Ahhhh .... I think I get it now. . . . . . . . . .
Good, Bob. I got it shortly after my 2015/01/13 22:53:31 UTC post - even without employing Navier-Stokes equations. Felt stupid then 'cause my first thought had been that he must've gotten hold of some kind of huge pretentious word generator. But in my defense I was pretty overloaded by dealing with attacks on a couple fronts.
If you go to the site that Jacmac posted (http://www.pakin.org/complaint/) you'll find a short form you can fill out to generate a "complaint" against someone. You give their name and the number of paragraphs you want to generate. For example, here's a 5 paragraph complaint "about" me:
I don't intend to rock the boat by writing this letter...
Oh good. Another really great utilization of bandwidth.
That's a pretty clever program, Mr. Pakin!!!
Yeah, that's EXTRAORDINARILY clever. The first load of output got an endorsement...
Rick Masters - 2015/01/13 18:52:04 UTC
Psychoanalyzing the psychotic?
Good luck...
...from the guy who's at the top of Bob's wish list for his Fake Board of Directors.
I suspect Jacmac's point is that arguing with Tad is pretty much like arguing with that computer program.
1. Maybe we'll be privileged enough for Jacmac to tell us what his point was.
Speaking of which, while I can fault Tad's approach, I can't fault his logic, nor have I seen anyone here try to refute it. You may not like the messenger, but that is no reason to reject the message. I've already stated why I'm not adopting lift-and-tug...what about the rest of you? I'm asking because it doesn't look like Tad will stop until he sees the changes he's advocating or is banned. Before the latter happens, maybe the former deserves a chance.
Sunday I performed a hang check at Pack, stepped onto the ramp, and proceeded to wait for a lull in which to launch. Due to this discussion I realized at this point how dangerous it was for me to assume I was hooked in. It's like assuming it's OK to lock your car because you remember putting your keys in your pocket a few minutes ago, only the consequences of being wrong are much worse than a call to AAA.
For my part I will just refer you to the classic Tad Eareckson essay which I call "the gun is always loaded" which is a bit overworked but probably all you will ever need to read regarding FTHI. A lot of people will find it gores their particular sacred Ox, but I have never seen anyone point out a flaw in his logic.
That's solid computer logic. You can keep quoting Joe Greblo, citing bullshit anonymous "experts", pulling whatever you feel like out of your ass and throwing it but you can't dent or foul my work.
He's also right on just about everything hang gliding.
Nobody's EVER gonna say anything remotely like that about you, Bob. Ditto for Greblo, Davis Dead-On Straub, Steve Exceptionally-Knowledgeable Wendt, Ryan Instant-Hands-Free-Release Voight, Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey, Lauren Eminently-Qualified-Tandem-Pilot Tjaden. Never again for Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney.
It's hard to disagree.
Nothing's hard for you to agree or disagree with, Bob. You just say whatever it is that you think will win the most target people over and sell the most snake oil at any given moment.
Thanks for sharing that gem of a program Jacmac!!
Are you sure this is the first you've heard of it? Sounds a lot like what you've always spewed out in your conflicts with Yours Truly and Rick had the same reaction to it as he does to you.
I figured people would catch on before I actually posted the complaint generator. I only posted the complaint about Tad as a joke. He's got his site to complain about all of us...
I don't complain about "all of us" - note that some of "us" are primarily Kite Strings people there primarily 'cause of Yours Truly. And there's probably no one over there that I'm at odds with on EVERYTHING - although Sam comes damn close. And also note that Bob's gotten a very significant chunk of his defense and support over the Torrey situation from here.
...and try to destroy the Hawks...
1. "The Hawks" being Bob - at the very least through 2015.
Any comment on highly valued US Hawks Fake Board of Directors member Sam Kellner blasting away at them in violation of federal law?
...so he deserves at least a little ribbing here.
Yeah, being called an unrepentant child molester a few zillion times and extrajudicially banned for life by "US" didn't quite do the trick.
