[brianscharp]

Rich Hass with subject: USHPA EC votes to require helmets when clipped in wrote:

Bob,

You should be pleased to know; earlier this week, the EC voted to amend the safety requirements in SOP 12-01.05 to to require members to wear a helmet whenever they are hooked into their glider. It will take a few days to get the SOP updated and posted on the USHPA website. USHPA will make reference to the updated requirement in its next members newsletter.

Thanks,

Rich Hass

Have we allowed enough time for Rich to change his mind?

[Rick Masters]

I am surprised at the U$hPA's response.
I had expected Hass to ignore BobK.
Clearly, the number of Chapters joining the US Hawks
and the bad press generated by this incident
is making the U$hPA uneasy.
Kudos to everybody.

[Bill Cummings]

Bill,

That's great information. The California section of the law I quoted at the top of the page is the State's version of the same law. But it's very good to have the Federal version since possibilities exist that Bob could face (law enforcement based) bias with local and/or State officials.......

Also, Joe,

I read your Reference Letter. Very good. I've got to work on my own version today. I encourage others to put their own Character Reference Letters together ASAP.

I emailed my reference to Bob yesterday.
Is email enough?
Or would a letter that was signature inclusive and notarized only meet court requirements?
Bob

[wingspan33]

Rick,

I was taking a hike with my dog yesterday and, kind of out of the blue (sky? lol), I realized why it makes PERFECT sense for the USHPA B.O.D./E.C. to act in the way they did. I emailed Bob an explanation.

I know why they did not endorse [only] your specific interest in having USHPA Instructors wear a helmet while teaching. What the USHPA is doing is a result of them being scrutinized recently by their insurance company/carrier. Forget about the Torrey Pines GliderPort not using USHPA for site insurance, . . . what is undeniable is that, in their position as USHPA members and Certified Instructors, the GliderPort staff's failure to wear helmets while hooked in jeopardizes the USHPA's individual member and/or Instructor insurance coverage. All the carrier/insurer has to hear is that the BOD did not act in connection with a report of a PROMINENT USHPA Certified PG Training facility not using helmets while hooked into a PG, while teaching. Were such information to somehow "leak out" the USHPA risks having their insurance rates increased (again) or potentially cancelled all together!

Slack/sloppy PG teaching methods, as conducted at such a prominent PG training facility, truly endangers the ability of any USHPA member to fly almost anywhere - due to lack of member/instructor/site insurance - or, the same difference, lack of affordable insurance.

What I have also come to understand is that Air California Adventure Inc. is covered by the same insurer (Loyd's of London) via the same insurance carrier/underwriter - just under a separate policy from the USHPA. Now, imagine somebody records "unsafe teaching methods" at your PG School? Could your policy rates go up, . . . by much? They might go up A LOT if the insurance carrier/company hears about it.

As the owner/manager of such a school, might you be angry at some person who documented such "unsafe teaching methods"? Also, questions arising about your school's overall perspective on SAFE teaching methods and procedures may also arise. You get (potentially) notified that it's time to raise your rates by 2X, 3X or more! That ends up being LOTS of money (profit) jumping out of your pocket.

Considering the certainty (or even possibility) of any or all of the above, Bob K becomes enough of a "risk" to your business that you will make false charges and statements to the police as well as the Court about his (actually innocent and peaceful) activities in the public park, where you happen to do business.

In documenting Air California Adventure Inc.'s "no helmet" teaching methods, Bob K bumped into the tip of a very BIG iceberg (so to speak).

Do the recent events make more sense considering this added perspective, Rick?

I am surprised at the U$hPA's response.
I had expected Hass to ignore BobK.
Clearly, the number of Chapters joining the US Hawks
and the bad press generated by this incident
is making the U$hPA uneasy.
Kudos to everybody.

[Free]

In documenting Air California Adventure Inc.'s "no helmet" teaching methods, Bob K bumped into the tip of a very BIG iceberg (so to speak).

Yeah, nice stunt, Bob.
I wasn't a bit surprised at Rich Hass' response, though. Ignorance and arrogance usually seem to go together.
It would be interesting to have heard the conversation between Hass and the U$hpa lawyer after Rich's initial corporate response.

The ability of U$hpa officers to shoot their mouth off before consulting said lawyer and maybe the borg 'fixer' probably changed as well as the helmet rule.

Are you satisfied with that?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hello FREE !!!

Please pardon me for not addressing the many many great comments on this topic, but I wanted to jump right to this one because Free has been away from the US Hawks for a long long time, and it's great to know he's still alive!!!!!

Free, I hope all is well with you, and I hope you're back to stay for a while. I've had at least one of your local pilots interested in the "Mo Hawks", and I was hoping you could start to grow that chapter with some fresh new faces. Please let me know and I can put you in touch.

Thanks for posting again ... and welcome back!!

In documenting Air California Adventure Inc.'s "no helmet" teaching methods, Bob K bumped into the tip of a very BIG iceberg (so to speak).

Yeah, nice stunt, Bob.
I wasn't a bit surprised at Rich Hass' response, though. Ignorance and arrogance usually seem to go together.
It would be interesting to have heard the conversation between Hass and the U$hpa lawyer after Rich's initial corporate response.

The ability of U$hpa officers to shoot their mouth off before consulting said lawyer and maybe the borg 'fixer' probably changed as well as the helmet rule.

Are you satisfied with that?

Regarding your question about whether I'm satisfied with USHPA's response ... I am not. This has been one of dozens of cases where USHPA should recognize that the Torrey Hawks are really working to make Torrey a better safer place for all pilots. They should be opening their eyes to the fact that we have been the watchdogs on an out-of-control concessionaire. But as Wingspan mentioned, this is more likely them just covering their _$$.

Either way, it's really great to know you're still alive and kicking!!!!!

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am surprised at the U$hPA's response.
I had expected Hass to ignore BobK.
Clearly, the number of Chapters joining the US Hawks
and the bad press generated by this incident
is making the U$hPA uneasy.
Kudos to everybody.

Kudos to you Rick!!!

Your posts (and posts of so many others) are finally putting the US Hawks "on the map".   

You're also correct to point out that the growing number of US Hawks Chapters is letting USHPA know that their monopoly may not be as solid as they've been assuming. If we can continue to grow to where we can offer insurance, that will change the face of free flight in the United States.

Thanks to all US Hawks everywhere!!!     

[Bob Kuczewski]

Have we allowed enough time for Rich to change his mind?

[Bob Kuczewski]

I emailed my reference to Bob yesterday.
Is email enough?
Or would a letter that was signature inclusive and notarized only meet court requirements?
Bob

Thanks Bill!!! It's super!!!!     

I'm not sure about the final form yet. I've been forwarding them on to my lawyer who will let me know the details.

Thanks for your letter Bill. I'll keep you posted either here or by direct email.

[SamKellner]

Working on it