Every now and then I receive a little flack when I color outside the lines (the
lines I drew to begin with), and add a little spice to the Oz Report with some
"political" comments (that is not hang gliding politics). For example, a few of
you didn't like my link to the "Asshole" video (I thought it was really funny
and the best song I had heard in a while). Others didn't like me defending press
freedom by publishing the infamous cartoons that were originally published by a
right wing Danish publication. I do like getting criticism from both ends of the
spectrum.
Joe Greblo wrote:
I'm confused. Every time I start to send you a check, I read some liberal
political wisecrack, or political video you've posted. That immediately makes me
put my checkbook away. Do any other pilots feel this way?
David Duke wrote:
That was one of the greatest music videos I've seen! Thanks for being courageous
enough to stand up against these Nazis. I hope the tide is finally turning
against them. After I saw it, I had to check to make sure that I sent in my
support to the Oz Report- I sent in $25 on 2/6/06. I think I'll send you some
more.
I publish the Oz Report as a service to the hang gliding (and somewhat to the
paragliding) community. Do you see it as a service? Do you use the service?
Then, simply, pay for it. That's how it works.
I'm here to publish a lively and interesting
e-zine and blog that provides a valuable service to the community that I am a
member of. I think I do that. I've done my part. Now it's your turn.
If you like and/or read the Oz Report, use the Oz Report forum, use our
connections to Google Earth, sell or buy gear, download videos, won't you do a
little something to help support us? $20 per year (or more if you find the value
here) for a year subscription:
If you want to send in a check it's:
Davis Straub
PMB 1889 PO Box 2430 Pensacola, FL 32513
With the well known Flytec Championships over subscribed, pilots are moving to
the US National Championships in order to secure a possible spot in the Flytec
meet. Also this meet provides great benefits to pilots who want to go to the
Single Surface and Sport Class Nationals in Big Spring in August, with reduced
entry fees.
We have heard that there is great interest in Sport Class and Single Surface.
The USHGA is pushing hard to open up competition to new pilots and these are our
entry points.
I love flying down at the Florida Ridge. You're going to love it also. Do
whatever it takes to get down there. Meet Oleg Bondarchuck.
$500 first prize for topless flex wing, $250 for rigid wing, $250 for king posted, and $250 for single surface.
$500 first prize for open class paraglider, $250 for serial class paraglider ((DHV 2-3 and below - roughly equivalent to kingposted hang gliders), Intermediate (DHV 1-2 and below - roughly equivalent to single surface hang gliders).
I will match the $250 in rigid wing to make it $500. I got the $250 from winning the Flytec XC Championship last year and put it back in for this year.
Summary of project:
Use the HOLC to run an on-line competition. The HOLC rules for US flights. The total of your best three flights. Do it the same as last year, but with USHGA funding instead of Flytec funding and add two classes.
The critical nature of the project:
Retain membership. Give pilots an incentive to go cross country. Build camaraderie. Help make pilots think that the USHGA is a cool thing. | Proposed start and completion dates.
HOLC dates.
How do we define success for my proposal? How do we know if doing this has succeeded?
100 pilots sign up for the HOLC and participate in the first year.
The next year or the year after could be self supporting after we build up a critical mass of participants. $25/pilot. Pretty cheap competition.
Flip Koetsier, CIVL President, writes in his report to the CIVL Plenary:
Meeting and speaking with Hang Gliding and Paragliding pilots all over the world gives me and the bureau the impression that there is often little or no communication between them and the people who represent them at meetings such as this one or other meetings of the FAI that concern them.
The pilots of national HG or PG teams are often not involved in the choice of the site of a next major championship (they often do not even know that there will be a possibility to choose).
Many pilots and sometimes even national Hang Gliding and Paragliding federations do not know about FAI Sporting Licenses or the qualification criteria for competing in major competitions.
The national HG and PG federations are frequently unaware of the possibility of having their National Championships sanctioned as FAI events, or the possibility to use such events as the basis for qualifying for Category 1 competitions etc.
The CIVL bureau thinks that especially in this era where everybody is communicating very easily via the Internet, it must be possible and not too difficult to reach the Hang Gliding and Paragliding community worldwide. We and especially our treasurer Stephane Malbos started working on this with enthusiasm. Since the Plenary Meeting in Guatemala last year we put everything that we consider that is useful for the pilots to know on the internet on the CIVL website. Thanks to the energy of Stephane and the assistance of the FAI secretariat and especially Thierry Montaigneaux, we are now better able to inform the pilots about what is happening.