Bill Cummings - 2015/01/14 23:51:15 UTC
This thread has developed into a extensive unproductive waste of time.
It started out as an extensive unproductive waste of time.
This diversion should not only be locked down but relocated in the, "free speech zone."
Nah, I don't like locking down, burying, sabotaging, deleting threads. I totally support Brian being able to post what he wants and where he wants within the confines of clearly stated rules. And I also totally support the rights of people to read or not read whatever they feel like.
Other than to say that I have no further comment.
That's OK, I'll have quite a few.
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/15 06:23:45 UTC
I suspect that was Jacmac's point about Tad.
Fuck you, Bob. Jacmac already stated what his point was - and that weren't it.
I think he (Jacmac) was pointing out that a computer program spewing a truly unending stream of nastiness is pretty much what's on Tad's web site.
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.
...would you know?
2. And...
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/11/12
We haven't been on the best of terms but I do want to say thank you for what you posted. I do appreciate your integrity and rising above our disagreement.
I think he was also hinting that selecting the 20 paragraph version and posting it was about the maximum level of effort that we should be spending on Tad's remarks.
1. Well, if that's what YOU think it must be right - 'specially considering nothing that anybody else thinks really matters.
One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.
Pretty fuckin' obvious just how much The Bob Show honors free speech.
Bill Cummings - 2015/01/14 23:51:15 UTC
This diversion should not only be locked down but relocated in the, "free speech zone."
I've asked Jacmac if I can add a red moderator's note on the top of his post so new people will know what they're reading. How does that sound?
Sounds like shit. You're changing the record. Anybody stupid enough to read that and try to make sense of it deserves to have his time wasted.
Brian McMahon - 2015/01/14 15:53:42 UTC
Bob, I don't know why we can't edit our own posts...
You can here.
...but add this:
The following is a joke, so well played, that people continue to think it is real. It is not real folks, read or skim through the follow on posts to see how it was done. The main thing is that it baffled Tad for a while!
The following is a joke, so well played, that people continue to think it is real.
Really stupid ones.
It is not real folks, read or skim through the follow on posts to see how it was done. The main thing is that it baffled Tad for a while!
1. Baffled isn't really the right word but I'll give ya a couple points.
2. Note that the first post didn't baffle Rick...
Rick Masters - 2015/01/13 18:52:04 UTC
Psychoanalyzing the psychotic?
Good luck...
...or Bob...
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/13 19:03:21 UTC
Jacmac started a separate topic about Tad, so that's a good place for anyone who wants to continue that discussion.
...at all. Hook, line, and sinker.
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/15 16:04:18 UTC
Thanks for that update. I took me a while to "get" it as well.
Big surprise.
I think your note will help.
I think so too. Just not the kinda people anybody should really be helping.
Bob, I don't know why we can't edit our own posts...
There are a few reasons. First, if person "A" writes something, and person "B" responds, and then person "A" changes what they wrote, then person B's response may appear out of context ... when it originally wasn't. Second, it's consistent with the spoken word ... once you say something you can't "unsay" it. You can correct it or elaborate on it, but once spoken, words cannot be "unspoken".
And the really nice thing about spoken words not on tape is that Bob can remember them any way that's most convenient for him.
Finally, I've seen forums where people have gotten mad and gone back and deleted all their posts ... essentially erasing history.
I keep an archive. Also... Kite Strings caters to the kind of folk who wouldn't do anything like that.
It's hard to learn from history when you can't trust it.
It's also really hard to learn from when the person has zero interest in it.
So we...
The usual synonym for "Bob".
...have a standard 1 hour editing period for each post on the US Hawks. Beyond that, I am happy to make minor corrections (spelling, grammar, clarification, etc) as long as they don't seriously alter the meaning of the post.
Yeah, that can always be handled by lying in generalized statements about what a person said, misrepresentations, quoting material out of context.
I can also add notes (like the one you wrote above) indicating more substantial changes so the context of subsequent posts is still understandable.
