Discussions de vol libre au Québec

> C'est un peu ce que Martin St-Hilaire est en train de faire avec son site à

> l'adresse suivante:

>

> www.st-hilaire.qc.ca/parapente.htm

>

> Si je devine bien Martin, tout en s'amusant un peu, il commence à présenter

> un contenu qui peut être ludique ou très utile.

>

> Martin a aimé le journal de vol que j'ai "patenté" et déjà offert

> gratuitement dans le Survol il y a un an. Il s'en sert régulièrement et

> c'est ainsi qu'il nous annonce occasionnellement, "depuis le début de

> l'année, j'ai xx vols pour un total de plus de yy heures et minutes, dont le

> vol le plus long a été de ww heures et minutes avec un gain de zz mètres."

>

> Martin vous l'offre gratuitement sur son site avec mon entière bénédiction.

> Et si jamais quelqu'un l'améliore substantiellement, qu'il le partage avec

> les autres. Le journal permet plus de 1550 vols sur un dizaine d'années.

>

> Sylvie, la compagne de Martin, avait aussi eu du flair en filmant mon

> dernier vol au Mont Valin. Vous pouvez analysez les dernières 15 secondes de

> ce vol qui se termine terriblement mal pour moi. Il ne s'agit pas

> d'exhibitionisme, mais si les images pouvaient aider quelqu'un à éviter ce

> genre de situation, ce serait merveilleux. Notez la rapidité avec laquelle

> le tout se passe. En 5 secondes tout est joué et VLAN.

>

> J'ai aussi ajouté deux textes sur le site de Martin. Textes que vous avez

> peut-être déjà lus. Le premier sur mes impressions peu de temps après

> l'accident et, un deuxième, à tête froide qui tente de comprendre ce qui est

> arrivé.

>

> Je vous invite donc à encourager Martin dans ses initiatives et à visiter

> son site.

>

Bonjour André,

Et merci de ton message concernant le site de Martin - j'en reviens

juste !

J'y ai téléchargé le fichier xls et vais y enregistrer mes vols* ce WE

(météo peu favorable au vol libre).

J'ai également visionné les trois vidéos, dont celle de ton accident.

Celui-ci est effectivement impressionnant et j'espère pour toi que tu

est maintenant bien remis, physiquement et moralement.

Merci de ton analyse qui nous permet de rester vigilant avant et

pendant le vol et bravo à Martin pour son travail sur le site.

* A propos d'enregistement de vols, je viens de découvrir un site

Je vous avais alerté sur la possibilité que les Muller perdent leur site. Et

bien ils ont obtenu un répit jusqu'en novembre 2000.

Le message suivant donne beaucoup de détails.

Examinez bien les raisons pour lesquelles 4 voisins voulaient faire fermer

leur exploitation: officiellement la sécurité des enfants, celle du bétail

et la diminution de la poussière sur la route. Mais en réalité, nous le

savons tous, les bonnes gens qui travaillent dur sur leur ferme pour en

sortir un rond détestent les urbains qui s'amusent et qui s'envoient en

l'air impunément.

Ces fermiers ont perdu la première manche, mais la guerre est loin d'être finie.

Ne soyez jamais gênés de parler aux voisins des sites de vol libre, non

seulement de parler de votre passion mais de les écouter. Vous serez surpris

du fossé qui nous sépare.

André

P.S. Je vous invite à lire ce qui suit.

>From: "Randy S. Parkin" <randy@keyinc.com>

>Reply-To: <randy@keyinc.com>

>Subject: [hpac] Cochrane Hill - Flying Goes On

>

>The appeal of the denial of Muller's business development permit was heard

>yesterday. Bottom line: The appeal was granted and Mullers have their permit to

>Nov. 2000.

>

>Here are the highlights of what happened for those who fly the site and anyone

>else interested. If you do or will fly the site, please at least read the

>guidelines at the end of this note. I'm not a newsperson, and clearly not

>impartial, so please bear with me. Vincene has had a chance to review this.

