[Bob Kuczewski]

Hello Fellow US Hawks!!!

It's taken a few years to get this new organization off the ground, but I think we're starting to make some pretty solid training hill "flights" in our forum. I think we're ready to start practicing for the next phase of our growth ... a US Hawks Board of Directors.

Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) many of us have seen what happened to the HGAA. We created - out of thin air - a "Transition Team" that was supposed to work together for about a month to found the new organization. I think that failed for two reasons. First, we really weren't used to working with each other, and we felt a lot of pressure to make something happen in an unreasonably short period of time. Second, I believe that some of the people on that "Transition Team" really didn't want the HGAA to succeed anyway. So they threw their own "monkey wrenches" into the works, and it crashed badly.

So having learned those lessons, I'd like to wade much more slowly into our own US Hawks Board of Directors. I'd like to propose that we form a Board and we have the Board work together for most of 2015 making decisions. But those decisions will only be advisory. I will still reserve the right to over-rule those decisions based on what I believe is best for the US Hawks. As time goes on, I'm hoping that I won't ever feel the need to use that "veto" power, and by the end of 2015 we'll hopefully be making all of our decisions by the US Hawks Board of Directors.

So, at this time, I'd like to ask for volunteers to experiment with this "Training Board" to see how it works. Please don't be shy. I'm hoping it will be a growth experience for all of us, and I'd like to get as much participation as possible. And since this Board is only advisory, please feel free to volunteer even if you're not sure you'd have the time to make a commitment to an actual Board.

Any thoughts?

Better yet ... any volunteers?

==============================================
List of volunteers so far...
  billcummings
  JoeF
  SamKellner
  wingspan33
  bobk

[wingspan33]

Bob,

I would like to step up and volunteer. As you know, I have experience with the once budding (now dead) HGAA. In the current situation we don't have SG or DB type characters around to undermine the process of creating a solid membership based/focused hang gliding organization. And, Bob, I think you have a very solid idea of, at least, what Should NOT and Can NOT be allowed in such an organization.

Also- one of my observations with the fetal HGAA was that people were not talking to people, they were typing into their computers and reading from their computers. One of my last suggestions was that an internet based video conferencing set-up be created where real time "meetings" can take place. Meetings where you can actually look at everyone in attendance - and they can all look back at you.

I would also encourage a very real In-Person meeting to take place not too long after significant organizational efforts begin. Ideally, I would like such a meeting to occur sooner rather than later. But BOD members may end up being located here and there across the country. That creates travel expenses and scheduling challenges. Myself as an example: I live on the east coast and have a pretty limited budget. But their are probably lots of things that can be accomplished by way of the internet (on this site) before such a meeting is planned.

Enough for now.

S C Wise

[Jacmac]

HGAA failed because pilots got into multipost arguments over silly crap like what a voting majority is. At the time there was a large number of HG pilots that were interested in a new HG org. But the public arguments by the 'leadership' over trivial issues just soured the whole idea.

If you're going to create a national organization, you need to do it in a way where comments can be received, like an RFC, for a committee to consider, but no public debating. The forums are fine for public comments and opinions, but the committee is where the actual debate and decisions need to take place. The voting record for the committee ought to be made public. And maybe the minutes or even a recording should be public. It would also be nice if the meetings were held in a way that the pilots could listen in, even if they can't say anything.

I think that the USHPA way of getting things done is a good model to start from. The problems I see are their apparent paranoia:

There are secret meetings
As far as the secret meetings and such, I don't know what to make of those. In the upper echelon, there are discussions that they do not want to be public. This is the kind of thing that generates suspicion, but admittedly the vast majority of pilots could care less. The pilots or directors that might care about them could be why the meetings are secret.

Voting records are not kept
The committees should keep voting records and for any votes where all of the directors participate there should be a record. There isn't a good excuse for not recording this information, but there are a lot of bad ones; laziness being the most obvious. Without a voting record, when elections are held, the RD's are like, "Well I don't remember that particular vote..." if they get asked about something. Davis whitewashes this as a non-issue with the USHPA, but he's been involved for a long time and is used to how things work there.

They don't keep a database of accident reports
Nobody wants to prevent or stifle accidents from being reported, but safety trending is something that should not be ignored. If trending over ten years reveals that asymmetrical collapses under 300' AGL are resulting in hospitalization or death 95% of the time, then that's a trend all PG pilots should know about! The answer to fear of reporting is that if you don't report an accident and are reported by someone else that finds out about it, you could be ejected from the organization. The leaders don't want to be liable for anything, especially where a safety related incident results in a death. I don't blame them, but I don't really know if there really is or should be a concern. You would think that all of the waivers would be enough. I know the insurance issue is a big reason, but I don't understand how exactly. It is as if records are not kept specifically so that such records could not be used. The liability insurance rates should be higher as a direct result of not having a record keeping database in this day and age, rather than the opposite.

One other problem I would mention is that there probably should be limits on terms. An RD that that has been an RD in the USHPA for 10 years is probably 4 years too long. You get a cadre of RDs that have been in for over ten years, and you've got an old boys network, which is bound to lead to favoritism or worse.

