[Bob Kuczewski]

Over the years, I have had several communications with Steve Pearson about reversing my expulsion. I may add them to this topic. For now, here's the message that I just sent:

Subject: First USHGA's President Presidential Citation
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:14:28 -0800

Hello Steve,

I'm writing to share the good news of my recent acceptance of the "First-USHGA's-President Presidential Citation" awarded on January 3rd, 2023 (see attached picture). The Citation was awarded for "positive contributions to the recreational hang gliding community of the United States." The photo shows myself, Joe Faust, Frank Colver, and two of the Los Angeles Beaches and Harbors staff members who helped us open the site to non-USHPA members 2 days a week. I am deeply honored that USHGA's First President would find the time to make the award and send the photo. Thanks Joe!

Steve, people who act in panic or revenge (as USHPA did in 2015) are rarely regarded favorably by history. This ongoing injustice is a stain that grows longer on your own record with each passing day that a member in your region cannot fly because he:

       Testified in a court case where a woman was injured
       Spoke to his City Council about ongoing mismanagement
       Dared to start an alternative hang gliding association

I am again asking you to make every effort to reverse this.

According to my records, it has been over a year since my last appeal. At that time you wrote:

"The only way that I would support your application for a new membership is if you showed remorse for your previous actions, promised not to do anything like that in the future, and to explicitly waive any rights to appeal from the executive director revoking your membership at their discretion at any time."

So USHPA membership now requires a "show of remorse"??

And USHPA membership now requires a promise to never testify as an expert witness, and to never speak to one's City Council, and to never start any national hang gliding organizations? Is that your best answer?

Steve, in last year's response, you used the excuse that it didn't happen on your watch so you weren't going to do anything. Is that still your position?

I am very disappointed if it is.

Happy New Year, and thanks in advance for a reply.

Bob Kuczewski
USHPA #81898
US Hawks #1

FacebookMrRobertMKuczewskiAwardeePresidentialCitationFromUSHGAFirstPresident.jpg (161.97 KiB) Viewed 1013 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

Steve responded to me on January 8th, 2023 with a message that basically said that as a USHPA Director, he would not take part in any "member-specific issues". He also said that he had been unaware of the Dockweiler waiver that's been in place since 2017. That surprised me quite a bit. I wrote back to him the same day (January 8th, 2023), and I've been waiting for a response. It's been over a week, so I am expecting that he won't reply at all. So at this point I'm mostly just documenting what I had written. Here it is.

Hello Steve,

First, thanks for writing back.

The Dockweiler waiver was approved after Joe Faust and I began speaking to the County of Los Angeles back in 2017. Our first speeches were May 19, 2017, and you can watch them (and our subsequent speeches) here:

      https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2715

Our speeches led to discussions with Supervisor Hahn's staffperson who subsequently arranged for us to meet with Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors. Both Joe Faust and Frank Colver joined me for that meeting, and we all agreed that USHPA's abusive expulsion created a conflict between USHPA's insurance requirements and the public's use of public land. The County of Los Angeles was wise enough to recognize this conflict, and they proposed a waiver to get us flying again as soon as possible within the existing contract with Windsports.

By July of 2017, the Los Angeles County legal department had drafted and approved a single page double-sided waiver that would allow us to fly on days when Windsports was closed (Mondays, Tuesdays, ... and some holidays for about 20 years). You can find a copy of that waiver at the Dockweiler club's site:

      https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2865

The waiver was approved on July 26th, 2017 and that date is known to us as "Freedom from USHPA Day at Dockweiler":

      https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2742

We made our first flights under the Dockweiler Waivers on July 31st, 2017, and we have kept a running log of our flying on the Dockweiler club's web site here (2017 to present):

      https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2749

There are over 300 posts in that topic alone. My own most recent flight there was Christmas day where I spent some time talking to a young fellow in college about taking lessons. He just informed me that he's signed up for his first lesson with Windsports. Here's a link with two posts about that:

      https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2749&start=300#p33038

I have attached a copy of the Dockweiler waiver that has been in continuous use at Dockweiler since July of 2017. You are welcome to fill one out and send it to the address in the top right corner. It may take some time (weeks to months), but it should be returned to you with a signature from the Director of Beaches and Harbors of Los Angeles County. You can then use it to fly on any days that Windsports is closed (currently Mondays, Tuesdays, and some holidays).

I am somewhat surprised (although I shouldn't be) that you were unaware of the Dockweiler Waiver all this time. If USHPA were a real association of hang gliding pilots, then that should have been BIG news spread far and wide. I know that USHPA's own "press person" (Erika Klein) has been aware of the waiver for some time, but it was never mentioned in any of USHPA's publications. USHPA has been all about preserving USHPA's power, and they have not cared squat about the actual sport of hang gliding ... as long as paragliding was there to take up the slack. Your company's forced move from the United States has been just one of the many casualties of USHPA's actions over at least 2 decades. It should disgust you.