How did the participants feel about Steve Wendt's clinic and what
did they learn?
John Matylonek <<john>>
responds to the questionnaire from Dave Broyles, the USHGA Chairman for the
Safety and Training Committee:
Did this program show you how to run a profitable small hang
gliding business?
Since the point of the scooter tow clinic was primarily the optimum mix of
technology and instructional methodology of Steve Wendt, I did not expect much
formal presentation of business methods. However, various business tips and
spontaneous presentations were offered regarding instruction, sales and service
as a sidelight. It turned out that the participants were as much a part of the
show as Steve Wendt. So, in that regard, in turned into conference - not a sage
on a stage. That is why it was so successful.
I went away with many ideas regarding effectiveness of instruction, marketing,
and how can I steer students to purchase equipment and remain in the program and
also how to improve the quality of the business. Pat Denevan and Matt Taber in
particular, are the masters at the business side of hang gliding. Both Pat and
Matt know it is critical to not only provide efficient and effective,
consistent and regular instruction but to also sell the equipment that will keep
an operation afloat. I found the instructional discussions with Michael Robertson regarding visualizations, timing of new challenges, and new research
on how brains learn very stimulating. For me, the blend of practical,
theoretical and economic aspects of hang gliding instruction was perfect.
What new marketing ideas for hang gliding did you get?
The technology and this particular instructional method together opens up any
field near population centers and even near major roads to view hang gliding
first hand. As long as you remain low and slow, we can have hang gliding
schools everywhere. Also, we need to stop calling it scooter tow. Call it
"tow assisted" hang gliding, otherwise people will have visions of being pulled
by a scooter!
What conclusions did you come to about equipment?
Less is more. A 90 CC tow engine is enough. Simple and inexpensive enough for
any instructor with caution and common sense to operate it easily and
effectively. It also is extremely reliable and simple as any winch system can be.
What conclusions did you come to about training with scooter tow?
The low and slow and incremental USHGA method of foot launch still applies
with tow assisted instruction. I still believe that this method is best
utilized in conjunction with a training hill, just because the kinaesthetic
differences, complexities of airflow around terrain, and environmental cues
(starting from low to higher) are great enough to be not transferable to
mountain launches. But, if the pilot will be primarily a tow pilot than this can
method can stand only too as many winch operators have shown. Hill launching
than becomes a "special skill" for tow-trained pilots.
However, if one lowers the sights about the ultimate aim of tow assisted flight
- that it fills gaps and provides consistency and regularity in a comprehensive
training program - than this method will be powerful way of speeding progress in
instruction at all sites around the country. This will make instructors and
schools more efficient at providing instruction to groups. As long as it is kept
and low & slow - the complexity and potential dangers are minimized so that even
instructional assistants can operate the equipment.
The main fault of all new instructors is the inability to control incremental
steps in the program of instruction. In part, this is because of inability
to control site conditions and the effort of physically assisting those
beginning ground skims. Impatience and wishing to see results (on both the
students and instructors part) leads to the tendency skip necessary fundamental
steps. When they start to have accidents, bending aluminum and incurring expense
and seeing how frustrated their students get, they intelligently quit. An
impatient tow operator can still be tempted to solve control technique problems
by adding power, so training is necessary in constitutes incremental steps.
That's what I was paying attention to mostly. But this knowledge is minimal
compared to using high power hydrostatic line retrieval winch system and doing
high tows.
What Steve showed is that by under powering the system the tendency to rush
the student in the air before gaining fundamental skills can be avoided.
This particular use of the technology can help create the ideal situations so
that students can improve in an incremental way, just like an ideal training
hill that has all wind directions. But, it also is less work and frustration for
the student since their legs are not being used in acceleration and carrying
themselves and/or glider back the hill. This method allows some of the physical
effort to be minimized so that students can concentrate on body movement and
control (tiring enough for most students). This does not mean the student will
not experience frustration and/or hang gliding will be open to all. After all,
as instructors we are still setting up ideal, assisted and supervised learning
situations. The trick is still getting people to take instruction well into
their hang two stage in the mountains. The main reason people drop out of the
sport now is they don't get enough support at this stage.
