Discuss Tad here
Bob Kuczewski - 2020/05/25 01:23:26 UTC
Yesterday (2020/05/23), Tad posted this regarding the November 9th, 2014 Torrey incident:That's easy ...Tad Eareckson - 2020/05/23 21:19:19 UTC
You were shooting video of a routine beginning level paragliding class in which zero violations of anything - FAA regs; u$hPa SOPs; federal, state, county, city laws or ordinances; park rules - were being committed. Cite something as evidence to the contrary.
Insurance_Application_2014_12_07.png
I downloaded that document less than 30 days after the incident, and I believe it was in effect at the time of the incident.
I placed a few phone calls to Tad to ask that he correct his post before I posted this answer to his challenge. He did not answer any of those calls.
I placed those calls because I feel it's far better to have people making truthful and accurate postings in the first place than to have to discredit them later with the facts. Unfortunately, that's not under my control.
And as of today (2020/05/25) so far, Bob has done NOTHING to invalidate or discredit anything Tad's said regarding the 2014/11/09 Torrey incident.Yesterday (2020/05/23), Tad posted this regarding the November 9th, 2014 Torrey incident...
Not a tiny fraction as easy as you're portraying things.That's easy ...
- Insurance only covers non participants adversely affected by participants so I'm having a real hard time understanding why any of this is relevant already.Insurance_Application_2014_12_07.png
- Relevant crap text:
1. Each participant will wear safety equipment as required by the carrier (i.e., Helmets) whether required by State or local law or not.
2. All equipment will be inspected daily, prior to the commencement of activities. Equipment, which a reasonable and prudent person would consider damaged and worn, so as to create a potential hazard to life or health, will never be used in the activity.
On the books and enforced or just on the books? 'Cause u$hPa has never in the course of its entire history ever enforced anything with any actual legitimacy to it that they've had on the books. So believe anything you like 'cause none of it really matters in the least.I downloaded that document less than 30 days after the incident, and I believe it was in effect at the time of the incident.
- I don't think I was ever out of earshot of the phone for the duration of the relevant period and I don't think I saw anything on a Caller ID that had your fingerprint. If I'd recognized you I'd have answered.I placed a few phone calls to Tad to ask that he correct his post before I posted this answer to his challenge. He did not answer any of those calls.
- You never left a message.
- Just as well. The records are totally public and this way they stay that way.
- My post didn't and doesn't need any correcting. And when one does Steve and/or Brian just about always make the catches.
- You're gonna hafta work a lot harder than this to discredit me with the facts on this one. Probably wanna take the path of least resistance and discredit me with...I placed those calls because I feel it's far better to have people making truthful and accurate postings in the first place than to have to discredit them later with the facts.
...misrepresentations. That's your forte.Zack C - 2011/12/17 14:56:03 UTC
1. You continually misrepresent Tad's statements.
- How many phone calls to the White House do you usually place in the course of a usual evening? (And how have those bleach injections been working out for ya so far?)
Neither of us have much under our control, Bob. But what I have over here is a really good archive of all the dirt the Industry doesn't want anybody to see. And that counts for something. I don't know what you've got but it fer sure ain't an alternate hang gliding association which does a better job of empowering its membership than u$hPa does - after close to a decade of maintaining that pretense.Unfortunately, that's not under my control.
Yeah, let's do that. It's always so much fun carefully reading material written by sleazy pretentious semiliterate total morons.*** PLEASE READ EACH AND EVERY REQUIREMENT CAREFULLY ***
- Who the fuck is "the carrier" and where can we go to find out what he's actually requiring and what the justifications are?1. Each participant will wear safety equipment as required by the carrier (i.e., Helmets) whether required by State or local law or not.
-All equipment will be inspected daily, prior to the commencement of activities. Equipment, which a reasonable and prudent person would consider damaged and worn, so as to create a potential hazard to life or health, will never be used in the activity.
- Note the way we have "will" (twice) and "never" (once) underlined. The obvious intent is to convey a threat and demean the applicant. Get used to it punk who's here hopefully 'cause he finds himself attracted to this flavor of aviation. And let's note that at least 98 percent of the individuals who initial these are tandem thrill riders who are now even less likely to come within five miles of hang glider ever again.
- A literate individual would've used SHALL rather than "WILL".
- "i.e." is the abbreviation for the Latin "id est" which translates to "that is". So what that says is that the "Helmet" is the only wearable safety equipment. Full length pants, shoes, gloves, insulating clothing, sunglasses, harness, parachute, radio... None of that can be considered or defined as safety equipment. So none of it can be addressed in any incident reporting.
- This:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9opdU5W1w6s/TZNOpxUd6AI/AAAAAAAAA1g/oWULqc0Dcss/s1600/helmetfinished.jpg
is a Helmet. Show me the SOP, FAA or state government reg that says otherwise. And we can easily come up with scenarios and actual incident reports in which that would be our choice.
- This:
005-010207
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7723/16582999324_7b6bf71c74_o.png
is also a Helmet. The poor little kid can't even walk around the setup area without having to hold it with both hands to be able to see where he's going.
We're being forced to fly. We've gotta go either with a comparably fitting helmet or the cardboard and duct tape job above. How many of us are gonna go with "A"?