>

>32 people spoke on Muller's behalf. There were a number of others prepared to

>speak but time and repetition made this unnecessary. Also mentioned, and I

think

>very impactful, was the number of expressions of support received :

>- 500 emails, letters & faxes

>- 1400+ signed petitions of support

>- Canadian Owners & Pilots Assn. [on behalf of 17,000 members]

>- Alberta Aviation Council

>- Alberta Soaring Association

>- Alberta Hang Gliding & Paragliding Assocation

>- Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association of Canada

>- University of Calgary

>- Website assistance from: Wills Wing, Dianne & Rob McKenzie, High Adventure,

>California and Davis Straub, Oz Report

>

>Vincene has mentioned to me how much they appreciated the widespread support

>they received. In fact, I think they've been surprised how many people did

>respond. Thanks to everyone who sent an e-mail or letter, or showed up at the

>meeting - it made a difference.

>

>Chris did a great job of presenting his case - he was well prepared, articulate

>and came off very sincere in his offer to accomodate the complaining neighbors.

>Who would have expected anything else? Vincene did a good job of providing

>some history and perspective.

>

>The closest neighbors to the Mullers were present and clearly supportive. They

>spoke highly of the Mullers as neighbors, friends and community members. They

>also spoke highly of the pilots they've met. I was happy to hear later I wasn't

>the only one who got a little emotional as Mrs. Graham , spoke of the enjoyment

>she gets watching us share the hill with the hawks and eagles.

>

>I believe the board was also impressed by the work done to prepare (Delona

>Butcher and Pat Nicol stand out), the passion with which people expressed their

>support and concern for both the Mullers and the site, and the numbers in the

>room, including some who had travelled from Edmonton and Red Deer.

>Representation was also made by the Cochrane Chamber of Commerce, Cochrane

>Economic Development Council, and Cochrane Coffee Traders [collected 800 names

>on a petition - hope everybody bought a coffee!]

>

>The presence of film crews and reporters from A-Channel and CFCN for the full

>day, and coverage on the evening news, demonstrated that this issue is of

>interest to the wider community.

>

>The complaints that initiated this process came from the 4 neighbors at the far

>east end of the road - the ones who suffer most of the dust on the road. It was

>clear they have some very legitimate concerns, specifically...

> - the dust from the traffic.

> - the speed of travel on the road (someone was clocked by a traffic counter at

>130km/hr).

> - safety concerns for their children and horses on the road.

> - the use of the runaway lane at the bottom of the hill for picking up

gliders.

> - the risks they experience from fly overs and possible outlandings.

> - the disruption of their peace and quiet.

>

>The excessive traffic concern was, I think, successfully disputed. Traffic

>counts don't support their contention, and the seasonal/weather dependent

nature

>of flying means any increase is sporadic at best. Speeding and putting kids at

>risk should not be tolerated by anyone. It was not clear that pilots were

>responsible for this, but we need to be careful that we are not in future.

>

>Listening to their presentations, it seems clear to me their real objective is

>to shut down flying on the hill. Their hypothesis is that shutting down the

>business means the flying goes away. I believe the board understood that the

>majority of traffic to the site is not business related, and that there

would be

>little change in the traffic pattern if the business was moved - people would

>still fly. Given this reality, the board encouraged them to look for a

>cooperative resolution of their concerns.

>

>Bottom line, the appeal was granted and the business development permit

approved

>to Nov. 2000 unanimously by the board. One of the board members suggested a 5

>year renewal but that wasn't approved in order to allow for a review of how

>things have gone in 6 months. There are some conditions.

>

>1) Business related traffic is limited to 6 trips a day. A trip only to fly

>doesn't count.

>2) The permit has been expanded to include retail operations recognizing the

>limited retail that has always happened.

>3) Chris is to move ground schools off-site as much as possible.

>4) By November, Chis is to present a proposal for upgrading the road to address

>the dust concerns. This likely involves getting all the neighbors involved,

>soliciting funds from other jurisdictions, and having the pilot community

>demonstrate their support by putting up some funds as well. No doubt you will

>see more on this soon.

