[eagle]

So Somebody won't be making their Quota
The need for that revenue from within the same organization or group.
Solving a problem in a way that makes another problem worse,
Packing more student in the runway....
Dangerously hucking them Off the cliff on radio ...
Fighting over launch Privileges

Robbing Peter to pay Paul
UnJustified raising Pricing such lessons, Storage & any possible fees

Paying a 3rd party's Pocket ~ Using access to airspace as revenue
( A Mandatory Pilot fee robbing the public and pilots )

Stop Robbing the People.jpg (40.67 KiB) Viewed 6532 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

Congratulations! and thanks for the good fight. I always thought U* was in bed with with the so called big schools.
U* owes you an apology and reinstatement. I won't hold my breath though

Thanks Mike. I give credit to everyone who has breathed life into the US Hawks day after day and year after year. We have great members, a great Board of Directors, and we never forget that we're about recreational hang gliding first. That's where USHPA has gone astray.

As this latest tandem fiasco becomes clearer, here's what I think has happened:

1. In light of the Hamby video, USHPA had no choice but to effectively pull Max Marien's tandem rating.
    
2. Robin Marien (Torrey concessionaire) certainly didn't like seeing his son Max on the sidelines and so he purchased tandem exemptions through AeroSports.
    
3. USHPA has viewed their tandem exemption as their own little monopoly, and they're furious about Robin Marien going around them.
    
4. So while USHPA had known of Torrey's non-FAA-compliant tandem operations for over a decade (who sold Marien all those U$HPA 30 day memberships for all those years?), they only decided to drop the hammer when Robin Marien snubbed his nose at USHPA's monopoly.

It's pretty much what you get with a bunch of unscrupulous players in the same sandbox.

[Bob Kuczewski]

So Somebody won't be making their Quota
The need for that revenue from within the same organization or group.
Solving a problem in a way that makes another problem worse,
Packing more student in the runway....
Dangerously hucking them Off the cliff on radio ...
Fighting over launch Privileges

Robbing Peter to pay Paul
UnJustified raising Pricing such lessons, Storage & any possible fees

Paying a 3rd party's Pocket ~ Using access to airspace as revenue
( A Mandatory Pilot fee robbing the public and pilots )

  

  

  

  


You're right on target. The central problem at Torrey is an artificial requirement to squeeze big money out of a sport that just doesn't have it. That's what twists and distorts what should be an enjoyable form of recreation into the nightmare that we've been witnessing.

[Jacmac]

USHPA has viewed their tandem exemption as their own little monopoly, and they're furious about Robin Marien going around them.

That and the fact that ACA stopped issuing out 30 day Student Memberships, like a month ago. Looks to me like they are just plain going independent. Some food for thought:

USHPA’s decision is based on the following:
• ACA's failure to provide USHPA with accident reports for all accidents occurring during 2015-16.
• ACA's failure to cooperate with USHPA in investigation of accidents during 2015-16.
• ACA has ceased issuing USHPA 30 day student memberships to participants when conducting tandem instructional flights.
o Under FAA Exemption 4721, all participants in two-place flight must have a pilot rating issued by USHPA.
• ACA is conducting tandem flights that do not comply with all of the operating conditions of FAA Exemption 4721 issued to USHPA for tandem instructional flights.

Why has this only affected Tandem Operations? If ACA has failed to provided accident reports and failed to cooperate with investigations, why are they still allowed to carry out USHPA instruction and issue USHPA ratings? I mean, the USHPA is basically saying that they don't believe the operation is compliant and therefore not safe. Why would you allow continued USHPA instruction and ratings issuance from a site/operator you don't think is compliant with your rules?

[Bill Cummings]

Jacmac
Why has this only affected Tandem Operations? If ACA has failed to provided accident reports and failed to cooperate with investigations, why are they still allowed to carry out USHPA instruction and issue USHPA ratings? I mean, the USHPA is basically saying that they don't believe the operation is compliant and therefore not safe. Why would you allow continued USHPA instruction and ratings issuance from a site/operator you don't think is compliant with your rules?

The reason Jacmac's logic has escaped U$hPA probably reveals the collective mind set.

The primary goal was a smack down for ACA thumbing their noses at U$hPA. Staff at UShPA never were thinking about safety in the first place (Evidenced by Bob's haranguing U$hPA on ACA's safety issues for YEARS.) so it never occurred to them to think beyond the smack down to get to the safety issue of hang ratings.

[wingspan33]

I have another possible view of what is going on here.

First off the U$hPA was truly unhappy with Bob K pointing out the problems with ACA at Torrey Pines - so, they revoked his USHPA membership. Effectively, in shooting the messenger, they gave motive to other U$hPA members to NOT report unsafe operations at some other HG/PG "training" facility. The old phrase "Mums the word" fits this situation well. An insurer who never hears anything bad about any U$hPA certified training facility remains in blissful ignorance - and continues to insure the U$hPA. When bad things are heard, insurers think twice.

