The Bob Show

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=923
New Year's Resolutions

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/01 19:10:27 UTC

I've made two New Year's resolutions this year. One of them is directly related to hang gliding and the other is directly related to giving me more time for hang gliding.

[Resolution #1 - I'd like to publish an on-line hang gliding training manual based on videos and animations. By now, the web is full of great hang gliding videos and I think the US Hawks training manual should use those resources in its official training manual. I'll be creating a new subforum for people who want to participate in that project.

Resolution #2 - In support of Resolution #1 I won't be watching any television in 2012. I didn't have a television from 2004 through 2010 and that freed up a tremendous amount of time for flying and other projects. Throughout 2011 I began watching television again, and my productivity suffered considerably. I'm sorry for all the newsletters and pilot profiles that I could have published instead of watching flickering images on a screen. I'll try to do better in 2012.

If anyone else has any 2012 resolutions, please feel free to publish them here. We'll check back next year to see how everyone has done!!

Happy New Year US Hawks!!

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/02 06:13:47 UTC

In support of Resolution #1 (above) I've created a new forum for the US Hawks Hang Gliding Training Manual Project. It should be visible to all Approved Users, but I am currently granting posting rights based on requests. If you would like to help out with the Training Manual. Please post here or contact me directly (email, PM, phone, or in person). All help is welcome, but we do want to keep that project on topic. Also, in the interest of organizing the Manual, I may move posts or duplicate posts as the chapters of the manual change. This is a case where we're using a forum for a task that it's not really designed to handle. We'll see how it works.

Here are some ideas on how you can help with the manual:

1. Suggest an outline.
2. Find and post links to media (videos, photos, animations) that would be helpful to student pilots.
3. Volunteer to help with writing.
4. Volunteer to help with our custom media (when we can't find anything else available).

What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA?

You will ... hopefully. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Everyone has to do their part once in a while. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

Will the US Hawks try to replace USHPA or the HGAA?

No. I started the HGAA because I wanted pilots to have choices. Eliminating USHPA (or the HGAA) would reduce our choices and that's never been my goal. Pilots who like USHPA should have USHPA. Pilots who like the HGAA should have the HGAA. And pilots who like the US Hawks should have the US Hawks. As I said when founding the HGAA, more choices gives us a better chance of each pilot finding an organization that they like. Hopefully those organizations (USHPA, HGAA, US Hawks) will all work together to make our sport better. They each appeal to different kinds of pilots and that's likely to give us more total pilots participating in our national organizations. Win. Win. Win. I hope the US Hawks' relationships with USHPA and the HGAA will be positive.

How will the US Hawks try to be different from USHPA or the HGAA?

The US Hawks will try to be more of a grass roots organization - more like the start of hang gliding. There's nothing wrong with the strong central control exhibited by other organizations, but the US Hawks will appeal to pilots who want more local control and greater personal participation in decision making. We believe that good decisions sometimes require a significant effort to dig into the facts. Sometimes arguments are heated, and that's not something to be feared or rejected. That's the process - painful or not - that leads to better decisions.

I'll be creating a new subforum for people who want to participate in that project.

No you won't.

In support of Resolution #1 (above) I've created a new forum for the US Hawks Hang Gliding Training Manual Project. It should be visible to all Approved Users, but I am currently granting posting rights based on requests.

You'll be creating a new subforum for a handpicked cabal of people you ALLOW to participate which *SHOULD BE* VISIBLE to all APPROVED Users - a larger, less exclusive cabal of people you'll ALLOW the PRIVILEGE of seeing the discussion.

All help is welcome...

I'm sorry, didn't you just finish saying that help is only welcome from the people to whom you've granted posting privileges after begging you for permission and that the discussion won't even be visible to anyone who isn't an Approved User? This is MOST confusing.

...but we do want to keep that project on topic.

1. Who the fuck is "we", Bob? Just kidding.

2. What "off topic" directions are you anticipating that project being taken? Discussions about cats? I wouldn't worry too much about that, Bob. You're only letting people you handpick for your special cabal into the discussion and won't hesitate to kick back out of it anyone who disagrees with you whenever you freakin' feel like it.

We'll see how it works.

We already know EXACTLY how it's gonna work. It's gonna work to give you the precise results you already have in mind - nothing more, nothing less. That wouldn't necessarily be a catastrophic game plan - if you had half a clue what the fuck you were doing or talking about - which you don't.

What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA?

You will ... hopefully.

Hopefully? Not a snowball's chance in hell. The Bob Show was dead before it ever got started.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The price of fighting slimeball bastards like USHGA, Davis, Jack, and you for freedom is ostracism and exile. But that's OK, ostracized and exiled people tend to be a lot more dangerous than folk who've got stuff to lose.

Everyone has to do their part once in a while.

But not too much or too often, right Bob?

If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out.

And whenever Lord Bob feels like doing something incorrectly he'll shut and lock the door so you CAN'T see it until after it's a done deal. But that's OK, Bob...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=884
The Bob Show

Warren Narron - 2011/12/13 02:41:40 UTC

Tad, you are a train wreck and I've been to a few.
Your Davis Straub banning was more like being shot in the back by a dirty cop while Bob's action isn't even a banning.
So apples and oranges.

Pretty much, not the same.

Tad Eareckson - 2011/12/13 03:26:05 UTC

1. I've been a train wreck for just about all of my life. I didn't notice any special rules for train wrecks when I signed up.

2. How come train wrecks all the sudden get third class citizenship but total shitheads are still as free as they've always been to roam the US Hawks prairies?

