You are NEVER hooked in.

[bobk]

Bob,

He didn't mean 'nobody' in a literal sense. It's like saying 'nobody obeys the speed limit'. If this is the best you can get him on, I don't think his credibility is at risk.

Tad claims he wants to be very exact about this sport, but then he makes ridiculous statements like "EVERYBODY" does this or that. That might not make much difference to you, but how do you think all the instructors feel who ARE doing it right? Does Tad ever think about them when he paints with his sweeping broad brush? No. The only thing Tad really thinks about is how he can seek revenge on everyone who's disrespected him. He's using your safety as an excuse to commit his jihad against everyone else. If you've ever been in a windy, gusty, cliff launch situation with minimal crew, you will know that lift and tugging before committing to launch is NOT something you want to be doing. You might get away with it on any given day, but you've increased your statistical exposure significantly. And for what? Because you can't remember the hook-in check that you did 30 to 60 seconds ago? If you really aren't disciplined enough to remain hooked in for that period of time (just prior to launch), then please stay out of any air where anyone else is flying.

I don't really want anyone who DOESN'T doubt everything I say participating in this forum. This is not and will never be a "'cause Tad says" sorta place.

Tad is lying right there. This is exactly a "Jim Rooney is not welcome ... because Tad says" kind of place. Tad has said so himself!!

Tad used lift-and-tug for decades at many sites in every sort of conditions without issue.

Lots of people can tell you that they've used lots of techniques throughout their career without issue. So from a statistical standpoint, Tad's assertion means nothing. And he's not flying anymore so I can't challenge him to go to a site in difficult conditions and demonstrate his approach with enough repeatability to be statistically significant. Instead, he's urging people like you to stand on the edge of a cliff in life-threatening conditions and allow the glider to float up - substantially out of your control - just to verify that you're hooked in. Be my guest Zack. Please let us know how that works out for you at the end of your career. Hopefully you'll be alive to give us another data point.

As far as I'm aware, Bob, you've never attempted it in the conditions you're afraid of.

And I never will. You said to try it with people on my wires, and in those circumstances I might try it. But I've wrestled with enough gliders on launch to know that I'm NOT going to do that when I don't have a full crew to back me up (and not doing it in ALL conditions seems to be the sticking point between Tad's view and mine). I've personally seen gliders get flipped on launch flinging their pilots like rag dolls through the air and slamming them onto the ground. I was in the air over Torrey when I saw that happen to a friend of mine. He was in the hospital for some time with various broken parts (including his pelvis as I recall). In fact, I was flipped myself on top of Kagel when I was a Hang 2. Fortunately, only my pride was bruised, but I know first-hand how quickly a glider can go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster. You don't EVER want to do ANYTHING to increase that probability. You especially don't want to do something that you KNOW you can do 30 seconds earlier in complete safety - a hook-in check.

Now I'm not against making the "lift and tug" a part of one's regular routine when the pilot feels the conditions are benign. And when conditions are so tough that you know you can't follow your regular routine, then that should make you uneasy and even more vigilant because you're not following that routine. But I can never endorse something that removes the pilot's ability to use his or her own judgement in a given situation. That's what Tad is trying to do by specifying that "just prior to launch" effectively means "during launch". I cannot support that. The preparation for launch and the actual launch are two separate activities. I will not compromise the actual launch technique for anything that should be done in preparation for launch. If I feel that launching with a tight hang strap gives me better control when I'm launching, then I'll do it for that reason and that reason alone. I believe that the moment of launch is often the peak of danger in any given flight. To add anything to that danger - especially something easily done prior to launch - is just plain lunacy.

Tad, if you want to build some kind of association or club or cult that follows exactly what you say, then I have no problem with that. Go in peace. But please stop pestering the people who want to build the US Hawks based on those safe practices that we (we without you) agree upon. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like what we're doing, so just build a better organization yourself. We don't have that much of a head start on you, and with all of your superior intellect you should be able to surpass us in no time. Show us all what you can do. If you do a good job, we might even join you.

I predict that you won't do that because you've never been interested in building a better organization or in saving people's lives. Instead, you're just interested in beating up on the people you feel have slighted you. That's why you come to US Hawks ... to take your jabs at Sam and Peter and Jim Rooney and me. You use safety as an excuse, but your real agenda ... is destruction and revenge.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=892
Redundant hook in check.