Kinda like making a clip of the last five minutes of a movie and inserting it at the beginning.
Once the Board forms, we can review these policies, so any suggestions are always welcome.
But right now we can go fuck ourselves.
I hope you'll consider volunteering for the Board Jacmac!!
You have precisely the qualities Bob's looking for. You're not Tad or Steve.
They don't keep a database of accident reports
Nobody wants to prevent or stifle accidents from being reported, but safety trending is something that should not be ignored. If trending over ten years reveals that asymmetrical collapses under 300' AGL are resulting in hospitalization or death 95% of the time, then that's a trend all PG pilots should know about! The answer to fear of reporting is that if you don't report an accident and are reported by someone else that finds out about it, you could be ejected from the organization. The leaders don't want to be liable for anything, especially where a safety related incident results in a death. I don't blame them, but I don't really know if there really is or should be a concern. You would think that all of the waivers would be enough. I know the insurance issue is a big reason, but I don't understand how exactly. It is as if records are not kept specifically so that such records could not be used. The liability insurance rates should be higher as a direct result of not having a record keeping database in this day and age, rather than the opposite.
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.
Brian McMahon - 2015/01/13 20:58:32 UTC
Yes, well this is exactly the type of paranoia I was referring to. Mark is basically saying that it is better to hear no evil, see so evil, so you can speak no evil at a trial. Undoubtedly this is what lawyers advised the USHPA to do. So what is the result?
- demolition of the accident reporting system
- total junk magazine
- brutal suppression of all efforts to fix problems and advance equipment and procedures
- active promotion of the most dangerous equipment and procedures in circulation
- scumbags like Davis Dead-On Straub and Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney in positions of authority
- thousands of little red rubber FOCUSED PILOT wristbands in circulation
- participants getting injured, crippled, killed out of the sport at unsustainable rates
Pilots will take actions that have varying degrees of risk, but may be misinformed or uninformed of the actual risk level.
Like:
- running off the front of the ramp after doing a hang check at the back of the ramp?
- using a:
-- release within easy reach?
-- extra safe weak link to:
--- break as early as possible in a lockout situation?
--- prevent you from attaining a dangerously high angle of attack?
-- pro tow bridle?
-- two-string release to reduce the likelihood of a botched connection?
-- Birrenator?
- hooking up behind:
-- some asshole who's stated he can fix whatever's going on back there by giving you the rope?
-- a tug using a lighter weak link than the one many glider people are happy with?
- rotating to upright during the landing sequence?
- aiming for a traffic cone in the middle of an LZ?
- perfecting your flare timing?
If some maneuver is 99% safe because we've only heard of a problem reported once in the last 3 or 4 years, what if the lack of reporting and record keeping means that the actual risk is current 95% safe and decreasing over time as more pilots attempt the maneuver believing it is 99% safe?
Yeah, let's shoot for an actual ninety-nine. A broken arm once every hundredth flight is something we can all live with.
You're going to generate more problems (and maybe lawsuits) by lack of knowledge than by having and spreading knowledge.
Problems - crashes, injuries, fatalities - yes. Lawsuits... Where are they?
Pilots will be condemned to learn risk the hard way.
So give me some examples of "pilots" learning anything the hard way. If that were actually happening the knowledge would disseminate through the population and we wouldn't need USHGA - or, for that matter, Kite Strings.
I would much rather be able to have an instructor tell me that X is not safe because accident reports over time have shown that Y is a result with a high enough chance of happening that you don't want to do it. Instead, they can only give their opinion.
Let's work together and make the US Hawks the best.
Also, so the Hawks forum continues to catch on, allowing us the platform to express our HG opinions.
Thanks BobK ,
Sam
Southwest Texas Hang Gliding
US Hawks Chapter 4
I would much rather be able to have an instructor tell me that X is not safe because accident reports over time have shown...