3. Nah, Bob's a lot more subtle. First he'll spend a little time and effort framing me and setting me up to make things look legitimate - THEN he'll shoot me while I was "lunging at him with a knife" (which no one can quite remember me owning) during the attempted arrest. Then he'll bring Rooney in here to describe to everyone how he and his colleagues brought aerotowing to its present state of perfection and explain the hitherto undisclosed benefits of bent pin releases and 130 pound Greenspot safety enhancers. And Sam will post a nine square inch welcome so flooded with little clappers and thumbuppers that everyone will need a welder's helmet to read it.

You're so transparent and predictable that walls, doors, and lead shielding won't make any difference whatsoever.

Will the US Hawks try to replace USHPA or the HGAA?

No. I started the HGAA because I wanted pilots to have choices.

Yeah. Yours.

I hope the US Hawks' relationships with USHPA and the HGAA will be positive.

Not a doubt in my mind.

There's nothing wrong with the strong central control exhibited by other organizations, but the US Hawks will appeal to pilots who want more local control and greater personal participation in decision making.

Yeah. Yours.

We believe that good decisions sometimes require a significant effort to dig into the facts.

It should be visible to all Approved Users...

1. No shit.
2. Yeah Bob - "WE".

Sometimes arguments are heated, and that's not something to be feared or rejected.

Right up to the point at which which it's starting to become obvious to people that your position is disintegrating. Then it's time for lock buttons, bannings, invitation-only committees, and closed door sessions.

That's the process - painful or not - that leads to better decisions.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Nobody - 2012/01/07 06:17:18 UTC

Bob's not looking for the best candidate, he's looking for the most agreeable candidates.

Bob's not looking for better decisions, he's looking for decisions totally compatible with his positions.

Hey Bob...

This is a fucking online TRAINING MANUAL we're talking about. This isn't even rating requirements or SOPs. Just how nuts on secrecy, closed door sessions, and cabals are you planning on going for more substantive stuff?

Do yourself, hang gliding, my nephew, and the planet in general a big favor and watch a lot of television.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Warren Narron - 2012/01/06 18:55:32 UTC

Going against the grain here, but someone has to point out that the probable best candidate to write a training manual has been banned from this site.

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/07 17:59:55 UTC

Tad has been asked repeatedly to help with building the US Hawks and he's pretty much refused to participate.

Fuck you, Bob.

- You "PRETTY MUCH" totally banned Tad from any participation whatsoever.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=805
Aerotowing Guidelines

Bill Cummings - 2011/10/26 11:06:32 UTC

Very fine effort Tad.

- How many times and for how many months were you repeatedly asked to read the aerotowing SOPs and Guidelines I wrote for USHGA?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=802
AL's Second flight at Packsaddle how it went

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/10/23 16:29:29 UTC

As for Nobody's request for me to read a document, I haven't found the time yet. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read everything that everyone asks me to read.

And how many times did you ignore those requests and tell us that it wasn't worth your time?

3. What the hell have you ever done to get any documentation down other than write a shitload of noble sounding mission statement points? Which you violated the crap out of as soon as they started becoming inconvenient.

If you see something he's written that's particularly helpful, please post it.

Yeah...

With most flights, should demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in sometime prior to launch.

...it should be real easy for you to go in and change all the requirements to recommendations.

I have no problem giving attribution to Tad or his work. You can communicate with him through his forum at http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/.

Provided, of course, you're not a person of a varying age.

I'm not trying to "erase" Tad, but I am trying to protect the US Hawks from the destructive aspects of his personality.

1. In keeping with the precedent established...

No posts or links about Bob K or Scott C Wise, or their material. ALL SUCH POSTS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED. Those two are poison to this sport and are permanently banned from this site in every possible way imaginable.

...by your ol' buddy Jack.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/02/23 04:01:36 UTC

I don't believe we should be building a "nanny state" where one group imposes their view of what is safe for everyone else.

2. You're so full of shit that if you fell overboard on a cruise to Liverpool the entire North Atlantic would be choked by an algal bloom within a week.

3. Whether anybody wanted to be protected from the destructive aspects of Tad's personality or not.

4. US Hawks is ONE PERSON. And one person with no principles. And since its founding it hasn't moved a millimeter towards becoming anything else.

Nobody - 2012/01/07 06:17:18 UTC

Bob's not looking for the best candidate, he's looking for the most agreeable candidates.

I'm looking for people who can work together to build an on-line training manual for hang gliding.

1. Oops. You slipped into first person singular again. Better watch out for that.
2. Who can work together out of public view.

Yes, that does require a certain amount of agreeability and willingness to compromise.

Yeah, Bob. That's exactly how the FAA came out with its Glider Flying Handbook. By allowing any agreeable halfwitted shithead to volunteer his opinion and reach a compromise regarding the cause(s) of adverse yaw and how best to compensate.

The only Training Manual that Tad can build is the one where he has 100% control.

Bullshit. Aviation is based entirely on physics, physics is pretty much the same from one galaxy to the next, you get different groups of people capable of understanding physics together and the training manuals are all gonna look the some. In 1942 a Japanese navy pilot landed on a carrier deck the same way as did a US navy pilot.

And in hang gliding the dozen or so people who understand towing and the hook-in check issues are all on the same pages. The trick is to get the people with the brains on the committee and to keep your run of the mill Bob Show assholes off of it.

I hope he does that at http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/, and we'll be happy to reference his work.