Bill Cummings - 2011/12/12 01:05:31 UTC

Maybe someone can help me brainstorm a refinement to an idea that just flashed through my brain.
What if we had a bungee cord that raised our hang strap and at the same time lowered a red ball in front of us to indicate that we were not hooked in.
This would be a redundant back up reminder that should never be used as a primary hook in check.
The weight of the carabineer would stretch the bungee and raise the red ball from eye level.
Can someone take this idea farther toward a good idea?
At least I hope to inspire someone to yell eureka, I now see the answer!

Maybe someone can help me brainstorm a refinement to an idea that just flashed through my brain.

People have had ideas similar or identical to this since the beginning of unhooked launches. A few folk have have engineered pretty good gadgets.

Harry Martin - 1992/03

It is my opinion that hook-in signs, stringy gadgets, alarms and hang checks will all help to prevent failures to hook in. I hope my electronic solution encourages more pilots to experiment with such devices. The hook-in alarm is not meant to replace the hang check, but only to act as a backup should the other safety checks fail. Should I ever be the last pilot off the mountain with no launch assist for a hang check, I'm betting that it will prevent a failure to hook in. I would encourage glider manufacturers to consider installing such a device as an option. Maybe someday a doctor will invent a pill to cure oafism, and we will never read about failures to hook in again.

How often do you see gliders equipped with them?

What if we had a bungee cord that raised our hang strap and at the same time lowered a red ball in front of us to indicate that we were not hooked in.

- Unless the gadget is built in by the manufacturer you'll never see it in use on anything above a scale too microscopic to produce an actual measurable effect. FLIGHT PARKS won't even test the weak link they've been sending everyone up on for tens or hundreds of thousands of flights. You can totally forget about the indivual glider diver doing anything.

- The goddam manufacturers won't even build releases into the gliders - probably because their dealers have been selling dangerous slap-on junk for so long that there would be huge scandal and probable legal actions if the job were to start being done right.

- What the manufactures DO build into their gliders to give people the illusion that they're less likely to plunge to their deaths is backup suspension - despite the fact that it's impossible to blow the primary suspension without first turning the airframe to confetti.

- A bungee which pulled up the hang strap would:

-- be extra crap in the airflow the entire flight

-- make it more difficult to hook in and thus make training hill flights more of a pain in the ass and hook-ins on windy ramps more complicated and dangerous

-- make unhooking more of a pain in the ass - and people HAVE been killed and badly beaten up because they couldn't disconnect quickly and easily enough (think gust fronts, surges on ramps, dust devils, and water).

- I think there's good potential for the red ball - or flag - to become invisible to a lot of people. It's down during setup, preflight, and ground handling. Seeing it down may look normal to someone who's just unhooked to adjust his wing camera or deal with his radio mounting and is now again focused on streamers and/or vultures.

The weight of the carabineer would stretch the bungee and raise the red ball from eye level.

But that won't tell you that you have - or don't have - your leg loops.

This would be a redundant back up reminder that should never be used as a primary hook in check.

But it WOULD be.

For over thirty years under USHGA regulations the goddam hang check has specifically NOT qualified as an acceptable means of confirming hook-in status. And for over thirty years the goddam hang check has for the vast majority of foot launches remained the ONLY means of confirming hook-in status. And people have died because they thought they had done them but hadn't, had actually done them but forgot that they had subsequently unhooked, and had done them and not subsequently unhooked but had missed the leg loops.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In

Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check.

Rob Kells - 2005/12

Each of us agrees that it is not a particular method, but rather the fear of launching unhooked that makes us diligent to be sure we are hooked in every time before starting the launch run.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.

Steve Davy - 2011/10/24 10:27:04 UTC

OK- how many times does he need confirm that he is hooked in? And when would be the best time to make that confirmation?

Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24 21:04:17 UTC

Once, just prior to launch.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.

These statements are all DEAD ON.

Let's say that the ball gizmo works reasonably well, hardly ever sticks in the up position, and everybody uses it. "See, the ball's up, I don't hafta worry about being hooked in anymore and can start focusing on getting this thing in the air. Well, maybe I'll do a hook-in check just prior to launch if I think about it. Ooh, look! The ribbons just straightened up!"

I don't EVER wanna step off of the north ramp at McConnellsburg because a red ball has been in the up position for a while. Neither the walk-through I did at the back of the ramp a minute ago nor the lift and tug I did ten seconds ago just before it lulled was any indication whatsoever that I'm hooked in NOW.

