You are NEVER hooked in.

General discussion about the sport of hang gliding
miguel
Posts: 289
Joined: 2011/05/27 16:21:08 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by miguel »

Lift and Assume vs Check and Confirm.

According to our esteemed Tad:
Tad wrote:Lift and tug tells you that you:
- have your leg loops; and
- are connected to SOMETHING that's connected to your glider.

It DOESN'T tell you:
- what you're connected to;
- how well you're connected to it;
- that your:
-- starboard downtube/basetube junction pin is in your pocket
-- port sidewire is half a G away from failing

A preflight check is used to verify the integrity of all critical components of your entire aircraft and a hook-in check is the last instant verification that your carabiner isn't dangling behind your knees and you have your leg loops.
So our extermely thoughroug pre-flight gaurantees that when we step up to the launch, all we have to do is lift and tug, then launch. We can assume we are hooked in.

Well......I guess when you land in the mellow meadows lz where only goodness prevails, you must launch at the heavenly highlands launch where all launches are devine.

Image

Unfortunately, most of the rest of us are forced to fly in the real world. Here is a short list of distractions I have personally seen on launch.

01.) Arguments and Fisticuffs
02.) Naked women
03.) Naked men
04.) Annoying uncontrolled pets
05.) Annoying children and spectators
06.) Powered aircraft doing aerobatics in front of the launch
07.) hang gliders flat hatting launch
08.) stinging insects flying about and entering the harness
09.) hotdogging trucks on launch
10.) Intoxicants

Can you think of more distractions?

Image

I knew you could

In the real world, it is posible for something to happen during the meticulus preflight causing the pilot to miss a critical checkpoint. It is also posible to unhook the harness during some excitement. Of course, the pilot will reperform the meticulus preflight.

A turn and inspect does not involve Tad's big assumption:
Tad wrote:- you have your leg loops; and
- you are connected to SOMETHING that's connected to your glider.
It tells and confirms that:

- your caribiner is locked/unlocked and attached securly to your harness and both hang loops
- your leg loops are buckled securely around your thighs
- your harness straps and buckles are secured
- your helmet strap is secure

- these checks take less than 60 seconds

Spare me the semantical and specious.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

So our extermely thoughroug pre-flight gaurantees that when we step up to the launch, all we have to do is lift and tug, then launch.
Well, YOU can.

But for total space cases such as myself who totally suck at thorough preflights it never hurts to keep assuming that you fucked something up and keep thinking, looking, checking to determine if there actually IS anything.

But the good news is that on modern gliders you can count the things that you can fuck up that actually matter on the fingers of one hand and still have one available to flip off an Aussie Methodist.
We can assume we are hooked in.
1. Quote me EVER saying ANYTHING *REMOTELY* like that.
2. What's the title of this thread?
I guess when you land in the mellow meadows lz where only goodness prevails...
Discounting the fatalities from High Rock and Henson Gap.
...you must launch at the heavenly highlands launch where all launches are devine.
Discounting the fatalities from Whitwell, Henson Gap, McConnellsburg, Woodstock, Taylor Farm, and Ellenville.
Unfortunately, most of the rest of us are forced to fly in the real world.
I know. Narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place, fields filled with seven foot high corn, and rotten shipping pallets at the edge of the cliff up top.

Or, for aerotowing...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=5089
The Good-The Bad-The Ugly....
Socrates Zayas - 2008/01/14 05:22:38 UTC
Fort Lauderdale

I looked back to see the tug circle around and saw a wing turned up in a WHACK configuration. I was like "wow". Then I noticed it wasn't the tandem but Sherb-Air's Falcon 170.

When I got there her nose was lacerated and her lip was bleeding (yeah, she had a full face helmet) and the dolly's left wheel was missing.

The radiography showed acute multiple fractures around the top and head of the humerus. Her nose didn't break but she may have hairline fractures to the septum. She had a hard time remembering the date, day, names of her kids, number of kids, and other basic things...

The dolly had hit a huge hole and she went left shoulder into the ground at 25+ mph.
...Florida Ridge.
Everyone who lives dies, yet not everyone who dies, has lived. We take these risks not to escape life, but to prevent life escaping us.
Here is a short list of distractions I have personally seen on launch.

01.) Arguments and Fisticuffs
02.) Naked women
03.) Naked men
04.) Annoying uncontrolled pets
05.) Annoying children and spectators
06.) Powered aircraft doing aerobatics in front of the launch
07.) hang gliders flat hatting launch
08.) stinging insects flying about and entering the harness
09.) hotdogging trucks on launch
10.) Intoxicants
1. I just got an idea for a really cool reality TV show! Thanks!
2. How many of those have ever been a factor in an unhooked launch anywhere?
Can you think of more distractions?
Yeah.

The biggie is the hang check...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

I already see where the anger and grief take us. We need to do hang checks, double hang checks. And who was on Bill's wire crew? How could they let that happen?

When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check. I often do not see pilots doing a hook-in check. Why should they? They just did a hang check and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
...followed closely by the thought of Steve Wendt having been recognized with the 2004 Instructor of the Year Award.

