[brianscharp]

I would much rather be able to have an instructor tell me that X is not safe because accident reports over time have shown...

I'd much rather have the accidents currently updated and open to the public. I'd rather not wait to see how they're trending for fear they may trend the wrong way. The sooner people are given information that may prevent future accidents the more chance it'll have of doing so.

[Jacmac]

I would much rather be able to have an instructor tell me that X is not safe because accident reports over time have shown...

I'd much rather have the accidents currently updated and open to the public. I'd rather not wait to see how they're trending for fear they may trend the wrong way. The sooner people are given information that may prevent future accidents the more chance it'll have of doing so.

You can already get one-offs in the magazine. They just obscure the details to hide where and who it happened to. One-off reports are interesting, but trending is where the meat is. Stats really don't lie if you accept them for what they are.

[Rick Masters]

reasonable negative loads on the hang glider will not collapse the free-glide intended airfoil

Of course. Done for all pilot's benefit. Responsible. Obligatory.
EXCEPT FOR PARAGLIDERS.

"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."

Allowing parachutes (which collapse in turbulence) into the USHGA has destroyed the organization's ability to defend itself in court.
We are witnessing the gradual collapse (no pun intended) of the strange parapotpurri U$hPA. Hang glider pilots must read the writing on the wall and form a new organization that represents them alone and reflects only their own safety record.

[brianscharp]

You can already get one-offs in the magazine. They just obscure the details to hide where and who it happened to. One-off reports are interesting, but trending is where the meat is. Stats really don't lie if you accept them for what they are.

Here's how it really works:

- Member submits an accident report. Could be the pilot who had the accident, or some other witness.

- Accident report is sent to Tim to maintain legal privilege. Tim reviews the report and determines whether there's significant legal risk associated with it. He may redact certain parts (personally identifiable information, etc.) if in his opinion exposure of that information poses a risk to us. If the report is very risky, he may decide that it can't be shared further, and will notify the ED about it. He may also notify our insurers if he sees a potential for a claim, as is normal practice for any incident where we are aware of such a potential.

- Redacted report goes to the accident review chairs, for incorporation into periodic articles in the magazine. Articles focus on root causes of accidents, not on personal narratives or details.

The whole procedure is outlined in SOP 03-16, which you can read by logging into the USHPA website and clicking on "Policy Manual".

Yeah you have to wait and get a lot of incomplete information before you have a large enough sample to see a trend. Too bad the One-offs can't be more detailed and accurate. They'd be more interesting and create better stats.

[Bob Kuczewski]

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.

Information about safety is a "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later" proposition. Just as you've said, putting a lid on information just means that someone else is going to pay for it later ... and that future cost is always more.

Getting Back on Topic ...

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

Welcome aboard Joe. It will be an honor serving on another Board with you!!!

[Bill Cummings]

The reason that the U$hPA members have to rely on the OZ report, HG(dot)org, and the US Hawks for shared knowledge and not find it at a U$hPA forum is at least two fold. Liability and control of the membership.

If the RGSA had never held a US National Hang Gliding event years back we never would have gotten into the site insurance nightmare that has persisted for decades since. No other sport to my knowledge is required to carry insurance while using the same land in the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico.
(New Mexico is located in the United States and is not in Mexico.)

One discussion I would like to see hashed out among the practicing directors is how to keep the US Hawks Forum from falling prey to the same legal (censored) concerns that seem to be plaguing the U$hPA.

Should we discuss crashes in great detail only in the free speech zone where we indemnify ourselves by saying that the US Hawks neither supports nor approves of the content in the free speech zone?

Maybe we could discuss carnage over on Tad’s website where I’m sure we would receive a complete volunteer review of what was done wrong by any participant with precise, in depth, analysis of any stupidity or brain dead idiocy being displayed.

The point being we should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports solely out of concern for the bottom line of an insurance company. We pilots have a greater concern for our safety that places an insurance company’s concern in second place or lower.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Lots of very good points Bill...

The reason that the U$hPA members have to rely on the OZ report, HG(dot)org, and the US Hawks for shared knowledge and not find it at a U$hPA forum is at least two fold. Liability and control of the membership.

Right on both counts. The control aspect includes not having to answer reasonable questions asked by the members ... like "Why can't we see how our Directors are voting?" and "How can we know whether we want to vote for a particular Director if we have no idea what they support or oppose at USHPA?"

If the RGSA had never held a US National Hang Gliding event years back we never would have gotten into the site insurance nightmare that has persisted for decades since. No other sport to my knowledge is required to carry insurance while using the same land in the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. (New Mexico is located in the United States and is not in Mexico.)

The requirement to have insurance - in advance - for things that we might do to hurt other people goes against the notions of equality and self-reliance that were the cornerstones of this country.

One discussion I would like to see hashed out among the practicing directors is how to keep the US Hawks Forum from falling prey to the same legal (censored) concerns that seem to be plaguing the U$hPA.

We're already doing one thing right now. I'm not sure if I agree that money is the root of ALL evil, but it certainly accounts for a sizeable chunk of it. The Torrey Hawks have avoided all kinds of problems by simply not accepting money in any form.

Should we discuss crashes in great detail only in the free speech zone where we indemnify ourselves by saying that the US Hawks neither supports nor approves of the content in the free speech zone?

Maybe we could discuss carnage over on Tad’s website where I’m sure we would receive a complete volunteer review of what was done wrong by any participant with precise, in depth, analysis of any stupidity or brain dead idiocy being displayed.

You're certainly a creative thinker Bill!!   

The point being we should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports solely out of concern for the bottom line of an insurance company. We pilots have a greater concern for our safety that places an insurance company’s concern in second place or lower.

I agree with that. It's too bad that the current legal structure forces us to make such a choice. Open reporting of accident information should not be at the peril of financial loss.

[brianscharp]

The point being we should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports solely out of concern for the bottom line of an insurance company.

Are there any concerns - in addition to the bottom line or by themselves - that we should allow to justify the suppression of accident reports?
How about this? We should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports.

[Bob Kuczewski]

How about this? We should not allow at the US Hawks any suppression of accident reports.

I generally agree with that position, and it would be another good topic for the trial Board of Directors to discuss.

Speaking of the Board, we still have a few nominees "on the fence":

• Rick
• Bill
• Free
• Jacmac

Any decisions yet?

[Bill Cummings]

Oh gee! I feel that there may be a public perception that I am a fence rider.

I’m still smarting from the last time I jumped off of the fence when a reader suggested that I landed on a pig.

Since this is set up to be a trial Board of Directors and not the real thing and as long as I can set conditions like, not having to board a commercial flight to meet with other pretend directors in person I will throw my imaginary hat into the tenuous ring.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety and avoid any suspicion of personal bias I pledge, to possibly many imaginary constituents, I will abstain from any votes concerning pigs.