[Rick Masters]

I'd like to offer my apologies to those whom I assured this problem had been resolved.
I was wrong.
I have no interest in participating in a laughingstock.
I will review my options.

[Bob Kuczewski]

There are a number of problems in the current way that hang gliding is organized and administered in the United States. One of the big problems is communication between those with an interest in the sport. Right now almost all national communication is through a few channels (listed in my estimation of their reach):

• USHPA
• hanggliding.org
• Oz Forum
• US Hawks
• FaceBook

I'm not quite sure if FaceBook is at the bottom (it may even be at the top). And the U.S. Hawks may sometimes be ahead of the Oz Forum. I believe that's the reality we face.

Joe began posting on hanggliding.org because he recognized that a lot of pilots get their hang gliding "news" from that site. Jack banned him because Jack doesn't want those pilots to get that news. This is not only unfair to Joe but damaging to all efforts at reform.

If anyone has alternatives please post them or contact any Board members personally.

[Red]

Third comment - Red, you have a hybrid picture. You don't speak up because if you're banned then you can't help (however many) newbies find their way safely in the sport of hang gliding. But then there are a number of people who can give good advice on sg.org. So, it seems like you think your advice is better somehow? Seems a little self centered.

Scott,

I would never think that my advice is "better somehow," but I will do my best to see that it is "present," all in one place, and available. Imagine (as a new pilot) trying to find good answers (and maybe even to vital questions that you didn't know you had) in any HG forum or group of forums. I see that maze of information as one real entrance barrier to new pilots, and maybe even to their continued good health. Hate to think that some new pilot would try something now that we had dismissed years ago as "too dangerous." I post where I can, and it's mostly upbeat in nature.

There are problems with every HG forum that I can use. Some problems are generic, and some are personal, but I believe that I have a right to say what I choose to say. Some people want to write my speeches for me , and then tell me where I must go to deliver those speeches. I won't try to stop them from issuing such foolish dictates, but I am an adult, and I may not obey very well.

Since you may not know much about me, back in the Rogallo era I was building those gliders with a true HG pioneer on the East coast. I also taught our HG students to fly, and did the same in Colorado and Salt Lake City. That covers decades of experience. If you have read my web page, linked below, I would like you to compile a list of all that information, but all taken from other sources. I only make that little challenge because I'd like you to appreciate the aspect that I call information "all in one place." I know, it can all be found elsewhere, certainly, and probably better, but I think you would be kinda busy for a good while, making that list. The average walk-in pilot candidate may not be able to do what you can do, to gather all that stuff for themselves. Unfortunately for the new pilots, the sky does not forgive "I didn't know that."

I think you are quite correct; many HG pilots here (and there) can do what I try to do, and probably better. As soon as they do, you may not hear much from me after that. I'll probably be out flyin'.

Lastly, I realize that Bob has a beef with another forum owner, but that's really none of my business. I have no magical powers to fix his personal mess; I would seriously doubt that anybody considers me an "asset." Aside from all that, Bob bans people from here, the same as his nemesis does on another site. Hard to see much difference, in that. His Don Quixote quest now is entirely the wrong approach, IMHO. I have no desire to buy a first-class ticket on the Titanic. I have tried to tell him where the pumps are located, and even how to effect the hull repairs at sea, but Bob only hears what Bob wants to hear. You will find him on the fantail, rearranging the deck chairs. I would not want to assist him in doing that.

[Bill Cummings]

I'd like to offer my apologies to those whom I assured this problem had been resolved.
I was wrong.
I have no interest in participating in a laughingstock.
I will review my options.

I think I'm done throwing more logs on this fire.

123.JPG (25.73 KiB) Viewed 5537 times

I'm a lot concerned about some of the 123 people watching
this carrying on.
I've said my piece. Time to review my options.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'd like to offer my apologies to those whom I assured this problem had been resolved.
I was wrong.
I have no interest in participating in a laughingstock.
I will review my options.

I think I'm done throwing more logs on this fire.

I'm a lot concerned about some of the 123 people watching this carrying on.
I've said my piece. Time to review my options.

Any organization that really conducts itself in an open environment will expose some internal unpleasantness. Ever see clips of the British Parliament wrestling matches?   

If Red were posting about Jack on hanggliding.org as he's posted about me here he'd be banned. Red might even find that his posts had been changed to something despicable. Do you remember what Jack did when he banned Al Hernandez? Jack erased what Al had written and replaced it with:

      "I like to touch little boys".