Then you have your locking carabiners, backup loops, twisted lines, chest buckles, clearance checks, helmets, and helmet chinstraps. Any trivial crap which takes the focus off stuff that actually matters is good for killing someone.
I knew you could.
I knew you knew I could.
In the real world, it is posible for something to happen during the meticulus preflight causing the pilot to miss a critical checkpoint.
Right. Hence the most hated and ignored regulation in all of hang gliding:
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
It is also posible to unhook the harness during some excitement.
See above.
Of course, the pilot will reperform the meticulus preflight.
Of course. Never fails. Especially...
While pushing up on the leading edge between the nose and the crossbar junction, step on the bottom side wire with about 75 lbs. of force. This is a rough field test of the structural security of the side wire loop, the control bar and the crossbar, and may reveal a major structural defect that could cause an in-flight failure in normal operation.
...the most critical item in the owner's manual. I don't know ANYBODY clueless enough to skip that one.
A turn and inspect does not involve Tad's big assumption...
I NEVER do assumptions of desirable conditions when it comes leg loops and connection status. I ALWAYS assume undesirable condition.
It tells and confirms that:

- your caribiner is locked/unlocked...
See above.
...and attached securly to your harness and both hang loops
See above.
- your harness straps and buckles are secured
See above.
- your helmet strap is secure
See above.
- these checks take less than 60 seconds
1. If you eliminate the mostly useless, totally useless, and worse than useless bullshit you can get it down to two or three.

2. Do whatever you want and take as much time as you want. Just don't do it on the ramp.

If I'm behind twenty assholes each of whom upon reaching the ramp is suddenly paralyzed by terror at the thought of launching with an unlocked carabiner, a missed backup loop, a twisted strap, and unbuckled chest and chin straps and takes a minute doing the job he was supposed to do before he got to the ramp I'm out AT LEAST twenty minutes of airtime and may miss the soaring window altogether.

3. But watching someone do an actual hook-in check on the ramp would fill my heart with so much joy that I'd never begrudge him the extra zero to one seconds it would cost.
Spare me the semantical and specious.
Sorry 'bout the speciousness, but when people clutter unhooked launch discussions with comments about locking carabiners, backup loops, twisted straps, chest buckles, and chin straps...
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Hardmanmark - 2006/09/19 00:28:03 UTC

News has just come to hand that the new NZHGPA operations manager Kevin Rooke has sustained moderate injuries falling from his hang glider after failing to hook in at Inwoods lookout in Nelson.

Witnesses at the scene have stated it is a miracle the accident was not fatal.

The glider was said to fly rather well unpiloted. It actually went up in a thermal narrowly missing a gaggle of paragliders. It is yet to be found.

This is a real wake up call to all of us at the beginning of our season to always do a hang check.
It always is, Mark. We get a wake up call, wake up, go through our usual routines, go to back to sleep, and get another wake up call. I wonder when you assholes are gonna figure out that wake up calls are as totally useless as the hang check and all the other preflight bullshit you always babble about after one of these.
Sterling - 2006/09/19 01:02:26 UTC

Hey Mark,

I can't believe this has occurred. Kevin Rooke did the investigation into Jim Rooney's accident here for the CAA last year. He ascertained that there was a failure to complete a hook in procedure as well as some other irrelevant drivel.
So why can't you believe this has occurred?
Kevin currently is working on a new hook in procedure for commercial operators. If anyone has any suggestions for our Hang Gliding Operations Manager I am sure he would greatly appreciate any input.
Yeah, I've got a suggestion...

Make the commercial operations procedures the same as the amateur operation procedures - unless you attach different values to different lives and feel that some people deserve better levels of protection than others.

And things could get confusing for a commercial pilot when he flies recreationally. He might forget whether he's in a situation in which he's required to follow the good procedures or can get away with the crappy stuff.
Maybe Kevin has been trialling new hook in procedures. Good on you Kevin, I admire your dedication to the sport, keep working on it!

On a more serious note I wish you well in your recovery of yourself and the glider - wherever it is.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 17:15:45 UTC

The only suggestion I could think of would be to follow hook-in procedures next time.
Yeah, that'll help. Reminds me a lot of Steve "2004 Instructor of the Year" Wendt's...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1166
Thoughts on responsibility...
Scott Wilkinson - 2005/10/05 14:10:56 UTC

We visited Steve Wendt yesterday, who was visibly choked up over Bill's death. For Steve, it all comes down to one thing: you've got to hook in. Period.
...approach to the issue.
What can you really say to someone that failed to do a hang check?
Tell him to stay with that - that he's halfway to the solution.
You either have a habit of doing a hang check or you are an accident waiting to happen.
Yeah.
Rob Kells - 2005/12

My partners (Steve Pearson and Mike Meier) and I have over 25,000 hang glider flights between us and have managed (so far) to have hooked in every time. I also spoke with test pilots Ken Howells and Peter Swanson about their methods (another 5000 flights). Not one of us regularly uses either of the two most popular methods outlined above.
Right.
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 18:30:03 UTC

Ah... I think I can speak with a little authority on this topic.
Yes indeed. Just as you can speak with a little authority on the topics of flying away from lockouts by increasing the roll and pushing out when you can't get your Industry Standard release to work to get your standard aerotow weak link to work and avoiding Mach 5 takeoffs and good soaring conditions to keep your standard aerotow weak link from working.
The first thing you learn, if you live, is that your precious hang check isn't going to save you.
The people who had their shit together on this issue knew that in the Seventies - asshole.
Your friend might save you...
You better hope it's a friend, Jim. 'Cause I sure as hell won't be saying anything.
...but even a religious obscession with hang checks won't.
1. Making it the odd man out in a culture of religious obsessions with Quallaby and bent pin releases, 130 pound Greenspot, and standup landings.

