Tad Eareckson wrote:- Now let's find an actual incident in which anybody in the entire history of paragliding has ever gotten so much as a painfully banged head as a consequence of kiting his bag without a helmet - or a statement from a kiter along the lines of, "Damn it was a good thing I had that thing on! Gonna need a new Charly Insider before I can clip in again. That one's toast!"
SAN DIEGO -- Paragliding instructors in Utah and Southern California are criticizing one of their own for questionable safety practices after a 48-year-old student was killed during a lesson in Imperial Beach.
Henry Ho, a financial adviser from Windsor, Colorado, died June 26 after slamming into rocks south of the terminus of Seacoast Drive, according to the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office.
Ho was part of a class of ten students training under Dell Schanze, a Utah-based instructor, and two assistants.
None of the students were wearing helmets while practicing glider control and taking off on "touch-and-go" jumps of 15 to 20 feet on the beach, Schanze confirmed to San Diego 6 News.
Helmets are widely used in the industry and seen as standard practice, several certified instructors said.
"We do not even let anybody get into a harness, much less strap a paraglider to their harness without a helmet on first. It's the first thing we teach," said Torrey Pines Gliderport instructor Billy Purden.
Schanze has a history of arrests and citations from daredevil stunts, including a BASE jump off the 125-foot historical Astoria Column in Oregon. The Imperial Beach City Council enacted emergency legislation last year after Schanze paraglided off a home.
"Anyone being critical of our training isn't competent to know or understand how the training really works," Schanze told San Diego 6 by phone Tuesday.
He said Ho's death was the result of "pilot error" and could not have been anticipated.
"Basically the pilot turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the direction he was supposed to go, and well trained to go."
"Does that suggest he was not properly trained?" asked San Diego 6 reporter Derek Staahl.
"No not in any way."
"Well how so?"
"I have a ton of video showing him with a complete mastery of all the basic skills."
"Then how did he make that error?" Staahl replied.
"It wouldn't be any more the case than if you sold someone a car and they went out and ran it into something clear out in the middle of nowhere," said Schanze.
Paragliding is prohibited in Imperial Beach, but enthusiasts are allowed to practice "ground work" on the sand so long as they don't become airborne, said Dean Roberts of the city's Public Safety Department.
Roberts could not be reached late Tuesday to see if "touch-and-go" jumps of 15 to 20 feet would be in violation of this ordinance.
Each student paid $2500 for the 10-day intensive course, Schanze said. But his business, Paraglider Mall, is not licensed to operate in Imperial Beach.
Roberts said last week Schanze could be subject to fines if the city found he was operating without a license.
Shane Denherder, a Utah-based instructor who worked for Schanze from 2010 to 2012, said his former boss regularly told students to lie to authorities if they were approached on the beach during training.
"He would tell them to not say that we're out here paying for training, but more that we're just a group of friends out here to fly," Denherder said.
Denherder said Schanze encouraged students to attempt highly advanced and dangerous maneuvers after just a few days of training. He said he long feared Schanze's confidence in his teaching ability could lead to an accident.
"Not to brag about my skills," Schanze told San Diego 6, "but I am currently the best pilot in the world and I have the best safety record."
Yeah, but they're FLYING and under the canopy with THE INTENTION OF FLYING. And they're in obviously strong conditions and within easy striking range of really hard non horizontal stuff.
Also, I (we) haven't heard that a helmet would've made any difference in this one - although if I were forced to make a bet I'd go with it would have.
I'm totally OK with mandating helmets while hooked up/in in any conditions in which there's a reasonable risk of becoming airborne or being dragged into injun country, winds over X mph, but I DO NOT LIKE this blanket, no exceptions regulation. We've all got ratings which presume we know what we're doing well enough to not launch off the ramp when it's coming in at thirty and gusting to fifty or tailing at ten. I also want the presumption that I'm qualified enough to be able to evaluate a situation to determine when a helmet is advisable and when it will be of zero to negative benefit.
The Dell situation was an absolute no brainer - like Dell himself.
"We do not even let anybody get into a harness, much less strap a paraglider to their harness without a helmet on first. It's the first thing we teach," said Torrey Pines Gliderport instructor Billy Purden.
So it looks like thanks to Bob we have new rules coming from our national org regarding helmets. Did we need this, no.
If it's considered unneeded maybe it will be misinterpreted...
Really hard to misinterpret that. When you want things misinterpreted you use language like "just prior to launch" and "within easy reach" and watch the race to the bottom.
...and/or selectively enforced.
If the motherfuckers in this sport had any brains, spines, senses of decency they'd be going ballistic about this one.
- You're hooked in and approaching / in line for launch. You're roasting or need to make radio connections, look down at your parachute pins, apply some sunscreen to your face and neck, get a last bite in, drink something out of a bottle or cup you either unhook before removing your helmet or violate the SOPs.
- And we have scores of Aussie Methodist / End Of Story assholes who are precluded by the Sacred Tenets of their religion from unhooking and rehooking the harness while they're in it.
- And then we have folk like Yours Truly with bolt-on, rather than hook-in, type suspension connections.
This mandatory helmet bullshit overrides the decision making process and usurps the authority of the Pilot In Command and adds serious complexity and distraction elements to one of the two most critical phases of the flight. If it's enforced and/or adhered to it WILL increase the frequencies of blown, unhooked, partially hooked launches; launches with missed leg loops, misrouted suspension, other significant equipment issues; gliders flipped approaching launch.
And if it's enforced at all I one hundred percent guarantee you it will be enforced extremely selectively.
Bille Floyd - 2014/12/04 18:23:07 UTC
i'll fly your glider, but i won't join your club
You can only do so much.
Especially when you're using expensive sticks where your lower legs used to be 'cause you view hook-in checks as optional.
Brian McMahon - 2014/12/05 17:46:17 UTC
Robin is a PG pilot and a pretty incredible one at that. I've seen him flying a speed wing at Torrey in 25-30 mph winds executing multiple reverse tumbles when many HG pilots didn't even want to launch in those conditions.
Yep, lotsa highly skilled total assholes in these sports.
Brian McMahon - 2014/12/05 18:30:19 UTC
The helmet thing is a small piece of the puzzle. Video recording this was a trigger; the staff have an axe to grind with Bob over many things, but this helmet issue was really a small issue if you understand the context.
Bob has been retained as an expert witness (one of several) in a lawsuit involving a midair between two PG students at Torrey under radio guidance (a PG-1 and a PG-0, yes you are reading that correctly, a PG-0 was in the air at Torrey soloing!)
Bob and the Torrey Hawks have met with two San Diego Mayors and Bob has personally met with nearly every city council member as well as regularly going to city council meetings to make public comment about the problems with how the Torrey Pines Gliderport is operated.