>

>So things go on, basically as before. However, I doubt this is the end of the

>story. The neighbors who complained are not going away and as a flying

>community, we can't afford to ignore them or their real concerns. This

cannot be

>left to the Mullers as "their problem" - we need to be responsible for the

>impact we are having.

>

>To that end, these guidelines for flying the site seem prudent.

>

>1) Use the windtalker. If it's not flyable, save the trip.

>2) Observe carefully the 40km speed limit the Mullers have requested. I

know the

>limit is 50, but just do it.

>3) Be very aware of, and careful around, children and horses on the road. Pass

>slowly if you see them. Go slow even if you don't see them.

>4) Do not use the runaway lane at the bottom of the hill for any purpose except

>emergencies. PG's walk up. HG's should check with Chris, Vincene, Tihi, et al

>regarding the proper procedure for retrieving your glider if you can't walk it

>up.

>5) If the runaway lane is used in an emergency, be sure to turn right &

drive to

>Cochrane before turning back up the hill.

>6) Avoid outlandings on the neighbors' property.

>7) In any interaction with the neighbors, continue to be polite, respectful and

>cooperative.

>8) If you see another pilot not adhering to these guidelines, please intervene

>politely.

>

>We'll keep you advised of future developments, and let you know how to get

>involved with the road improvement project. Thanks again to those of you who

>took the time to actively support the appeal. Vincene, Chris, and those of us

>who use the site regularly truly appreciate your help.

>

>

>Randy S. Parkin

>Partner, Key Consulting Group Inc.

>Visit us on the web at <www.keyinc.com>

>For survey and assessment solutions visit <www.corporate-compass.com>

>

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>25% Off All Prints!

>Buy one today at Corbis.com

nous parle des Muller mais aussi de l'atterrissage de Nicholson près de

Golden au Mont Seven. Ce terrain est à vendre... et il y a un risque

important que l'atterrissage soit perdu. Ce ne sera pas évident aux

deltistes de trouver un endroit pour atterrir si ce site est perdu.

Curieusement, Randy mentionne que les pilotes doivent se tenir les coudes et

oublier leurs chapelles... Des traits communs...

Texte un peu long mais informatif.

Je vous encourage à considérer sérieusement les propositions de Jacques pour

les deux clubs de St-Paul.

André

>From: "Randy S. Parkin" <randy@keyinc.com>

>Reply-To: <randy@keyinc.com>

>Subject: [hpac] RE: Cochrane Hill - Flying Goes On

>

>I couldn't agree more, Steve, and am more than a little concerned that we need

>to step up our efforts to maintain sites. The Canadian Owners & Pilots Assn.

>participated in support of the Cochrane site because they see the attack (and I

>don't use that word loosely) on this site as evidence of ongoing erosion of

>access for all general aviation, not just free flyers.

>

>Mullers is the site of the moment here. But, we are also actively fighting

>provincial legislation that would continue restrictions on free flying in

>provincial parks, and extend these restrictions to other "environmentally

>sensitive areas". The intent of the legislation has nothing to do with flying.

>Unless we make our wishes known and get involved though, we are going to suffer

>from attempts to keep oil companies and other developers out of areas that we

>ourselves wish to protect.

>

>In the course of the Mullers' appeal, the complaining neighbours also

produced a

>letter from a Calgary City department that suggests flying, HGing in

particular,

>is no longer allowed within the City. Because Cochrane is not suited to

beginner

>training for HG's, pilot training has been going on in town for more than 20

>years. The City recreation department sponsors many of the programs. It's not

>clear what exactly is going on yet, but the potential impact is great.

>

>Also, and maybe of more relevance to people from your area, we are concerned

>with Golden. Other than the usual background of "those people are having too

>much fun - put a stop to it" nothing concrete or new has happened as yet.