2. But let's keep teaching it, demanding it, and retaining it as the foundation of our unhooked launch prevention strategy 'cause hang gliding is all about religious obsessions and not stuff that actually gets the jobs done.

I dumped the fucking hang check in the fall of 1980 and never looked back. And I haven't launched unhooked as many times as you have. Dickhead.
It has to do with the way the mind works.
Who's mind? That twisted garbage you've got rattling around between your ears or something functional?
I'm digging up a very good paper on the topic... I can't seem to find it at the moment.
1. Lessee... You almost killed your passenger along with your own stupid useless ass seven months ago and that qualifies you to recommend reading material on the subject?

2. Don't bother. It's totally useless crap.

3. If you want something from the mainstream to read try the post Bill Priday article by Rob Kells in the 2005/12 issue of Hang Gliding. Focus on the stuff that makes sense and disregard the stupid bullshit he included so he could keep being a friend to every "pilot" he met.
See the trick of the matter is that you will think you did one. I'm not kidding... you'll swear on your life (litterally) that you did do a hang check. You will believe whole heartedly, not that you're hooked in, but that you DID a hang check. And then you find out that you didn't.
Thank you, Jim...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

I already see where the anger and grief take us. We need to do hang checks, double hang checks. And who was on Bill's wire crew? How could they let that happen?

When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check. I often do not see pilots doing a hook-in check. Why should they? They just did a hang check and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
...for so graphically and irrefutably illustrating EXACTLY the point Steve was trying to get across to you fuckin' douchebags right after Bill was killed.
The Press - 2006/03/15

Rooney and the passenger fell about fifteen meters to the ground.

The passenger, believed to be a tourist in her twenties, suffered minor to moderate leg lacerations.
Maybe you could relay my thanks to your passenger as well.
Human behavior is the weakest link in the chain, yet we trust it above all other solutions. We use training and education as the primary means to fix problems when they are the least reliable of all options. (yes, checklists.. even written checklists fall into this category).
Try training them in accordance with the regulations for a change and see what happens - asshole.
Do not get lulled into the false sense of security of "it won't happen to me because I'm so meticulous".
I never thought that for a nanosecond - you arrogant stupid little shit. I thought the precise opposite.
The easy answer is to say "you can't launch unhooked if you do a hang check every single time". Saying it will make you feel good, but relying on it as your answer to hookin failure can be fatal.
I really wish it had been. (So fucking close.) And I haven't given up hope that it will be.
I'll see about digging up that article.
Spare no effort - it's a real gem.
Bill Jacques - 2006/09/19 18:42:23 UTC

Are you saying that it is not uncommon for some pilots to think that they have asked someone for and received a hang check when they really haven't asked anyone?

As a trainee, I am being taught to always ASK a fellow pilot for a "hang check".
As a trainee, have you read the requirements for your rating and made the slightest effort to understand and adhere to them? Just kidding.
They check the 1. primary 2. secondary. 3. leg loops, etc. etc., and verbally confirm all is okay.
EXACTLY. They check the 1. primary 2. secondary. 3. leg loops, etc. etc., and verbally confirm all is okay. And from that point on they're good to go. Great strategy.
If what you say happens...
Don't spend a lot of time reading incident reports from the non fatals, do ya?
...perhaps there should be a procedure for a "sign off" with the date and time on it by someone else before you take off?!
Yeah, I like that one.
Maybe the verbal "signoff" is not adequate.
No.
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
It's not.
Jeez.. that story scares me.
Maybe you should make a point of thinking about it two seconds before commitment to EVERY launch.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 19:31:12 UTC

Agreed, human behavior is the weakest link, and the pilot that doesn't follow a regular procedure and take the upcomming flight seriously every time is going to get nailed by statistics.
Forget about the goddam flight and taking it seriously. This has absolutely nothing to do with the flight and absolutely everything to do with the two seconds before commitment to it.
Maybe because it's because I'm a little paranoid about hooking in that I've never come close to not hooking in.
Why limit yourself to being just a little paranoid?
Maybe it's because I realize gravity can kill you. All I know is that I always say Hooked In, Leg Straps, Height Above The Bar, before every launch and so far that has worked.
1. How long before every launch?
2. What does height above the bar have to do with anything?
3. Does saying it make the relevant ones true?
4. Is there some action you could take to ensure that the relevant ones are true?
Kurt Jorgensen - 2006/09/19 19:35:33 UTC

One of the guys I fly with does not walk around in his harness--he hooks it in first before getting into it.
Can you conceive of any sets of circumstances in which that would be a really bad idea?
This way he can check more easily himself that all the cables are straight and in the right place. Of course this only solves the hook in...
Yeah. And there's absolutely no possibility whatsoever that he could unhook between then and launch.
...not the leg and arm loops...
How do you miss the arm loops?
...but most errors occur with the 'beaner.
Can you think of any method of confirming the 'biner two seconds before launch?
Recently a pilot that was just getting back into HG after a several year hiatus launched without his legs through the leg loops. We even did a hang check on him (shame on us)!
Oh. So hang checks don't verify leg loops. Interesting.
He wasn't even aware of a problem (he zipped up right after launch) until it came time to land. Fortunately he landed well.
If he had rolled in he wouldn't have been aware of the "problem" until he took the harness off.
Jim Gaar - 2006/09/19 19:36:59 UTC

