http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1787
USHPA Expulsion Proceeding
Doug Martens - 2015/03/26 20:21:48 UTC
I will post part 1 of the messages if you agree to debate MForbs on just the specific issue of the tie downs and Barton.
You would be doing Sylmar/Yosemite and Hang gliding if you both did. I shaved off completely my long hair when Barton's sister was sick to help.
Bud Rob and OP pledged money to a "mental health" fund after I mentioned a crazy theory of "Quetzalcoatl Aztec Mormon Christ whale God possession(entity attachment)of San Diego"
This fund could pay the additional $300/year needed to eliminate "Ushpa" from their life if that's what they need to get better and return to the sport.
MForbes offers his opinion that you are Crazy, thus eligible for the subsidy.
Here is part 1 of his message.
Mark G. Forbes - 2015/03/26 05:27
USUA insurance
Hi Doug,
...
BobK spins a tale, but his actions have the potential to cause some huge increases in OUR insurance rates if his testimony results in our waiver being overturned in a California court. That's really what has pushed the board to act; we evaluated his testimony as an "expert" witness, and the conclusion of the board was that he has misrepresented the facts and testified to falsehoods before the court. He said things under oath which are not true, in order to aid a lawsuit against a USHPA member. He did this (I think) because of his long-standing grudge against the flight park management, going back ten years or more. His actions have threatened the flight park, disrupted lessons for students and have the potential to threaten our insurability in the future. Bob styles himself as an "expert" on all things instruction-related, but his testimony is in conflict with the consensus of many instructors on the board and elsewhere. The plaintiff's lawyers had to fish around quite a while before they found someone to sign the statement that they're using, because the real instructors that they asked wouldn't agree that what they said was true. But then there's BobK...not an instructor, but happy to sign anything that would dish some dirt at his "enemy". According to his own testimony, the whole feud started when he wanted to have video taken of his first PG flight and the flight park people told him "no". They didn't want him distracted on his first PG solo by a camera. He refused to fly unless he was filmed, and they said no, and the whole feud has snowballed from there. Crazy, huh?
Anyhow, believe whomever you want to. After ten years of dealing with the guy, trying to reason with him and getting nowhere, I don't think there's any way to persuade him to change his behavior and it's only getting worse. I wish he'd get some help, because he badly needs it. Not according to him of course, and that's the root of the problem.
Cheers!
MGF
BobK spins a tale, but his actions have the potential to cause some huge increases in OUR insurance rates if his testimony results in our waiver being overturned in a California court.
Name some people who fly hang gliders whose actions...
02-00007 - 05-00123 - 20-00727
...DON'T have the POTENTIAL to cause some huge increases in YOUR insurance rates.
That's really what has pushed the board to act...
Wow. Something pushed the board to act on something. And it wasn't even The Second Coming. So cite the last occasion when the board acted on something in response to somebody getting killed as a consequence of shit procedures, instruction, equipment.
...we evaluated his testimony as an "expert" witness...
"We" who?
Did any of you off-the-scale stupid pigfuckers evaluate that crap on magic fishing line that the douchebags from Cloud 9 spammed fourteen pages of the 2012/06 magazine with? Was this:
http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=27217
Bad Launch!
Ryan Voight - 2012/09/26 14:23:55 UTC
Running to the right = weight shift to the right.
It's all about what the glider feels. Running to the right pulls the hang loop to the right, just like when you weight shift at 3,000 ft. Glider doesn't know or care what means you used to pull the hang loop to the right.
...lying asshole involved in the evaluation process?
...and the conclusion of the board was that he has misrepresented the facts and testified to falsehoods before the court.
1. So then why didn't you have Tim go in and reveal him as the perjurer he is?
2. And I guess none of us muppets are qualified enough to hear what these misrepresentation of facts were and this false testimony was - so why bother telling the membership any specifics.
3. And of course this stuff was miles over the heads of the judges, lawyers, jurors of the court and it goes without saying that the defendants didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of discrediting a shred of this blatant deceit.
He said things under oath which are not true, in order to aid a lawsuit against a USHPA member.
Of course he did. You just told us he did. We trust you and we certainly not gonna insult you by asking for an example or anything.
He did this (I think) because of his long-standing grudge against the flight park management, going back ten years or more.
Well yeah. That would certainly be his motivation for doing all these things we know he did because you just told us he did them.
His actions have threatened the flight park, disrupted lessons for students...
Any examples, specific incidents, EVIDENCE we get to hear or see? Just kidding.
...and have the potential to threaten our insurability in the future.
GOOD.
Bob styles himself as an "expert" on all things instruction-related, but his testimony is in conflict with the consensus of many instructors on the board...