What did you like best about the clinic?
This has been the first clinic where high quality ACTIVE and Successful
instructors shared their knowledge, wisdom, problems, and frustrations. It was
one in which we all showed and DEMONSTRATED what we knew - as opposed to only
sitting in a room talking about what we knew. It was truly more like a
instructors professional conference, where we made spontaneous presentations of
what works, what doesn't, and possible reasons why. The spirit was that of
sharing and helping one another other become more successful.
I especially liked the personal discussions regarding instructor's relationships
with manufacturers of equipment and other instructors. We have come to the point
in hang gliding where cooperation not competition will keep the industry alive.
Even my paragliding instructor buddies see the advantage of sending students to
each other (from hang gliding to paragliding and vice versa) and/or using our
specialized skills to assist each other in instruction and promotion.
What did you like least about the clinic?
That not everyone got the same immersion that I did and the weather interfered
with first one. Since I participated in all four clinics I was able to see most
of the situations in which the tow technology and instructional methods could be
used to fill in most gaps in instruction - use of the 90 CC, 125 CC and even 225
CC (the one available to me) winched could be used appropriately. Also, not
everyone got the benefit to hear Pat Denevan, Matt Taber and Michael Robertson
talk about measuring quality, effectiveness and efficiency of instruction and
marketing solutions.
If a clinic like this were not free, what would be a fair price to pay for it?
Making a truly sincere and promising beginning instructor pay for anything about
professional development is a bad idea in this stage of hang gliding's decline.
We need instructors. Simply deciding to make a go at teaching hang gliding is a
sacrifice in itself. But, if a similar conference can be duplicated the way I
experienced it - 8 days of high quality immersion in demonstrations,
participation and presentation - I would pay $150 to $200 to do it again. You
must remember, in part, I created my own experience because of my commitment to
attend all the clinics.
The following questionnaire is to find out what exactly was covered in the
clinic and what you think should be covered. Please note what was covered with a
C, what you would like to have heard about with an L and what you don't care
about with an X.
What information were you given about equipment for scooter tow training?
Was there a discussion about what scooters are appropriate?
Small, medium, large? - C
Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) vs. manual shift - C
Centrifugal clutch vs. manual clutch. - X
Was there a discussion about where are they available?
New, used, wrecked? - C
Was there a discussion about scooter tow systems design and building?
Trailer, modular, trailer hitch mount, free standing? - L
Were line tension measurement and methods explained? - L
Was the value or lack of value of line tension measurement discussed? - C
Wheel drum building? - C
Was there a discussion about equipment maintenance? - C
Was the cost of various approaches to setting up a scooter tow operation
discussed? - C
Was a type of rope suggested? - C
Were the advantages and disadvantages of various types and sizes of rope
discussed? - C
Was splicing or tying knots in tow rope explained or demonstrated? - C
Was a turn-around pulley demonstrated? - C
Were mounting and use of turn-around pulleys discussed or demonstrated? - C
Was any source of turn-around pulleys suggested? - C
Was a tow line parachute discussed or demonstrated? - C
Were size and construction of tow line parachute covered? - C
Was the need for a tow line parachute explained? - C
Were retrieval winches discussed? - C
Were accessory vehicles such as ATV, motorcycle or bicycle discussed? - C
Was rope retrieval discussed? - C
Were glider and student retrieval discussed? - C
Was a stationary winch mentioned and how it compares to scooter tow? - C
Were various gliders for training discussed? - C
Did you get a suggested syllabus for a course of scooter tow training? - C
Was how to teach foot launch with scooter tow discussed? - C
Was active pitch control discussed? - C
Was active roll control discussed? - C
Was PIO discussed? - C
Was active yaw control discussed? - C
Were you shown how to train the student to release? - C
Were stages of learning and accomplishment discussed? - C
Was advancement through stages discussed? - C
Were appropriate wind speeds for training discussed? - C
Were methods for various wind speeds discussed? - C
Was cross-wind launch discussed? - C
Were high tows for training discussed? - C
Did you get a list or discussion of safety precautions for scooter tow training?