I have a .doc of simple checklists (aerotow tandem-aerotow-platform-foot launch) that can be cut out and taped to your control bar/down tubes etc.
Thanks Jim, that'll be a big help.
Let me know if you want a copy.
That's OK, Jim. It's a lot easier for me to look at the rocks below the ramp than it is to read a list taped to my basetube which reminds me to buckle my helmet.
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 19:52:29 UTC

Yeah, it is scary.
But not quite scary enough to bother with a hook-in check, is it - asshole?
Finding out that you can't trust yourself sorta sucks.
Nah. I found out I couldn't trust yourself about the third time we had a conversation. (I'm often a bit slow on the uptake.) It's a really good feeling to be able to have identified the scumbags and shitheads in this sport.
Asking someone to check you is suseptable to the same "omission" problems as a checklist... YOU must do it. Having someone else demand it is a better process.
You know what's even better than that? Having somebody revoke your ratings and certifications for refusing to comply with the requirements and regulations pertaining to your ratings and certifications.
I found the article... I can't find it online anymore, so I put it up on my server.

It's about a fatal tandem hookin failure some years ago.
2003/03/29. Stephen Parson - Eleni Zeri.
The aussie method doesn't work tandem.
Totally sucks for solo:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18695
How could this accident happen?
William Olive - 2010/01/28 04:50:53 UTC

Phil Beck did this twice (or was that three times?) in a day at Hexham (Victoria) one time while foot launch aerotow testing gliders. Of course, with a swag of gliders to test fly, Phil would unclip from the glider he'd just landed, then clip into the next one to be tested.

Except, at least twice, he didn't clip in.
as well.
I'm a bit partial to his "any inturruption should mean a 1 minute timeout".
Yeah, I think that's a WONDERFUL idea! We should all take one minute timeouts anytime anything that can possibly be considered an interruption occurs. Drop a down/basetube junction pin, pick it up and wait one minute before continuing with your setup procedure. That will really help us avoid launching unhooked 45 - make that 46 - minutes later. I can hardly wait until that starts catching on.

- "Hey Bill, you got the time?"
- "11:35. And fuck you, dude. Now I gotta wait a minute before I stuff my next batten. Don't you EVER do anything like that to me again!"
- "What?"
- "CRAP! Now I gotta wait TWO minutes! You inconsiderate BASTARD!!!"

But let's not EVER do anything to verify our connection two seconds prior to commitment to launch.
If there was a way to change the system so it wouldn't work if you aren't hooked it, I'd be for that (the aussie method is an attempt, but again, that doesn't work tandem).
Why don't you design something and get back to us?
3rd party challenge (not pilot initiated verification) and timeouts seem to be the only other real alternative.
And for the love of God don't EVER:

- verify the connections JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH;
- consider involving the passenger - or, as you know her, victim - in the process.
I know they've started using streamers (that must be removed) in Queenstown.
Of course they have. That way they won't ever hafta verify the connections just prior to launch.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 20:06:21 UTC
I'm a little paranoid about hooking in that I've never come close to not hooking in.
That's not the whole sentence. And it makes even less sense than the original effort.
Every single person I know that's launched unhooked and lived to tell about it (myself included) said that very same thing.
And with the kinds of dregs that can stand being around you for more than two or three seconds that should be a pretty good percentage and number.
Every single one of them!
No shit. Have you considered listening to what any of the people who've NEVER come anywhere close to launching unhooked are saying? Just kidding.
A little food for thought for ya...
So we can get our thinking up to something approaching your standards? I can hardly wait.
I was under MANDITORY hang checks... not optional, not "No thanks, I'm good.. clear". Manditory.
And in this country you were under MANDATORY hook-in checks... Not optional, not "No thanks, I'm good... Clear". Mandatory. But all you fuckin' halfwitted douchebags just choose to skip things and we don't have shit in the way of accountability.
My flights follow a strict proceedure every time.
Yeah.
The Press - 2006/03/15

The Civil Aviation Authority is urgently pushing for new hang-gliding industry standards after learning a hang-gliding pilot who suffered serious injuries in a crash three weeks ago had not clipped himself on to the glider.

Extreme Air tandem gliding pilot James (Jim) Rooney safely clipped his passenger into the glider before departing from the Coronet Peak launch site, near Queenstown, CAA sports and recreation manager Rex Kenny said yesterday.

In a video, he was seen to hold on to the glider for about fifty meters before hitting power lines.

Rooney and the passenger fell about fifteen meters to the ground.
Obviously.
I don't even stuff battons in a different order.
Yeah. I'd have no problem whatsoever sending someone up with some moron who never various the order in which he stuffs battens - whether or not he can spell them.
I hook up my camera every time wether a passenger wants pictures or not...
Oh! I want pictures! Any chance we can get a look at those pictures?
...because that's what I do...
Yeah. Where have I heard...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TDHqsXRtl0
Aerotowing Weaklinks
David Glover - 2008/08/04

First we start off with Cortland Line Company Greenspot... This is what we use.
...something like that before?
...every time. When you do hundreds of flights a month, you develop a routine and you stick to it. I can quote you everything I say (what, when and why) for a good ten minute span of time. If you want to talk about meticulous, talk to a tandem pilot.
And still you plowed your passenger into the power lines. Go figure.
And yet...?
Yeah. You'd think that some brain dead asshole who ALWAYS stuffs his battens in the same order and NEVER verifies the connections within a couple of seconds of launch would be totally immune to that kind of pooch screw. I just can't understand why that wouldn't work.