[Rick Masters]

The leaders don't want to be liable for anything, especially where a safety related incident results in a death. I don't blame them, but I don't really know if there really is or should be a concern. You would think that all of the waivers would be enough. I know the insurance issue is a big reason, but I don't understand how exactly.

I have warned for years that the introduction of paragliding into the USHGA would result in the destruction of hang gliding as a viable sport. The first blow came with Wheelock v. Sport Kites, Inc. which resulted in the disallowance of waivers in Hawaii. Now every negligence lawsuit goes to trial in Hawaii. I would suggest the US Hawks avoid any presence in states that do not recognize waivers.

Hawaii attempts to limit liability increases the amount of money every injured party will recover. Legislation to limit liability lost recreation business the opportunity to use a release
In an effort to limit liability for outdoor recreation activities, the recreation providers passed a law attempting to reduce or prevent lawsuits for injuries tourists received recreating. However, this Hawaiian law backfired by eliminating the use of releases a defense against a claim in the statute. To set the stage for Hawaii’s move towards recreation legislation, it is important to acknowledge the development of Hawaiian common law. The landmark case, Wheelock vs. Sport Kites, 839 F. Supp. 730 (9th Cir. 1993), was the first time the Hawaiian courts dealt with whether an express release of liability bars all claims of negligence. Wheelock plunged to his death while paragliding when all the lines connecting the canopy to his harness broke. Wheelock’s wife sued, even though her husband signed a waiver releasing Sport Kites. The court upheld the release for negligence, declaring that Wheelock assumed the risk of paragliding. The court did not allow the release to bar claims for gross negligence and the product liability claim. -- James H. Moss, J.D.
http://recreation-law.com/2014/01/06/ha ... a-release/

Wheelock v. Sport Kites, Inc
http://recreation-law.com/2014/01/06/wh ... xis-17050/

[wingspan33]

Ohhhhh, . . . . The sound of ideas percolating!

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think that the USHPA way of getting things done is a good model to start from. The problems I see are their apparent paranoia:

There are secret meetings
  :
Voting records are not kept
  :
They don't keep a database of accident reports
  :
there probably should be limits on terms.

All great points!!! We should be able to do better on all counts.     

HGAA failed because pilots got into multipost arguments over silly crap like what a voting majority is. At the time there was a large number of HG pilots that were interested in a new HG org. But the public arguments by the 'leadership' over trivial issues just soured the whole idea.

We may end up disagreeing on this one. If Jack (sg) had wanted the HGAA to succeed, he'd have been promoting it on the biggest megaphone in the sport: hanggliding.org. He could have put a banner on the top of every page urging pilots to join the HGAA. Why didn't he do that?

The answer is that Jack enjoys controlling that big megaphone all by himself. He originally liked the idea of a competitor to USHPA, and he jumped in to support it. But somewhere along the line he realized it would be a competitor to himself as well ... and it would be democratically controlled. That's why he gained control ... to kill it. He claimed that he had to kick out Wingspan and myself to "grow" the organization. How much did he grow it after that "coup"? It grew at a phenomenal rate before Jack's takeover, but it took a nose dive immediately afterward. Jack never lifted a finger to grow it after he got control. Why not? It's all pretty clear in hindsight.

If you're going to create a national organization, you need to do it in a way where comments can be received, like an RFC, for a committee to consider, but no public debating. The forums are fine for public comments and opinions, but the committee is where the actual debate and decisions need to take place. The voting record for the committee ought to be made public. And maybe the minutes or even a recording should be public. It would also be nice if the meetings were held in a way that the pilots could listen in, even if they can't say anything.

We can do a lot of that within our forum using permissions. For example, we created a private forum for the discussions leading up to the 40th anniversary celebration of the "Otto Meet". We did that because we were worried that any opposition to that meet might be forewarned by pubic discussions and block our efforts. While those discussions were private at the time, we decided that we would make them public after the meet so people could see what let up to our various decisions. I think that's a good model for similarly sensitive discussions. We can also have sections which are public read, but only writeable by committee members. I think that satisfies the ability for pilots to "listen in, even if they can't say anything".

I am anticipating that we will eventually need something more than a PHPBB forum to run a national hang gliding organization. But I think we can get a lot done with the tool we already have at this time ... and then add new tools as we need them.

[Jacmac]

HGAA failed because pilots got into multipost arguments over silly crap like what a voting majority is. At the time there was a large number of HG pilots that were interested in a new HG org. But the public arguments by the 'leadership' over trivial issues just soured the whole idea.

We may end up disagreeing on this one. If Jack (sg) had wanted the HGAA to succeed, he'd have been promoting it on the biggest megaphone in the sport: hanggliding.org. He could have put a banner on the top of every page urging pilots to join the HGAA. Why didn't he do that?

I don't know the full inside story between you and Jack, or maybe I just don't remember the details and/or my mind has suppressed the details. What I do distinctly remember is a massive flame war that started with an argument over voting. I thought it was about what a majority or quorum majority was or something along those lines. I had been away from the HGAA website for a few weeks on vacation, then came back to discover a flame war. This escalated to the point that there were wall of text posts, it got so bad that I gave up trying to understand what was going on. I basically stopped going to the site and I don't know what happened on the HGAA site after that time. I also joined the Torrey Hawks and started showing up the the meetings at that time, even though I wasn't an H4 yet.