- L
Were you shown standard tow signals? - C
Were you shown a standard towing procedure? - C
Were check lists mentioned? - C
Was failure to hook in discussed? - C
Were weak links discussed? - C
Did you get a list or a discussion of risks and dangerous practices in scooter
tow training? - C
Were lockouts discussed? - C
Were rope or weak link breaks discussed? - C
Were release failures or failure to release discussed? - C
What recommendations were made for tow bridles and releases? - C
Were you shown various ways to rig tow bridles? - C
Were you shown how to prevent release failures? - C
Were you showed how to rig a safety nose line release? - C
Were you trained to operate a scooter tow system? - C
Were you trained about how to use the brake properly? - C
Were you shown how to prevent rope tangles? - C
Were you shown how to undo rope tangles? - C
Were you shown how to judge pilot angle of attack? - C
Were you towed with a scooter tow system? - C
Were there any suggestions about how to incorporate recreational scooter towing
in your operation? - L
Were high tows discussed? - C
Was step towing discussed? - C
Were you given any ideas about how to get appropriate land for scooter towing? -
L
If any of the above subjects were not discussed, did you get hand outs on the
subjects? - L
David Jebb, the concessionaire at Torrey Pines (http://www.flytorrey.com),
and Regional Director for the USHGA, has come out with a book that draws on his
life as a San Diego Sergeant. Check it out at the URL above.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond to your article
before you printed it. You will not be surprised that we (the CIVL Bureau) do
not accept your criticisms, but unfortunately other business (and some personal
life) prevented us sorting out a response before you went to print. Anyway, to
address some points in your article:
I will start with the matter of exemptions for Paul and Lauren. The rules for
this are clear and we received a submission from the USHGA. Paul's case was
based upon a lack of opportunity to qualify. This was clearly nonsense as the
submission made clear that he lives near the only flight park to regularly run
FAI Category 2 events. The failure of other US competition organisers to get FAI
sanctioning for their meets is an internal matter for the USHGA and not a reason
why pilots from the richest nation in the world should be excused the normal
entry requirements. Nations such as Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Colombia
etc all manage to qualify their pilots so why not the US? Lauren's case was
different but we do not believe it appropriate to discuss such things publicly,
suffice to say that we did not feel an exeception was justified, although we
gave one to two other US women pilots at that time.
You go on to argue that a meet that Paul arranged so that he and Lauren could
meet the letter of the Section 7 requirement, if not the spirit, should be
counted as valid. Well, it failed on more than one count, primarily pilot
numbers, but also on valid tasks. Section 7 requires a minimum of 15 pilots and
2 valid tasks for a Category 2 event. This event did not meet the minimum pilot
numbers (as you admit in your article) and only one task was valid under the
competition rules. Paul and Lauren have accepted that the meet was not valid -
and they did so with good grace. I understand they intend to compete in the
April Flytec meets to gain the qualification they were so unfortunate to miss
this time around - and the whole CIVL Bureau wishes them the very best of
fortune in this.
But, who is really to blame for this sorry state of affairs? CIVL which sets out
simple criteria for Category 2 meets and does its best to advertise them so
pilots can compete, get their world ranking points and attempt to become
eligible for Category 1 meets? Or is it the USHGA Competitions Committee or US
meet organisers?
Until recently you were advocating a policy of working around CIVL rather
than with that body instead of using your online platform and communication
skills to persuade US meet organisers that they could provide a better service
to US pilots if they got FAI sanctioning for their meets? Might I also suggest
that, now you have come around to the view that more US meets should be FAI
sanctioned (your mail to me on 13th February) you or your committee should be
better prepared to advise US meet organisers on the basic requirements for
Category 2 meets.
I have written a fuller response on the
CIVL website if
your readers are interested in that.
Wow, John tears me a new asshole on the CIVL web site!
I can't believe my good fortune. John Aldridge has taken up the
challenge and responded to my CIVL-bashing article with his own Davis-bashing
article. I am so honored to be attacked in the primary article on the CIVL web
site. I'll have to see if I can keep this up.
The article is linked to above and
here. Go
ahead and check it out.