Have you considered stuffing your battens in random order for a few flights to see if that helps you not launch unhooked?
Your checklists will not save you.
I wouldn't know. I've never used checklists.
Your fear of death will not save you.
I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of stuffing battens in the wrong order.
Your belief that they will puts you at risk.
But one's fear of launching unhooked...
Rob Kells - 2005/12

Each of us agrees that it is not a particular method, but rather the fear of launching unhooked that makes us diligent to be sure we are hooked in every time before starting the launch run.
...which you're too fucking stupid to have, cultivate, or mention - will virtually annihilate the risk.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 20:19:21 UTC

This is pretty funny when you read it.
I'd go with infuriating.
Basically it sounds like you are saying that all of us are doomed to launch unhooked and there is nothing that will save us from death short of a miracle.
Yeah, that's his strategy for tow equipment as well. Go up with any Industry Standard shitrigged release you feel like and hope your standard aerotow weak link will blow in time to keep you from hitting the runway. And if it doesn't break increase your roll and push out.
In my area...
San Diego.
...there is a guy that has launched unhooked twice and lived to talk about it...
Tad Hurst?
...and at least one that launched unhooked twice and died the second time. I know of no other pilots that launched unhooked, though I'm sure there are a few that have. If procedures, paranoia, and a healthy respect for gravity hasn't been what saved all the other pilots from launching unhooked, I wonder what you think it might be? Luck?
What's your explanation? If it's not attitude and/or behavior then it IS luck.
Michael Bradford - 2006/09/19 20:27:46 UTC
Human behavior is the weakest link in the chain, yet we trust it above all other solutions.
For my money, and in my experience Jim's correct on this.
Whenever you start making statements that Jim's correct on an issue you should have a few warning lights starting to flash.
Fewer things are true than we are certain of, and the more things we're certain of, the truer that is.
Think, Michael. What happens if you adopt a mindset of being certain at all times that you're not hooked in? What are the up- and downsides of doing that?
If one can get the mind around what Jim is saying, I believe it will advance personal safety.
Oh, no doubt whatsoever. I'm sure that Jim's postings on this topic will diminish the rate of fatal impacts below the ramp every bit as much as his postings on standup landing strategies will reduce the rate of spiral fractures of the humerus.

If one can get his mind around what Jim is saying, I believe having the affected areas of the brain surgically removed is the best option for personal safety.
I don't think Jim is saying you are doomed.
Nah. He's saying you're rolling dice. He's saying that if this can happen to somebody as wonderful as he is that nobody's really safe.
I think he's just saying if you don't think you're doomed, you're just a little more doomed than if you think you might be--that if you believe the checklist and habit are infallible, you should probably review that belief. If so, I agree.
What's your take on THIS:
ALWAYS ASSUME YOU ARE *NOT* HOOKED IN.
approach? Ever heard of anyone adopting it even coming close?
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 20:37:02 UTC

yes michael... that's exactly what i'm saying.
And we should listen to you because of your keen intellect and long track record.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
-nd- - 2006/09/19 21:23:07 UTC
Nigel - UK

I was recently asked for a wire-off by a HG pilot on a tricky launch. I asked him to do a hang check - he refused.
As would I. It's a useless dangerous distraction and there's no USHGA requirement for one for any rating.
I refused to launch him, and started walking away.
Asshole.
He finally relented, so while he was doing his checks I looked over the glider. Two sprogs were not zipped in, and he had extended his hang loop by taping a second sling through the loop.
Yeah, that sucks. But neither one of those issues is relevant to the discussion.
Fair enough, his carabiner was through both ends of the sling (which was only held in place by the electrical tape), but WTF? He argued the toss over the wisdom of his hang loop setup, and I must admit I thought maybe Darwin had a point...
And then you launched him in blatant violation of the USHGA regulation which states:
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
Good job.
Axel Banchero - 2006/09/19 22:07:51 UTC

After reading this thread and also believing the stuff about the human mind...

In the future.. when I get my first glider.. I will design a very simple electrical sensor system in the carabiner that will let me visually "confirm" that the thing is there hooked in, by looking at the control bar. Then I'll share it with you.

That would be an extra safety step in my hook in checks and it might actually save some one else's life.

Im supprised that no one else did this before having so much technology at hand today.

I whish this guy recovers soon from the accident..
What accident?
Good luck

Fly safe.
Safe foot launched flying ALWAYS involves a physical confirmation of hook-in status IMMEDIATELY prior to launch. And you gadget guys are universally incapable of getting that concept through your heads and doing it. You're envisioning and - on the very rare occasion - designing and building your gadgets to try to mitigate the danger of the omission of the hook-in check. Fuck that approach.

And you DIDN'T design a very simple electrical sensor system in the carabiner that will let you visually "confirm" that the thing is there hooked in by looking at the control bar and share it with anyone. Big surprise.

(Hey Sam... How ya comin' with with your installations of mirrors on all the Leakey gliders? I'm guessing pretty good 'cause the project got a whole lot less demanding about half past last month.)
Christian Williams - 2006/09/19 22:23:19 UTC

Joe Greblo gave an "unhooked" clinic at the Dockweiler dunes two weeks ago.

Progressive options after realizing you arent hooked in:

1. Let go before you leave the ground.
(This requires a launch technique in which you never run holding the glider down on your shoulders. You train yourself to let the glider fly so you can note pressure on the leg straps. If you don't feel that pressure, let go of the glider).