Let's say I'm physically incapable of lifting and tugging and I'm on the ramp alone in light air. My procedure is to immediately before picking up the glider check my leg loops by touching them and lean forward until I feel a tug. If I have to stand there for two minutes waiting for a cycle I'm not sure I want a ball in front of me reassuring me that I'm hooked in the whole time. I think I'd be better off worrying that I wasn't and maybe more inclined to do a physical recheck after a while.

I don't want my crew looking at a red ball instead of my carabiner. Our crews can and should be our best bets for REDUNDANCY but the ones who help people do hook-in checks at the back of the ramp to confirm that they're hooked in are worse than useless - as the one at Whitwell on 2005/10/01 demonstrated so conclusively and dramatically.

Harry has things TOTALLY backwards. Hook-in signs, stringy gadgets, alarms, and hang checks are distractions which all cause people to drop their guards and make them LESS likely to:

With each flight, demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

At least I hope to inspire someone to yell eureka, I now see the answer!

The answer is - and ALWAYS has been - FEAR. The more the merrier and at precisely the right moment. Repeat as necessary.

We need to start admitting that we're ALL stupid oafs and the time to be most aware of that fact is within two seconds of launch. And if someone needs a red ball to remind him JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH that his next step could be his last he should either stick to dolly and platform launching or find another hobby.

I love gizmos and admire people who think them up but this is virtually entirely an issue of mindset and training and that's where we need to focus our efforts.

[bobk]

As an administrative note, Bill's original post and context can be found at:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=892
Redundant hook in check.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=892
Redundant hook in check.

Bill Cummings - 2011/12/13 03:27:28 UTC

Notice of proposed rule making for the U. S. Hawks:
Policy for launch ramps.

Any pilot carrying a glider and putting a foot onto the ramp without being hooked into the glider must buy a one year club membership for the first person that spots and calls out the infraction.

- THAT'S NOT AN INFRACTION!!!

Danny Brotto - 1998/01/12

It is physically impossible for me to hook in below the steps at High Rock and carry up. It is also very difficult for me to hang check before carry-up at McConnellsburg (at least on the old ramp). It is very difficult to hook in, hang check, and carry around at Hyner launch (nor would I want to.)

There are ramps and situations in which it's not a great idea to be clipped in prior to getting on and/or approaching the ramp.

- It makes no difference whether or not someone is hooked in upon first putting a foot on the ramp. Lotsa folk who haven't been have had great flights and lotsa folk who have been have died several minutes later.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.

Steve Davy - 2011/10/24 10:27:04 UTC

OK- how many times does he need confirm that he is hooked in? And when would be the best time to make that confirmation?

Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24 21:04:17

Once, just prior to launch.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.

- We don't want people - pilots and crews - starting to build senses of security more than one instant before commitment to flight.

- If you're ever fortunate enough to catch somebody getting onto a ramp and falsely assuming he's hooked in (usually because he accurately remembers doing a hang check in the setup area but fails to remember unhooking to get his cell phone from the car) DO NOT - repeat - DO NOT call anything out. Take his nose, help him get positioned on the ramp, talk about how strong the gusts have been and how long the good cycles have been lasting, ask what frequency he'll be on, tell him how much you like his colors and then, two seconds before he's planning on launching, say, "Just a second. I wanna check something. Lift your glider as high as you can for a moment."

SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF HIM!!!

And then, after he gets the shaking back under partial control, suggest that he consider doing the lift thing a couple of seconds before his next two or three launches too - just in case.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=892
Redundant hook in check.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/13 20:53:44 UTC

Bill Cummings - 2011/12/13 03:27:28 UTC

Any pilot carrying a glider and putting a foot onto the ramp without being hooked into the glider must buy a one year club membership for the first person that spots and calls out the infraction.

I love it!!

Of course you do, Bob. The further away from the instant of launch a check or catch is made the happier you are with it.

That's what we should be trying to do with an organization. We should try to craft "rules" and/or "customs" which promote both flying and safety. Your suggestion rewards people for looking out for each other, and I like that idea.

How 'bout we craft "rules" and/or "customs" which promote the idea that the pilot:

With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

and that everybody who isn't launching watches to see that he does it - not because somebody may lose or win a hundred bucks bucks but because somebody may die or watch somebody die sometime right after the pilot doesn't do it and the all the people not launching don't watch for it.