I'd much rather have the accidents currently updated and open to the public. I'd rather not wait to see how they're trending for fear they may trend the wrong way.
got the "standard aerotow weak link" permanently out of circulation. Did what decades of lost flying days, less spectacular crashes and fatalities, attempts at rational discussion, FAA regulations couldn't. If ever an "accident" trended the right way it was that one.
The sooner people are given information that may prevent future accidents the more chance it'll have of doing so.
A snowball's chance in Leakey, Texas.
Brian McMahon - 2015/01/13 21:56:27 UTC
You can already get one-offs in the magazine.
Where's the one-off on Terry Mason?
They just obscure the details to hide where and who it happened to.
...the glider model and size, the flying weight, the weak link strength, the easy reach location of the release actuator, the actual meteorological conditions, the list of the SOPs that were being violated, the laws of physics...
One-off reports are interesting...
Mostly for seeing how much information is conspicuously absent and noting which ones don't appear.
...but trending is where the meat is. Stats really don't lie if you accept them for what they are.
So what trends do you suspect are happening now that weren't over the period from 1981 to 1994 when Doug Hildreth was burying us with statistics, screaming about the trends, and getting totally ignored by USHGA's Pilot Proficiency Program along with everyone and his dog?
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/14 09:22:46 UTC
Information about safety is a "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later" proposition.
Most profound.
Just as you've said, putting a lid on information just means that someone else is going to pay for it later ... and that future cost is always more.
Yeah, I can hardly wait for the next couple Bob Show Terry Masons.
Getting Back on Topic ...
Welcome aboard Joe.
Yeah, Joe. Welcome aboard to Bob Show Bob's Fake Board of Directors.
It will be an honor serving on another Board with you!!!
An extra special honor - seeing as how Bob will have one hundred percent of the power while you will a share of the zero percent evenly split four ways now.
The reason that the U$hPA members have to rely on the OZ report, HG(dot)org, and the US Hawks for shared knowledge and not find it at a U$hPA forum is at least two fold. Liability and control of the membership.
You missed a forum. We're very definitely on the map over here.
If the RGSA had never held a US National Hang Gliding event years back we never would have gotten into the site insurance nightmare that has persisted for decades since. No other sport to my knowledge is required to carry insurance while using the same land in the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. (New Mexico is located in the United States and is not in Mexico.)
Got that, Sam?
One discussion I would like to see hashed out among the practicing directors is how to keep the US Hawks Forum from falling prey to the same legal (censored) concerns that seem to be plaguing the U$hPA.
You're well over three years too late.
Should we discuss crashes in great detail only in the free speech zone where we indemnify ourselves by saying that the US Hawks neither supports nor approves of the content in the free speech zone?
Maybe we could discuss carnage over on Tad's website where I'm sure we would receive a complete volunteer review of what was done wrong by any participant with precise, in depth, analysis of any stupidity or brain dead idiocy being displayed.
You get that anyway - regardless of where you discuss it and/or the videos are posted.
The point being we should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports solely out of concern for the bottom line of an insurance company.
Yeah, ya gotta consider issues like vulnerability to manslaughter charges when your thinking about suppression of accident reports.
We pilots have a greater concern for our safety that places an insurance company's concern in second place or lower.
Who's "we pilots"?
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/15 06:12:01 UTC
Lots of very good points Bill...
The reason that the U$hPA members have to rely on the OZ report, HG(dot)org, and the US Hawks for shared knowledge and not find it at a U$hPA forum is at least two fold. Liability and control of the membership.
Right on both counts. The control aspect includes not having to answer reasonable questions asked by the members ... like "Why can't we see how our Directors are voting?" and "How can we know whether we want to vote for a particular Director if we have no idea what they support or oppose at USHPA?"
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/12/28 06:21:51 UTC
Silence is not consent. It's just silence.
If the RGSA had never held a US National Hang Gliding event years back we never would have gotten into the site insurance nightmare that has persisted for decades since.
The requirement to have insurance - in advance - for things that we might do to hurt other people goes against the notions of equality...
...'cept, of course, for fags...
