[brianscharp]

Was Tad on the US Hawks forum?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Re: Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest
Postby bobk » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:13 am

I think I have an email address for him, so I've sent him an invitation to join us here on the US Hawks.

I remember when I was Regional Director there was a big dust up about Tad back in May of 2009, and some of the Directors were calling for legal action to censor him. On May 11, 2009, I sent the following message to the Board. I believe in open dialog, so I started by pointing out that Tad had included his email address in his letter (so we could contact him). I then offered my support for Dennis who suggested that we try to talk with Tad before taking legal action. Here's my message to the Board:

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:40 AM
To: Pagen, Dennis; Tate, Lisa
Cc: USHPA Regional Directors
Subject: Re: aerotow SOP complaint

Hello Dennis (cc Gregg and other Regional Directors),

First, I think Mr. Eareckson's email address was in Gregg's original letter included below if anyone needs it (TadErcksn@...).

Second, I cast my vote for having Dennis write a letter to Mr. Eareckson as he suggested. Mr. Eareckson is obviously intelligent and passionate, and we can certainly use those qualities if we can harness them in a positive direction. If Dennis can do this, then that's the win-win solution. Another invitation to attend (or even present) at the next Towing Committee meeting might also be a good idea. I vote for inclusivity over litigation.

Third, I'm not an expert in towing, but I consulted someone who knows the topic pretty well. His comment was that while it might be good for USHPA to make recommendations in this area, there is still plenty of room for innovation. For that reason, he doesn't think USHPA should mandate any kind of obligatory system that would stifle that innovation - whether Mr. Eareckson's or any other. I have very little background in towing, so I'm just passing this perspective on for your general consideration.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

Of course, there was a lot more to this exchange than I've posted. For example, Brad Hall didn't miss an opportunity to snipe at me as he often did in front of the Board. I've got all the email messages from that exchange and I may post them when I find the time. It's interesting (and enlightening) to look back at the past ... with the knowledge of what's happened since then.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Brian,

Your post was a little difficult to read without the quote blocks. Here's a version that quotes you quoting me quoting my original letter to Dennis Pagan and the USHPA Board:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Re: Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest
Postby bobk » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:13 am

I think I have an email address for him, so I've sent him an invitation to join us here on the US Hawks.

I remember when I was Regional Director there was a big dust up about Tad back in May of 2009, and some of the Directors were calling for legal action to censor him. On May 11, 2009, I sent the following message to the Board. I believe in open dialog, so I started by pointing out that Tad had included his email address in his letter (so we could contact him). I then offered my support for Dennis who suggested that we try to talk with Tad before taking legal action. Here's my message to the Board:

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:40 AM
To: Pagen, Dennis; Tate, Lisa
Cc: USHPA Regional Directors
Subject: Re: aerotow SOP complaint

Hello Dennis (cc Gregg and other Regional Directors),

First, I think Mr. Eareckson's email address was in Gregg's original letter included below if anyone needs it (TadErcksn@...).

Second, I cast my vote for having Dennis write a letter to Mr. Eareckson as he suggested. Mr. Eareckson is obviously intelligent and passionate, and we can certainly use those qualities if we can harness them in a positive direction. If Dennis can do this, then that's the win-win solution. Another invitation to attend (or even present) at the next Towing Committee meeting might also be a good idea. I vote for inclusivity over litigation.

Third, I'm not an expert in towing, but I consulted someone who knows the topic pretty well. His comment was that while it might be good for USHPA to make recommendations in this area, there is still plenty of room for innovation. For that reason, he doesn't think USHPA should mandate any kind of obligatory system that would stifle that innovation - whether Mr. Eareckson's or any other. I have very little background in towing, so I'm just passing this perspective on for your general consideration.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

Of course, there was a lot more to this exchange than I've posted. For example, Brad Hall didn't miss an opportunity to snipe at me as he often did in front of the Board. I've got all the email messages from that exchange and I may post them when I find the time. It's interesting (and enlightening) to look back at the past ... with the knowledge of what's happened since then.