1. What about your deep overriding concern for people of varying ages? Maybe you should put warnings up for people of varying ages along with every reference. But... you know how people of varying ages tend to react to such warnings. That could backfire and actually encourage them to visit Kite Strings! What to do... What to do...

2. You reference whatever the fuck you want. But you and your pretense of an organization are in my crosshairs - and nothing's ever gonna change that.

Also note that I've created the Training Manual Forum as a place for working on the Training Manual. This could have been done outside of the US Hawks forum by personal collaboration or email or by many other means. But I wanted lots of people to be able to see what we're doing and offer comments, so I decided to make it a public part of the US Hawks Forum.

1. I can't see it.

2. What are you gonna do to somebody who copies the posts and pastes them some place at which lots MORE people are able to see what you and your handpicked assholes are doing?

On the other hand, working on a training manual will require a coordinated effort by several dedicated people.

Fuck dedicated people. Sam Kellner and Jim Gaar are dedicated to any and all of Rooney's lunatic babblings. The people who want to teach intelligent design in science classrooms are dedicated as hell. The problem is they're all incompetent idiots. You need people who are better than dedicated and totally unwilling to compromise with the agreeable morons you have on your team.

The actual writing process is not helped by allowing people to derail the discussions.

1. You mean the way you derailed my effort to successfully implement USHGA's thirty year old hook-in check requirement with this:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=822
US Hawks Hook-In Verification Poll

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/04 04:41:45 UTC

This issue has been discussed at great length in many other topics, so I'd like to start collecting everyone's thoughts in one place. I'd also like to start building a solid consensus on what the US Hawks hook-in verification policy should be. I suspect this will require a series of proposals, discussions, and votes. So I'd like to start with one proposal that's been brought to us by Tad. Here's the proposition:

The US Hawks should:
A - Require ALL pilots to launch with a tight hang strap in ALL conditions.
B - Recommend launching with a tight hang strap, but leave it to the pilot's decision whether it's safe to do so in any conditions.

lying bullshit?

2. The crap that's gonna start emerging from any group of assholes you're gonna put together will need derailing in the worst way.

So that's why the Training Manual Forum is limited to posting by people who've explicitly stated they want to work cooperatively on that project.

Right. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. Just not when we're establishing critical policy issues. Then it's your duty to shut the fuck up and just get along with whichever way the shit seems to be flowing at the moment.

One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

In its time and place of course. But definitely not when anything of substance is being done.

With that thought in mind, it would be good to have a topic where anyone can comment or contribute without being a member of the Training Manual Team.

Without being ALLOWED to be a member of YOUR Training Manual Team.

This topic is specifically for that purpose. Please feel free to post your own (or even someone else's) comments or contributions to this forum any time.

Thanks.

And THANK YOU for telling people they are FREE to post on a thread where your arbitrarily selected team members - who have ZERO accountability to the membership - can more easily ignore the comments of the membership. And thank you for allowing the membership the illusion that their comments will have some bearing on the way you've already decided things are gonna be structured.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Nobody - 2012/01/10 06:12:05 UTC

http://www.kitestrings.org/topic33-50.html

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/10 14:04:59 UTC

Nobody,

Tad's procedures for aerotowing should become part of any training manual.
Tad must have put hour upon hour of gathering together his written procedure.
I come very close to total agreement with Tad's procedure and we are not far apart on weaklink strength.
The page your link brought me to had much of the same prattle back and forth between Bob and Tad that fell short of anything I would call a productive learning experience for new pilots in search of information.
A direct link to the towing procedure alone would, in my opinion, have been a greater service to pilots.

Tad's procedures for aerotowing should become part of any training manual.

They coulda been. If the fuckin' USHGA Towing Committee had just adopted them at the BOD meeting in early spring of 2009 - instead of not even bothering to look at them - this coulda been a slightly different world.

Tad must have put hour upon hour...

HOUR upon HOUR? Try week upon week. And that was after spending year upon year (arguably decade upon decade) on unlearning all the crap and really understanding the issues.

I come very close to total agreement with Tad's procedure and we are not far apart on weaklink strength.

Nah, you couldn't POSSIBLY be.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/07 17:59:55 UTC

The only Training Manual that Tad can build is the one where he has 100% control.

See? Bob says you couldn't.

We were close freakin' enough. A tenth of a G isn't anything I'm gonna lose much sleep over.

The page your link brought me to had much of the same prattle back and forth between Bob and Tad that fell short of anything I would call a productive learning experience for new pilots in search of information.

1. Bob wanted a war - Bob got a war. (Just not the one he expected to win hands down in half an hour or so - one that's gonna last the rest of his life that he's never gonna win.)

2. Maybe what new pilots really need to learn is that hang gliding isn't based on the kind of physics they need to keep them alive - it's based on the political positions of people like Bob.

3. New pilots very obviously don't search out good information on websites. If they did the Dynamic Flight school's articles on lockouts and weak links would've sunk in over a decade ago. New pilots go to Flight Park Mafia operations, worship and imprint on the skygod assholes with whom they come in contact, swallow every gram of shit they're spoon fed, and become virtually impossible to rewire properly - with the absolute minimal exceptions of the few analytically thinking individuals willing to go to the effort of running the numbers themselves.

A direct link to the towing procedure alone would, in my opinion, have been a greater service to pilots.

He did that already.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=805
Aerotowing Guidelines

Nobody - 2011/10/19 07:07:31 UTC

http://energykitesystems.net/Lift/hgh/TadEareckson/ATGuidelines.pdf

Can anyone here point out any discrepancy in this document?