Now for a few clarifications. First, to the short article above. Last weekend, I
sent the article out to Paul and Lauren and to John Aldridge and Paula Howitt
with CIVL and to Jim Zeiset the USHGACIVL Representative for them to review for
accuracy, any comments that they wanted to make, and to let CIVL prepare a
rebuttal. I had originally planned to publish the article at the end of this
week, but given some later actions by CIVL (asking Paul and Lauren for the FAUX
meet competition rules), I decided to go ahead and publish it in my blog on
Monday and in the next Oz Report issue on Tuesday morning. I would have liked to
have given CIVL a bit more time, but frankly I didn't know the meaning of their
actions (now I do). I suspected at the time that they were trying to come up
with another reason to invalidate the meet. I was proven correct.
It is my understanding that Paul and Lauren had been asked by the Flytec meet
organizer, Steve Kroop, to help with the only US hang gliding meet that was CIVL
sanctioned in 2005, and therefore could not participate in the meet. They flew
in all the other national level meets in the US in 2005 (none of which were CIVL
sanctioned). This would explain why he and Lauren weren't able to fly in the
only meet that would qualify them for the Worlds.
I provided their competition history and showed in the previous article that
they were SUBSTANTIVELY qualified (they would be safe and competitive) to fly in
the Worlds. John has not disagreed.
I don't know what the Gross National Product of the US has to do with whether
pilots are qualified to fly in the Worlds. Paul and Lauren are not responsible
for USHGA policy but CIVL, because it is vindictive and wants to teach the US
and the USHGA a lesson, chose to make a case of it, and Paul and Lauren suffered
because CIVL hates USHGA policy.
The CIVL Sporting code would certainly have allowed Paul to fly in the Worlds if
the CIVL Bureau chose to see it that way. They had no reason to believe that he
wasn't safe. He was not flying in Class 1 but in Class 5. It's right there in
the rules and the CIVL Bureau could have easily said, go for it. But, in their
vindictiveness they chose not to.
Lauren was disqualified basically because CIVL did not feel that she had enough
competition experience. At least that what I get from their explanations. It is
the judgment of the people who know her that she would be a safe and competitive
competitor at the Women's Worlds. I think that we know better than the CIVL
Bureau in Europe. But then, CIVL hates the USHGA, so if a women pilot, who
everyone thought was a shoe in, doesn't get an exception, well, that does send a
message, now doesn't it?
Now, as to the validity of the qualifying meet which CIVL encouraged us (well
Paul and Lauren) to hold. I have already argued and made my point that there
were enough competitors in the meet to meet the criteria laid out in the CIVL
Sporting Code. John doesn't bother to make an argument against that as there
were sixteen pilots entered in the meet which is one more than the criteria in
the CIVL Sporting Code. John even foregoes the word competitor and refers to
them as pilots. Well, they were all indeed pilots.
It is my understanding that there were two valid tasks flown on the last day. I
have seen from Lauren a detailed description of the meet and that's what appears
to be the case to me. In my detailed discussions with Paul there was never an
issue of whether not enough tasks were flown. If this is not true, then CIVL has
a good leg to stand on. John unfortunately doesn't lay out any evidence for his
case here so I can't examine its validity.
Perhaps this is why Paula asked for a copy of the competition rules after CIVL
had invalidated the meet and after they had received from me the copy of my
article. Perhaps they were now going back and looking for another reason to
invalidate the meet after they saw that their case was weak re the number of
pilots. I'll just bet that they came up with this after the fact. Nice going
John!
As I'm good enough to let CIVL know that this article is coming out and solicit
their input, corrections, comments, and rebuttal, and they take it as an
opportunity to prepare their case by emailing Lauren, getting a copy of the
rules, and going over it with a fine tooth comb to see if, now that they need
another reason to invalidate the meet, they can find one. Gee, I wish I always
had a second chance like that.
Paul and Lauren will be competing in the US Nationals at the Florida Ridge and
the Flytec Meet in April. They have the opportunity to qualify unambiguously for
the Worlds by placing in the top 2/3rd's of the either of these meets. But,
let's say that Lauren doesn't quite make it, after all many women don't quite
make that cut off and that's why CIVL has a special exception for women
competitors. Then Lauren would have to go back to the CIVL Bureau, the one's
that I have hopefully just hang out to dry, and beg for an exception. Not only
that, she has to ask them before the Flytec meet, because she needs to apply for
an exception one month in advance of the Worlds. So she won't even know how well
she is going to do at the Flytec Meet, before she applies for an exception.