2. If you find yourself flying unhooked, do not let your grip slip down the downtubes.
(They probably will, which means the glider will dive)

2A. If your grip slips down the downtubes, continue to #3. But #3 will be harder or impossible.

3. Swing up into the monkey position and fly the glider to landing or choose a place to deploy chute.

Then we all had a great time monkey-launching over the sand.

Then everybody went home and stared at the ceiling, thinking how hard this would be in real conditions. Which I think was the point of the clinic.
Good job, Joe. Don't spend the time teaching people how to do things right. Spend it teaching people how to TRY to survive after they've done things wrong.
Greblo teaches a hook-in check the instant before launch.
1. BULLSHIT. He teaches people to preflight the connection before picking up the glider then launching whenever and wherever the fuck they feel like.

2. And YOU...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27538
Unhooked - A Human Error Trap
Christian Williams - 2012/05/03 17:58:18 UTC

I always make this argument about now.

All pilots who launch unhooked failed to do a last-minute hook-in check.
No pilot who has ever launched unhooked did a last-minute hook-in check.
All other preventative procedures except the last-minute hook-in check have failed at least once in the real world.
...are talking about a last MINUTE hook-in check. And in aviation the difference between an instant and a couple of seconds - let alone a minute - can EASILY be an eternity.

3. Can we get a DESCRIPTION of this alleged hook-in check Joe teaches?
To him, a hang check is part of the preflight and has no value in confirming that you are hooked in at the moment of launch.
I don't buy it.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=646
Failure to Hook In
Bob Kuczewski - 2011/07/22 21:30:23 UTC

I just talked with Joe, and he said that hang checks do have limited usefulness in protecting against hook-in failures, and that their value in that regard decreases with the time between the hang check and the launch (he's absolutely correct here). He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch, but that a hang check can catch things that a hook-in check might not (like a hang strap routed around a down tube, as just one example).
Every SHRED of evidence - including the shit practices, attitudes, and records of his students (such as Bob) - supports what Bob is claiming that Joe said. He's totally fucking clueless regarding the distinction between a preflight inspection and a hook-in check - and has made ZERO effort to acquire one.

Anyway... Note that this is the first time in this idiot discussion that anyone has even MENTIONED employing a hook-in check as protection from unhooked launches.
miguel
Posts: 289
Joined: 2011/05/27 16:21:08 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by miguel »

This poor fellow just finished reading one of Tad's posts

Image

One more time:

Lift and tug involves a big assumption that all of the connections between the glider and the pilot are correct.

Turn and look involves looking at and examining all of those connections and making sure they are correct.

You can assume or you can know; the choice is yours. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

This poor fellow just finished reading one of Tad's posts...
And yet, here I still am - watching the hit counters on Kite Strings slowly grind their ways up (and crank up at a pretty fair clip right after someone gets pulped (Thanks, Sam)).
Lift and tug involves a big assumption that all of the connections between the glider and the pilot are correct.
It most assuredly DOES NOT.

My ASSUMPTION - if I've done a lift and tug or I'm launching with tight suspension - is that I'm about to fall from my glider and die because one or more of the connections between the glider and the pilot is incorrect.

To date I've been wrong EVERY time. And I can't begin to tell you what that's done to my self esteem - which, since early childhood, has always been on shaky ground to begin with.

But compare/contrast with a dickhead like Rooney...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1238
NZ accident who was the pilot?
Lauren Tjaden - 2006/02/21

I thought I should post this since the phone keeps ringing with friends worried about Jim and wanting information. Here is what I know. Yes, the Jim in the article is OUR Jim, Jim Rooney. It was a tandem hang gliding accident, and it involved a power line. I have no more information about the accident itself. The passenger apparently was burned and is hospitalized, but is not seriously injured. Jim sustained a brain injury. He was and is heavily sedated, which means the doctors don't know and can't test for how serious the brain injury is. He is in critical but stable condition. Tommorrow (which should begin soon in NZ) the doctors will begin to reduce his medication, and they will have more information at that time. There are no neck or spinal injuries. This information has been passed on to me through a chain of several people, so while I think it is all accurate, I am not sure. Lisa from Quest is in contact with Jim's family and also with Jim's employers in NZ. She will send hospital information so you can send good wishes. She will also keep us updated on the most current news about Jim. In the meantime, please do not call NZ or Lisa at Quest. This is a difficult time as many of us love Jim very much, and I know you are all anxious for news, as we are.
...with a self-esteem about a hundred times greater than his substance will ever merit and is right about everything all the time.

And a few stiff shots of vodka and my self-esteem is OK for a few hours.
Turn and look involves looking at and examining all of those connections and making sure they are correct.
Yeah. It does. I do that.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15337
unhooked take off clip
George Stebbins - 2010/02/16 21:36:38 UTC

He's not saying to get rid of your other methods. Just to add this one and change your assumption that you are hooked in. (As annoying and strained as the gun analogies were, I think they might be apt.)
I do it just behind the ramp as one of the three most critical elements of my preflight checks while I'm waiting for the asshole in front of me to do a hang check and verify his clearance, chest buckles, suspension lines, and helmet strap.

But once I'm ON the ramp I don't keep putting the glider down, and turning and looking to examine all of those connections and make sure they are correct every ten or fifteen seconds while I'm waiting for a cycle. I figure if I was too fucking stupid to get my shit together on that score behind the ramp I'm not doing the gene pool much good anyway. Plus I don't wanna look like a total moron any more than absolutely necessary.

