[sg]

Some typical approaches at both sites.

Also threw in the cross wind option for torrey, which is harder to do at Funston.

[sg]

Here is a pic I took from the air at Torrey
You telling me an H3 cant land with all this approach space????

[sg]

Now compare Andy Jackson flight park to Torrey.
You can fly Crestline/Marshall as an H3 (with signoff?)

Being a mountain site, it does not have the gentle smooth winds of torrey and landing is tricker there.

Check these graphics out. They are the SAME SCALE
Also remember, at Torrey you are landing uphill also, into a smooth head, pretty much always.

Still think Torrey is too small for an H3? No way.

[spekkinout]

great graphics, SG!

Wow, Torrey LZ and approach looks bigger than I remember it. Of course, I'm working from near 20yr old memories, and I was a newbie back then, every LZ seemed small and "tricky" to me!

[designbydave]

[brad]

gtpowell,

All good questions. I will answer what I can. Sounds like you are a Regional Director? If yes, where? The situation at Torrey Pines is that the lease holder has the last word on just about everything. Part of his agreement with the city includes the supervision of all flight opps. It used to be different years ago, but thanks to the actions of the past lease holder, Bill Bennett, the Parks & Rec.
dept. was shut out and the Property dept. took over. I was very much involved in the mess and I believe this is where everything changed. Lawyers took over and the mantra was RISK MANAGEMENT, at any cost. Basically this ment that the lease holder is liable and responsible for everything. Along with this came the power to run the site without much city interference. Some people have tried to change this through complaints and letters to the city. All this does is shine a spotlight on something they could care less about. Few pilots realize how fragile this site is. This is all leading to your question about having the USHPA step in and change attitudes or site rules. I don't think there is any way this can happen. This is not a USHPA site. It is a City Park. David Jebb is the lease holder and has a set of criteria he has to follow. As long as he does so, the city will back him every time. That is the nature of the contract.
How would you suggest I go about elimenating the "harassment" by the staff? I can see both sides of the issue and agree there is a need for improvement . I have always found David willing to discuss any issue in a calm and reasonable fashion. He does not always agree with me, but he does listen. There are some that have an axe to grind with him and they are very vocal. This is true to some degree at every site. Is there a favortisim shown to pg'ers? I would have to say yes. Is there an effort to rid the site of hg'ers? I don't believe there is. The situation with students does create conflict. As I said earlier, this is the buisness that feeds the lease holder that keeps the site open. I have found for the most part it is a choice of the pilots to engage in the conflict or not. It is easy to sign in, pay the fee and go fly. As long as you understand the dynamic, you can have fun.
Of course I would like to see all qualified pilots get the chance to fly Torrey.
I think there is room for discussion on the H3 with the proper experience. I will
initiate this discussion.
David Jebb is a Regional Director.
To my knowledge there is no hg instruction other than tandem Discovery flights. I think John Heiney and Rod Mitchell of Eagles wings are the only active hg instructors in the S.D. area.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Brad Hall
brad.reg3@gmail.com

[gtpowell]

Brad,

Thanks for continuing to respond to my questions. And, "No", I'm not a director. I went back and re-read my post and saw how it may be misinterpreted. Sorry for the confusion. I'm just another So-Cal HG Pilot that began flying in the early 80's, who is becoming ever more so tired of all the restrictions, regulations and bias that continues to choke us out of flying locations. If we don't stand up and let our concerns be heard, how will our concerns ever be recognized?

If I understand correctly, you say Torrey Pines is a city park and that David Jebb is the leaseholder. My question is, does his company have a contract with the city that allows him to operate a concession at this location, and/or does his contract with the city grant his company an exclusive right to this city park in it's entirety, and the right to exclude the general public from using this publicly owned land?

As many times as I have been there, I do not recall ever seeing signs posted stating Torrey Pines Flight Park has exclusivity to the entire length of the ridge and the air above it. Neither have I seen "No Trespassing" signs. This park is huge and I find it difficult to believe the city has granted David's company exclusivity to the entirety of this huge peace of land.

If the city has not provided exclusivity to David for the entire park, and if it is not illegal to fly within the city limits, I would think any pilot that wishes to fly Torrey can do so provided they utilize public, non-leased land.

I commend David for renegotiating with the city to allow flying at Torrey and that he has operated a very successful business at this location. Although, at the same time, I along with many others in So-Cal feel the this public park should be made available to all who have the ability to enjoy it provided they can do so without endangering themselves and/or others. I feel that if the operators are comfortable with P3’s flying, they should feel equally as comfortable with H3’s flying.