[Tad Eareckson]

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/19 21:01:28 UTC

Tad claims he wants to be very exact about this sport, but then he makes ridiculous statements like "EVERYBODY" does this or that.

Get your DNA sequenced. Fifty bucks says they're gonna find a big gap where the common sense was supposed to be.

That might not make much difference to you, but how do you think all the instructors feel who ARE doing it right?

They're probably curled up under the covers sobbing uncontrollably as we speak.

Does Tad ever think about them when he paints with his sweeping broad brush? No.

If there WERE any instructors who really cared about this issue the way they should they'd read that statement, say "Damn right!", and be here standing shoulder to shoulder with me and organizing to get something done.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14931
Tad's release (even more)

Freedomspyder - 2009/02/14 17:43:30 UTC

Tad,
I've found your posts on both hook-in checks and releases very interesting and well thought out.
Best of luck dealing with the Oz Report forum cult and its leader.

Where the hell have they been when I've been out there on one the postmortems on the Jack and Davis Shows firing in all directions till my barrels are glowing red with just about zilch in the way of help? Where are their magazine articles? How much support did they give Doug Hildreth when he was screaming this message for fourteen years?

The only thing Tad really thinks about is how he can seek revenge on everyone who's disrespected him.

The ONLY thing? Give some of the threads here a skim. Certainly one of the more enjoyable things but far from the only.

He's using your safety as an excuse to commit his jihad against everyone else.

I'm sure Zack will thank you from rescuing him from the delusional fog in which he's been lost all this time.

If you've ever been in a windy, gusty, cliff launch situation with minimal crew, you will know that lift and tugging before committing to launch is NOT something you want to be doing.

If you've ever been in a windy, gusty, cliff launch situation with minimal crew, you're a moron who's a threat not only to yourself but to your minimal crew, the vehicles in the parking area behind launch, and the already thinly stretched national emergency response and medical care resources.

You might get away with it on any given day, but you've increased your statistical exposure significantly.

Yeah? You got actual statistics on that? Just kidding. How 'bout something anecdotal then? Don't worry, I've got plenty of time...

And for what? Because you can't remember the hook-in check that you did 30 to 60 seconds ago?

A lot of people have ended their hang gliding careers because they remembered the hook-in check they did thirty to sixty seconds ago. Our buddy Rooney had a major interruption of his like that and his passenger probably lost a lot of appreciation for the sport that afternoon.

If you really aren't disciplined enough to remain hooked in for that period of time (just prior to launch), then please stay out of any air where anyone else is flying.

Ya know what, Bob? 99.9 percent of the time ANYBODY is DISCIPLINED enough to remain hooked in for that - or damn near ANY - period of time.

1977/03/05 - Robert Sage - 23 - Kestrel - Sierra Vista, Arizona

In the process of switching his wire launch man, Sage forgot to hook in.

1979/06/22 - Marvin (Sam) White - 20 - Alpha 185 - Chandler Mountain - Steele, Alabama

A tragedy with a clear lesson. White did a harness check on himself, but then unhooked to check his cousin's gear. Forgot to hook in again. Fell 150 feet to a rocky ledge.

Doug Hildreth - 1991/04

Werner Graf, a Long Beach, California pilot was vacationing in Switzerland in October 1990. He prepared to launch, but unhooked to adjust his camera. He then proceeded to launch without hooking back in.

Since this pilot was killed outside the United States he will not be counted as a U.S. fatality. But it should be noted that he is just as dead as he would be had it happened in the U.S., and we report it here to once again try to get everyone's attention about this extremely basic, but terribly serious mistake. You MUST ensure that you ARE hooked in within 15 seconds of launch--EVERY TIME.

Bill Bryden - 2000/09

This is an old topic with another tragic ending. Richard Morris Zadorozney died April 26 when he launched without being hooked into his glider. We discussed the topic of hook-in failures a year and a half ago and Luen Miller and Doug Hildreth discussed it almost annually for the decade before I started authoring this column.

Richard was an advanced pilot with at least fourteen years of hang gliding experience. He was a very active pilot, flying once and often twice a week year round. On the fateful day, he was planning to go X-C from a site about fifty miles east of San Diego with a couple of other pilots. Richard prepared to launch and had two spectators assist holding his side wires. Another pilot behind Richard observed his suspension and saw that it was looping up from the back of his harness up under one wing, suggesting he was hooked in, but it probably was simply secured to his shoulder area.