I also don't load test my sidewires on - or behind - the ramp for similar reasons.

I WILL, however, do THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHWbu0su1fA


repeatedly if I think the next few seconds may bring a good cycle 'cause there's no reason not to and it helps with the boredom. And then there's the consideration that no one who's ever done that within fifteen seconds of launch has ever ended up on the rocks below the ramp.

So where do YOU turn and look, how many times do you turn and look, and what's the maximum time you allow to elapse between turn and look and launch?

Extra credit...

All of the above with respect to the sidewire load test (seeing as how a failure in that department can kill you just as dead as an unhooked launch).
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 22:46:32 UTC

Sensors have been made before (using audio rather and visual), but they require someone to hook them up and turn them on. I do put a flag on my hang straps, it stands out pretty well, but if I'm not being helped it wouldn't save me.
It's a distraction. They SHOULD BE looking for you - and everyone else - to do a hook-in check JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH instead of dropping their guards 'cause they don't see a flag on your suspension. Get rid of the goddam thing.
Robert Seckold - 2006/09/19 22:51:38 UTC

Hi Jim,

I noticed that you said that the Aussie Method of hooking your harness to the glider before you get into it will not work for tandems. The instructor that trained me at Stanwell...
Should be stood up against a wall and shot.
...does Tandems and has done so for the last twenty years now always hooks his harness to the glider before he gets into it. Once many years ago he launched unhooked and luckily for him he had a strong man as a passenger and the passenger grabed him by the scruff of the neck and lifted him up so he could get control of the glider.
And all Jim had was that helpless little girl watching wide-eyed as Jim dove her glider into the powerlines. Life's just not very fair sometimes.
Personally I feel...
It's ALWAYS a REALLY BAD SIGN when someone in an aviation discussion starts off a sentence with, "Personally I feel...".
...the only way of making sure that your harness is attached to your glider when you launch is to hook it up to your glider during your set up of the glider.
What did I just say?
As someone else mentioned though it does not take care of your leg loops etc.
It also - as practiced - prohibits a hook-in check JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH so shut the fuck up.
Talking of leg loops I did a scooter tow clinic on the weekend and fell into the trap of moving my glider into the line getting ready to get towed up. Luckily the instructor spotted that I had not climbed into my leg loops.
Did your instructor spot that you then launched having skipped the hook-in check which would've caught the leg loops? Just kidding.
You are so right about the mind, no matter how much you train it to remember things sooner or later it will let you down.
Yeah, Jim's a real sage, isn't he? I just knew you guys would get along famously.
Without pushing the hooking the harness to the glider during set up too much...
That's OK. Most of your Aussie Methodist colleagues have already pushed that idiot strategy way too much.
I can't think of a scenario that would have you moving you glider to the launch without noticing that your harness was not connected to your glider. If someone can think of a scenario I am glad to hear of it.
Rob Kells - 2005/12

"Knowing" that if you are in your harness you must be hooked in, means that if something comes up that causes you to unhook for any reason, you are actually in greater danger of thinking you are hooked in when you are not. This happened to a pilot who used the Oz Method for several years and then went to the training hill for some practice flights. He unhooked from the glider to carry it up the hill. At the top, sitting under the glider with his harness on, he picked up the glider and launched unhooked.
That work for ya?
I have heard of the problems with certain harnesses that make it hard to get into the harness when it is attached to the glider but here in Australia we use the same types of harnesses that are used around the world and we still attach the harness to the glider first then climb into it.
Then skip the hook-in check and launch. Yeah. I know.
Kevin Rooke - 2006/09/19 22:54:29 UTC

I must concur with Jim Rooney's comments.
Of course. Who doesn't? (You guys related by something beyond unhooked New Zealand launches seven months apart?)
Having some thirty years experience I was of the belief that my system was infallible.
Which is precisely why it failed.

And I'd really like to commend you for keeping up with the better articles and discussions on this issue.
The error of my judgment now so clearly obvious.
Not even in the ballpark.
I thank God that I let go at a survivable height, as I had momentarily considered trying to climb into the A frame.
Guess God likes you a lot better than he liked Bill Priday and Kunio Yoshimura. Or maybe he likes you a lot less - preferred their company over yours. Who knows? He works in mysterious ways.
Very fortunately my injuries are not as serious as has been publicized. Aside from minor head injuries and scrapes I am only nursing a bruised ego.

This whole situation has left me deeply embarrassed especially as is well known, I have investigated clip in failure in previous accidents. Please excuse me while I retreat to my closet to wipe the egg from my face.
Any chance of some of these catastrophic failures of your strategy getting to question the viability of your strategy?
I can only reiterate the importance of not being complacent. Check, check and check again.
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1167
The way it outa be
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/04 14:04:25 UTC

One last attempt.

We have now rounded up all the usual suspects and promised renewed vigilance, nine page checklists, hang checks every six feet, et cetera. Bob Gillisse redux.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.
Steve Davy - 2011/10/24 10:27:04 UTC

OK- how many times does he need confirm that he is hooked in? And when would be the best time to make that confirmation?
Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24 21:04:17 UTC

Once, just prior to launch.
Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.
Never mind.
miguel
Posts: 289
Joined: 2011/05/27 16:21:08 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by miguel »

Tad wrote:My ASSUMPTION - if I've done a lift and tug or I'm launching with tight suspension - is that I'm about to fall from my glider and die because one or more of the connections between the glider and the pilot is incorrect.

