[Bob Kuczewski]

Where's Rodney King when we need him?

Can't we all just get along?

Of course he said that after quite a crime spree.   

Never mind.

[TadEareckson]

Peter,

I have engaged you in several long discussions only to find you a recalcitrant egomaniac.

Yeah, I hear that kind of thing a lot. But what I DON'T hear much of is "You're wrong on this because..." when the "because" stuff is based upon something in the REAL world.

Your take on things is, as Dutcher suggested, evangelical...

1. DO try to keep things in context. When Dutcher was going ballistic he thought he was talking to (I later realized) Tad Hurst and subsequently apologized. (I will add, however, that when something is being said it shouldn't matter whether or not the source was or is a total a*shole.)

2. I've got no problem with evangelical - as long as what's being evangelized is based upon actual data. Rick Masters is evangelical about some serious paragliding issues and everybody's better off for it.

...if it ain't your way, it's heresy.

You wanna define "my" way, give me some example, show everybody what's wrong with it?

You don't care for discussion...

Sure I do, Peter. I've asked a couple of times some variation of:

Tad Eareckson - 2011/09/23

WHAT PROBLEMS OF ONE POINT USING A KOCH TWO STAGE OR TWO POINT (ONE TO ONE) IS A TWO TO ONE BRIDLE SOLVING?

but I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you.

Now how 'bout you finding an example of ME dodging a question from YOU - or anybody else for that matter?

The Linknife, by the way, has been in constant use for 15 years without a single injury as a result and many happy pilots.

1. The single loop of 130 pound Greenspot has been in use for twenty years as the perfect weak link for ALL aerotow solos and results in untold thousands of pilots being so happy with it that if anyone speaks ill of it he will be ostracized and exiled for life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTa6XL16i0U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_4jKLqrus

Keith Skiles - 2011/06/02

I witnessed the one at Lookout. It was pretty ugly. Low angle of attack, too much speed and flew off the cart like a rocket until the weak link broke, she stalled and it turned back towards the ground.

2. There has NEVER been a SINGLE injury because of 130 pound Greenspot because you can ALWAYS find something the pilot didn't do perfectly and thus you can ALWAYS write the crash off as pilot error.

3. 95 percent of hang glider pilots are total morons and keeping morons happy has never been too much of a challenge for anyone - especially in a sport controlled by total morons.

4. When you say it's been in constant use for fifteen years without a single injury AS A RESULT you get to exclude stuff like:

Peter Birren - 2008/10/27

I know about this type of accident because it happened to me, breaking four ribs and my larynx... and I was aerotowing using a dolly.

and the point I keep trying to get across to you that you keep not getting - or wanting to get - is that if you can't actuate the goddam mechanism when the s*** hits the fan it doesn't matter much how reliable and efficient it is.

Peter Birren - 2008/10/27

Imagine if you will, just coming off the cart and center punching a thermal which takes you instantly straight up while the tug is still on the ground. Know what happens? VERY high towline forces and an over-the-top lockout. You'll have both hands on the basetube pulling it well past your knees but the glider doesn't come down and still the weaklink doesn't break (.8G). So you pull whatever release you have but the one hand still on the basetube isn't enough to hold the nose down and you pop up and over into an unplanned semi-loop. Been there, done that... at maybe 200 feet agl.

5. For the purpose of that exercise you got killed. And if your goddam 0.8 G weak link had blown at the wrong time on the way up you'd have been just as dead as Brad Anderson and Eric Aasletten.

6. I don't give a rat's a** about the injury free records of towing equipment. The flight parks flood the market with some of the shoddiest crap you ever wanna see, it fails so commonly that people are surprised when it doesn't, and they've almost always got enough time and altitude to get away with it and/or go to work on some Plan B or C.

7. The things I care about are:

-a) Can it be made to fail under simulated worst case scenarios?

-b) Can I make it work instantly while maintaining maximum possible control of the glider?

-c) Will it do me any unsolicited favors by freeing me from tow when I don't tell it to?

See: http://www.birrendesign.com/LKTestimonials.html.

JohnG - 2009/04/13

Rick,

Not being constructive? There is one person who has put more thought and time into releases than anyone. That person is Tad. He explains the pros and cons to every release out there. I gave you the link to more release information than the average person could ever digest, and I didn't get a thank you. Just you bitching that we aren't being constructive. What more could you want? He has created something that is a solution, but no one is using it... apparently you aren't interested either. So what gives??? What do you want us to tell you? Your concerns echo Tad's concerns, so why not use his system? Every other system out there has known flaws.