Like this one?:
http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=14230
pro tow set-up
Ryan Voight - 2009/11/03 05:24:31 UTC
It works best in a lockout situation... if you're banked away from the tug and have the bar back by your belly button... let it out. Glider will pitch up, break weaklink, and you fly away.
During a "normal" tow you could always turn away from the tug and push out to break the weaklink... but why would you?
Have you never pondered what you would do in a situation where you CAN'T LET GO to release? I'd purposefully break the weaklink, as described above. Instant hands free release
...and elsewhere.
Like this one?:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?
Bart Weghorst - 2011/08/28 20:29:27 UTC
Now I don't give a shit about breaking strength anymore. I really don't care what the numbers are. I just want my weaklink to break every once in a while.
The plaintiff's lawyers had to fish around quite a while before they found someone to sign the statement that they're using, because the real instructors that they asked wouldn't agree that what they said was true.
So what do your "REAL" instructors know about safety?
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting
Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC
We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.
It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it. I would LOVE to not have to think that way, but every time a legal threat arises, it reminds me that we have a very dysfunctional legal system in this country (note: not a "justice" system...there's little justice involved) and we have to recognize that reality and deal with it.
u$hPa isn't in the business of keeping pilots "safe". You don't sell equipment, offer instruction, or assure pilots that they'll be safe. All that's pretty fuckin' obvious when one goes to ANY flying site. Furthermore...
http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=27736
Increase in our USHpA dues
Mark G. Forbes - 2012/12/20 06:21:33 UTC
We're re-working the accident reporting system, but again it's a matter of getting the reports submitted and having a volunteer willing to do the detail work necessary to get them posted. There are also numerous legal issues associated with accident reports, which we're still wrestling with. It's a trade-off between informing our members so they can avoid those kinds of accidents in the future, and exposing ourselves to even more lawsuits by giving plaintiff's attorneys more ammunition to shoot at us.
Imagine a report that concludes, "If we'd had a procedure "x" in place, then it would have probably prevented this accident. And we're going to put that procedure in place at the next BOD meeting." Good info, and what we want to be able to convey. But what comes out at trial is, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client suffered injury because USHPA knew or should have known that a safety procedure was not in place, and was therefore negligent and at fault." We're constantly walking this line between full disclosure and handing out nooses at the hangmen's convention.
Whenever you became aware that you have a dangerous procedure and that there's a solid safe fix for it you kill off the fix and redouble your promotion of the lethal shit. So where the fuck do you come off implying that ANY u$hPa "instructors" have the slightest clue as to issues regarding safety of any kind?
But then there's BobK...not an instructor, but happy to sign anything that would dish some dirt at his "enemy".
Oh. Bob's not an INSTRUCTOR.
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1577
hangglider
Bob Kuczewski - 2014/07/23 17:14:21 UTC
I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, and I worked for two years at a commercial grade wind tunnel.
And he has Advanced hang and para glider ratings from you assholes but if some Hang Three twat spends too and a half days getting signed off by some asshole like Bart Weghorst that obviously trumps all of Bob's qualifications.
According to his own testimony, the whole feud started when he wanted to have video taken of his first PG flight and the flight park people told him "no".
That's odd. All the tandem thrill ride operators I know about LOVE having cameras on their "students" and charging them an extra thirty bucks for the card.
They didn't want him distracted on his first PG solo by a camera. He refused to fly unless he was filmed, and they said no, and the whole feud has snowballed from there.
Apparently he flew at some point. He's got a Four since 2006/04/11. So was it with or without a camera and, if the later, was he able to survive?
Crazy, huh?
Yeah, crazy. Guess that's why all the other people who despise the Jebb Gang despise the Jebb Gang.
Anyhow, believe whomever you want to.
Thank you, Mark. Since we've seen Bob's photographic evidence and there's been a court finding in his favor and all you've given us is a load of vague unsubstantiated hearsay bullshit and I know a lot about your bullshit background I'll go with Bob.
After ten years of dealing with the guy, trying to reason with him and getting nowhere, I don't think there's any way to persuade him to change his behavior and it's only getting worse.
Well then. I don't think you really have any choice other then to expel him from u$hPa on a bunch of total bullshit charges in a total bullshit show trial and effectively end his hang and para gliding careers.
I wish he'd get some help, because he badly needs it.
Oh good. Just what u$hPa needs. Another amateur psychiatrist.
Not according to him of course, and that's the root of the problem.
Cheers!
MGF
I hate his guts and you can suck my dick, Mark.
Replace the expel motion with a motion to grant BobK a
