[Bill Cummings]

I also congratulated Bob for exposing the USHPA for what it is.
Now the world will open up for Bob as better hang glider pilots invite him to fly their 'secret' sites.
Good timing, too, because the season is coming.

Rick that's exactly what I did when Bob called. I told him when he is caught up with all his court stuff to come out here and we can camp and fly the unregulated sites.

[dhmartens]

As I type this I am banned as well. No shga postings. ushpa has banished Doug Martens 79750.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Mark Forbes is a LIAR.

Here's what he wrote on the Oz Forum at http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41619&start=616:

As I said 61 pages ago, I would try not to engage in debate or discussion about this, pending the board's hearing. The hearing is now over and the vote for expulsion was unanimous. There has been a lot of speculation about this, and I'm not even going to try to address it all. What I will do instead is to state why *I* voted for expulsion.

The crux of the matter for me is Bob's testimony as an expert witness in the case against the Torrey Pines flight park and against our member, David Fishbach. At the time of his testimony, both Torrey and USHPA were parties to the lawsuit, via their respective insurers. Our attorney, Tim Herr, was later able to get Fishbach released from the case, leaving only the flight park on the hook.

It sounds great doesn't it? But it's a lie!! Mark said:

Our attorney, Tim Herr, was later able to get Fishbach released from the case ...

The truth is that I told Shannon Hamby's lawyers on multiple occasions (both verbally and in writing) that I would not testify against Dave Fischbach because I felt that BOTH Shannon and Dave were victims of the poor instruction and supervision by the concessionaire at Torrey Pines. Here's just one email message after one of my earliest meetings with Shannon's lawyers. I had checked my PO Box and found a check for $200 from them for a short consultation where I told them that they were both victims. Here's that message:

From: Bob Kuczewski <bobkuczewski@gmail.com>
To: Brett J. Schreiber <SCHREIBER@tbmlawyers.com>
Subject: RE: A few follow-up notes ...
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:07:15 -0700

Hello Brett,

I have a very large P.O. Box which allows me to take long trips without worrying about it filling up.

It turns out that I hadn't checked it since some time in October. I checked it this weekend, and, as you can imagine, it was full of surprises.

One of the surprises was a check from your law firm for $200.00 dated November 7th, 2012.

While I appreciate your intentions, I will not accept any money for my efforts to reform the Torrey Pines Gliderport. So please void that check because I won't be cashing it. Thanks in advance.

Also, I just want to reiterate what I've said before. I firmly believe that BOTH of the pilots who collided that day were BOTH victims of the poor instruction and poor supervision by the concessionaire. BOTH pilots held student ratings which meant that they BOTH should have been under the care and guidance of their instructors. It's clear that they were not or they would not have collided.

Finally, I'd like to point out the following on-line review of the flight operations at the Torrey Pines Gliderport found on yelp.com:

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/torrey-pines-gliderport-flight-school-la-jolla
    6/6/2012
    "I don't want to risk my life flying with someone who stinks like pot. I know marijuana
    is legal now for some people but seriously, would you want to jump off a cliff dangling
    from a parachute steered by someone who is stoned? The pilots aren't the only thing high,
    the prices are way too expensive. $150 for 15 minutes? I can go to a flight school and fly
    a real airplane with a licensed pilot for a whole hour for less than that."

If you want to stop the injuries at Torrey Pines, you have to go after the people who are in charge (concessionaire) as well as the people who've allowed it to happen (City). Dr. Fischbach is as much a victim of them as your client.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski
858-204-7499

I also sent this a couple weeks later:

From: Bob Kuczewski <bobkuczewski@gmail.com>
To: Brett J. Schreiber <SCHREIBER@tbmlawyers.com>
Subject: Culprits?
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:51:15 -0700

Hello Brett,

I spoke with Dr. Dave yesterday at Torrey Pines, and I just want to reiterate my observation that there were two victims that day.

