The Bob Show

[<BS>]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11400#p11400
Jailed for taking pictures at Torrey

This is the video of Bob's incident at Torrey Pines on Nov 9, 2014.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLmAzoHE5oM

[<BS>]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11402#p11402
Tandem Violations

This is the video of the Hamby accident and tandem violations by USHPA Instructors:

Brad's tandem video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSBX-mERwY
majiemae5 - 2015/04/17
dead

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1629
Jailed for taking pictures at Torrey

Scott C. Wise - 2015/04/18 01:19:54 UTC

In response to the "Brad's Tandem Video" -

Brad's tandem video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSBX-mERwY
majiemae5 - 2015/04/17
dead

I can't believe the reckless stunts that the pilot pulls while tandem flying a (maybe) 12 year old boy!

1. How 'bout the reckless stunt of running a tandem hang glider and (definitely) 27 year old girl off a mountain without doing a hook-in check?



I somehow managed to miss your outrage about that one.

2. Eighty-three pounds. Let's make Zack eleven - same age as Kelly's last skydiving student. What the fuck difference does it make?

- Is his life more valuable 'cause he's little and cute?

- Is the issue that he's too young to understand and appreciate the potential dangers involved and make an informed decision? Name one single person in hang gliding since the days of bamboo who's entered the sport being accurately and honestly apprised of its hazards and how to manage or eliminate them.

At 19:00 minutes into the video you can see for yourself. And before that the pilot removes his helmet...

Fuck helmets.

...to demonstrate how he is fiddling with the canopy of the other TANDEM !!!!! pilot.

Big fucking deal.

And that's not saying anything about the Hamby accident that happens at the beginning of the video. In connection with that incident the pilot informs someone (by cell phone?!?! during a tandem instructional flight?!?!?)...

Oh my God!!! We need an SOP to prohibit cell phone calls during tandem instructional flights!!! See what you can do, Bob.

...that he was in the air when the incident occurred. The video shows that to be a LIE!

Get fucked, Scott. Here's the transcript:

Hey John, it's Brad. How's it going?

Um... Not so good. Shannon had a minor accident. She's alive and well and she's being tended to right now on the grass. I don't know details - I saw it from the air and I'm still in the air. I thought I'd call you and let you know. Alright buddy. Bye.

Um, that I don't know but we happen to have a trauma specialist and two doctors here so it's perfect timing for something like that to happen.

Alright. Bye.

He's giving a buddy a heads up on the situation. He says he saw it from the air 'cause it's quicker and easier than saying he saw it while he was prepping to get a glider in the air and it has absolutely no bearing on anything.

The tandem pilot was on the ground at the time that Mrs. Hamby had her accident.

Yeah. He's probably aware of that. And he's probably also aware that there's a zillion witnesses to things on the ground and in the air and...

Yeah, yeah. You'll have... This is all on video. It's already recording now so our conversation will be on there too.

...that he's got a GoPro running...

I wanna see the video. It's gonna be awesome. You got a Facebook?

Yeah.

Definitely gonna hafta get in on there.

Not exactly swallowing the card to suppress the damning evidence of his gross misconduct - is he, Scott?

No, he didn't abort his flight after seeing that incident...

Luckily that guy running tending to her right now is a field trauma specialist. And we have multiple doctors here too.

You mean like at least two other gliders already in the air also didn't?

...he just went off on his merry way - taking a child...

1. We don't call them "children" on The Bob Show, Scott. We call them "people of varying ages". As a member of the Bob Show Fake Board of Directors I'da thunk you'd have been quite aware of that protocol.

2. With the person of the varying age kicking and screaming that he didn't wanna go up after just having witnessed the aftermath of the midair.

...on a tandem, to bring in how much $ to the business know as Air California Adventure Inc.

1. Instead of stampeding to the impact point with the rest of the herd and being the key individual that would've made the critical response contribution to ensure the quality of Shannon's life from that point on.

2. As much $ as Zack's mom was willing to fork out to give her kids that experience.

Talk about the dregs of humanity!