...and self-reliance that were the cornerstones of this country.
Bullshit.
- Humans are social animals and have been for the past twenty million years and not one of us would last the week being self reliant.
- Genocide and slavery were a couple of the main cornerstones of this country.
One discussion I would like to see hashed out among the practicing directors is how to keep the US Hawks Forum from falling prey to the same legal (censored) concerns that seem to be plaguing the U$hPA.
We're already doing one thing right now. I'm not sure if I agree that money is the root of ALL evil, but it certainly accounts for a sizeable chunk of it. The Torrey Hawks have avoided all kinds of problems by simply not accepting money in any form.
Maybe we could discuss carnage over on Tad's website where I'm sure we would receive a complete volunteer review of what was done wrong by any participant with precise, in depth, analysis of any stupidity or brain dead idiocy being displayed.
You're certainly a creative thinker Bill!!
Certainly a creative enough thinker to be able to get through a whole post without using any obnoxious smilies.
The point being we should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports solely out of concern for the bottom line of an insurance company. We pilots have a greater concern for our safety that places an insurance company's concern in second place or lower.
I agree with that. It's too bad that the current legal structure forces us to make such a choice. Open reporting of accident information should not be at the peril of financial loss.
So how is the current legal structure different from the one we had thirty years ago when we had good accident information in the magazine?
Brian Scharp - 2015/01/15 15:23:55 UTC
Are there any concerns - in addition to the bottom line or by themselves - that we should allow to justify the suppression of accident reports?
How about this? We should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports.
How 'bout that, Sam?
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/15 16:17:25 UTC
I generally agree with that position...
'Cept when Sam's involved.
...and it would be another good topic for the trial Board of Directors to discuss.
But let's make sure we don't discuss it now. Wouldn't be a valid discussion without a Fake Board of Directors in place.
If the forum grows as Bob hopes, he eventually won't have the time. He has concerns about people trying to muck up the forum, but he has also dealt effectively with Tad. To me that is a totally different issue than one's desiring to make stylistic changes or corrections. These can only enhance the character and historic contribution of the forum.
Oh. Bob effectively dealt with me - first by using the pretense of an "experiment" to lock me down in his Basement and then by using the pretense of making The Bob Show a safe place for people of varying ages to visit - to keep me from trying to muck up the forum. Big fuckin' surprise.
"Enhancing" the character and historic contribution of the forum? Goddam right - motherfucker.
From my cell phone...
The trial will continue on Tuesday at 1:30pm.
I'll post more when I can get to a real keyboard.
So you haven't been able to get to a real keyboard since wee hours of yesterday morning? This is the best you can do for all the people who've been watching this situation and supporting your position?
A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
Conversations "belong" to the forum.
Unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.
-----
Thanks for the clarification.
And now let's document the sources...
Scott C. Wise - 2015/01/16 03:07:09 UTC
A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
---
...conversations "belong" to the forum.
---
...unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/16 02:28:06 UTC
...research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
---
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
---
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.
OK, carry on...
Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/18 19:50:24 UTC
Rick, this is very clearly and thoughtfully stated. I would nominate this to be part of a future "US Hawks Forum Guidelines" topic. Thank you.
Right now, the forum is still our main workhorse here on the site, and so we're limping along with many of its limitations. As we grow, I am hopeful that we can provide venues for varied types of communication that will better suit all of your needs. Until then, I appreciate you limping along with what we have.
Thanks again for all you've contributed to this association and to the sport of hang gliding.
Rick Masters - 2015/01/18 20:05:30 UTC
For heaven's sake, Bob. Those are not my words. I consider such constraints at odds with accomplishing anything meaningful. But it makes a great flow-of-consciousness hippie experiment.
"Look, this is actually what the hippies said! It is a historical document."
Who cares?
This is so wonderful I think I'll use a smiley.
This is what happens when you spend too much time and effort working on telling your marks how wonderful they all are and too little time reading, thinking, speaking honestly.
It sure looks like he had plenty of time to do a better landing than that.