Bob,

Thanks for joining in the conversation.

REjoining the conversation after a very long absence and having walked out leaving a lot of embarrassing questions unanswered.

I think it's healthy to try to resolve some of these past issues.

PAST issues? If you go over to Peter's website...

- Donnell Hewett's original 12 elements of a good tow system are as viable today as they were in the early 80's when he wrote them;

- Towing Aloft is still an excellent book;

- perlon is still a no-stretch material; and

- every pilot new to towing could still benefit from the Pitch Limiter setup.

How can I kill thee? Let me count the ways...

We have a very small sport and it's not healthy to have us fractured due to past history.

Helluva lot more healthy than everybody being on the same page as the majority we have now.

So I really appreciate when people make a sincere effort to bring up past issues and hopefully resolve them in a positive manner.

You do that by answering each other's questions and staying in the conversation - not by pulling the plug on someone's microphone because he's upsetting some of the long time zombies in your cozy little cult.

So I'll add that I think your assessment of Tad is mostly accurate.

You're getting involved in a towing war - and towing isn't anything in which you have much background or interest.

Having said that, I still have hope that we might get people like Tad to drop the personal vendettas and apply their knowledge to improving the sport.

1. You keep characterizing these things as personal vendettas when, in fact, they're two plus two equals four versus two plus two equals what I sincerely believe it does.

2. How do you expect the sport to be improved when you're gonna let anybody who can prove he's a real person have a vote on aviation standards and policy?

If we can't, then the US Hawks might be a short experiment in free speech.

1. Free speech? As in the Free Speech Zone? I think it's already a failure in that department.

2. How 'bout we start making it an experiment in competent and responsible speech? You can help get that going by seeing if you can get Peter to answer the Hewett Bridle question. As soon as he does that I can REALLY start disemboweling him.

Can't we all just get along?

1. That's a really bad idea for a hang gliding organization.

2. If we're gonna get along it'll be contingent upon people being on the same page with two plus two equals four.

3. Don't hold your breath.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I have engaged you in several long discussions only to find you a recalcitrant egomaniac.

Yeah, I hear that kind of thing a lot.

Gee, I wonder why you hear that kind of thing a lot ... maybe because it's true?!?

But what I DON'T hear much of is "You're wrong on this because..." when the "because" stuff is based upon something in the REAL world.

Then listen to this. Tad, you're wrong about forcing people to launch with a tight hang strap in all conditions because it adds more danger to high wind / turbulent launch situations than it removes. There, you're wrong, you're wrong, and you're wrong!! I've given you that "because" answer many many times. So the problem isn't that you don't get real answers. The problem is that you just don't want to hear them. You don't want to find a solution. You just want to be right and show everyone how brilliant you are. And when you happen to be wrong, that becomes a recipe for an endless stream of nonsense because you won't admit it. So when you say you don't hear people telling you why you're wrong ... that's because you just don't listen!!!

And because you don't listen, then that makes it frustrating for people who respond to you. So they just throw up their hands and say "why bother?" as I am doing now with the rest of your post. I just don't have time to keep answering the same questions over and over and over again.

Finally, I continue to assert that your goal is not to improve safety as much as it is "disemboweling" the people whom you despise (Tad wrote: "As soon as he does that I can REALLY start disemboweling him"). I assert that you do this because you've felt slighted in some way or another (maybe with a remark, or maybe by someone not hailing you as the savior of towing, or maybe just by someone not hanging on every word you write). I think you're trying to beat people into showing you respect, and that causes them to respect you less and less.

So I challenge you to prove to me (and to everyone on this forum) that your real goal is to improve safety by winning people over with calm discussions that don't simultaneously attempt to insult and/or "disembowel" them. If you can do that, then I'll start listening again. Until then, all I see is a vendetta, and it's not currently worth my time to read or respond.

[TadEareckson]

Gee, I wonder why you hear that kind of thing a lot ... maybe because it's true?!?

1. And/or maybe because ANYBODY in this sport with an IQ of 33 or better who's done his homework, knows what he's talking about, and sticks to his guns is gonna be treated like a deranged freak by the other 99 percent (easily identified by the bent pins they all wear on their shoulders).

2. Recalcitrant:

...having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline.