Yeah, let's do that, Scott. And let's make sure we include Zack's mom who:

- also didn't join the herd running over to Shannon to help with the heavy lifting involved in ensuring an optimal outcome but instead stayed at launch to photograph her victim of a varying age getting airborne

- later viewed the video and failed to have Air California Adventure, Inc. shut down and sued out of existence for all of Brad's deadly cell phoning, helmet removing, and canopy relative work and LYING about where he was at the time of the midair and crash

I'm getting angry again so I'll post this message as it is, so far.

Oh no. Please don't stop. I so do love it when Bob obsessed lunatics froth at the mouth and spew ever increasing insane stuff.

PS - And, once again, the u$hPa is (by implicit reference) on the side of Air California Adventure Inc.

So am I regarding this particular video. Like totally - motherfucker.

Tim Herr most definitely needs to be called up on ethics charges by the CA bar.

But let's give Emperor Bob free passes on whatever despicable shit he feels like pulling on his dump.

Joe Faust - 2015/04/18 05:53:37 UTC

Brad's video:
PIC said to youth...

Zack.

...that the youth...

Person of a varying age.

...might get to see helicopter in the air (because of the collision/accident that just happened).

You might get to watch a helicopter landing from the air. That'll be fun.

If one has solid reason to suspect that a rescue helicopter might be in the air soon .......
then one does not then get in the airspace.

You mean the chopper that never showed up? Yeah whenever somebody crashes hard enough to get hurt at a flying site let's all IMMEDIATELY clear the air 'cause a chopper MIGHT show up and we MIGHT NOT be able to see it coming in time and choppers all need infinite volumes of empty airspace do to their extremely limited control and maneuverability.

We should probably shoot all the Pelicans too in order to make things REALLY safe for any chopper that might venture in.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1629
Jailed for taking pictures at Torrey

Scott C. Wise - 2015/04/18 16:17:40 UTC

Excellent point Joe.

Yeah...

I'm thinking though, if they're gonna be sending the helicopter in to get that pilot we're gonna hafta get out of the way.

Totally fucking awesome.

And on the human side of things, . . . how does a pilot even launch (tandem or not) if, just prior to launching, a person the pilot knows (on a first name basis) falls to the ground from a collapsed canopy?

- Bullshit. The goddam paraglider FLEW into the ground on an INFLATED canopy as a result of a midair. And there's a good chance that if two hang gliders had been swapped in at least one of them would've ended up dead.

- I don't have a problem launching after some motherfucker I know (on a first name basis) slams in. If Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney went down in a Dragonfly the same way Keavy Nenninger and Mark Knight did and got roasted in the wreckage I would fly with a degree of elation I've rarely felt before in my life. And I definitely wouldn't be sprinting over with a fire extinguisher.

Most of these motherfuckers I don't give a rat's ass about - same way and for much better reasons than they don't give rats' asses about me. And if it IS somebody I give a rat's ass about him there are no medical studies indicating that someone's prognosis will suffer any more from my being airborne than from my watching television.

- When somebody gets permanently demolished - probably ten times worse than Shannon got hurt - in the course of a play do they cancel the NFL game. What happens when somebody gets killed hallway through an Indy 500 race?

How can a person look at a pilot who DOES launch in that situation in any other way than completely lacking in any true interest in the injured student pilot's well being?

Oh. Because he didn't blow out of his harness, leave the kid and the mom to fend for themselves, and join the herd running over to the impact site that automatically means he's completely lacking in any true interest in the injured student pilot's wellbeing?

If you're so fucking concerned by everybody's wellbeing then where were you after the 2013/02/02 Davis Link fatality? That goddam piece of one-size-fits-all fishing line had been A massive and THE primary threat to damn near every aerotow pilot on the planet for decades and you didn't lift a finger to help Team TadClone kill it once and for all and destroy the reputations of the motherfuckers who'd been perpetrating it.

Then include that the about to launch PG is a tandem rig and the passenger is a child!

THINK OF THE *CHILDREN*!!!

The PIC...

As opposed to the Pilot Not In Command.

...after launching...

Over six minutes after launching.