But the above is old news. Bob's membership was revoked and then USHPA's insurance was cancelled.

In the mean time, U$hPA members have looked more closely at the bigger picture - after donating BIG money to help form the RRG. But they also began to actually THINK about why the old insurance was cancelled. The Nevada tandem crash was one event that may have contributed. But it was a one off situation. It was not some long term business (i.e., Air California Adventure) that seems to repeatedly be breaking or seriously bending the FAA tandem exemption rules.

So, here we are today. The U$hPa may have realized that some of its members are blaming the U$hPA for NOT putting the pressure on Air California Adventure a number of years ago (before the Hamby accident) to stop activities that jeopardize the U$hPA's tandem exemption AND its insurablility. How do you bring back (or keep) USHPA members who've now seen Air California Adventure as a threat to the U$hPA (and their perceived ability to fly)? Well, you make a BIG DEAL out of pulling the tandem exemption from Air California Adventure Inc.

Symbolically, they've "killed" both the messenger as well as the company (Air California Adventure) that the negative message involved.

Now everyone can be happy! And U$hPA keep members positioned on both sides of the fence.

Yea, right.

PS - Elsewhere on the web, Mark Forbes has acknowledged the he (and the U$hPA leadership?) knows about the other FAA Part 103 tandem exemption holders. Therefore, he also knows (or can presume) that Air California Adventure Inc. can/will go on operating as usual. So U$hPa's announcement about yanking ACA's tandem exemption has little meaning except perhaps as a political statement. The U$hPA is simply striking a (power?) pose.

[wingspan33]

USHPA has viewed their tandem exemption as their own little monopoly, and they're furious about Robin Marien going around them.

That and the fact that ACA stopped issuing out 30 day Student Memberships, like a month ago. Looks to me like they are just plain going independent. Some food for thought:

USHPA’s decision is based on the following:
• ACA's failure to provide USHPA with accident reports for all accidents occurring during 2015-16.
• ACA's failure to cooperate with USHPA in investigation of accidents during 2015-16.
• ACA has ceased issuing USHPA 30 day student memberships to participants when conducting tandem instructional flights.
o Under FAA Exemption 4721, all participants in two-place flight must have a pilot rating issued by USHPA.
• ACA is conducting tandem flights that do not comply with all of the operating conditions of FAA Exemption 4721 issued to USHPA for tandem instructional flights.

Why has this only affected Tandem Operations? If ACA has failed to provided accident reports and failed to cooperate with investigations, why are they still allowed to carry out USHPA instruction and issue USHPA ratings? I mean, the USHPA is basically saying that they don't believe the operation is compliant and therefore not safe. Why would you allow continued USHPA instruction and ratings issuance from a site/operator you don't think is compliant with your rules?

This is a great question Jacmac! Perhaps we will hear more from the U$hPA on this point. It's, at least, a serious question worth asking the U$hPA's leadership.

I would also think that by pulling Air California Adventure Inc.'s tandem exemption (only) the U$hPA opens up the door to their own liability concerning a student being injured while under the supervision of a (still) U$hPA certified instructor working at/for Air California Adventure Inc.

And what about that poorly(?) trained ACA student that is issued a U$hPA rating, then has an accident? Liability there too.

EDIT: The U$hPA's tandem exemption revocation statement includes that U$hPA's tandem instructor certification is "NOT VALID" for flights taking place at Torrey Pines. But since when does the U$hPA monitor where tandem instructional flights take place? And, obviously, I would think that Air California Adventure Inc. has one or more employees/contractors that hold generic (non tandem) U$hPA instructor ratings. Perhaps that's what Jacmac is referring to above.

I would wonder, as well, about Air California Adventure Inc. doing tandem lessons somewhere else. ( ? ? ? ) Do they become perfect tandem instructors just because they are flying at a site other than Torrey Pines?

This all plays to Jacmac's question. Why hasn't the U$hPA utterly revoked all instructor ratings from those individuals associated with Air California Adventure Inc.?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Anyway they banned me from the shga forum.

It appears to be a mistake. As a forum moderator I can confirm that there's a lot of work in keeping things straight. Here's the discussion from the Sylmar forum:

http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5381 Subject: "dhmartens banned?"

Excuse me, but I saw a post on the US Hawks by dhmartens that he's been banned from the SHGA forum.

Is that true? Can anyone share the circumstances?

Thanks.

What'd you do Bob? Threaten to sue? Just kidding good buddy. Anyone in the know wish to inform us on what happened to our dear Doug?

