or a nearby field and then head over to the beach. Others, including me will do this more and more and the problem won't be addressed. >>>Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you as a free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
>>>Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms of flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land, wildlife and people who use it. >>>I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am biased because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast but banning taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything. >>>Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at the beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do a go around? Then there we are flying around as you struggle to figure out a way to allow your flying, that you know is safe, to be allowed. Not the best example but you get my point.
>>>Lets figure out what the problems are and how we can address them.
Yes, I am working toward getting PPG flying re-instated on the beaches. No, I am not quite willing to share publicly what all the plans are, (and they are extensive). But...
I would like to re-direct the topic to being: Should I proceed to try to get the ODA to reclassify us (HG, PG, Tandem, Tow, and motor) as Ultralight Vehicles per the definition of the FAA.
Current ODA classifications:
Foot launch solo = Unclassified
Motor, Tandem, Tow = Aircraft (thus prohibited from landing on the beach)
Part two of this topic: Is anyone out there willing to help?
> Your response is an admirable oposition. I am optomistic that your > response will only strenthen us if your pessimisim can be answered.
> DC
> *From:* Steve Forslund <skf...@effectnet.com>
> *To:* cpcl@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
> Perhaps a little bit chicken little? How many years have we been > flying the coast with unpowered foot launched aircraft without trouble?
> How many years were ppg able to use the beach (at odds with motorized > rules of the park) before what's his name got it shut down?
> Linking motors not being allowed with foot launched flying being > stopped is quite a bit of a jump and I don't think the sky is falling yet.
> 103 does not dictate how States manage their parks. Just because we > both fly under 103 does not mean that both need to be allowed and > linked. Few flying sites allow ultra lights and one of the reason is > bigger impact due to noise. It would be one thing to have a flight > park in your neighborhood and another to have ultra lights. Private > airstrips are closing all over the country due pressure from urban > growth.
> Divided? I believe it already is and ppg is represented by it's own > associations not the USHPA. We are going to be conquered by who? While > it is always a fight to keep and open sites I don't believe we are > under attack and at a point where we need to start aligning ourselves > with other organizations in order to keep sites for flying. We could > bring in general aviation and fight for their rights for landing and > launching on the beach?
> While I would prefer that 103 compliant ultra lights could land and > launch at the beach much as they have for years without issue I > understand the dilemma this puts the Park management in regarding > existing rules with aviation and the use of motors(only licensed > street vehicles)at the beach. How many States, communities or parks > allow ultra lights at public beaches?
> So once again convince me. I am waiting to see proposed guidelines, > clearances etc.. and it would be nice if a national org. was on-board > with this. I know Brad is plenty busy and understand this is important > to him. Remember he posted for input and contrary points of view > before moving forward.
> SF
> On 7/8/2012 6:58 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
>> The person that thinks this ruling or issue does not affect them >> because they do not PPG, I think is mistaken. I think the flying >> community is in jeaporday unless we coalesce our efforts to protect >> and promote flying that relates to FAR 103. Otherwise the powers at >> be (who have no enterest or knowledge) gain power to rule over those >> that are divided.
>> Personally, I have no interest in Hangliding, Powered Parchuting, or >> PPG ( unless it becomes cheaper, lighter and electric) but, I do >> support the flying communities ability to monitor and police our >> own. We need to come together in order to servive. Otherwise the >> sport will be divided and conguered very fast.
>> I suggest we support Discover Paraglidings efforts and Nicks combined >> efforts to preserve the PPG along our Oregon beaches. Otherwise, the >> rest of us will be next, one by one.
>> My 2cents worth
>> Dave
>> *From:* Nick Blizzard mailto:nickblizz...@comcast.net
>> *To:* cpcl@googlegroups.com <mailto:cpcl@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:53 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: CPC: Getting the rules changed... again...
>> Can't really dissagree with anything you're saying. It is a tough >> issue and it can effect all of us. The ppg community is actually >> quite divided at times as some see part 103 as rules that can be bent >> while others view them as rules that shouldn't be pushed.