...TELLS the boy about how serious Shannon Hamby's injuries are likely to be.

After the boy ASKS about how serious Shannon Hamby's injuries are likely to be. And he answers him totally honestly...

Um... I think it was pretty severe. Judging by the way she hit the ground I'm gonna guess she probably has a collarbone, shoulder, arm, rib injury... Something like that. Lung injury...

Lungs? She hit on her side pretty hard. It would be like falling off of a rooftop and landing on your side. So like probably... She probably has a lot of damage in that area. I don't know. We're not gonna know until a little later here.

Imagine that! And to an eleven year old kid customer while airborne. Must've slept through some important parts of the u$hPa instructor certification clinic.

Then, the PIC actually flies Closely (!) over the crash scene! There's something called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It can develop after witnessing the death or serious injury of another human being. Good thinking Brad Geary! (note absolute sarcasm)

And here's the boy several seconds after the traumatic, emotionally devastating low pass:

Get me! Take a picture!

At every flying site I've ever been to people STOP preparing to fly if someone has a bad launch or a crash anywhere near launch.

Oh really? You've been to flying sites with people capable of preparing to fly?

Good pilots go to see what has happened and what needs to be done.

ACTUAL good pilots look for shit that's going on in order to PREVENT crashes.

I'd call that process "established pilot etiquette".

I'd call that a load o' crap. They didn't have enough qualified cooks working on that one? How many good pilots does it take to dial 911 on an iPhone?

As a one time USHPA Certified Instructor I believe that having completed a Red Cross First Aid course is probably STILL a requirement.

Total fucking waste of time. Every minute spent in the goddam Red Cross class is one that should've been spent teaching the instructor what a hook-in check is and that standup landings serve no purpose whatsoever other than to crash gliders and do whatever to their occupants.

Kind of puts a "duty" on an u$hPa Certified Instructor to help when there is any possibility that help is needed.

There was EVERY "possibility" that help was needed. They had it covered in spades.

But things are clearly different at Air California Adventure Inc. Tandem joyride income ($$$) comes before injured pilots.

Bullshit. If she'd needed Brad's help he'd have provided it. And he was the guy who notified the husband (John - hadn't gotten that before) and was able to direct the emergency response from the beach...

They called 911. They called 911. They're already here on the beach.
Yeah, they probably think they're on the cliff or something.
Lifeguard! Are they responding to the pilot injury? The pilot's up here on top of the hill.

...by virtue of being airborne.

PS - The boy's helmet is also an improper fit. It's too large.

Yeah. So?

ANY u$hPa Certifed Instructor should know that a properly fitting helmet is VERY important.

What's the data to support that statement?

A helmet that is too large can cause more damage upon impact than one that is the proper size.

ANY helmet of ANY fit can cause more damage upon impact than no helmet at all. SOME helmet is PROBABLY gonna be better than NO helmet but ya never know fer sure until after the impact. So the BEST helmet strategy is to not have the impact.

The whole idea is that the helmet is "SAFETY Gear"...

Yeah, like a Rooney Link.

...not "Let's Add Another Negative Factor That Allows For Potential Injury Gear"

Yeah. Like a Rooney Link, backup loop, locking carabiner.

I can name you a shitload of people who've been mangled and killed by Rooney Links and placebo releases. Tell me about some of the "if he'd only had a quality properly fitting helmet" disasters.

Hey John.

I am still in the air. Um... There are sirens coming and she's still being tended to, I don't know any details. Um... Call... Why don't you call... Why don't you call the gliderport office and ask whoever answers the phone for a physical update. Maybe they could put one of the people working on her on the phone.

You know the number?

OK.

That was her husband calling me back.

So he was, in fact, lying when said:

I saw it from the air and I'm still in the air.

Big fucking deal. It WOULD have sounded worse/bad if he'd said "I saw her crash just before I took off." but that would've been all about appearance and zilch about substance. Would've been better if he'd said, "I saw her crash while prepping for a tandem. Sorry I didn't stick around but she had no shortage of overqualified response and I had a kid waiting to get airborne."