He did not lift the glider to do a hook-in check before launching and was reportedly distracted, talking to the wire-men just before launch about the relative safety of hang gliders versus the motorcycles that they drove. Richard did not loiter on launch and presumably was rather impatient to join a buddy in the air.

The problem is that people are human and humans get DISTRACTED and make mistakes - except, of course, magnificent and perfect examples of human evolution such as yourself.

Zack... Steve Kinsley doesn't think he's disciplined enough to remain hooked in for that period of time (just prior to launch), and I'm sure he'd be honored to have him in the air with you any time you feel like it.

I don't really want anyone who DOESN'T doubt everything I say participating in this forum. This is not and will never be a "'cause Tad says" sorta place.

Tad is lying right there. This is exactly a "Jim Rooney is not welcome ... because Tad says so" kind of place.

Well, actually Jim Rooney is not welcome 'cause he's a nasty stupid lying hypocritical scumbag who spends all his spare time convincing people who've crashed because of 130 pound Greenspot failure that it kept them from locking out and dying a couple of seconds later and Kite Strings is a forum devoted to the scientific advancement of hang gliding. But, hell, you created and are modeling US Hawks for people just like him so he'll always have a place to call home and I have no doubt whatsoever that you two will get along famously.

Tad used lift-and-tug for decades at many sites in every sort of conditions without issue.

Lots of people can tell you that they've used lots of techniques throughout their career without issue. So from a statistical standpoint, Tad's assertion means nothing.

But when you throw in Rob Kells and consider that reports of lift and tug incidents are NONEXISTENT and will still be at the conclusion of your post the assertion starts amounting to something.

And he's not flying anymore so I can't challenge him to go to a site in difficult conditions and demonstrate his approach with enough repeatability to be statistically significant.

I go to ANY site in difficult conditions I'm gonna have enough crew to do the job with more than the half inch of safety margin that you always leave for yourself. I can tighten the goddam strap and launch and relaunch till hell freezes over without the tight strap EVER being an issue.

Go through thirty years of magazines and any forum you can think of and find an incident report to indicate that that's not the case for everyone.

Instead, he's urging people like you to stand on the edge of a cliff in life-threatening conditions and allow the glider to float up - substantially out of your control - just to verify that you're hooked in.

No Bob, I'm URGING people like YOU to stand on the edge of a cliff in life-threatening conditions as often as possible and I don't give a rat's ass whether or not you allow the glider to float up. Just don't do it with an adequate crew and DO do it as frequently as possible.

Be my guest Zack. Please let us know how that works out for you.

It'll work out just fine for him 'cause he's smart and responsible enough to always have adequate crew.

As far as I'm aware, Bob, you've never attempted it in the conditions you're afraid of.

And I never will.

But you WILL launch in conditions you're afraid of. And I'm TOTALLY cool with that.

You said to try it with people on my wires, and in those circumstances I might try it.

- Meaning you've NEVER ONCE EVEN DONE IT when you've had people on your wires. And it sounds like you've never once done it in the most benign conditions imaginable 'cause if you had you'd be be doing it when you had crew.

- You MIGHT *TRY* IT. How extraordinarily brave! Just who we need in a discussion on hook-in checks.

But I've wrestled with enough gliders on launch to know that I'm NOT going to do that when I don't have a full crew to back me up.

Yeah, just keep doing that Bob. Make LOTS of launches with inadequate crew in conditions in which you hafta wrestle gliders so close to the margin that letting the strap go tight is gonna tip the balance.

I've personally seen gliders get flipped on launch flinging their pilots like rag dolls through the air and slamming them onto the ground.

UNDOUBTEDLY solely because they were checking their connection status, right? So why didn't you post an advisory in Hang Gliding magazine and tell the idiots who connect themselves to gliders in insane conditions without proper assistance to disregard all of Doug Hildreth's pleas to do the lift and tug check?

I was in the air over Torrey when I saw that happen to a friend of mine. He was in the hospital for some time with various broken parts (including his pelvis as I recall).

- He was a friend of YOURS, Bob. Just how choked up about this are we supposed to get?

- And he, of course, told you while you were visiting him in the hospital that the flip was precipitated by a check of his connection status. But if he DID you'd be having a field day with this one. So he DIDN'T, right?

In fact, I was flipped myself on top of Kagel when I was a Hang 2. Fortunately, only my pride was bruised, but I know first-hand how quickly a glider can go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster. You don't EVER want to do ANYTHING to increase that probability.