RE: Are there any businesses, clubs and/or organizations (ie: SDHGPA, HG, PG, Sailplane and/or RC) that influences decisions made with respect to the operations and activities at this location outside of Air California Adventures?

I'm sorry; I did not note your response to this question in your posts.

Is there anything I and other pilots can assist you with to initiate discussions with David regarding H3's being allowed to utilize the Torry Pines Flight Park?

Thanks
gtpowell

[brad]

gtpowell,

In answer to some of your questions, yes, AirCal does have a concession
agreement with the city. This is part of the lease package. It does cover a huge portion of the area. I think part of this was a way for the City to make someone
else responsible for more land, including the parking lot to the south . Not really a good deal for the flight park.
No, TFP does not "own" the entire legnth of the ridge. Or the airspace.
However, there is no faster way to shut the site down that launching from an area outside of the flight park. Remember, this is all within the city limits and they do controll what activities they will permit. As an example, up untill a few years ago we used to fly the cliffs is Encinitas, north of Torrey. Now there is a city law forbidding it. I have had the talk with the police while breaking down my glider and there is no room to negotiate with them. You will be cited, and the court will figure out what to do with us. The city has granted us the priveledge
of flying at Torrey. Not the right. Push them far enough and we all will pay the price. We have dealt with this in the past and it is not pretty.
There are some clubs that use the site. R/C, sailplanes, & footlaunch.
There is a Torrey Pines Soaring Council with rep's. from all. It is an advisory board and can make reccomendations to the city and to the buisness. The lease holder can, if he wants to and is within his agreement with the city, choose to follow or ignore the reccomendations. Thats just the way it is.
Thanks for the offer of help. Let me do the ground work and I will let all of you know how it goes. Looks like a good day to fly, so I will try to talk with David Jebb today.

Brad Hall
brad.reg3@gmail.com

[sg]

Brad,

Im curious. Since it sounds like the lease holder is all powerful, the trade off of assuming all risk for the city, there is something that just doesnt gel.

The RC guys have always been a thorn in the side of Torrey. Flying their RC's, some of them HUGE and potentially deadly, right in the middle of the most critical area, near launch and the LZ. There are so many other places the RC's could fly from.

So this begs the question. Why does the lease holder allow this if the lease holder truly has complete power over the usage of the site?

Why would he even allow HG's at all, since they seem to be a headache to his PG school operations?

Does the lease holder really have the power to wave his hand and simply state, NO HG's and NO RC's starting tomorrow??? Or is he still required to give access to a public site, to the tax paying public?

Assuming this lease is public info, id really like to take a look at it. I get really tired of the double standards there, and getting yelled at for stuff their own instructors do all the time. Id like to know my rights, in detail.

[CHassan]

http://docs.sandiego.gov/councildockets_attach/2007/June/06-19-2007%20Item%20106.pdf

Interesting note here is

[fly n mater]

Here is the Tiger Mtn lz. The yellow path is for HG and the orange is for PGs. The arrows show an approach for a north wind day. flip arrows for south day.

The down wind leg for HGs obstructions are power lines, 60 to 80' tall trees and PGs coming in from the other side. They don't typically see us.

The down wind for PGs is over 80 to 100' trees. To which they typically get very close to when on approach.

The base for both is over a bog/marshy area and at the opposite end are black berry bushes. Is 100yds long, ~30 wide. Which makes for really fun approaches when a slow flying pg gets in front of you.

[knumbknuts]

Torrey Hawks is being set up to have such representative on the council. Currently, it's all paraglider, RC, and glider pilots.

[sg]

Nice find. I always wondered what happened when Torrey decided to expand their on site building without telling the city

They legally broke their lease and got fined $20G's DOH.

[sg]

But does the council have any power at all? If it doesnt, would wonder why it even exists.

[gtpowell]

Good morning Brad,

Again, thanks for the response.

The last thing I wish to see happen is to jeopardize the opportunity for pilots to fly within the city. My goal is just the opposite, to limit/reduce some of the restrictions place on pilots.

As I'm sure may agree to, there is large contingent of qualified local H3 pilots that would love to fly Torrey, although we are restricted out. As you know, acquiring a H4 rating in So-Cal is far more difficult than in most other parts of the country due to the characteristics of our sites. Our sites tend to produce far greater flight hours than flight numbers, yet the skill levels acquired through greater flight time appears not to be factored in to the equation.

Thanks for offering to speak with David today. I'm sure with a little for thought, arrangements can be made to allow a greater number of HG pilots the opportunity to fly Torrey, and at the same time, increase David's profits without having a negative affect on his PG school.