COOL! Thanks!

3. Egomaniac...

When you're at the top of your game - why not? And this is such a pathetically easy game to get to the top in - given the caliber of the average player.

Tad, you're wrong about forcing people to launch with a tight hang strap in all conditions...

I've NEVER in my life stated that as an objective, even taking statements out of context you can provide no evidence to support that charge, I've repeatedly told you this, you continue to repeat the charge, and I'm getting a bit tired of this cycle.

...because it adds more danger to high wind / turbulent launch situations than it removes.

1. Based on WHAT DATA? Something better than "The experts assure me this is true."

2. I'm not talking about launching with a tight strap anyway. I'm talking about tensioning it JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH - like USHGA says - and then doing whatever the hell you feel like DURING launch. I've lost count of how many times I've tried to get through to you on that point as well.

There, you're wrong, you're wrong, and you're wrong!!

Sure I am, Bob. 'Cause you say so, 'cause you say so, 'cause you say so. EXACTLY the way Rooney says:

The "purpose" of a weaklink is to increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.
The "purpose" of a weaklink is to increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.
The "purpose" of a weaklink is to increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.

You just want to be right and show everyone how brilliant you are.

1. And we sure don't want any brilliance getting established in a hang gliding organization, do we? That would blow the hell out of any hope for cohesiveness.

Mitch Shipley - 2011/01/31

Jim, as I am starting to play with Elektra Tow (ET) at Quest Air (the battery powered "scooter" tow system you and Adam got me jazzed up about up at Highland) I've watched this thread closely. We all can learn.

Enjoy your posts, as always, and find your comments solid, based on hundreds of hours / tows of experience and backed up by a keen intellect/knowledge of the issues when it comes to most things in general and hang gliding AT/Towing in particular. Wanted to go on record in case anyone reading wanted to know one persons comments they should give weight to.

2. If I were considered to be brilliant by the vast majority of people in hang gliding I'd slash my wrists. ("Well according to Tad and Jim..." Get nauseous just thinking about sentences starting off that way.)

And when you happen to be wrong, that becomes a recipe for an endless stream of nonsense because you won't admit it.

Nonsense?

A glider doesn't feel like it's pulling you off the hill if you're not hooked in.

So when you say you don't hear people telling you why you're wrong ... that's because you just don't listen!!!

I actually do listen - even when people have established track records indicating that the chances of them being worth listening to are under one percent.

And because you don't listen, then that makes it frustrating for people who respond to you.

Funny, I don't seem to be noticing that sort of thing too much when I'm doing procedures, equipment,and physics with Zack, deltaman, and Nobody over at Kite Strings - or really with miguel or Bill over here.

So they just throw up their hands and say "why bother?" as I am doing now with the rest of your post.

Great! You're up to 3.6 percent of the word count now!

I just don't have time to keep answering the same questions over and over and over again.

Maybe if you'd read what I'm actually saying instead of addressing what you think I'm saying and making assumptions - or even caring - about my motivation...

Finally, I continue to assert that your goal is not to improve safety as much as it is "disemboweling" the people whom you despise (Tad wrote: "As soon as he does that I can REALLY start disemboweling him").

1. Rooney, Matt, Davis, Jack, lotsa folk... - I DESPISE. I don't despise Peter. But he's a dangerous idiot who's putting out a lot of dangerous information that people take seriously. I'd prefer to work with him and bring him over towards the light side of The Force but he has neither the interest, brains, or attention span to stay in the conversation long enough to do any good. So, what the hell... Plan B.

2. I CAN really start disemboweling him as soon as he attempts to answer the Hewett Bridle question.

3. Notice he's not attempting to answer the Hewett Bridle question?

4. Maybe you could take a stab at attempting to answer the Hewett Bridle question?

I assert that you do this because you've felt slighted in some way or another (maybe with a remark, or maybe by someone not hailing you as the savior of towing, or maybe just by someone not hanging on every word you write).

1. I just don't want him killing my nephew when I'm not around to protect him.

2. You're not interested in towing. You've done it once - tandem - and you haven't even studied stuff NOT written by me. You shouldn't be commenting on the subject.

I think you're trying to beat people into showing you respect, and that causes them to respect you less and less.

If they respect Sir Isaac I don't give a flying fu** how they feel about me.

So I challenge you to prove to me (and to everyone on this forum) that your real goal is to improve safety by winning people over with calm discussions that don't simultaneously attempt to insult and/or "disembowel" them.

1. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in proving to you or anyone else on this or any forum what my goal is. It's not important or relevant.

2. I was attempting to have a calm discussion on Peter's site with him and his zombies a couple of years ago when he pulled the plug on my microphone.

3. If this is supposed to be a free speech forum (which it is by no means) insults are part of the landscape. Peter made his entrance here by calling me a "f*ckin' coward", "ignorant slut", and "a*swipe". As a member of this organization I totally support his right to do that - without any asterisk or "Free Speech Zone" restrictions. I'm a zillion times less concerned about that here - and/or on Kite Strings - than his "Pitch & Lockout Limiter" page on his own site.

If you can do that, then I'll start listening again. Until then, all I see is a vendetta, and it's not currently worth my time to read or respond.

Then you really have no interest in improving safety (big surprise). 'Cause if you did...

Zack C - 2011/08/12

These statements baffle me. I judge someone's ideas by their own merit, not my assessment of his character. I'd rather have the best hang gliding instructor in the world than the nicest, even if the best was a total d*ck.

...you'd judge my ideas by their own merit, not your assessment of my character or state of mental health or how well I play with others - and it would make no difference whatsoever that I'm a total d*ck.

P.S. And, by the way and along those lines... Despite the fact that Peter's done quite a bit to keep towing in the dark ages, the Linknife is a pretty good idea. And a couple of weeks ago recommended its incorporation into a very clever two stage release - one I'd chose over the Koch two stage - one of Antoine's countrymen is developing.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Blah blah blah blah blah

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

When you're at the top of your game - why not?

If this is the top of your game, then you should pick another game that doesn't involve telling new pilots that they should be lifting their gliders into a turbulent jet stream just to verify something that they checked 10 seconds ago.

Blah blah blah blah blah

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

And because you don't listen, then that makes it frustrating for people who respond to you.

Funny, I don't seem to be noticing that sort of thing too much when I'm doing procedures, equipment,and physics with Zack, deltaman, and Nobody over at Kite Strings - or really with miguel or Bill over here.

Yes, because you don't have anyone challenging you there. You've banned anyone who might utter a peep of an objection.

Blah blah blah blah blah

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

I just don't want him killing my nephew when I'm not around to protect him.

If that's your motive, then how about if you just tell your nephew to stay away from him? Duh?

Oh, but you won't do that because that's just a smokescreen for your real agenda ... to "disembowel" people. Got cha!!

Blah blah blah blah blah

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

So I challenge you to prove to me (and to everyone on this forum) that your real goal is to improve safety by winning people over with calm discussions that don't simultaneously attempt to insult and/or "disembowel" them.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in proving to you or anyone else on this or any forum what my goal is. It's not important or relevant.

[sarcasm] Gee, I could have never seen that dodge coming a mile away!! [/sarcasm]   

Blah blah blah blah blah

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

[TadEareckson]

If this is the top of your game, then you should pick another game that doesn't involve telling new pilots that they should be lifting their gliders into a turbulent jet stream just to verify something that they checked 10 seconds ago.

(Oh good, more material for the commitment hearing.)

1. This turbulent jet stream a foot over the glider exists ONLY in your extremely fevered imagination.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.

2. The people who really have their s*** together on this issue don't do ten seconds.

Yes, because you don't have anyone challenging you there.

1. How could you possibly know? You obviously don't have the slightest clue what's going on there. And if you did read anything you wouldn't be capable of understanding it anyway.

2. Challenges involving people who speak science, math, and logic tend not to escalate very much.

You've banned anyone who might utter a peep of an objection.

List the victims. The only bannings that can be documented at either of these places have been Nobody and me.

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

You waste your time when you DO respond. You have so little coherent or reality based to say.

If that's your motive, then how about if you just tell your nephew to stay away from him? Duh?

1. 'Cause there may me other people's nephews out there worth keeping in the gene pool.

2. 'Cause when somebody puts out dangerous information it can cross all borders and circulate for untold decades.

Oh, but you won't do that because that's just a smokescreen for your real agenda ... to "disembowel" people. Got cha!!

No you don't. I've never made the slightest secret of the pleasure I get from disemboweling deserving people. I joined this forum overflowing with the joy I was feeling from a long awaited and richly deserved disemboweling of Tracy Tillman - one of Peter's long time cult members in good standing.