And, of course, you don't EVER want to do ANYTHING to DECREASE that probability - like having people on your wires when you're in a situation in which a glider can quickly go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster.

You especially don't want to do something that you KNOW you can do 30 seconds earlier in complete safety - a hook-in check.

Yeah Bob. Pretty much everybody who did a hook-in check thirty seconds earlier was in complete safety thirty seconds earlier. But thirty seconds earlier just never seems to be the point at which the issue of hook-in status is a life and death matter.

Now I'm not against making the "lift and tug" a part of one's regular routine.

And those of us who've survived all the HORRORS of lift and tug as part of our immutable routines for our entire hang gliding career are ABSOLUTELY THRILLED to hear that - pending further study - YOU will not oppose continuation of the practice.

And when conditions are so tough that you know you can't follow your regular routine, then that should make you uneasy and even more vigilant because you're not following that routine.

- How odd. I just don't seem to ever remember having put myself in a situation in which conditions were so tough that I knew I couldn't follow my regular routine.

- But ya know what, Bob...

George DePerrio - 1926-1988/07/03 - Advanced, ten years - Vision - Mount Saint Pierre, Quebec

Forgot to hook in again after completing his hang check, fell over 100 feet to steep shale slope. Many distractions and extenuating circumstances. Pilot who launched just before got blown back but was unhurt. Conditions were a little stronger than he was used to (his comment).

In the REAL world sometimes those tough conditions are the DISTRACTION that CAUSES the pilot to break his regular routine.

But I can never endorse something that removes the pilot's ability to use his or her own judgement in a given situation.

If the fucking "pilot" judges that in his or her given situation does not call for a verification of hook-in status JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH, he or she is not a fucking pilot. He or she is a fucking moron.

That's what Tad is trying to do by specifying that "just prior to launch" effectively means "during launch". I cannot support that.

Good. I'd seriously question my position if you DID support that. The fact that people - like Rob Kells and Steve Kinsley - who actually DO IT support it is all I really need.

Tad, if you want to build some kind of association or club or cult that follows exactly what you say, then I have no problem with that.

Yeah, well I do. I want the kind of association in which the participants question the hell out of what I say and see if it lines up with reality. And so far that seems to be working out just fine.

Go in peace.

Got to hell.

But please stop pestering the people who want to build the US Hawks based on those safe practices that we (we without you) agree upon.

Who's "WE", Bob? Besides without me?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=821
Fatal hang gliding accident

Sam Kellner - 2011/11/07 02:47:58 UTC

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in.

You and your goddam US Hawks halfwits agree on whatever the fuck you want and put it into practice with my full endorsement.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like what we're doing, so just build a better organization yourself.

Nah. I changed my mind. I ABSOLUTELY *LOVE* what you're doing. The more fatality reports you assholes generate the better able I am to get through to the dozen or so people in this rotten sport about whom I give a rat's ass.

We don't have that much of a head start on you, and with all of your superior intellect you should be able to surpass us in no time.

In terms of quality I surpassed US Hawks when Kite Strings was just me and Zack.

Show us all what you can do. If you do a good job, we might even join you.

No, Bob. You're NEVER gonna join me.

Like you said...

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/15 01:26:16 UTC

Some things are more important than a hang gliding club.

Some things are WAY more important than a hang gliding club.

I predict that you won't do that because you've never been interested in building a better organization or in saving people's lives.

Not yours anyway.

Instead, you're just interested in beating up on the people you feel have slighted you. That's why you come to US Hawks ... to take your jabs at Sam and Peter and Jim Rooney and me.

Sam and Peter and Jim Rooney and you. Yeah, that's a pretty homogenous grouping. Speaks volumes.

You use safety as an excuse, but your real agenda ... is destruction and revenge.

If it wasn't before it sure is now - motherfucker.

[bobk]

I don't plan to spend much time reading this forum, and this may be my last post here for quite a while.

I spent a lot of time trying to give Tad a platform to share his message. I invited him to our forum and I apologized to others for his posts. I posted a link to KiteStrings on our front page. I spent many long hours on the phone with him trying to help him to lose the hatred. Here's what I got in return:

You use safety as an excuse, but your real agenda ... is destruction and revenge.

If it wasn't before it sure is now - motherfucker.

Zack, please watch how Tad will treat me after all I've done to help him. You may see your own future in how he repays my kindness.