If you ever want to see how someone did something on the forum (like the nested quotes above), you can just click the "Quote" button, and you'll be able to see which tags they used to get that look. You can copy their code and save it in a text file to use in your own posts later. Then you can press the "Back" button on your browser to cancel the post that you were quoting.

With regard to Tad ... as the letter points out, I've really tried to reach out to him, but I have not been successful. When I started the US Hawks, I sought him out and invited him to join us. He did, and I appreciated much of his work. But the toxicity of his attacks on almost everyone became a problem. There's more to the topic than I want to discuss right here, but I think it's certainly a valid topic for the US Hawks Board to address.

By the way, if you want to see Tad's comments about myself and the US Hawks, he has a topic named "The Bob Show" at http://www.kitestrings.org/topic33.html. Be warned that it's full of some foul language, but you can be the judge of whether it suits you or not. I will say that at this point Tad seems quite determined to destroy the US Hawks. Here's a quote from his first post in that topic (December 17th, 2011): "I'll do what I can to make sure it [US Hawks] never gets off the ground", and here's a quote from his post just yesterday (post number 440 on that same topic): "We really need to annihilate that sonuvabitch" referring to me. It's impossible to come to any compromise with someone whose stated goal is to "annihilate" you or your organization.

And that brings up my last point here. Once we break out of the monopoly run by USHPA, we should end up with choices in national associations. In SCUBA diving they have NAUI and PADI and other certification organizations. Divers can choose the organization they want to support with their money, and dive organizations can similarly choose what kinds of divers they want to attract. There are certainly hang gliding pilots who will like to read Tad's "slash and burn" posts and participate in that kind of forum. It's great that they have that choice. The choice we're trying to build here at the US Hawks is a bit more civilized. I strongly encourage pilots to choose the organization that suits them best.

[Free]

By the way, if you want to see Tad's comments about myself and the US Hawks, he has a topic named "The Bob Show" at http://www.kitestrings.org/topic33.html. Be warned that it's full of some foul language, but you can be the judge of whether it suits you or not.

Tad is an inspiration in tenacity. He takes a lickin and keeps on tickin.
He's also right on just about everything hang gliding.
I can't remember so much the kickback for his language at the time and that wasn't the stated reason for banning, was it?

And that brings up my last point here. Once we break out of the monopoly run by USHPA, we should end up with choices in national associations. In SCUBA diving they have NAUI and PADI and other certification organizations. Divers can choose the organization they want to support with their money, and dive organizations can similarly choose what kinds of divers they want to attract. There are certainly hang gliding pilots who will like to read Tad's "slash and burn" posts and participate in that kind of forum. It's great that they have that choice. The choice we're trying to build here at the US Hawks is a bit more civilized. I strongly encourage pilots to choose the organization that suits them best.

I do want to address this but my typing finger is getting a blister.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad ...
He's also right on just about everything hang gliding.

Tad knows a lot about towing, but I don't think he knows everything about foot launching. There was a topic where he insisted (over and over and over) that the US Hawks needed to mandate that everyone check their hook in with a "lift and tug" prior to launch. That works fine in benign conditions, but it's a recipe for disaster when the winds are howling and you're doing all you can to maintain control of the glider on launch. That's not the kind of situation where one can let the glider "float up to feel the gentle tug of the hang strap on the harness" just to verify that you're hooked in. In those conditions, you verify your hook-in status while your crew (of three or more) holds down the glider moments before launch. Tad would not accept that there might be conditions where his absolute "lift and tug" was unsafe. So he went on and on and on about it, and he would never concede that his "black and white" rule might possibly be flawed.

I can't remember so much the kickback for his language at the time and that wasn't the stated reason for banning, was it?

I actually called Tad on the phone many many times to discuss the language issue with him. It didn't help. I would like the US Hawks to be a bit more civilized than Tad was willing to comply with. But you're right ... that was not the reason for his banning. If the US Hawks Board would like to revisit the matter, I'd be fine with that. Then the decision will be on them and not me. I made my best decision on the information I had, and I believe to this day that it was the right decision.

I do want to address this but my typing finger is getting a blister.