Nobody - 2011/10/20 03:42:24 UTC

Bob,

Do you find any discrepancy in this document?

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/04 04:05:04 UTC

I'm sorry, but I still haven't had time to read it.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=802
AL's Second flight at Packsaddle how it went

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/10/23 16:29:29 UTC

As for Nobody's request for me to read a document, I haven't found the time yet. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read everything that everyone asks me to read.

The problems are that...
- Bob has zero interest in these issues
- his vote is the only one that actually counts for anything on The Bob Show
- you're probably the only one who actually READ the referenced document
- and the REASON you actually read the document is 'cause you're one of the:
-- few remaining dinosaurs in this sport who's been around long enough to understand that things weren't always done the way they are now
-- pioneers of modern towing who experimented and implemented procedures and equipment

And whether or not the procedures and equipment you implemented were all solid you at least understand that equipment and procedures were implemented by fairly normal fallible humans and not handed down from God on High and thus should be open to scrutiny and rethinking once every ten years or so.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=903
The hole in Tx's arm where all the $$ goes

Pilgrim - 2012/01/11 22:21:18 UTC

For all those who hate Pack and longed for its demise...Great News! Pack is no more! Our country has one less meaningless foot launch hg/pg site to deal with. HOOOORAYYY

[bobk]

Bob wanted a war - Bob got a war. (Just not the one he expected to win hands down in half an hour or so - one that's gonna last the rest of his life that he's never gonna win.)

I just caught you in another lie, Tad. I can't tell if you're lying intentionally, or out of ignorance, or out of self-delusion. But you're lying just the same in that statement because I never wanted "a war" with you. Anyone who reads the totality of our postings to each other will know that I reached out to you and tried to bring you into our organization as a valued member. So you're lying to say that I wanted "a war" with you.

Tad, you've implied that you're going to be "at war" with me for the rest of my life. If that's the kind of sick threats you're going to make to someone who tried to help you, then I'll let that stand as a warning to anyone else who tries to reach out to you. Beware.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 05:23:01 UTC

Nobody,

There's nothing in your post that contributes to our training manual.

1. That's your opinion, Bob.

2. And, while we're on the subject, I'm not seeing anything happening with The Bob Show that's contributing to your training manual - 'cept, of course, Bill's unqualified endorsement of my aerotow SOPs and Guidelines (which you still haven't read).

3. And, even if you didn't have the by-invitation-only discussion on the training manual walled off so people not on your approved list can't see it, I still doubt I'd been seeing anything.

If you'd like to make a concrete suggestion, then please make a statement. Thanks.

I think he's doing fine as it is.

With regard to your off-topic link, here's the line that reveals Tad's misperceptions about the universe:

Tad on KiteStrings wrote:

Bob wanted a war - Bob got a war. (Just not the one he expected to win hands down in half an hour or so - one that's gonna last the rest of his life that he's never gonna win.)

Tad is wrong right there. I never wanted a war.

1. Neither did Custer. He wanted everything to go HIS way.
2. What about the predictions?

I wanted a forum where everyone treated everyone else with some level of respect...

1. Then you should have included that in the mission statement and eliminated all the crap about free speech and one's duty to speak out when he sees things being done incorrectly - and I'd have known from the start that the effort was gonna be a counterproductive waste of time.

2. Anyway... I'm totally cool with treating everyone with the level of respect he deserves. Just don't assume that level is necessarily gonna be in the black.

...while working toward finding out the best way to build and organize a national hang gliding association to support the sport that we all cherish.

1. I don't need to work towards finding that out. Hell, Kite Strings is an INTERNATIONAL association supporting hang gliding. It may be very very small but it's moving things in the right direction - and accomplishing more than The Bob Show ever will.

2. The sport you cherish bears very little semblance to the one I cherish.

That's what I've been trying to do for the last year and a half with the US Hawks.

Yeah? And what have you accomplished?

Tad was welcomed into that organization with open arms.

And then sabotaged, undercut, discriminated against, and kicked out of it on the whim of its dictator.

But step by step he shot himself in the foot while constantly attacking many of the people working to build this organization.

1. Exactly how "MANY" people do you have "working" to build that (your) organization?

2. It's not an "ORGANIZATION" - it's a dictatorship. It started as one and continues to be nothing more to this day.

3. I can give you a pretty good percentage of both the people whose names appear on the list and the people who actually participated in discussions that I wasn't attacking - EVER.

4. My foot's doing just fine, thank you.

"Nobody" seems to be following in his footsteps.

1. He's not following in TAD'S footsteps - he's following in Wilbur and Orville's footsteps. Anybody who bothers to run the numbers in any branch of aviation will end up on the same/right page - and know who deserves respect and who deserves to be cut to ribbons.

2. So how long will it be before you run a scientific experiment to find out how restricting him to The Basement for "about a month" benefits Bob Show participation levels?

...I never wanted "a war" with you.

OK then... You just really suck at understanding the whole cause/effect thing.

Anyone who reads the totality of our postings to each other will know that I reached out to you and tried to bring you into our organization as a valued member.

"OUR" organization?

So you're lying to say that I wanted "a war" with you.

You really oughta avoid talking about how other people are lying.

Tad, you've implied that you're going to be "at war" with me for the rest of my life.

Implied?

If that's the kind of sick threats...

Threat?

...you're going to make to someone who tried to help you...

1. "Help" me?

2. You (still) seem to be laboring under the misconception that I came to The Bob Show crying out for help. I DID *MY* homework. I figured out which way was up mostly by myself by running the numbers. I came to The Bob Show to GIVE it the benefit of my decades worth of work, research, and experience.