You might think that Lauren fears retaliation by CIVL for the trouble that I've
caused. After all, I feel that CIVL has already punished these two US pilots for
USHGA actions, so why not just continue in that vain. Put every meet under the
microscope so to speak. Find some little flaw and hold it up to a spot light and
make sure that this is the reason that Paul and Lauren unfortunately can't be
allowed to fly in the Worlds.
So who is to blame? John wants to blame the USHGA Competition Committee and/or
the US meet organizers for not bending over for CIVL and mandating CIVL
sanctioning for their meets. As the USHGA Competition Committee Chairman I have
continued a policy that predates me of not requiring that meet organizers get
CIVL sanctioning for their meets. Why doesn't the USHGA require meet organizers
to sanction their meets as CIVL Category 2 meets:
1) CIVL Category 2 sanctioned meets require that pilots have FAI Sporting
Licenses. This is a barrier to competition attendance and we want to put as few
barriers in the way of attending competitions as possible. FAI Sporting Licenses
must be purchased from the NAA at $35. IN the US, unlike in other countries,
competition pilots must obtain their FAI Sporting Licenses on their own and pay
for them separately. The USHGA does not wish to burden the general USHGA
membership with subsidizing a small minority of pilots to pay for their FAI
Sporting Licenses.
2) CIVL requires meet organizers to pay them the price of one entrant to the
meet. This adds to the fee that pilots would have to pay to enter the
competition. Again another barrier to competition. The USHGA is trying to
encourage competition and encourage new meet organizers. CIVL appears to be
trying to kill hang gliding.
3) We would rather that the USHGA and the meet organizers be in charge of their
meets and keep CIVL out of it. CIVL has many rules which we do not find
appropriate. If CIVL wants to run our meets, well then they should come over
here and run them and not require us to kowtow to their every whim.
4) The only benefit for CIVL sanctioning is that pilots get listed on the WPRS
world ranking system. 95% of our competition pilots could care less. Therefore
they would be required to pay for something that is no benefit to them. BTW,
even if our meets are CIVL sanctioned we are not requiring that pilot have FAI
Sporting Licenses because we get around CIVL (quite upfront and legally, and
discussed with CIVL) by running concurrent meets, one CIVL sanctioned, and one
not, but score everyone together).
5) Some of us in the USHGA are very unhappy that we have to pay $10,000 a
year for NAA membership (which makes our connection with CIVL) for nothing in
return. It is blackmail. We don't appreciate being blackmailed. This does not
make for a good relationship.
6) We are not happy that our USHGACIVL representatives appear to turn into CIVL
clones and forget whose interests they are supposed to represent.
The USHGA policy, as per the last USHGA BOD meeting, and at Jim Zeiset's (USHGACIVL Representative) request, is to encourage (but not require) meet organizers
to obtain CIVL sanctioning. I, in my official capacity as USHGA Competition
Committee Chairman, have done just that. I basically took a document that Lauren
Tjaden wrote about how they got CIVL sanctioning and sent it to all the meet
organizers. It would appear that we might get all the hang gliding and all the
paragliding meets (nine US meets) CIVL sanctioned in 2006. You would think that
CIVL would be jumping up and down for joy as opposed to trying to screw us
further.
I personally have not changed my position on CIVL sanctioning. While I believe
that for me personally it is a benefit for me to have all the meets CIVL
sanctioned, it is not a benefit to the general USHGA membership nor to the vast
majority of US competition pilots, and frankly my job as USHGA Competition
Committee Chairman is to look out for their interests, not mine.
There will no doubt be a discussion at the fall USHGA BOD and Competition
Committee meeting regarding whether the USHGA should continue to encourage CIVL
sanctioning of US meets and whether it should be made mandatory for USHGA
sanctioning. I doubt that we will do either, but that is not up for me to
decide.
So, no, John, you've got it wrong about how I stand with respect to CIVL
sanctioning as both chairman of the competition committee and as editor and
publisher of the Oz Report. In both capacities I continue to argue for what is
the greater good for the greatest number.
As for your article at the CIVL web site, I take that on in the next article.
Thanks for opening up this discussion and making the inner workings of CIVL and
the USHGA more transparent.
I took a copy of the article as I just wasn't sure that it would actually stay
up on the CIVL web site. It is so uncivil and so unCIVL like. I sure hope it
stays there.