Considerations could be made for newbies that establish time windows exclusive for newbie HG pilots and/or allow newbie HG pilots to fly at any time of the day, but limiting individual time windows based on PG school activities. A call-line for HG pilots could be established informing them of the day’s time schedules. The greater the number of pilots, the greater the exposure to the public which in turn will generate a greater number of prospective students providing the oportunity for increased profits.

Thanks,

Gary

[brad]

SG,

There have been many conflicts with the r/c's over the years. As I understand
the situation now, they are required to have an observer for scale r/c's and are on a tight leash for others. I do not have the lease agreement to refer to, so most of my comments have been gleaned from 30 yrs involvement with the site and the city. I think "all powerful" may be a bit of an overstatement. They
do have a lot of say about any flight opps.
I don't think it is in their best interest to exclude anyone except for gross violations. Lots of pilots rent storage space, bring friends for tandems, eat at the snack bar ect. I have always been amazed that anyone could make a living out there. I know of lots of hg pilots, myself and my wife inc., who are made to feel very welcome every time we fly. I know of a few who, through their own interactions and vocal displays, along with the actions of some TFP employees, have a conflict every time they show up. Like I said earlier, it is easy to come out, pay the fee, obey the rules and fly. The pg situation mostly takes place between launch and the north face, with an occational exception. I always launch and leave the area to fly. If a caravan of pg'ers is heaced to where I am, I go to where they left. Works for me most of the time. This is not to say I don't have the occational conflict with a pg'er. I do. I want to see a better system that is fair to all. Been working on it for some time.
As far as saying "No HG allowed", I don't think the leasee can do this. Same for the r/c's. As long as you follow the established procedures, you have as much right to fly as anyone else. When you cross the line, TFP has the right to ask you to stop, leave or be removed.
As far as a Representive on the soaring council, the SDHGPA, which is a bi-wingual club, has a pg pilot on the board. The USHPA rep, at this time is also a pg pilot. Which wing you fly has little to do with how the soaring council works, despite what you may hear from a certain "hawk". There is far more to that story than the simple message being posted here.

Thanks for the forum. You are doing a great service to all pilots and
your work is appreciated.

Brad Hall
brad.reg3@gmail.com

[sg]

Torrey does not teach HG. Having more HG's show up, will only make selling PG lessons more difficult since more people may take interest in HG. Bad dynamic.
Ive stood in the LZ several times, only to hear people attempting to talk someone out of taking up HG, and to take PG lessons there instead. Sorta hard to argue when you are standing on the grounds of a PG school.

What do you think would happen if Dave saw you selling HG at his PG school, and pointing prospective students to local HG instructors???

Losing Torrey as an HG based school/site was a tremendous loss.

[gtpowell]

It appears the council is being established to create recomendations for the future development of a proper city park. It appears the city is interested in preserving Torrey Pines as a glider park in addition to developement of the park. It would behoove HG's to be a part of this council. There are other significant advantages to being part of this council if you intend to continue business operations at this location and/or plan to contest for the opportunity to conduct business post the end date of Jebb's current contract with the city. If the city has plans to develop the property, what better seat to be in than the one that will make the recommendations on the development.

It would be interesting to know who the representatives are that make up this council, and whether or not they have a conflict of interest relating to the parks developement. And if so, can they be removed from the council.

It is unfortunate that the HG community was left out of the know. Is this something the local reps should have been on top of and informed the HG community?

[brad]

gtpowell,

I don't know where you get your information. Would you please name your source? The Torrey Pines Soaring Council has been around for decades.
What is "being established"? Future development? What are you refering to?
The City of S.D. can't fix the almost daily water main breaks. I think investing in development at Torrey has to be at or near the bottom of things they will spend money on. What department is requesting input from the S.C.? None that I know of. All this uproar about the S.C. is being driven by someone with a vested interest. The S.C., in reality, is a toothless dog. It has its place as a forum to discuss operations at Torrey and I support open discussion. To say that there is no H.G. representation on the board is simply not true. I am one of 3 regional directors in SoCal. I am a H.G. pilot and I appointed the rep to the S.C. He is just that, a USHPA representive. He does not make policy and anything that requires USHPA attention is brought to me. I interviewed 3 people for the job and appointed the one I felt would work with the S.C. and me in a fair and unbiased manner. He happens to be a P.G. pilot. This was not my first choice but was my best choice. The pres. of the newly formed Torrey Hawks has been a thorn in the side of the S.C. and the SDHGPA. This is a fact even he will not dispute. He has every right to form a club and say whatever he wants. My exposure to his methods show me he does not work well with others. Just my opinion. He has posted an ad in the mag asking for support in his bid to take over the lease at renewal time. I have to wonder what the motives are in forming the club. I have asked many pilots just who this guy is.
No one seems to know him. I have met him and he comes across as friendly enough. I have read a lot of his emails to the SDHGPA and others and wonder who this other personality is. Just join the "Hawks" and save hang gliding from the evil forces that are trying to destroy us? Come on. Do a little research
before you add your name to this list. If you make an informed decision, fine.
More power to all. I would caution you to do your homework first.
Enough of that! I did go out to Torrey today and got about an hour flight in.
Good conditions when it went west for a while. 5 hg'ers flew and a bunch of pg'ers. I watched intently for the slightest conflict and found none. I spoke with David Jebb about the possibility of allowing qualified H-3 pilots to fly at Torrey.
The existing policy, which I was not aware of, allows any H-3 with the hours to get their H-4 , to fly and get the rating from Steve Stackable. The first 3 or so flights would be with a radio, just to be safe. You could then take the H-4 test and get rated on the spot. We discussed the formation of a program that would allow advanced H-3's build hours at Torrey. This will need some work on the details and may be ready by this spring. I will continue to work on it and keep this list informed.