Bob has made numerous recordings or taken pictures of confrontations and incidents over the years.
Bob has been banned in the past and had to get a lawyer to force David Jebb to allow him to fly there.
Bob defeated David Jebb in a RD election.
Bob and the Torrey Hawks have been pushing for better HG representation on the Torrey Pine Soaring Council for years.
How much has Bob been pushing for better representation on the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association and its member chapters?
#1) Bob isn't the kind to back down and when another RD candidate refused to respond respectfully to Bob's questions, Bob went far enough to annoy Mr. Straub. Since we can all consider this web site as being Mr. Straub's personal club house...
We most assuredly can and must. But that's not what he presents it as.
when he evicted(?) Bob, for however significant a reason, other participants here didn't have any procedural right to question that action. As Mr. Straub has said himself, this is NOT a Free Speech Zone.
It is a serious forum for pilots who wish to write cogently and engage the intellect of others.
And that's a total load o' crap. So why should anybody really care what he says about anything?
As much as I know about Mr. Straub, I think he felt he was justified in doing what he did.
If he did he would say:
"I banned Bob from this forum because he continually broke the clearly stated rules against personal attacks on other members of the forum."
Instead of this:
Bob was banned from this forum because he continually broke the clearly stated rules against personal attacks on other members of the forum.
passive voice bullshit he uses two three posts down.
Many arguments could be made that Mr. Straub should have allowed Bob to stay and many arguments could be made that it was fine to show Bob the door. What I know is that Bob K is outspoken and will actively defy persons who he considers biased, unfair, disrespectful, bigoted, etc.
Bullshit. Bob K studiously avoids being outspoken when he's hit with inconvenient questions and cultivates Sam Kellner, Charlie Schneider, Peter Birren caliber assholes whom he considers biased, unfair, disrespectful, bigoted, etc.
This kind of person often rubs certain people the wrong way.
Bob rubs all decent people smart enough to see through his veneer the wrong way.
Personally, I say more power to people like Bob K!
Not with my help. I'll be working full time to neutralize motherfuckers like that - 'specially Bob K.
They are out to change things for the better, rather than sit back and accept the status quo.
One or two mostly special interest things. Totally toxic in damn near everything else.
So Bob is banned from this site (apparently) for being politically outspoken.
Live by the dictatorship, die by the dictatorship.
To me that is close to the polar opposite of a crime.
The origin of all the above is Bob K's "Torrey Pines" activism.
Like I said... One or two mostly special interest things.
#2) Bob was banned on "that other forum" because again, he is intense, politically minded, outspoken and not always willing to compromise on issues he sees as important.
T** at K*** S****** was banned on "that other forum" because he knew what the fuck he was talking about. And T** at K*** S****** gets referenced on "that other forum" in violation of the site rules a helluva lot more than Bob K does 'cause people know he knows what the fuck he's talking about.
SG (Jack Axpxoxdopolus)...
Not a very good effort at his name, Scott.
...is, unfortunately (in my opinion) a closet megalomaniac.
Closet?
When Bob began to lead the charge towards forming a new National HG association (on Jack's site) SG was nice (?) enough to create a web site to be used by the budding association. However, as Jackie saw himself losing the spotlight - in the eyes of his adoring HG fan base - and recognized Bob K as a "threat" to his over sized ego, he booted Bob out of his (alternate HGAA web site) "living room".
Did he lock him down in his Basement "for about a month" first as an experiment to see what the effects on membership and participation would be?
I confess to previously having a bit of an Oz Report habit, but the forced login thing has turned me off permanently, and I am in fact grateful. Frankly, the site had pretty much been reduced to a few dedicated sycophants in any case.
I've seen many times the destructive consequences of "control freaks".
...truly is?
...JA eliminated the rising competition. Once again Bob K, as a person seeking to improve every HG pilot's options regarding a choice between National HG organizations was cut down by someone in very effective control of the Hang Gliding "Media".
Define "every pilot", Scott.
The origin of all the above is also Bob K's "Torrey Pines" activism.
#3) There is a reason Bob K was voted out of the USHPA. He wanted all members of the USHPA to be able to see the record on how each of our particular Regional Directors voted on subjects of importance to the membership (and even those that aren't so important).
The way things are at US Hawks. Whenever any action is taken there every single person in and out of the fold knows exactly what the voting record was for...
Is there a Board of Directors for the US Hawks?
Not yet. The HGAA's early problems arose because different people wanted to take the organization in different directions. That created power stuggles which cost the HGAA some of its early leadership. For now, I'm going to take the US Hawks in the direction that I believe is right.
...each and every representative.
If people want to go along, then they're welcome. If not, there are at least two other alternatives.
See, you don't get to hook up to my plane with whatever you please. Not only am I on the other end of that rope... and you have zero say in my safety margins... I have no desire what so ever to have a pilot smashing himself into the earth on my watch. So yeah, if you show up with some non-standard gear, I won't be towing you. Love it or leave it. I don't care.
He was also in a better position to influence positive change at Torrey Pines. Once again, the powers that be (interested in maintaining the status quo) didn't like Bob's "do or die" attitude. They especially liked being able to keep who voted for what secret from the membership (WHY?). So the USHPA Old Boys Network created the option for USHPA voters in Bob's Region, to "show him the door". I wonder how many David Jebb PG groupies were encouraged to participate in that vote? Fair, Unfair??? Hard to know for sure - conveniently.
Once more, the beginnings of all the above were based in Bob K's "Torrey Pines" activism.
#4) As I've said above: Some people who hold power don't like it when someone comes along looking for something better. They want to keep the status quo along with the (potential or very real?) benefits it may gain them. And guess what? There will always be very predictable and reliable sheeple who, as the easily frightened and timid creatures they are, will BBBaaaaaaaaaaa! out very loudly against those who scare them, or, who their shepherd identifies as being an imagined danger to the flock.
Care to comment on my treatment on The Bob Show, Scott?
I see a pattern here as well. Bob is a bit less than conventional, but VERY interested in positive change for the sport of hang gliding. Some very specific people associated with Air California Adventure Inc. would prefer that Bob was evicted from the San Diego Public Park - where they operate or free. They have finally gone so far as to submit false complaints against Bob. They have gone so far as to commit Criminal Assault and Battery against Bob's peaceful video recording of a PG lesson. Hmmmmmm, . . . Someone who likes the idea of sharing a beer with Gabriel Jebb may also enjoy the company of the friendly inmates down at the local jail - or even State Prison.
Once again, it's better to step back and take a broader perspective. Sometimes the good guys turn bad, and the bad guys turn good.
I tried working with and talking to Bob, he was impossible.
Yes.
Compromise is necessary in everything other than a dictatorship.
Mother Nature is one royal bitch of a dictator and she controls our fate when we're in the air. Go ahead and compromise on equipment, procedures, standards and see where it gets you. And rest assured that I've already got a video archived to illustrate whatever it is that will happen.