I think you're making a mistake by not inviting him to join with your client against the real culprits in that incident - the negligent management and instruction practices of the Torrey Pines concessionaire. I know that the waivers signed will be difficult to overcome, but you might ask why people are forced to sign away their rights to enjoy recreation opportunities on our city property. Where are the waivers to swim or surf at our beaches? Where are the waivers to play ball at our parks?

The bottom line is very simple. When two students collide under the "care and supervision" of their trusted instructors, it is NOT the student's faults. The amazing thing is that this isn't the first time that two students (under "care and supervision") have collided. The same thing happened with two other students. Different people, different accidents, but the same concessionaire. Please think about it.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

It was my own refusal to testify against Dr. Dave Fischbach ... back in 2013 ... that caused Shannon's lawyers to recognize that he was not at fault. In fact, they explicitly told me that they were dropping the case against Dr. Dave based on my urging. So for Mark Forbes to state otherwise to try to make Tim Herr look like a hero shows what a disgusting liar he is.

Mark Forbes goes on ...

The fact is that two pilots collided in mid-air over the LZ. One corrected a partial deflation and landed safely. The other did not, and spiraled in to crash with serious injuries. Both pilots were current USHPA members, both had signed our waiver, and both had signed the Torrey waiver as well. Ordinarily this would be sufficient to have the case dismissed on summary judgment. Our waiver clearly states that we, as pilots, accept the risk of injury or death, even if caused by the negligence of others, active or passive, to the fullest extent allowed by law. To me, that's pretty clear. I will not sue or make a claim, against anybody, for any reason.

Mark, that sounds nice, but it becomes a license to kill. It becomes a license to be negligent and then to push that negligence into gross negligence. That's what Robin Marien and his crew did to Shannon. If USHPA can't police its own, then who will?

The one thing that a plaintiff's attorney can try to defeat our waiver is to convince a judge that there was "gross negligence". Bob has used that term a lot as he describes Torrey and its management. Gross negligence isn't just an ordinary mistake, a momentary lapse of attention, or even doing something dumb. Gross negligence is an action far beyond the bounds of any reasonable behavior, so far beyond that nobody could excuse it as "just a mistake". My example is a shotgun left in the LZ for a pilot to trip over. That's negligence on the part of the shotgun-leaver. If that person instead is firing the shotgun into the air with pilots overhead and hits one, that's not a mistake…that's where I'd say gross negligence is found. (And a criminal charge too, but that's a separate topic.)

You only have to look at the video by Brad Geary and Max Marien to see gross negligence. Pulling down on the leading edge of a tandem paraglider carrying a child passenger is exactly equivalent to firing a shotgun into the air with pilots overhead. They didn't kill one of those kids (fortunately), but it was exactly that same kind of arrogant gross negligence that injured Shannon Hamby.

The plaintiffs in this case did exactly that. They tried to find an "expert" who would testify that the flight park's operations on that day were grossly negligent, far beyond the standards and practices of our sport in any reasonable way. They were mostly unsuccessful, because

... because of fear of what you just did to me. USHPA is like the mob, and you've just proved it with your retaliation. It will be that much harder for the next Shannon Hamby to find someone to tell the truth because you've made an example of me. Disgusting.

when they talked to expert instructors in our sport, they got the same answer each time…it's the pilot's responsibility to watch out for traffic and avoid collision. It's not the job of an instructor on the ground to guarantee the safety of pilots in the air. Pilots are personally and individually responsible for their flight decisions.

Sure, when they talked to expert instructors who didn't want to lose their instructor rating. Again, if anyone testifies against a USHPA buddy, the Board fires back with instant retaliation.

I will quote a very small portion of Bob's testimony:

It is my opinion that Air California Adventures’ allowing David Fischbach, a student who held no paragliding rating at the time of the collision, to fly at the Gliderport without direct visual instructor supervision and without maintaining radio contact constituted an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care in the paragliding industry. It also blatantly disregarded the safety of pilots at the facility and increased the risks inherent in paragliding.