Brad Hall
brad.reg3@gmail.com

[gtpowell]

Good morning Brad, I’m glad you had an enjoyable flight at Torrey yesterday. Just wish I could fly there too.

Anyways, I am in the process of collecting information so I can make a knowledgeable and informed decision. First off, there appears to be quite a bit going on regarding Torrey Pines that you must know nothing about. I find this surprising since you are a regional director and an immediate acquaintance of David, another regional director. It appears Air California Adventures and the city was recently in litigation over some of the activities surrounding Torrey Pines Gliderport. Subsequent to this hearing, the following has been filed as public record.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council voted in closed session to enter into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiffs in the above-referenced litigation. The settlement agreement requires the City to (I) pay the Plaintiff S20,000; and (2) enforce the lease agreement for the Torrey Pines Gliderport, including any restoration of native vegetation required by the Caiifomia Coastal Commission; and in the event City's lessee fails to comply, terminate the lease and turn off all irrigation on the property, cap all run-off pipes on the property, and obtain and comply with permits for all unpermitted structures or their removal, consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act; and (3) prepare a General Development Plan for the Torrey Pines City Park, within 18 months, taking into consideration the historic value of the property; and (4) establish a Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board whose members shall be appointed within 90 days of the date of the agreement and who shall include representatives of the following Gliderport user groups: (a) paragliders, (b) hangliders, (c) sailplane gliders, and (d) radio-controlled model sailplane gliders as well as at least two representatives from non-profit environmental groups.
Subsequent to closed session, in response to concerns raised by City staff, the Plaintiffs agreed to amend the time-frames for preparing the General Development Plan and establishing the Advisory Board to three years and 120 days, respectively.

The plaintiff in the above case appears to be David Jebb and his wife AKA. Air California Adventures. If you note, the decision also requires the establishment of an advisory board within 90-days of June 19-07, (Sept 19-07), containing representatives from 5-separate groups. Are you telling me The Torrey Pines Soaring Council is one in the same as this advisory council? If so, I do not have confidence that a PG pilot can properly represent Hang Gliders. This position must be filled by a qualified HG pilot who will exclusively represent the best interest of the HG population. Also, I feel placing a staff member and/or owners of Air California Adventures on this board is a conflict of interest based on the possibility of bias in the interest of Air California Adventures, a For Profit LLC, and not in the general public.

It appears to me through what I have read and heard, and the actions by certain persons, there appears to be a bias at Torrey Pines. This bias tends to place PG pilots opportunity to fly over those of HG pilots. USHPA records indicate PG pilots have a greater chance of injury and/or death than a HG pilot. This would tend to mean that PG flying is more dangerous than HG flying. Yet, HG pilots are required to have a higher rating than PG pilots to fly Torrey. This rating requirement severely restricts the number of HG pilots allowed to take up valuable air space at Torrey Pines. I would have to believe the reduction in HG air traffic must have a profoundly “positive” impact on David’s PG school. “WOW”

With all of that, I believe it would be in the best interest of all HG pilots to take interest in the renewal of the lease agreement for this property, which will expire Sept 17-08.

I have yet to locate the original lease agreement to evaluate the City’s requirements regarding right to fly. In addition, I have discovered the lease agreement is specific to
“San Diego Assessor's Parcel No. 342-010-36” Any portion of the Torrey Pines City Park outside of this parcel, is strictly under the “Public Use” and is regulated by the city, not Air California adventures.

Brad, I’m interested to hear from you regarding this.