Black and white no nuance, he could totally frustrrate and probably lose an argument with a deaf, blind, mute.
He'll lock him down in The Basement "for about a month" and then figure out some pretense to ban him before he lets that happen.
With enough encouragement I am sure he could shut down free flight in southern California.
Cool! Then maybe I can pick up some pointers on how to get Dragonfly aerotowing shut down throughout the US.
Sam Kellner - 2014/12/05 23:30:25 UTC
what SC Wise said:
Bob can smell a rat a mile away.
Yeah, he's got the right pheromones for the job. Helps a lot with the reproductive thing.
Davis Straub - 2014/12/05 23:55:13 UTC
Bob was banned from this forum because he continually broke the clearly stated rules against personal attacks on other members of the forum.
Thank you for your input Davis. At the time Bob was banned I would admit that I didn't know this web sites' rules as well as you did (after all, you wrote them).
I wouldn't worry about that too much. His set of "rules" is just a crap heap that has no bearing or reflection on reality and he just does whatever the fuck he feels is to his personal advantage.
As to your willingness to include information here in reference to events connected with Bob K, I also applaud that.
Why? Current events connected with Bob K are pretty much impossible NOT to discuss and if Davis were to suppress the conversation he'd set a new world record for hang gliding irrelevance.
Another web site (to remain nameless) has made all things "Bob K" verboten.
It's done the same thing regarding T** at K*** S****** but Jack really can't afford to enforce his rule. He's irrelevant enough as it is now - and has been for many years.
Kind of like certain points in history when book (i.e., information) burning became an acceptable act.
As to News Worthy, . . . I think it is quite news worthy when a person is peacefully video recording a PG instructor teaching a lesson (all be it, without proper safety equipment in place)...
What? No fire extinguisher?
...and that instructor's reaction involves, not the simple acceptance that people will video almost anything at a popular tourist/sightseeing location, or some other kind of civil Q & A session with the videographer, but instead an act of criminal Assault and Battery. ?????
The video in question will reveal that Bob K was NOT jeering, cat calling, or taunting the instructor.
If he had been then would that have justified the response from Gabe and/or constituted a violation of some law? Hard to believe the latter case inasmuch as the US Supreme Court ruled that the vile crap those Westboro Baptist Church pull at military funerals is protected free speech. If the latter case then why wasn't he charged and arrested accordingly instead of for "trespassing"?
Contrary to reports filed with the authorities it will also show that Bob K did NOT advance one step toward Gabe Jebb - or in any other way (from a reasonable person's viewpoint) interfere with Gabe Jebb's instruction of his students.
Again, if he had then why wasn't he so charged?
However, to lie in a police report is also a crime. Then there are something like 6 different individuals (personnel directly associated with Air California Adventure Inc) who have falsified information connected with an application for a restraining order. Such acts are also crimes within the State of California. I think such actions as taken by a prominent USHPA Certified PG Training Facility - against a long time fellow member of the USHPA - are VERY news worthy.
It's also news worthy that the USHPA has so far taken no action against Air California Adventure Inc and/or one or more of its USHPA Certified instructors - connected with their violations of USHPA's "of good character" membership requirement.
Mr. Straub, not that I am responsible for the nature of this subject, but still, I'm sorry about the less than pleasant nature of this story. I am truly amazed and astounded by the off the handle reaction that Bob K received at the hands of Air California Adventure Inc. personnel. To the degree to which this site functions in a journalistic fashion for the sport of hang gliding...
Similar to the degree to which the Quest / Bobby Bailey "designed" garbage Davis endorses, sells, forces people to use...
...functions as a release system.
...it is sometimes unavoidable that such difficult subjects will come up. Thank you for accepting that inevitability.
One last comment I would make, is that a number of personal attacks have taken place right here within this thread. Many have been presented based on nothing more than personal bias, unfounded presumptions, and (maybe less than obvious) prejudice.
Anybody call anybody a turd in the punch bowl or an repentant child molester?
One example, aimed at myself, was left untouched save for a single BLACKED OUT word. Considering the context, the blacked out word is as obvious as it would be if it had been left unaltered.
Jonathan said:
Please Don't FVCK It Up For The Rest of Us!
Big fvcking deal.
Another example, once more aimed at me, is a member's referral to me as a "cool aide drinker".
It's "Kool-Aid".
In its historical context this means an obsessed, unquestioning follower capable of suicide in support of their leader.
Not really. Those people were murdered.
That is an absolute attack on my character.
1. Similar to your characterization of the Jonestown Massacre victims.
Tad obviously completely lacks social intelligence and probably a few other forms of intelligence. Also, he obviously has other mental health issues.
What do you expect?
3. You're gonna complain about that and take such a solid stand with Bob after the kind of crap he pulled and continues to pull with Steve and me?
May I request that the "no personal attacks" rule be enforced?
Sure. Now may I request that aerotowing be conducted in some semblance of accordance with USHGA SOPs and FAA regulations and that Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney have all of his hang gliding and aerotowing certifications revoked for life? If it's not asking too much that a stake be driven through his heart for good measure?
This topic would certainly be "friendlier" if followers of Gabe Jebb (and Air California Adventure Inc.) were - unlike Gabriel Jebb - civil in their responses.
Ain't gonna happen, dude. In my experience you're best off meeting these assholes with the most brutal incivility you're capable of mustering. Even if it doesn't win the immediate battle for you it'll be on the record if/when things ever get properly sorted out. The people who called Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney a sleazy incompetent lying little motherfucker prior to the Zack Marzec impact dust settling a bit and many of us deciding we were happy with two hundred pound Greenspot are now the only ones with intact and viable credibility in this sport.
I'm totally OK with mandating helmets while hooked up/in in any conditions in which there's a reasonable risk of becoming airborne or being dragged into injun country, winds over X mph, but I DO NOT LIKE this blanket, no exceptions regulation. We've all got ratings which presume we know what we're doing well enough to not launch off the ramp when it's coming in at thirty and gusting to fifty or tailing at ten. I also want the presumption that I'm qualified enough to be able to evaluate a situation to determine when a helmet is advisable and when it will be of zero to negative benefit.
I agree with you. I don't like the blanket policy for pilots who have ratings that presume we know what we're doing. Well said.
But student's don't have the ratings to know what they're doing. They also don't have the critically honed ground handling skills to keep themselves from getting turned upside down with a negative vertical velocity.
So until students achieve such skills (as hopefully reflected in their ratings), it is very important for them to follow the newly created regulation. Similarly, when instructing those same students, the instructor should be demonstrating the exact behavior that the students are expected to exhibit.