Taken alone, you might think that makes sense. But what isn't said is that David is a master-rated hang glider pilot with thousands of flights over decades at Torrey, and he had all of the skills and knowledge necessary for a P3.

You're a liar Mark. It was said by the experts from the other side. That was your big defense. What you don't like is that it didn't hold water, and the judge didn't buy it. I fly both hang gliders and paragliders, and I can tell you they are quite different. But forget opinions. The fact is that they ran into each other, and David had NO PARAGLIDER RATING AT ALL ... and Shannon was a P1. Both should have been on the radio in those conditions and both should have been getting the supervision that would have kept them safe. That was my position with Shannon's lawyers back in 2013 and that's why they dropped the charges against Dr. Dave.

The one thing he didn't have yet was completed paperwork.

He didn't have a RATING. But by your logic I can fly Torrey on May 1st, because my suspension is just ... paperwork. Mark Forbes, you are a disgusting piece of garbage.

Given the real context, I believe that statement to be an outright lie.

You can believe what you want, but the judge believed differently ... and the judge was right.

Bob disagrees,

You bet I do.

but as a director I get to make my own determination of his truthfulness.

Not in a real court of law you don't. But in your USHPA kangaroo court you can get away with what you want as proved earlier this evening.

Based on what I know of our sport, the testimony of all the other experts, and the written and video records, I don't think Bob was telling the truth in his expert testimony.

You've got the Torrey Pines Concessionaire raking in money throwing Pnothings and P1s into the air at a P3+ site. The students paid Robin Marien to learn to fly ... not to be guided into each other in a ... crash course. That's the true testimony and you don't like it because it points out that I've been screaming at USHPA to provide oversight at Torrey Pines for YEARS, and you've done NOTHING. As they say, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.

Our site access rules are based on observed skills and knowledge of a pilot's abilities, not exclusively on whether they hold a specific rating card at a given time.

Mark Forbes you're a LIAR. Try to go to Torrey Pines without a "specific rating card" and see how far that gets you (unless you're one of their buddies or pass them some cash).

A rating card helps to inform a site manager of what skills a pilot has demonstrated in the past, but it's not a guarantee of current skills. For a regular with over a hundred paraglider flights and thousands of hang glider flights at the site, it's not "grossly negligent" for the site manager to allow that pilot to fly.

If he had so much experience, then why didn't he get his rating? Isn't that what we all have to do to fly at Torrey? You seem to want to throw the rating system under the bus, but that's the system that YOUSHPA has created and refined and tinkered with for 40 years. But it somehow doesn't matter when it's inconvenient? To have an unrated pilot and a P1 flying at Torrey Pines on that day without appropriate supervision was a recipe for disaster. It was just a matter of time, and the people you've been shielding from oversight ended up biting you in your insurance butt.

By signing onto these incomplete and misleading statements, Bob gave the plaintiffs the leverage they needed to defeat what would routinely be a dismissal at summary judgment.

I stand by every statement I made. You didn't like it because it points out USHPA's lack of oversight of the out-of-control Torrey crowd. You don't have to look any further than the rest of that video.

This added significant cost both to USHPA's insurer and to the Torrey flight park insurer.

Translation: Your lack of oversight and the concessionaire's shenanigans added significant cost.

It signaled to our underwriters that they cannot trust our members to speak truthfully in court,

Translation: It signalled that your underwriters couldn't count on everyone to lie to protect the guilty.

and they must price into our risk the additional hazard of false testimony such as that which Bob signed.

That's real smooth there Mark. Is that what you and Tim Herr told the Board behind closed doors to get them to expel me? The reality is that they must price into your risk the additional hazard of a national association that's looking the other way while a big money maker like Torrey does whatever the heck they want ... and someone might actually be brave enough to stand up to you and say so.

Bob argues that what he signed is true.

Yes I do.

I say it is not.