Anyway, my only point about this is that no matter what a pilot's opinion is on a given US Hawks subject, the decision should be a committee vote or membership vote. If you don't like the outcome, too bad, but don't allow the kind of chaos that erupted on the HGAA forum to become the focus or all is lost; again. There are people watching this forum, maybe even as I write this, that expect failure, maybe even hope for failure. US Hawks won't get built by the sheer force of Bob's will or any other single person. Equally, a few detractors will not prevent the US Hawks from succeeding. What will prevent the US Hawks from going anywhere is a repeat of what happened on the HGAA forum.

[Bob Kuczewski]

The voting topic was certainly heated and it contained a lot of technical detail. I'd always thought voting was a pretty simple concept until Jack suggested "Range Voting" and then I did some research into voting in general (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system).

I don't want to rehash that whole discussion, but Range voting is simply inappropriate for cases where people have real preferences in the result. The only example Jack could give for Range voting in the real world was the Olympics where judges score each performance (I think their range is 0 to 10, but we were using 0 to 100). The assumption is that the judges are impartial and have no vested interest in the outcome, so their scores are not supposed to reflect a personal preference (although we know that assumption has failed even in the Olympics). When people who are voting DO have a personal preference in the outcome, then they can optimize the likelihood of getting what they want by voting the maximim (like 10 or 100) for what they want and 0 for what they don't want. In other words, they ignore the instructions that tell them to somehow "be objective" when assigning a score. When push comes to shove, that's what real people will do.

Here's a perfect real world example of Range voting from Scott's actual banning at the HGAA:

vote_count.png (13.06 KiB) Viewed 8530 times

The actual vote by each member is shown in the "Ban" and "Not Ban" columns. I added the "Ban?" column to show the individual preference of each voter (red for Ban and blue for Not Ban).

If you count those who preferred to ban Scott (last column) you'll see that there were 5 who preferred the "Ban" over the "Not Ban". But there were 6 who preferred "Not Ban" over "Ban"!!! In the normal "one man, one vote" system that we're familiar with, Scott would NOT have been banned. And in the Condorcet system that I advocated, Scott wouldn't have been banned either. But using Jack's "Range Voting" system, Scott was banned by a minority of the members!!! So it turned out that the somewhat obscure "method of voting" discussion (that went on for many pages) ended up being critical to the outcome and entire future of the HGAA.

You may also remember that I predicted this would happen. I said that when push came to shove, people would vote with 0's and 100's to maximize their chances of getting what they wanted. Jack replied that anyone who voted like that would clearly be seen as being "corrupt" (that's the word Jack used). But then look how Jack (SG) and most of his supporters voted: 100 and 0!!

It's also interesting to note that some of the people who didn't want to vote with absolute 0's (like HGAAflyer and PilotGuy) ended up putting a "1" in the "Ban" column. It turned out that those two 1's ended up being the difference between Scott being banned (552) and not being banned (551). Yet given their obvious preferences (1 for "Ban", and 100 for "Not Ban"), they ended up defeating themselves by trying to abide by Jack's admonition against voting with a zero. It was a stupid system.

So what seemed like endless pages of squabbling about an unimportant issue ... turned out to be pretty important after all!!

Finally, any organization will have disagreements - sometimes bitter disagreements. It must be designed to withstand those disagreements and not disintegrate. Jack's pressure and crazy voting system won the day at the HGAA. He ended up kicking out everyone who disagreed with him, and he ended up with unchallenged control of the HGAA. So why didn't he continue to promote the HGAA after that? That's the question that reveals his true movtives. Jack didn't really want the HGAA to succeed, and that's why it's in ... the "Dustbin of History".  

[wingspan33]

I think it is critical that serious work towards an Incorporated Association is better not done in "public". Jacmac's points about the HGAA fiasco are well taken.

Also, as far as Bob's comments go, he is right about the errors connected with the "results" of the voting debate.

But either civil or uncivil debates on the details required to create a new hang gliding organization are of no interest to the "average" future member. Making things work, behind close doors, allows the involved parties to say what they want and need to say - without being on display for all to see.

And so there is no misunderstanding, I think a record can surely be kept of the process. Once the finished product emerges, if someone wants to see the three months of back and forth posting, texting, emailing, . . . etc. well, let them have it.

But it's a rare individual who wants to watch their car being made as it passes down the assembly line. It's a rare couple who want to see every nail being driven and 2x4 lifted in the process of having their new house built. The finished product is what matters. In a positive way, a successful end justifies the tedious, boring, perhaps argumentative(?) means.

I'll stop here and let my comments sink in. In the mean time, talk among yourselves.

[brianscharp]

Nobody wants to prevent or stifle accidents from being reported...

Please define "Nobody" because I can hardly even recall a discussion about an accident that doesn't involve some form of aversion to it let alone reports being made about it.