So I would have worded the USHPA regulation:
All instructional demonstrations shall be performed wearing headgear, and all H0/P0, H1/P1, and H2/P2 pilots shall always wear a helmet when connected to a glider.
Feel free to post this if you like.
Bob
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/12/07 08:31:41 UTC
Slightly better wording:
All H0/P0, H1/P1, H2/P2 pilots must wear protective headgear whenever connected to a glider. All instructional demonstrations performed for pilots of those ratings must also comply with that rule to set an appropriate example.
But student's don't have the ratings to know what they're doing.
1. Do they need RATINGS to be able to determine whether or not they're in situations in which it might be advisable to be wearing a helmet?
2. Aren't they under the supervision of USHGA certified instructors who are presumably capable of assessing situations to make go / no go helmet decisions?
3. Do we really want to train people too fucking stupid to have a feel for when a helmet is a good idea to become pilots? If we do then we wind up with lotsa Sam Kellner / Jim Rooney types - and we've all seen the resulting fatal disasters we get as consequences.
4. If our instructors are too fucking stupid to make go / no go helmet decisions is there anything else in the job description that they're also at least ten times too fucking stupid to do?
5. ALL students. Anyone and everyone below a Hang Two rating by definition lacks the skill, knowledge, judgment to determine when it's safe to be hooked in without a helmet. But as soon as the ink dries on his new rating card he's good to go. If he's twelve years old and has that card he can chuck the helmet or go platform towing...
...with your buddy Sam No-You-Don't-Get-An-Accident-Report Kellner or aerotowing behind Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney and capable of surviving the consequences of him fixing whatever's going on back there by giving him the rope or his mandatory sub legal Rooney Link increasing the safety of the towing operation. But no fuckin' way is it safe for him...
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/11/19 18:31:10 UTC
I have posted a link to your web site with a warning that I do not recommend it for anyone under 18 ... which I do not.
...to read anything on Kite Strings for another half dozen years.
A bit off topic but maybe you could quote something from Kite Strings that would put a twelve year old in something comparable to or higher than the level of risk that this five year old:
7-14522
is being subjected to by the idiot incompetent law breaking serial killers at Quest.
Quote something one percent as dangerous to this twelve year old as that crap you wrote about stalls and the standard aerotow weak links that produce more stall crashes than anything else in hang gliding - save for morons perfecting their flare timing - as being totally benign.
6. So you need a Hang Two in order to be qualified with the "critically honed ground handling skills" to be permitted to ground handle a glider clipped in and helmetless with zero chance of turtling? According to the relevant USHGA SOP that we've had on the books for the past million years and nobody - including you - has ever found the least bit objectionable...
The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc. - 2014/03/14
Standard Operating Procedure
12. Rating System
02. Pilot Proficiency System
06. Beginner Hang Gliding Rating
-B. Beginner Rating - Required Witnessed Tasks
02. Demonstrate proper ground handling of equipment.
...proper ground handling of equipment is to be demonstrated PRIOR TO anyone getting ANY pilot rating. There's zero mention of ground handling beyond this stage. "Critically honed ground handling skills" appear to be something you just pulled out of your ass - comparable to the "turbulent jet stream" that exists six inches above your wing on a ramp launch that nobody else has ever written about.
Bullshit. Ground handling is one percent skill and ninety-nine percent common sense. I've seen never-before-been-near-a-glider types who can do just fine ground handling and Hang Three - and probably up - types unable to grasp the concept of keeping the nose pointed into twenty-five mile per hour winds with guns to their heads.
And one of the biggies in the common sense department is knowing when one NEEDS somebody out on a sidewire - just like on launch. Brings to mind your total bullshit argument against tensioning suspension JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH. If it isn't safe to do that it isn't safe to be on the ramp unassisted. And if you're assisted it's ALWAYS safe to tension your suspension. Fuckin' PERIOD.
Lemme translate that last part for ya: F****n' PERIOD.
7. When we get new students into this sport they're scared and tend to view anybody and everybody at the level of Hang 2.25 and up as a brilliant sky god. And when they hear assholes like you talking about stuff like "critically honed ground handling skills" that only come with much practice and experience they will damn near always believe there's something to it. And the effect is undermining of self confidence in areas that really shouldn't be undermined.
Davis has been at an around all this plenty long enough to understand what's what and who's who.
bullshit from that total asshole. By virtue having been at an around all this plenty long enough to understand what's what and who's who Davis is supposed to have the experience, skill, judgment, reflexes to be able to fly the Double Rooney Link that they're now throwing newbies up on. There's very little skill and judgment involved in aerotowing and it can and will be maxed out by any halfway competent Two in a weekend or two and it won't do you one percent of the good sane proper equipment - one and a half G weak link, two point bridle, release that doesn't stink on ice - will when the shit hits the fan.
They also don't have the critically honed ground handling skills to keep themselves from getting turned upside down with a negative vertical velocity.
1. I've wound up upside down plenty of times over the course of my dune flying career. And I was a DAMN GOOD dune pilot. Always had a helmet on, never needed it. And as I recall whenever I got flipped I always ended up on TOP of the inverted glider. All the times I got hurt were when I came down with the glider right side up or mostly so.
Probably had a lot to do with why I never needed the helmet.
The ONLY time I've ever had my helmet any good...
Mike Lake - 2011/03/02 01:11:45 UTC
In the early '80s we were given a demo of a fixed line tow system complete with spring gauge, spaghetti bridles, rings, string and chunks of metal at longbow tensions positioned in front of the pilot's face.
The release was some kind of boat shackle that required about same continual tugging to actually release as it does for me to untangle my mobile phone charger.
After release the line had to unthread itself from various rings before the glider was actually free from a rather pathetic tow launch.
This was utter, utter crap, the whole setup and we (rather unkindly) laughed.
I am shocked to see so many elements of this system still in existence today.
This is not a 'high horse' statement, something I have recently been accused of. I'm a conservative Englishman, we generally don't do high horse.
She** is sh** and that was sh** of the highest order.
...was the first time I pulled a first generation Hewett Release at a thousand feet under full tension after kiting up on a stationary payout winch in high winds at Jockey's Ridge. Goddam upper horse panic snap would've taken part of my head off otherwise. (Had forgotten Paul Gibney's instruction that I needed to twist my body first to get my head out of the line of fire.)
So until students achieve such skills (as hopefully reflected in their ratings), it is very important for them to follow the newly created regulation.
You have any data on that? Can you cite ONE SINGLE INCIDENT of a head being bashed in a ground handling incident because this regulation wasn't it place or a helmet being bashed to demonstrate that this regulation should be in place?
