Hang gliding at Fort Funston in Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy
Some of the best hang gliding in the country, the National Park Service says, is at Fort Funston at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. What the agency doesn't come right out and tell you is that you need a $150 membership in the U.S. Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association, as well as a USHPA rating that could cost upwards of $2,000 or more in classes, to launch there. And it'd be nice if you made a donation to the association's local chapter, too.
Logan J. Remillard of Utah discovered that when he decided to enjoy Golden Gate with a flight from Fort Funston. A hang glider for three years who carries $2 million in insurance for his sport, Remillard contacted Golden Gate staff when he learned that the Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston hang gliding club holds a Special Use Permit from the Park Service to control the sport at Fort Funston and wasn't about to let any non-USHPA members launch from the cliffs overlooking the Pacific.
"I'll keep it real simple for you guys...The answer is NO! That's our policy," Rob Johnson, the club president told Remillard in an email after he reached out about the requirement that he join USHPA for $150 to fly from Fort Funston. "We are a USHPA chapter site and 100% OK with that. If you want to fly 'over' Fort Funston, you can launch 2.8 miles south at the 'Dumps'."
Remillard struggled with that rejection, as he viewed national parks as being open to the American public for recreation and enjoyment.
From the Park Service's point of view, having Fellow Feathers oversee hang gliding at Fort Funston provides a measure of safety in that only those hang gliders who hold an H-3 rating from USHPA can fly there.
"One condition of the (Fellow Feathers) permit requires, as a means of determining pilot skill level, that all hand-gliding participants have a minimum of a level 3 certification from the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association," Lee Dickinson, who oversees the Park Service's Special Use Permit programs, told the Traveler. "At this time we are unaware of any other reliable rating for hang-gliding proficiency. It is important to have an independent assessment of a pilot’s skill level."
When Remillard first got into hang gliding, he, too, thought it'd be good to join USHPA, as he thought it was "an actual regulatory agency." But his experience left him wondering if the association was truly objective in teaching the sport.
"After going through two instructors that just never quite felt like signing off on my paperwork, and watching one of them kill a student, I decided to go solo, as have most of my flying buddies," he told the Traveler. "I had already spent over $2,000 on instruction with no end in sight or any explanation on why I hadn't been allowed to advance since the second day other than, 'Something doesn't look right,' and that the instructors didn't feel comfortable letting people fly due to the club's internal politics. The USHPA members were also very proud to tell me that they were under no obligation to explain what those politics are."
Across the park system there are ten units that have issued SUPs for hang gliding, and all require USHPA certification, according to Ms. Dickinson.
From Remillard's point of view, whether USHPA is the only group that regulates hang gliding is debatable, as the Federal Aviation Administration "is the only legal authority on any devices designed to carry persons through the air."
On its website USHPA acknowledges that hang gliders do not need a license to enjoy their sport, but adds that "a program analogous to FAA licensing exists and is administered by the USHPA."
"While these ratings don’t carry the force of law in quite the same way as FAA pilot’s licenses do, the majority of flying sites in the U.S. require that pilots hold some specific USHPA rating to be allowed to fly," the site adds.
The issue of USHPA's authority, or lack thereof, has been raised in hang-gliding forums. Back in March a question of whether USHPA is the same as the Federal Aviation Administration came up, and one member replied that, "(T)he FAA does not recognize USHPA as having any regulatory authority."
Another said the FAA does regulate hang gliders through its Part 103 guidelines that were adopted back in 1982 and which "established limits on size, performance, and configuration and also established that people flying them needed no certificate or medical qualification."
While Fellow Feathers' SUP stipulates that the group "shall not require fees for hang gliding, hang gliding instruction, or any related activities," Park Service personnel did not respond to whether the $150 USHPA membership requirement violates that provision.
Comments
Good comments.
USHPA membership has no place in any requirement for citizens to use public land.
I am an advanced hang gliding and paragliding pilot with over 10 years of previous USHPA membership.
I also have an FAA issued Private Pilot's License (single engine, land and sea).
I also have a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering.
I have logged many hours of hang gliding flight at Fort Funston over a number of years.
I was expelled from USHPA in 2015 in direct response to my expert witness testimony
in a court case. A young woman was learning to paraglide at Torrey Pines and was
under radio instruction when she collided with another student (also on radio).
