Torrey Pines Soaring Council,
    San Diego Hang Glinding and Paragliding Association,
    Board Members, General Members, and others,

On April 12th I attended a meeting of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. This has partially satisfied the first of three suggestions offered in my March 16th vision for the Soaring Council [1].

The meeting was attended by 12 individuals from all of the flight disciplines practiced at the Torrey Pines Gliderport. A variety of issues were discussed in a highly constructive environment. During the meeting I offered the second and third of my three previous suggestions [1] for consideration at future Council meetings. This message expands on these original suggestions and responds to various questions about my own vision for the Soaring Council. I have presented these items as lettered paragraphs (A, B, C...) with short titles so they can be discussed separately (and not be confused with the numbered suggestions of my earlier message). These short titles are listed here as an overview:

A) Soaring Council should Represent all Pilots
B) Soaring Council should Resolve Flight-Related Disputes
C) Soaring Council might seek the lease of the Gliderport
D) Soaring Council should Provide Equal Representation for all Wings
E) Soaring Council should support Preservation of Grassy Areas
F) Soaring Council should Support "Airspace Available" Flight Training
G) Soaring Council should seek City Oversight from Parks and Recreation
H) Soaring Council should Protect Interdisciplinary Flight

I would appreciate your consideration of these suggestions, and I encourage your distribution and discussion of these ideas among your peers.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski
April 17, 2007
======================================

A) Soaring Council should Represent all Pilots

All pilots who fly at Torrey Pines should have some representation on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. The Torrey Pines Gliderport is provided by the City of San Diego as "a historical non-powered flight park" [2], and the Torrey Pines Soaring Council is designated as the body "which represents all soaring user groups" [3] at that park. The representation of hang gliding and paragliding pilots on the Soaring Council has traditionally been through their representatives sent by the USHGA (now USHPA) and the SDHGPA. At this time it is not clear that the SDHGPA will continue to act as the conduit for all local hang gliding and paragliding representation. However, some provision must be made so that all hang gliding and paragliding pilots will continue to be represented on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council as they have been in the past. This may require the formation of new club(s) with the specific purpose of providing that representation. At least one such club is already under discussion.

B) Soaring Council should Resolve Flight-Related Disputes

The Torrey Pines Soaring Council should seek to become the "Court of First Appeal" for all flight-related disputes at the Gliderport. There is no other organization with both the expertise and the impartiality to act in this capacity. The City of San Diego lacks the expertise in flight, and the lessee lacks both the impartiality (due to an understandable conflict of interest) and the expertise in other flight domains. This leaves the Soaring Council as the only reasonable body equipped and designated in the lease [3] to resolve disputes at the Gliderport. I have already witnessed the Soaring Council acting in this manner during the investigation of a recent conflict between a sailplane and an RC aircraft. The various representatives from each group calmly discussed the conditions which contributed to the conflict and sought constructive solutions which would reduce such conflicts in the future. This is clearly an important role for the Soaring Council, and I'll outline how I think it might work in practice.

I would suggest that a portion of each Soaring Council meeting be set aside for the adjudication of flight-related disputes. These disputes might involve pilots from the same discipline or pilots from differing disciplines. The disputes might involve the lessee or even the City itself. In all cases, the Soaring Council would hear the arguments on all sides and render a finding of facts and a suggested course of action to remedy the situation. It is not clear (at this point) whether such a finding and suggestion might be considered binding on the parties. However, the finding and suggestion would most certainly carry the weight of the only interdisciplinary body tasked with resolving these matters - the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. Hopefully that finding and suggestion alone would resolve the matter, but if not, then the finding and suggestion could be used as an expert opinion in other proceedings (such as a City Council meeting or court of law). It is important to point out that the Soaring Council acting in this manner provides a fair venue for resolving matters within the flying community itself. It is hoped that this venue will decrease the need to seek justice through the City Council and the legal system. I believe this would be beneficial to all parties - the pilots, the clubs, the lessee, the City of San Diego, and the court system. I also believe that many of the legal disputes which have clouded the Gliderport in the past might have been avoided by this use of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council.