Yeah Bob, we know. We also know that you've either not bothered to read my commentary on the discussion or you've read it and are deliberately ignoring it. Either way... Fuck you and stay the hell out of discussions about issues you have either no interest in resolving and/or issues you desperately want resolved in favor of the wrong side.
The weak link break was pretty much a non-event with regard to flight attitude and control.
Yeah, just like Fabio's previous three thousand plus...
FUCK YOU, Bob. Pure Hewett/USHGA/Industry "non-event" bullshit party line.
Once that pilot gave the go-ahead to launch, he was going to make a landing one way or another, and he did a poor job on this one.
Fuck you.
From what I can tell, if he had broken a stronger weak link, the flight attitude change resulting from that break would have been more dramatic.
That's why people who AREN'T total morons and dickheads...
Dr. Trisa Tilletti - 2012/06
You and I have flown sailplanes for almost as long as we have flown hang gliders. We own two sailplanes and have two airplanes that we use for towing full-size sailplanes. In all the time that we have flown and towed sailplanes, we have not experienced or even seen a sailplane weak link break.
...use weak links that DON'T BREAK.
So while increasing the strength of a weak link does decrease the frequency of breaks...
Increases in the safety of the towing operation, inconveniences.
I believe...
You believe anything that's most convenient for you to believe at any given moment.
...the results of such breaks will be much more dramatic and may present the greater risk.
Go fuck yourself.
Let me add that I have very little experience with towing...
I can tell you that I fly with a 200lb weaklink on one side of my 750lb pro tow bridle. I am happy with it.
...so many of us are now happy with two hundred?
The lighter weak link also protects the pilot from a tug pilot who might release prematurely.
How could THAT...
Towing Aloft - 1998/01
Pro Tip: Always thank the tug pilot for intentionally releasing you, even if you feel you could have ridden it out. He should be given a vote of confidence that he made a good decision in the interest of your safety.
...possibly ever be a problem? A premature release...
Manned Kiting
The Basic Handbook of Tow Launched Hang Gliding
Daniel F. Poynter
1974
"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson
...just like a weak link pop, always increases the safety of the towing operation - PERIOD.
The weak link essentially ensures that the tug pilot cannot release you while under dangerously high tow tension ... because you'll never be under dangerously high tow tension.
That's an arm getting broken into four pieces and a hang gliding career getting ended by a Rooney Link just barely capable of getting an average glider airborne. Steve Exceptionally-Knowledgeable Wendt tells us:
Wills Wing / Blue Sky / Steve Wendt / Ryan Voight Productions - 2007/03
NEVER CUT THE POWER...
Reduce Gradually
Increase Gradually
and in the same video also tells us:
But with the towline we use a standard weak link like we would for aerotow... Uh... This... In this particular case it's 130 green line, 130 pound test.
which is the lightest weak link anybody's ever used in the history of hang glider towing. So he's telling the driver to never cut ANY power in a range from able-to-get-the-glider-airborne up to standard aerotow weak link - which is 65 percent of what many of us are now happy with.
Welcome to the sport AcTiOn.
Good luck. Blue Sky is among the best.
So can you make a case that there's some tow tension can get a glider off the ground that ISN'T dangerously high? Isn't it more the case that low tensions are more dangerous than high tensions? If you read the USHGA aerotowing SOPs (which you haven't 'cause...
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.
...you don't have the time to read any document that anyone asks you to read) you'd find that there's a specification for the tow vehicle to have a MINIMUM rated thrust of 250 pounds. How come there's a minimum but no maximum? Don't they have that totally backwards?
Have you talked to any tow pilots who've told you that they enjoy climbing out through the kill zone at fifty feet per minute?
Bill Cummings - 2014/11/22 19:27:04 UTC
Bisfal recognized and stated in the comments section of his posted video
bisfal bisto - 9 months ago
"glider suddenly went high fast."
Bisfal was out of position.