[Tad Eareckson]

I don't plan to spend much time reading this forum, and this may be my last post here for quite a while.

And this represents an alteration of your schedule HOW?

I spent a lot of time trying to give Tad a platform to share his message.

- The platform was up and running six months before I stepped onto it. Seeing as how you've only ever had about four or five people tops posting to it at any given stretch I'd say that I wasn't really stressing it to the breaking point.

- "My" message is the distillation of thirty years worth of what the best minds in the sport had to say plus a few of my own tweaks and I put a little time into sharing it on YOUR platform and was making a little progress with a key player or two.

I invited him to our forum and I apologized to others for his posts.

- And no time at all apologizing for the posts of Sam's, Peter's, Pilgrim's, Terry's, Rick's, and yours - which tended to be the ones that really needed apologizing for.

- I didn't see in the SOP's where it was your job to apologize for anybody else's posts.

- When I say something that needs apologizing for I'll apologize for it.

I posted a link to KiteStrings on our front page.

- And we got a good referral from the guy you're eying for first president of your organization:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=607
Understanding Tow Releases

Sam Kellner - 2011/09/17 15:14:57 UTC

What's detrimental to the sport of HG, is destructive remarks/methods being spewed out on several of the popular forums, and some obscure forums that hang on by a string. The same thing over and over and over and over, same garbage.

- Thanks, but you'll find a lot more people *I* brought to Hawks than Hawks brought to Strings.

I spent many long hours on the phone with him trying to help him to lose the hatred.

Gee, I wish I had known what you were trying to do 'cause I coulda saved you a lot of minutes. I don't wanna lose my hatred for any of the people I hate. I hate them for really excellent and necessary reasons and the more people I can get to join in the hatred the better off hang gliding is gonna be. (I thought Zack was making excellent progress last summer in his exchange with Rooney.)

Here's what I got in return...

And exactly what did you EXPECT to get after last night (and the couple of days leading up to it)?

Zack, please watch how Tad will treat me after all I've done to help him. You may see your own future in how he repays my kindness.

- That was your kindness? Can we try a little of your hatred for a while and see how that goes?

- You wanna help me?

-- Stay the hell out of my personal life and stop assuming that you have your shit together well enough to tell everyone - or ANYONE - else how to live. Try to worry a lot less about who went to bed with whom twenty-five years ago and a lot more about who's killing whom now.

-- Recognize that bigots like you got to brutalize me as much as they could get away with under and way beyond the law at the time and I'm gonna have a REAL short fuse for the ones who wanna go above and beyond the call of duty and keep it up.

-- Don't fix problems that only exist in your bogus assumptions.

-- Learn what rules are and stick to them.

- I don't think Zack has too much to worry about. He's let me rewire his brain for the couple of seconds before foot launch and replace all the deadly Industry Standard crap he was using for aerotow with stuff that has greatly increased his odds of survival for any given takeoff. I had hoped to be able to do that for thousands but it's amazing how happy it makes me to be able to get through to one or two assets to the gene pool.

I'm sorry we're at where we're at 'cause I did enjoy a lot of our conversations but you made some choices and sometimes choices have consequences. Ya wanna rethink a few things the situation could get better - but I won't be holding my breath.

P.S. Notice that YOU are still able to post HERE.

[Zack C]

Zack, please watch how Tad will treat me after all I've done to help him. You may see your own future in how he repays my kindness.

Thanks for the warning, but I'm not too concerned...I don't expect to ever mistreat Tad the way you have.

Zack

[bobk]

Zack,

Someone came to me with a concern that Tad was a child molester and his conduct might harm our forum. As usual, I went right to the source and I asked Tad about it. He told me about the "relationship" he had with a 12 year old boy when he (Tad) was around 30 years old. I asked Tad if he felt remorseful or if he felt he'd done anything wrong. He said he did not. That was a private conversation, and I did not make it public. Here's what was said in public:

Then you can boot me permanently, get all of your halfwitted bootlickers to consolidate power, and start picking off "my friends" as well.

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

That was the extent of my public comment on the subject. That's when Tad launched into his own public confession. That public confession led to additional phone calls where Tad revealed his attraction to 7 or 8 year old boys. That's when I sent him a private email message asking him to leave the forum on his own or I would ban him. I had hoped he would voluntarily leave on good terms, but he did not.

Just so that I understand you, Zack, is that the extent of the "mistreatment" that you've spoken about?

Thanks in advance.