[gtpowell]

Brad, Please comment,

I just read the entire lease agreement between Air California Adventure and the city of San Diego. And, my understanding is under the terms of the lease, Air California Adventure may not ban Dave Beardsley from flying at Torrey Pines. Air California Adventure has been assigned the responsibility of establishing flight regulations and other aspects related to the operation of the city park as it pertains to flying and the concession. Although, the lease agreement clearly states that the public may not be excluded from any portion of the premises and/or use as intended through the lease agreement.
Here is the portion of the lease where I derive this from.

[knumbknuts]

That portion of the lease could make it flyable for Hang 3s. That's huge.

Good job getting to the bottom of such things, Gary.

It appears that Air California Adventures is in breach of the lease by restricting the rights of the general public, specifically those that are Hang 3 rated, from flying there.

To remedy this, we need to:

1. Find precedent for what is reasonable. I am going to research the landing requirements of every primary LZ of every major flying site in the US (major being defined as having an instructor or club on the USHPA site, along with web-based information on landing requirements).
-- also, I'll look for the differences between Paraglider and Hang Glider certifications.

2. Get legal assistance, to notify them that they are in breach of lease.

3. Wait for response... give 'em 30 days.

4. ... then what, assuming they hold fast, attempt to fly? A ghandi style protest? Civil lawsuit? Letter of complaint to landlord (don't want to piss of city and have the close the whole site down).


What is Air Calif. Adventure's rationale for restricting hang 4s? I can't imagine it's always been such.

Having just returned from Dunlap, where the LZ has mountain thermals, is at 2000 feet, has wicked switches from trees and ponds, and is slightly downslope and angled, yet is Hang 3 rated, I can't imagine what is so dangerous about Torrey.

[gtpowell]

I believe earlier in this thread there was reference to insurance. Although, as I read through the lease agreement, the reference to insurance requires Air Cal Adventure to have Public Liability and Fire-extended coverage related to their own use of the premises. The lease agreement does not state a requirement to cover all persons/public using the premises for personal use. Air Cal Adventure is also required to insure all clubs using the facility have certificate of insurance. Our USHPA card is our certificate of insurance.

KK, as you say, “What is reasonable?” I personally think, and I believe the courts would agree, reasonable does not allow Air Cal Adventure to establish a biased USHPA rating requirement based off of wing type. The USHPA has established a successful, fair and non-biased rating system. They have established guidelines based on wing type and the related difficulties/skill requirements necessary to safely operate, respective wing type. Meaning, a PG intermediate rated pilot has no greater ability to fly his/her specific wing type in a safe and controlled manner than a HG intermediate rated pilot on his/her wing type in like conditions and/or like location. The rating system was designed to insure safe flying through experience, abilities and knowledge.

With that said, I believe the Air Cal Adventure established PG3 vs. HG4 requirements is not “Reasonable,” And if agreed upon by the city council, this would place Air Cal Adventure in breach of contract on a second issue. (Excluding public is first breech) I also understand prior to this, Air Cal was deemed in breach of contract for unauthorized improvements to the existing building. Apparently they did not seek approval from the city and/or the Coastal commission prior to making improvements. This may be strike three.

[gtpowell]

Here is another interesting note. Only the area with in the designation lines is under the lease agreement. All premises outside of this line are outside of Air Cal Adventures control. If you launch and land outside of this area, you may legally use the premises without any interaction/controversy with Air California Adventure. I have taken this photo directly from the lease contract.

SG, there is an extremely large area south of the designated premises, is it possible to safely launch from there? I would think the area north and/or east of the designated premises would be adequate for landing. What do you think?

[designbydave]

you guys are really getting to the bottom of this.

Maybe us 3s should all get bright green shirts with a big 3 on it and hold a sit in down there!

[DocSoc]

[sg]

[brad]

I will reply and promise to be good.
Just looking at the quote from the lease I see ..."including all rules"...
and "other aspects related to ....flying and concession" This seems
to be a fairly broad area of authority.

We have touched on the H-4 issue in this thread. It has been a City
imposed requirement since the first use permit was issued many
years ago. Like I said earlier, I am working on a system to allow
advanced H-3's a chance to build hours and flight numbers at Torrey,
with the full knoweledge and support of David Jebb. My goal is for this
to be ready for the spring season. It won't and can't happen tomorrow
for a number of reasons.