>However as development projects proceed, we expect activists from the

>Banff/Jasper corridor to look further west and start to agitate, and developers

>to start looking for property. Our access road is the most obvious risk, the LZ

>(the reason Golden is such a great first high flight hill - especially for

HG's)

>is currently up for sale, and you're never sure when property owners in the

>valley might become less hospitable than they have been. Peter Bowle-Evans and

>Garth Henderson are doing great work trying to pull the flying community

>together, both those who live there and the extended group of "locals" who use

>the site regularly, to have a visible, positive presence, and to be ready for

>whatever might happen.

>

>Those are the threats. But, I think our bigger problem is potentially

within our

>own community of pilots (and I'm including myself). I was trying to put a

handle

>on it watching the presenters the other day, especially those who spoke for the

>pilots. "Complacent" and "naive" came to mind, but they're not right

because the

>people at the meeting and those who expressed support in other ways are

neither.

>

>I do think our passion for what we do blinds us to the reality that others

could

>care less, and may even think they're doing us a favour by shutting down sites

>so we can't foolishly "jump" off those hills anymore. They want what they want.

>For a commando tree hugger, what we do is no more noble than any other intruder

>in the wilderness. For a neighbor worried about dust, traffic or the risk of a

>pilot falling through her roof, these problems are real.

>

>When threats to sites appear, our tendency is first to sit back safe in the

>assumption no one could really be trying to shut us down (seeming complacent),

>then react strongly but mostly by describing how bad it would be for us if the

>site was closed (seeming naive and maybe even uncooperative). It doesn't help

>either when our internal squables (HG's vs. PG's, my group vs. your group, our

>association vs. your association, etc.) blunt our efforts and make us appear

>unorganized.

>

>There is strength in numbers, especially if they show up before problems

get too

>far along, work together, listen hard to the other side, then work for a

>cooperative resolution. I just hope we can get our stuff together in time,

cause

>the pressure is rising. Sorry to write so much, but this stuff worries me.

>

>Randy

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: nwpglide-request@kurious.org

>[mailto:nwpglide-request@kurious.org]On Behalf Of Steve Kincaid

>Sent: April 14, 2000 12:59 PM

>To: 'randy@keyinc.com'

>Cc: cbcc (E-mail); nwpglide (E-mail)

>Subject: RE: Cochrane Hill - Flying Goes On

>

>

>Hooray!

>

>Thank you for the feedback Randy. It's good to hear some good news for once.

>

>I am the editor of Air Times (CBCC). Personally I feel that any free flying

>club (read HG or PG club) has two primary directives.

>1. To procure and maintain safe flying pilots

>2. To procure and maintain safe flying sites.

>

>However I fear that of late, very little is being done toward either cause.

>It is very frustrating indeed to hear about sites being lost but not many

>sites being found / discovered. "They ain't makin' no more land." ...and

>what land is there is quickly being developed. It is very refreshing to

>finally hear about a success story where our efforts as a "community" have

>paid off. Even if this success only lasts until November 2000 it is worth

>cheering about.

>

>The details of your mail show there is strength in numbers. This (I fear)

>will be important to remember in the near future as we stand to protect more

>local sites. Road projects have already been announced (perhaps only

>tentatively) that could greatly impact or close the LZ's at Tiger and

>Rampart. Discussions with timber companies (involving many different sites)

>continue to become more complex, more sensitive, even more expensive every

>year.

>

>As aero towing and winch towing become more widely adopted we are finding

>new "flat" flying sites. It is important that we continue to progress with

>these launching methods making them safer and more widely available. But

>this is no excuse to lose our mountain sites.

>

>It's easy to fly these sites without any care as to their future. But we

>need all the strength in numbers we can get. I hope all HG and PG are ready

>to work together again (and again, and again) as a "community" and not as

>one man vigilantes, to fight the good fight and do their part to maintain

>some of these sites... and find some new ones.

>

>Remember. We can't have a naked mud wrestling match if we don't have an LZ

>to crash in! (my attempt to lighten the mood a little).

>

>

>Steve K.

>

>Two paths diverged in the woods.

>I took the one that led off of a cliff.

>...and that has made all the difference. (apologies to A.B.S.)

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Chocolate eggs, tulips, bunnies and more...

>Click Here