And he was also lying when he said "She's alive and well...". That I've got a problem with 'cause it's pretty devastating when you arrive expecting "alive and well" and suddenly discover that she's "alive but pretty seriously fucked up". But MDs pull that kinda crap on people all the time.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41619
Goodbye Bob K?

Davis Straub - 2015/04/18 23:15:19 UTC

Notice of Expulsion Hearing

was received today by I presume all USHPA members.

It came with this notice:

THIS MESSAGE CONCERNS MATTERS OF INTEREST TO USHPA MEMBERS. IT IS BEING SENT ONLY TO USHPA MEMBERS. THE INFORMATION IN THIS MESSASE IS PROVIDED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF USHPA MEMBERS AND FOR USHPA PURPOSES ONLY. USHPA MEMBERS MAY USE THIS INFORMATION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BEING INFORMED AND DISCUSSING THE SAME EXCLUSIVELY WITH OTHER INTERESTED USHPA MEMBERS. THIS MESSAGE AND ITS INFORMATION MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, DISTRIBUTED, POSTED OR LINKED TO.

Oh. You sleazy backstabbing motherfuckers don't want this message published, distributed, posted, or linked to?

MEMORANDUM

TO:
ALL USHPA MEMBERS
FROM:
RICH HASS, PRESIDENT
DATE:
APRIL 18, 2015
RE:
ROBERT KUCZEWSKI EXPULSION HEARING INFORMATION
At USHPA's Spring 2015 directors meeting, the Board of Directors determined Robert Kuczewski has failed in a material and serious degree to observe the rules of conduct governing this corporation and has engaged in conduct materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interest of USHPA. Consistent with the procedures set forth in USHPA's bylaws and the requirements of the California Code, USHPA's Board will hold an expulsion hearing by conference call at 6:00 PM PDT on April 22, 2015, where Mr. Kuczewski will be given an opportunity to be heard, both orally and in writing. Following the hearing, the board will determine if the expulsion should take place.

Members can download and review the same written documentation related to the expulsion action the board will consider. This documentation includes:
USHPA's notice of expulsion, which includes a list of the reasons for the expulsion action.

A memo to Mr. Kuczewski asking him to focus his response to the proposed expulsion on certain of his actions reflected in the documents.

Copies of emails, depositions and other documents that demonstrate actions by Mr. Kuczewski that the Board found to support the proposed expulsion.

Written documentation provided by Mr. Kuczewski to USHPA for its consideration in deciding whether or not the expulsion should take place.
A review of the expulsion notice and memo will give members a better understanding as to why USHPA's board voted in favor of commencing this expulsion action. USHPA is making the documentation supporting the proposed expulsion and the documentation Mr. Kuczewski submitted in response available to members in the interest of transparency and disclosure. USHPA's reasons for the proposed expulsion and the documents supporting it have been made in writing. As such, USHPA will not be presenting oral testimony or responding to questions at the hearing. At the hearing we will review the specific reasons for the proposed expulsion as outlined in the expulsion notice. Mr. Kuczewski will then have an opportunity to present an oral response. Following his oral response, Mr. Kuczewski can choose to, but is not required to, answer questions, if directors have them. After any questions, Mr. Kuczewski will have an opportunity to summarize the reasons why he believes he should not be expelled from USHPA.

The process for expelling a member is set forth in USHPA's bylaws, which are consistent with requirements in the California Code and form recommended by the California Continuing Education of the Bar. In fact, USHPA is exceeding the minimum notice requirements by providing over 30 days notice when only 10 days is required. The bylaws allow expulsion hearings to be heard by USHPA's Executive Committee. Instead, USHPA's full Board of Directors will participate in the hearing.

So what are the "purposes and interests" of USHPA? They are described in USHPA's Mission Statement. USHPA's primary mission is to ensure the future of free flight through advocacy, communication, community, the development and preservation of flying sites, learning and safety. (Ref: SOP 02-00) Mr. Kuczewski has stated on his forum postings that he is facing expulsion because USHPA doesn't like his calls for reforms at Torrey Pines and within USHPA and because he has participated as an expert witness in a lawsuit against Air California Adventures and a USHPA member on behalf of a student pilot injured in a mid-air collision. Mr. Kuczewski claims USHPA's attorney pursued his expulsion in order to discredit his expert witness testimony. None of these allegations are true.