Some people have expressed a concern that such a dispute resolution process would limit the Flight Director's ability to maintain control and discipline at the flying site. This is not true. The Flight Director at the site would retain the ultimate authority to regulate flight safety, and could still immediately suspend the flying privileges of any pilot (or club) as needed to maintain safety. However, any such continued suspensions would be subject to review by the Soaring Council at the suspended pilot/club's request. If the Council sided with the Flight Director, then any such suspension would remain in force. If the Council sided with the pilot/club, then the Council's findings could be presented to the Flight director along with a request for reinstatement of flying privileges. If the Flight Director still felt that there was a safety concern, then the Flight Director could refuse to reinstate the pilot/club. At that time the pilot/club could go to the City Council (or any other venue) to seek additional action - as they are currently free to do now anyway. The only difference would be that they would have a finding from the Soaring Council to back them up. Similarly, if the Soaring Council sided with the Flight Director, then the pilot/club could still go to the City Council (or other venue), but now the Soaring Council's own findings would oppose their reinstatement. With this arrangement, the Flight Director would retain the same authority currently held, but decisions by both pilots and the Flight Director would be held up to scrutiny before resorting to the final recourse of the City Council Chambers (or other legal routes). I think this is not only a responsible role for the Soaring Council, but it is also a role which helps to resolve problems within the flying community and thereby helps to preserve the Torrey Pines Gliderport as a site for pilots of all wings.

C) Soaring Council might seek the lease of the Gliderport

The Torrey Pines Soaring Council might consider seeking the Lease of the Gliderport in conjunction with hiring a commercial organization (such as the current lessee) to manage the day to day operations. This would allow the Soaring Council to better manage the flight park in the interests of all flying disciplines.

If the Soaring Council should decide to seek the lease, I would envision a similar role in resolving conflicts as outlined in (B) above. Additionally, because the Soaring Council is not in the Flight Director business, I would expect it to hire a Flight Director/sublessee under similar terms as the current lease (including all insurance and performance requirements). However, in this case, the Soaring Council would retain the right to terminate the Flight Director based on the general satisfaction of the pilot community. After all, Torrey Pines is a public and historic park which has been set aside as a place for us to fly despite the continued increases in real estate prices and the the corresponding decreases in available open space for our sports. It seems reasonable that pilot safety and satisfaction should be an important part of the Flight Director's job description. All candidates applying for the Flight Director position would still need to provide all of the insurance and other requirements as dictated by the Soaring Council's lease (as they do with the current lease).

I should note that this particular suggestion will need further investigation. Other sites are managed (and even owned) by clubs, and they seem to be robust and beneficial to all. But Torrey Pines is unique, and this arrangement would require considerable discussion before being suggested as an actual course of action. But I believe those disucssions are worthwhile, and I would encourage them at the Soaring Council.

D) Soaring Council should Provide Equal Representation for all Wings

I would support a reformulation of the Soaring Council so that all four user groups (full-scale, hang gliders, paragliders, and RCs) are equally represented on the council. The current representation is somewhat biased with full-scales having 2 reps, RC's having 3 reps, and hang gliding and paragliding combined as "ultralights" having only 2 reps. As the SDHGPA representative, I could not single-handedly change this, but I do believe that my interdisciplinary background (flying all 4 wing types) and my efforts in reviving the Soaring Council demonstrate my sincere interest in fairness to all pilots.

E) Soaring Council should support Preservation of Grassy Areas

I would support the current concessionaire in preserving the grass. The grass is not so important to RCs and sailplanes, but it is somewhat important to hang gliders and very important to paragliders. Despite various rumors, I have always supported maintaining (and watering) the grass. I have never taken any action against these practices. I would urge the Soaring Council to similarly support the grassy areas, and I would argue that they are certainly no worse than the similar areas on the golf course and around many of the homes on the cliff. This is one of many examples where the Soaring Council could act as a more objective third party in conflicts between the concessionaire and the surrounding community - including the City of San Diego and the Coastal Commission.