So why didn't the tug dump him? Thought he could fix a bad thing and didn't wanna start over?
I'm guessing the weak link strength was close to a Greenspot #130
I'd also guess that it was around Greenspot #130 strength. Really long track record that figure has.
I don't know for sure just as you don't know that the tug release is functional.
It wasn't, Bill. The next flight also popped up high and the release locked up. The tug was nosed down and was just three feet away from slamming in when the Quest Link kicked in. Motherfucker would've been toast if it had been a tandem or that new two hundred stuff all those callous bastards are happily using nowadays.
After John Pendrey (sp?)...
Pendry.
...popped his weak link...
I guess former world champion comp pilot John Pendry had ALSO gotten way the fuck out of position. Funny that wasn't mentioned in Rob's report.
We had six weaklink breaks in a row at Zapata this year. Russell Brown (tug pilot, tug owner, Quest Air owner) said go ahead and double up (four strands of Cortland Greenspot).
...Russell Brown (tug pilot, tug owner, Quest Air owner) had everybody do when THEIR Quest Links were going off like popcorn in light morning conditions with comp gliders in perfect position?
John got out of position...
BULLSHIT.
Rob Kells - 1985/09
Chris made a fairly sharp right turn which caused John to lock out to the left.
...and Chris bent his...
...total piece of shit...
...release activator trying to dump the line. The release wasn’t fully functional.
But it was PARTIALLY functional?
Chris died after loosing control of the tug above Chelan Washington Airport.
Nice to see a front end guy get killed by a piece of shit release for a change. Make that TWO piece of shit releases - John was flying with one of those "within easy reach" placebo jobs - which is why he was totally unable to abort the tow as well.
That was exactly why I commented to Bisfal to not get headed down the same chain of events that lead to Chris's death.
We're already way the fuck down and beyond the same chain of events that lead to Chris's death. John Pendry blew off when a directly/fully loaded length of knotted 505 Dacron leechline failed. Call it 253 pounds towline. Possibly LESS than a Davis Link on a pro toad. Now Hang Twos are flying with Happy Links that keep them on to 348 pounds and pro toads on to the absurd figure of 400. So if you're interested in keeping asshole tug drivers from killing themselves the way Chris did you need to come up with another plan a year or two ago.
See if you can find some way to extract your head from the monumental stupidity, incompetence, and shoddiness of 1985 and get up to speed with the monumental stupidity, incompetence, and shoddiness of 2014.
Bryan Bowker wasn't skilled enough to recover from the stall into which his Quest Link dumped him, Bisfal Bisto wasn't skilled enough to handle the emergency landing necessitated by his Quest Link, Zack Marzec wasn't skilled enough to prevent his glider from tumbling back down to the runway after his Quest Link clearly prevented a high angle of attack for that form of towing. So until we can get pilot skill level up to where it should be wouldn't it be a good idea to compromise everyone's safety with something one and a half times as dangerous as the proven stuff with the huge track record?
---
Note... This post was meant amend / continue from: http://www.kitestrings.org/post7066.html#p7066
and was mostly worked when I got sidetracked by something and forgot about it.
I certainly recognized some of them as mine, and I took your post on face value.
Sure ya did, Bob that's why you quoted everything that wasn't Rick's and left out the single sarcastic line at the end which was.
I thought you had given it some thought and concluded that these short guidelines (from whatever source) would make sense for a forum:
A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
Conversations "belong" to the forum.
Unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.
I like them, and I was optimistically hoping you did as well.
Yeah, right. But ya gotta admire the effort.
The US Hawks is based on giving people choices.
Do you want to quietly resign now to spend more time with your family or do you want me to ban you two hours from now as an unrepentant child molester and threat to our people of varying ages?
We want to give people...
...except for Tad and Steve...
...a choice between USHPA and an...
...even worse...
...alternative. We also want to...
...use first person plural ad nauseam and...
...give our members choices in how they can post.
Just as long as their posts are totally in line with what Bob wants.
. . .
. . .
. . .
,
