US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

jimshaw Apr 30, 2016 5:17 am wrote:
To All SHGA Members here on the forum -

(I believe someone just took down the second "Calling Ken's Bluff" heading where he severely challenged Ken's sincere offer to help him gain membership, where Bob "in our face" is actively solicited members to his US Hawks, our competition (no matter how small), and more. So, if we have to do all this editing for Bob it is time the Board takes further action.)

I think we have had enough of this madness with Bob, and it is not without great lack of trying to help him on Ken's part or mine.

He is stuck trying to have things totally his way, or the highway. I think this is plainly evident by his insistence that Ken get him back in the USHPA Bob's way.

Please read, CAREFULLY, this statement I copied verbatim yesterday from the site of the US Hawks - Bob's creation.

"Is there a Board of Directors for the US Hawks?"

"Not yet. The HGAA's early problems arose because different people
wanted to take the organization in different directions. That created
power struggles which cost the HGAA some of its early leadership. For
now, I'm going to take the US Hawks in the direction that I believe is
right. If people want to go along, then they're welcome. If not, there are
at least two other alternatives."

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin, but I strongly believe I caught the essence of the man with just that one statement of his.

WHAT DOES HIS STATEMENT SAY? Some early leadership left because of a power struggle. That means some stayed? But Bob has declared his total dictatorship, and taking the group in the direction HE wants, and if people don't go along with HIS WAY they can hit the highway!

This "free flight" organization is actually a dictatorship by Bob's own words, plain and simply. And HE is going to dictate to the whole group.

He organized the Hawks because he shunned by our organization, hence we now have HIS organization as the competition. And as Ken clearly stated above, the USHPA has bylaws that are pretty obvious, including "negative publicity and competition with its own members".

To all Sylmarians here, including the SHGA Board, whether you think the US Hawks is our competition or just a rag tag team of renegades run by Bob, don't take the chance. Bob has amply shown negative publicity to the USHPA on the forum, has personally attacked our own membership on this forum, and has organized a competitive organization, the US Hawks, and actively solicits for members here.

THUS I SUBMIT TO THE SHGA BOARD THE FOLLOWING:

1) On this forum no person(s) shall solicit SHGA members to another similar organization.

2) Sadly, it is time to ban Bob from this forum. We have more than given him his say. He has become repetitive and very pushy in nature and in our face with everything BOB including his USHPA past, and his active and blatant solicitation of our members for his competing group, and under our very noses. Board members, sadly it is time to act. Hopefully, the US Hawk dictatorship is not a threat in the future. But do we want to sit around and take that chance?

THE CHANCE THAT WE GAVE BOB, THUS THE US HAWKS, OUR FORUM TO EVANGILIZE? WHAT IF THE US HAWKS GIVE HANG GLIDING A BAD REPUTATION WITH THE PUBLIC? DON'T THINK FOR A MOMENT THIS WILL GIVE OUR USHPA A BIG UPHILL TO CLIMB. NIP IT IN THE BUD NOW PLEASE.

To wrap it up, we Sylmarians take it very seriously when our site (and by extension the sport of hang gliding) is put into jeopardy by the careless acts of our members. And we Sylmarians also have a code of conduct. Well, Bob is a non-member of the USHPA and gets away with murder on our forum! It is time, Board Members, however reluctantly it is because of our believe in the freedom of speech, that you take direct action as mentioned above.

I will leave the Board with one last thought:

HOW MUCH DOES ONE NON-MEMBER NEED TO BE BEFORE WE TAKE NECESSARY ACTION?

jimshaw Apr 30, 2016 5:30 am wrote:
All Members,

To clarity the statement in parenthesis at the beginning of my comment above, I wrote the above all before a second thread, also named "Calling Ken's Bluff" was totally edited out of this forum just now. In my above comment I speak to that thread. Obviously, it was so obnoxious that the whole thread was banned!

Anyway, I am not going to write the above over again. Those who read the deleted thread, including those Board members who decided to delete it, knows of what I speak above.

Thanks.

Bob Kuczewski Apr 30, 2016 8:14 am wrote:
Jim,

For the record, I did not see the "Calling Ken's Bluff" topic that you mentioned, and I am completely unaware of its contents.

Also for the record, the US Hawks does not compete with the SHGA. In fact, the US Hawks is another option for the SHGA. It may be an option that some do not want, but it may be an option that others do want. Banning people from forums for discussing options is not a healthy direction for the SHGA.

With regard to the US Hawks Board of Directors, the quote you gave was from the FAQ that I wrote in 2010 when I founded the US Hawks. We have had what we call a "Trial Board of Directors" in place for well over a year now, and it contains members from all over the country (California, Texas, New Mexico, New York). It is currently advisory, but every decision of that Board has been followed to date.

Jim, I am very disappointed that you would make such a request, and it reflects a very dark aspect of human nature - the desire to shut up anyone who holds a differing opinion.

I ask that if the SHGA is going to ban me, that they add it to an agenda for their meeting and I will attend. I am available almost any time, but I do have a business trip planned in late May and early June. Any other time would be fine.