You were playing gotchya with your Torrey concessionaire buddies. And I'm totally fine with / for that - 'specially in light of THIS:
We do not even let anybody get into a harness, much less strap a paraglider to their harness without a helmet on first. It's the first thing we teach," said Torrey Pines Gliderport instructor Billy Purden.
revolting hypocrisy. But it's fairly revolting hypocrisy as well for you to play this up like this was some big fucking deal actual safety issue - 'specially after writing:
This is going to sound cold, but I believe people have a right to make their own choices. I don't want a "nanny state" where anyone is telling me what I can and can't do ... for my own good. The sport of hang gliding would surely not exist if that thinking were carried to its logical extreme. There's something bred into all living things that urges them toward taking some degree of risk in their lives. Those who want to forbid that risk are essentially snuffing out the human spirit itself. I can't support that. I do support information. I support good information. I support exposing bad information. But I don't support dictating what anyone can or can't do. The fundamental principle of economics (and evolution) is two words: "people choose".
and sabotaging every single effort I was trying to make to address...
...ACTUAL, SERIOUS, and HUGELY WIDESPREAD safety issues involving flagrant violations of existing USHGA regulations and Federal Aviation laws.
Similarly, when instructing those same students, the instructor should be demonstrating the exact behavior that the students are expected to exhibit.
Cool! So when I'm making multiple passes in light air at Jockey's Ridge and doing hard 180s and skimming my tips in the sand my Hang One level students should just be able to watch me and duplicate what I'm doing. And when Eric Hinrichs' students see him doing THIS:
JUST PRIOR TO EVERY LAUNCH they'll start following suit - instead of just doing the fucking hang check the way he actually taught them.
So I would have worded the USHPA regulation:
All instructional demonstrations shall be performed wearing headgear, and all H0/P0, H1/P1, and H2/P2 pilots shall always wear a helmet when connected to a glider.
Interesting. It's "headgear" with respect to the instructor but a "helmet" with respect to the Zeroes, Ones, and Twos.
Slightly better wording:
All H0/P0, H1/P1, H2/P2 pilots must wear protective headgear whenever connected to a glider. All instructional demonstrations performed for pilots of those ratings must also comply with that rule to set an appropriate example.
And now it's "protective headgear" for everybody under a Three and the instructor - WHILE HE'S ENGAGED IN AN "INSTRUCTIONAL DEMONSTRATION".
- "Protective headgear? Yeah, this baseball cap keeps the sun off my face."
- "Instructional demonstration?" I wasn't demonstrating anything. I was through demonstrating. I was on my own time just doing a recreational hop. They can watch me or whoever the choose if they want or just head on back to the shop."
You triggered USHGA to get a really crappy regulation on the books, it's gonna blow up in your face, you know it, and now you're trying to distance yourself from and gut it.
What you SHOULD HAVE done was treat the helmet issue as the totally trivial crap that it was and just stuck with the assault and battery and false arrest atrocities.
And here's total indisputable proof of what I'm saying:
We're re-working the accident reporting system, but again it's a matter of getting the reports submitted and having a volunteer willing to do the detail work necessary to get them posted. There are also numerous legal issues associated with accident reports, which we're still wrestling with. It's a trade-off between informing our members so they can avoid those kinds of accidents in the future, and exposing ourselves to even more lawsuits by giving plaintiff's attorneys more ammunition to shoot at us.
Imagine a report that concludes, "If we'd had a procedure "x" in place, then it would have probably prevented this accident. And we're going to put that procedure in place at the next BOD meeting." Good info, and what we want to be able to convey. But what comes out at trial is, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client suffered injury because USHPA knew or should have known that a safety procedure was not in place, and was therefore negligent and at fault." We're constantly walking this line between full disclosure and handing out nooses at the hangmen's convention.
USHGA will NEVER implement a fix for an actual serious problem or even implement and enforce an existing legitimate safety SOP because they're scared shitless of being - justly - sued out of existence for not having implemented and started enforcing the fix 35 years ago. And they'll viciously attack anybody and everybody who makes a serious effort to accomplish anything positive.
This one moved like crap though a goose 'cause it:
- doesn't fix any actual problems
- like their bullshit "Focused Pilot" has the superficial APPEARANCE of being positive
- takes power away from the individual pilot and instructor and gives USHGA yet another tool with which to threaten, silence, remove them
If you logically extrapolate from the obvious truth of Mark's statement it's obvious that USHGA has a motive for implementing useless, ambiguous, meaningless, dangerous SOPs 'cause:
- there's no possible way they can get sued out of existence for not implementing and enforcing them earlier
- it helps maintain the recreational pilot the organization's SUPPOSED TO BE supporting in his eternal state of terminal confusion and prevents him from organizing and demanding accountability
Thanks Bob. This was a fairly significant lightbulb moment for me.
Feel free to post this if you like.
Always assume that I will. Hard to go wrong, kinda like always assuming your NOT hooked in.
All H0/P0, H1/P1, H2/P2 pilots must wear protective headgear whenever connected to a glider. All instructional demonstrations for pilots of those ratings must also comply with that rule to set an appropriate example. It is also recommended (but not required) that all pilots of all ratings wear protective headgear whenever connected to a glider.
OK...
It is also recommended...
By whom? What are that person's qualifications? What's the basis for this recommendation? What did we suddenly just learn in hang gliding that hasn't been fuckin' obvious over the course of the past forty years? How many lives could we have saved if this recommendation had come a decade prior? Is there anything much more in need of a recommendation that's not being recommended?
...(but not required)...
Oh. This is one of those special recommendations that ISN'T a requirement. Thanks for the clarification.
...that all pilots of all ratings...
It's REQUIRED for all flights of all pilots of all ratings that hook-in checks performed just prior to launch, at launch position, and as an integral part of the flight. But no instructors teach this, virtually no one ever does it, advocates are ignored and attacked, not one single motherfucker in the decades since enactment of the SOP in 1981/05 has ever been so much as mildly reprimanded for failing to comply or teach compliance... So why are we bothering with recommendations?
...wear protective headgear...
What's "protective headgear"? Is it anything like this "appropriate helmet" referenced in the SOPs? Does it need to meet any actual standards or is it OK if it's just appropriate - like a weak link of 1.5 inches or less?
...whenever connected to a glider.
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/12/08 18:04:04 UTC
Re: Position on Mandatory Helmets
Tad, you wrote:
Tad Eareckson - 2014/12/07 17:27:38 UTC
You triggered USHGA to get a really crappy regulation on the books, it's gonna blow up in your face, you know it, and now you're trying to distance yourself from and gut it.
No. I'm just thinking through what should be the best policy to balance reasonable safety policies and the right of pilots to make reasonable choices in their own flying.
Really? So what triggered the shift in your "thinking" from:
This is going to sound cold, but I believe people have a right to make their own choices. I don't want a "nanny state" where anyone is telling me what I can and can't do ... for my own good. The sport of hang gliding would surely not exist if that thinking were carried to its logical extreme. There's something bred into all living things that urges them toward taking some degree of risk in their lives. Those who want to forbid that risk are essentially snuffing out the human spirit itself. I can't support that. I do support information. I support good information. I support exposing bad information. But I don't support dictating what anyone can or can't do. The fundamental principle of economics (and evolution) is two words: "people choose".