Now comes the threat of legal action by PILOTS! This is about the worst
possible thing any pilot could do. If successful, you could shut the site
down. It is nice to think that the City of S.D. would be your champion
in a cause because you think you are "right". This has been proven not
to be the case over and over again. The attitude in city government is
that we should take care of our own disputes. I have been told more
than a few times that if we cannot do this, the City would have no choice
but to do it for us. The remedy always includes the distinct possibility
of just closing the site to flying altogother. An easy effort on their part.
Just sign on the dotted line. We have come very close to this in the past.
There are many different departments in the city that have a say, one way
or another, on what happens at Torrey. Often they have no idea what
each others policy is. My experience has shown that when it comes
down to making a decision, the crap flows up-hill. At some point it will
land in a legal departments lap. At that point the question becomes a
matter of what is best for the city, not what is best for the pilots. Risk
Management is near the top of the food chain and we are a risk in their
eyes. We are allowed to fly. We have no right to do so.

You may not agree with all the established policies at Torrey. I don't either.
But keep in mind that this is an evolving system with many pitfalls. Pilots
taking legal actions against fellow pilots sends a very negative message.
How sad it would be to close down Torrey through the actions of pilots.
You may not agree with my opinions and that is your right. But I ask you
to realize that I have been a staunch defender of Torrey for decades and
have a lot of insight into how to keep it open. Law suits is not one of them.

The David Beardsley saga is not a clear cut issue. There is a lot more
to it than just a petty misunderstanding. Most of it has to do with a
difference of opinion on how tandems are "signed-up" and who gets paid.
David has some legitimate grieviences over this, as does the
concessionaire. There are always 2 sides to an issue and this forum is
not the place to air all the mistakes and actions of either party.
The "banned for life" senario so often spoken of here is very misleading.
David B. knows how to fix this and could do so today. I have offered to
go with him and resolve the issue several times. It is up to him. I hope
he follows through and can once again enjoy flying at Torrey. I miss him
out there.

The "unauthorized improvements" mentioned are a complicated and
in some aspects unwarranted set of circumstances. I have seen
some of the paperwork relating to this, though certainly not all. There
were agreements based on handshakes with city officials, now gone,
that were probably not the smartest way to do things. There are many
aspects of the "improvements" that were inherited by the concessionaire.
The fines came about because of a lawsuit filed by a so called "litigation
for hire" firm that sues buisnesses and individuals for almost anything
they think they can make a buck off of. The City was named in the suit
and they in turn counter sued to recover their loss. The end result?
Thousands spent on legal fees, geological studies, reports to various
agencies, dead grass, the removal of the entire watering system and
much more. By the way, the "improvements" all become the property
of the city as soon as they are done. They are considered an asset.

There are trying times ahed for all of us. The actions of a few may have profound affects on the future of Torrey. Please do not become a brick
in the wall that shuts us all out. I am open to any suggestions that will
move us ahead in a positive manner. PM me if you like at brad.reg3@gmail.com.

Brad Hall

[knumbknuts]

Interesting and valid points, Brad.

How is it that the Hang 4 requirement is so much stricter than the Paragliding requirements? That it comes from the city does make our legal action useless. To take on a small vendor is one thing, to take on a city government is another.

I'll be interested in and appreciate your hang 3 with hours work, but I still think the difference between hangs and paras is a crock.

[TomGalvin]

[knumbknuts]

If it were the leaseholder's decision, I would storm the castle. Apparently, it's the city's. There's a huge difference between the two.

My question stands, how did it get to be where it's at? Who at the city knows a H4 from a P2?

[brad]

knumbnuts

The answer to that question is most likely no one.......at this time.
Bring the eyes of the city into focous and many things could
change, all not for the better. As I understand the p-2 program,
the students are under radio supervision. Take them out of
the equation and you remove the ability to teach at Torrey. Now
I know some would say this is a good thing. It is not. The
buisness has to work for the concessionaire to stay. Without
one....site closed. I would much rather put up with the school
than lose the site. Wouldn't you?

Do not fly from anywhere other than the designated launch. This
would lead to a lot of trouble for all of us. Remember, this is city,
state and university property. We fly because we have established
rules that they can live with. As an example, you wouldn't go to
Yosomite, see it is H-4 only, and launch from Half Dome, would
you? How quick do you think the site would be lost? The same
goes for many sites across the country. You must follow the site
protocals set up by the locals. There needs to be more
awareness of what your actions could do at any site. Wear your
green shirts and sit where you will, but keep in mind the locals
may not appreciate what you are doing.

If there is to be this "site war", you better make damn sure you have
all the paperwork signed and in hand with a clear and concise
plan ready to go.Once closed, it is far harder to re-open the site.
Been there, done that.

Brad Hall

[bobk]

Let's keep our eyes on the prize...