Regarding your comments about being President and Director, I am aware of the effort required. I was a Director in 2009 and 2010, and it took a tremendous amount of my time. I took every complaint by every member very seriously. I always felt that it WAS my job to ensure that every pilot was treated fairly by the Association. I stepped up for David Beardslee when he was banned at Torrey and he has been able to fly there ever since. I often worked with pilots to resolve conflicts, and I'm severely disappointed that you don't see us as worthy of your time.

Steve, every flight you've had since spring of 2015 is a flight that you would NOT have had if USHPA had done this to you. Think about what that would mean to you. That's what I have endured for the last 8 years. It is disgusting that USHPA would use their monopoly control of flight to retaliate against pilots for non-flight related disputes. That's where USHPA crossed the line.

Please read Joe Greblo's letter from April 6th, 2017 (see attached). Read my expulsion letter (also attached). None of USHPA's expulsion charges were related to my flying. They were related to me testifying in court and speaking to the City Council and starting hang gliding clubs. But USHPA's expulsion didn't do a thing to stop my testifying or my speaking to the City Council or my starting of hang gliding clubs. The only thing the expulsion did was keep me from flying at Crestline or Sylmar or Funston or Torrey. But according to Joe Greblo (2017), my flying skills and attitudes have made me:

'one of a handful of participants that have demonstrated the skills and attitudes, required by us to practice and perform the more advanced art of "ridge soaring" along the 300 meter long slope designated for this purpose.'

Go ahead and read Joe's letter again, and then read my expulsion letter again. Who do you think was lying, Joe Greblo or Martin Palmaz?

Steve, you are currently the Director for this region. I am asking you to introduce a motion at your next opportunity to reverse my expulsion. Whether you do so or not is up to you. Please don't use any excuses that it happened on someone else's watch. You are currently a USHPA Director, and I am a former member in your Region. There are many new facts known now that were NOT known when I was expelled. Primary among those facts is that ALL of the charges for my 3 false arrests were ALL subsequently dismissed. That was NOT known at the time of my expulsion because USHPA wanted to rush the matter. But we now know - in hind sight - that those arrests were unjust and should not have been considered by USHPA. But the USHPA insiders wanted a rush to judgment while the cloud of those arrests lingered. It was wrong and you should know that.

We also now know that there have been more deaths at Torrey related to their overcrowding of student pilots. The 2019 deaths of Bengtsson and Valerio could NOT have happened if they were not both in the air at the same time. They were BOTH below the ratings required at that site (P3 plus additional hours) so they should BOTH have been under instructor supervision. All of these deaths (Bengtsson and Valerio) and serious injuries and lawsuits (Hamby) could have been avoided if USHPA had heeded my calls for oversight back in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. USHPA's loss of insurance could have been avoided if USHPA had heeded my calls for oversight back in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. But instead of admitting that they were wrong, USHPA used its monopoly power to retaliate against me, and I haven't been able to fly most sites for nearly 8 years. You can say that's not your problem, but that only tells us a lot about you.

Steve, you will do what you want. There's no doubt about that. And given all the time that you've looked the other way on this issue, I am not optimistic that you will take any action. But that's on you. The only thing that's on me is to make the request and let the world know what decisions you make in response. I have always admired your work, and as an aeronautical engineer myself, I know how distateful politics can be. But that's part of a Regional Director's job. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk reminded us:

      "The Buck Stops Here"

As long as you are Region 3 Director that sign is on your desk.

Please let me know what you will - or will not - do.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski
858-204-7499
bob@ushawks.org
BobKuczewski@gmail.com

[Craig Muhonen]

Bob wrote
The Dockweiler waiver was approved after Joe Faust and I began speaking to the County of Los Angeles back in 2017. Our first speeches were May 19, 2017, and you can watch them (and our subsequent speeches) here:

Re: July 26th, 2017 - Freedom from USHPA Day at Dockweiler
Postby Rick Masters » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:46 pm (see original post)

The US Hawks have established a legal precedent that marks the beginning of the end of the illegal U$HPA monopoly created by amateur sportsmen pretending to be totalitarian authoritarians on crack.
I said long ago that the way to deal with Bob is to sit down and discuss differences.
Whether you liked or disliked Bob was irrelevant.
That is really all that could be done.

Taking away Bob's RIGHT to fly hang gliders at Torrey Pines was a stupid overreach by U$HPA.
Such blunders take time to correct themselves and often result in unintended consequences.
The unintended consequence here is the eventual loss of the U$HPA's insurance monopoly on flying sites across the country.
This cynical corporate strategy was a fiction from the beginning, far outside the intent of the FAA, but it might have been able to continue, had the U$HPA Directors been less full of themselves and more open to criticism.
Once they began incorporating draconian banishment of hang glider pilots from hang gliding sites for anything but safety violations, their days were numbered.