I certainly wasn't hearing about any "balances" back then. Did you subsequently experience some kind of religious rebirth? This is fuckin' nanny state hell. Same can of worms as the mandatory Davis Link.
I hadn't given it a lot of thought until recently, and so you're seeing the evolution of my thought as I consider various points of view (including your own which I appreciate).
Great! Keep considering various points of view - especially Sam's. He's...
...quite a genius!!! And a top notch source on towing safety issues as well!
You also wrote:
What you SHOULD HAVE done was treat the helmet issue as the totally trivial crap that it was and just stuck with the assault and battery and false arrest atrocities.
I can do both. The helmet issue is important because it can get people hurt.
As forum moderator, I try to read every post on the forum. I know Tad has long pushed the "strong weak link" idea, and I'm glad to see the other side of the argument being presented.
I also like that this discussion emphasizes that breaking a weak link is something that can be practiced - just like we practice stalls - so we understand how to handle them and to not be afraid of them.
...we can train to handle Rooney Link pops. So unless the pilot is an incompetent moron and/or somebody who hasn't spent enough time practicing handling them they're never more than minor inconveniences. And thus we can ignore FAA legal minimums and the sailplane model that's been in place since the beginning of time.
The reason you don't see lots of head injuries...
The reason you don't see lots of head injuries is 'cause you have yours way the fuck up your ass.
...is because people do wear helmets.
1. Like in the NFL. Everyone is required to - and very happily DOES - wear a helmet for every single play. No problems.
2. Oh, we don't see lots of head injuries because people DO wear helmets - when they need to. So now let's fix a problem we don't have by forcing people to wear helmets - when the DON'T need or want to.
When I was learning...
And at what point in your flying career was it that you STOPPED learning? Based upon what I'm seeing my guess would be at two or three weeks - tops?
...I experienced a few incidents (both hang gliding and paragliding) where I was tossed about beyond my control and ended up on the ground.
1. Tell me about some of the flights you had when you DIDN'T end up on the ground.
2. So let's force people to wear helmets when they're starting out on the ground and have zero possibility of leaving it.
My helmet was never crushed...
Are you sure? I'm seeing a lot of the symptoms consistent with people who've had their helmets crushed a few times too many.
...but it does bear a number of small nicks that might have done much more serious damage to my head.
1. If you'd suffered much more serious damage to your head than you have already you wouldn't be able to breathe on your own.
2. Great Bob! So let's make it mandatory for people who are learning to wear helmets when they're FLYING and at some risk of ending up on the ground. I think you'd hafta try really hard to find any opposition to that regulation. And you'd certainly have my full and enthusiastic support.
All of those incidents happened when I was between H0/P0 and H2/P2 (inclusive). As I look back, I can now see exactly why they happened, and that's the experience and wisdom that comes at the H3/P3 (or maybe even H4/P4) level.
What percentage of them occurred in the absence of deliberate departure from the ground? The procedure many of us in the hang and para glider scene refer to as "launching"?
You're right that ratings are NOT always a clear measure of what someone knows or doesn't know, but its about the best we can do in a practical sense. Furthermore, we do try to make ratings reflect what students do or don't know by improving testing and evaluation techniques.
Here's the relevant testing on the ground handling issue:
The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc. - 2014/03/14
Standard Operating Procedure
12. Rating System
02. Pilot Proficiency System
06. Beginner Hang Gliding Rating
-B. Beginner Rating - Required Witnessed Tasks
02. Demonstrate proper ground handling of equipment.
This is presumed that somebody with normal walking and chewing gum capabilities can knock off on his first carry to the base of and up the training hill or to scooter launch position prior to him ever getting his ass actually airborne. Let's hear some data or anecdotal evidence that this approach needs USHGA and/or you to fix it.
And if it DOES need fixing...
We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that helmets frequently - and I'd say in the vast majority of incidents - make ZERO difference in the survivability of crashes.
So we should be seeing a lot of death and destruction stemming from these ground handling incidents - broken arms, legs, ribs, necks. So where are they?
And we know that the best and easiest strategy for surviving a crash is to not have one. So how come none of these boots-on-the-ground instructors are screaming for higher ground handling skills requirements and advertising ground handling clinics to get better grips on the carnage?
Video recording this was a trigger; the staff have an axe to grind with Bob over many things, but this helmet issue was really a small issue if you understand the context.
Bob has been retained as an expert witness (one of several) in a lawsuit involving a midair between two PG students at Torrey under radio guidance (a PG-1 and a PG-0, yes you are reading that correctly, a PG-0 was in the air at Torrey soloing!)
Your statement is erroneous and misleading. I'm not going to get into the details, apart from noting that one of the pilots was a P1 who was completing a last few flights before a P2 signoff, and the other was a very experienced HG pilot (H4 or H5, not sure which) with hundreds of hours at Torrey, who was getting a PG rating as well.
You don't know his name? You can't look him up and tell us what his rating was at the time?
To characterize that as a "P0 soloing at Torrey" is very misleading, to say the least. Neither one was under "radio guidance", and there is some dispute (at the heart of the case) about what constitutes "instructor supervision". BobK is acting as a paid (although he claimed he was going to donate the money to some charity) witness for the plaintiff, who was a current USHPA member with a signed waiver, and sued in violation of both that waiver and the waiver signed with Torrey.
1. Well, no problem for the defendants then.
2. Big fuckin' surprise. Everyone and his dog knows that those sorts of waivers are useless when gross negligence is involved.
USHPA and its instructors have now been released from the suit, subsequent to BobK signing up to support the plaintiff's case against both the flight park concession AND our association. His actions have not been beneficial to our association, and have cost all of us staff attention, time and legal fees.
OUR association is an absolute sewer.
For him to then show up at Torrey and shoot video of instruction there, while acting as a plaintiff's witness in a legal case against Torrey, shows a typical degree of chutzpa.
Yeah, going to a public city park and taking pictures. Hard to imagine.
He excels at pushing people's hot buttons, getting them to finally lose their temper, then crying about how he's being abused.
He had the hell abused out of him - along with the rights and protections each and every one of us is supposed to have under the rule of law.
I've seen this pattern from him for over a decade now.
I think I've got a pretty good claim on having reason to hate that motherfucker more than anyone else on the planet - and I'm saying that what was done to him by the gliderport and city cop thugs was an atrocity and all apologists for the opposition's behavior, conduct, actions are scum.
S.C., can I assume that you read the Bob K stories that I published that got this whole thing started here?
Why don't you give us some links - just in case?