And how many times have I proved you to be a LIAR just in this post?

The rest of the experts who testified in the case say that it is not.

Who wants to be expelled for saying otherwise?

Bob's own instructor says that he was never told the things which he now asserts are true. None of the real experts in our sport was willing to agree with the plaintiff's statements…just Bob.

That's because you've created a wall of silence where no one will speak out. They're all protecting each other's backsides, and Shannon Hamby gets grossly negligent instruction and a hospital bill. You are disgusting Mark Forbes.

For me, this was the primary reason to expel Bob Kuczewski.

Yup, to set an example. Whatever happens in USHPA stays in USHPA. Never mind the innocent suffering.

Setting up a competing organization? Meh…if he wants to do that, he can go for it. If he provides a cozy spot for people who despise USHPA, I think that's great. If he can find thousands of disaffected pilots who would jump at the chance to belong to some other organization, then more power to him. I think he's fantasizing, but he's entitled to give it a try.

Oh, that just happened to be the first item on the list, but it's suddenly unimportant now that you're staring at an anti-trust lawsuit?

I considered Bob's defense of his actions. There was none.

There was none needed. I told the truth in my testimony and that's why your request for summary dismissal was denied. You were hoping you could sweep this under the rug and stick Shannon with her own medical bills with your "mob" mentality USHPA buddies. But your web of deceit unravelled when someone stood up to your mob.

He stands by everything he testified to,

You bet I do.

and from my knowledge and experience, his testimony is incomplete, misleading and false.

That's not what the judge thought. You had the greats like Dennis Pagen testifying against Shannon. But you didn't win because a USHPA member dared to break ranks with your ring of silence. So now it's time for revenge in the form of an expulsion. That will keep everyone else in line next time around.

Finding that reason alone sufficient, I voted to expel him from USHPA.

MGF

Mark Forbes, you are exactly what is wrong with USHPA.

[JoeF]

(I have not yet read BobK's post above; I will read and study his above post soon. Below is what I just posted in Oz Report)

Again MGF has a very narrow view of what is going on with respect to alternatives in hang gliding; he belies such negative blinds in his now repeated:

Setting up a competing organization? Meh…if he wants to do that, he can go for it. If he provides a cozy spot for people who despise USHPA, I think that's great. If he can find thousands of disaffected pilots who would jump at the chance to belong to some other organization, then more power to him. I think he's fantasizing, but he's entitled to give it a try.

What is missing in that picture? Very much! He misses that there are are solid positive reasons to have a HG-focused org; there is zero need to spend a bit of energy on an Org that is P hearted when one wants to put one's energy on an HG org. No energy for despising is needed; just fill one's focus on positive HG! Easy. No need to be disaffected; rather be affected by a care to focus on HG; easy. Robust HG focus naturally has no need to go to bed with a P-hearted Org. Want to put all one's focus on HG? Easy question. Some will say yes and some with say no; no problem. Those saying positive yes to HG focus are free to positively focus on HG and associate in ways that deepen that HG focus. The World Hang Gliding Association, the Hang Glider Magazine, and in USA the USHHG form some of the platform for those wanting to have keen HG focus.

What may keen HG focus look like?
== When an article in one's HG-focused space is on HG, then one is not Peed upon and wrapped with loose canopy and caught in confusing high-count strings.
== Each technology essay is focused on bringing advances to airframed gliders.
== Each "glider" mentioned in considerations has an airframe with pilot close coupled with the wing. Safety is served for such.
== Aerodynamics are not confused with non-airframed collapsing canopy parachute dynamics; safety is served by the clarity.
== HG access to the open navigable airspace is won for HG. Period; no P investment carried. Small footprint on environment by HG focus.
== HG gets to stand on its own merits.

Etc. More to come.

Of course, specifically on the side, there are very good reasons for a self-respecting HG-focused person to STAY a huge distance AWAY from the current corporation u$hPa. Unfortunately, the reasons are too easy to list; see earlier in this topic thread for just some; more to come. Every person who wants to be HG-focused may hopefully one day be informed clearly of the pros and cons of the P-org as to HG focus capacity.