>> I think the simple answer is to have a map that clearly defines no >> fly zones and have it accessible through the parks service website. >> We could even create it and have the parks service sign off on it. >> Enforcement would be handled the same way the parks handle any >> illegal activity and the flying community would be needed to educate >> those that aren't familiar.
>> Or I don't know, maybe it is a good rule. Keeps the beaches less >> populated with motorized activity and yet still allows some >> individuals, who know where to launch and land from, to fly the coast.
>> Seems like we're then just the one's who push the rules rather the >> ones who try and solve the problem though....
>> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Steve Forslund wrote:
>> I hear what you are saying but don't see any realistic way to
>> implement rules to address this that can effectively be enforced.
>> The launching and landing is straight forward and stops much of
>> the noise but you are right low and slow is the charm of ppg so
>> pilots will want to fly that way.
>> Hell some California parks are taking charge of airspace and not
>> allowing flight(even for aircraft creating their own airspace
>> rulings) above the parks at all! At Torrey Pines we used to be
>> able to fly North but paraglider pilots who sunk out were hiking
>> and kiting/ launching in forbidden area so the park solution was
>> to totally eliminate the possibility of breaking the rules by
>> keeping us out.
>> Even if noise is the real issue/problem the park needs to address
>> this in their general frame wok of rules which is fairly specific
>> about motors. So you come up with some general guidelines about
>> staying away from public and wildlife( for a while it looked like
>> flying, walking a dog or even going to the beach was over due to
>> the Snowy Plover and CA took more extreme measures) not a lot
>> different from ATV saying they will stay out of the dunes(yes a
>> lot more potential impact from ATV breaking rules)
>> And what if they say no flying over the parks below 1,000' AGL
>> that would stop all free flight and make powered flight less
>> enjoyable. If noise is truly the problem is low and slow an
>> option? What is the solution, minimum heights for operation other
>> then launching and landing. Would this allow keeping launch and
>> landing allowed everywhere provided following common sense
>> guidelines as far as proximity to public, wildlife etc..
>> Designated areas for low and slow flight or would this lead to
>> only designated areas for launching and landing?
>> PPG can be an extremely low impact or a high impact activity
>> depending on how and where it is done. That is one of the things
>> that will make it so hard to write guidelines and manage. While
>> there is no requirement to join USHPA our efforts at self
>> regulation/instruction had a lot to do with the FAA allowing and
>> encouraging flight through Part 103. I think you really need to
>> present a strong ppg community to the Parks. How strong is it? Is
>> there any local club, it seems there are probably a lot more
>> pilots then I am aware of in the region but I get the impression
>> it be a very individual activity.
>> Steve
>> .On 7/8/2012 8:34 AM, Nick Blizzard wrote:
>>> Steve, I think the big issue here is noise pollution. Dirt
>>> bikes DESTROY the beach's and grass as well as other aspects
>>> that make our beaches beautiful.
>>> I do agree that ppg can be loud. They can be obnoxious to those
>>> who don't appreciate a well running 2 stroke.
>>> I think everything else is a non issue. I think if the parks
>>> can designate special noise abatement procedures very similar to
>>> how most airports have it for planes, that will go a long way in
>>> making sure the ppg community doesn't piss anyone off or disturb
>>> precious wildlife, who must take precedent.
>>> The problem with how the rules are now is that it doesn't
>>> address noise at all, it just forces ppg to take off from an
>>> airport or a nearby field and then head over to the beach.
>>> Others, including me will do this more and more and the problem
>>> won't be addressed.
>>> Controlling who can take off and land at the beach affects you
>>> as a free flight pilot much more then it affects any ppg pilot.
>>> Lets work together to come up with someway to maintain freedoms
>>> of flight for all groups with minimal impact to the land,
>>> wildlife and people who use it.
>>> I really do see where you're coming from and yes I probably am
>>> biased because I enjoy ppg as much as free flying at the coast
>>> but banning taking off and landing, doesn't fix anything.
>>> Think if they had said, no unmotorized ultralight may land at
>>> the beach because of safety concerns about not being able to do
>>> a go around? Then there we are flying around as