...then I'll let that stand as a warning to anyone else who tries to reach out to you. Beware.

1. Fuck reaching out to me. Kite Strings isn't about people coming here to reach out to me. Read the mission statement:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post2.html#p2

That's working. Stick with the numbers, don't even think about trying to reach out to me, nobody gets hurt.

2. I don't think you're frightening off too many participants or people of varying ages here.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1
Hello US Hawks!!

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/06 17:29:44 UTC

I was thinking that I could share some pointers about water towing. Maybe they could be of use in the training manual.

Maybe the person actually typing up the training manual might see something worth passing along to pilots that haven't yet had the opportunity to blunder down the wrong path yet like I had years ago.

Things like: Once a glider has upset in the lake and is only showing its floats above the surface there is only one way to right the glider when a wind is blowing.

Another thing: While waiting for the boat to return to the glider after it has landed in the lake, and while being blown backwards, the pilot must move him/herself toward the low wing to raise it. Sounds just backwards or like I just made a typo doesn't it? But there is a good reason for this that once explained will (hopefully) make sense.

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/07 19:00:36 UTC

Training Manual Ideas

I was thinking that I could share some pointers about water towing. Maybe they could be of use in the training manual.

That would be excellent Bill!!

I've added you to the Training Manual group which gives you the ability to post in that forum. Please start a topic on water towing and start writing!!

So Bob... What qualifies YOU to qualify Bill to participate in the Training Manual group with respect to this field?

Maybe the person actually typing up the training manual might see something worth passing along to pilots that haven't yet had the opportunity to blunder down the wrong path yet like I had years ago.

I've created this topic in the general forum so people can post Comments and Contributions without actually being part of the writing team. So if anyone has anything they'd like to contribute without actually being a member of the authoring team, then this is a good place to put it.

Thanks!!

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Nobody - 2012/01/13 06:17:21 UTC

So if anyone has anything they'd like to contribute without actually being a member of the authoring team, then this is a good place to put it.

Anyone? You are insane Bob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 06:18:12 UTC

Oops, I wanted to add one more comment to Tad's quote (referenced by "Nobody"):

Tad on KiteStrings wrote:

Bob wanted a war - Bob got a war. (Just not the one he expected to win hands down in half an hour or so - one that's gonna last the rest of his life that he's never gonna win.)

That's why Tad is a dangerous person.

Thank you!

I reached out to him and he's now implying that he's going to be at war with me the rest of my life?

Maybe just for rest of MY life - I'll probably go first. Or maybe I'll get Alzheimer's and no longer be able to recognize you for what you are.

That's bordering on a personal threat.

1. Yeah? So what's this:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=884
The Bob Show

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/13 05:55:39 UTC

This has not been easy or fun. This has been a sad realization for me that some people are so pathological that they cannot interact reasonably with others. That's why so many societies have jails (or death penalties). At some point, they've realized that the costs of interacting with pathological people is too high to be paid. We're reaching that point.

2. There are all kinds of wars, Bob.

3. And I most certainly don't want you to die in this one. You're your own worst enemy. You can do WAY more damage to yourself and your "organization" than I could hope for working without you.

After all, "war" usually means killing people and destroying their property.

How 'bout wars on drunk driving, poverty, cancer, ignorance, discrimination, pollution?

Is that the best analogy that Tad can come up with?

Yeah.

Now, I've had long and sometimes bitter disagreements with people. But I never threaten to be at "war" with them for the rest of their lives.

Nah. You just cut their microphones and permanently exile them.

In fact, I always try to be very specific about what I feel they're doing wrong and how they can change it. For example:

- David Jebb should provide written reasons for banning people from Torrey Pines.
- USHPA should publish the voting records of all Directors on their Board.
- Jack Axaopoulos should return the TorreyHawksForum.org site to our club.

- Quest Air should use weak links on their tugs heavier than the ones on the gliders they're pulling.
- Lockout Mountain Flight Park should sell aerotow releases that work at least three out of four times.
- Highland Aerosports should use straighter pins for their barrel releases.
- USHGA should specify minimum weak link ratings.
- Steve Wendt should adhere to the requirement for hook-in checks before signing students off on their Threes.
- The Bob Show should really honor the free speech of its members.

Those are all clear and constructive statements regarding what I think needs to be done.

Yeah Bob. And just how much good have those clear and constructive statements regarding what you think needs to be done accomplished?

Unfortunately, that's not what Tad does when he writes.

Right. When Tad watches the complete and utter failure of reasonable rational approaches to problems for decade after decade he stops fucking around with assholes and goes for the head shot.

He's not trying to correct a specific problem. Instead, he's out to trash or destroy people for his own personal reasons.

And you're STILL stupid enough to believe that these are mutually exclusive activities?

"Nobody", do you understand this difference?

"Nobody" understands that in this and many similar situations there IS NO difference.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 06:22:38 UTC

Nobody - 2012/01/13 06:17:21 UTC

Anyone? You are insane Bob.

For the record Nobody, is this your best comment or contribution to an on-line training manual?

Yeah, I think it really hits the nail on the head. Goes right to the heart of the problem.

I ask so everyone on this forum will come to know you just a tad bit better. Your comments (like "You are insane Bob") give ample justification for restricting the Training Manual forum to invited people only.

1. Of course it does, Bob.

2. Lemme help you with that sentence to more accurately represent what's going on...

Your comments (like "You are insane Bob") give ample justification for me restricting the Training Manual forum to people I've decided to invite.