First, as I made clear in my original article, the article was my responsibility
as editor and publisher of the Oz Report and not as USHGA Competition Committee
Chairman. That my statements are not official USHGA policy in any way and the
USHGA is not a party to the article. To identify me as the USHGA Competition
Committee Chairman in the first paragraph serves to confuse the reader as to
whether he is referring to official USHGA policy or not. I don't think that John
did this carelessly, or unknowingly, but on purpose.
John accuses me of being anti-CIVL. Well apparently he hasn't heard from those
who really are anti-CIVL and would advocate that CIVL be destroyed and that the
USHGA leave CIVL. I have never argued for these actions and have vigorously
defended CIVL against such attacks. John mistakes criticism of CIVL policy and
actions with a jihad against CIVL itself.
Let me make myself very clear. I disagree with some (maybe many) CIVL policies
and actions. It is my perfect right to do so. It's called democracy. And freedom
of the press. I'm exercising that freedom.
When CIVL does something right, you hear about it from me. When they screw up,
you also hear about it from me (that is the editor and publisher of the Oz
Report).
John apparently doesn't understand what the "royal we" stands for: "Me, myself,
and I."
John accuses me of being certain that my views are superior to the "collective
views and decisions of CIVL." Well, that's easy, you are damn right I do.
Sometimes I'm even right about that.
CIVL is a once a year meeting of the delegates for two days to make a whole
series of decisions with little background. They've got to get it wrong most of
the time. CIVL is structurally designed for failure and it shows.
Now I know how this work as I go to the USHGA BOD meetings (twice a year for two
and half days) and I can see much of the same dynamics. I've seen the results
from CIVL Plenary's and CIVL Bureau meetings. Frankly, the work is not of the
highest caliber. But then it is being done by volunteers and they don't get much
support, so it is understandable.
I've already discussed the FAI Sporting License issue and meet organizer fees.
John is absolutely right when he says that I mistakenly sent Dean Funk to the
Worlds in Oz, not realizing that he had not qualified in the top 2/3rd's of a
CIVL Category 2 sanctioned meet. It was purely a mistake as I really didn't even
think that that could possibly happen as I had seen Dean at the Flytec meets. I
got that wrong. It happens. I believe that I apologized profusely at the time
and thanked John for his consideration.
I very much appreciate the fact that John and the other countries at the 2005
Worlds agreed to allow Dean to fly in the Worlds (which he did quite safely, by
the way, which some other "qualified" pilots did not).
Well, there really isn't that much else that's new in his on-line screed. John
seems to think that I have some hope that CIVL will realize that they screwed up
when they invalidated the FAUX meet. Oh please, give it up. I wouldn't have
written the original article if I had thought that there was any hope of that.
Hello, anyone out there?
No, I don't expect CIVL to realize that they made a big error and chose to screw
two pilots who didn't deserve their condemnation and who are perfectly qualified
to fly in the Worlds, no matter the pieties from CIVL and John.
I do put one challenge before them though. Judge these pilots not on the basis
of whatever residual bad and vindictive feeling you may have about the editor
and publisher of the Oz Report, but on their own performance.
Finally, it is my considered opinion again as editor and publisher of the Oz
Report, that CIVL's actions are killing hang gliding. I saw this again when
Guido Gehrmann (look him up, guys) said at the last Worlds that he would never
come to a Worlds again. Until I see CIVL stop putting up barrier and start to
tear them down, I'll keep this position.
Subscribing and Unsubscribing to the e-mail version
You are in charge of your e-mail subscription to the Oz Report. If you wish to unsubscribe or subscribe, click: Subscribe.
Credits
Gerry makes the Oz Report portal much smarter. He is a web consultant and a PHP expert. He's the brains behind the Oz Report, so contact him for PHP programming services. David Glover heads up the Oz Report Radio
The Oz Report, a near-daily, world wide hang gliding news ezine, with reports on competitions, pilot rankings, political issues, fly-ins, the latest technology, ultralight sailplanes, reader feedback and anything else from within the global HG community worthy of coverage. Hang gliding, paragliding, hang gliders, paragliders, aerotowing, hang glide, paraglide, platform towing, competitions, fly-ins. Hang gliding and paragliding news from around the world, by Davis Straub.