If the U$HPA were a hang gliding organization, this would be, perhaps, unfortunate for the status quo.
But since the U$HPA has, unfortunately, become a parachuting organization with some hang gliders in it, it's okay because the status quo has mutated beyond recognition.
We need to start over.
We need a hang gliding organization in the United States that is dedicated to recreational hang gliding.
No tandem. No paragliders. No schools. Just people flying hang gliders for fun.
A hang gliding organization that uses the recreational liability laws now common in the USA to place liability on individual members
and not connect them with the disaster of parachuting or the increased risk of commercial training or tandem profiteering or forcing continual growth.
The idea that all this added stuff is necessary - paragliding, schools, tandem, comps, growth - is a rationalization based on profit.
None of it is necessary for the future of hang gliding.
Hang gliding will persist as long as people strap high performance wings to their backs and jump off mountains.
It's a sport. Not a sustainable business model. Not a path to profit.*
It's driven by enthusiasts, not managers.

Someday Bob's courage and perseverance will be recognized by the hang gliding community as the trigger that freed them from creeping corporate bondage.
For now, my recognition will have to suffice.
Thanks, Bob.
Nice job!
-------
* Please note that I am not against hang gliding schools, real tandem training, competitions or growth. They are simply beyond the scope and liability constraints of a recreational hang gliding association.

   God's speed, from "reader" me.

[JoeF]

Pressure from "above" USHPA? Who and what is "above" USHPA? Member money power?

https://www.fai.org/page/civl-hang-glidingGod? FAA? US Federal Government? NATIONAL AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE USA? FAI?
My guess is that https://naa.aero/ should know all about dastardly deeds by corporations within their cover.

https://www.fai.org/page/civl-hang-gliding

FAI documents: https://www.fai.org/documents

https://www.fai.org/civl-documents


USHPA is probably (?) a member of FAI. If so, study the FAI disciplinary document and code of ethics. I do not know if pressure from FAI could be placed on USHPA to act fairly on disciplinary matters. For sure, the corporation USHPA did not align their actions with the FAI Code of Ethics when they did a dastardly bum's rush bulldozing over Mr. Kuczewski; can pressure be put on USHPA by FAI to correct the matters regarding Robert M. Kuczewski? What happens in one case over a member of the world hang gliding community could well tell of matters that are hurting or helping hang gliding. The FAI's CIVL has considerable stake in having its members live up to high standards of ethics. Reach the two documents somehow via
https://www.fai.org/news/new-2023-sport ... inary-code
On that page are links for
FAI Sporting Code General Section 2023
FAI Disciplinary Code 2023 v2

I think someone, maybe Steve Pearson and Joe Greblo in combined effort, might nominate Robert M. Kuczewski for an annual award extended by the FAI ; say, Steve P and Joe G, are you up to doing a good and right thing here???? Anyone see the light?

THE FAI HANG GLIDING DIPLOMA - This Diploma was established by the FAI in 1979. It may be awarded to an individual who is considered to have made an outstanding contribution to the development of hang gliding by his or her initiative, work or leadership in flight achievement.

From the FAI policies and procedures:

12.10. AWARDS FOR HANG-GLIDING AND PARAGLIDING
(Subject to approval by the FAI Hang-Gliding and Paragliding Commission)

THE FAI HANG GLIDING DIPLOMA - This Diploma was established by the FAI in 1979. It may be awarded to an individual who is considered to have made an outstanding contribution to the development of hang gliding by his or her initiative, work or leadership in flight achievement. Only one Diploma shall be awarded each year. Nomination and Approval. Procedures shall be as described in Chapter 10 of the FAI Bylaws.