To date I've been wrong EVERY time. And I can't begin to tell you what that's done to my self esteem - which, since early childhood, has always been on shaky ground to begin with.
"Turn and Learn" would greatly ease your mind during launch and do wonders for your self esteem. 8-)
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

1. I DO "Turn and Learn". Read my posts. I've learned everything about my glider I really need to - MINUS CONNECTION STATUS - before I get on the ramp.

2. And I make DAMN SURE I verify connection status EVERY TIME no more than two seconds before takeoff.

3. I've forgotten ten times as much about gliders as 99 percent of the assholes who participate in this sport will ever learn.

4. The overwhelming majority of the stuff I need to know about hang gliders I got in classrooms before graduating from high school in 1971.

5. I have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE to have my mind eased before I got off the ramp. Hell, I don't want it eased much before I get a couple of hundred feet over anything solid. An eased mind is what Bill Priday, Kunio Yoshimura, and Jon Orders had on the last flights of their careers. I wanna be scared shitless just BEFORE I run off the ramp so I won't be scared shitless just AFTER I run off the ramp

6. I'm extremely comfortable with low self esteem. Ever hear the proverb "Pride goeth before a fall."? That's majorly relevant and literal on this issue.

7. You (as usual) didn't answer my questions.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
David Williamson - 2006/09/19 23:12:06 UTC

The mind puts its own interpretation on the data it receives; probably the first thing you know of a misinterpretation with hangliding is when you're dead.
Or, on this issue, you could simulate on the ramp part of what's gonna happen a few seconds later in the air.

Then the first thing you'd know of the misinterpretation would be the basetube moving up to your chest while your feet are still on something solid that's not going anywhere.
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 23:43:34 UTC

No doubt the Aussie method is good... I drink the coolaid on that one...
Hang gliding's official beverage. Who'da thunk?
...that's what I do solo.
Oh. You condition yourself to believe that if you're in a harness standing under a glider you're obviously connected to it. How's that strategy been working out for you?
At the beach, I can understand using it tandem too... that's a good way to go. The difficulties doing it at a mountain site is that the practice run with the passenger is very important. It's a full dress rehearsal.
Complete with skipping the hook-in check. Also complete minus any informing of the potential victim of the tandem flight failure most likely to get her killed.
It wouldn't matter much at a beach site. I don't know the answers...
Get real dude. Of course you do. And if you don't we're all DOOMED.
I'm not sure anyone's come up with them yet (else we'd all be doing it).
Of course you would, Jim. Hang gliding's got a solid history of all the best equipment and procedures instantly being embraced and constantly being improved upon. Asshole.
Something I found particularly interesting about that psychology article though was about how "omissions" happen and why checklists won't work. Where things like the aussie method and a third party check do work.

Checklists don't help you to remember things. That's the rub. Treating them as such is the problem. They make you do things in order so you don't _skip_ anything while thinking you already did it. They're NOT a memory device. It seems like a trivial difference, but it's the kicker. "Errors of omission" happen when you're on step 5, get interruped then continue on step 7 when you return. It's not that you thought 6 wasn't important, or forgot what it was or that you need to do it... you forget that you're on 6 NOT 7.
Yawn.

If you're smart enough to realize you're dumb enough to make the mistake you'll always be scared enough to not make the mistake.

YOU, however, will always be rolling dice.
Anyway,
Glad you're ok Kevin.
That's a crappy thing to live through, but at least you're here _TO_ have egg on your face... beats the hell out of the alternative.
And now that you're a pooch screw survivor you'll be accepted - along with Rooney - as a respected authority on this flavor and will be able to lecture everybody else on how to get the best results.
Robert Seckold - 2006/09/20 00:18:03 UTC

Thanks Jim for the extra info on Mountain tandem launches.
See?
Christian Williams - 2006/09/20 02:18:56 UTC

Checklists are proven in aviation, from dragonflies to the space shuttle. No matter how you look at it, the checklist is not the problem.
It is if, when you're standing on the ramp, you're feeling extra confident 'cause you carefully went through all the items on the checklist.
JBBenson - 2006/09/20 02:53:19 UTC
Progressive options after realizing you aren't hooked in...
These two techniques are at odds, as you can see.

I have two ten inch long patches on either side of my harness, which I had made. It is a replica of the black-on-yellow "EXPERIMENTAL" which you see on aircraft.

Other pilots often ask me what it means, and I tell them, it means that I consider what I am doing as Experimental, and all that entails: "Not yet proven or available for general use."... "an unproven (or even untested) technique or procedure."
You shouldn't. If you look at what the best, smartest, most successful people in this sport are flying, using, saying, doing you'll find that it's pretty consistent with what Wilbur and Orville had figured out over a century ago.
It means, I make no assumptions, ever.
I do, ALWAYS. I ALWAYS assume that I'm not hooked in and that I'm about to fuck up on my next move. Give me examples of those assumptions not maximizing your likelihood of success?
About anything. As a freelance designer, it also applies to the rest of my life.
Wanna take a look at my towing equipment designs and compare them to the Industry Standard crap?
I also do a hook-in check per Greblo.
Are you questioning just how good a strategy that is or are you ASSUMING that's the best that can be done?

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13132
Unhooked Death Again - Change our Methods Now?
JBBenson - 2009/01/25 16:27:19 UTC

I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:
HANG CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.
HOOK-IN CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.
They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.
If Joe's really got his shit together on that issue then how come you needed to get that message from Yours Truly?
Post Reply