Mr. Kuczewski's unacceptable behavior falls into four general categories:
Behavior that interferes with instruction and represents a safety hazard at a flying site.

Behavior that jeopardizes landowner relations and, as a result, puts a flying site at jeopardy.

Behavior misrepresenting one's qualifications as an expert witness and misrepresenting USHPA's instruction standards and requirements for the purpose of causing harm to other USHPA members and USHPA certified instructors.

Behavior intended to discredit USHPA, ostensibly for the purpose of promoting his own agenda and organization.
On November 9, 2014, Mr. Kuczewski was arrested following a confrontation with an instructor at Torrey Pines. The instructor believed Mr. Kuczewski's behavior was interfering with his ability to instruct students and asked him to leave. He refused to leave and the police were called. After refusing to comply when the police asked him to leave, he was arrested.

In a subsequent restraining order hearing initiated by Air California Adventures against Mr. Kuczewski, the judge watched Mr. Kuczewski's own video of the confrontation and commented that Mr. Kuczewski's behavior was "just totally unacceptable behavior". The judge encouraged Mr. Kuczewski to avoid similar confrontations in the future.

Rather than heed the judge's admonishment, Mr. Kuczewski returned to the glider port within a week of the hearing and caused a similar confrontation. Once again, police were called after Mr. Kuczewski refused to leave. Police arrested him for the second time - this time for malicious mischief. On April 12, Mr. Kuczewski returned to the Gliderport with a reporter and TV cameraman. Once again, the Police were called when Mr. Kuczewski insisted on taking actions not authorized by the site administrator. Mr. Kuczewski finally obeyed the police officer's demands that he leave the gliderport and he was not arrested. USHPA's board will consider whether Mr. Kuczewski's behavior at the Gliderport is consistent with the purposes and interests of USHPA.

In an ongoing campaign to discredit and apparently displace the concessionaire at Torrey Pines, Mr. Kuczewski has appeared before the San Diego City Council over 60 times. USHPA doesn't question his right to do so as a citizen however USHPA believes the effects of numerous inaccurate, misleading and unsupported statements Mr. Kuczewski has made before the council puts the Torrey Pines flying site at-risk. Links to his testimony before the city council are available for review. USHPA's Board will consider, for example, whether claims of corruption within the city government made by a USHPA member are consistent with USHPA's purpose and interests, or whether they have the potential for putting a landmark flying site at-risk.

Mr. Kuczewski recently served as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against a USHPA member and Air California Adventures, the Torrey Pines concessionaire and flight school. USHPA's board will consider whether he overstated his qualifications as an expert witness and colored his testimony for the purpose of achieving his personal goals with respect to the Torrey Pines Gliderport at the expense of accurate depictions of the standards of care of all flying site managers (including USHPA chapters), and the standards of care applicable to USHPA instructors.

Mr. Kuczewski is not a certified instructor and has no experience managing a flight park or school. He claims that, as a USHPA regional director, he was responsible for safety in the region; a claim apparently intended to overinflate the value of his testimony. Mr. Kuczewski's actual testimony in deposition is available for review. USHPA's Board will consider whether his testimony on the obligations of site managers and paragliding instructors is consistent with the true standard of care of site managers (typically clubs and chapters, but sometimes commercial operations) and paragliding instructors - whether his testimony is consistent with the responsibility of pilots, even student pilots with 26 flights over a 6 month period, to see and avoid other pilots as established by FAA Regulations Part 103 and in USHPA's training program.

The Board will determine whether Mr. Kuczewski's testimony was reasonable and supportable or colored for the purpose of Mr. Kuczewski's own personal agenda. The Board will determine whether, by writing to encourage the plaintiff's counsel to name the City of San Diego in their lawsuit against the Gliderport, Mr. Kuczewski acted in a manner consistent with USHPA's purpose and interests as it relates to site preservation. The Board will consider whether, by providing copies of USHPA's SOP's and other documents to the plaintiff's counsel, he violated USHPA's terms of use, where members agree to download documents only for their personal use.