MGForbes' essay [[See the discussion thread in OzR.]] of why he voted to expel a great positive-working member fails to see how the whole daily habit at Torrey Pines PG is a gross-negligence scene many times over. There is also daily gross robbery of airspace citizen rights at that site by way of lies in the Concessionaire's written, verbal, and practice habits. Such gross negligence is seemingly supported by the P-based Org and MGForbes. The airspace HAS NOT been formally or legally privatized; but the push of the Concessionaire supported by the P-focused Org of u$hPa amounts to a gross robbery of the airspace. Moves are underway to show such robbery in full light. Such push and unearned slant on the airspace feeds an unsafe airspace where the system pushes pilots into the air who are slaves to the airspace lie and end up not practicing the pilotage instructed by the FAA where each pilot is to be 100% responsible for flying safely in VFR; the DEPENDENCE on a robber Concessionaire system supported by a slaving rating system and disrespect for PDMC amounts to a gross negligence over unaware newbie PG students and tandem joy-riders. The Forbes P-org is daily grossly negligent … it neglects safe airframed hang gliding in such a P$ way that linearly will continue to bring injury and death; it is not reasonable for a HG-birthed Org to become a P-saturated death trap for unaware Concession-pushed students who haven't the PDMC clue, who are being sold a tilted airspace-use format, and who are being taught a piloting where money$-for coffers comes before 100% self-responsibility. It is a gross negligence to support a system that does not have a strong, deep, and comprehensive ground school that includes history, aerodynamics, practical experiments, physical fitness proofing for specific coordinations; on average it is is gross negligence to bypass such when attracting the public into piloting aircraft. People will pay in injury and death for such gross negligence. The incident case Forbes mentioned involved gross negligence by the Concessionaire and by the u$hPa which both participations were not reasonable to an uncommon extent; their participations were cutting, deep, hurtfully penetrative into the lives of the two pilots and into the scene where the flying was occurring. Such guilt won't be covered by expelling BobK who more rightly has seen many levels of gross negligence occurring at the TP scene; at some point MGForbes will wake up in the middle of normal sleep with the stark realization that the complex of the P$Org and the TP Concessionaire formed ON THAT INCIDENT DAY an avoidable gross negligence of responsible arrangement and conduct. Those in leadership positions in the Org and Concession and government have a task before them: Change the runaway out-of-control situation within the P org and the Concession and government with respect to access to the navigable airspace at the public park at TP. Stop slaving the public in a lie about how to be an aircraft pilot in public airspace!

[Rick Masters]

Wow. After reading BobK's post I would be wary of allowing USHPA to be too closely allied with any free chapters or the national hang gliding association that replaces it.

Also, Joe very correctly points out the stunning and utterly incompetent behavior of the tandem parachutists carrying children within the Paraglider Dead Man's Curve (PDMC). This is exactly how tragedies happen. In my view, no USHGA-sanctioned "instruction" should be allowed anywhere without the "instructor" being equipped with a ballistic reserve. But, of course, even this wouldn't do any good should the "instructor" induce a collapse while holding his helmet in one hand and leaning over backwards and biting the leading edge of the paraglider behind him. To risk four simultaneous deaths this way, including two children of an unsuspecting public, is reprehensible.



The entire USHPA BOD should receive a vote of no confidence over the myopic way they see priorities.

Hang glider pilots in particular should understand why their fees are so high when they read this:

and they must price into our risk the additional hazard of false testimony

The thing is, the insurers aren't going to know who to believe. They will, however, believe this: The USHPA can't keep its own house in order.

But worse, much worse, is the behavior of the tandem paraglider parachutists entrusted with children. They clearly endangered the children by engaging in canopy relative work within the PDMC above a public Beach while claiming to be providing "instruction." If the insurers should see this video, they will realize their actual exposure is far beyond what they had assumed. They will also realize they can no longer trust the USHPA.