That was in Al's own post as if Al had posted that himself. That's the kind of person who just banned Joe Faust. Despite what Red would like to believe (mostly to make himself feel better about not defending Joe), there is no moral equivalence between the U.S. Hawks and hanggliding.org. There is also no moral equivalence in how they are managed.

And that's a nice place to get back to Frank's original topic:

    Hang gliding is in more trouble than I thought.

Try to wrap your head around the fact that one of the largest communication channels in the entire sport of hang gliding is managed by someone as juvenile and irresponsible as Jack Axaopoulos.

[Rick Masters]

Bill Cummings wrote:
Rick Masters wrote:

Bob,
Neither Bill nor I post on the site you give unceasing publicity toward.
We have both given our reasons.
Demanding others again and again to post somewhere else is not appropriate behavior.
Driving off a good Director and bringing him to the point of not posting on or visiting the forum makes no sense at all.
Accusing our best members of transgressions when they have done nothing to warrant it ultimately becomes a game you must play by yourself.
I am embarrassed by my association with the Hawks at this time.
I resign my week-old position on your advisory board.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am embarrassed by my association with the Hawks at this time.
I resign my week-old position on your advisory board.

As with other board members who've left and returned you will be welcomed by me.

As I reach my graying years, I am more convinced than ever of our duty to protect the rights of our fellow man. I will not shirk that duty even if I am the last member of this Board or this Association.

[wingspan33]

Hi Red, I want to mention that I know of only one person who has been banned from the US Hawks. An educated guess would be that Jack the Axe has banned at least half a dozen (I was one of them). I know of only one who "deserved" it.

I would also mention, as Bob has brought up, that I was very active on sg.org once upon a time. If I remember correctly SG was first in post numbers. I was second.

I started flying in 1975 and through the USHGA have held Observer ratings, Examiner ratings, Instructor ratings, Tandem 1 and 2 ratings and all ratings leading to and including the Master rating. I'm not bragging. These are just the facts and my accumulated knowledge and experience were once available to interested parties on sg.org. Now they are not.

Your HG experience may be similar or greater. I applaud you either way. Your motivation is to help make new pilots better. As an instructor I was literally able to look up and see pilots flying XC from Ellenville, NY from the T-Hill and NOT wish I was them. Instead, I would point out the small shape in the sky to my student (or students) and say "That could be you one day!". Teaching someone to fly was the gift I received back in 1975 and being able to teach new people how to fly was very close to magical to me. I hope the same is true for you.

Finally, I can't imagine more different people than Bob K and SG. If Bob were Jack you would have been banned from this site after only a couple critical comments. But you're still here. And let us remember that the controversy here is about Joe F getting banned over on sg.org not about Bob. I still have to read the bulk of this thread to figure out how it shifted from the one topic to the other.

[wingspan33]

I took a long time to post my response to Red. In the mean time a number of responses have been made.

Personally I could give a flying F about how many people are viewing this thread. Are they being entertained? Are they being educated? Tell me if you can read their minds. I don't know of anyone who can, so . . .

I can agree that "telling" people to post on some other site can be seen as a bad idea. But asking good people to speak up in support a good friend and fellow pilot, . . . how is that BAD?

Bob's reaction to Joe's banning over on that other web site was to point out that it was wrong. The response by more than a couple major members here has been to fulfill Jack the Axe's wildest dreams - to wreak havoc over on the US Hawks. Thanks Frank and Rick! Jack the Axe sends his love!

It's time to END this squabbling. There ARE more positive things to focus on. Such as, how do I lose the 5 pounds I've gained since Thanksgiving!

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for your comments Scott. You make some excellent points. Thoughtful writing often takes more time than can be squeezed between rapid fire posts in a hot topic. Your posts show the value in taking that time.

I did a little writing of my own tonight, and I've written what I might consider the "lessons learned" from this topic. I've tried to look at the discussion from the perspective of our mission statement and other rules. There are no bombshells in there, and I hope everyone who participated in these topics will read them thoughtfully. Skip to the last paragraph if you're short on time and just want the happy ending.

Organizations often experience what are known as "shakeouts". They are often the times when an organization's goals and values are brought into sharper focus. This seems like one of those times.

The U.S. Hawks mission statement (reflected in our logo) is:

    To Promote, Protect, and Serve Recreational Hang Gliding.

The recent upheaval has been about the banning of Joe Faust and the obliteration of "USHGRS" on hangliding.org. So one important question to ask is whether our mission statement gives us any guidance in the matter. There are several strong words in that very short mission statement.