Mr. Kuczewski had stated that USHPA's expulsion action against him is intended to discredit his testimony in the above trial. He has said that USHPA is obstructing justice and interfering with the plaintiff's rights to a fair hearing. His claims are entirely false. The case was settled last month, prior to USHPA's Board meeting and prior to USHPA taking any expulsion action against him. USHPA deferred taking any action against Mr. Kuczewski until after the matter was resolved in order to avoid any question of USHPA interfering with the case while it was still being heard.

There are other examples where Mr. Kuczewski has gone to great length in his attempts to discredit USHPA while at the same time, promoting his own organization and agenda. For example, in his regional director candidate statement (November 2014 Hang Gliding and Paragliding Magazine), he claims USHPA doesn't let members know how their directors vote, which is untrue and easily verified by a cursory review of any Board minutes over the past several years. He also claims USHPA's leadership uses things like committee chairmanship appointments and awards to "keep directors in line" yet he fails to offer even a single example.

Recently, there was a tragic tandem accident near Las Vegas, involving the death of the tandem instructor and his young student. Within days of the accident, Mr. Kuczewski claimed USHPA "rushes in to do damage control (suppression of information)". However, the true facts are that USHPA's Accident Reporting Committee immediately offered its expertise and is cooperating with local officials and the FAA in investigating and reporting on the accident with the single objective of learning how to avoid similar accidents in the future. Mr. Kuczewski's claims are baseless and entirely false, not to mention, insensitive and inappropriate in the days following a tragic accident. USHPA directors will consider whether claims such as these are consistent with USHPA's purposes and interests.

The Board will be consider whether there are other ways for USHPA to address Mr. Kuczewski's behavior short of expulsion. USHPA simply wants the objectionable behavior to stop. Unfortunately, his behavior is getting worse over time - not better, as evidenced by his multiple arrests and his failure to heed the advice of a judge. If he doesn't listen to a judge, will he listen to USHPA? Expulsion is a last resort and unfortunately, USHPA directors are now in a position of having to evaluate Mr. Kuczewski's behavior and make a responsible decision.

Members are welcome to review the documents directors will be evaluate in their deliberations and draw their own conclusions. USHPA recognizes this evaluation process is time consuming but it is an important element in understanding why USHPA is taking this expulsion action. The Board looks forward to hearing Mr. Kuczewski's explanation of his behavior before making a final determination. In the interim, we ask members to be patient and open minded, giving Mr. Kuczewski an opportunity to defend his actions as he sees fit.

USHPA will hold the hearing during an open session conference call, where members may call in and listen but won't be able to speak. Call-in instructions and documents related to the expulsion hearing may be viewed by members in the Members Only section of the USHPA web site at:

https://www.ushpa.aero/member_expulsion_hearing-20150422.asp

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1787
USHPA Expulsion Proceeding

Bill Cummings - 2015/04/19 05:57:49 UTC

Well I tried to log into Kitstrings but was unsuccessful getting past their security login.

You can't LOG INTO Kite Strings until after you've REGISTERED for Kite Strings or one of three Moderators or one of the four people with my password (three of whom are also Moderators) has ACTIVATED you. I'd be real curious to know what Username you were trying to log in with 'cause I see no evidence that you've ever registered.

I wanted to post a thank you to Tad for posting the BS from USHPA about the bob k expulsion.

You're more than welcome. (Hell, shouldn't really be thanked for doing something from which I derive nothing but pleasure anyway.)

Oh well people over there see me as a pig fornicator anyway not big loss being banned their.

- Give me a list of these "people".

- Oh, is that a statement recognizing/affirming that Bob Show Nobody is, in fact, Kite Strings / u$hPa Steve Davy - 88875 - and thus that Bob's pretense for locking him down in Bob's Basement and butchering his Bob Show accessibility is pure unadulterated bullshit?

