srskypuppy wrote:I’m willing to forgive Mike and with certain conditions, give him a second chance.
You are just setting him up for permanent revocation, not forgiveness.
oose to HELP Mike)[/quote]
You publicly posted a document sent to Mike in confidentiality. I have no problem with it one way or another, and after speaking with Mike just now, I know that he would like to see more transparency with USHPA. As you can see, I am on the committee that will respond to Mike’s request for re-instatement. I take this duty very seriously and will do my best to be objective and non-biased. My views here are my own and don’t represent any other committee members, Regional Directors, or the USHPA.
I haven’t’ seen anyone say that Mike is a horrible person so nobody needs to be sticking up for him and saying what a great guy he is. This is not about how much you like or don’t like a person, it’s about how to mindfully re-integrate someone who made some serious errors in judgment.
I know this is a totally non-related analogy, but it’s what comes to mind right now: Imagine that you loaned a person some money and they spent that money and didn’t pay you back when they said they would. Then they came to you, apologized, and wanted to borrow some more money. Might you not have some trust issues? Might you consider loaning only half of what they asked for to see if they could be trusted again? And if you did loan them more money and they spent it and didn’t pay you back on time, would you ever loan them money again?
Mike violated some important site rules and national regulations. This as a situation where a person has violated our trust and we are going to consider re-trusting him with important responsibilities that could negatively affect many others. I don’t think it’s out of the question to let him get back one step at a time. And as I have said before, I support Mike getting his ratings back. He knows that a lot of people will be watching and I’m certain that from now on he will cross every “t” and dot every “i”. As long as he does that nobody will have an issue and he can have a long and fruitful career.
Many people are justifiably concerned that Mike might accidently break some insignificant rule and be hanged for it. I for one would stand against that kind of action. I can see a distinction between an intentional violation and an un-intentional or accidental violation. Take for instance a pilot coming in to land at 7:05 PM when they know site regulations require the landing zone be vacated by 7:00 PM. What if they had actually timed their flight well but there was a gust front blowing through the LZ when they were going to land and they decided to stay up and wait it out? Yes, they are still personally responsible for violating a site regulation but it was for safety reasons. They might get a warning or a short suspension, but I certainly wouldn’t pull their rating for that. Now if they did that very same thing over and over again, well that is a different story.
As opposed to a situation where a Tandem Instructor knowingly and intentionally takes a student for a tandem flight without filling out the 30 day membership form that provides us a waiver and insurance. There is no valid excuse for this, and after having had their rating revoked for the same violation once before, yes, in this case I would support a permanent revocation.
I think Mike is smart enough to not repeat past mistakes, and that at this point he is a reasonable risk.