on "Tad"
David Hayner - 2010/11/09 05:14:53 UTC
Austin
Over the last several months I have observed direct questions to "Tad" requesting that he identify himself and state his hang gliding expertise. While I have not studied each and every response, I do not recall him providing specific, candid responses to either. Rather, I have seen evasion.
I have seen continuous arrogant responses. I have seen him parrot responses after making a minor modification and claim it for himself. I have seen him ignore real data that does not coincide with his theory. I have seen a complete lack of professional knowledge of human factors/behavior. I have seen complete ignorance of system dynamics. I have seen a lack of understanding of the entire flight regime. I have seen contradictions in his responses. I have seen veiled tort threats. In short, I have seen behavior typical of the pseudo "safety expert". These are reminiscent of similar debates I have witnessed in the mountain climbing community regarding the safety of this or that device or technique. In those cases, the lack of a clear and definitive summary of climbing/rescue accomplishments has shut down the alleged "expert". I have worked with real "safety experts" on the flight lines at EAFB, China Lake NWC and other very professional and very serious locations. I know a "safety officer" one when I hear one. Tad is not.
But what really disturbs me is the willingness of this community to engage with a random, un-identified, untraceable character based on one individual's statement concerning that he (Tad) knows a thing or to. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (or a hundred times), shame on me.
Zack C - 2010/11/09 14:33:10 UTC
Dave,He has never been shy about his identity. As for his experience:Over the last several months I have observed direct questions to "Tad" requesting that he identify himself and state his hang gliding expertise. While I have not studied each and every response, I do not recall him providing specific, candid responses to either.
Tad:He has a point. The number of flights or hours he has has no bearing on his points. But from the discussion it should be obvious that he's done a tremendous amount of research with regards to towing hang gliders - far more than anyone else I know of.I learned a LONG time ago that in hang gliding if you tell someone you've got ten thousand hours that that instantly makes your point invalid if you're contradicted by someone with ten thousand and two hours. So I usually just answer, "I've never flown. What's your point?"No one is engaging with him because he said he knows a thing or two. We're engaging with him because he has sound logic, which is independent of the source.But what really disturbs me is the willingness of this community to engage with a random, un-identified, untraceable character based on one individual's statement concerning that he (Tad) knows a thing or to.Most of Tad's ideas are not original and I've never seen him claim so. He's been quite forthcoming about where he got them (including quoting his sources).I have seen him parrot responses after making a minor modification and claim it for himself.
As for the rest of your accusations, why not substantiate them? If you disagree with anything he's saying, why not challenge it? It would be a much more useful contribution to this discussion than criticizing people for participating in it. If you don't back up what you're saying, it doesn't carry much weight.
Nate Wreyford - 2010/11/09 14:59:39 UTC
Austin
Dave -
Zack did a lot of typing, but he just said you're wrong. Lol!
What do you know anyway Dave? :-)
:-)
(ps - those are smilies)
Flight experience is totally irrelevant - lol! That is a good one. In a sport that is an art and a science, if you take a mechanical approach and ignore the visceral that comes from frequent hands on, you will get bit. Some here have the bite marks to prove it.
Zack C - 2010/11/09 15:47:32 UTC
Nate,Not exactly...I asked him to substantiate his claims. Dave says we're listening to Tad just because he says he's right, while Tad has backed up everything he's said.Zack did a lot of typing, but he just said you're wrong.
Am I the only one that sees the irony? And for the record, Tad has been flying for longer than I've been alive and has far more hang gliding experience than either of us.
Henry Wise - 2010/11/09 16:13:21 UTC
If the number of years in the sport is the only criteria, I'm more of an expert than Tad, and most folks in the sport. I've been following hang gliding since 1973 and flying since 1976. No, years count for only part of the equation. There are many people who are world-class pilots that I'd never hope to have as much expertiese as, and they've been flying a far shorter period of time. It's nice to have seniority, but it doesn't always count.
---Zack C - 2010/11/10 06:18:31 UTC
One more thing I'll add...I don't think of this sport as 'an art and a science'. Music and paintings are art. Aviation is pure science. I'm not saying feel and intuition aren't important - in fact I believe they are, but ONLY because they compensate for a lack of understanding of the science.
Flying is unintuitive and a reliance on intuition is dangerous. This is one of the main points of Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder".
http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=13359
Today was a bad day!
Tad Eareckson - 2009/09/16 17:48:46 UTC