- Bob's called me an unrepentant child molester and threat to all people of varying ages, particularly your many Bob Show people of varying ages, and got to stay on here through an astounding level of Homosexual-Relationship-With-A-12-Year Old-Boy spam. And even after all that I've unbanned him such that he has full member access. And you think that being called a pigfucker by one individual on a glider web forum is a big fuckin' deal?

You're quite welcome here as far as I'm concerned - a lot more welcome than still current member AKhanggliding / Garrett Speeter is - and as long as you engage in discussions honestly and respectfully I'm pretty sure you won't be called a pigfucker by anybody. Please register. If you have any problems email me - address in my first post here, Post 2 on "Welcome / About This Forum".

[<BS>]

Brad's tandem video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSBX-mERwY
majiemae5 - 2015/04/17
dead

That's why awareness is so important Zack. You'll see uh when we're out there flying, my head it never stops turning looking around all directions all the time.

Unless of course I'm holding my helmet in one hand while my head is tilted back so I can bite the canopy behind me.

[Tad Eareckson]

I've been working on a massive dissection of this video (and going blind) for the past couple days - around 170 stills and as full a transcript as possible. I'm about ninety or more percent on this guy's side. No significant criticisms regarding safety whatsoever.

[JoeF]

I've been working on a massive dissection of this video (and going blind) for the past couple days - around 170 stills and as full a transcript as possible. I'm about ninety or more percent on this guy's side. No significant criticisms regarding safety whatsoever.

Tad,
It will be interesting what you say safety wise about:
1. Un-soil-anchored (or otherwise secondary-anchored or kill-lined) canopy wing in the vulnerability of the wind before Brad is harnessed and before he has his string sorted, especially while being steward for the boy.

2. Not choosing to stand down but risking complicating the airfield while a accident is having to be faced by unknown assets.

3. Not choosing to stand down even while twice recognizing that a helicopter might be needed in the environment. In some cases even one second could make the difference between life or death, or between less internal injury and more internal injury, or less brain damage or more brain damage by hemorrhage quantity.

4. Not choosing to stand down when not knowing just how such incident scene will be affecting the tandem flight he was doing. Of just how such scene will affect the boy or the combination of himself and the boy.

5. Handling and using the apparently unleashed cell phone. How much loss of attention could make a difference for his tandem flight? How much focused attention is due to his stewardship of the boy? I am estimating that 100% of his attention should be on his flight once he was in the air, as the boy's life and well-being deserves 100% focus.

6. The multiple times of the boy's self-adjusting the too-large helmet was distractive even watching the video. Will the boy be adjusting his helmet when he needs to focus on the hand positions instructed in pre-launch? Could Brad have aborted the joy-thrill ride until a proper helmet was available? Of course. How many points of risk are involved with having a too-large helmet over such a young neck? And why are there not helmets that integrate with torso and spine to avoid less neck injury? Why was the boy not fitted with a neck-space-filler torus?

7. The offing of PIC helmet while paying attention to mouth bite another PG's LE ? What occurs to the risk portfolio during close-contact with another PG? Does adding the significant risk of such contact flying a matter that would be approved by the parents? By the tandem SOP's of instructor certification? Does such arrangements of two PGs fall within the FAA tandem waiver expectation? Did Brad increase risks to the boy's life and well being by choosing to enter the PG-to-PG complex?

8. On the second coupling of PG-to-PG where Brad grabs lines of the other PG, how much risk was tolerating added with regard to snag-line potential. Risk adding for at least three persons: how much? Falling PGs are risks to people on the ground also.

9. What are the potential problems of teaching a boy to spit into the open air; I did not think we are permitted to openly spit from high points in the air. I did not hear Brad qualifying the spitting situation. Will the spit carry what potential germs to people on the ground and in the houses? Why not spit into one's sweat shirt? FAA requires that pilots do no harm to others. We do not know the health quotient of the boy's spit. And now one can wonder how many students Brad has told about spitting. And one wonders about Brad's spitting record.

10.

[<BS>]

Live video streaming of the trial would be nice.