The first is "promote". Was Joe "promoting recreational hang gliding" in his posts on hanggliding.org? I can see no way to say that he wasn't. USHGRS is a free service. That's certainly appreciated by recreational pilots. USHGRS provides alternate ratings to USHPA's. Given the uncertain future of USHPA, that seems like a great benefit to recreational pilots. So on those grounds alone, I see that Joe's efforts have been very much in alignment with our mission statement of promoting recreational hang gliding.

The next part of our mission statement is to "protect recreational hang gliding". Implicit in protecting recreational hang gliding is protecting the pilots who engage in it (what would hang gliding be without pilots?). This is probably the area where I feel the strongest. There are lots of challenges to our pilots. Examples include cyber bullying (as we saw done to Joe on hanggliding.org), silencing of views (as we saw on hanggliding.org), and suppression of important information (as we saw on hanggliding.org). It seems very clear to me that protecting Joe Faust from the mistreatment he was getting on hanggliding.org is well within our mission statement.

The last part of our mission statement is to "serve recreational hang gliding". There's no doubt that the USHGRS is a service to hang gliding pilots. Even more importantly, there's been no one I've ever met in the sport of hang gliding who better exemplifies the word "service" than Joe Faust.

So I think the bases are well covered that the U.S. Hawks mission statement weighs very strongly in favor of opposing Joe's ban and the subsequent obliteration of "USHGRS" on hanggliding.org.

The one thing that the mission statement doesn't tell us is how to do those things. In the past, the U.S. Hawks has been a proponent of pilots taking their own initiative. One example was the printing and distributing of U.S. Hawks bumper stickers by one of our members. I believe Frank has had one of those on his truck for some time now.

I remember feeling a little uneasy when those bumper stickers came out because the logo wasn't the standard one we'd been using. I worried that it might dilute the strength of our trade mark. On the other hand, one of our members had taken his own initiative to do something that he felt was helpful to the club. In the end, I felt that good intentions and initiative were more important than the other considerations.

We've also had a very liberal policy of allowing pilots to be critical of other pilots and organizations under the one condition that they must make their real name known. The "real name when criticizing" policy is intended to prevent anonymous attacks. There was a lot of criticism flying in a few recent topics, but I believe the real names of all the participants has been posted by those participants somewhere on our site (most in the U.S. Hawks ratings sections). While there were harsh words from all sides, I didn't see anything that we don't normally allow.

So I haven't seen anything in any of those discussions that violated any of our rules. Furthermore, the entire topic seemed fairly well aligned with the mission statement that was approved by the Board several years ago.

Is there something else? Do we want a "code of conduct" for directors? Do we want a "code of conduct" for members? I have long advocated that disputes among our members should be handled privately whenever possible. That's why I strongly suggest that our members exchange phone numbers and just call each other to iron things out. But it's also been long understood that the public square is always available as a court of last resort. In this case, personal contact was made with all parties multiple times before the matter was brought to the public square.

A lot of hay has been made about one member (me) telling other members what they should do or say. For better or worse, soliciting the actions and voices of others runs deep in the human species. People lobby, influence, and try to convince each other all the time. I recently learned that political speech is one of the most protected forms of speech. And political speech is almost always directed at getting someone else to do what you want them to do. I'm somewhat surprised that the "Don't tell me what to do" argument was used at all - especially since that statement itself is telling someone else what they should do.

I suspect that the fallout from this discussion will be felt for some time. I've heard that a new organization may be formed. I think that's great. Every attempt provides lessons learned. More organizations means more choices. It means more differentiation in the marketplace. I see that all as good. The monopolies held by a small few have been toxic to the sport of hang gliding. In my discussions with members, it's often been expressed that money needs to be collected to form a "real" organization. I think the U.S. Hawks already is a "real" organization because real people are more important than real money. But if a "for fee" organization starts up, then that's yet another choice. Great!

Scott made an interesting suggestion tonight on the phone about a hang gliding "union" concept. In some ways I think that description fits the U.S. Hawks. I'm not generally a union supporter, but I do have strong feelings about promoting, protecting, and serving our members as much as the sport of hang gliding itself. That was, after all, the primary motivation behind the arguments leading to this recent rift. Such a rift is positive if it sorts people into organizations more to their liking. That's what I expect will happen here. Hopefully the people who find their way to each organization will be happier and more energetic in an organization that fits them.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that as contentious as this topic was, and as ugly as it was, no one was banned. No one was expelled. No disciplinary actions were taken. No lawyers were called. Given what we've seen in some other organizations, I consider that a major victory.