This is particularly ironic because it was NME (Jonathan Deitch) who cried like a baby when I cited his dangerous flying (dropping burning smoke canisters from his glider over flammable brush and landing in correctional facilities). It was Jonathan who threatened to sue the Sylmar Hang Gliding Association if the post wasn't removed. The Sylmar leadership was in a difficult position, but they were standing strong for free speech. As an act of kindness to them (and Jonathan) I voluntarily requested that they pull the post. Jonathan Deitch also backed USHPA's expulsion witch hunt against me. He's not my "good buddy".

Doug has not been banned.

The forum administrators must wage a constant battle against spam, and once or twice, we've cast too wide a net and unintentionally caught a non-spammer. I don't believe we've done so here. If Doug has any trouble with the forum, we're here to help.

Ken is a good man. Time will tell if he can find the courage to fix USHPA. I hope he will.

As Ken stated, Doug has NOT been banned from our forum. This would require a majority vote from out board of directors and there has never been even a suggestion to ban Doug.

I spoke with our website administrator, Jeff Chipman. He assures me that this error will be corrected before the end of this day and I ask him to reply to this thread with the root cause of the error once corrected.

This happened to me once. One of my IP addresses got caught up in the list of SHGA spam IP addresses. Easily fixed.

Thanks for chiming in Mike. I'm pretty sure this is going to be the same issue with Doug, but he's going to need to work with us so we can get it resolved.

IP address from the specific place where he's getting the ban will be best.

If I recall, I think Mile's was at work.

I did take a look at the hawks site and we're getting a pretty good shake over there as most understand that we're mostly adults over here at SHGA and we have some pretty thick skin (well some more than others).

I'm sure we'll get it resolved, so the conspiracies theorist can put down their pitch forks for now.

As Ken stated, Doug has NOT been banned from our forum. This would require a majority vote from out board of directors and there has never been even a suggestion to ban Doug.

Due process ... just as it should be. My hat is once again tipped in respect for the good folks running the SHGA. I only wish USHPA, Crestline, and Funston were managed so well.

I'm sure we'll get it resolved, so the conspiracies theorist can put down their pitch forks for now.

I've been banned from a few forums and it generally happens without any official notice (or due process). One day you go to sign in, and you get a message like Doug posted. It gives you a sickening feeling in your gut. If it's never happened to you, then it may by hard to understand. But there's a reason that the First Amendment was first on the colonist's minds. Free speech is important to people, and that's why we honor it on the US Hawks and that's why we speak up for others who are banned. That's what friends do for one another, and it's a pleasure when it's so easily resolved as in this case.

Once again, thanks to the good folks at Sylmar. On Doug's behalf let me say ... "Live long and prosper".

As far as I can tell, they're handling it very well. Once again, I salute Sylmar and the SHGA.

Finally, I think it's important to note that standing up for each other's rights is one of the many things we're doing well at the US Hawks. When there's a problem, we pitch in to get it resolved. Many fellow US Hawks have spoken up for me in other venues, and I feel a personal obligation to pay it forward whenever possible. As far as I can tell, it's going to work out well in this case, and it's my pleasure to be able to speak up for Doug as he's done so many times for me.

Pilots helping pilots. That's the US Hawks ... and the SHGA.  

[Bob Kuczewski]

Back on topic ...

USHPA’s decision is based on the following:
• ACA's failure to provide USHPA with accident reports for all accidents occurring during 2015-16.
• ACA's failure to cooperate with USHPA in investigation of accidents during 2015-16.
• ACA has ceased issuing USHPA 30 day student memberships to participants when conducting tandem instructional flights.
o Under FAA Exemption 4721, all participants in two-place flight must have a pilot rating issued by USHPA.
• ACA is conducting tandem flights that do not comply with all of the operating conditions of FAA Exemption 4721 issued to USHPA for tandem instructional flights.

Why has this only affected Tandem Operations? If ACA has failed to provided accident reports and failed to cooperate with investigations, why are they still allowed to carry out USHPA instruction and issue USHPA ratings? I mean, the USHPA is basically saying that they don't believe the operation is compliant and therefore not safe. Why would you allow continued USHPA instruction and ratings issuance from a site/operator you don't think is compliant with your rules?

This is a very good point. It also raises the question of who was actually violating the FAA exemption. In addition to Air California Adventure, isn't it the responsibility of each tandem pilot to ensure that THEY are operating in compliance with the FAA exemption? Aren't they individually responsible (as USHPA certified tandem instructors) to ensure that everything is done properly?

In my opinion, Air California Adventure is like a cancer in sport aviation. They corrupt everything and everyone they touch.

[ARP]

Who authorises Aero Sport Connection to issue such exemptions? If it is the FAA, can any organisation set it's self up as an issuing agency and on what basis do the FAA grant this? Is the USHPA just one of a number of organisations along with Aero Sport Connection than can do so?

If an instructor or school get their exemption pulled for not complying with FAA regulations then how can that same instructor/school be granted an exemption by another issuing agency? The FAA regulations have been broken and the FAA should take the agency issuing another exemption to task over what is a flagrant breach of trust.