Thanks.

Ken Andrews Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:11 am wrote:
Jim,

You’re the one who has been stirring the pot, and you’re free to ignore Bob if you choose to. By the way, I’m also unaware of any thread titled “Calling Ken’s Bluff".

Bob may not know this, but I have been one of the strongest advocates for NOT banning him from this forum. First, I like the idea of free speech. Second, Bob's posts allow pilots to understand him, and USHPA’s and Torrey’s actions against him, based on his own words.

Bob Kuczewski Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:19 am wrote:

Ken Andrews wrote:Jim,

You’re the one who has been stirring the pot, and you’re free to ignore Bob if you choose to. By the way, I’m also unaware of any thread titled “Calling Ken’s Bluff".

Bob may not know this, but I have been one of the strongest advocates for NOT banning him from this forum. First, I like the idea of free speech. Second, Bob's posts allow pilots to understand him, and USHPA’s and Torrey’s actions against him, based on his own words.

Well said Ken, however, I do request one correction now and in the future. You are conflating the terms "Torrey" and "Air California Adventure".

"Torrey" is generally understood as "Torrey Pines" and I love Torrey Pines. My entire effort started because I wanted to see pilots enjoy flying at Torrey Pines without being bullied.

"Air California Adventure" is the company started by David Jebb and currently run by some combination of Robin Marien and Gabe Jebb. Air California Adventure's irresponsibility played a major role (if not THE major role) in USHPA becoming uninsurable.

Air California Adventure loves to conflate the two terms because it makes it seem as if I am trying to damage a flying site. I am not. Instead, I am trying to gain for San Diego pilots exactly what you have at Sylmar - a wonderful flying site managed by a group of sincere and well-meaning pilots who love to fly.

So in the future please use either "Air California Adventure" or their initials (ACA) rather than "Torrey" so your statements are clear.

Thanks.

jimshaw Apr 30, 2016 11:59 am wrote:
To Ken and all SHGA Members,

It is called "Calling USHPA's Bluff". It disappeared from the forum (I couldn't find it for the life of me) for a period of time this morning so I was going from memory.

Ken, I am sorry you feel I am stirring the pot. From now on I will be ignoring the "Politics of flying" section for the most part, definitely the old regurgitated stuff about the past with Torrey, the US Hawks, Bob's issues, and everything else in the same vain.

I still ask the Board to look at the two requests I have and vote 'em yes or no, for the good of the SHGA.

Why?

I strongly feel soliciting SHGA/USHPA members on our SHGA forum to join another hang glider organization should not be allowed. Why?

1) Dual and/or competing membership takes valuable members and resources away from our club and our USHPA association.

2) The US Hawks are running without insurance, which would risk our club if the Hawks were somehow included, and could well reek havoc on the sport of hang gliding in general in the eyes of the public and therefore easily bleed over into a public relations nightmare for all of us hang glider pilots of the USHPA.

Why do I ask Bob (anyone) to be banned from the forum (and as a counter your reasons to include him, Ken)?

Well, we have a USHPA non-member soliciting members to join a competing association on our website. Bad for all the reasons I have stated above.

For more reason why I ask Bob (anyone) to be banned please re-read all that I have stated in my first message from #2 down.

If I am all wet in what I propose, I welcome the Board and any and all club members to reach out to me and tell me what I am missing.

Thanks, Jim Shaw

Bob Kuczewski Apr 30, 2016 12:24 pm wrote:

jimshaw wrote:If I am all wet in what I propose, I welcome the Board and any and all club members to reach out to me and tell me what I am missing.

Hi Jim. Here's what you're missing in two words: things change.

When the original gazebo was brand new, I doubt there was anyone calling to tear it down. It provided a cool spot for pilots to gather and it served that purpose for a long long time.

But eventually, there were those who thought that a newer structure was due and that it could provide things that the old gazebo didn't.

The discussion went back and forth and eventually it was decided that the noble old gazebo (as good is it had been for many years) should be replaced.

That's the situation with USHPA and the US Hawks. Not everyone will agree, and I'm sure not everyone has agreed with the gazebo choice. But the discussion continues and people change their views as the world evolves.

That's a messy process and it's full of pitfalls and sometimes even hurt feelings. But it's the process of progress and that's how we evolved from staring at the sky ... to flying in it.

Does that help?

OP May 01, 2016 7:28 am wrote:
Bob please explain yourself:
http://www.torreyhawksforum.org/

Bob Kuczewski May 01, 2016 2:04 pm wrote:
Class Clown, please explain yourself:

http://www.kitestrings.org/search.php?keywords=orion
Search found 153 matches: orion

How about a detailed explanation for each of those 153 posts?

Back to Jim's more substantial comments, I'll offer a third word: competition.

The US is not a communist country where the government runs around trying to control all prices and products and services. We rely on a free market to sort that out naturally. The free market assumes competition, and in fact, that is the one place where the government does get involved - breaking up monopolies.