- What would a reasonable and prudent person would consider:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4174/34261733815_bfb41c49d8_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8394/8696380718_787dbc0005_o.png
Just how well does u$hPa tolerate reasonable and prudent people?
Yeah, you're gonna be doing tandem thrill rides at Crestline all freakin' day. So check those carabiners before the ten o'clock, make sure they're still crack free and properly locked, then you're good to go until a bit before sunset.All equipment will be inspected daily, prior to the commencement of activities.
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3107
I have a tandem rating!!!
We inspected the equipment that morning. Looked fine. And just to be extra safe and professional we inspected it again after landing. Still pristine. Plus we were both wearing Helmets - so what's the worst that could've possibly happened anyway?Lauren Tjaden - 2008/03/23 22:20:15 UTC
When Jim got me locked out to the right, I couldn't keep the pitch of the glider with one hand for more than a second (the pressure was a zillion pounds, more or less), but the F'ing release slid around when I tried to hit it. The barrel release wouldn't work because we had too much pressure on it.
Anyhow, the tandem can indeed perform big wingovers, as I demonstrated when I finally got separated from the tug.
OK, let's make it twenty days after the incident - 2014/11/29. Three years plus two months prior to that download u$hPa's official unofficial mouthpiece has flat out told anybody with an internet connection...I downloaded that document less than 30 days after the incident, and I believe it was in effect at the time of the incident.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting
...that NOTHING they do is based on any legitimate safety concern and that they will immediately shred any procedures that come their way the nanosecond they detect any hint of legitimacy. And four months minus two days after that download one of very conservative instructor Joe Greblo's...Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC
We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.
It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it. I would LOVE to not have to think that way, but every time a legal threat arises, it reminds me that we have a very dysfunctional legal system in this country (note: not a "justice" system...there's little justice involved) and we have to recognize that reality and deal with it.
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=811
FTHI
...Hang Five Tandem Instructor golden boys splatters himself and an eleven year old kid - both properly Helmeted - all over the floor of a wide open dry lakebed in nothing conditions. And the incident report that u$hPa has to publish but doesn't want anyone to read tells us that it was a counter clockwise circuit tow operation around the lake bed typical for pilots in the area using a typical hydraulic pressure controlled payout winch system, a two loop / four strand weak link typical for tandem surface tow operations, and a typical two string surface tow release system.Bob Kuczewski - 2011/10/25 06:28:43 UTC
Tad, Joe Greblo is a very conservative instructor, and he teaches a physical hook-in check just prior to launch. He does not mandate a lift and tug. If you go to Joe's web site (http://windsports.com) you can find contact information for him. Joe knows far more about hang gliding than I probably ever will. If you can convince him that he should be teaching "lift and tug" instead of "turn and check", then you'll get my vote of support.
But the truth is, you already have my vote of support for "lift and tug". I think anyone who feels that it's the safest choice in any circumstance should be free to use it. And if they don't feel it's the safest thing to do (in their opinion and in their circumstance), then I feel that's their choice as well. I think this is the place where we differ the most. You want the right to mandate what people should do according to what YOU think they should do. That's where we part company. You seem to want a "nanny state" where someone tells us what we can and can't do. I'm fundamentally opposed to that kind of tyranny ... regardless of how well-intentioned it might be.
And when you've gotten out of the safety business and into the risk management business it becomes vitally important for everybody to do and use what's most typical. So do we have any data to indicate that demonstrating paraglider kiting minus a helmet is the least bit atypical?
By the way... Where are the Bob Show Hang Gliding Association SOPs regarding helmet use? Me? I'd personally like them required for hang glider FLIGHT 'cause I think they do more good than harm and we're highly likely to swing head first into the keel on a not particularly serious crash but I wouldn't mandate them 'cause:
- everybody uses them anyway
- it's totally impossible to define what qualifies as a helmet and specify minimum standards
- the system ain't broke and doesn't need any fixing attempts anyway
(I would however make "tandem instruction" a felony punishable by a ten year minimum sentence for a first offense.)
Show me a frame from that video in which anybody's participating in paragliding minus a helmet.1. Each participant will wear safety equipment as required by the carrier (i.e., Helmets) whether required by State or local law or not.
I can identify three students plus one instructor. All of the students are wearing helmets while not clipped in to gliders. Gabe is clipped in, not wearing a helmet, demonstrating kiting, at no time coming close to getting airborne. And I'd submit he has no possibility of becoming airborne on flat ground in those conditions. (If you take the limit off of conditions a family of five can become airborne off of flat ground in a Chevy Malibu.) He's INSTRUCTING paraglider launch and control but neither u$hPa nor the FAA are gonna define that as participating in paragliding.
I didn't get to count all the strong wind ground handling and launch prep on the Jockey's Ridge dunes towards my Hang Three airtime requirement. (Fuckin' douchebag Mark Airey didn't think I should be allowed to count my dune soaring airtime towards my Three.) You can easily get fully airborne on a windsurfer if you know what you're doing. In kiteboarding WITHOUT knowing what you're doing you can easily go fully airborne and get carried inland and fatally dropped. But this isn't considered participating in aviation by anyone.
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1629
Jailed for taking pictures at Torrey
Bob Kuczewski - 2020/05/25 00:42:44 UTC
A bit more to come.