I testified that the instructor was responsible for the student's safety since she
didn't otherwise have the qualifications or ratings to fly that site. That was in
November of 2014. The law suit was settled in the injured woman's favor in the spring
of 2015. USHPA expelled me shortly afterward. They cited my own testimony in the
case as grounds for the expulsion. They also cited my testimony to the San Diego City
Council and the fact that I've started an alternate national hang gliding association.
The expulsion quoted USHPA's Standard Operating Procedure that prohibits "conduct
materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interests of USHPA".
Here's the translation: Citizens can't use our own public parks because of conduct
that USHPA considers prejudicial to their own interests and purposes.
No public land should require membership in an organization that expels members for
testimoniny in a court of law.
It is unAmerican to require membership in a private corporation (evil ones or not-so-evil clubs) to recreate on public lands. The extant HG-PG clubs are participating in PG deaths; one in good conscience might choose not to be a member of a club or association that is doing repugnant things. The constrained view of just what is HG is enough to fully reject joining USHPA; the marrying PG to HG is repugnant for PDMC cause. The odd RRRG money grab is a private arrangement; no USA citizen ought to be forced to participate in such constraint in order to recreate on public lands. The recreation statues suffice without having to join this or that association. At any moment a private club or association can turn on a dime and promote philosopy and politic that sinks away from good.
It's a shame that some hang gliding enthusiasts at Funston decided to turn other (qualified) hang gliding enthusiasts away based on some imaginary special privilege or enforcennt authority they think they hold on public land. Fort Funston has been a special case of self-regulation for many years, having recognized the safety conflict in sharing the same narrow lift band with paragliders. By relegating paragliders to a separate nearby area, all have found a a workable solution. This is a good thing and it is in the core interest of Fellow Feathers and the sport of hang gliding not to resort to legal enforcement or banning of fellow hang glider pilots, as this invites a challenge which is very likely to succeed. A government decision, even a statement, to allow non-USHPA members to fly at Funston could be a pyrrhic victory as it might result in the ban on paragliding there being lifted. It would be so much better to agree to disagree, take a deep breath and allow the occasional "rogue" hang glider pilot to fly unmolested than to make Funston "a hill to die on," as they say, by taking a stand on such shakey principles. I had to make this decision myself as the USFS concessionaire of Walt's Point in Owens Valley in the 1980s. Yes, the FAA expects us sportsmen to regulate our sport but we must do it quietly, with peer pressure and not force. Otherwise we risk a brave new world which may not be to anyone's liking.
USHPA is a corporate entity. It does not seem legal for National Parks to require a park visitor to become a member of a corporation to enjoy our national heritage. I have objected to USHPA regulatory over reach and after 42 continuous years, I am on a "medical sabbatical". A portion of my medical problem is that the autocracy and occluded transparency of the USHPA Board makes me very queasy.
Rick Masters: It sounds to me that USHPA members ought to realize that they are the only ones with anything to loose, this brave new world doesn't sound so bad to me. I am more than happy to be an adult and discuss ways to share resources; USHPA seems to think they own the sport and the land, they are unwilling to discuss.
Rick Masters: I had USHPA's membership requirements removed from Utah Parks, including Point of the Mountain. Oddly enough, nothing bad happenned
Additional comment: The student killed was on July 29, 2016. I still haven't been able to find an article or report to verify that she was actually killed, but that was certainly my impression. She went off the hill, SS POM, in a paraglider and was moving slowly. I understand that the instructor was depending on the radio but did not perform a radio check before launch. People on the ground kept yelling things about "release the brake", "don't brake", "let off the brake", but in the confusion all that was consistant was the word "brake". The paraglider stalled and the student fell into the gravel parking lot/landing zone. People rushed down to help, but she wasn't moving and I seem to remember people staying pretty clear of her. People cleared out and she left on a chopper. I watched this from under my glider as I was about to launch.
I have been rudely attacked in public forums by the president of this taxpayer funded club, simply for stating the FACT that Fort Funston was public land. I could never belong to a club that elected such rude and ignorant people as officers! I have written and called the GGNRA and have been completely ignored. Rob and club members, if you are monitoring this, realize that you guys constantly harp on the dangers of losing the privilege of flying this site--at the same time you withhold that privilege from EVERYONE whose opinion differs from your own. Why can't you see that we won't care if you can't fly there if you won't let US fly there. Where will you live in your ugly little van if you can't park nearly 24/7 365 days a year? I'll be happy to see you lose your flying site if you keep acting the way you guys do!