Competition causes businesses to constantly evaluate whether they're doing a good job. They don't measure that with opinion polls. They measure it in hard numbers such as membership and income. USHPA - even if it sincerely wanted to - has no way to make such a measurement because USHPA members are FORCED to be members to fly their sites whether they like USHPA or not.

So USHPA cannot tailor benefits or the magazine or insurance or safety record or anything else because it cannot determine if it is gaining or losing members to the competition ... because there IS no competition.

With regard to the Sylmar club, I believe your club is an independent entity. You may be considered a "USHPA Chapter" but that's more like being a USHPA customer. Your association is not prohibited in any way from also being a COSTCO member or a BBB member or a US Hawks member. You make those choices based on the benefits to your club, and USHPA has no business telling you which other organizations your club can belong to or not.

The Rio Grande Soaring Association (RGSA) has been a club for decades - long before the US Hawks existed. They were also a USHPA Chapter long before the US Hawks existed. Their leaders looked at what the US Hawks offered in terms of our web site and our community and our goals and they opted to become a chapter. They currently have one of the most active forums among the US Hawks family of chapters. They are also still a USHPA chapter as well. There is no "us or them" requirement for organizations to be US Hawks Chapters any more than there's a conflict between having a Ralph's club card and a Von's club card.

Within the RGSA, I suspect there might have been pilots (especially PG pilots) who weren't enthusiastic about them becoming a US Hawks Chapter. On the other hand, there were definitely RGSA pilots (mostly HG pilots) who were not too happy about them being a USHPA chapter either. The solution is to be both, and that's what they have been.

Being a US Hawks Chapter does send a message. It's a message that USHPA should realize that they can't count on their monopoly forever. Whether you like USHPA or not, it's healthy for them to get that message. That causes them to be just a little bit more careful about how they spend their money and use (or abuse) their power.

Does that help a little more?

jimshaw May 01, 2016 6:42 pm wrote:
It does not help. The competition does not have insurance which would put the SHGA at grave danger of loosing our ability to fly.

Until the competition is a legitimate organization i.e. is fully protected, it is renegade organization that puts the very sport of hang gliding and paragliding at risk. One that you irresponsibly keep forcing down our throat on this forum.

If I am wrong with the insurance situation above I will gladly accept concrete evidence to the contrary and apologize to you in person.

Additionally, see the other points I have made in the first email of this thread starting with the first sentence in bold.

Bob, you have alienated and agitated so many dozens of people (if not more) at different flying sites and different hang gliding organizations that extreme action has been taken against you. They can't all be wrong or injust!

And Tad's behavior does not condone yours. I don't know the details but OP (Tad?) asked you a legitimate question in regards to his link and you did not answer him directly. Instead, you derogatory and demeaning. You can't control yourself from doing so and this is the evidence in the very face of my request to have you banned here.

Regarding his link, I will just say that it is a must read for all SHGA members.

And I dont know why Ken is still continuing to entertain your desire to be reinstated with the USHPA. It is evident by reading the other political thread that you can't even get on the same page with him. It is also evident in that thread that it is more important for you to draw out the process with Ken rather than having an actual sincerity to be reinstated. Furthermore, if an individual needs/demands to have a Code of Conduct contract drawn up for his/her self to become reinstated, that person need not apply. We are all adults here and can individually police ourselves and toe the line in the USHPA.

All the evidence above unequivocally shows you continue to go too far by relently pushing your agenda to deaf and tired ears of the participants on this forum. Those that are still left to push the ignore button you created.

Again, if I am all wet, Board members and members of the SHGA please let me know where I have errored here.

Otherwise, Board of the SHGA please contact me and let me know when I can meet with you in order to formalize my proposal.

Jim Shaw

Bob Kuczewski May 01, 2016 7:52 pm wrote:Hi Jim,

Your desire to silence me is a bit over the top. On the other hand, you point out that there may be others like yourself who don't fully understand the US Hawks and what we might accomplish for Sylmar.

Let's suppose that the new RRG is required - by law - to provide insurance to all organizations involved in the same sports ( thanks Doug ). Let's also suppose that the US Hawks is able to provide that insurance - identical to USHPA's insurance - to our members at cost.

We are primarily an on-line organization with an on-line forum. We don't publish an expensive magazine. We don't pay for our Directors to travel around the country twice a year in fancy hotels. We don't have an office staff or an expensive "Executive Director" to pay. So let's say that with all those cost savings, we can provide our members the same insurance (with on-line benefits) at $75 per year, and we are a hang gliding only organization.

Now if all of that were possible, would you be opposed to some Sylmar club members flying at Sylmar under the same RRG insurance purchased through the US Hawks rather than through USHPA?

Jim, you've written a bunch of other stuff (like us being a "renegade organization") that doesn't make sense, so I'm just going to ignore it for now. I don't want to get side tracked from the question I've asked directly above. That's an important question, and there may be other Sylmar members interested in how that might play out. Silencing someone for opening such a discussion is like saying your opinion is the only one that matters ... for the entire club. I hope you can see that's not a fair position to take. But if you do want to discuss me being banned from the forum, it might be a good topic for the club meeting on May 14th. I will try to be there.