Finally, your comment above is a clear personal attack.

No, it's actually a statement of fact. And there's more than ample well documented evidence to support it.

I do allow personal attacks on this forum by people who are willing to give their real identities.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=756
Discussion with Tad about Towing / Foot Launch

Pilgrim - 2011/08/12 12:15:45 UTC

I think this pretty much sums things up. What kind of person thinks like this? Absolutely no one I would ever respect, honor or have anything to do with. What a looser. This attitude alone undoes every single thing that guy ever tried to do that was worh while. So what do you have left? Worthlessness with worthless advice. Un f'_cking believable.

Pilgrim

PS: I apologize in advance to the other folks on this site for the 14 page rant that is to come trying to rationalize this unbelievable statement. Good luck because I will not be buying that crap. HHPA was right on to dump this guy. He ain't no good for anything but screwing the pooch.

But if they're attacking Tad it's perfectly OK for them to remain completely anonymous.

So far, I haven't seen you post your actual identity. I am therefore asking you to post your true identity or you will be restricted to the "Free Speech Zone".

Thanks in advance.

That's funny, Bob. Kite Strings hasn't found the need to do anything like that yet - despite the fact that it doesn't advertise itself as a free speech zone for anyone who feels like signing up.

Nobody - 2012/01/13 06:31:22 UTC

http://energykitesystems.net/Lift/hgh/TadEareckson/ATGuidelines.pdf

Have you ever written anything like this Bob?

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 06:37:10 UTC

Again "Nobody", since you've decided to make a personal attack, I am asking you to post your unambiguous identity so that you are personally responsible for your comments. Please comply or you will be limited to the "Free Speech Zone" in the morning.

Thanks again.

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 06:41:31 UTC

Have you ever written anything like this Bob?

I've been working as a professional engineer since 1983. What do you think?

1. How can you (pretend to) answer the question without having read the document?
2. So I guess we can take that as a no.

Again, "Nobody", I would like your unambiguous identification or you will be restricted to the "Free Speech Zone". Thanks in advance.

Nobody - 2012/01/13 06:54:35 UTC

What do you think?

I think you are insane. I already said that. Try to keep up here Bob.

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 07:04:03 UTC

There are people on this forum who know a lot about me. Now they know a lot about you.

Sam chose to ban you from the SWTHG forum while I hoped you would become a contributing member of this forum. My respect for Sam's instinct is going up with every post you make!!! Good Job Sam!!!

YEAH!!! The Bob and Sam Shows!!! Banning their ways to better tomorrows!

I've heard it said that insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results.

I'll bet you hear that pretty frequently. How come it never seems to sink in?

Please provide an unambiguous identity by morning (8am PST) or I'll be restricting you to the "Free Speech Forum". Watch and see if I learn from Sam's wisdom.

Dude! And immediately upon my first contact with Sam I didn't think anything with a more sophisticated central nervous system than a mushroom could learn anything from his wisdom.

Nobody - 2012/01/13 07:43:19 UTC

Funny, I thought this was the "US Hawks Association". NOW it's just a "FORUM" like the Davis and Jack Shows, you can spit off anyone you choose. Tomorrow it will be an Association again.

Nobody - 2012/01/13 08:00:03 UTC

Sam's wisdom

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=933
fu** you Bob!

Nobody - 2012/01/13 09:55:22 UTC

Is that clear enough for you to understand?

miguel - 2012/01/13 15:36:55 UTC

That says a lot about your upbringing.

Nah. That says a lot about his ability to identify root problems.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 16:17:18 UTC

The person who has registered as "Nobody" has been restricted to the Free Speech Zone for failing to identify themselves after making personal attacks against members of this forum.

1. THE PERSON has been restricted for failing to identify THEMSELVES? What, has he got multiple personality issues?

2. HAS BEEN restricted? YOU restricted him.

3. Is it OK for anonymous members to make personal attacks against assholes who AREN'T members of this forum?

4. What happens if one of those assholes BECOMES a member of this forum?

- Will the anonymous member be given a choice between revealing his name, rank, and serial number and being restricted to The Basement?

- Will posts deemed to be problematic be removed from the threads and consolidated in The Basement?

- If I'm being personally attacked and I register on The Bob Show for the sole purpose of stifling the personal attacks is there a time frame in which my issues must be addressed?

5. Your latest membership list has 76 names on it. And only a small fraction of those individuals can be considered anything like actual participants in discussions of any kind. And now you've restricted or banned two of them - both thirty year pilots. And you expect to build a hang gliding organization to rival USHGA?

Here are some quotes and links to the applicable policies:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=143
US Hawks Web Site Attacked?

2010/12/03 06:54:09 UTC

bobk wrote:

EXACTLY - bobk wrote. They didn't come about as any pretense of a consensus whatsoever.

One of the things that generally keeps people from being too obnoxious is knowing that other people know who they really are.

Really? Never seemed to have any effect on me.

That's the problem with allowing anonymous postings - the feedback mechanism is broken.

Got any DATA to support that ASSUMPTION?

So I've decided that anonymous postings will only be allowed in certain areas of the forum. That gives anonymous people a place to speak their mind while not allowing them to over-run the forum with spam.

Oh! So if an anonymous person speaks his mind it's SPAM. But when an asshole like you or your buddy Sam babbles whatever floats through his head it's sacred and protected free speech.

I think that's a nice compromise...

Well that's just peachy!

...but we can always change it if there's a problem.