Now that I think about it a bit... Keeping my nephew alive is just a byproduct of my favorite pastime.

Gee, I could have never seen that dodge coming a mile away!!

Then it was extra freakin' stupid to bring up the issue, wasn't it?

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time to respond.

Good. It would only be wasting my and everybody else's time if you did.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Challenges involving people who speak science, math, and logic tend not to escalate very much.

I guess that explains your escalation here on US Hawks. You've got no science, math, or logic to back up what you claim. For example, in another topic you said that 30 seconds was too long between a hook-in check and a launch. You said it should be 2 seconds.

But you haven't used any science, math, or logic in that number because if you had, you'd know that in windy conditions it will take more than 2 seconds to transition from a safe hook-in check to being ready to launch again. So by the time you're ready to launch again, you've got to perform another hook-in check. And by the time you've done that hook-in check and prepared for launch, you'll have to do another hook-in check. And by the time you've done that hook-in check and prepared for launch, you'll have to do another hook-in check ...

Before long, you'll think you're having a conversation with Tad Eareckson because you'll be wasting all your time covering the same ground over and over and over and over ...

So please don't insult the pursuits of science, math, or logic with whatever it is that you're doing.

Thanks in advance.

[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way, for anyone reading through all of this, I'd like to summarize what's been happening.

Tad came along and started pushing the "lift and tug" hook-in check method. I think this is a great method, and I'm very supportive of people using that method. I'll try to do it more often myself in the future.

But that wasn't good enough for Tad. He wants to force everyone to do that. I don't think that's something we should be forcing people to do - especially in windy and difficult launch situations. In those cases, a hook-in check by some other means should be allowed.

Tad didn't like that, but he couldn't really come up with a good excuse for requiring a "lift and tug" when there are other means of doing a hook-in check. So then he began beating the "just prior to launch" drum claiming that "just prior to launch" meant something very short like 2 seconds. Well, the only hook-in check you can do within 2 seconds is a lift and tug because a step-through-turn-and-look hook-in check requires you to step back through and lift the glider to prepare for launch. Of course all of that will take more than 2 seconds, so therefore you cannot perform that kind of hook-in check and be compliant with a 2 second rule.

For me, the worst rule in the world is one that cannot be followed. It not only defeats its own purpose, but it also undermines people's respect for rules. So I will never support a rule that cannot be adhered to in the real world.

But Tad is so wrapped up in trying to "defeat" me in this argument, that it's no longer about what's safe and reasonable. Instead, it's all about him trying to demonstrate his superior thinking skills in a protracted posting war.

This will not further the sport of hang gliding and it certainly won't help grow the US Hawks. But that's where we are right now.

I will point out, however, that Sam Kellner does NOT have this problem on the SW Texas forum because he simply banned Tad and is done with him. With every post, Tad reinforces Sam's wisdom in doing so.

[TadEareckson]

I'm responding to this nonsense at the:

US Hawks Hook-In Verification Poll

thread.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad,

I asserted that you don't have problems with people on the KiteStrings forum because you've banned anyone who would object. You've replied (above):

The only bannings that can be documented at either of these places have been Nobody and me.

Now I have no way of knowing who you've actually banned from KiteStrings. But I do know what's been said in our past discussions on this forum:

You know I'm not very fond of people being banned.

As I've said before...
With what I'm trying to do at Kite Strings I'm EXTREMELY fond of seeing people banned. You need people with brains at the top to tell the dregs that tend to do most of the flying what they can and can't do - just like in REAL aviation.

As I said, I don't know how many people you've actually banned with the ban button, but I doubt that very many people on your "hate list" would even bother to register at Kite Strings under those conditions. Why would they increase your site's legitimacy by registering if the only thing to be gained was your satisfaction (and revenge) by banning them? So I would say that you've effectively banned all of your serious critics already.

Also, it's interesting to see (in retrospect) the contempt that you hold for "the dregs that tend to do most of the flying" in our sport. Those are the people we should be reaching out to so they can become better and safer pilots in a better and more responsive national organization. But your model is that the people with "brains at the top" need to tell everyone else (the "dregs") what they can and can't do. I believe that viewpoint is much more consistent with USHPA than it is with the US Hawks. Maybe you'd be better off trying to gain control of that existing "top-down" organization than trying to invert the intentionally "bottom-up" structure of the US Hawks. Please consider that. Thanks.