I haven't policed this thread...
The way you "police" all threads when you and your piece o' shit confederates are getting their asses torn to shreds?
...as I'm sure that anyone who enters it...
Of those who have the ability to enter.
...is aware of the kind of material that will come up (and can easily avoid any unpleasantness by staying away).
Really? So then why did you find it necessary to lock down all the Zack Marzec related threads?
Besides, nothing here rises to the level that was exhibited by Bob K.
I always thought your crap is totally on par.
Paul Walsh - 2014/12/06 12:14:16 UTC
Mark G. Forbes - 2014/12/06 04:40:07 UTC
Your statement is erroneous and misleading...
Quite clear then where your dollars are located then???
You sound like a Nigerian scammer trying to explain his reasoning for scamming a cancer charity. fumbling incoherence.
Spell it out. Dont just mumble crap. Lots of words dont add up to an explanation, coherent sentences are required.
I'm not going to get into the details... [but] ...BobK is acting as a paid... ...witness for the plaintiff...
His actions have not been beneficial to our association, and have cost all of us staff attention, time and legal fees.
In a message sent to Bob K by Rich Hass (USHPA's President) he stated the same false claim that Bob K acted as a "paid expert witness".
See the following quote:
Bob, I couldn't help but notice that the very detailed description of the incident you posted ... fails to mention how your decision to serve as a paid expert witness, testifying against the Gliderport and USHPA instructors may have influenced how Gabriel responded to your [video recording.]
Not too much later Rich Hass sent Bob K an apology about his incorrect statement. See the following quote:
Everyone,
I would like to clarify a comment I made regarding Bob's relationship as an expert witness in the lawsuit against the Gliderport. It was my understanding, Bob initially agreed to accept compensation. I now understand, Bob was offered compensation but is not accepting it. I apologize for the error.
So, it seems Mr. Forbes has not received the same information as Rich Hass. Perhaps USHPA's Executive Committee should share updates regarding corrections to old misinformation. I wonder if Mr Forbes will also now apologies for his error?
For [Bob K] to then show up at Torrey and shoot video of instruction there, while acting as a plaintiff's witness in a legal case against [Air California Adventure Inc], shows a typical degree of chutzpa... ...getting them to finally lose their temper...
Mark, I have a question for you. If a person happens to witness an accident and someone is hurt or killed, does that citizen have a civic duty to participate in legal proceedings meant to determine who was to blame - and/or to which degree blame may be shared?
It seems to me that your (implied?) attitude in the above statement is based on the old "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil", Bury Your Head in the Sand, and screw anyone else's interests but your own, point of view.
Sounds to me as if you are suggesting that when it comes to accidents involving PGs or HGs, witnesses (whether regular, expert, paid, or unpaid) should keep their mouths SHUT! Your above statement further implies that, should someone act responsibly in connection with their witnessing of an accident, that person should expect justifiable (???) retaliation be brought against them by the party for whom their testimony was to whatever degree negative. (?????)
And here's another Question for ya -
Bob may have been a witness, but before him there was #1) A person who was damaged #2) A lawyer who took their case #3) A Court room containing a Judge - to hear the potential case #4) a defendant who also retained a lawyer - who couldn't (?) get the case dismissed for one out of many possible reasons. #5)THEN, after a good bit of legal back and forth, witnesses begin to be interviewed - but it is still a good while before they actually testify in Court.
I'm wondering, Mark, why do you (or Air California Adventure Inc?) not consider acting in retaliation against the plaintiff's Lawyer or perhaps the Judge involved in the referenced law suit? Instead, you seem to state that it is SO VERY justifiable (?) for agents of Air California Adventure Inc to criminally attack Bob K, a simple witness in the case?
Condoning criminal acts on the part of Air California Adventure Inc and their agents/employees against Bob K - because he has chutzpa! ??? This comes off as a bigoted, anti semitic remark! But then, the simple act of condoning criminal acts between fellow members of the USHPA is what I would call a despicable act. Beyond irresponsible.
Finally, does everyone here know that witnesses can be, and often are, issued a subpoena requiring them to show up in court?
Bob K was willing to offer his years of experience to help decide/settle this case - without the need for a subpoena. He was a responsible citizen, plain and simple.
However, it is abundantly clear that you, Mr. Forbes, as an agent of the USHPA, still have an axe to grind regarding Bob K.
For reference:
From Merriam Webster online:
chutz·pah noun : personal confidence or courage that allows someone to do or say things that may seem shocking to others
Brian McMahon - 2014/12/06 18:05:32 UTC
Mark G. Forbes - 2014/12/06 04:40:07 UTC
Your statement is erroneous and misleading...
Since you brought it up, I will get into some details. I wish Bob could write this himself, but it is probably best that he can't, because it would be 10x longer than anything I came up with.
Bob has not accepted any payment and stated to the lawyers that he would not accept any payment for testimony. What he told the lawyers was that if they insisted on paying anything, they could give it to a charity, he should have told them to donate it to the Foundation for Free Flight!. He is a volunteer expert witness; just so nobody misunderstands, there are several paid experts in the case, Bob is not the only 'expert' here.
I'm not an expert by any means, but this is my opinion, right or wrong:
As far as the P-0 goes, I don't care what HG rating the pilot had, I would not want to be in the air at a site like Torrey with a P-0. A P-0 should not be in the air, under radio or not. As an H-0, I don't think I even got my feet off the ground for more than a few seconds. I realize that this P-0 knows a lot more than an average PG student because of his experience as an advanced HG pilot; I still wouldn't want to be in the air with him. As a H-1, I certainly would not be flying a site, in fact no more than training hill sled rides without a radio and always with an instructor watching everything. I realize that Torrey is a training site, but when you consider how crowded it can get around the LZ, P-0/P-1s flying solo anywhere around each other is just asking for an accident. I had heard that they were under radio with instructors, if that is incorrect, then it makes the situation even worse from a safety perspective.
Bob only happened to be at Torrey on the day of his arrest because it was a scheduled Torrey Hawks meeting day. He saw this incident before any other club members had arrived and decided to record it. I can see how it became inflammatory for Jebb, considering that the site and staff are involved in a lawsuit that he is a expert witness in (I will also mention that I knew nothing about the lawsuit until Rich Hass mentioned it, Bob never talked about it with anyone in the club, including me, up until it had become public). Since Torrey is not a USHPA insured site, I'm not sure what pony you have in the race, but I'll tell you about chutzpa.
It is chutzpa to send a non-USHPA rated pilot (your little brother) solo on a paraglider. And when he crashes into a parked hang glider and is asked about his rating by an RD on site that witnessed the whole thing, the 'pilot' is quickly sequestered away and the RD is told to F off. Because the site is not an official USHPA site, the incident falls on deaf ears with the USHPA leadership and is ignored.