There are three important items at play here:

1. Representation on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council
2. Representation on the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board
3. The Torrey Pines Gliderport Lease (up for renewal / rebid in 2008)

All of the other issues like H3's at Torrey are being traded
off to ensure that the current concessionaire wins all three
of those big items. Why is it that after 9 years of the current
concessionaire there is suddenly so much talk about making
things better at Torrey? Why is it that these things have never
been changed in the last 35 years?

The answer is that the Hawks are changing the game.
We are on the verge of making a real difference at Torrey.
We cannot allow ourselves to be sidetracked with what
might be done in the spring when the appointments to
the Council and Advisory Board are happening right now,
in the fall. The three items I've laid out are the real prize,
and we should not be distracted with any candy that is
suddenly thrown our way.

Let's build up our membership in the Hawks so we can
have a strong voice at the table when all of these issues
(from Beardslee to Hang 3's) are being discussed. That's
the only long term solution to the ongoing problems that
hang gliding has experienced at Torrey.

Bob Kuczewski
President - Torrey Hawks.

[sg]

[bobk]

SG,

Gabe Jebb admitted (during one of the Soaring Council meetings) that
they train paraglider pilots from scratch at that site. P2? P1? Try P0!

[knumbknuts]

Ok,

To summarize:

Obvious points:
- No commando launching
- No legal jihad
- Don't piss the city off or go crying to them.

Tempting, but destructive:
- No going canary on the fact that the PGers are cheating on the very system that is so rigorously applied to HGers (i.e. who it is that can fly under direct radio supervision and not under direct radio supervision). This would only tear down, not build.

Bob's excellent points.
1. Representation on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council
2. Representation on the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board
3. The Torrey Pines Gliderport Lease (up for renewal / rebid in 2008)

Brad's already-on-it points:
- He's working on getting H3s with advanced hours in there, hopefully by spring
- Don't rock the boat, lest the whole thing tip over.

My opinion:
- I believe SG when he says there is an anti-HG vibe there, because I looked into HG there and the PG akido (tried to redirect me into PG).
- I am 100% behind Bob's efforts
- I appreciate Brad's efforts on behalf of H3s, but want more
- I will probably try to get involved in the lease bid on behalf of HGers... and by lease bid, I mean with $ if need be (assuming there's some sort of $ return... a pure donation would be kinda small).

What I would love to see:
- A concessionaire run by an equal HG/PG instructor mix where H3s and P3s can fly off radio, H2s and P2s can fly on radio and/or with signoff.
- Reasonably priced glider storage
- Annual biwingwal flyins (triwingwal?)

[sg]

Hypothetically speaking. If torrey refuses fair access to the site for HG's, even after the HG's approach and ask permission for H3's to fly there, maybe even H2's on a radio, then what can be done? The suck it up and take it, dont rock the boat approach, is not acceptable. If this leaves the HG pilots no choice but to debate their case with the city, and it gets the site shut down, who is to blame? Dave or the HG's? I think it would be Dave for being unreasonable, so I dont understand why the "dont rock the boat" attitude has to only apply to HG's. Dave is already rocking the boat by discriminating against HG pilots.

It seems Dave is operating under a city ignorance policy with the P1+radio teaching. Why is this ok for him to do but not HG pilots?

The equivalent would be, a bunch of H2 pilots show up, and setup to fly. We also dont tell the city what is going on

I assume Dave would go apeshit, and tries to kick them off. H2's say "Fine, we'll just be sure the city knows you are training P1's on a radio here, you know, TO BE FAIR".

Seriously... what is wrong with this picture? This is a really screwed up, unfair situation we have here.

Dave can get away with illegal flying at a profit, but all hell breaks loose if the HG's were to attempt the very same maneuver???

Something has to change. End the discrimination already.

[knumbknuts]

That's tempting SG,

But it sure would be nice to see Bob and the Torrey Hawks build something out of the existing process, underway, for change.

...
.......

Reading your post a second time, I wonder what would happen if an H3 did show up to fly, paid his seven dollars, signed in as an H3, and said: "Funny, looks to me like there are P2s flying not under radio instruction" and carried on.

/jedi mind trick
//these are not the H3s you are looking for.

[knumbknuts]

By the way, what are the official city rules?

Here they are, according to the flytorrey.com website:

# Hang glider pilots must have a USHGA Advanced or equivalent foreign rating. Paraglider pilots must have a USHGA Intermediate or equivalent foreign rating. Intermediate rated paraglider pilots must have at least 50 hours of air time, proveable in the form of a log book. Tandem flights require a USHGA Tandem Rated pilot and permission of the Flight Director.

I have a hard time believing every off radio pilot there has a P3 & > 50 hours of airtime.

[DocSoc]