[Bob Kuczewski]

The PDMC is a zone of NO RECOURSE. It is a zone where an emergency parachute will NOT HAVE TIME TO OPEN.
It is the zone where soaring parachutists AND THEIR PASSENGERS die if anything goes wrong.
It is a zone to be avoided.

The following pictures were taken at least a minute apart. That was a full minute (and more) where Brad Geary was on the verge of inducing a full frontal collapse in a tandem paraglider carrying a child ... and well within the PDMC.

v19m19s.jpeg (66.65 KiB) Viewed 8000 times

v20m24s.jpeg (71.5 KiB) Viewed 8000 times

Rick, if you can find the time, please post a few videos showing what happens when a paraglider's leading edge gets tucked under like that.

[Rick Masters]

None of this s*** looks like fun.
Give me the safety, control, response and speed of a hang glider!

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks Rick. Somehow I knew you'd know where to look.

I only had time to watch part of the first video, but here's how fast the frontal collapse happened. You'll note that the time shown in both of the following frames is 2:32 (2 minutes and 32 seconds). So the canopy went from the first frame to the second frame in less than 1 second. That's how quickly Brad Geary and Max Marien could have gone from "fun and games" to "death and destruction" - to them and their child passengers. So who does USHPA expel?

Frontal_Collapse_001.jpg (26.97 KiB) Viewed 7979 times

Frontal_Collapse_002.jpg (27.46 KiB) Viewed 7979 times

[magentabluesky]

So who does USHPA expel?

The messenger.

[Bob Kuczewski]

So who does USHPA expel?

The messenger.

Yup ... shoot the messenger ... and bury the evidence.

Check it out yourself at: https://www.youtube.com/v/XmSBX-mERwY:

Geary_Video_Cover_Up.png (49.62 KiB) Viewed 7938 times

Maybe someone from U$hPA should have taught Brad Geary how to swallow a video chip to keep it from getting out in the first place.

[JoeF]

Is the absented video still available to the courts?

[Rick Masters]

USHPA hang glider pilots shouldn't be allowed to see that video.
They need their tender little brains protected by their nanny org.

[dhmartens]

I ripped a 157mb mp4 video 480x360 using
keepvid.com on 4/17/2015
which allows you to keep a copy of most any youtube video.

I make copies of videos likely to be taken down at some point.

[wingspan33]

[Thanks Doug! While you were posting your above message, I was writing up my own. ]

Bob and others,

As you may have noticed, the YouTube video has been pulled because "Air California Adventure Inc." has claimed it holds a copyright on the video.

Now that could be a false claim since the video was produced FOR the customer. That would mean that the Brad Geary's passenger (and/or parent/person-who-paid-for-the-trill-ride) owns the copyright to the video.

Also, as part of the Court Record, I would expect that the video becomes "public" - but I could be wrong on this point. The video may only have been used as a "bargaining chip" in the settlement talks. As such, it may never have been entered into the Court's records as "evidence".

But on another point, the USHPA has seen the video. That gave them the motivation for revoking Brad Geary's tandem rating. How is it that the u$hPa was allowed to view a "copyrighted" work most surely without the permission of Air California Adventure Inc.?

Now, a work that is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression," like a DVD, can be protected by law even if it is not actually "published." There is, however, an exception to this: a "work made for hire," which deals with a work created by one individual that was commissioned by another. The nature of freelance projects is exactly this, so let us explore this exception.

Exception

The "work made for hire" doctrine essentially states that although a work is created by one individual, the copyright to that work (i.e., the right to display and copy it), may be owned by another (i.e., your client). [from - http://www.videomaker.com/article/15066 ... -copyright]

Are false copyright claims illegal?

Falsely claiming copyright is a criminal offense, . . .

Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. 17 USC § 506(c). [ from - http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false ... laims.html ]

Also - and most important in this instance - there is a right to use copyrighted material for "Education Purposes". I would ask, has anyone here LEARNED something from viewing this video? If so please indicate by a Thumbs Up -

There's an organization that take notice of "false copyright claims". You can find their web site here - [ https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/new ]

I'd suggest that at least a few people report Air California Adventure Inc.'s unjustified demand to YouTube.



.

[Rick Masters]

The video was produced for and sold to the client for payment. That really complicates any copyright claim.
A court investigator will simply request the video be provided by the concessionaire, if needed.
Because it shows alleged child endangerment on public city property, under a lease arrangement with a public entity, it becomes evidence and falls into the public domain, anyway.

However, pulling the video from YouTube does protect the tender little brains of USHPA hang glider pilots from seeing how their sport has been hijacked. That's something.