Hang glider pilots must realize they are subsidizing this potentially huge parachuting liability. Seeing the USHPA expel a member outspoken on safety while simultaneously turning a blind eye to dangerous paragliding behavior at a showcase site is, to me, beyond belief. If I were a USHPA member, I would run, not walk, away. But today's hang glider pilots have obviously drunk the kool-aid. They see something entirely different, I guess.

[brianscharp]

As I type this I am banned as well. No shga postings. ushpa has banished Doug Martens 79750.

USHPA says 79750 is Petri Diosegi with membership having expired in 09-30-2005. Is that your other name?

[Bob Kuczewski]

The entire USHPA BOD should receive a vote of no confidence over the myopic way they see priorities.

The word "myopic" is exactly what I was thinking.

USHPA Leadership: Bob is reporting problems at the Torrey Pines Gliderport in various venues (the City Council, the Courts, ...).

USHPA Board:Yes. Yup. Exactly. That's the problem. Aye.

USHPA Leadership: Bob's actions in reporting those problems threaten our sport and Torrey Pines.

USHPA Board: Oh my yes. Exactly. Yes. You've nailed it. Right.

USHPA Leadership: If we don't expel Bob, he's likely to continue.

USHPA Board: Yes. Seems likely. Oh yes. No argument there. Yup.

USHPA Leadership: If we expel Bob, he might get mad and continue even harder.

USHPA Board: Good point. Yup. No denying it. Can't argue with that.

All of USHPA: Oh my whatever shall we do in this terrible dilemma?

The Missing Board Member:
        How about if we sincerely address
        the problems Bob is complaining about?

[dhmartens]

79759 not 79750 Doug Martens. Barton misspelled his number too.

[brianscharp]

79759 not 79750 Doug Martens. Barton misspelled his number too.

USHPA says you're current and good until 10-31-2015. I wonder what Bob's # is showing.

[msoaring]

Wow. After reading BobK's post I would be wary of allowing USHPA to be too closely allied with any free chapters or the national hang gliding association that replaces it.

Also, Joe very correctly points out that the stunning and utterly incompetent behavior of the tandem parachutists carrying children within the Paraglider Dead Man's Curve (PDMC). This is exactly how tragedies happen. In my view, no USHGA-sanctioned "instruction" should be allowed anywhere without the "instructor" being equipped with a ballistic reserve. But, of course, even this wouldn't do any good with the "instructor" induces a collapse while holding his helmet in one hand and leaning over backwards and biting the leading edge of the paraglider behind him. To risk four simultaneous deaths this way, including two children of an unsuspecting public, is reprehensible.



The entire USHPA BOD should receive a vote of no confidence over the myopic way they see priorities.

Hang glider pilots in particular should understand why their fees are so high when they read this:

and they must price into our risk the additional hazard of false testimony

The thing is, the insurers aren't going to know who to believe. They will, however, believe this: The USHPA can't keep its own house in order.

But worse, much worse, is the behavior of the tandem paraglider parachutists entrusted with children. They clearly endangered the children by engaging in canopy relative work within the PDMC above a public Beach while claiming to be providing "instruction." If the insurers should see this video, they will realize their actual exposure is far beyond what they had assumed. They will also realize they can no longer trust the USHPA.

Hang glider pilots must realize they are subsidizing this potentially huge parachuting liability. Seeing the USHPA expel a member outspoken on safety while simultaneously turning a blind eye to dangerous paragliding behavior at a showcase site is, to me, beyond belief. If I were a USHPA member, I would run, not walk, away. But today's hang glider pilots have obviously drunk the kool-aid. They see something entirely different, I guess.

I would like to see someone submit the video with a clear, concise step by step analogy (of what is actually taking place), to the insurance company actuary to see. Maybe that would spur the changes Bob is trying to make?