"WE" can always change it if there's a problem? Who's "WE", Bob? Just kidding.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1
Hello US Hawks!!

2011/02/11 19:22:14 UTC

bobk wrote:
We allow everyone to speak. Our only requirement is that any attacks have to come from people who are willing to give their real identity. I respect anyone who's willing to stand publicly behind what they write, and I have very little respect for people who take pot shots under anonymous identities.

1. ...we...our...I...I...

2. I'm actually less concerned about the identity of the person saying something than the substance, validity, and honesty of what he's saying. And you got shit in those departments.

Note: The banning of Tad does violate this policy. When the policy was written, I did not anticipate the threat that could be brought to the forum (and the association) by allowing minors to communicate with known child molesters.

1. The threat that COULD BE brought? So there's never the slightest pretense of evidence that any threat WAS being brought?

2. Oh! Until one turns eighteen, Lord Bob gets to determine who's ALLOWED to communicate with whom.

3. Known child molesters? Fuck you, Bob.

4. But you're gonna allow anyone who wants to register and participate anonymously - like Pilgrim fer instance - as long as he doesn't personally attack anyone on the privileged list he communicate with whomever he feels like.

5. How come you don't give a flying fuck about who's ALLOWED to communicate with whom AFTER his eighteenth birthday? Is there some science on that issue?

6. You perfectly OK with some innocent little twelve year old hang glider pilot having a private correspondence with Sam "Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in" Kellner? Just kidding.

7. Anything else you didn't anticipate - asshole?

I am still struggling with how to integrate the goals of free speech with the reality of child predators on the internet.

OH MY GOD!!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!

The reality is that child predators on the internet is - like failed hang straps and people getting dumped out of gliders 'cause their carabiners weren't locked - a bogus issue. It's used by assholes like you to distract attention away from REAL issues.

The reality is that that what's REALLY dangerous to kids on the internet is other kids on the internet. Other kids who use it as a weapon to bully, humiliate, out, and ostracize. (Kinda like assholes like you try to do to me.)

The reality is that children participating on hang gliding forums are nonexistent.

The reality is that - BY FAR the biggest threat that the half dozen people of varying ages in the world participating in hang gliding have coming at them is hang gliding. For example, over the course of the past three months the reported number hang glider pilots of varying ages killed by hang gliding has been one and the reported number of hang glider pilots of varying ages killed child predators on the internet has been zero.

The reality is that we still have no freakin' idea how or why the hang glider pilot of a varying age was killed.

The reality is that you only pretend to give a rat's ass about free speech issues and - because you pretend to - you're one of the biggest threats to them I've ever encountered in hang gliding.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Yeah. Fuck you, Bob. Get your own shit in perfect order before you start trying to overhaul other people's lives.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=930
Extreme Hang Glider Whip Stall

Nobody - 2012/01/08 05:45:47 UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsIkAOeJ0I

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/13 04:59:59 UTC

WOW!!

Thanks for that post!!

That it, Bob?

This guy, for the purpose of the exercise, was killed - but good. And that's all yo have to say?

And this is the first you've ever heard of it? Over sixteen hundred hits on The Davis Show and another six hundred plus on Jack, Hawks and Strings guys heavily involved in both discussions, and you couldn't even be bothered to look? Once?

Well, I guess you're way too busy still struggling with how to integrate the goals of free speech with the reality of child predators on the internet.

How's that coming along anyway? Got things pretty well under control yet?

Guess so... Zero reported incidents of children being victimized on The Bob Show since you banned Tad a month ago. Can't argue with that kind of success. GREAT JOB!!!

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/13 06:03:11 UTC

Regardless of what anyone says. The weaklink set the pilot up for that or could have.

Huh?

(maybe the rope broke or the release let go.)

Did you even bother to read the uploader comments? (Rhetorical question.)

My weaklinks would never put me into a hammerhead stall like that.

Really? Can we get some G ratings on your weak links so we too will have the magic formula for using weak links to prevent hammerhead stalls?

A two "G" might just be enough to cause this.

1. Is there any chance of a ONE G weak link causing this? Has anyone ever died in a stall upon one G's worth of tension suddenly being blown?

The pilot was climbing way too fast.

Yeah, I don't think there's a whole lot of controversy on this issue. Did you pick up on the fact that the under towline leg was pulling forward on the basetube from the get-go?

A weaklink will protect me from a tow operator like the one on the other end of the line shown in this video.

Really?
- How many Gs?
- At what point in that tow would one of your weak links protected you from that tow operator?
- So why won't your release allow you to make the call?
- Oh right... Your releases are always locked up with frozen slush so you just radio your driver to hit the gas and blow your weak link.

If I conduct every second of every tow flight as though the tow vehicle could fail, the rope could break, the release acts prematurely, the tow driver releases that end, ---that is all I will ever need.

Yeah. You're POSITIVE about that. You're POSITIVE that you will never have an issue with tow system mechanics, a driver, something happening with the air, or some combination of the aforementioned hitting around the time that your towline tension suddenly goes to zero that will ruin your afternoon. You're a WAY better pilot than I could ever hope to be.

Sorry Bill. You just lost my nephew.

You'd probably keep him about as safe as anybody but...

A weaklink will protect me...

...I don't want him flying with anybody suffering from the delusion that there's a weak link in the system for the protection of the pilot. A PILOT needs to have the theory right before he starts playing with dangerous toys and you ain't got it. And you stopped talking with me so I don't think there's much chance you ever will.