Take your time and let it heal. There's no rush. As I've mentioned before, I think Tad is very happy with his own forum, and that's as it should be. We don't censor references to Tad's work, and you're welcome to quote anything of his that you believe is a good idea.

[Jacmac]

By the way, if you want to see Tad's comments about myself and the US Hawks, he has a topic named "The Bob Show" at http://www.kitestrings.org/topic33.html. Be warned that it's full of some foul language, but you can be the judge of whether it suits you or not. I will say that at this point Tad seems quite determined to destroy the US Hawks. Here's a quote from his first post in that topic (December 17th, 2011): "I'll do what I can to make sure it [US Hawks] never gets off the ground", and here's a quote from his post just yesterday (post number 440 on that same topic): "We really need to annihilate that sonuvabitch" referring to me. It's impossible to come to any compromise with someone whose stated goal is to "annihilate" you or your organization.

That topic is 45 pages long and kept up to date! I would say Tad is obsessed with the destruction of the Hawks and Bob! I searched his site; he's blasted me for things I posted on the Oz Report years back and I barely know who he is. Tad lives up to his heritage, he is a Viking Raider: Hell bent on slash and burn.

[SamKellner]

he is a Viking Raider: Hell bent..

too much of a compliment. Hell bent?? Most likely.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Jacmac started a separate topic about Tad, so that's a good place for anyone who wants to continue that discussion.

This topic is about coming up with a Trial Board of Directors to begin seeing how we can make an on-line organization work. We'll want to figure out what kinds of processes we think are fair and reasonable, and we'll need to figure out what kinds of tools we might need or want to make it work. We can delve into topics (like Tad) to test out those processes and tools, but we shouldn't get diverted from the focus of building a functional Board of Directors that we can then use to actually address those other issues.

So far, the people willing to participate are myself, Sam and Scott (Wingspan33).

I'd like to ask the other people in this topic (who haven't made a commitment one way or the other) to please consider joining in this experiment. That includes:

• Rick
• Bill
• Joe
• Free
• Jacmac

I think that would be a great group, and I'd like to ask each of you to please consider it and let us know one way or the other.

Thanks!!

[brianscharp]

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.

Imagine a report that concludes, "If we'd had a procedure "x" in place, then it would have probably prevented this accident. And we're going to put that procedure in place at the next BOD meeting." Good info, and what we want to be able to convey. But what comes out at trial is, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client suffered injury because USHPA knew or should have known that a safety procedure was not in place, and was therefore negligent and at fault." We're constantly walking this line between full disclosure and handing out nooses at the hangmen's convention.

[JoeF]

Yes. It would be a privilege to be in the interim board of directors for rooting a national hang gliding organization
with the anticipation that reasonable negative loads on the hang glider will not collapse the free-glide intended airfoil, etc.
Count me in as a member of the trial US Hawks board of directors. Glad to join the already treasured group!
Joe Faust

[Jacmac]

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.

Imagine a report that concludes, "If we'd had a procedure "x" in place, then it would have probably prevented this accident. And we're going to put that procedure in place at the next BOD meeting." Good info, and what we want to be able to convey. But what comes out at trial is, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client suffered injury because USHPA knew or should have known that a safety procedure was not in place, and was therefore negligent and at fault." We're constantly walking this line between full disclosure and handing out nooses at the hangmen's convention.

Yes, well this is exactly the type of paranoia I was referring to. Mark is basically saying that it is better to hear no evil, see so evil, so you can speak no evil at a trial. Undoubtedly this is what lawyers advised the USHPA to do. So what is the result? Pilots will take actions that have varying degrees of risk, but may be misinformed or uninformed of the actual risk level. If some maneuver is 99% safe because we've only heard of a problem reported once in the last 3 or 4 years, what if the lack of reporting and record keeping means that the actual risk is current 95% safe and decreasing over time as more pilots attempt the maneuver believing it is 99% safe? You're going to generate more problems (and maybe lawsuits) by lack of knowledge than by having and spreading knowledge.

Pilots will be condemned to learn risk the hard way. I would much rather be able to have an instructor tell me that X is not safe because accident reports over time have shown that Y is a result with a high enough chance of happening that you don't want to do it. Instead, they can only give their opinion.