FAI Bylaws Chapter 10

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR FAI AWARDS

10.1. The following general principles shall govern the award of FAI Medals and Diplomas.
10.1.1. Purpose. The purpose of FAI medals and diplomas is to give public recognition to those who have made outstanding contribution to aeronautics and astronautics, especially in the field of sporting aviation.
10.1.2. Eligibility. Any person is eligible to receive a FAI award. Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in these By-Laws, a recipient need not have had any previous connection with FAI.
10.1.2.1. Medals and Diplomas may be awarded posthumously. In such cases, they shall be presented by the FAI to the FAI Member in the recipient's country. That FAI Member shall have the right to decide whether to retain the award or present it to the next-of-kin.
10.1.2.2. Except when specifically authorised in these By-Laws, no Medal or Diploma, other than De La Vaulx and Blériot Medals, may be awarded to the same individual more than once.
10.1.3. Nominations for Awards. Subject to the specific procedures set out elsewhere in these By-Laws, nominations for FAI Medals and Diplomas may be made by :
- FAI Members,
- FAI Executive Board,
- FAI Commissions,
- FAI President,
- FAI Secretary General.
10.1.3.1. In any given year, a FAI Member may propose only one candidate for each FAI Award, except when expressly stated otherwise.
10.1.3.2. The nomination of a candidate for an FAI award, whatever its origin, must be supported in writing by an authorised officer (President or Secretary General) of the FAI Member in the nominee's country.
10.1.3.3. Nominations for all FAI awards shall be sent to the FAI Secretariat together with citations not exceeding 100 words, and other supporting information required in these By-Laws, to arrive no later than two months before the FAI Commission meeting concerned (by 15 November each year for CIAM Medals and Diplomas) or four months before the General Conference in the case of the General Awards shown in Chapter 11.
10.1.3.4. The FAI Secretariat shall submit to the appropriate Commissions for consideration all nominations for awards listed in Chapter 12.
10.1.3.5. Except where otherwise specified, the FAI Secretariat shall submit to the FAI Vice Presidents for consideration all nominations for awards listed in Chapter 11.
10.1.4. Recommendation and Approval Procedures. When considering nominations for Medals and Diplomas, Commissions shall adopt the two-stage procedure described below. Before the procedure begins, any delegate present who is a candidate for the award in question shall be asked to leave the room for the duration of the discussion and voting. Any such person shall be deemed to have voted for himself.
10.1.4.1. A vote shall first be taken on whether or not to approve or recommend the award of the Medal or Diploma concerned in the year in question. This vote shall be open unless any Delegate requires a secret ballot.
10.1.4.2. If the result of the vote in 10.1.4.1. is positive, and if more than one nominee is under consideration, a secret ballot shall be held to determine the recipient of the award, following full discussion in closed session, with no written or taped record of the proceedings.
10.1.4.3. FAI Vice Presidents will be invited to decide on nominations for awards listed in Chapter 11 by email voting. Detailed rules for the voting procedures will be decided by the FAI Executive Board.
10.1.4.4. Unless otherwise specified, all results shall be determined by a simple majority.
10.1.4.5. No proxy voting shall be accepted.
10.1.5. Exemptions from Approval. No Commission or Vice Presidential approval is necessary for medals awarded automatically to holders of new World Records, nor for the Air Sport Medal.
10.1.6. Presentation of Awards. Except where otherwise indicated, Medals and Diplomas shall be presented to recipients during the Opening Ceremony of the General Conference, in accordance with protocol established by the FAI President, the FAI Secretary General and the organizing Member.
10.1.6.1. Names of recipients and citations shall be published by the FAI Secretariat prior to the Conference and distributed to the Press at the
Conference.
10.1.6.2 Medals and diplomas for recipients not present at the opening ceremony shall become the responsibility of the delegation from the FAI Member concerned, who should arrange a suitable occasion for presentation.
10.1.7. Modification of Policy for Awards. If any changes are to be made to the rules for FAI Awards described in Chapters 10-12 of these By-Laws, these must be approved by the appropriate Commission and the FAI General Conference and promulgated to all FAI Members by 31st of December of the year preceding their entry into effect.

[DaveSchy]

Bob,
I am in support of your reinstatement in USHPA if you then promptly resign under protest!
It's the principle of your being expelled in a biased and unfair manner by a cabal, not your ongoing membership, isn't it?
The problem with being reinstated, is that club we were members in will want an exorbitant amount of money in dues, and you would then be financially supporting their illegal shenanigans.
You could also become liable in any suit against the RRRG.
I really doubt that their "legal team" would have helped you stand up to the financial and political corruption in San Diego that you are bringing to light.
In other words, if you do rejoin em, then ditch em!

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob,
I am in support of your reinstatement in USHPA if you then promptly resign under protest!
It's the principle of your being expelled in a biased and unfair manner by a cabal, not your ongoing membership, isn't it?

It's both. The principle of what USHPA did in my expulsion should disturb every USHPA member from coast to coast. USHPA's message was clear:

- Testify in court against a USHPA-protected business and USHPA will ground you.
- Testify to your local government about a USHPA-protected business and USHPA will ground you.
- Create a national hang gliding association and USHPA will ground you.

USHPA should NEVER have used its monopoly control of insurance to retaliate against anyone for any of those reasons. That's a principle.

But my ongoing membership remains important to me because I am not currently able to fly any of my most favorite sites now (Torrey, Crestline, Sylmar, and Funston). That list also included Dockweiler and Point of the Mountain, but both of those sites now allow non-USHPA pilots to fly.

Sadly, Steve Pearson knows all of this, but it appears that he will do nothing ... even though I am in his region.