It is chutzpa for two PG Tandem instructors with passengers to attempt to 'stack' their canopies (one maneuvering to "sit" on the other). I've personally seen it happen while flying directly above them and apparently it was recorded by a PG Tandem instructor at some point in time, which just boggles my mind.
It is chutzpa to allow PG pilots to pull 180s less than ten feet over the heads of a crowd of spectators for oohs and ahhhs. Again, something I've witnessed more than once; although now there are poles and cover over most of the spectator area, so it doesn't happen like that anymore.
It is chutzpa to charge outside tandem pilots $150 to fly a tandem, thus keeping them from competing with your concession in direct violation of the lease with the city. But, no oversight, no repercussions.
I'm sure I could come up with some more chutzpa, but why throw more gas on the fire? I don't know how often you fly at Torrey, but it is not a bunch of nut case HG pilots sitting around complaining about PGs. For the most part everything is just fine, but it is a busy site, very busy at times. There are things/stunts going on that nobody would think twice about at a quiet mountain site or some small ridge in the back country somewhere, but Torrey is different. It is a joyride business + P0-P4 training site + H4 only site + R/C glider site + sail plane site + spectator attraction. Consider also that there is no oversight of the concession/training/flight operations by ANYONE. The City has been reluctant to get involved in any oversight, and the USHPA has strongly opposed any oversight stating on multiple occasions that it is a non-USHPA site and the USHPA will not get involved in any problems or complaints regarding the operation.
Why you would attempt to justify what happened there, regardless of your disdain for Bob, I cannot imagine. It's no skin off the USHPA's back if the concession gets sued into oblivion, so why care what happens?
It's another opportunity for USHGA to come down on the side of evil. Why blow it?
Scott C. Wise - 2014/12/07 00:35:18 UTC
Jacmac,
That's a great post!
As far as chutzpa goes, I found this explanation on one web site:
[T]he federal district [court] of New Jersey [described] in 1995, that "Legal chutzpah is not always undesirable, and without it our system of jurisprudence would suffer."
Chutzpa seems to have both positive and negative connotations. For that reason it may be an insult to say Bob K has chutzpa, but it can also be taken as a significant compliment.
The same may be said about the owner/employees of Air California Adventure Inc. But, in reading your post, I think you meant it the negative way - regarding ACA Inc.
Since you were responding to Mark Forbes' post in which he identified Bob K as having chutzpa (of the negative variety?) then I think things more or less even out. Basically if the speaker is a friend, they are probably complimenting you when they say you've got it. If they are a "non" friend it's probably meant as an insult.
As far as the following goes:
...the USHPA has strongly opposed any oversight stating on multiple occasions that it is a non-USHPA site and the USHPA will not get involved in any problems or complaints regarding the operation.
Air California Adventure Inc does employ USHPA Certified Instructors and is surely a USHPA Certified PG (HG?) Training Facility. As such, that is EXACTLY why the USHPA SHOULD be involved in what is happening there - as far as (slack and sloppy) instructional SAFETY issues go.
How 'bout ALL Dragonfly aerotow operations?
The instructional misconduct of personnel associated with Air California Adventure Inc could really and truly KILL the USHPA. How you may ask? In connection with a successful law suit clearly linked with their USHPA Certified PG teaching school and/or one or more of their USHPA Certified Instructors. The slack and sloppy (unsafe) teaching methods of Air California Adventure IncISa THREAT to Every member of the USHPA!
And the treatment Bob received at the hands of Air California Adventure and the San Diego police is a threat to every individual in the United States - and, easily arguably, beyond.
What say you Mr. Forbes? I'd say that it is past time to revoke their USHPA Teaching and Instruction Certification(s).
And no one should forget that BECAUSE OF ACA Inc (specifically, Gabriel Jebb) the USHPA's Executive Committee RUSHED an Organizational Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) change...
One of the crappiest ones in the history of the sport.
...onto the books - in less than a week?)!
About the same length of time it took Quest to come up with it's total bullshit story on the Zack Marzec fatality.
How many other USHPA Certified PG Schools have caused THAT to HAPPEN? ?????????????????
Time to abandon ship! LOL
Davis Straub - 2014/12/07 00:48:39 UTC
...USHPA Certified PG (HG?) Training Facility...
What is such a facility? I don't believe that there is such a thing. Instructors have individual certification.
Scott C. Wise - 2014/12/07 04:26:09
I apologize if the USHPA does not Certify HG/PG schools. However, there is no effective difference if USHPA Certified Instructors (employed by Air California Adventure Inc.) are found to be seriously lacking in their instructing skills.
As things stand, the poor example of Gabriel Jebb's (no helmet while hooked into a PG) has led to a swift change in the USHPA's SOP's. As I mentioned in my last post, HOW many times has such a thing happened in the USHPA's past?
How many times has it made the SLIGHTEST difference in anything?
I am very tempted to give a long distance call to Lloyd's of London and find out what they know about Air California Adventure Inc.'s slack and sloppy (i.e., unsafe, USHPA Certified Instructor) teaching techniques.
Heck, I think I'll do that. Unless Mark Forbes wants to give me a personal call and explain how the USHPA will initiate revocation procedures against EVERY USHPA Certified Instructor employed by Air California Adventure Inc.
Or he could just post it publicly - preferably a lot more publicly than on Davis's locked down paranoid little cult rag.
Odd how Gabriel Jedd's (criminal) "push" has led to a (justified and legal) shove in the other direction.
Lloyd's Contact Information:
Tel: ??? ????? ??????
Davis Straub - 2014/12/07 05:00:34 UTC
Jesus H. Christ. If you want to talk to Mark Forbes, why not give him a call? Or email him directly. His address is on the USHPA web site.
I didn't hear him say he WANTED to talk to Mark Forbes. Hard to imagine why anyone would.
Davis Straub - 2014/12/07 05:04:21 UTC
Mark G. Forbes: mark he's at mgforbes.com
Scott C. Wise - 2014/12/07 05:26:26 UTC
I'm no longer a member of the USHPA. So, I would figure that I would not have access to his contact info (email or phone #) if I went looking.
Besides what's to worry about? Air California Adventure Inc. is such a high quality PG school, right?
PS - Nothing shows up when you insert "mgforbes.com" into the browser's address window. dang!
Davis Straub - 2014/12/07 13:48:52 UTC
That is his email address above. I use that format to keep my email munger from scrambling it.
Nothing's stopping Mark from communicating with Scott. Telling enough that he very conspicuously isn't.
Compare/Contrast USHGA's response to their pet concessionaire's atrocities with the reaction they had to T** at K*** S****** posting a draft of a letter to the FAA concerning undisputed conduct of USHGA regulated and sanctioned aerotowing.
has the superficial APPEARANCE of being positive