Well, you DID eventually figure out that it was a bad idea for drivers to be watching tension gauges instead of gliders so there's some hope - but I'm still not all that optimistic.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/13 21:44:54 UTC

HAWKS,

I think it was a prudent move on Bob's part, and also from a legal perspective, that he put into type on this forum his intent to protect young readers.

As a parent and grandparent I would expect nothing less of a website moderator.

To have knowledge of child endangerment or abuse and not report it or intervene can, in many states, land an individual in a lot of, "hot water."

It is my understanding that free speech rights only protect us from our governments' interference of us exercising that right. (With exceptions.)

We could be constrained by our employers as a condition of our employment not to say certain things concerning the company we work for. The First Amendment lacks horsepower in this regard. At many work places you check most of your rights at the gate. (What do you mean that I can't carry a gun in my lunch pail?)

For anyone to think that they have a right to say anything they want to say on a message board put up by someone else shows a certain lack of understanding of how things really work.

Bob has proven to be long suffering and able to tolerate much abuse but some people just can't sit in a crowded theater and not yell, "FIRE!"

I think it was a prudent move on Bob's part...

Yeah, ya just can't be to prudent nowadays. And Bob's about as prudent an asshole as you ever wanna meet - on totally fake issues anyway. And about a hundred miles south of useless on real ones.

...and also from a legal perspective, that he put into type on this forum his intent to protect young readers.

1. He also put into type on this forum:

What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA?

You will ... hopefully. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Everyone has to do their part once in a while. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

So if his intent to protect young readers is as heartfelt and successful as his intent to support the duty of those who speak out when they see something that's not being done correctly and honor the free speech of Bob Show members, just how effective do you think he's gonna be?

2. This "Training Manual Comments / Contribution" thread - for example - is averaging 4.9 hits per post. What percentage of those readers are you projecting as being third graders? (And no you can't count Texans incapable of reading and writing on a third grade level. I mean actual single digit age people.)

As a parent and grandparent I would expect nothing less of a website moderator.

Yeah, website moderators. America's first line of defense for people of varying ages. If it weren't for stalwart superheroes like Lord Bob we'd have depravity on an absolutely unimaginable scale. Who knows what might happen to your grandchildren - and the parents of your grandchildren.

(Just out of curiosity... How many of your children and grandchildren read The Bob Show? (Can I get their e-mail addresses to confirm this?))

Funny thing though... I've been on glider forums for just shy of seventeen years now. And in all that time - up till last month - Bob wasn't there doing anything to make sure those groups were safe for people of varying ages. And you'd think - given how dangerous a predator I am - that it wouldn't be all that tough to find a case of me exchanging a word or two with a person of a varying age.

Well, it actually might be - given that it's pretty much impossible to find a person of a varying age participating in a glider forum anywhere period.

To have knowledge of child endangerment or abuse and not report it or intervene can, in many states, land an individual in a lot of, "hot water."

Yeah? What's your point? Does Bob have any knowledge of child endangerment or abuse? Hell, Bob can't even read:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=795
AL's Flight At Packsaddle 10-04-11

Al Hernandez - 2011/10/18 04:03:45 UTC

I did my HOOK IN and tested to make sure that I was HOOKED IN 4 times before launch.... So, I know I am HOOKED IN the glider I could feel it pulling on me, the wind was blowing, as I stepped up to the Platform, I stood there for about 10 minutes, I was having trouble blanching the glider level in that wind, Jeff was instructing me on how to hold the glider in that type of wind, finally after a few tries, I got it.

and figure out that there's a ten minute delay between the hook-in check and the launch.

It is my understanding that free speech rights only protect us from our governments' interference of us exercising that right. (With exceptions.)

Yeah, talk to Bob about "exceptions". He's got exceptions coming out of his ass - about half a dozen new ones whenever someone who isn't acceptably aligned with him posts anything of substance.

We could be constrained by our employers as a condition of our employment not to say certain things concerning the company we work for.

Aren't those constraints generally spelled out by the employers as conditions of the employment?

For anyone to think that they have a right to say anything they want to say on a message board put up by someone else shows a certain lack of understanding of how things really work.

Yeah?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/faq.php

Did you read any of that crap?

Don't worry, Bill - I KNOW how things really work.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=78
Banning - Commentary

Warren Narron - 2010/09/14 15:01:39 UTC

Banning = Definition of "My Way or the Hiway"

Every banning that I have experienced has also had an element of cowardice.
Banning opposing opinions is always the law of the lowest common denominator.
Discussions and ideas are limited to the base level intellect of those with the power of the mouse click banning.
The group as a whole suffers those limitations.

And I know that when some asshole pulls the plug on me I'm not the one losing the battle - or the war.

Bob has proven to be long suffering and able to tolerate much abuse...

Nah. Bob hasn't even BEGUN to suffer and tolerate abuse. He's just given people so much excellent material to work with and it just keeps on coming so fast it's hard to stay on top of.

...but some people just can't sit in a crowded theater and not yell, "FIRE!"

Sorry...

- Under five hits per post? The Bob Show ain't exactly a crowded theater.

- Pilgrim and his Austin buddies just lost Packsaddle a couple of days ago - after over three decades of use - and cited first on his list of reasons an unqualified Hang Two slamming back into it in easy conditions and killing himself. There's no Constitutional prohibition against yelling "FIRE!" in a theater - crowded or un - when it's burning in a bunch of places.

- The person yelling "FIRE" when there isn't any in the mostly empty theater is its owner. And he's doing it to divert everyone's attention away from the fact that the movie totally sucks.