F) Soaring Council should Support "Airspace Available" Flight Training

I would support the continued training of new pilots at Torrey. However, if conflicts arose between properly rated pilots and those flying under supervision, I would side with the properly rated pilots (all else being equal). The site is rated as H4/P3 and is not a primary training site. Training should be secondary to use by properly rated pilots, and training should be done on an "airspace available" basis. This is consistent with training at other sites. The Sylmar club, for example, allows H2 pilots to fly at their H3 site under careful supervision. This is considered a privilege and not a right. The same approach should be taken with RCs and sailplanes (although I believe the sailplane rating requirements are sufficiently specified and regulated by the FAA).

G) Soaring Council should seek City Oversight from Parks and Recreation

It is my understanding that the long-standing oversight of the Torrey Pines Gliderport has been performed under the City of San Diego's Parks and Recreation Department. In more recent years (and continuing currently) the property has been transferred to the City's Real Estate Assets department. I am not an expert on the City's various departments, but it seems to me that the Gliderport is much more of a park than it is a "real estate asset". This is an important distinction because the management of park land is performed with a different mission statement than the management of a real estate asset. As a park, I believe the Gliderport would be better protected as a public flying site.

H) Soaring Council should Protect Interdisciplinary Flight

It is clear that the current lessee has a vested interest in paragliding over all other types of flying at the Gliderport. There is nothing wrong with this economic interest, and such an interest is indeed helpful in maintaining a viable flight park. This bias is certainly appreciated by most paraglider pilots, but they may be forgetting that a simple change in ownership could bring in someone who favors hang gliders, or sailplanes, or even RCs. The Soaring Council is the only organization with a mission to protect all types of flight at the Gliderport. All of our sports experience ebbs and flows in both membership and popularity, and there may be a time when paragliding gives way to some other new craze. But regardless of what comes along, the Torrey Pines Soaring Council should always be there to ensure each pilot's rights to safely fly at this historic public site. Along these lines, I would encourage the Soaring Council to sponsor interdisciplinary activities for pilots of all wings, and I would ask that each club send representatives with as much "multi-wingual" experience as possible. This would be helpful in forming a larger flying community with more human and financial resources to continue to protect this beautiful flying site for pilots of all wings.

============================================
[1] Three suggestions offered in March 16th message titled:
    "A Vision for the Torrey Pines Soaring Council"

1. The Torrey Pines Soaring Council should be reconstituted as an organization representing all pilot interests at the Torrey Pines Gliderport (as directed in the Gliderport lease).

2. The Torrey Pines Soaring Council should seek to become the "Court of First Appeal" for all flight-related disputes at the Gliderport (as might be interpreted from the lease).

3. The Torrey Pines Soaring Council might consider seeking the Lease of the Gliderport in conjunction with hiring a commercial organization (such as the current lessee) to manage the day to day operations.

[2] Gliderport Lease, page 1, RECITALS, paragraph 2
[3] Gliderport Lease, page 1, RECITALS, paragraph 4

===========================================
Recitals from the Gliderport Lease:

This section repeats the first 4 paragraphs of the "Recitals" on page 1 of the Gliderport lease (DOCUMENT NO. RR290676):

WHEREAS, The Torrey Pines Gliderport is a San Diego City Historical site and is on the National Register of Historic Places, the State Register of Historic Sites, and dedicated a National Soaring Landmark, and;

WHEREAS, CITY and Flight Director/LESSEE desire to maintain Torrey Pines Gliderport as a historical non-powered flight park, and;

WHEREAS, Flight Director/LESSEE will maintain rules and regulations governing flight and personal conduct at Torrey Pines Gliderport, and;

WHEREAS, Flight Director/LESSEE will consult with the Torrey Pines Soaring Council, which represents all soaring user groups, in forming the above mentioned rules and regulations.